# Fishing with SPAWN threatened!



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

For those of you who dont know, The Resource Stewards was started by a group or DNR officials who have since retired. This group is made up of many experts in their perspective fields.

Dave Borgenson is a retired state fish division chief and spoke at the symposium in Rockford a couple of weeks ago against chumming. In this weeks North Woods Call an article appeared with the following statement; Luring fish with fish eggs or other chum Borgeson says, is no different than luring wildlife to bait. Not only is it unsporting, it promotes disease, he adds.

Borgeson cites the recent discovery of an invasive viral disease devastating fish in Lakes St. Clair and Erie that can be spread, like whirling and kidney disease, through chumming.

They will be discussing this issue at a meeting opened to the public on March 14th at noon at Jays in Clair.

If using chum gets outlawed because it doesnt meet the ethical standards of a few individuals who only fish the right way, think of the implications. What is the difference between tossing a spoon full of spawn in the water and tossing in a spawn bag. If there is some science that shows that eggs cause any of the said diseases we need to see it and fast.

Borgeson further on in the article compares baiting deer and chumming as having the same dangerous effects. To me this looks like an attempt to stop fishermen from using spawn and perhaps finally all bait so we will be forced to fish like Borgeson wants us to fish. Im sure in Borgesons eyes, using any kind of bait is immoral and needs to be stopped.

I only know a few of the members of the Resource Stewards and they all fly fish. Obviously not all fly fishermen feel this way, but there is a small group of them who have been working behind the scenes for years lobbying for rule changes for their own self interests and quite successfully.

Based on their past track record, dont underestimate the power these guys have on the NRC as well as inside the DNR. 

I think we need to force this guy to show us the scientific evidence to substantiate the claims he is making or shut the ...... up.

Can someone look up the e-mail address of the Resource Stewards including Dave Borgesons e-mail.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

This is scary stuff, and I agree that it should not be taken lightly. 

So my humorous question now is, "What should be done about all those Salmon, which spawn in rivers, streams, creeks, and ditches all over Michigan, each Fall?" If there is disease in the fishery, then there is disease in the fishery. You can't keep Salmon from spawning. Collecting eggs from Salmon, and throwing them into a river, cannot be any more detrimental than having the Salmon lay those same eggs. 

I have chummed, and I have caught plenty of fish without using chum. Sometimes it makes a difference, and sometimes it does not. But I do use various fish eggs for bait most of the time, and it would totally suck to not be able to use spawn anymore, just because a special interest group was able to convince someone in power that it should be dissallowed.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Not humorous at all. That was my first thought as well. How do we stop the fish from spawning?

On the flies only sections the rules already say chum can not be used. In fact you can't even use scent or to be more specific, you can not even have scent in your possession on any flies only waters. 

Over the years, people have tried to introduce plenty of silly rules. A small group tried once to get MUCC to push for a rule that stated on flies only, one could only use fly equipment, meaning fly line, fly reels and fly rods. Not fly rod blanks converted to spinning rods either.

A few years ago they got one rule through that said you could not use weights on your line on flies only waters in an effort to thwart chuck and duck fishermen. Law enforcement determined that that meant bead heads as well. The rule was recinded the next year. It is a never ending battle.

This time however they got a big name to push their agenda and those Resource Stewards really do have clout.
So much for science.

The Northwoods call is allowing more and more political garbage in the paper, but I guess Shep is just getting old or something. He used to say there is only one side to any issue, Natures!, but that seems to be changing.

Very sad indeed!


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

I wrote a response to a Jim Bedford article in MOOD once, he thought chumming should be banned. How silly.
I am scratching my head on this one. I mean in reality just fishing with bait adds scent into the water, and fish can supposedly smell very well. So it almost is inevitable that bait fishing would be next.
What is hard to believe is a bunch of clowns sit around and discuss something like banning this, GET A LIFE!
Haven't heard about this yet. Thanks for the heads up on it Splitshot.


----------



## Erik (Jan 17, 2000)

Whirling disease can be spread just from your hands from what I've read about it. However I've yet to hear of any agency threatening to ban fishermen from touching their fish. 
Maybe we should just stop fishing for them all together. After all it might not be good for them


----------



## t_dog755 (Jul 31, 2005)

So where does it stop ? So when we take our kids out fishing and give them a poll and put a worm on there so they can catch blue gill and other pan fish are we going to get a ticket. So they go for spawn bags next is worms, to minnows and so on. are other state going to follow with this or is Michigan the only one. where does it stop .


----------



## EdB (Feb 28, 2002)

I'm a harcore spawn fisherman and I read the same article but I didn't see it say anything about banning the use of spawn to fish. The Resource Stewards are opposed to chumming with spawn, meaning throwing wads of loose spawn into a hole to get the fish activily feeding. Get the fish going and follow that up with a spawn bag or egg imitation and catch em. I don't think this style of "fishing" seems very sporting to me. It seems like the intent behind chumming is to make it easier to catch trout. Frankly, their easy enough to catch already. I was glad to see snagging go. I also think deer baiting ought to be banned too. Just my opinion.  

Now if they try to stretch this to a ban on the use of spawn placed on a hook to fish with, I would oppose it but I do not believe that is their intent at all. Shep has been a little sloppy and opinionated in his reporting with age. You have to sort the fact from the opinion to get to the truth. I suggest you make contact with Borgenson and ask him point blank if he and the group is trying to end the use of spawn completely. Their next meeting is open to the public at Jay's Sporting Goods March 14 at noon.

Edit-I just tracked down Dave Borgenson's e-mail and asked him about this point blank. Is he or their group going to advocate ending the use of all spawn for fishing? I will let you all know what kind of reply I get. Here is a link to their website, their positions are sound on many issues affecting sportsman in MI. Read their resolutions. There is one on chumming and I don't read it to say it bans all use of spawn. 
http://www.miresourcestewards.org/


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Ed,

You are absolutely right that he didnt mention outlawing spawn, but Borgeson said; not only is it unsporting, it promotes diseases... If that is true, any kind of eggs tossed into the river will promote disease. What difference does it make if the eggs are loose or in a bag? 

Lets be very clear, this guy buys into the philosophy of fly fishing. That small percentage of fly fishermen that would rather be thrown into a pen full of wild dogs than ever yield to using bait, any kind of bait. Even to the point of losing his integrity and reputation. That is unless his contention is true that there is a real risk that using eggs would indeed cause disease. That is why I said we need to see the science.

Ed, I know you dont want to think of Dave Borgeson would do such a jaundiced remark, but they are his words. Not just once, but twice in the last month. My guess is that there is no science and this is really about ego and philosophy and being noble in front of his peers. I have heard people say stuff like this for years, especially if they think you are prejudiced like they are. 

So what Im saying is, when the ex chief of fisheries makes a statement like this, it is serious. By the way, deer baiting is a totally different argument and are not even close to the same thing.

As far as Shep goes, I was just stating my opinion. He has provided a great deal to the sportsmen and women in this state and I wasnt beating up on him, just pointing out that he might be getting a little burned out.


----------



## EdB (Feb 28, 2002)

Ray, I couldn't agree with you more on some people's "philosophy of fly fishing." I hope this isn't "really about ego and philosophy and being noble in front of his peers." The situation certainly bears watching. I'm anxious to the see the reply I get and I'll share it. 

There are some comparisons that can be made to deer baiting with this situation. When I started deer hunting 30 years ago, baiting deer was vitually unheard of. It started to catch on in the 80's and grew and grew. Young guys learned to hunt over bait and didn't know other ways to get deer. Now it is common place throughout our state and there is scientific proof it does spread disease in deer. Science knows its not good for the herd, some hunters can't part with it. 

Chumming is not widespread now. I would hate to see chumming grow and become widespread in trout fishing. Young guys will learn to fish over chum because it's easier and never learn how to stalk and find trout on the fishes terms. Just imagine what would happen on popular stretches of rivers like the PM or below dams on big water if chumming caught on like deer baiting has. Every time an angler sets up to fish, he tosses handfuls of spawn in to "chum up the place." He fishes a while and moves on. Later another guy stops by the hole and another couple of hand fulls of chum go in. Then another after another do the same over the weekend. The trout and crayfish can't eat enough eggs and they start to rot on the bottom of the stream. Popular holes become rotting spawn cesspools. Ripping fish for eggs to chum increases. There is no science out there that I know of stating chuming could spread disease but it sure seems to have potential in this scenerio. Science has to lead on this issue and not emotion. Maybe I'm a bit emotional here and this tale is tall but I can't be convinced chumming is a good thing. 

I have hopes that a group like the Resource Stewards could bring some conservation leadership that is sorely lacking in this state. They have not spread their message very far in the public eye. Anglers and hunters are far to divided in this state with issues like baiting and and I hope not chumming being the root causes of it. With the decline of MUCC, and I hope they recover, we need conservation leadership that unites sportsman. Maybe the Resource Stewards aren't it but I'm still hopeful some organization or blend of organizations rises up soon. I'm not giving up on the Resource Stewards yet.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

When this came up in a different thread, I said that if were a detriment to the fishery, I'd be against it. If people go to the link you posted, it explains that the stewards are all for science and no politics. Why, because most of them are scientist and had to work in a political enviroment.

One misguided person could have an adverse affect on the entire group if he is making up stories because of his philosophy and that is what it looks like to me.

One thing about chumming is you cannot easily find spawn like you can food for deer. At the current time millions of eggs rot on the bottom of the river along with the dead salmon. I do understand your conderns, and I agree with much of what you say about baiting in general. but just because you don't like something you can't invent facts to make your case especially when the resource steward's mission statement is directly opposed to that kind of propaganda.


----------



## VARMINTHUNTERLAKEORION (Jan 12, 2005)

What's really messed up about all this - P.E.T.A - has for quit some time now, a campaign against Fishing all-together and don't think for a minute that they wont use this against us - and to think that a Spokesman for the DNR is going to end up fueling the fire against all of us -what a shame - makes me sick to say the least.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

im no authority....ive seen a few and usaully older men shoot spwan with a sling shot...and then fish over it ... ive seen my father sink a jar of brine shrimp to draw perch in...ive personally dumped my left over shiners down a hole in the ice only to cath a limit of perch on perch eyes after as far as compairing this to deer baiting my dads been taking a coffee can full of bait with him since he started hes 64 this june..im 30 and 2 more deer ill have caught up....34 years and ill have all the stories lol......this past fall i did watch a chummer nail a limit at P/A witch to me is feet in itself....but i allso learned i way to launch a 1 oz sinker with a noodle rod......as long as the health of the fishery or game is not at stake.....leave the laws alone...IMHO


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

I had read the press release from MDNR/Kelley Smith regarding the number of chinook at the Swan River wier with VHS. There was mention of disinfecting chinook eggs, which subsequently yielded disease free offspring.

What is the method of disinfection? Is it readily available and easy to do?
Why not create a market for disease free eggs?

In my world, I would gladly give up having to go on a perfunctory egg hunt each fall if I could buy a quality product.

Lastly, what other vectors of disease transmission for VHS are there? Because if other vectors exist, and there is no effort to control, ie a similar quarantine action (aka ban) , then banning the use of eggs for bait/chumming is relatively pointless.


----------



## duckhunter382 (Feb 13, 2005)

I am so sick of people and their private agendas. Fishing is a sport but even more so its a way to put a little bit of food on the table. I dont have a problem with chumming even though I have never done it myself. I know this is not politically correct but I CATCH FISH AND TAKE THEM HOME AND EAT THEM!!!!!!! :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: I dont understand how fishing has gotten to be such an artificial adventure. I have fish artificial and I have fished with bait including spawn. They are each difficult and easy in their own ways. I think that at the end of a day it doesnt matter what you used to catch that mess of fish but how you cook them. Also if somebody wants to catch a fish and let it go thats ok but dont tread on my right to keep it(fly fishings "elite") dont put yourself on a pedestal you are no better than the rest of us, actually you dont even have a clue. There are other rules I dont understand. If a certified diver wanted to go out on lake michigan and shoot three salmon with a spear gun I dont think it should be against the law. the equipment and the effort is no less than that of a troller. its not like they would be on the river with a pitch fork.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> One thing about chumming is you cannot easily find spawn like you can food for deer. .


I don't even want to think about the amount of spawn that could/would be saved at cleaning stations up and down the west side if chumming became the "way" to fish.

It's been said time and time again here Tonello and the rest have a very good handle on our fisheries and that decision's they make are based on sound scientific proof. Why are you concerned they will not follow that path now? It would seem to me if you have trusted them in the past to make the right decision's, you would trust them in the future.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

As noted at the beginning of this thread, these guys(the Resource Stewards) are experts. As EdB pointed out, they have apparently not even suggested that fishing with spawn should be discontinued. I think it is unfair to disregard or oppose their positions, or try to speculate or "put words in their mouths" merely because it could be perceived they might have a personal preference in their own fishing. 

Everyone has a perceived potential "bias". Even a preference for long-term health of a fishery vs. maximizing short-term catch rate is a "bias". Preferring steelheads over salmon(or resident brown trout or native suckers, etc.) is a bias. In my home river, the MDNR(Tonello, Rozich) stocks hatchery trout right in the best wild trout spawning area in the county because of a perceived bias by the general public for more small, easily catchable trout(few of which survive to decent size) vs. fewer(maybe) but larger, healthier and more elusive wild trout.

I'm NOT saying we should automatically accept everything the Resource Stewards advocate. I'm just trying to point out that we should not clamor for "science" as the basis for setting rules, then automatically disregard the scientific experts when we don't like the result.

Butch

p.s. It's my understanding that the new rules regarding minnows for bait(because of the threat of disease transmission) will soon dramatically affect the east-side walleye fishery. If so, should we disregard the scientists that propose these rules because some people like to use minnows?


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

Leave it to a fly fisherman to get stuff started!! Its hard to chum with flies!!....LOL!!!

Scott


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

My only concern is that if chumming (with eggs, not ground up fish) is banned, and the reason is because the eggs might carry disease; then it is logical that using eggs for bait would also have to be banned. Not sure about anyone else, but that would ruin Salmon and Steelhead fishing for me. 

And my logical question to counter this reasoning is this: if the fish laying eggs are diseased, then the disease already exists in the ecosystem. What difference is there if fish lay eggs which carry disease; or if someone tosses some loose eggs into a river; or someone uses eggs for bait? 
And if the DNR begins to treat eggs which they harvest, for hatchery use; what about all the fish which will still lay eggs which are not treated?


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

Those sound like valid questions, Fishndude. They should be answered before a ban is implemented. However, I think the "scientific experts" are smart enough to think of these issues, so I'm not willing to assume they are "wrong" without hearing the full story.

Butch


----------



## tdduckman (Jan 17, 2001)

Natural Resources Commission
Re: Proposed NRC Policy Against Chumming of Gamefish

I am here to again ask you to adopt a policy against the chumming of gamefish, chumming being the feeding or baiting of fish to artificially stimulate feeding activity. It is a policy that will help protect trout and salmon from the spread of existing diseases and from the introduction of exotic diseases such as Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS). It is a policy that will protect game fish from excessive and rapid harvest by a few individuals at the expense of the majority. It is a policy that will uphold the best principles of sportsmanship and fair play. And it is a policy that will be welcomed by the sportsmen of this state.

As you will hear from others here today, chumming of steelhead and trout is becoming a hindrance to conventional fishing on some of our premier trout and salmon streams. It is a practice that is already tarnishing the sport and the reputation of these fine streams.

Chumming also poses an unwanted and unnecessary disease risk. Each chumming boat often uses gallons of salmon and trout eggs, eggs that may carry disease from anywherefrom other watersheds, from other Great Lakes, or from the East or West Coast. Department of Natural Resources Director Humphreys, in a recent newspaper article titled Deadly Seaway Virus Doomsday for Great Lakes Fish? was quoted as follows: The continuing march of VHS through the waters of the Great Lakes is a major challenge to our agency and our management options. These new discoveries are extremely unfortunate and further highlight the problems created by the constant introductions of new diseases from outside of the Great Lakes region, the speed with which they can spread, and the threat that such pathogens pose to our natural resources. Fisheries Chief Kelley Smith added: In the continued battle to slow the spread of VHS throughout the Great Lakes, we must remain vigilant, take every precaution, and implement all options available to us. Listed among the options available was a prohibition on the transfer of live fish from the states waters of the Great Lakes.

It seems prudent to extend that concern to the disease threat posed by the chumming with fish eggs, a threat that has been brought before you repeatedly over the past seven years. Concerns over chumming were first brought to your attention in September, 2000 by the Pere Marquette Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, and the Michigan Resource Stewards.

The Michigan Resource Stewards have long been opposed to chumming as have MUCC and the Michigan River Guides. The Isaac Walton League added their opposition to chumming just this week.

While trout and salmon are the species now most threatened by the practice, innovation being what it is, the NRCs policy should oppose chumming for all species except, perhaps, for whitefish and carp. You may want to allow some chumming to continue for whitefish in certain lakes, because whitefish are largely a commercial species that are difficult to harvest with hook and line, and carp because they are both a commercial species and a species of nuisance abundance whose harvest should be encouraged.

Yesterday, at the Conservation Summit, Director Rebecca Humphries shared her list of the most important challenges facing the Department of Natural Resources. First on her list was the proliferation of disease and non-native species; second was conflicting uses of public lands.

These are days of tight money. Here is an opportunity to protect the resource from the proliferation of disease and the sport from conflicting uses with a single stroke of the pen. There are many of us that hope you will take advantage of it.

Thank you.

David P. Borgeson, President
Michigan Resources Stewards


Presented to Michigan Natural Resources Commission
February 8, 2007, Lansing​
​


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Kirk,

I trust Tonello and there is little doubt that he and Mr. Rozich would make the right decision without other influences, but how many times do we see the NRC make social rules. Often enough to cause worry that the Resource Stewards could influence the NRC. So while I trust those guys, I have seen them downplay some issues because of pressure.

Borgenson wants to ban chumming because he thinks it is immoral and not what a fishermen should do. If I remember he brought this issue up in 2000 in Lansing and it was reviewed by the DNR at that time. The scientific findings at that time showed that chumming posed no biological threat to our fishery. After that Borgenson convinced MUCC to support a resolution against chumming and I believe you can find it on their books. 

In defense of MUCC, most of them are hunting guys and as assistant fishery chief MUCC thought they were getting scientific data, not moral philosophy. He has influence on the other members of Stewards (maybe) because few if any of the stewards are fisheries guys and thats why I am concerned.

By the way, this isnt about chumming but about using eggs for bait. If you ban chumming because it might cause some damage to the fishery, doesnt it make sense to ban all use of eggs.

I think we need to be careful not to disparage the Resource Stewards because they offer all of us the benefit of their science and non political point of view. They are taking on some serious issues and we should support them. I think Borgenson could badly hurt their reputation if left un-checked and I wouldnt be surprised if he was advised by the organization not to continue on this track or at least not as a representative of the Resource Stewards.

On any other issue, The Northwoods Call would not endorse it, but unfortunately the publisher is a part of this small clan dedicated to that certain philosophy.

Just for you guys who dont know me, my favorite way to fish is with my fly rod, but I am a fisherman who uses flies. I dont use my fly rod that often, because to me it is more fun to catch fish. To some guys it is more important to catch a fish on a fly than catch a fish. 

I also dont espouse to the idea that in order to have a quality experience I need special places or special rules. The real challenge to fly fishing to me is when I am in the mist of my brother worm dunkers and kicking their butts. lol

I am not impuning all those guys who only fly fish because they love it and is the way they choose to fish. I know a lot of guys like Shoeman (Ralf) who I have shared some quality time dunking spawn and bait who now spends most of his time fishing with flies. It obviously providing him with some quality experiences and I am cool with that. Guys like Ralf are much different from the clan I spoke of like Borgenson who believes or has faith that there is only one type of real fisherman. 

Addendum:
I started writing this earlier this morning and when I got back to the thread there was much more written.
Butch,
I have done some research and found that there is no biological reason for banning fish eggs used for chum or anything else. The minnow issue is quite another matter, but we have missed the opportunity because most emerald shiners come from Saginaw Bay and have been used all over the state since we found out about the disease, which means the horse is already out of the barn.

we certainly need to do something to keep ships from entering our great lakes without treating their ballast water. That is a real threat. Reg had it right about the possibility of eggs causing a problem especially when compared to other vectors.

Then I read Borgensons letter. He apparently is speaking for the Resource Stewards since he is the president. The Resource Stewards should contact the fisheries biologist at the DNR and they will come to the same conclusion that I have. Borgenson has an agenda to outlaw chum based on his moral and ethical beliefs and is using a biological threat that does not exist to push his agenda and he knows it. 

You can read it your self in tdduckmans post. 

Betraying science for a moral value is one of the most spurious, deceitful, apocryphal, thing a person can do. In his letter he quotes Department of Natural Resources Director Humphreys, and Fisheries Chief Kelley Smith quotes about the threat of pathogens as if they were talking about chum. Extremely disingenuous. We all know that Ms. Humphreys and Mr. Kelly were talking about real threats to our Great Lakes and not chumming in particular.

There is no material biological threat using fish eggs in our rivers. If it was a threat, the use of all fish eggs in our rivers would need to be stopped.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

_There is no material biological threat using fish eggs in our rivers. If it was a threat, the use of all fish eggs in our rivers would need to be stopped._

Yup. As I stated in my first post, other people, not mentioned by Splitshot, high up in the ranks of the fishing community oppose chumming. It is on record.

I only hope the right people are allowed to use their heads about this. After the mourning dove thing nothing should be taken lightly these days.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

as far as I know, there is no crusade to end spawn fishing in Mich. I will look into this further in the next few days and get back with you with some facts, instead of asumptions. 

I can see the general alarm intended on the chumming issue, I too have done it, and I usually do it when the day is over, and I don't want to take the stuff back home to rot in the fridge. I personally don't see a problem with it, and if it is banned, It will be a very hard thing to police.

I will do some snooping and see what I can come up with in the near future!:tdo12:


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Spanky said:


> as far as I know, there is no crusade to end spawn fishing in Mich. I will look into this further in the next few days and get back with you with some facts, instead of asumptions.
> 
> I can see the general alarm intended on the chumming issue, I too have done it, and I usually do it when the day is over, and I don't want to take the stuff back home to rot in the fridge. I personally don't see a problem with it, and if it is banned, It will be a very hard thing to police.
> 
> I will do some snooping and see what I can come up with in the near future!:tdo12:


Thanks a lot Spanky. I dont know why I didnt think of just sending my first post on this thread to you, so you could check everything out an make sure all my facts were correct and that I didnt make any assumptions. 

Please give us a full report as soon as possible after you get done with all your snooping.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> By the way, this isnt about chumming but about using eggs for bait. If you ban chumming because it might cause some damage to the fishery, doesnt it make sense to ban all use of eggs.


Ray, as much as I think we may be sounding five alarms for a campfire, I have to agree with your statement. If chumming is banned on a scientific/biological reason, how could our fisheries managers continue to allow the use of the same eggs that people were chumming with? If chum is spreading VHS then I suppose that our spawnbags are doing the same. The issue of the ethics of chumming is not something that I believe any regulatory decisionmaker should even touch. Hopefully, decisions will be made on the best "unbiased" science available. 

Personally, four or five years ago I may have been on the Borgenson/Supinski bandwagon as I was a pretty diehard "flies only" guy. My "de-evolution" was mainly because I was tired of being associated with a group (Cn'R Flies Only) that tried so hard to constantly push their moral position on others. Not to mention, exploring other techniques and tactics will make anyone a better flyfisherman.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

Split, I am not sure of your intent. I did't direct my reply to anyone inparticular, but I might be led to believe you just did! I am actually on the same side of the fence as yourself on this one, just less sure of the urgency. I think I'll just leave it at that, and as always, I will let you guys know what I find out if anything


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

I started to type another post, but then I decided that I'm just confused :help: 

Am I supposed to be upset at the Resource Stewards for advocating a ban on chumming?:yikes: 

Or am I supposed to support a ban on chumming, but be upset at Borgeson for arguing that spawn chum may be a vector for disease(which seems obviously true), thus causing us to infer a line of logic that also implicates spawn as bait(which seems logically correct), while he disingenuously ignored other concurrent, obvious, and more important vectors that render immaterial any risk imposed by spawn(a big "OOPS, forget what I said before")?:tdo12:

Whichever it is, I just want you all to know that "I'm mad as h*** and I'm not going to take it anymore!" :lol: 

I guess I'll just go fishing 

Butch


----------



## bentrod (Nov 27, 2004)

I have fished in many states where chumming was banned years ago, and today they are still fishing with eggs. I don't think bait fishing is threatened here at all.

bentrod


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Spanky said:


> I am actually on the same side of the fence as yourself on this one, just less sure of the urgency. I think I'll just leave it at that, and as always, I will let you guys know what I find out if anything


If there is an ounce of truth in the spread of disease by roe, a rule will pass quicker than the last lap in a NASCAR race. There won't be any discussions, meetings, ect.

The same would go for the use of minnows (imported) if they are deemed harmful. 

I can see Ray's urgency. It will be very interesting to see the studies. Of course all of those are conducted in an controlled environment and they literally overdose the specimen. 

I don't believe that chumming is as popular today as it was 20 years ago, when all the old timers carried a pail of acid cured eggs in their boat (me included). Hell, some of my buddies used to freeze eggs and corn in margerine tubs and throw them off of bridges prior to launch. 

I do believe that all of this discussion in print will prompt a new growth in the art of chumming..lol.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Flyfisher said:


> Personally, four or five years ago I may have been on the Borgenson/Supinski bandwagon as I was a pretty diehard "flies only" guy. My "de-evolution" was mainly because I was tired of being associated with a group (Cn'R Flies Only) that tried so hard to constantly push their moral position on others. Not to mention, exploring other techniques and tactics will make anyone a better flyfisherman.


That's happened to alot of guys. I love to flyfish, just don't call me a fly fisherman.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

bentrod said:


> I have fished in many states where chumming was banned years ago, and today they are still fishing with eggs. I don't think bait fishing is threatened here at all.
> 
> bentrod


In those states that have banned chumming was it done because of "social" and/or "ethical" issues or because of disease concerns? I'd suspect it was the former rather than the latter.

In this case the issue of disease was brought up along with the "social/ethical" issues. Therein lies the difference.

Fishndude expressed it well: 
"_My only concern is that if chumming (with eggs, not ground up fish) is banned, and the reason is because the eggs might carry disease; then it is logical that using eggs for bait would also have to be banned._"


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

Will this affect the chumming of gills and other panfish with maggots etc. ?
What about my beloved catfish?
Man this would really suck.
C.O's seeing you throw a worm back into the water could be deemed chumming.
Drop an egg off a hook and get a ticket.........
Don't think it won't happen!


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Let me see if I can clear this up. First I dont care if anyone thinks that using eggs to chum is ethical or moral or even if they work to try to stop it. That includes any of the Resource Stewards. If a rule to ban chumming was enacted, I dont think it would have any effect on the use of spawn for bait as in spawn bags.

Second, I do not have a dog in this fight concerning chumming. I have only done it a few times with mixed results, so it will have little effect on my fishing.

The problem is if Borgenson gets the NRC to rule against the use of chum because he says it will materially promote the spread of disease, and that is untrue then it becomes a problem for the same reason I have stated several times. 

I never said anything about urgency, but Borgenson made this asseration in 2000 which was seriously reviewed by the fisheries division of the DNR and their conclusions did not support Borgensons contention. So he took it to MUCC who adopted a resolution against chumming.

Now as president of the Resource Stewards he sends a letter to the NRC stating that chumming and VHS are related in a material way. The NRC is a political body and based on testimony from a past assistant fisheries chief, the NRC just might take what he is saying seriously. If that happens, I cant see why they would draw the line at chumming. The natural conclusion would be if chum were a threat, fish eggs are a threat and why would you ban one and not the other.

Saying eggs are a vector and a material threat are two entirely different things. There is no biological evidence that the use of eggs in spawn sacks or chumming will negatively impact the fishery. It is a non issue from a biological point of view.

If your opinion is that there is no urgency, fine, do nothing. If you do then perhaps a letter asking the NRC to research this issue with input form the experts at the DNR before making any recommendations against banning the use of eggs.

Finally, I think Gaylord Alexander is a member of the Resource Stewards and I wonder what his position on this issue is? Perhaps someone knows how to contact him so we can find out. Gaylord Alexander is a retired fisheries guy as well.


----------



## silversides (Aug 16, 2002)

First off, certain individuals are making this issue out to be armegeddon for all bait fisherman. This couldn't be further from the truth. While I will leave it to the DNR to decide upon the ethics and biological implications of chumming, I would have to agree with this Dave character on the point that it has the potential to promote disease. Many of you seem to be stuck wondering how chumming can spread a disease thats already in the system. But I don't think that is entirely the point. The point is that diseases can be spread by eggs that might come from outside sources. What are these sources? Well lets see, Atlantic salmon pens on the east coast, which are notorious for diseases due to poor living conditions. Same with trout hatcheries out west. Do you want to take the chance of some exotic disease ravaging the Michigan trout and salmon fishery?


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

I don't think they teach comprehension in school but it is something you either have or don't have. My point is, this does not have anything to do with all bait, just spawn.

If the DNR made all the decisions on this issue, I would have no problem but clearly they do not. Anyway Silversides, thanks for your cogent remarks. (Just thought I would force you to use the dictionary.) But at least we know one thing for sure, " you cool!"


----------



## SalmonSlayer (Jan 18, 2000)

Splitshot said:


> The problem is if Borgenson gets the NRC to rule against the use of chum because he says it will materially promote the spread of disease, and that is untrue then it becomes a problem for the same reason I have stated several times.
> Now as president of the Resource Stewards he sends a letter to the NRC stating that chumming and VHS are related in a material way. The NRC is a political body and based on testimony from a past assistant fisheries chief, the NRC just might take what he is saying seriously. If that happens, I can&#8217;t see why they would draw the line at chumming. The natural conclusion would be if chum were a threat, fish eggs are a threat and why would you ban one and not the other.
> 
> Saying eggs are a vector and a material threat are two entirely different things. There is no biological evidence that the use of eggs in spawn sacks or chumming will negatively impact the fishery. It is a non issue from a biological point of view.



Here's a quote from the above letter to the NRC ... "You may want to allow some chumming to continue for whitefish in certain lakes, because whitefish are largely a commercial species that are difficult to harvest with hook and line, and carp because they are both a commercial species and a species of nuisance abundance whose harvest should be encouraged."


Now, IF chumming posed a threat to the rivers health....then WHY would he say you may want to allow chumming for certainn species in certain lakes?!!! This has NOTHING to do with chumming being bad for the health of the rivers. It is nothing more than a personal agenda against certain types of fishing that he does not partake in. I do both fly fishing, artificial fishing, and natural bait fishing and live bait fishing. If something is BAD for the fishery then by all means, pass a law...but if there is NO PROOF that it is harmful, keep your political crap ideas out of it! 

Any reply yet from the letter that was sent out?

Ben


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Another baiting thread doomed for the ban, I saw it in my Crystal Ball  :chillin:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Guys, one member has just been banned because of repeated disruption of threads. This one was moving along fairly well until....................

Let's keep the tone down and the personal stuff out of these threads.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Ben,
Thanks for posting the rest of the letter. I wasn't aware of those other comments you provided and it certainly does prove the point about this being an ethical issue with Borgenson and nothing to do with science. The more I learn about this issue the clearer it becomes.

I did talk to another member of the Resource Stewards, yesterday and the only comments he would make about the issue is Dave Borgenson is a really nice guy and it is very important that dedisions they make are based on good science.

At least they are aware of the situation and it will be discussed. A good start.

Again I want to state that this is not a fly bashing thread. I only mention it because the person proposing this ban is a fly fishing purist and his motives stem from the ethics or philosophy of a small small percentage of fly fishermen trying to impose thier ethics on the rest of the fishermen.


----------



## Mitch (Jan 10, 2003)

REG said:


> I love to flyfish, just don't call me a fly fisherman.


I nominate this as the quote of the day, good one!

Mitch


----------

