Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

101 - 120 of 165 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,689 Posts
Interesting quote from the article.

"The once vibrant commercial fishing industry in Michigan has dwindled down from thousands of businesses to just 13 full-time fisheries."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,904 Posts
Gordon, these bills won't get rewrote. They simply get taken back up with the same sponsors if they are still in office or inherited by new Representatives . The bill numbers will undoubtedly change but other then that the bills will stay intact.
It is nothing for all good bills to not make it into law by a legislature. Time will tell but I wouldn't bet against the DNR with support of the masses of the sport fishermen and women of this state.
Tuna
I like to take a logical look at issues and I try to not let emotion (I fail sometimes) to sway my evaluation. Politicians are politicians! What I mean by that is that they take direction from their constituents, political party and yes, special interests. Given, McBroom is pro netting because that is what is favored in his district. Other politicians have different agenda's based on what is popular or wanted in their districts.
Politician's need votes to get re elected so they play to the masses in their district and direction from their Whips.
Around 20% are fishing license holders and a good percentage of them are casual fishers. Pro netting propaganda will focus on the the people that love lenten fish fry's and all the bars and restaurants that are noted for their fish dinners.
They will say it all will all go away because there will be no perch and a majority of people will believe them.
Politicians will pander to the majority....just a fact of how thing get done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Tuna
I like to take a logical look at issues and I try to not let emotion (I fail sometimes) to sway my evaluation. Politicians are politicians! What I mean by that is that they take direction from their constituents, political party and yes, special interests. Given, McBroom is pro netting because that is what is favored in his district. Other politicians have different agenda's based on what is popular or wanted in their districts.
Politician's need votes to get re elected so they play to the masses in their district and direction from their Whips.
Around 20% are fishing license holders and a good percentage of them are casual fishers. Pro netting propaganda will focus on the the people that love lenten fish fry's and all the bars and restaurants that are noted for their fish dinners.
They will say it all will all go away because there will be no perch and a majority of people will believe them.
Politicians will pander to the majority....just a fact of how thing get done.
I think most of the fish that is netted around the bay get shipped out of the area and not used for the local restaurants and bars. So I don’t think much will change with the fish fry’s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,904 Posts
I think most of the fish that is netted around the bay get shipped out of the area and not used for the local restaurants and bars. So I don’t think much will change with the fish fry’s
Maybe, but I know church organizations in the Tri City area that get their lenten perch from Serifin and I also know most of the whitefish caught out of Pinconning are shipped to Cross Fisheries in Charlevoix. Yes, the notorious Cross Fishery that got into trouble with the DNR.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
Politicians are politicians! What I mean by that is that they take direction from their constituents, political party and yes, special interests. Given, McBroom is pro netting because that is what is favored in his district. Other politicians have different agenda's based on what is popular or wanted in their districts.
Politician's need votes to get re elected so they play to the masses in their district and direction from their Whips.
This is all true, and it's exactly what blows my mind about this whole issue. When it comes to politics, the bottom line is simple: money talks. They're worried about losing a few commercial fishing jobs, but they have little to no concern for the jobs that 2.3 billion dollars worth of recreational fishing supports! Lots of businesses profit from recreational fishing without even realizing it. If we could expand recreational fishing by a small percentage, we would CREATE more jobs than commercial fishing has in total!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,904 Posts
This is all true, and it's exactly what blows my mind about this whole issue. When it comes to politics, the bottom line is simple: money talks. They're worried about losing a few commercial fishing jobs, but they have little to no concern for the jobs that 2.3 billion dollars worth of recreational fishing supports! Lots of businesses profit from recreational fishing without even realizing it. If we could expand recreational fishing by a small percentage, we would CREATE more jobs than commercial fishing has in total!
It's not about jobs! It's all about majority rule and getting re elected. 80% of the population don't fish but they like their fish dinners. Some politicians don't want to be known for running people out of business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,904 Posts
It would be nice to strike some kind of balance, but without enforcement greed comes into play
Damn, I totally agree with you. That has been my battle cry for both netting and Consent Decree issues. It will be the wild west out there unless enforcement is strengthened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
It would be nice to strike some kind of balance, but without enforcement greed comes into play
I thought the house bills was a good balance.
And Gordon ,vi can only hope you made your voice heard in support of the last house bills because they had balance and measures for greater enforcement.
Another thing that comes to mind. Do all these churches that have fish fry's every fri night along with the bars and restaurants let the consumer know that they should only have maybe only a couple meals of fish per month? What about the commercial netters? Maybe that is something that needs to be added to the soon to be resurrected house bills.
Gordon, I also think that approximately 90 percent of the states public doesn't hunt or fish. The only positive note about covid it that percentage has actually dropped some. That's good for Michigan, sportsmen and our resource.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,679 Posts
Couple of things:

“Politicians advocate for their constituents”-false. The advocate for themselves. There is no staff checking off the quantity of letters, emails, or phone calls and then picking a position of the majority. Issues like this are decided by how it benefits the politician and that politician’s financial supporters.

“Enforcement has to have teeth”. This will never happen without an increased budget for rotating inspectors with authority to arrest (not ticket-arrest).

The best we can hope for is to keep what we have in terms of water boundaries and a watchful sporting population.

The sporting population, at some point will see the wanton waste (perch, walleye, whitefish, etc) and maybe, just maybe, something will be done about it.

Right now there is zero enforcement, no agency responsible or funded for enforcement, and little interest in government to oversee our great lakes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,904 Posts
I thought the house bills was a good balance.
And Gordon ,vi can only hope you made your voice heard in support of the last house bills because they had balance and measures for greater enforcement.
Another thing that comes to mind. Do all these churches that have fish fry's every fri night along with the bars and restaurants let the consumer know that they should only have maybe only a couple meals of fish per month? What about the commercial netters? Maybe that is something that needs to be added to the soon to be resurrected house bills.
Gordon, I also think that approximately 90 percent of the states public doesn't hunt or fish. The only positive note about covid it that percentage has actually dropped some. That's good for Michigan, sportsmen and our resource.
My previous post indicated that I look at a logical, balanced approach to issues. I learned that trait in my previous life as a sometime mediator.
Lets start with the fact that the legislature, DNR and commercial netting industry agreed to updating the outdated existing law.
The 3, carbon copy bills proposed by the house were totally one sided. They were take away's from the netters and nothing gained. Negotiations are to be a balance or compromise. I listened to one of the house committee meetings and found no compromise whatsoever when someone (a lady) proposed some balanced amendments. The bill was moved on without discussion.
Now, McBroom's committee proposed something like 100 amendments to make it balanced and did not receive enough support or discussion and was killed.
Now the law revision needs to start all over. My guess will be that the House will propose 1 bill balanced with some of McBroom's proposals and will have a much better chance of passing.

If you read my previous posts regarding consumption advisories you will find that I have some of the same concerns. It starts with the notion that what the Feds. and State may be overly conservative with their acceptable limits. Secondly, the recreational angler's exceed, by far, the consumption advisories. So if your concerned about occasional diners eating contaminated food you need to look deeper in what recreational fishers eat.
This consumption advisory is a political hot potato. Nobody want's to get involved. Imagine advisory posters in grocery stores, restaurants, fish markets, bait shops. Has anybody ever looked at contamination levels of sea food and shell fish?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,904 Posts
Couple of things:

“Politicians advocate for their constituents”-false. The advocate for themselves. There is no staff checking off the quantity of letters, emails, or phone calls and then picking a position of the majority. Issues like this are decided by how it benefits the politician and that politician’s financial supporters.

“Enforcement has to have teeth”. This will never happen without an increased budget for rotating inspectors with authority to arrest (not ticket-arrest).

The best we can hope for is to keep what we have in terms of water boundaries and a watchful sporting population.

The sporting population, at some point will see the wanton waste (perch, walleye, whitefish, etc) and maybe, just maybe, something will be done about it.

Right now there is zero enforcement, no agency responsible or funded for enforcement, and little interest in government to oversee our great lakes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure the politicians are for themselves! They need the constituents to get them elected and re elected. They will pander to the majority on almost whatever issue to get themselves elected.
Once in Government, the voting direction of an elected official changes somewhat and is complex. Party leadership will direct votes to insure a party victory overall. Sometimes a freshman legislator will be forced to vote on something not necessarily to his/her liking but the whip will determine it best for the party.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
I thought the house bills was a good balance.
And Gordon ,vi can only hope you made your voice heard in support of the last house bills because they had balance and measures for greater enforcement.
Another thing that comes to mind. Do all these churches that have fish fry's every fri night along with the bars and restaurants let the consumer know that they should only have maybe only a couple meals of fish per month? What about the commercial netters? Maybe that is something that needs to be added to the soon to be resurrected house bills.
Gordon, I also think that approximately 90 percent of the states public doesn't hunt or fish. The only positive note about covid it that percentage has actually dropped some. That's good for Michigan, sportsmen and our resource.
Actually fishing and hunting licenses are way up due to covid.

Sent from my moto z4 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
Actually fishing and hunting licenses are way up due to covid.

Sent from my moto z4 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app[/QUOTE

hh, that is what I said in around about way. The lower the percentage drops of non fishermen means the more they have taken up the sport.

Gordon because you're known for basing things on fact, please indict your source that "recreational anglers, exceed, by far the consumption advisory. " ? And no you can't use Ralph as your base line. ;);)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,904 Posts
Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay
Walleye----6 servings per year
Perch-----2 servings per month

Lake Huron
Salmon-----6 servings per year
Whitefish----6 servings per year
Steelhead---6 servings per year
Walleye----6 servings per year
That is an aggregate of 6 servings per year regardless of specie.

How many fishers do you know exceed that mandate, especially with walleye? Hell, every die hard Bay fisher exceed that limit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
I see, the ol When you can't factually provide evidence to a statement you made, you answer a question with a question.

I will ask you again , what factual evidence do you have that confirms your statement......."recreational anglers,by far, exceed the consumption advisory "?

Will it help if I play the jeopardy theme song for you ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,904 Posts
I see, the ol When you can't factually provide evidence to a statement you made, you answer a question with a question.

I will ask you again , what factual evidence do you have that confirms your statement......."recreational anglers,by far, exceed the consumption advisory "?

Will it help if I play the jeopardy theme song for you ??
I can't quantify it for you but I can qualify it.
Every single fisherman I know that fish 1 day per week definitely exceed the limit especially with walleye. I bet every successful salmon fisher exceed the limit. I caught 17 pinks salmon, 3 lake trout, 5 walleye this year so I exceeded the limit. If you have not exceeded the limit you are a poor fisherman.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,740 Posts
Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay
Walleye----6 servings per year
Perch-----2 servings per month

Lake Huron
Salmon-----6 servings per year
Whitefish----6 servings per year
Steelhead---6 servings per year
Walleye----6 servings per year
That is an aggregate of 6 servings per year regardless of specie.

How many fishers do you know exceed that mandate, especially with walleye? Hell, every die hard Bay fisher exceed that limit.
I see, the ol When you can't factually provide evidence to a statement you made, you answer a question with a question.

I will ask you again , what factual evidence do you have that confirms your statement......."recreational anglers,by far, exceed the consumption advisory "?

Will it help if I play the jeopardy theme song for you ??
Those numbers aren't close to federal guidelines though. That's why ghey can net and sell rough fish without fear of lawsuits. I know for a fact almost everyone I know exceeds those..:lol:
 
101 - 120 of 165 Posts
Top