# NRC agenda for July 14



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

kzoofisher said:


> Heck, maybe they ought to make flies-only all the way to the lake.
> 
> Just kidding.


No, just down to Walhalla, then the rest can be art's only.

Here's my takeaway from all of this, which isn't too difficult to see:
- 6 to 1 vote in favor tells me who has more effective lobby, especially in light of the reported outcomes from the DNR's public meetings on the subject.
- Given that this issue came and died in the CWRSC, then metastisized a while later in the NRC appears to diminish the relevancy of said committee when it comes to rule making.
- Since this was such a landslide, we can expect more of the same soon, a lot more. And expect to see the CWRSC bypassed again.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

The NRC needs to be relegated to history.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

My source was asked: I was there. I haven't looked for a report yet for you to read.

Yes, Mi TU supported explicitly option 3, full ban.

6 to 1 showed me that the nrc was not nearly as torn as the public on this social issue.... At least their voting didn't display as such. This was interesting.

Just for information of the proceeding, the commissioner whom immediately made the motion to approve with option 3 was indeed Rex schlaybaugh. Seconded by pontz. Discussion and opposition from crumbaugh. Then a solid 10 minutes of discussion out of schlaybaugh. Then the vote. Crumbaugh was the sole nay.


----------



## born2fish (Aug 1, 2005)

"6 to 1 showed me that the nrc was not nearly as torn as the public on this social issue...."

While passions ran high, in the NRCs judgment, the public was not really "torn" on this issue. Like it or not the pro-chumming crowd did not come through. The public comments received on this issue was like 240 in favor of a ban and 140 against. Additionally, the major sport fishing organizations in Michigan either took no position or were in favor of a ban. That never bodes well when the organized sport fishing groups are either in favor of or have no opinion on an issue (with none opposed). That was all the cover the commission needed to make a political decision. We were given 3 months to comment and 3 meetings to show up and give testimony. If you had an opinion and did not do either, shame on you!

For those that say there is no biology behind the decision, I agree. But rarely are ethical questions of fair chase and issues of user conflict decided on biology. For decades, salmon snagging was legal and VERY popular in this state. The DNR stocked millions of fish annually and spawning fish were not necessary to maintain the population. Salmon snagging was banned with no biological support. It was simply a matter of ethics, fair chase, and user conflict. If the NRC had been in existence at the time, I'm sure the arguments by the pro-snaggers would have been equally passionate and nearly identical as those presented by the pro-chummers...

1) The fish don't bite and snagging helps people get fish;
2) Snagging is easier and gets people and kids excited about fishing;
3) People that don't snag should just snag if they want to hook and land more fish; 
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY...
4) There is no biological support or need to ban salmon snagging.

Sound familiar?

We aren't allowed to chum for ducks. We aren't allowed to chum for turkeys. And now we aren't allowed to chum for steelhead. 

I guess people will just have to enjoy catching 1-3 seven pound rainbows a day instead of 10.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

*Decision made by Natural Resources Commission on chumming regulations*
Michigan Department of Natural Resources sent this bulletin at 07/15/2016 08:23 AM EDT
Restrictions for trout streams approved

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.






*Statewide DNR News*
July 15, 2016

Contact: Nick Popoff or Jim Dexter, 517-284-5830

*Decision made by Natural Resources Commission on chumming regulations*
The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) decided to regulate chumming in Michigan at its monthly meeting Thursday, July 14 in Lansing. These regulations went into effect immediately.

Following the NRC’s decision, anglers will be prohibited from using organic chum material on any designated trout streams (Types 1-4). Learn more about stream types by downloading the Michigan Fishing Guide (pg. 39 ).

The NRC had considered five possible options ranging from not regulating chumming to regulating amounts of chum allowed to be possessed by anglers or restricting chum only on specific waters.

Chumming is the practice of luring or attracting fish by tossing organic material or bait into the water. Material commonly used as chum includes fish eggs, corn, rice, noodles, oatmeal and maggots.

Chumming has become a divisive social issue in recent years as some anglers use fish eggs to attract steelhead. The DNR’s Fisheries Division has assessed that chumming is not causing a negative biological impact at the fish population level. The NRC has considered chumming regulations options since last December.

While much of the debate over chumming involves angler ethics, not biological impact, a recent study conducted in Oregon suggests certain chemicals found in egg cures (preservatives) may increase mortality for juvenile salmonids when ingested. In addition, there may be additional risks to fish populations from disease transmission from untreated eggs, especially if they originate from areas of the country that have diseases not currently found in the Great Lakes basin.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state’s natural and cultural resources for current and future generations. For more information, go to www.michigan.gov/dnr.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

born2fish said:


> "6 to 1 showed me that the nrc was not nearly as torn as the public on this social issue...."
> 
> While passions ran high, in the NRCs judgment, the public was not really "torn" on this issue. Like it or not the pro-chumming crowd did not come through. The public comments received on this issue was like 240 in favor of a ban and 140 against. Additionally, the major sport fishing organizations in Michigan either took no position or were in favor of a ban. That never bodes well when the organized sport fishing groups are either in favor of or have no opinion on an issue (with none opposed). That was all the cover the commission needed to make a political decision. We were given 3 months to comment and 3 meetings to show up and give testimony. If you had an opinion and did not do either, shame on you!
> 
> ...


Very well put.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

born2fish said:


> "6 to 1 showed me that the nrc was not nearly as torn as the public on this social issue...."
> 
> While passions ran high, in the NRCs judgment, the public was not really "torn" on this issue. Like it or not the pro-chumming crowd did not come through. The public comments received on this issue was like 240 in favor of a ban and 140 against. Additionally, the major sport fishing organizations in Michigan either took no position or were in favor of a ban. That never bodes well when the organized sport fishing groups are either in favor of or have no opinion on an issue (with none opposed). That was all the cover the commission needed to make a political decision. We were given 3 months to comment and 3 meetings to show up and give testimony. If you had an opinion and did not do either, shame on you!
> 
> ...


Why aren't the snagging laws being enforced when the fly guides park on gravel and let clients rip salmon and steelhead? Flossing is snagging. 

I sent multiple emails, as did many friends that I told of the issue. Some of these meetings were held at times where most normal fisherman had to be at work. Shame on the NRC, giving into special interest groups because of jealousy. 

I wouldn't be surprised if next up is the push for more gear restricted water, then the guides will have even more public water to line their pockets with by flossing gravel and no worries about a dirty spawn or bait fisherman showing them up on "their own" river. I mean this uproar all started because a guide who uses all methods was using chum to show up the fly guides. He was pretty brazen with his actions and it came back to bite him.

Oh well, next time I hope the general public is more well informed and maybe a survey can be sent out to a number of licensed fisherman (APR survey comes to mind). This doesn't only affect some steelhead fisherman, but carp, catfish, and panfisherman as well. 

If you know how to fish, it doesn't matter if you use chum or not, the guys who catch a lot of fish will continue to catch their share. Chum or not 1-3 steelhead is a pretty piss poor day of fishing (unless you are fly fishing legit).


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well thanks for posting that Jay. So, where do we go from here, it seems TU, as stated in an above post, is showing it's true colors again. Think this won't evolve into a flies only edict, or some variation? I bet it will it due time. Here's where it SHOULD go from here:
1) Sorry Jay et al, but we should go ahead and lay off all fisheries biologists, after all, no one listens to them anyways and it would save a ton of money.
2) Obviously, a ton of people have mentioned that the salmon fishery is on a down hill slide, eliminate the salmon program, another savings, wait, better yet, only plant salmon and steelhead, or any other trout for that matter, only in waters that are apparently controlled by the river guides, after all it's their water obviously, so let em have it all to themselves.
3) Eliminate the entire DNR fisheries division, as again, all our decisions are only for the good of the business owner, why bother spending money on salaries, research, stocking, fish hatcheries, fin clipping, and creel census'
4) in the future, don't bother spending the money to hold meetings such as though held in Onekama over this issue, no one cares what the majority says in those meetings anyways.

As you can tell I'm pretty ticked about this, it isn't about the chumming per se, it's about the whiny, childishness of the guides. I'm beginning to wonder if the common public has any say about anything that is owned by them. :rant:

Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that those within a certain LARGE trout group speak with forked tongue. On one hand, they make statements about raising the level of participation, while on the other hand, they get in bed with those that do whatever they can to reduce the angler participation. Look, you have people who will spend a lot of money to come to this state to fish, at times, they would chum to help them make sense of spending money to come here. My prediction is, at the very least, the levels of out of state fishermen will be reduced. We'll see. My biggest concern is that the NRC has become something bigger then it's originally was intended to be. This is, plain and simply, become a committee of folks who are enjoying wielding the power. I dare any of them to come on this website and explain their position.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

It sounds like a social issue to me. Didn't we just pass a/some bills taking the social issue out of the equation? Maybe I missed something here

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

born2fish said:


> "6 to 1 showed me that the nrc was not nearly as torn as the public on this social issue...."
> 
> While passions ran high, in the NRCs judgment, the public was not really "torn" on this issue. Like it or not the pro-chumming crowd did not come through. The public comments received on this issue was like 240 in favor of a ban and 140 against. Additionally, the major sport fishing organizations in Michigan either took no position or were in favor of a ban. That never bodes well when the organized sport fishing groups are either in favor of or have no opinion on an issue (with none opposed). That was all the cover the commission needed to make a political decision. We were given 3 months to comment and 3 meetings to show up and give testimony. If you had an opinion and did not do either, shame on you!
> 
> ...




This is by far the best most balanced statement I've read on the issue.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Agreed, very well written B2F. Only a couple of comments:

Sportfishing clubs: MUCC and MSSFA (formerly michigan steelheaders) both spoke in opposition of a ban. I don't know what other appropriate sportfishing organizations could have spoke up.

Snagging: I believe a biological argument was that incidental browns and fall steel were also being snagged.

But again, very well written.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

The question I would ask is whether that vote tally was just based on email responses from recent or did it include comments from the public meetings the DNR held across the state last year?

Also, what is the specific language of the ban? Is it for salmon egg chumming only, organic material, sections of rivers, etc.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

As for the tally I can't provide an accurate answer right now. As for the language here it is. Notes 5 and 8.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Okay, so no chumming. How will they enforce this? Are people who take loose spawn from a fish and put it in a plastic bag or container going to be written a ticket for having "chum" on them? 

Any insight from the DNR on this?


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Trout King said:


> Okay, so no chumming. How will they enforce this? Are people who take loose spawn from a fish and put it in a plastic bag or container going to be written a ticket for having "chum" on them?
> 
> Any insight from the DNR on this?


In that regard, it reads pretty clear. As it reads, you can have a 55 gallon drum of eggs with you. Just do not attempt to lure or attract fish by scattering it into the water.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

AdamBradley said:


> In that regard, it reads pretty clear. As it reads, you can have a 55 gallon drum of eggs with you. Just do not attempt to lure or attract fish by scattering it into the water.


That pretty much says they can't enforce it unless they see it or provide undeniable evidence (video). Sounds like a lot of guys will still chum to their hearts content.


----------



## born2fish (Aug 1, 2005)

"Why aren't the snagging laws being enforced when the fly guides park on gravel and let clients rip salmon and steelhead? Flossing is snagging."

Agreed, but how do you prove it in a court of law? When "flossing" the grip and rip motion is not there. Fish usually come in hooked in or immediately around the mouth. Additionally the fish are not kept. "Flossing" while it is snagging, is impossible to prove in court.

As opposed to someone with a 5 oz silver spider or #5 spinner with 20+ pound line on the Pere Marquette hooking a fish in the tail or belly and throwing it up on the bank. Just a little easier to prove. Especially after the CO watches the guy keeping multiple foul hooked fish.

Again, I'm a plug fisher for steel and in the last 10 years have exclusively fished in Nov and Dec when the fish are fresh and active (prefer the hard water Jan-Mar). I didn't care one way or the other about chumming. My point was it is silly to think that regulations are based on biology and biology alone. Outlawing snagging and the keeping fish hooked in the tail is a perfect example. 

"Chum or not 1-3 steelhead is a pretty piss poor day of fishing."

WOW just WOW!!!! This statement shows just how SPOILED we are in Michigan!!!! Only here could catching three 7-pound rainbows and 21 pounds of trout be considered a "piss poor day of fishing." But then again you choose to go fishing in Feb, during extreme cold, when the steel are NATURALLY slow and lethargic. I guess from now on the people who only have fun if they catch 10 fish will just have to stick to early season when I see everyone hooking up left and right (fly, spawn, spinner, and plug) or better yet go bluegill fishing.

My biggest steel ever is 41 inches on the tape and 22 pounds on the scale. Caught on a cold day in Feb. I was 23 and it was the only fish I caught that day (although I got to help a couple of fiends net their fish). Fifteen years later the pic from that "piss poor day of fishing" is still on the wall in my man cave at home.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

Trout King said:


> That pretty much says they can't enforce it unless they see it or provide undeniable evidence (video). Sounds like a lot of guys will still chum to their hearts content.


There will also be people recording the hell outta each other and calling in about it fueling the little pissing match even more amongst some of these guides. What a way to waste the little time COs have to respond to everything! 

This year will be interesting...


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

born2fish said:


> "Why aren't the snagging laws being enforced when the fly guides park on gravel and let clients rip salmon and steelhead? Flossing is snagging."
> 
> Agreed, but how do you prove it in a court of law? When "flossing" the grip and rip motion is not there. Fish usually come in hooked in or immediately around the mouth. Additionally the fish are not kept. "Flossing" while it is snagging, is impossible to prove in court.
> 
> ...


Yes, we are very spoiled. Winter fishing is my favorite, some of the best number days I have had is in the winter and no chum. Winter steelhead are the easiest steelhead to catch (condensed, and hungry), no need for chum because if you choose the right day they will gobble anything. Of course this is from a bait fisherman mostly for winter steelhead. 

I will say when I decide to throw hardware in the winter I don't expect to connect on many fish, then again I don't do it often, but it might take the larger more aggressive fish.

If I still fly fished for them I wouldn't expect to fair much better than hardware (partially because I suck at it). 

I say 1-3 fish is poor because we have made the Great Lakes giant trout ponds and have one of the greatest steelhead fisheries in the world. I guess my expectations are based on knowing just how many fish we have available. 
I would gladly take one 20lb steelhead and trade it for one hundred 5 lb fish. Kind of like the King fishery, I see the quality fish again this year (stocking cuts allowing ales to hang on a bit longer), but people are still bitching that the DNR is killing our salmon fishery.

Now, POST THAT PICTURE!


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

troutguy26 said:


> There will also be people recording the hell outta each other and calling in about it fueling the little pissing match even more amongst some of these guides. What a way to waste the little time COs have to respond to everything!
> 
> This year will be interesting...


I see a lot more petty complaints coming down the pipeline.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Side note. Glad this topic is dead despite how much I think the topic is null, and process was/is bs... Now can we all focus on real problems, like the introduction of the mud snail? Perhaps our lack of bait and up to 35 lb kings in lake Michigan? This is where focus should be.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

AdamBradley said:


> Basically this is what I have taken away from my observations at the meeting and the discussion prior/during the motion and subsequent vote. There is supposedly concern about where the eggs are coming from, if they can carry foreign disease, etc. Despite nearly every "chummer" being asked where they get the eggs, and the answer was always some sort of combination of Huron tackle, and personal king harvest. Couple that with "we don't know what the chemical cures may do" and they had their "scientific management". As commissioner pontz said "we have scientific data right in front of us from the oregon study.". It was something to see. That's all I can say.


As far as the cures go, Oregon just banned using the sulfate instead of making ridiculous laws. Seems like a lot easier option eh? So the cure makers had to change their tactic. Not the fisherman!! 

On top of that there is 2 different sulfate from what my limited knowledge is on the topic. The one that was banned is something totally different from what most people use being borax. 

Maybe we should make a push to get rid of flies that are being mass made overseas? I mean we have all heard the sweatshop stories of it... Who knows what kind of materials they are using!!! And child labor on top of that!!


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

It sounds like you saw the study Adam, if so what did it say, and what was the control amount of sulfite, or whatever it was they used? I'm not saying that this sulfite isn't a problem, what I'm wondering is just how much sulfite was in the control amount? Did they use wild fish, did they use fish in a hatchery, and if they used a hatchery, how much sulfite did they add to the water to come up with thier findings, see what I mean? Too many variables at this point to have a conclusive outcome. In reality, there were more ways they could have come up with to manage this, one of them being guides can't use chum, all chum has to be natural, or cured with acceptable methods, but to just outlaw all chum for all people seems like it's contrary to what some being are saying they want to do. There are those who want to increase angler participation, as I've stated earlier, but at the same time they are making rules and regulations that are opposed to that mentality.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Yes I have read it over many times. Including many months before the Pro-ban party brought it to the table. Instead of trying to paraphrase it, I will look for the actual study and send a link tomorrow. The long and short of it: oregon concluded not to ban sodium sulphate all together, but to regulate it to an acceptable degree, based upon the study. Ever notice that most of the bait cures we purchase already have "meets oregon guidelines" on the label? Yep, what we buy here was already addressed by that study. In fact. Of the few I can think of which contains it (firecure by pautzke, red hot double stuff by pro cure) I believe ALL, already meet the guidelines. I could be mistaken, but don't feel like googling and quoting right now. Search "oregon approved egg cures" you'll find some stuff.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I think it is linked in one of the earlier chumming threads too but I don't have the time or inclination to go looking for it now.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Thanks Adam, but as you said, it appears that Oregon already addressed that issue. It's apparent that the NRC either didn't look into that, or at the very least, surely they didn't know that; which then brings up the fact that the NRC didn't spend any time researching this issue and only went by what the guides, and others on the pro banning side had to say. In the end, as I've stated several times, this isn't about chumming per se, I really could care less one way or the other about that, my problem is the way this was done and the complete waste of time arguing this subject, and the complete waste of time for some of the DNR officials in having the meetings in Muskegon, and Onekama a year ago. With the outcome of all this, I would think it will harder yet to get the public involved in any discussions concerning our outdoor pursuits, I mean, after all, why bother the NRC will do whatever it wants anyways, and appears to only listen to those who have an agenda that matches theirs.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Oregon study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021406 (can be downloaded via link on right of page)

Cures meeting oregon guidelines (not a comprehensive list - has not been updated in a while): http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/cured_eggs.asp

A brief article describing the concentration limits oregon established: http://www.cbbulletin.com/411971.aspp

As for public involvement in future discussions of concern.... I will always voice my opinion to the decision makers on a topic that matters to me. I hope everyone else does the same.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I can't argue with science, and I have to believe that sodium sulfite is toxic to the fish. The problem is, if a person were chumming, at least as much as these guides portend we are, do you think we would take the time, and expense to cure eggs this way? Probably not. Either way, there was no way these NRC commissioners looked at all the information. Had they done so, they would have seen that most of the popular brands of egg cure are Oregon certified, therefore, no problem, and that's using the same science as these articles suggest. Again, as I've said over and over, it isn't about the chumming, it's about two things now, those that whine loud enough get what they want, and 2) it troubles me that the NRC apparently didn't look at the fact that these cures are certified. That should trouble you as well. Do you really want people making decisions without doing the research in it's entirety? I sure don't. Will I continue to voice my opinion, probably.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

AdamBradley said:


> Basically this is what I have taken away from my observations at the meeting and the discussion prior/during the motion and subsequent vote. There is supposedly concern about where the eggs are coming from, if they can carry foreign disease, etc. Despite nearly every "chummer" being asked where they get the eggs, and the answer was always some sort of combination of Huron tackle, and personal king harvest. Couple that with "we don't know what the chemical cures may do" and they had their "scientific management". As commissioner pontz said "we have scientific data right in front of us from the oregon study.". It was something to see. That's all I can say.


The devil is in the details, and details get overlooked. IMHO the Oregon sulfite cure issue was the red herring the pro-ban crowd needed.

Considering that 1)concerns of sulfite based cures for chumming eggs only surfaced relatively recent 2) just how many (?) anglers may chum with cured eggs 3) cure manufacturers addressed the sulfite issue back in 2011; just serves to demonstrate how "science" of questionable relevancy can be used to justify decisions such as this.


----------



## fishinfever (Feb 14, 2005)

AdamBradley said:


> Oregon study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021406 (can be downloaded via link on right of page)
> 
> Cures meeting oregon guidelines (not a comprehensive list - has not been updated in a while): http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/cured_eggs.asp
> 
> ...


Great information. Thanks for doing the work for all of us and making the links available.

Tight lines, FF


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

Trout King said:


> Bow and spear fishing would be fun, except I choose not to keep many fish during the times they would be vulnerable (spawning). If it doesn't hurt the fishery why not? Oh yeah, steelhead are more mystical and important than our native fish which can be speared, shot and netted. Weird logic in my opinion.


GREAT point TK - I just got back from a 3 week trek out west. It was really cool to enjoy very liberal limits on brook trout in WY where they are an invasive problem for the native cutties and bows. What was most interesting to me was that sections of river that were designated as Artificial Only and Catch and Release only on all trout EXCEPT brook trout, which were open to their very liberal statewide limit of 16 fish/angler/day!! It was very cool to have the ability to keep those pesky 'invasive' brookies while releasing all the cutties and bows. The fishing was off the charts as well - my son and I landed well over 20+ cutties and bows btwn 12-20" both days we fished there. We caught 5 decent brookies each day as well, all btwn 10-13". Very tasty fish, per usual. All on flies, mostly visual takes of nymphs or terrestrial dries. The interesting part was the numbers of fish in the non-catch and release sections below this had noticeably less trout overall. We hooked a few down there, but nothing close to the C & R sections. But the main point I wanted to make was how other states manage their natives vs non-native fisheries compared to how MI seems to have some weird coveted status for our non-native salmonids.

A truly ecological/biological answer to MI waters would be to go C&R on all brookies and make browns, steelies and salmon limits much more liberal - however - just imagine the reaction from all sorts of folks - both pro and anti-chummers - if we suddenly focused on reducing interspecific competition issues for brook trout and started reducing populations of those non-natives salmonids!?!? Then take it a step further, as you suggest, and allow folks to 'take' them anyway we choose. All of a sudden dudes that cried to keep their gallon bags of chum would be crying because some benzoid just dragged 15 speared, black, modly kings back to his truck or some surf fisherman on the Frankfort pier roped up 10 skammies he landed on alewives....Being a recovering river-rat, spawn addict for the first 30 years of my 43 years of fishing in MI, I'd also have a tough time seeing this go down, however, I can definitely see the logic behind it now. Anyway, just throwing that out there for some perspective in this rather circular conversation....

Matt

PS - Anyone else remember the days when it was really common to walk around with a ziplock of corn kernels in your vest to help get those steelies fired up!?!? This was 30+ years ago, so maybe not too many of you, but I am sure Toto remembers those days. When I was a little dude we chummed the Betsie with corn regularly, simply because we had no eggs. It worked pretty well, especially on skippers. But then we learned that filling up fish on indigestible corn was not too cool, so that stopped. Heck, my dad used to use dried up marshmellows (the tiny ones) on a single hook in the platte bay surf that fooled many, many steelies back in the day - they were white and floated and that was all that was needed back then... crazy to think about trying that now.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yep I remember the days of chumming with corn, of course since then we've found it isn't good for the fishes digestive system. I also remember the days of using a piece of foam rubber soaked in Vaseline. I wouldn't have a big problem with protections, if needed. The thing is, just how much more protection do you need? The DNR does the studies that show a certain amount of catch and keep isn't hurting anything. This whole chumming thing isn't about chumming really, it was about a bunch of whiny guides who wanted more control of THEIR fishery, that's all it was, is, and is going to be. Most of the guys who came on here about this, and are pro chumming felt the same way.


----------

