Michigan Darkhouse Angling Association
Michael Holmes, President
N5160 County Rd. 607 - Iron Mountain, MI 49801
Phone (906) 774-8198 Web Address mi-darkhouse.org
SENATE BILLS #288 AND #289 GAVE THE NRC AUTHORITY OVER FISHERIES DIVISION AND THE “RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH”. THE PROTECTION OF THOSE RIGHTS, ARE A PURPOSE OF THE MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT. SENATE BILL #288 ADDRESSES DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL USE OF THE RESOURCE. SENATE BILL #289 ALSO ASSURES BOTH HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN PROTECTION OF THOSE RIGHTS AND EQUAL ACCESS TO THE RESOURCE UNDER THE MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT.
OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES, WITHOUT DIRECT NRC SCRUTINY OR AUTHORITY, FISHERIES DIVISION HAS CREATED A LITANY OF REGULATIONS THAT ARE DISCRIMINATORY AND BIASED TOWARD SOME ANGLING METHODS. THESE ACTIONS ARE RIDDLED WITH BIASED, RESTRICTIVE MICRO-MANAGEMENT AND UNREASONABLE, UNNECESSARY AND CONFUSING REGULATIONS. “CLOSED TO SPEARING” AND “GEAR RESTRICTED” (ARTIFICIAL LURES) WATERS ARE A RESULT OF THESE ACTIONS.
WITHOUT NRC OVER SITE, FISHERIES DIVISION HAD GROWN INTO A DIVISION OF DOING THINGS “TO” ANGLERS INSTEAD OF DOING THINGS “FOR” ANGLERS. FOR WINTER SPEARING ENTHUSIASTS AND TROUT FISHERMEN, IT HAS BEEN ONE OF DISAPPOINTMENT AND DISCRIMINATION.
“DISCRIMINATION INVOLVES THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR TOWARDS GROUPS, SUCH AS EXCLUDING OR RESTRICTING MEMBERS OF ONE GROUP FROM OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ANOTHER GROUP. Discriminatory BEHAVIOR TAKES MANY FORMS, BUT THEY ALL INVOLVE SOME FORM OF EXCLUSION OR REJECTION. DISCRIMINATION IS EVEN MORE HIDEOUS WHEN PRACTICED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, IN THIS CASE DNR FISHERIES DIVISION”
“FLIES ONLY”, ( ARTIFICIAL LURES) “CLOSED TO SPEARING” GEAR RESTRICTED WATERS, PROHIBITING “LIVE BAIT, DEAD OR PRESERVED BAIT, ORGANIC OR PROCESSED FOOD, OR SCENTED MATERIAL”, Discriminate AGAINST ANGLERS THAT WISH TO PRACTICE THEIR LEGAL ANGLING METHODS. MANAGING PUBLIC WATERS FOR A SELECT GROUP OF ANGLERS IS BIASED AND DISCRIMINATORY. MANAGING GEAR RESTRICTED WATERS FOR SPECIFIC ANGLING GROUPS OR PRACTICES, THAT “EXCLUDES AND RESTRICTS” OTHER LEGAL LY LICENSED ANGLERS FROM THESE WATERS, IS DISCRIMINATION.
THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT FAIRNESS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL ANGLERS, REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD OF ANGLING EMPLOYED. GEAR RESTRICTED WATERS TAKE AWAY OPPORTUNITY FROM A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE ANGLING PUBLIC. THIS DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE ABOUT BALANCE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL, NOT JUST FLY FISHERMEN OR MUSKY ANGLERS. ANYTHING LESS IS NOTHING MORE THAN UNSUBSTANTIATED BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION.
IN 2000 THE POSSESSION LIMIT ON BROOK TROUT WAS REDUCED FROM 10 BROOK TROUT TO 5. PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE, THERE WERE NO PUBLIC MEETINGS, NO PUBLIC INPUT. THE FIRST NOTICE OF THE CHANGE WAS WHEN THE 2000 FISHING GUIDE CAME OUT. EVER SINCE THE CREEL LIMIT CHANGE, UPPER PENINSULA ANGLERS HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING THAT 5 FISH IS NOT ENOUGH. THE NRC HAS SHOWN INTEREST IN CHANGING THE BROOK TROUT POSSESSION LIMIT IN THE UP BACK TO 10.
AT THE FEBRUARY 6, 2012 COLDWATER STEERING MEETING, FISHERIES DIVISION’S, BRIAN GUNDERMAN STATED : “NRC COMMISSIONERS ASKED FISHERIES DIVISION TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE BROOK TROUT POSSESSION LIMIT IN THE UPPER PENINSULA (BACK TO 10 TROUT DAILY LIMIT). FISHERIES DIVISION COMPLETED THE BIOLOGICAL REVIEW AND CONCLUDED THAT THIS CHANGE WOULD HAVE MINIMAL BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS. THUS, THE DIVISION IS OBLIGATED TO CONTINUE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND COLLECT PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS A SOCIAL ISSUE, SO PUBLIC INPUT IS CRITICAL.”
AT THE SAME MEETING, FISHERIES DIVISION’S DAVE BORGESON REMINDED THE (COLD WATER) COMMITTEE THAT THE BROOK TROUT POSSESSION LIMIT WAS REDUCED FROM 15 FISH TO 10 FISH IN THE 1960’S AND FROM 10 FISH TO 5 FISH IN 2000. EVER SINCE THE LAST CHANGE, UPPER PENINSULA ANGLERS HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING THAT 5 FISH (TROUT) IS NOT ENOUGH. PERHAPS SOME NUMBER BETWEEN 5-10 WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.”
THE NEMESIS IN THIS CONTROVERSY ARE THE FLY FISHING ORGANIZATIONS CONNECTED TO TROUT UNLIMITED AND MUSKY PROPONENTS ALLIED TO MICHIGAN MUSKY ALLIANCE. BOTH GROUPS, ADVOCATE TROPHY FISHERIES FOR GUIDES AND THEIR CLIENTS, “BIG MONEY” MUSKY TOURNAMENTS, REDUCED CREEL LIMITS, CATCH & RELEASE AND TROPHY SIZE LIMITS. GEAR RESTRICTIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN AN INSTRUMENT USED TO RESTRICT USE OF THE RESOURCE AND REDUCE THE NUMBERS OF ANGLERS ON 178 MILES OF PRIME TROUT STREAMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF SPECIAL INTEREST USERS AND DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE VAST MAJORITY OF FISHERMEN.
WHEN DNR FISHERIES SUPPORTS ANY ORGANIZED ANGLING GROUP THAT ADVOCATES, LOBBIES OR PROMOTES RESTRICTIONS OR USE OF ANY FISHERIES RESOURCE AGAINST ANOTHER LEGAL AND RECOGNIZED ANGLING GROUP OR THAT ANGLING GROUPS METHOD OF USE, SUCH GROUPS ADVOCATING THESE RESTRICTIONS, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A VOICE BEFORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ISSUES. SUPPORT OF THESE GROUPS BY FISHERIES MANAGERS OR DIVISION CONSTITUTES DISCRIMINATION BY THAT GOVERNMENT BODY.
MICHAEL HOLMES, PRESIDENT, MDAA
N5160 County Rd. 607 - Iron Mountain, MI 49801
Phone (906) 774-8198 Web Address mi-darkhouse.org
SENATE BILLS #288 AND #289 GAVE THE NRC AUTHORITY OVER FISHERIES DIVISION AND THE “RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH”. THE PROTECTION OF THOSE RIGHTS, ARE A PURPOSE OF THE MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT. SENATE BILL #288 ADDRESSES DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL USE OF THE RESOURCE. SENATE BILL #289 ALSO ASSURES BOTH HUNTERS AND FISHERMEN PROTECTION OF THOSE RIGHTS AND EQUAL ACCESS TO THE RESOURCE UNDER THE MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT.
OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES, WITHOUT DIRECT NRC SCRUTINY OR AUTHORITY, FISHERIES DIVISION HAS CREATED A LITANY OF REGULATIONS THAT ARE DISCRIMINATORY AND BIASED TOWARD SOME ANGLING METHODS. THESE ACTIONS ARE RIDDLED WITH BIASED, RESTRICTIVE MICRO-MANAGEMENT AND UNREASONABLE, UNNECESSARY AND CONFUSING REGULATIONS. “CLOSED TO SPEARING” AND “GEAR RESTRICTED” (ARTIFICIAL LURES) WATERS ARE A RESULT OF THESE ACTIONS.
WITHOUT NRC OVER SITE, FISHERIES DIVISION HAD GROWN INTO A DIVISION OF DOING THINGS “TO” ANGLERS INSTEAD OF DOING THINGS “FOR” ANGLERS. FOR WINTER SPEARING ENTHUSIASTS AND TROUT FISHERMEN, IT HAS BEEN ONE OF DISAPPOINTMENT AND DISCRIMINATION.
“DISCRIMINATION INVOLVES THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR TOWARDS GROUPS, SUCH AS EXCLUDING OR RESTRICTING MEMBERS OF ONE GROUP FROM OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ANOTHER GROUP. Discriminatory BEHAVIOR TAKES MANY FORMS, BUT THEY ALL INVOLVE SOME FORM OF EXCLUSION OR REJECTION. DISCRIMINATION IS EVEN MORE HIDEOUS WHEN PRACTICED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, IN THIS CASE DNR FISHERIES DIVISION”
“FLIES ONLY”, ( ARTIFICIAL LURES) “CLOSED TO SPEARING” GEAR RESTRICTED WATERS, PROHIBITING “LIVE BAIT, DEAD OR PRESERVED BAIT, ORGANIC OR PROCESSED FOOD, OR SCENTED MATERIAL”, Discriminate AGAINST ANGLERS THAT WISH TO PRACTICE THEIR LEGAL ANGLING METHODS. MANAGING PUBLIC WATERS FOR A SELECT GROUP OF ANGLERS IS BIASED AND DISCRIMINATORY. MANAGING GEAR RESTRICTED WATERS FOR SPECIFIC ANGLING GROUPS OR PRACTICES, THAT “EXCLUDES AND RESTRICTS” OTHER LEGAL LY LICENSED ANGLERS FROM THESE WATERS, IS DISCRIMINATION.
THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT FAIRNESS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL ANGLERS, REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD OF ANGLING EMPLOYED. GEAR RESTRICTED WATERS TAKE AWAY OPPORTUNITY FROM A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE ANGLING PUBLIC. THIS DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE ABOUT BALANCE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL, NOT JUST FLY FISHERMEN OR MUSKY ANGLERS. ANYTHING LESS IS NOTHING MORE THAN UNSUBSTANTIATED BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION.
IN 2000 THE POSSESSION LIMIT ON BROOK TROUT WAS REDUCED FROM 10 BROOK TROUT TO 5. PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE, THERE WERE NO PUBLIC MEETINGS, NO PUBLIC INPUT. THE FIRST NOTICE OF THE CHANGE WAS WHEN THE 2000 FISHING GUIDE CAME OUT. EVER SINCE THE CREEL LIMIT CHANGE, UPPER PENINSULA ANGLERS HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING THAT 5 FISH IS NOT ENOUGH. THE NRC HAS SHOWN INTEREST IN CHANGING THE BROOK TROUT POSSESSION LIMIT IN THE UP BACK TO 10.
AT THE FEBRUARY 6, 2012 COLDWATER STEERING MEETING, FISHERIES DIVISION’S, BRIAN GUNDERMAN STATED : “NRC COMMISSIONERS ASKED FISHERIES DIVISION TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE BROOK TROUT POSSESSION LIMIT IN THE UPPER PENINSULA (BACK TO 10 TROUT DAILY LIMIT). FISHERIES DIVISION COMPLETED THE BIOLOGICAL REVIEW AND CONCLUDED THAT THIS CHANGE WOULD HAVE MINIMAL BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS. THUS, THE DIVISION IS OBLIGATED TO CONTINUE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND COLLECT PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS A SOCIAL ISSUE, SO PUBLIC INPUT IS CRITICAL.”
AT THE SAME MEETING, FISHERIES DIVISION’S DAVE BORGESON REMINDED THE (COLD WATER) COMMITTEE THAT THE BROOK TROUT POSSESSION LIMIT WAS REDUCED FROM 15 FISH TO 10 FISH IN THE 1960’S AND FROM 10 FISH TO 5 FISH IN 2000. EVER SINCE THE LAST CHANGE, UPPER PENINSULA ANGLERS HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING THAT 5 FISH (TROUT) IS NOT ENOUGH. PERHAPS SOME NUMBER BETWEEN 5-10 WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.”
THE NEMESIS IN THIS CONTROVERSY ARE THE FLY FISHING ORGANIZATIONS CONNECTED TO TROUT UNLIMITED AND MUSKY PROPONENTS ALLIED TO MICHIGAN MUSKY ALLIANCE. BOTH GROUPS, ADVOCATE TROPHY FISHERIES FOR GUIDES AND THEIR CLIENTS, “BIG MONEY” MUSKY TOURNAMENTS, REDUCED CREEL LIMITS, CATCH & RELEASE AND TROPHY SIZE LIMITS. GEAR RESTRICTIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN AN INSTRUMENT USED TO RESTRICT USE OF THE RESOURCE AND REDUCE THE NUMBERS OF ANGLERS ON 178 MILES OF PRIME TROUT STREAMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF SPECIAL INTEREST USERS AND DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE VAST MAJORITY OF FISHERMEN.
WHEN DNR FISHERIES SUPPORTS ANY ORGANIZED ANGLING GROUP THAT ADVOCATES, LOBBIES OR PROMOTES RESTRICTIONS OR USE OF ANY FISHERIES RESOURCE AGAINST ANOTHER LEGAL AND RECOGNIZED ANGLING GROUP OR THAT ANGLING GROUPS METHOD OF USE, SUCH GROUPS ADVOCATING THESE RESTRICTIONS, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A VOICE BEFORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ISSUES. SUPPORT OF THESE GROUPS BY FISHERIES MANAGERS OR DIVISION CONSTITUTES DISCRIMINATION BY THAT GOVERNMENT BODY.
MICHAEL HOLMES, PRESIDENT, MDAA