# Do you support or oppose SB 1045 That Would Allow Commercial Fishermen to Keep Lake Trout?



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Let's see where members on here stand on this bill.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

No way .Keep their grubby hands off anymore GLs fish they will only mess things up and sport fishing will foot the bill .


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Hardly a scientific survey...but I voted! The poll should be stated “Do you think its fair to exclude state commercial fishermen from keeping and selling their lake trout bycatch...exactly like tribes are currently allowed to?”


----------



## ThreeDogsDown (Jan 19, 2018)

Do not support. Any monetary incentive to keep and sell “by catch” will result in trickery of netting strategy to ensure the limit on “by catch” is reached. In other words, commercial guys will “limit out on by catch” just like the tribes”. 

The bill ought to be voted down and a new bill introduced to only allow targeted species catches and “zero by catch” for the tribes. That would make everything equitable for commercial guys, tribes, sportsmen, and charter guys. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I am not sure where I stand. In the 80's when bkd hit and our salmon numbers were drastically reduced our perch and walleye numbers in Lake Michigan really rebounded. Just the last couple years our perch seem to be coming back again. Maybe if we got rid of the salmon and lakers our perch and walleye fishing would be great again. I believe in equality and if one group is going to harvest lakers they may as well all. I think the major value of lakers is to the charter industry and I consider them commercial fishing. I also think we should bring a proposal to the consent decree talks that anyone can build and operate a casino as long as it is with in ten miles of a currently operating casino.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

plugger said:


> I am not sure where I stand. In the 80's when bkd hit and our salmon numbers were drastically reduced our perch and walleye numbers in Lake Michigan really rebounded. Just the last couple years our perch seem to be coming back again. Maybe if we got rid of the salmon and lakers our perch and walleye fishing would be great again. I believe in equality and if one group is going to harvest lakers they may as well all. I think the major value of lakers is to the charter industry and I consider them commercial fishing. I also think we should bring a proposal to the consent decree talks that anyone can build and operate a casino as long as it is with in ten miles of a currently operating casino.


I think y'all need to understand that the current proposal blasting its way through the legislature has nothing, as in ZERO, to do with tribal fishing, netting, the consent decree, or otherwise. So any comment that the passage if this effects tribal fishing whatsoever is broad, unrelated, speculation. Let's focus in this single bill, on it's own merits, and then regroup at decree negotiation time.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

mrbreeze said:


> I think y'all need to understand that the current proposal blasting its way through the legislature has nothing, as in ZERO, to do with tribal fishing, netting, the consent decree, or otherwise. So any comment that the passage if this effects tribal fishing whatsoever is broad, unrelated, speculation. Let's focus in this single bill, on it's own merits, and then regroup at decree negotiation time.


 What about the perch? If we limit nontribal fishermen to the limits imposed on tribal fishermen would that be fair?


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

plugger said:


> What about the perch? If we limit nontribal fishermen to the limits imposed on tribal fishermen would that be fair?


Honestly I don't know or care at this point. That question has nothing to do with this legislation so frankly Im not spending time on speculation like that. In due time, but now the focus in on 1145.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

I oppose commercial harvest of lake trout because I'm very concerned about the peripheral damage it could cause. My understanding is that things are not trending in a good direction for 2020 Consent Decree... this will make things worse. SlightofHand, you and I mostly agree on seeing lake trout numbers significantly lower, but the means to do so can't be done as though the lake trout issue can be taken care of in a vacuum. Additionally, I get what you're saying from a fairness aspect, but the tribes have this strange quasi cloak of protection around them and this will likely make then want to expand their influence. Heck, there's basically a gag order on what's discussed in the negotiations from what I've been told.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

I wouldn't mind dead by-catch keep. But there's potential problems there.

I really have to oppose commercial lake trout netting as without a thriving laker population, Charters around thumb ports wouldn't have much to go on.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

RedM2 said:


> I oppose commercial harvest of lake trout because I'm very concerned about the peripheral damage it could cause. My understanding is that things are not trending in a good direction for 2020 Consent Decree... this will make things worse. SlightofHand, you and I mostly agree on seeing lake trout numbers significantly lower, but the means to do so can't be done as though the lake trout issue can be taken care of in a vacuum. Additionally, I get what you're saying from a fairness aspect, but the tribes have this strange quasi cloak of protection around them and this will likely make then want to expand their influence. Heck, there's basically a gag order on what's discussed in the negotiations from what I've been told.


This does not have anything to do with management of lake trout. This is about letting a handful of state commercial fishermen keep what they are already killing in bycatch. This is also about forcing the state to write a science based plan around commercial fisheries management which will limit both tribal and state commercial fishermen where commercial fishing is not sustainable for certain species. Which could in some instances protect lake trout in the very areas these charter captains are worried about. It’s incredulous they do not see that. This affects management of all species, and how we interact with tribes and commercial fishing in general. This legislation passing forces that process to begin. Those in opposition want the status quo, which is not science based and purely political. This needs to change or sportsmen will lose big time at the bargaining table during the consent decree negotiations.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Remove ALL commercial nets from the Great Lakes except those that target invasive species, like carp.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> This does not have anything to do with management of lake trout. This is about letting a handful of state commercial fishermen keep what they are already killing in bycatch. This is also about forcing the state to write a science based plan around commercial fisheries management which will limit both tribal and state commercial fishermen where commercial fishing is not sustainable for certain species. Which could in some instances protect lake trout in the very areas these charter captains are worried about. It’s incredulous they do not see that. This affects management of all species, and how we interact with tribes and commercial fishing in general. This legislation passing forces that process to begin. Those in opposition want the status quo, which is not science based and purely political. This needs to change or sportsmen will lose big time at the bargaining table during the consent decree negotiations.


You keep saying this will force the DNR to put together a plan, and that this will be helpful at decree negotiation.

It does neither of those things.

It is "incredulous" that you continue to make up facts to push your agenda.

Nobody wants the stays quo, but we do want good legislation that is not hidden during lame duck session. There is already an excellent bill out there, SB925, that many organizations already support. If this is such great legislation, why did they wait until the 11th hour to try to slide this through?


----------



## RLWagner (Dec 17, 2007)

slightofhand said:


> Hardly a scientific survey...but I voted! The poll should be stated “Do you think its fair to exclude state commercial fishermen from keeping and selling their lake trout bycatch...exactly like tribes are currently allowed to?”


I would vote the same way. At least this post clarifies your handle, LOL


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> You keep saying this will force the DNR to put together a plan, and that this will be helpful at decree negotiation.
> 
> It does neither of those things.
> 
> ...


The bill that was presented in August appeared to be fatally flawed and is why it couldn’t even get put to the floor for review. It even goes so far as to mandate a permanent seat on some mysterious committee to the president of the Michigan Charterboat Association. That was a crony package. Passage of this current bill will absolutely force the DNR to get its act together and manage commercial fishing (and stocking, predator prey modeling, etc) in a responsible and science based way. It will prevent special interests groups from politicking for stocking and management practices NOT based on science. That has to stop, and will, with the passage of this bill. Science will bear out exactly what can and cannot be stocked or harvested in any given area of the lake commercially or otherwise. The status quo only allows for an uneven playing field where special interests dictate how the fisheries are managed. 

One of us is going to have a very tough week. For the sake of sportsmen, I hope its you.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> The bill that was presented in August appeared to be fatally flawed and is why it couldn’t even get put to the floor for review. It even goes so far as to mandate a permanent seat on some mysterious committee to the president of the Michigan Charterboat Association. That was a crony package. Passage of this current bill will absolutely force the DNR to get its act together and manage commercial fishing (and stocking, predator prey modeling, etc) in a responsible and science based way. It will prevent special interests groups from politicking for stocking and management practices NOT based on science. That has to stop, and will, with the passage of this bill. Science will bear out exactly what can and cannot be stocked or harvested in any given area of the lake commercially or otherwise. The status quo only allows for an uneven playing field where special interests dictate how the fisheries are managed.
> 
> One of us is going to have a very tough week. For the sake of sportsmen, I hope its you.


Again, you make things up to meet your agenda. You still can't answer how/where this bill does a single thing to force the DNR to do anything "science based". What it does do, and is clearly and specifically spelled out, is repeal the DNRs ability to largely manage the commercial industry at all. That is fact, not the wild speculation that you are pushing. I know it's difficult for you to be in the minority in this, I understand that...but blatent denial of the simple and clear facts presented in this bill puts you in that position. You should join the vast and overwhelming majority of sportsmen and organizations that oppose this garbage legislation and push for a better bill that in fact does the things that you want to see. Your agenda is abundantly clear, as is anybody's who wants to pursue bills under lame duck session and term end, pushed by term-limited legislators. That tells me enough about your motivation.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> Again, you make things up to meet your agenda. You still can't answer how/where this bill does a single thing to force the DNR to do anything "science based". What it does do, and is clearly and specifically spelled out, is repeal the DNRs ability to largely manage the commercial industry at all. That is fact, not the wild speculation that you are pushing. I know it's difficult for you to be in the minority in this, I understand that...but blatent denial of the simple and clear facts presented in this bill puts you in that position. You should join the vast and overwhelming majority if sportsmen and organizations that oppose this garbage legislation and push for a better bill that in fact does the things that you want to see. Your agenda is abundantly clear, as is anybody's whi wants to pursue bills under lame duck session and term end, pushed by term-limited legislators. That tells me enough about your motivation.


Your bill in August appeared to do nothing that anyone wanted to see, which is why it wasn’t even brought to the floor for a vote. 

The DNR and Tribes do not care if this bill passes, that says everything.

The DNR should be ready to get to work and act the day after this bill is signed into law. We will finally have action on commercial fishing that will benefit all stakeholders in a fair and equitable fashion (based on science)...sportsmen, state commercial and tribal commercial fishermen alike.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I've seen bi-catch mentioned many times in posts on SB1145 however I have not read in the bill any mention of it. From what I've read, it just allows netters to keep what ever lake trout they want with no DNR intervention as it strips that too. Someone show me in the bill where lake trout catches are limed to bi-catch. I actually hope someone proves me wrong on this.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> Your bill in August appeared to do nothing that anyone wanted to see, which is why it wasn’t even brought to the floor for a vote.
> 
> The DNR and Tribes do not care if this bill passes, that says everything.
> 
> The DNR should be ready to get to work and act the day after this bill is signed into law. We will finally have action on commercial fishing that will benefit all stakeholders in a fair and equitable fashion (based on science)...sportsmen, state commercial and tribal commercial fishermen alike.


SB925 didn't move because commercial interests rallied against it. It was supported by thousands of sportsmen and dozens of organizations and was largely authored by MUCC. Those are facts. You don't like facts.

The tribes don't care because this does not affect them at all. The DNR is neutral because either way they have to follow the direction of the legislature. They almost never have an opinion on legislation like this. Again, those are facts. Hard for you to hear, but true.

You keep saying that this new legislation will force some type if "science based process" yet time and time again you cannot point to anything specifically in the legislation that leads to this. It's a lot like talking to a brick wall. I ask a question. You don"t have an answer.

Put down the commercial industry's talking points that you regurgitate over and over and think independently.

Sportsmen are more than willing to listen to facts . What you are presenting is much more if a fairy tale than fact.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> SB925 didn't move because commercial interests rallied against it. It was supported by thousands if sportsmen and dozens if organizations and was largely authored by MUCC. Those are facts. You don't like facts.
> 
> You keep saying that this new legislation will force some type if "science based process" yet time and time again you cannot point to anything specifically in the legislation that leads to this. It's a lot like talking to a brick wall. I ask a question. You don"t have an answer.
> 
> Put down the commercial industry's talking points that you regurgitate over and over and think independently.


Okay Mr Breeze, I will fully move to your side of this issue, and support the opposition to it, if you provide the following evidence of impending doom you suggest as a result of this bills passage.

You seem to be a well connected person, so I want you to call Jim Dexter, today, and ask him the following question...and then report back with his answer to support your apocalyptic claims. To support your theory, the conversation should go something like this.

“Hi Jim, this is Mr. Breeze. I have a question, what exactly is your plan if this commercial fishing bill passes?”

“Well Mr Breeze, we dont plan to do anything. As you suggest, there will be a total collapse of the sportfishery due to completey unregulated commercial harvest of lake trout (and soon salmon, walleye and steelhead) that we effectively authorized by not doing our jobs and not taking any kind of action. Although my department is tasked with management responsibilities and stewards of fisheries resources, I just made a unilateral decision to sit here and do nothing. So yes Mr Breeze, you are correct, the sky is falling”

If you can get that, or some similar kind of mea culpa from Dexter on this issue, then I will completely support your groups opposition to this bill. Again, this is your position of the result of this bills passage, you go get the proof from Dexter and then we can all decide for ourselves.

Until that happens, I will continue to have faith in and support Jim Dexter and his fisheries team to in fact do their jobs and fix this issue that has not been addressed for 50 years.

I will be waiting..


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

born2fish said:


> You can also see the bill (*1145*) as passed by the Senate here
> 
> http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ez....aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2018-SB-1145


Good to know, yes I looked it up and it does appear that that section is taken out. That is a step in the right direction for sure. I'm still not sure that any of this needs to be taken up in lame duck, but at least somebody with some common sense got to that section, we'll call that at least a partial success, but we need to work that it goes no farther at any rate.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> I already know...but go ahead. He’s not hyperventilating like some people on here that is for sure.


Oh please don't keep us in suspense. Perhaps you can speak for him again like you did earlier.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> Good to know, yes I looked it up and it does appear that that section is taken out. That is a step in the right direction for sure. I'm still not sure that any of this needs to be taken up in lame duck, but at least somebody with some common sense got to that section


Be sure to stay on top of it for us and let us know when dexter climbs back down off the ledge and gets back with you about this. You...need to hear it first hand.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> Be sure to stay on top of it for us and let us know when dexter climbs back down off the ledge and gets back with you about this. You...need to hear it first hand.


I didn't contact Dexter. If you want to know what he thinks, I suggest (as I have done 3 or 4 times) that you call him directly. As far as being on the ledge, I doubt that he is on any ledge. I bet he doesn't care one way or the other.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> I didn't contact Dexter. If you want to know what he thinks, I suggest (as I have done 3 or 4 times) that you call him directly. As far as being on the ledge, I doubt that he is on any ledge. I bet he doesn't care one way or the other.


Hilarious. You are right, he doesn’t care, and neither should you. Quit clowning around and whipping people into a frenzy because you disagree with the timing of some proposed legislation. This isn’t a tin hat conspiracy by republicans to steal lake trout from charter captains in the 11th hour. If you want to lower your blood pressure about this then call dexter yourself and hear it first hand. While you are waiting for him to get back with you, you can call Holly Hughes and tell her you changed your mind.


----------



## born2fish (Aug 1, 2005)

Sorry, point of clarification. Removing the repeal of Sec 46701 was an amendment to the bill that was done on the senate floor and not in the committee as I stated in my previous post. My guess Breeze is that you were working of the version of the bill that was voted out of Senate committee. Either way the repeal of 46701 was removed from the bill that is now in the House committee on Natural Resources. Just want to be accurate. How a bill becomes a law 101...

1) Bill introduced, read and given a number (SB 1145)
2) Bill referred to committee (Senate Committee on Natural Resources)
3) Bill voted favorably out of committee
4) Bill read on the Senate floor
5) Opportunity for amendments
6) Final Senate bill read on the floor and put to up or down vote (a few specific bills would
require a 2/3 majority but this one just needs a simple majority)
7) Senate Bill introduced and read in the House and assigned to a committee (House Committee on Natural Resources).
8) Bill voted favorably out of committee.
9) Bill read on the House floor
10) Opportunity for amendments
11) Final bill read on the floor of the house and put to an up or down vote (simple majority
needed to pass in this case).

Now at this point the bill goes in one of two directions...

1) If the house passed the Senate bill but made amendments then the bill has to go to
cloture. This is where the house and the senate hammer out the differences
between the bills and come to agreement before it can go to the governor's desk for consideration. I believe in this case the compromised bill then requires affirmative votes on the floors of both chambers to be moved to the governor.

2) If the house passed the Senate version of the bill without any amendments, then the bill goes directly to the Governor. I believe the governor has 14 days upon receiving the bill to do one of three things...
a. he can sign it into law
b. he can veto it which then requires a I believe a 2/3 majority of both the house and senate to over ride.
c. he can ignore it and do nothing and after 14 days the bill is becomes law automatically.


Of course any bill that is first introduced in the house would flop the process above with the house committee and floor acting first and then the Senate.

By my understanding, SB 1145 is at Step 7 above


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> Hilarious. You are right, he doesn’t care, and neither should you. Quit clowning around and whipping people into a frenzy because you disagree with the timing of some proposed legislation. This isn’t a tin hat conspiracy by republicans to steal lake trout from charter captains in the 11th hour. If you want to lower your blood pressure about this then call dexter yourself and hear it first hand. While you are waiting for him to get back with you, you can call Holly Hughes and tell her you changed your mind.


Except that I didn't change my mind about anything. Like I said, but you cannot grasp, I'm not calling Dexter. He doesn't care because he just has to implement what he is told to do. You don't know how administering government works, I guess. As I mentioned before, but again you skip over, is that I couldn't care less about lake trout. You seem very concerned about them though, and the tribe. Maybe you should worry about something where you can have impact because spending your day on MS is really accomplishing 0.0.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

born2fish said:


> Sorry, point of clarification. Removing the repeal of Sec 46701 was an amendment to the bill that was done on the senate floor and not in the committee as I stated in my previous post. My guess Breeze is that you were working of the version of the bill that was voted out of Senate committee. Either way the repeal of 46701 was removed from the bill that is now in the House committee on Natural Resources. Just want to be accurate. How a bill becomes a law 101...
> 
> 1) Bill introduced and given a number (SB 1145)
> 2) Bill referred to committee (Senate Committee on Natural Resources)
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I was working from the bill as it left committee. That was the last one that I saw last week, not sure if it was voted on Thursday or Friday, but yes you are correct.

Yes, it would be at step 7. Of course, the "30 days" is moot at this point.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> Hilarious. You are right, he doesn’t care, and neither should you. Quit clowning around and whipping people into a frenzy because you disagree with the timing of some proposed legislation. This isn’t a tin hat conspiracy by republicans to steal lake trout from charter captains in the 11th hour. If you want to lower your blood pressure about this then call dexter yourself and hear it first hand. While you are waiting for him to get back with you, you can call Holly Hughes and tell her you changed your mind.


By the way, you mention that this is about "bycatch". Where does it say bycatch?


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

I didn't think I would ever see so many people that wanted to save the lake trout.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> Except that I didn't change my mind about anything. Like I said, but you cannot grasp, I'm not calling Dexter. He doesn't care because he just has to implement what he is told to do. You don't know how administering government works, I guess. As I mentioned before, but again you skip over, is that I couldn't care less about lake trout. You seem very concerned about them though, and the tribe. Maybe you should worry about something where you can have impact because spending your day on MS is really accomplishing 0.0.


I can understand your reservations about calling dexter and finding out that 1) this doesn’t restrict the dnr 2) doesn’t impact lake trout 3) isn’t a precursor to harvest of additional species. You’re r trying to catch a falling knife on this issue as I see it. Should have done a little more homework like I did before jumping on this issue. Holly’s office is open until 5 tonight FYI, there’s still time to change your mind and support your DNR before tomorrow’s vote.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

mrbreeze said:


> Will be interested to learn what you find out, and whether he is supportive of the bill or not. And if he is, why groups like MUCC, Trout Unlimited, Michigan Charter Boat Association and others are out in left field by opposing its adoption.


I spoke with Jim Dexter...

He said the MDNR is neutral on the bill. I asked if the MDNR were allowed to take a position and he said, "yes." The reason they're not taking a position is because there are certain things that might be unknown as a result of the bill. He understood how this could cause concern about other game fish being targeted. As it stands now, it'd be 100lbs of lake trout by catch per day (50k for the year). That number could change. Meanwhile the tribes can take up to 1.5 million pounds, and took 1 million last year. He said the tribes really don't care about 100lbs/day, but they are likely concerned about this starting a slippery slope. He did say there is a good chance this will have an effect on 2020 Consent Decree negotiations. Jim stated there's a hearing tomorrow but this bill is not on the agenda... I wouldn't be surprised if it's added at the 12th hour. A pure guess, but I think this bill is rushed through because the commercial fishermen have the support of republicans as a business. 

I found the background on how this bill came to light interesting. Nothing nefarious, but it does reinforce how things happen in government. It'll be interesting to learn who the next MDNR director is.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> I can understand your reservations about calling dexter and finding out that 1) this doesn’t restrict the dnr 2) doesn’t impact lake trout 3) isn’t a precursor to harvest of additional species. You’re r trying to catch a falling knife on this issue as I see it. Should have done a little more homework like I did before jumping on this issue. Holly’s office is open until 5 tonight FYI, there’s still time to change your mind and support your DNR before tomorrow’s vote.


"My DNR" is neutral on the bill. That's because, as I said, they are implementors not rules makers. The way government works is that the legislative body makes the rules, and then the staff/administration enforces them and sets them as policy. I like that you are are on a first name basis with the representative, though. By the way, tell me where in that "homework" that you did did you come across bycatch. Why do you never answer questions, you just talk and talk.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> "My DNR" is neutral on the bill. That's because, as I said, they are implementors not rules makers. The way government works is that the legislative body makes the rules, and then the staff/administration enforces them and sets them as policy. I like that you are are on a first name basis with the representative, though. By the way, tell me where in that "homework" that you did did you come across bycatch. Why do you never answer questions, you just talk and talk.


Did someone say bycatch? Did someone mention the consent decree impacts? I must be in an echo chamber of some sort. 

All you had to do was call ....could have saved yourself and a lot of other people
a lot of time and worry.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

RedM2 said:


> I spoke with Jim Dexter...
> 
> He said the MDNR is neutral on the bill. I asked if the MDNR were allowed to take a position and he said, "yes." The reason they're not taking a position is because there are certain things that might be unknown as a result of the bill. He understood how this could cause concern about other game fish being targeted. As it stands now, it'd be 100lbs of lake trout by catch per day (50k for the year). That number could change. Meanwhile the tribes can take up to 1.5 million pounds, and took 1 million last year. He said the tribes really don't care about 100lbs/day, but they are likely concerned about this starting a slippery slope. He did say there is a good chance this will have an effect on 2020 Consent Decree negotiations. Jim stated there's a hearing tomorrow but this bill is not on the agenda... I wouldn't be surprised if it's added at the 12th hour. A pure guess, but I think this bill is rushed through because the commercial fishermen have the support of republicans as a business.
> 
> I found the background on how this bill came to light interesting. Nothing nefarious, but it does reinforce how things happen in government. It'll be interesting to learn who the next MDNR director is.


Great information. Hmm.... the DNR is concerned that there might be "certain things that might be unknown as a result of the bill". Where have we heard that before, other than pretty much every post on this board. As far as your pure guess about it being rushed through...I'd say that is a pretty damn good guess.

I think it's a bit interesting that he mentioned bycatch. I don't see that word used anywhere in the legislation. When this was an issue at Saginaw Bay, my recollection is that "bycatch" were dead fish in the net and bycatch was defined in the legislation. I wonder if the broader interpretation is that bycatch is anything that is not target species, dead or alive. I know that one of the concerns is that nets could be possibly set in areas where "bycatch" was a little more likely. I wonder if a net is set and pulled and there are two lake trout in it, one dead and one alive for example...what would be the incentive to keep the less fresh dead one. I guess one of those "things that might be unknown". 

Thanks for reaching out.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> Did someone say bycatch? Did someone mention the consent decree impacts? I must be in an echo chamber of some sort.
> 
> All you had to do was call ....could have saved yourself and a lot of other people
> a lot of time and worry.


As long as "certain things that might be unknown as a result of the bill" makes you comfortable. I think that it only reinforces why this is garbage legislation, but I'm sure that you have all of this figured out. You've been bringing a lot of value to the conversation.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> As long as "certain things that might be unknown as a result of the bill" makes you comfortable. I think that it only reinforces why this is garbage legislation, but I'm sure that you have all of this figured out. You've been bringing a lot of value to the conversation.


Bring your tin hat to Lansing tomorrow.....it will protect you when the sky falls.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> Bring your tin hat to Lansing tomorrow.....it will protect you when the sky falls.


Just a thought, rather than wasting your time here, maybe you should try starting a "Pro 1145" thread. See how that goes.


----------



## Intimidator (Dec 23, 2010)

It appears that the majority oppose this bill. As do I. Is it true that Bill 1145 was declared dead today?


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Intimidator said:


> It appears that the majority oppose this bill. As do I. Is it true that Bill 1145 was declared dead today?


I think there will be more clarity on things tomorrow...there's a hearing schedule, but this isn't listed on the agenda. As I previously mentioned, it could probably be added at the 12th hour as an attempt to make people think it's not going to be discussed/voted on??


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

RedM2 said:


> I think there will be more clarity on things tomorrow...there's a hearing schedule, but this isn't listed on the agenda. As I previously mentioned, it could probably be added at the 12th hour as an attempt to make people think it's not going to be discussed/voted on??


That's what happened to the bill in the Senate. My recollection is that it was not on the agenda, and was added at the meeting or the morning of the meeting. 

EDIT (I stand corrected, it was on the agenda for the 27th, not sure when it was added www.senate.michigan.gov/committees/files/2018-scm-nat_-11-27-1.pdf)


----------



## born2fish (Aug 1, 2005)

I may be wrong, but I believe that the legislature is not required to hold a hearing on bill. Does anyone know for sure that they are required to hold a hearing?


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

born2fish said:


> I may be wrong, but I believe that the legislature is not required to hold a hearing on bill. Does anyone know for sure that they are required to hold a hearing?


Just a reading, not a hearing. That's why it is important to contact the legislators.


----------



## cmonkey (Nov 6, 2004)

Maybe I just wear a tin foil hat, but I believe the DNR wants to eliminate all fishing and hunting experiences. With all the deer shot, there's no need for guns, so that's next in the agenda push. With fishing, they don't have to manage or stock, and everyone can paddle their kayaks, camp (and pay online or at the booth), or pay for your ATV stickers. Money is made much easier in other fields of recreation.

Funny they have an ad every other hour on National Public Radio, which doesn't have a conservative listening other than to see how warped the lib side is. Maybe it's just me, but every decision they make I greet with a very heavy eyebrow.

And diversity shoved down your throat in every rule guide...it isn't by accident.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> .... That has to stop, and will, with the passage of this bill. Science will bear out exactly what can and cannot be stocked or harvested in any given area of the lake commercially or otherwise. The status quo only allows for an uneven playing field where special interests dictate how the fisheries are managed.
> 
> One of us is going to have a very tough week. For the sake of sportsmen, I hope its you.


Just wondering how your week is going?


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

A very small percentage of sport fishermen fish for lake trout, yet lake trout consist of an extremely high percentage of fish planted by the DNR. If it is by catch then set a limit and allow them to thin the lake trout out. This would be a big plus for people targeting other fish. You cannot plant a species of fish like lake trout at a rate of 7 million per year and not expect them to not eat up all of the prey fish. Either allow a commercial harvest or cut back on planting them.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

Robert Holmes said:


> A very small percentage of sport fishermen fish for lake trout, yet lake trout consist of an extremely high percentage of fish planted by the DNR. If it is by catch then set a limit and allow them to thin the lake trout out. This would be a big plus for people targeting other fish. You cannot plant a species of fish like lake trout at a rate of 7 million per year and not expect them to not eat up all of the prey fish. Either allow a commercial harvest or cut back on planting them.


In my opinion, I think that there is room for that discussion. But, I think that commercial interests trying to push legislation, that doesn't involve at least a discussion with recreational anglers, has not been a good strategy. That has happened twice in the last twelve months, and frankly it is no way to build trust and cooperation. The end result in both instances is that recreational anglers have rallied around the cause, and put a halt to it.


----------

