# Social Management?



## troutguy26

Those two words have caused a bunch of arguments on here over the years. 

Now with what's going on with the Au Sable I wonder how many people will still back it? 

I bet No one seen this one coming....

A good ploy to make miles of rivers regulated is now the same thing that will destroy miles of river.


----------



## kzoofisher

Are you talking about the hatchery? That permit came from the DEQ who have already shown that they don't mind poisoning children for a few bucks,. The river and the livelihoods of the liveries, shops and hotels that depend on it doesn't matter to them if they can say they created a half dozen jobs. There's a photo op to be had and some political hay to make on this, so to heck with the longterm consequences. The Platte hatchery was the same type (flow through) and had to be completely renovated to protect that river. So was Big Creek in PA before that stream was destroyed. The DEQ and MDARD completely ignored modern methods of aquaculture that are safer because, to paraphrase Dan Vogler the owner of the farm, operating safely is too expensive.

Could the DNR have done more to oppose the hatchery? Maybe. But the DNR Director is the former Director of MDARD, where industry trumps recreation. This fish farm is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to commercial interests being favored over recreation. With the NRC and its Ag/Forestry majority now having almost unfettered control of management it is just a matter of time until other sacred cows of Michigan outdoors take a hit. Luckily for me I don't deer hunt so I'll miss out on those changes.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

I'm not sure to the reference here. Can someone post a link please. Thanks!


----------



## kzoofisher

https://www.ausableanglers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Fly-Fisherman-Feb.Mar_.2016-2.pdf

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/o...-hatchery-au-sable-michigan-fishing/30015687/

http://michiganradio.org/post/propo...le-river-would-be-michigan-s-biggest#stream/0


----------



## Ranger Ray

"The DEQ admits the water quality would decrease, but the draft permit says the decrease is necessary* to support “important social and economic development in the area*.”"

You don't say. Where have I heard that defense before? Silly humans.


----------



## troutguy26

It's a very good lesson about the impacts of messing with our resources because of social reasoning. 

Yes I know this came down from the DEQ. 

This whole thing is nasty and stands to threaten one of our resources which is inexcusable. I in no way shape or form think this is funny. I merely started this to point out something that should not be involved with our resources in any way. 

It's also another reason everyone needs to drop the crap and stand together. 

While one group is screaming special privilege and telling stories of how bait fisherman are scary, another is lobbying to contaminate a river and make fun of guys "with 2k dollar fly rods" because it's what's best for social and economic reasons... As Ray said, where in the world has this been presented before? 

It's all ridiculous and a major reason I support guys like Ray and everyone at the GLFSA. 

For those who want to know more follow the links above and then also take a moment to check out http://glfsa.org/ in reference to what I was talking about.


----------



## Rasputin

Unbelievable.


----------



## swampbuck

I should be outraged, this is in my area...But you know what I am so damn tired of self serving special interest groups and their disdain for the common man....that I honestly don't give a damn.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> I should be outraged, this is in my area...But you know what I am so damn tired of self serving special interest groups and their disdain for the common man....that I honestly don't give a damn.


You and the others posting here should have been outraged and that outrage should have turned to cold determination by now. This issue has been going on for a couple years with the draft permit and appeals. The groups that protect ALL the trout fisheries of the state have been involved in those appeals and letter writing campaigns and lobbying to try to stop this. For *everyone* in the state; because they defend the fisheries first and foremost. The special interest groups who have only one interest have done what? Fighting fracking? Stream projects? Clean ups? Research? I know some of these things cost money but making "the common man" aware of it on the internet doesn't. Blog posts? Threads on MSF? I've seen threads about projects and public meetings from other people but not from members of the GLFSA, not even those who have time to sit on a committee or attend as a member of the public. This issue was brought up at the last CRSC meeting with the comment from a member "MDARD advocates for agriculture, but we are the recreational fishing side. We need the DNR on this issue to help us like MDARD helps the agricultural producers. " Where was the GLFSA and did they start a campaign for their members to pressure the DNR into representing 'the common man"? If they don't want to be associated with these other groups they don't have to be but doing nothing on principle is still doing nothing.

MDARD is the political advocate of industry groups. When it comes to politics sometimes you have to work with people you don't entirely agree with for the greater good. It's high time the GLFSA gets off their high horse and starts supporting what is good for everyone instead of just what is good for them. Or at least for its leaders to stop discouraging members from working for the greater good. There are public hearings on this hatchery in a month, plenty of time to write letters or put together a petition in support of the Au Sable, Lake Michigan and anywhere else that aquaculture is being proposed. This fish farm is the first of several proposals, others will be discussed in a meeting tomorrow in Ludington http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/ludington-fishery-work-shop-january-9th.553929/ get involved and do something before your only option is to write snarky posts on MSF after the fact.


----------



## Ranger Ray

The GLFSA was started as a sportsman regulation watch group. One of our first goals was to make sure that the cold water committee that was being presented as a diverse group, was not managed by a committee stacked ideologically and philosophically toward one type of gear fisherman. We succeeded somewhat in this goal. Most members of GLFSA serve on various other sportsman groups that are involved in habitat improvement and environmental issues. The GLFSA will continue to advocate for and to see "all" legal gear types are represented fairly in DNR decisions and on their committees. The DNR was glad to see us form on the last round of gear restrictions, as they said it had been one sided ideologically toward one gear type for years. Appears kazoo has an issue with this. We both get to give our argument, and those that read can decide where they stand.

As the GLFSA has no position on this issue from it's members, because we are not an environmental watch group, I will say personally I am against this and anything based by the DEQ and DNR solely on: "*to support “important social and economic development in the area*.”" It was not the intent of these organizations to be picking winners and losers under social and economic development. Although both based under biological and environmental science, certainly would have implications on such, and they would have some considerations in any decision.

Appears the chickens have come back to roost. The more we ourselves manipulate the system for ourselves, the more others will manipulate for themselves. Then we want to cry foul. It's not rocket science. Special Interests are so busy manipulating the system for themselves, they can't admit it allows others they don't agree with to also manipulate it for themselves. It then becomes who has the most powerful lobbyist and most money. God Bless America.


----------



## toto

As a member of GLFSA, I will stand on the side of ray on this one. After going through the Platte Lake debacle, I will say I can see where this aquaculture needs to be more regulated. Having said that, there is one part of the equation that isn't mentioned by the fly guys, and let's be honest, that's who we're talking about; having some amount of these "nutrients" for lack of a better phrase, is actually good for the fish. Case in point, look at a walleye rearing pond, what do they feed the little guys in the ponds? Yep sheep do do. Now, in looking back, there was a period of time when the fly groups wanted all septic systems to stop flowing into the river, I agree with that completely, the problem was, at least in the fishing sense was, this also eliminated a vital food system. It appears as though having some amount "effluent" is actually good for the fish. As a tie in to that, after the septic system thing was eliminated, it was noticed the fish weren't doing well, the answer, dump leaves in the river to create a biomass to create a food source. Now I have to believe that can't be good either, wouldn't there be oil and other contaminants in the leaves? My point is, these guys seem to talk out of both sides of their mouths, and THAT is the root problem all along.


----------



## kzoofisher

While we can no doubt argue for weeks about whether or not the DEQ being a separate entity than the DNR qualifies as a "gotcha" moment in this case, our time would be better spent addressing the issue of new aquaculture regulations. Mr. Vogler has already tried to paint this as a conflict between the average Joe and elitists but as you can see from the list of organizations below it is a conflict between commercial fishing interests and recreational fisherman. Grant MDARD the authority to regulate the taking of wild fish and it won't be long until we have expanded commercial netting operations for walleye in Sag Bay. That was already proposed last year and will be again. We'll see the taking of brood fish for commercial operations before sport fishing is allowed in rivers and closure of reaches to protect the commercial operations. Just take a look at the conflicts out west and ask yourself if you want it here. 

This is from the Steelhead Manifesto site. 
_
ATTENTION MICHIGAN FISHERMEN:
We have a HUGE statewide political battle and we need your HELP. I received an email on a call to action and I will paste below. 
Our state has a coalition made up of the (MSSFA, TU, MUCC, MEC, MCBA, Anglers of the Au Sable). Luckily for us they have began efforts to provide Senator Jones with sub language to his SB 526 that bans aquaculture on the Great Lakes and connecting waterways, which would have preserved existing aquaculture operations with stricter regulations on treating waste and flow through water. 
This would have increased the chances of SB526 passing. Then, in planned confederacy, the Senate Republicans, Booher, Robertson, Shirkey and Casperson and House Republicans introduced bills (SB’s 681, 682 & 683) that virtually rewrite the “Michigan aquaculture development act” passed in 1996. Reps. Ed McBroom (R-Vulcan) and Triston Cole (R-Mancelona) put forward an identical package to Booher's in the House with HB 5166, HB 5167 and HB 5168.

These bills are devastating to our lakes, streams and rivers and threaten wild fish and our sport fishery’s ability to co-exist. If you read the bills (and you should) there are numerous changes that remove regulations and oversight of these operations. 
The most egregious are: Shifts rulemaking power to the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development and away from DNR and DEQ; circumvents the Public Trust Doctrine, interposes a Right to Farm piece; allows up to ten net pens on the Great Lakes; removes the ability of townships to impose authority over the operations (Right to Farm); riparian rights are impaired, tribal rights via treaty are trampled on; bottom land use at no charge; and sport fishing license statue being amended so they can collect wild fish and put them in their aquaculture facilities (Taking of Fish). 

Read the paragraph ABOVE one more time. You should be alarmed and must do your part to make your voice heard. All fishermen need to ban together and fight this. Stay tuned to this blog and I will keep you posted on any developments. I urge you to contact your representatives to make your objections known and YOU MUST ask them to do their part in defeating these bills._


----------



## toto

I won't have any problem getting behind this aquaculture ban. There is no where that I can find where damage isn't created by these systems. We have enough problems with our lakes and rivers as it is, to bring more damage, or even the risk of more damage makes no sense to me. Unless Mr. Vogler wants to put in "scrubbers" such as they have at the Platte River Hatchery, I see no reason to have this aquaculture.


----------



## swampbuck

Maybe the T.U. Group would be willing to give back some of the restricted water, in exchange for the support of the trout eating low life worm Dunkers.


----------



## 357Maximum

swampbuck said:


> Maybe the T.U. Group would be willing to give back some of the restricted water, in exchange for the support of the trout eating low life worm Dunkers.



You just described the reason I will not spend any of my time or money in them "special interest" areas. If I wanted to be looked down upon for the way I like to do things I would go visit my Mother In Law. Them waters are "their" waters in my opinion and I could give a flying you know what about "their" special members only water. The day they were no longer "our" waters I simply quit caring. You could rotenone all of that water and I would not blink.


----------



## wintrrun

kzoofisher said:


> While we can no doubt argue for weeks about whether or not the DEQ being a separate entity than the DNR qualifies as a "gotcha" moment in this case, our time would be better spent addressing the issue of new aquaculture regulations. Mr. Vogler has already tried to paint this as a conflict between the average Joe and elitists but as you can see from the list of organizations below it is a conflict between commercial fishing interests and recreational fisherman. Grant MDARD the authority to regulate the taking of wild fish and it won't be long until we have expanded commercial netting operations for walleye in Sag Bay. That was already proposed last year and will be again. We'll see the taking of brood fish for commercial operations before sport fishing is allowed in rivers and closure of reaches to protect the commercial operations. Just take a look at the conflicts out west and ask yourself if you want it here.
> 
> This is from the Steelhead Manifesto site.
> _
> ATTENTION MICHIGAN FISHERMEN:
> We have a HUGE statewide political battle and we need your HELP. I received an email on a call to action and I will paste below.
> Our state has a coalition made up of the (MSSFA, TU, MUCC, MEC, MCBA, Anglers of the Au Sable). Luckily for us they have began efforts to provide Senator Jones with sub language to his SB 526 that bans aquaculture on the Great Lakes and connecting waterways, which would have preserved existing aquaculture operations with stricter regulations on treating waste and flow through water.
> This would have increased the chances of SB526 passing. Then, in planned confederacy, the Senate Republicans, Booher, Robertson, Shirkey and Casperson and House Republicans introduced bills (SB’s 681, 682 & 683) that virtually rewrite the “Michigan aquaculture development act” passed in 1996. Reps. Ed McBroom (R-Vulcan) and Triston Cole (R-Mancelona) put forward an identical package to Booher's in the House with HB 5166, HB 5167 and HB 5168.
> 
> These bills are devastating to our lakes, streams and rivers and threaten wild fish and our sport fishery’s ability to co-exist. If you read the bills (and you should) there are numerous changes that remove regulations and oversight of these operations.
> The most egregious are: Shifts rulemaking power to the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development and away from DNR and DEQ; circumvents the Public Trust Doctrine, interposes a Right to Farm piece; allows up to ten net pens on the Great Lakes; removes the ability of townships to impose authority over the operations (Right to Farm); riparian rights are impaired, tribal rights via treaty are trampled on; bottom land use at no charge; and sport fishing license statue being amended so they can collect wild fish and put them in their aquaculture facilities (Taking of Fish).
> 
> Read the paragraph ABOVE one more time. You should be alarmed and must do your part to make your voice heard. All fishermen need to ban together and fight this. Stay tuned to this blog and I will keep you posted on any developments. I urge you to contact your representatives to make your objections known and YOU MUST ask them to do their part in defeating these bills._


Wow the Holy Waters are under siege.
Forgive me as a man who fishes all disciplines for stream trout but in the end why should I jump on the bandwagon fully knowing the great gear reg giveaway is right around the corner?
It will be right back to the same division of fisherman.
Same agendas being pushed by the same special interest groups.
We stand in one moment and then someone gets bent over the table in the next is what I see.
Luckily my saving grace is I do contribute to the SierraClub Michigan on a bi annual basis so they represent me but......
I agree with Ray on the matter.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> Maybe the T.U. Group would be willing to give back some of the restricted water, in exchange for the support of the trout eating low life worm Dunkers.





357Maximum said:


> You just described the reason I will not spend any of my time or money in them "special interest" areas. If I wanted to be looked down upon for the way I like to do things I would go visit my Mother In Law. Them waters are "their" waters in my opinion and I could give a flying you know what about "their" special members only water. The day they were no longer "our" waters I simply quit caring. You could rotenone all of that water and I would not blink.


These posts can be described as "cutting off your nose to spite your face". The issue is statewide, not specific to the Au Sable which is just the first trial in the expansion of unregulated aquaculture. But even if it were specific to the that drainage why would you be so eager to abandon the worm fisherman of the East Branch where this hatchery will be located? And of the mainstream for the miles above and below the confluence which is also general regulations? The groups listed in my post above stand up for resources in general because they recognize that resource destruction is the primary driver of all other problems. They don't just give lip service to being "organization(s) dedicated to working for the management of our Natural Resources based on sound science.... promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations". They go out and do something about it. Yes, in their own interests but also in the interest of other sportsmne on large issues. That's why the DNR takes them seriously and they have representatives on committees; they are serious groups who do serious work with other serious people, not quitters who take their ball and go home if they can't have their way. And very often they don't get their way. But they keep on working because they know they don't own the resources but are just stewards for the next generation.


----------



## swampbuck

I am going to support aquaculture to help the struggling economy. And hey, if we can't keep them in the river, at least we can pick some ausable trout up at Walmart!


----------



## wintrrun

kzoofisher said:


> These posts can be described as "cutting off your nose to spite your face". The issue is statewide, not specific to the Au Sable which is just the first trial in the expansion of unregulated aquaculture. But even if it were specific to the that drainage why would you be so eager to abandon the worm fisherman of the East Branch where this hatchery will be located? And of the mainstream for the miles above and below the confluence which is also general regulations? The groups listed in my post above stand up for resources in general because they recognize that resource destruction is the primary driver of all other problems. They don't just give lip service to being "organization(s) dedicated to working for the management of our Natural Resources based on sound science.... promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations". They go out and do something about it. Yes, in their own interests but also in the interest of other sportsmne on large issues. That's why the DNR takes them seriously and they have representatives on committees; they are serious groups who do serious work with other serious people, not quitters who take their ball and go home if they can't have their way. And very often they don't get their way. But they keep on working because they know they don't own the resources but are just stewards for the next generation.



I disagree.
The holy waters are under siege.
As a guy who own both sides of the River Platte in Benzie I see this as a non issue knowing the history of social regs in Michigan.
I will not fight to insure a cliques playground


----------



## Waif

My worm dunkin opinion is that some one or an entity must bear liability for any out of control effluent and all of it's effect.
Monitoring must be adhered to and if the proposing party does not want to bear the expense great. No deal then.
Social and economic development needs to end at the point they do or are about to do harm to our resources.
Water diversion is regulated as to how much of a streams run is impacted and also how that captured run is returned and in what condition.
Consider why land owners along our rivers and streams are not dropping turbines for personal use in the steams or diverting water to run through one before returning.

I am selfish in viewing resources and travel corridors for wildlife. Selfish in believing (no offence to riverine property homeowners,what is done is done) that no permanent human structures should have ever been allowed within a quarter mile of any lake or stream/river/creek/drain in this state.


----------



## the rapids

I don't support this expansion of aquaculture, but this really is a larger issue of how our global population and increasingly consumptive demands are getting out of control and it is manifesting itself in our backyard. this culture of overconsumption is going to destroy us sooner or later and is wholly unsustainable. our whole system of food production, from farming annual grains to CAFO's to existing aquaculture facilities are causing harm to water quality and fish habitat. we see that all over the great lakes. at the same time we are destroying those fisheries and water quality via other activities as well.

it isn't surprising that businesses are looking to our state for expanded aquaculture, we are business friendly to agribusiness and (for now) still have relatively clean water in places like the ausable watershed. not surprising either to see casperson attached to this, the guy is constantly trying to find ways to exploit our resources or roll back protections of our shared resources for private profit.


----------



## 357Maximum

kzoofisher said:


> These posts can be described as "cutting off your nose to spite your face". The issue is statewide, not specific to the Au Sable which is just the first trial in the expansion of unregulated aquaculture. But even if it were specific to the that drainage why would you be so eager to abandon the worm fisherman of the East Branch where this hatchery will be located? And of the mainstream for the miles above and below the confluence which is also general regulations? The groups listed in my post above stand up for resources in general because they recognize that resource destruction is the primary driver of all other problems. They don't just give lip service to being "organization(s) dedicated to working for the management of our Natural Resources based on sound science.... promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations". They go out and do something about it. Yes, in their own interests but also in the interest of other sportsmne on large issues. That's why the DNR takes them seriously and they have representatives on committees; they are serious groups who do serious work with other serious people, not quitters who take their ball and go home if they can't have their way. And very often they don't get their way. But they keep on working because they know they don't own the resources but are just stewards for the next generation.


I said what I said, I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. For me it's no different than some guy dropping dynamite in his own private pond....................I SIMPLY DO NOT CARE. It's no longer "our" water it is a private playground for the Volvo crowd and I ain't playing there. My 3wt only sees bluegills and type 3/4/c water anymore because of how I feel on this matter. Good day.


----------



## kzoofisher

357, I totally believe you. Just pointing out the difference between caring about resources in general and being focused exclusively on personal benefits.


----------



## 357Maximum

kzoofisher said:


> 357, I totally believe you. Just pointing out the difference between caring about resources in general and being focused exclusively on personal benefits.


Where was that thought when they were stealing their piece of the pie from the rest of us? OH THAT'S RIGHT.......... personal benefits were their only thought. At least they were not trying to tell me it was for my own good while they shoved it up my rear like the newest round of social game management in this state. OH THAT'S RIGHT :lol:


----------



## Boardman Brookies

This whole thing stinks. Literally. Regardless if this was on the Au Sable or the Saginaw River this is a bad idea. Just wait for the whole system in place to fail and then dump all the crap downstream. Might not be anytime soon but it will surely happen.


----------



## Fishndude

I think the idea of a fish farm in the old hatchery is a bad idea, for any number of reasons. But I am not going to do anything to thwart the plan. I grew up fishing The Holy Water, and always wondered (as a kid) why we couldn't use lures, or bait. I was told "just because" it was a flies-only area. Rusty Gates' father (Cal) taught me to throw a fly line, and I fish with flies to this day. But as I got older, I educated myself about how that piece of water became restricted to flies-only fishing. And it completely turned me off to fishing there - I haven't cast a line in those waters in at least 15 years, and don't really care if I never do, again. 

It sounds like the fly-guys, who intentionally segregated themselves from all other fishermen, now are looking for support from the very people they alienated (and continue to do so) by getting/keeping gear restrictions in place. And, it seems they are pretty expectant of backing by non-flyfisherpeople. My time, and money won't be spent to challenge this. I'm with 357Maximum - I stopped caring about this water a long time ago; thanks to the flyfolks. 

FWIW, I hope this doesn't come to fruition. A buddy of mine, who has a lot more passion about this, recently let me know he doesn't believe this has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of going through. He has been all over this since the idea was first proposed publicly. I hope he is right. But if now, meh. I fish for big Trout now - Steelhead. I mostly use bait to catch them.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I look at the whole picture the fly guys want to convert every fisherman and every piece of water in the state of Michigan. Now they want the bait and lure fishermen to back them on their effort to protect the holy waters. Most of us don't fish the AuSable. Crying wolf probably won't help them.


----------



## swampbuck

Somebody should build the worlds largest canoe livery at Burtons landing, problem solved.


----------



## Waif

swampbuck said:


> Somebody should build the worlds largest canoe livery at Burtons landing, problem solved.



Ouch! The bane of quiet unadulterated fishing... aluminum hatch.


----------



## wintrrun

swampbuck said:


> Somebody should build the worlds largest canoe livery at Burtons landing, problem solved.


I have heard a lot of hair brained schemes in my time but that's one you could probably take to the shark tank and come back with all the funding you would need.
It's public water.
It would provide jobs.
Increase tourism.
And the list goes on.
I might check into it.
The only opposition would be the people who choose to take a public resource and deem it a country club.


----------



## 357Maximum

wintrrun said:


> I have heard a lot of hair brained schemes in my time but that's one you could probably take to the shark tank and come back with all the funding you would need.
> It's public water.
> It would provide jobs.
> Increase tourism.
> And the list goes on.
> I might check into it.
> The only opposition would be the people who choose to take a public resource and deem it a country club.


If you had a spot to put in and take out legally, WHAT OPPOSISTION? Is nothing they could do, I think anyway. The Shark Tank folks could be convinced just by the beer sales alone most likely. I was thinking of buying a campground for semi-retirement.........this idea sounds like a lot more fun though. Hmmmmmmmm


----------



## swampbuck

Waif said:


> Ouch! The bane of quiet unadulterated fishing... aluminum hatch.


I was thinking drunk bikini hatch, something both sides could enjoy.


----------



## 357Maximum

Ahhhh a peaceful day on the river, A.K.A wet hackle. Think of all the money this crowd would bring in to the area:


----------



## Waif

swampbuck said:


> I was thinking drunk bikini hatch, something both sides could enjoy.


I've netted my share of full beers.
On the Pine mostly.
The White and Muskegon are tamer so the drunks seem drunker.
Launch to halfway on a decent float are more interesting than final landings.
Seen some rough sites there...
On the Ausable though it would add a whole new image.
Drunks hollerin things like ,"pardon me do you have any grey poupon " or "keep your wrist straight" 
Or "Jeeves I'm going to hurl please hand me a linen napkin". 
Guys baiting girls to flash by holding up Perrier's.


----------



## swampbuck

I bet they bring more economic impact than a bunch of holier than thou fly fishermen, that can't even pop for a box of crawlers.....and as far as fun, well Hell ya !


----------



## brushbuster

swampbuck said:


> Somebody should build the worlds largest canoe livery at Burtons landing, problem solved.


I always thought jet ski rentals would be a nice idea.


----------



## swampbuck

brushbuster said:


> I always thought jet ski rentals would be a nice idea.


Good idea, that would give the snowmobile throttle jockey's something to do in the summer.

I wonder if we could launch at jacks, with maybe another ramp down by gates lodge. And Mio too.

Now that you brought that up, I might have to try it, it's legal.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

swampbuck said:


> Good idea, that would give the snowmobile throttle jockey's something to do in the summer.
> 
> I wonder if we could launch at jacks, with maybe another ramp down by gates lodge. And Mio too.
> 
> Now that you brought that up, I might have to try it, it's legal.


I saw a guy motor up from West GT Bay last year and rip it right up the Boardman river. Kind of suicidal I thought.


----------



## brushbuster

swampbuck said:


> Good idea, that would give the snowmobile throttle jockey's something to do in the summer.
> 
> I wonder if we could launch at jacks, with maybe another ramp down by gates lodge. And Mio too.
> 
> Now that you brought that up, I might have to try it, it's legal.


I would actually like to see that. lol right in front of gates. Yup perfectly legal. Too bad ole rusty aint around to see it.


----------



## 357Maximum

Damn guys, I might have to buy one of them thaar jet-skis just so I can join the AuSable Yacht Club. Sounds like a hootenanny and a half. :lol:


----------



## brushbuster

357Maximum said:


> Damn guys, I might have to buy one of them thaar jet-skis just so I can join the AuSable Yacht Club. Sounds like a hootenanny and a half. :lol:


Those people have a fit when the marathon paddlers paddle through their turf, I think they would shoot someone on a wave runner


----------



## 357Maximum

brushbuster said:


> Those people have a fit when the marathon paddlers paddle through their turf, I think they would shoot someone on a wave runner


I was not thinking "a wave runner"


----------



## swampbuck

That would be a helluva a race. Mio pond up jacks !


----------



## DXT Deer Slayer

Just to politely summarize the viewpoints found in this thread,

.357 would be indifferent to _poisoning_ the Ausable river, winterrun is scheming plans to start the world's largest canoe livery somewhere close to Gate's, and swampbuck/brushbuster are all about renting jet ski's for use on the river's mainstream.

What a classy group of fellas! How could anyone dare oppose them as they bash fly-only regulations, protection of the Ausable river from fish farm waste, and even Rusty Gates!

The videos that you posted don't look all that far off from the lower Ausable in the summertime. You should try it, it really is quite a party.

There is a place though, that you fellas would thoroughly enjoy, seeing as your vision for how public waters should be includes swimming in fecal matter, jetskis, drunks, and trash everywhere. It's called the Torch Lake sandbar, and you'll be joined by 10,000 of your best friends there on 4th of July!


----------



## 357Maximum

DXT Deer Slayer said:


> Just to politely summarize the viewpoints found in this thread,
> 
> .357 would be indifferent to _poisoning_ the Ausable river, winterrun is scheming plans to start the world's largest canoe livery somewhere close to Gate's, and swampbuck/brushbuster are all about renting jet ski's for use on the river's mainstream.
> 
> What a classy group of fellas! How could anyone dare oppose them as they bash fly-only regulations, protection of the Ausable river from fish farm waste, and even Rusty Gates!
> 
> The videos that you posted don't look all that far off from the lower Ausable in the summertime. You should try it, it really is quite a party.
> 
> There is a place though, that you fellas would thoroughly enjoy, seeing as your vision for how public waters should be includes swimming in fecal matter, jetskis, drunks, and trash everywhere. It's called the Torch Lake sandbar, and you'll be joined by 10,000 of your best friends there on 4th of July!



Rotenone is a real good way to relieve any watershed of an "undesirable" or "invasive" species. I was just trying to relieve this particular piece of water of it's current invasive ORVIS species. I see it as being just as effective as the way the current elitists relieved the same water of what it considered an invasive with worms and shiny metal blades. The water in question is already "poisoned" in my opinion.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

Social management will always be apart of how our resources are managed. The only question is to what degree. For quite some time many here said that any level of social management is unacceptable but with healthy discussions many saw that it is inevitable. The easy example to give is does the DNR manage a stretch for size of fish or quantity? It's a social decision. 

I advocated different uses of the resource. Trails for non-motorization, lakes with no motors, and the such gives mixed uses of our resources. 

The GLFSA has been an odd organization. Seems like a basically do nothing organization. Might have been better to just have people sign a petition. Since 2010 they have promoted 3 cleanups. I believe that it was formed with good intentions and beliefs of action. 

Just some thoughts.


----------



## troutguy26

WILDCATWICK said:


> The GLFSA has been an odd organization. Seems like a basically do nothing organization. Might have been better to just have people sign a petition. Since 2010 they have promoted 3 cleanups. I believe that it was formed with good intentions and beliefs of action.
> 
> Just some thoughts.


If you read Rays post #10 I think it will help you understand more... 

Taking shots about doing cleanups in this thread is about the only one you got. Fire away. 

The time that has been involved in other arenas will far surpass any amount of cleanups you all would so love to see done.


----------



## toto

Using petitions is not the answer apparently. At the time this was being done, the gear regs I mean, there was a petition that had over 2000 names against the gear regs. The DNR would not accept them, the only ones they accepted was the 500 or so from the mostly members of TU etc. The reasoning for not using the 2000 signatories was there could have been duplicates, huh? In an article in MLive from October 2010, Jim Dexter himself made this statement, "this is a social issue, and not a biological one, if there were a biological reason to do so, we wouldn't even have to ask the public". So what about using social issues for outdoor management did you not understand?


----------



## WILDCATWICK

toto said:


> Using petitions is not the answer apparently. At the time this was being done, the gear regs I mean, there was a petition that had over 2000 names against the gear regs. The DNR would not accept them, the only ones they accepted was the 500 or so from the mostly members of TU etc. The reasoning for not using the 2000 signatories was there could have been duplicates, huh?


That stinks. Did GLFSA draft a letter and send it to the Governor with a copy of the petition signatures? To continue the fight up the chain?



toto said:


> In an article in MLive from October 2010, Jim Dexter himself made this statement, "this is a social issue, and not a biological one, if there were a biological reason to do so, we wouldn't even have to ask the public". So what about using social issues for outdoor management did you not understand?


I don't know if this is a question or what. There will always be a level of social management period.


----------



## toto

Yes we did actually, we didn't send a letter per se, but Jim Dexter was contacted and that's his answer. As for the social aspect, if we are to go with whatever the public wants, we don't need biologist stating their opinions. If the biologists are then deemed to be moot, then we don't need them on the payroll.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

toto said:


> Yes we did actually, we didn't send a letter per se, but Jim Dexter was contacted and that's his answer.


Can you clarify this Toto? So after the petition was presented and rejected did a letter and the petition get uped the line to the Governor?



toto said:


> if we are to go with whatever the public wants, we don't need biologist stating their opinions. If the biologists are then deemed to be moot, then we don't need them on the payroll.


Who says to go with what ever the public wants? All I'm saying is no matter what there will be social considerations involved in our resources decisions. Biologist should not be moot. If they scientifically know a decision is going to have negative consequences or positive consequences that should be taken into consideration. If scientifically "making some changes" has a positive effect should we always do it? What about costs? Isn't that social? How much of a positive does it need to be? How much of a negative is acceptable? There are lines that have to be drawn on acceptable...that's a social decision....period. How much is always the question.


----------



## toto

In some ways I'll have to agree with you, however, when decisions that are arbitrary are made based on social issues, that's where I draw the line. I'm sure one could look at spending as a social issue, but that isn't what I was referring to. I'm referring to social issues on anything when it's only what any group does or does not want. As for the gear regs issue, this isn't about biological science on bit, this is pure social mentality at it's best. I've looked and looked for studies that show the trout are in trouble on the Ausable, but can't find anything, I can find however, where the trout are fine. In fact, you can find it within the Anglers of the Ausable website. Look, you and some others can put your head in the sand and believe this isn't a social issue based on one group of elites wants, and that's fine. My problem is, I'm sick and tired of those that have the most clout getting what the want. For example look at the chumming thing that's been going on, who is it that wants it to stop? It isn't the everyday Joe out there, it's fishing guides and one has to be smart enough to see what that's really all about. As far as the discussion of the petitions, I'm not sure how far up the chain it went, I wasn't in Michigan at that time so I'm not sure. All I know is this petition was rejected by the fisheries division as it didn't play well into their hands.


----------



## born2fish

This discussion on basing all decisions on biology without accounting for social concerns is really interesting. The reality is that almost all natural resource regulation takes into account social considerations after sustainability is met. For all those claiming that natural resource regulations be based 100% on biology let me pose a couple of questions:

1) Biology dictates there is a massive harvestable surplus of walleye in Saginaw Bay. Why don't we allow commercial fishing for them? After all there is more than enough to go around. Regulations could certainly be established that would sustainably allow for both recreational and commercial harvest to occur. After all Canada has both recreational and commercial fishing for walleye on Lake Huron and both fisheries sustainably harvest 100's of thousands of pounds each. Freezing commercial fishing out of walleye is 100% social. Who cares if nearly all recreation fishers would be against a commercial fishery for walleye? Why should they even have a say? After all the decision should be based 100% on biology and sustainability, right?

2) Biology dictates the amount of acceptable deer that can be harvested each year. I can buy a certain number of tags and once purchased that is the number I can legally take. Should we allow hunting at night? I mean as long as it is sustainable why should it matter at what time of the day a deer is killed during season? Don't give me the safety baloney. The ban on hunting deer at night with a spot light is social. Actually all laws pertaining to ethical hunting and fishing "fair chase" methodology is 100% social. If it wasn't every licensed hunter in this state would be given a tag and could freely fill it by any means desired. Who cares if 90% of hunters believe it should be illegal to hunt deer at 2 am over a dump truck load of carrots with a spot light. Who are they to tell the 10% how to hunt?

3) The deer herd can sustain a 40% annual harvest rate. Based on biology without any other social consideration this level of harvest can be attained by a single 25 day any weapon season from November 15 to December 10th. Congratulations we just got rid of the bow and muzzle loader seasons and shortened our total opportunity to hunt deer by 70%. Having a season for each weapon is about public desires, extending the opportunity to spend time in the field hunting deer, and the economics of selling multiple weapons to each hunter. Its 100% social.

4) Here is a real world example that hits closer to home. Biology dictates that Michigan anglers harvested too many fish last year from lake x. For the sake of this example lets say walleye from Lake Erie. As a result, Michigan has to reduce its harvest this year by 30%. The size of the reduction is not up for negotiation because biology mandates that harvest MUST BE reduced by 30%. The rub comes in that the 30% reduction can be achieved with any one of the follow three regulations:

a. Lowering the bag limit from 5 fish a day to 3 fish a day and keeping the same size limit and season
dates as previous years.

b. Keeping the bag limit at 5 fish per day, but increasing the minimum size limit from 13 to 17 inches with
the same season dates as previous years.

c. Keeping the 5 fish bag and the 13 inch size limit but closing the Detroit River to walleye fishing in April.

Let say that all three of the scenarios in the above example reduce harvest by 30%. Shouldn't the DNR go to the public and find out which option is preferred? Wouldn't the DNR be using ""Social Science" to help determine which regulation should be put in place to make the required 30% cut?

My point is social science is used all the time in natural resources regulations. What is ethical vs. unethical? Do you want to keep more fish that are larger or fewer fish that are smaller? Do you not want a say in natural resource management?

A better discussion is not whether to involve social considerations into natural resource management but what is an acceptable threshold to implement what the hunting and fishing communities AS A WHOLE want from their resources once sustainability has been met.

Should it be majority rule?
How about 60% in favor and 40% opposed?
75%-25%?
90%-10%?

Is 100% agreement really necessary for a regulation because I guarantee that some small portion of the fishing/hunting public would support commercial walleye fishing or deer hunting after dark. I'm sure those small minorities are not happy they are restricted by the majority based 100% on social opposition.


----------



## Ranger Ray

born2fish said:


> A better discussion is not whether to involve social considerations into natural resource management but what is an acceptable threshold to implement what the hunting and fishing communities AS A WHOLE want from their resources once sustainability has been met.
> 
> Should it be majority rule?
> How about 60% in favor and 40% opposed?
> 75%-25%?
> 90%-10%?
> 
> Is 100% agreement really necessary for a regulation because I guarantee that some small portion of the fishing/hunting public would support commercial walleye fishing or deer hunting after dark. I'm sure those small minorities are not happy they are restricted by the majority based 100% on social opposition.


OK, lets talk about implementing social laws on game by a vote of the people.

First you have a gigantic hurdle in the fact fish and game is owned by all, sporting community along with the anti crowd. If we go to a "social vote" of we the people, you introduce letting anti's also participate. Think Dove hunting. Not to mention law does not allow the DNR to abdicate their duty of game management to the will of the people. On top of this, we just passed a law to stop wolf management by the people, and made it so it had to be by the professionals under sound science.

Now, lets assume just the hunter and fishermen can vote for fish and game regulations. Who does the polling? We certainly have to have a check and balance system when socially polling for implementing laws. How do we get the information to all so participation includes all hunters and fishermen? Should, say a poll of 12 people that are in 90% agreement decide game management on the PM? I look forward to your response.


----------



## kzoofisher

I think bioactive's response to another post of yours is the best answer here. Your original post and his response at the link for those who want a fuller context.


bioactive said:


> I too agree 100% with his "for" and "by" comments.
> 
> He is absolutely right on the mark that we should not be managing game based on a vote by "the people".
> 
> His mention of the wolf situation is a good example of why we do not want referendums to control game laws. And it is something every hunter should stand behind. In fact, I would bet 9 out of 10 hunters strongly agree with him on that point on this site.
> 
> Here is where Ray gets push back.
> 
> He tries to apply this logic to Antler Point Restrictions. In the case of antler restrictions, there is no vote "by" the people. The NRC, and only the NRC decides whether the regulation will be implemented.
> 
> *Ray wrongly suggests that the DNR surveying hunters to see if they want those regulations is somehow similar to a referendum. It is not remotely close to the same thing.*
> 
> Prog G requires the DNR and NRC to employ sound science whenever practicable. It would be completely unsound science for the DNR to change a regulation that might change predation rates, without studying the main predator, in this case humans, who prey on deer mainly for social reasons, whether they are favorable towards those regulations.
> 
> If they blindly implemented the regulations, and hunters did not want them and they lose hunter retention because they made a decision without considering the consequences, it would do potential harm to the resource as well as other state's resources if the population balloons.
> 
> No matter what the survey results, the NRC can vote either way on any APR.
> 
> Ray is completely off base when he applies his "we the people" "by" and "for" arguments to the current APR process, which he has done many times.


http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/social-management-rules.561833/page-2


----------



## Ranger Ray

I don't. I look forward to born2fish's response. But thanks anyway.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Social management works about 50% of the time. Michigan almost lost bear hunting, did lose the dove hunt, and lost wolf management due to social management.


----------



## born2fish

Ranger Ray said:


> I don't. I look forward to born2fish's response. But thanks anyway.


I gave 4 real world examples were the social desires reasonably come into play for determining natural resource management and could give 100 more but you seem to think that I was advocating for 100% social laws and popular votes. That is the farthest from the truth. Yes the DNR struggles with accurately engaging all sportsman. Yes the loudest and most organized tend to get more attention but there are still ways gage sportsman sentiment.

First the anti's, we need an amendment to the state constitution ensuring one's right to hunt and fish. Second, we need an amendment to the state constitution exempting all natural resource regulation from citizen referendums. Additionally, no person with out a hunting or a fishing license should have a say in anything that goes on with Pitman-Roberts purchased lands or purchases made with Fish and Game funds.

I would suggest that once sustainability is met the fishing and hunting public is engaged to determine ethical questions of fair chase or other questions on how regulations should be set. For the largest issues, I would suggest that interviews be held at deer check stations or as one buys a fishing license, or turkey license, trapping license. The requisite for being interviewed of course would be checking a deer or buying a license. 

But the onus has to be on us as well to make our feelings known on the issues. Your statement of a poll of 12 people is disingenuous and a bit of a red herring. When the DNR surveys hunters and fishers 1000s are randomly approached. Please contact the DNR and provide evidence that any survey they have ever conducted that was sent out to 12 people, or 50, or 100, or 200. Even the various steering committees that are quite often lamented terribly on this site only make suggestions. Nothing in those committees is decided behind closed doors. There are public meetings. There are months of public comment. Its our responsibility to be involved. 

Ranger, are you seriously advocating no public involvement in natural resource issues because the means of engaging the public are imperfect? That sustainability is the only issue that should be up for considered on issues such as:

hunting with tracer bullets, poison bullets, exploding tip bullets, or lazer sights, hunting from a helicopter, hunting remotely with a drone, bow fishing for walleye, setting recreational trap, fyke, and pound nets, selling recreationally harvested fish/game, using 25 rods on a public pier, fishing with dynamite, taking and keeping wildlife as pets, commercially fishing for bass, snagging, trapping rabbits and using them as live bait for predator hunting, shooting a turkey from the roost, and on and on and on...

I know I don't want to hunt and fish in a state where only sustainability matters and after which everything else is a free for all.

I want a say in the 4 real world examples I gave in a previous post, don't you?


----------



## born2fish

Ranger one more thing, since you seemed to be implying that sportsman sentiment or desire should not be used because of the way the DNR gages it isn't perfect, how should the following example be decided?

Biology dictates that Michigan anglers harvested too many fish last year from lake x. For the sake of this example lets say walleye from Lake Erie. As a result, Michigan has to reduce its harvest this year by 30%. The size of the reduction is not up for negotiation because biology mandates that harvest MUST BE reduced by 30%. The rub comes in that the 30% reduction can be achieved with any one of the follow three regulations:

a. Lowering the bag limit from 5 fish a day to 3 fish a day and keeping the same size limit and season
dates as previous years.

b. Keeping the bag limit at 5 fish per day, but increasing the minimum size limit from 13 to 17 inches with
the same season dates as previous years.

c. Keeping the 5 fish bag and the 13 inch size limit but closing the Detroit River to walleye fishing in April.

There is no biologically correct answer and for the sake of argument lets also assume that the economics of the three choices are exactly the same (i.e. they all have the same effect on license sales, charter boat trips, tackle purchases, etc..).

Should the NRC flip a coin?


----------



## toto

From what I think I'm reading, you believe the general public should have a say in how our resources are managed. I disagree, if that's your stance. For one, the general public has no idea how well a resource is doing in any particular area, for example, the deer herd could be doing great in one area, while in another they may be doing well. Or, fish may be doing well in one area while not so in another. If we only sets regs and rules based on a series of "I wants" than the whole system would collapse. I agree that a constitutional amendment should be drafted to allow for the right to hunt, fish, or trap.

In using the analogy of using dynamite etc, I don't think that's an honest argument. Anyone who is at all a true hunter or fisher would not agree to this as there the idea of fair chase. Common sense tells us that those actions are ludicrous at best.

Whenever we talk about fish and game, you must also understand who owns the fish, and animals that we hunt, and that is the public, not the DNR and no one individual. They are only ours once they are captured. I think your statement of allowing the ANTI's to fight against things such as dove hunting, and wolf hunting is exactly why we need this amendment, and exactly why science, biological science is the only criteria that should be used to determine limits, and when how and what we should pursue. It is my opinion that we should leave it to the biologists to determine what is acceptable in terms of limits etc. 

I could go on about the Public Trust Doctrine, and the Northwest Ordinance but if you've been around enough you know where I stand on that. In fact, if you believe in the above two, there may not be a reason to have an amendment.


----------

