Monday, December 16, 2013 is the Warmwater Resources Steering Committee meeting in Lansing where the MDNR will be providing their response to the Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation (MBN) bass season proposal. I will report as soon as possible after the meeting is over depending upon their response, any committee action and whether or not it seems like I first need to discuss anything with the MBN board.
At the December 8th presidents' meeting The Bass Federation of Michigan officially voted support of both MBN proposals too, which I was very glad to have happen.
Both federation board presidents will be at the meeting Monday.
Had some nice, brief conversations today at a Michigan Conservation Coalition with Fisheries Chief Jim Dexter, MDNR Parks rep of the day Jason Fleming (Belle Isle State Park) and MDNR Director Keith Creagh.
Found out this morning from Jim Dexter that he has accepted the invitation from B.A.S.S. to come to the Conservation Summit in February at the Bassmaster Classic. I look forward to two days of meetings with many of the state B.A.S.S. Nation conservation directors and state Fisheries Chiefs together - not too many opportunities for this type of meeting so thank you B.A.S.S. and new B.A.S.S. Conservation Director (on January 1, 2014) Gene Gilliland. (This would be an interesting tournament to have a federation or college bass angler win maybe??)
Jim Dexter is also meeting with Mr. KVD in the next week or so about B.A.S.S. tournaments to gather more information - sort of a follow up to Kevin meeting with Governor Snyder, various state legislators and MDNR Director Keith Creagh back in late October.
I haven't even reported any of this yet to the MBN board (I officially represent them at most of the meetings). I hope they forgive me sharing with all of you first since I will report this on Sunday to them. We are making some progress.
Oh, I have some homework for everyone. It's important so please get ready. Assigning it Sunday to MBN members, and Monday to everyone else! :)
Great job Dan. Please keep up the good work.
It's the help this time around that may be making the big difference. I will know for sure tomorrow. Hope it's all a big pleasant surprise with lots of good news to share!
If it is real good news, I have some other ideas people have suggested that I might try to get going too. Depends upon how receptive all the new friends and helpers are!
So Dan, any news yet??
If Snyder does anything good for Michigan, I hope it would be changing the bass season. Because since he has become Governor the state has become 3rd worse in unemployment and made it "Right To Work" for less. Not really good in a state that really has had no economic recovery as other state have. So all I can hope that is good from him is to change the bass season. That would actually help economic recovery. More people would come up here to fish and spend money. That is what is needed. Raising minimum wage wouldn't hurt too much either. That's more of a federal thing though. Just my 2 cents. I know a lot of folks don't agree with me, but that's ok. It's what makes our country great. We have the freedom to express ourselves.
BD ;D
I agree, more fishing "time" equals more fishermen equals more money spent in Michigan!
As for the other, I hire about 3-5 part times a year and have NEVER started anyone at minimum wage, don't believe it's enough even for most teenagers these days.
It's not enough for most teens Waterfoul. I have two teenagers in my house. The 19 year old works two jobs and goes to school. She has a car note but lives here for free as long as she is in school. The 13 year old is a drain on my pocket with travel soccer. He is good though, so worth the investment. It's admirable that you hire at a wage better than the current minimum wage. It doesn't have to be more than a "living wage". The Center for Economic and Policy Research put out that if minimum wage kept up with worker productivity it would be $21.72 an hour. That is supposedly for people who currently make $18,000 a year or less. Interesting........... :-\' If they worked full time they would make Lots of different scenario's can come from that. Those people who are currently making $18,000 a year would be making $45,000 a year if minimum wage was $21.72 an hour. Most would say that minimum wage was meant for only entry level employees yet there are a lot of people supporting a family on minimum wage jobs today. I don't think that small business owners could handle that kind of wage and expect to survive. It's a double edge sword I guess. :-\'
Back on topic. What's the verdict?? ??? What was the MDNR's reponse?? ???
BD ;D
I can understand there are other issues important to many of us but would like to keep this thread pretty tight on the bass season so we don't get sidetracked, confused or distracted from this one specific topic of the Michigan bass season. So please anymore discussion on other topics, let's have them on the Free for all board, or other most appropriate board depending upon the topic - thanks.
As far as updates from today's meeting... there's not a lot to update. There was a response, but the response is kind of along the lines of we need more time yet. I want to have some discussions with the various persons/groups who have been working with us on this and/or providing help and advice. I can always use advice from people who do this stuff for a living (change).
Both federation presidents were at the meeting too, and we talked for a bit afterwards so I have their input and what they would each like to do next or not do, or possible steps depending upon help and advice we get.
If I have something helpful to share I'll share it as soon as I can.
Dan,
What's the reason that you what the bass season opened earlier?
seriously. That is their response to you guys . "we need more time" Dan?? What exactly do they need more time for. This is a pretty simple decision. How long have you guys been talking to them about this? Months? The year?
All that time you personaly Dan have put in, the driving all over the state, trips to lansing repeatedly, meetings with everyone under the sun. Everyone involved on your side should be at the least , irked. Cause I know I am with this so called "resopnse" .
How exactly hard is it for these people making the decisions? You either want a closed season on bass or you want a catch and release season to encompass the time frame between the seasons catch and keep opener and the closure of the season. Good lord Dan. I sure hope you gave someone a piece of your mind.
Well
Really if you read between the lines, It's quit easy to see the answer
There trying to be PC and say No
Quote from: TheFishinPollock on December 17, 2013, 08:10:32 PM
seriously. That is their response to you guys . "we need more time" Dan?? What exactly do they need more time for. This is a pretty simple decision. How long have you guys been talking to them about this? Months? The year?
All that time you personaly Dan have put in, the driving all over the state, trips to lansing repeatedly, meetings with everyone under the sun. Everyone involved on your side should be at the least , irked. Cause I know I am with this so called "resopnse" .
How exactly hard is it for these people making the decisions? You either want a closed season on bass or you want a catch and release season to encompass the time frame between the seasons catch and keep opener and the closure of the season. Good lord Dan. I sure hope you gave someone a piece of your mind.
Quote from: Manxfishing on December 17, 2013, 05:28:57 PM
Dan,
What's the reason that you what the bass season opened earlier?
I get asked that a lot. I've answered it a lot. But one more time (or more) won't hurt. :) And I am writing this to anyone who is still asking or wondering about this question.
This won't seem short, but the short answer is that I know there is no scientific support for closed bass seasons at statewide levels. That is why 45 of 49 states do NOT have statewide closed bass seasons.
Primary reason - people just want to fish, and there are plenty of people who want to fish for bass whenever they can go. Many of them who are Michigan residents tell me every year at the shows that they do not know that it is illegal to attempt to catch a fish that isn't open. Probably the majority of visitors from other states find our regulations so foreign it just confuses them.
Because closed seasons are not common fish management tools. The reasons are many, but in general, because closed seasons are not the most successful way, or often not successful at all, to manage fish populations, particularly in a way that doesn't cause more harm than good. Because: closed season are an excellent way to eliminate fishing opportunity. And, cause unnecessary and harmful intra-angler conflict too as we get to see every winter all over the Internet as anglers bash each other over who has what intent - the 'guilty by bass boat' syndrome I don't enjoy very much personally.
Take a look at other state fishing guides and you'll see few closed seasons.
We in Michigan voted ~63% in favor of scientific management way back in 1996. We passed Public Act 21 this year to re-support scientific management, yet we have many, many fish regulations that are not scientific. They're social, and/or they're there sometimes because it's simpler to manage fisheries to the lowest common denominator than to allow more opportunity, and use special regulations to manage those few places that need extra management. Social management has a negative impact on our natural resource economy in lost opportunity alone.
We also have many regulations whose sole purpose is to make law enforcement easier at the expense of the vast majority of good anglers who often just want to enjoy their limited fishing time when they can.
I want to end all that, and have been working towards getting us the absolute most fishing opportunity our resources can handle according to science (not what someone's grouchy grandpa thinks :) ) since I was 18 years old and spoke at my first public meeting. Both bass federations support a year-round bass season. For some reason, some people have forgotten already that we had a large, public survey in 2005 that showed the majority of anglers feel the same way - if the science shows the resource can handle it, they want to go fishing. Just as the citizens of Michigan voted in 1996, and just as major outdoor groups, our Legislature voted and the Governor signed into law this year (and the anti-hunting/anti-fishing animal right groups are going to try to take away from us with a misleading general vote next November).
Somehow, anglers and hunters need to marshal themselves into concentrating on what we have in common, and working together to stop limiting our fishing and hunting opportunity by regulations that are NOT supported by science, and take wasted intra-outdoors person fighting energy and redirect that energy against the animal rights and anti- groups. That is especially important now that they have made Michigan one of their 3 main targets spending millions of dollars to take away our rights.
If 10 people want to fish in Michigan in February for bass, and there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to, then I will work to make it legal. Our natural resource economy is critically important to Michigan with fishing alone adding $2.4 BILLION (with a 'b') in spending in 2011, helping thousand of Michiganders make their living (including me!). - 2011 US Fish & Wildlife Service survey.
Every unnecessary regulation we keep on the books limits our natural resource economy, and removes opportunity from Michiganders, and the large number of people who travel here, or would like to travel here to fish and hunt.
Black bass are the number one gamefish in number of anglers and fishing days in Michigan, only trailing panfish in number of anglers and fishing days. The MDNR showed Monday that 16% of the anglers they recently surveyed said they would fish more if bass season were open longer. Some people seem to think that number is not worth the effort to change anything.
I disagree for many reasons. Here's two - the one I mentioned above - if any number of people want to do it, AND there's no scientific need to block their opportunity to do so, then they should be allowed to fish; and two, a 16% rate of additional fishing effort becomes significant when you realize there were 589,000 bass anglers in who fished in Michigan (from the 2011 USFWS survey). Multiply 16% of that times just 1 more day of fishing times the 2011 USFWS average trip-related spend per fishing day in Michigan of $39.00, you're talking almost $3.7 MILLION more per year into our natural resource economy. Two more days of fishing each = $7.35 MILLION. Three more days of fishing would be $11 MILLION more into our Michigan economy to motels, hotels, gas stations, food stores, many levels of our economy not just tackle companies.
That's just from trip-related expenses for those particular days. There could be additional increase in more fishing licenses sold, more tackle, rods, reels, gear, possibly more boats bought, all because anglers could start fishing for their favorite species earlier in the year, which studies have shown can increase participation, particularly the likelihood that the angler chooses to buy a fishing license that year and go fishing. The actual increase to our Michigan economy could be a lot more. More fishing participation means more money to take care of our natural resources.
I don't think those are insignificant numbers and benefits not worth allowing. I had some brilliant person from another outdoor group accuse me at the meeting Monday of only caring about money because I cited this type of information. I thought he was incredibly biased, short-sighted, and probably not a very good choice to represent major group rep for not understanding that this is all part of the topic, an obviously important part. It shouldn't take rocket science to comprehend this, especially after already having the MDNR present at that same meeting information about their recognition of the value and importance of our natural resources economy, and the outdoor businesses and retailers to Michigan AND the MDNR's bottom line.
The only reasons I can think anyone would be against allowing year-round bass fishing in Michigan would be the most obvious ones:
1) fear of change - always the thing that makes these processes way harder than they ever need to be ('why change it, it's always been that way' love that excuse - okay, whatever grandpa, can I borrow the keys to the Model T? ;D or 'if it ain't broke...' stupidest excuse not to do many things after the 'it's always been this way' - I get to enjoy hearing both of these often...);
2) Thinking everyone else thinks just like you. They don't. People think all kinds of different things and just because it is different isn't a good reason to say no or feel like not doing it. It is fairly common throughout the public process to hear people claim 'facts' that are really just them assuming or trying to convince everyone that everyone except you thinks exactly the same as them. I get accused of this all the time because apparently people assume I only talk to the other 7 bass tournament anglers in Michigan... ;D yeah, whatever...;
3) Bias and prejudice. Got to experience this well once again Monday, because I'm an evil bass tournament angler after all (guilty by bass boat who only cares about money... ::)) many people who use excuses that seem to be from options 1 or 2 often are really being driven by bias and prejudice. They just aren't honest enough to admit it, though it usually comes out anyway. If you want to verify the problem isn't really facts or science, just get a number of them in the same room and let them think they're among their own kind. The bias and prejudice will come out and show itself as in 'everybody hates bass tournaments anglers, nobody likes you guys, nobody likes bass tournaments, everybody knows that' (yeah, I heard this from one group rep Monday - not the exact quote but the key point he wanted us to know was that EVERYONE feels the same way he does). No polls, surveys or scientific studies were cited by him that I recall... This was his real reason for being against any change to the bass season. Not science. Not facts. Not much thought or care there for the tens of thousands of bass anglers who just want to go fishing either, or for the MDNR (>90% of their budget from user fees), or the businesses and Michiganders who rely on our natural resource economy. Just 'I hate you guys' so I'm against anything you want. And he says I'm the one who doesn't care about all the other stuff... Solid thinking good for us all, right? ;D yeah, uh huh...
So there you are. Some people want to go bass fishing whenever they can, and I believe they ought to be able to. A bonus would be that I could start crappie fishing in the spring again without having to worry about CO's showing up because I happen to own a 'bass' boat. Love that 'guilty by bass boat stuff... Love it!!
The simplest, most common sense of it all is if a body of water isn't completely closed to all fishing, it is guaranteed you will have conflict and negative issues if you have regulations that allow fishing for some species in that water while having regulations that say it is illegal to attempt to take other species in that same body of water. You end up where we have been for decades. If you own one 'type' of boat you can fish there and will have little problem. Own another type of boat and you can't even fish there because there will be people accusing you of breaking the law. So we've set up a system that limits angling opportunity even more than it first appears, and guarantees intra-angler conflicts. The same problem exists because of your fishing method - I can't believe we've gotten to the point where someone fishing with a 5 inch lure on Lake St. Clair is a 'legal' pike angler in the spring (pike open all year) while someone fishing with a 6 inch lure is 'scumbag, lawbreaking muskie poacher' in people's mind because muskie are illegal to 'target' until June 1 and EVERYBODY KNOWS that a 6 inch lure is a muskie lure!! If you don't know that it has gotten this bad then you need to know, it has been this bad for many, many years.
It's gotten to the point almost where if you're an innovative angler who spends a lot of money and effort to be a real good angler, you end being the most restricted angler of all if you want to avoid accusations and conflict. The only safe thing to do in Michigan is to limit your fishing to the 3rd Friday in June until September 30th. It's a lot harder during that small window for people who don't like 'your kind' to accuse you of things or harass you.
Ridiculous. Stupid. Wasteful. Harmful. It has to stop ASAP.
PS: Unless I state it clearly otherwise, my comments on this website are my own personal comments and not the position or statement of either the Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation or The Bass Federation of Michigan.
I've never stopped working for improvement to bass fishing and Michigan bass fishing whether I was a conservation rep, or just some guy. When I am the rep though I don't want people to take my comments as their policy or opinion unless I state that it is. So don't blame them.
However ANYTHING ELSE I say IS the official position, comment, opinion and policy of GreatLakesBass.com. The 'boss' lets me get away with that. We're a little more radical on here... :)
The position of GreatLakesBass.com is that people should be able to fish on any Michigan water that is not totally closed to fishing, and not have to worry about mind-reading accusers and law officers going after them as long as they don't KEEP a fish that is not in season. Let people fish whenever they can, and let them enjoy it. Closed seasons are not good fish management tools, especially when they can't easily and clearly be enforced. Size and/or bag limits have been proven to be much more effective for most species on most waters.
If there's a specific location that excessive fishing of any type might harm a species, let's look at the available science, and if the science supports it we can talk about special regulations. If not, let people fish. There's plenty of water with plenty of fish to go around.
GreatLakesBass.com will cooperate with other groups on some compromises when it appears the compromise brings more groups into a better, faster successful increase in fishing opportunity, or if the science clearly indicates a special regulation is needed. Which is why we support the two Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation proposals.
Dan at least I did not see their old reason for not having a open season in your posting. I always love their reason they use to use "it is to hard on the fish and our stocking of the lakes!" What has it been now 15 years since they last stocked bass in this state.
Sorry got of subject a little there, I think your doing a great job so far my friend we are proud of you.
Bass take care of themselves on most lakes.
I have an update on this. Still trying to figure out exactly what it is. As soon as I find the words I'm comfortable with that I think are accurate and as fair as I can make at the moment I will post them. Might be better news?
IMO. You have to get away from talking about money gained from an open bass season. The only way change is going to happen is with a scientific approach. The 39 dollar a day is a false picture for most anglers. It might cost 39 but it is not 39 over and above what I might spend on a daily basis anyway. The x amount days of open fishing is going to bring millions approach is inaccurate. And the reason your Getting a negative response.
I have to stop >:(. Typing on an I pad is horrible :'(.
Uniform Bass, Pike and Walleye season is the most simple, fair, and reasonable compromise. I'd stay away from anything that involves a "year round C&R" because it only opens the door for other vested groups to object - which from what I hear they did just that. The bottom line is if we don't organize and get on the same page nothing will ever get done......
My finger tips on my right hand are sore from texting. Some days I refuse to text anymore.
I'm a known bass tournament angler, so it doesn't matter what I say with some people. My lips move, I'm lying or who cares... Believe me, I'm trying to change that. For a long time now.
I'm not using the value part out in the general public as often or as a primary driver. I think most of you understand it is important. I hope you do. Since the MDNR is funded over 90% by user fees, they eventually know it is important.
This year, since the first major meeting I attended with higher up people, it is THEM who have been approaching me about the potential increase to our Natural Resource Economy through more bass fishing and most often, through more bass tournaments!!!! I've been a little taken aback by it all year (though possibly refreshingly and pleasantly so because who likes to be an 'undesireable' really??).
It started at the meeting in Gaylord in March when both the MDNR Deputy Director and a Commissioner on the NRC - both strangers to me before that - approached me out of the blue about that very topic - 'Hi Dan, I wanted to meet you to talk about bass tournaments. I would think bass tournaments would be a great way to increase our natural resource economy.' It's been that way at a number of meetings with higher level MDNR including the Deputy Director and the Director, with several NRC members, with the Governor and a number of State Legislators, even had a representative for one of our Congress people track me down at a meeting to talk about bass tournaments and our economy. MUCC has also made comments to me that they are willing to help us with a possible policy that supports attracting more bass tournaments. (I always expected it to happen on its own someday - maybe I thought I'd be in my 70s though, not my 50s before it happened?!?)
The MUCC Executive Director is the person who swung the Governor's office all the way over into getting us involved in talks about Belle Isle - a potential tournament-friendly public access site, and looking at fixing up some existing boat ramps (lots of work to do in both those areas before there is anything concrete, if ever, to talk about), AND suddenly Kevin VanDam is meeting with the Governor, key State Legislators, the MDNR Director and Pure Michigan, soon to be followed by meeting with the MDNR Fisheries Chief to talk about B.A.S.S. and Michigan. (I sure didn't expect any of that this year though I tried hard to help it happen.)
Believe me when I say I am NOT driving the discussion in the direction of the economics of bass fishing. I am sometimes answering questions and providing information, but sometimes I'm not even involved like the discussions about the topic between the Governor and MUCC, and KVD and the above parties. Those happened without me. It has kind of passed me by now and is a living, moving thing all on its own.
I do refer to economics however as part of my whole presentation when I'm in the meetings like the one Monday with the representatives of other major fishing groups. We all know trout, salmon and walleye in particular, have owned a BIG chunk of the MDNR spend over a long number of years, yet more effort and impact comes from inland lake fishing, especially nowadays with panfish and bass even stronger in the #1 and #2 spots in number of anglers and number of fishing days.
The MDNR has stated they will increase outreach to panfish, perch and bass anglers, and part of that is recognizing their own polls that a majority of anglers have told them they want more attention paid to panfish, bass and catfish. The MDNR is listening.
That doesn't mean the other fishing groups will just say, sure, that's fair, go ahead and spend more time with bass. All those other fish species are not as robust all over as bass and panfish. The trout, salmon, walleye, pike and muskie need more help compared to bass. So, to make sure we get the attention we need to more bass opportunity, we need to continue to explain why bass, that 'don't need much help,' still need time and resources for things like providing us with a year-round season like 45 other states. Even though more groups than ever are supportive, or at least not fully against some changes, it doesn't mean we aren't having to still dig in our nails and pull ourselves forward with some effort. Lots of people have been used to bass just being there... If you think it isn't not a major effort, you should come to some of these meetings to see why I usually drive home with a slight headache, and a million questions, changes and plans running through my head.
So even when I don't bring up economics, it comes up. If you look at the studies, and things like the US Fish & Wildlife studies, you will see how big economics is in the outdoors. It HAS to be. And I actually think a lot more people are understanding it now than maybe we give credit to. I think our responsibility is also to continue the progression to more knowledgeable, and issues and impacts-aware outdoors people. We better, because the anti-hunting/anti-fishing and animal rights groups are spending millions of dollars in Michigan right now to take all this away from us so we wouldn't need to discuss it anymore!
I spend more time on the scientific side of things, especially the more open and broad the arena we are working in. The one critical thing we all need to remember is that A WHOLE BUNCH of our regulations are not scientific, but social! Talking about science doesn't get you very far if you're talking to people who are just thinking 'you're not my Grandpa and my Grandpa said ______' (fill in the blank with whatever old wives tale many people believe AND fight change over). If people decide science isn't true, then you have zero leverage. I still run into that A LOT! (It has improved, but we have room for lots more improvement!)
We have no choice but to use multiple approaches because of all the avenues of resistance, and acceptance we have to travel. No one approach will work for all of it. We have almost as much success - sometimes more - using methods other than scientific and economic (you will see a big example of another 'method' shortly on another topic). Believe me, we use every single possible approach we can that appears to be needed, with adjustments depending upon the audience of the day. If we didn't, we'd fail.
What has been tough about this year is hearing all the positive talk from the higher levels about our sport, but running into the opposite when we get down to meetings with few or no top people in them. I can only say that has made it difficult for me personally to not seem up and down on this project and long time goal. I don't want to be, but it's hard to come out of one meeting thinking WOW! and the next meeting thinking CRAP, we haven't gotten anywhere!
The swings aren't that wide often but it can feel like that after 25+ years of working on this particular topic, and 33 years of speaking at public meetings and trying to make things better, not just on the bass season but related things like wetlands, aquatic plant treatments, combined sewer overflows, public access and many more (which is why it stung me pretty bad to have someone accuse me of only caring about money - I needed to share that with you guys to get it off my chest faster - I know that's not me but I'm a redhead - my heat was up... which is not good in most meetings - though sometimes useful - "uuhh, don't make me angry... you won't like me when I'm angry!" with red skin though not green ;D).
I appreciate any and all advice. I do consider, and often learn or adjust from it. I've sought out tons of advice this week, and believe me, I've received some awesome help, ideas and suggestions this week. I think we have a really good plan on how we are going forward on our end with multiple options depending upon what happens in the next 30 days or so. Part of that will be getting other groups involved directly, speaking before new groups including some who seem very receptive, or at least very fair, and some new partners who are going to 'sign on' and start taking a more active role in making it clear to all but the most lug-headed that this is not just an issue of a '100 bass tournament anglers.'
It never has been, and it never will be. This is my state. This is your state. We want what's best for it because we care. Anyone who knows and is real about anglers and hunters knows the people who care the most about their fish and game are the people who pursue their favorite(s) fish or game. It is OUR FEES that are paying over 90% of the money used to take care of them!
PS: there's a bill on the Governor's desk right now (we helped get it passed) that creates a new group and fund from the $1 extra fee (we also helped get passed) on certain hunting and fishing licenses that will be used to market the importance of the contributions of anglers and hunters to our natural resources and very important natural resources economy to everyone in Michigan. It is modeled after a similar and highly successful program in Colorado that has made a major impact in how the public perceives hunters and anglers. Considering we are now one of the three 'battleground states' in the sights of the major anti's this is one real important victory. Next up is the petition drive you're all going to help me with.
Speaking of frustration with things not being quite the same at the 'bottom' level, I had a fairly interesting talk about that with Fisheries Chief Jim Dexter Friday - he called me before I called him so we talked though I wasn't completely ready yet. We'll see how things go after our discussion. The best I can do is be as frank as I can be with him, while considering that I also have to represent the interests of both bass federations to make sure we have as broad of support as possible, and that I keep within their parameters too.
As soon as I talk with 2, maybe 3 other partners / involved parties I will share everything I can. Of course, the minutes for most of these meetings are posted on the MDNR website as soon as they are approved by the committee and the MDNR.
They may be available for the meeting that happened Monday before I am able to talk to the people I need to considering the holidays the next 11 days. Anyone can read the minutes to get a summary of some type of what happened at the meeting.
Before I say anything more about my personal opinions and feelings, or any statements and opinions of either bass federation, and possibly screw up some other opportunities of other parties, I need to get their input and advice. I don't want to make things more difficult than they are, or mess up things other people are working on somewhat related but separate to our proposal, or things that are just potentially good for everyone.
I'm not a politician. I'm a nerd, angler, analyst (and redhead) so it's a good thing to hear from people who have other talents.
Quote from: ROI Outdoors on December 22, 2013, 12:14:12 AM
Uniform Bass, Pike and Walleye season is the most simple, fair, and reasonable compromise. I'd stay away from anything that involves a "year round C&R" because it only opens the door for other vested groups to object - which from what I hear they did just that. The bottom line is if we don't organize and get on the same page nothing will ever get done......
I can't really repeat myself too many more times. If you know a better way, get to work and do it. I'm already
committed to a
majority -
both bass federations and a good number of bass anglers. We have a position we can all agree and compromise on.
We are organized and on the same page.It's just not the page you want to be on so that makes you the outlier, neither organized nor on any majority page with anyone. I understand what it's like to be a small voice in a big world. It rarely works. If you mean what you say then get involved and help. Stop doing what you want to make it seem like the majority is doing - you are hurting the process.
Otherwise, make sure you read this carefully -
I can't help you and I don't have time to tell you the same thing for the - how many times is it now? If you still don't understand why please read all of the above two paragraphs again a time or two until you understand.
The one thing that is correct in Luke's statement is the bottom line is being organized and on the same page. We did a great job the last time, but didn't really flip things until the big survey showed our scenario (that wasn't even an official choice) was the best scenario.
We are already ahead of that last process because we have an official position that has been taken up for consideration by the MDNR; That BOTH federations have agreed to; And that a big enough percentage of dedicated bass anglers AND even a decent percentage of non-dedicated bass anglers can agree to all or most.
We have more bass anglers (note I say bass anglers not tournament bass anglers - there were 589,000 anglers who fished for bass in 2011 in Michigan, there are only 16,000 B.A.S.S. members and probably not more than 20,000 or so who fish any tournaments with an unknown percentage who are supportive or at least not against bass tournaments) who can agree to the compromises in our proposal. That is VERY important considering the majority of the bass anglers don't fish tournaments or have the same exact drive some of you have.
A creel survey the MDNR mentioned on Monday showed that 16% of the angler group they talked with said they would fish more because of catch-and-immediate-release (CIR). 37% said they were not aware of CIR and 8% said they were fishing in a tournament. I only use these numbers as a rough idea about how we have a wide range of anglers we want to agree on a specific proposal and a lot more of them don't fish as much for bass as some of us 'dedicated' bass anglers.
I believe once again any surveys and public input will show people just want to go fishing with a shift further towards simplified and less restrictive than last time - partly because I poll people all the time at the various fishing shows, and at various fishing locations, especially when there's no tournament around, just your average mix of anglers, even my neighbors. I already hear plenty from you most dedicated bass anglers and bass tournament anglers. We have definitely debated and gone over this topic a lot.
Our present proposal is a starting point. I expect the MDNR to once again toss out alternative options. Different anglers will fall in behind different options. I know some of you (Luke) will put your vote behind other proposals, diluting our odds. It happened last time at almost every meeting AND that time we had our own pre-meetings where everyone 'agreed' to pick the best overall option for our best odds only to have some of them pick some other option at the meeting where it counted anyway! I expect that because that's what always happens no matter what you do - if I, or any of you, can ever figure out a 'cure' for that, please let me know!!! :D I will definitely try to keep it to a minimum because we want to come out of this with as much as possible and the dilution makes it harder.
And just because other groups want this exception, or that exception, doesn't mean they're any more likely to get it than we are. This process will go through lots of hands between now and June. There are people thinking about more options than we are. There are people who may surprise us with alternatives that some of you will love, and some will hate. One of those alternatives could conceivably end up winning depending upon what we do, and what happens when the process goes to public meetings and/or public surveys - what exactly will happen is not known by me yet but some of these things are requirements that have to happen.
It is just as conceivable that a more aggressive alternative comes out the other end as there is a less aggressive alternative at this time. Anyone who thinks they know how it is going to turn out already has never done this before. It is way too early. It is way too easy to let thinking a significant number of people think just like you result in what ends up being delusions.
Having done this a number of times before and having heard a good chunk of the big picture, I can at least have a decent idea what the odds are for various possibilities. I can tell you some people have already picked horses that aren't even going to make it out of the gate. We can't let those people distract us. There's no time to waste on noise.
I assure you we have discussed options, alternatives, possible scenarios and even compromises (BOTH plus AND minus), and have adjustments in place to deal with a lot of that. Each new piece of information is met with more discussion, planning and decisions. It will be that way through the whole process. We can count on a lot more discussion, and possibly even changes to things that give us more or better than what we're asking for as a majority group on the same page (meaning the two bass federations, a good number of dedicated bass anglers and many other related parties and persons).
We really do have more support already from outside our core. Even more within the MDNR compared to before. It is just too early to see exactly how it will work out.
Last time the majority of us backed scenario 8, which wasn't even an official position, yet it was the one that won in the end. Some will say it was because that is the one we worked for, but saying that ignores everything that happened during the process, particularly involving the MDNR and the larger number of people who weren't part of our core group. We won because enough of us were organized and on the same page, and because a majority of anglers surveyed said things that our option best matched (which is why we decided to back it in the first place - it was the best possible compromise considering all known factors and things we were fairly confident we were reading correctly.).
We are attempting to repeat that process again, and overall we are ahead of where we were last time. Every few days, more people and groups choose to agree with some or all of our position, and even state they do. We will be speaking at, and attending a number of other meetings and groups in the next 2 months on top of anything that happens directly with our proposal, the MDNR and Warmwater Resources Steering Committee (or wherever the process ends up at).
Thanks for addressing my comment. My intentions are not meant to be negative.
Here is an example of how I would address MI economy. First off you have to mention that in no way would this change be negative to MI economy. You then can explain the positives. Example.. I would mention that MI fisheries bring in x amount of dollars and I would include all species, salmon and walleye included. For this purpose I will say 100 million. Now by changing the bass season there is the possibility to improve this by .25 percent. .25 percent might not seem a lot but .25 percent of 100 million is 250,000. And all this can happen without any extra effort by the state. Basically they would be getting more bang for there buck. This way you can give factual information (the amount brought into the state). And then you also address the amount of money that can be added. I used .25 percent. This way it keeps it humble but yet still addresses this issue.
The reason I am suggesting this is because when I hear things like "tourneys are going to bring a bazzilion dollars to MI's economy" it kind of falsifies it (not that you said that). When to many numbers are thrown around most people get confused. And if they spot a flaw in your statistics your credibility is shot. Keeping your numbers simple and factual should get you better results and leaves no room for someone to pick you apart. I hope this makes sense. :P
Redbone for president
I understand what you're saying. Didn't take it as negative. Different audiences have different needs and expectations. I have documentation and/or recognized citations for any data I use or quote. I don't quote data I can't back up. Sometimes it matters. Sometimes it doesn't anyway. Sometimes, you have to be in a 'process,' but do all your real 'work' somewhere else. We did that last time, and we won.
I try to be specific and as detailed as it appears is needed. How things are taken or not sometimes has nothing to do with your delivery or your facts. Sometimes you're not received well no matter what you say or how, and sometimes you're received very well and you wonder if they remember what you said.
I try to be in the middle when I can, occasionally settling for the latter and sometimes getting the former regardless. Just going fishing (all year preferably) would be my favorite choice of all, all things being equal.
Kimmel for president...
25% of $100M would be $25M not $250,000 - Redbone for President but not Treasurer!
Quote from: Redbone on December 23, 2013, 01:04:31 PM
Thanks for addressing my comment. My intentions are not meant to be negative.
Here is an example of how I would address MI economy. First off you have to mention that in no way would this change be negative to MI economy. You then can explain the positives. Example.. I would mention that MI fisheries bring in x amount of dollars and I would include all species, salmon and walleye included. For this purpose I will say 100 million. Now by changing the bass season there is the possibility to improve this by .25 percent. .25 percent might not seem a lot but .25 percent of 100 million is 250,000. And all this can happen without any extra effort by the state. Basically they would be getting more bang for there buck. This way you can give factual information (the amount brought into the state). And then you also address the amount of money that can be added. I used .25 percent. This way it keeps it humble but yet still addresses this issue.
The reason I am suggesting this is because when I hear things like "tourneys are going to bring a bazzilion dollars to MI's economy" it kind of falsifies it (not that you said that). When to many numbers are thrown around most people get confused. And if they spot a flaw in your statistics your credibility is shot. Keeping your numbers simple and factual should get you better results and leaves no room for someone to pick you apart. I hope this makes sense. :P
Na, if he were President he'd get lost in all the international "crap" and lose site of Michigan's fishermen's needs. I say we just elect him governor. Keep him close at hand (maybe in our pocket??).
Quote from: t-bone on December 24, 2013, 10:09:39 AM
25% of $100M would be $25M not $250,000 - Redbone for President but not Treasurer!
Quote from: Redbone on December 23, 2013, 01:04:31 PM
Thanks for addressing my comment. My intentions are not meant to be negative.
Here is an example of how I would address MI economy. First off you have to mention that in no way would this change be negative to MI economy. You then can explain the positives. Example.. I would mention that MI fisheries bring in x amount of dollars and I would include all species, salmon and walleye included. For this purpose I will say 100 million. Now by changing the bass season there is the possibility to improve this by .25 percent. .25 percent might not seem a lot but .25 percent of 100 million is 250,000. And all this can happen without any extra effort by the state. Basically they would be getting more bang for there buck. This way you can give factual information (the amount brought into the state). And then you also address the amount of money that can be added. I used .25 percent. This way it keeps it humble but yet still addresses this issue.
The reason I am suggesting this is because when I hear things like "tourneys are going to bring a bazzilion dollars to MI's economy" it kind of falsifies it (not that you said that). When to many numbers are thrown around most people get confused. And if they spot a flaw in your statistics your credibility is shot. Keeping your numbers simple and factual should get you better results and leaves no room for someone to pick you apart. I hope this makes sense. :P
I used .25% or 1/4 percent. Even so, I still screwed it up the first time and had to modify it. ::) To funny.
So what I think I read, was there was talk, and more talk, and some guy named Kevin shows up and magically has the ear of EVERY single important person....... Now the bad news.
I read a KVD Q&A where he was specifically asked about C&R in Michigan and then more specifically on LSC. He responded by saying fishing overall healthy in Michigan, but he feels there may be too much fishing pressure on LSC so he favors No Change.
Don't go ape ship on the messenger, but I'm suggesting, Dan, to spend time with KVD on the topic....
Also you mentioned a "big survey" - was that the one on GLB or another?
There's always lots of talk... lots of noise might be more accurate the way it feels sometimes.
KVD is on my todo list. That was right before the 8 days and 15 1/2 hours of no power or Internet at home hit courtesy of the ice storm following the last batch of meetings. I'm well aware of Kevin's opinions on some of this stuff. We've discussed them before including during the Bassmaster on St. Clair when people seemed to just be finding out that the goby numbers are way down out there. I guess I should have been bringing that up more but I had been noticing it from my own small amount of fishing out there so I thought more people were already aware than actually are.
I'm on catch up from way behind and Ultimate Fishing Show preparation duty right now. If I get the chance to talk to the busiest person in fishing I will do so. Everyone can have their opinion, but I would like people to understand the issues and the science/facts, which are often different, even the opposite of opinion.
Opinions lost weeks of the Ohio spring bass season with no science or facts to back up that it was necessary OR that it would make the fishing any better. I'm well aware that some of the key bass tournament anglers were in favor of that season change. I believe they were in favor because they thought it would help. That is not the way we should be managing our fisheries. I hope I can work with other people to bring about real scientific fisheries management of bass (and other fish) more often verses the social management that still goes on.
The survey I believe you are referring to is the national U.S. Fish & Wildlife survey done every 5 years, and put out by the Census Bureau. The most recent one that I have been referring to for things like numbers of anglers, number of angler fishing days and economics come from the 2011 survey, which includes results by state too. The MDNR has recently stated at meetings that they too refer to and use numbers from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife surveys.
You can read and download PDF copies of these hunting, fishing and outdoor census surveys at: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/fishing.html for 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011. I don't pull numbers and information out of the air. I use data sources such as these.
There's all the data we ever need out there already. The hard part is getting people to agree to and acknowledge it even when the data doesn't support their opinions or predetermined result. Always something to have facts and figures galore only to sit in meetings with people who still choose to go by what they 'think' or like. There's also a troubling amount of cherry-picking that goes on.
I wish it really was about scientific management and providing the maximum opportunity all the time. Whatever amount of energy, time and resources I can spare will go towards getting us closer to those goal even if it is only a tiny bit at a time. Too much wasted energy and wasted opportunity. Needs to be fixed. It is broke. Been broke my entire adult life.
PS: Kevin didn't just show up. A great deal of effort over some time by a number of people through numerous channels occurred before he had 'the ears.' That is almost always the case. Make no mistake about that. It is always nice if more people volunteer to put in more of that effort. There's a small number of dedicated persons who work their butts off so the rest of us can 'just go fishing' (or hunting).
Two things about Lake St. Clair and bass:
1) According to the latest fishing data regarding bass and Lake St. Clair, the bass population is still underutilized (only 30% of the effort on Lake St. Clair goes towards bass - walleye is number 1 followed by yellow perch).
2) If we leave the unsupported later opener on our best bass lake, doesn't that send a message that it is necessary for a reason? Yet the MDNR's own fisheries study finds that there is no scientific support for Lake St. Clair needing anymore protection than our other lakes. The MDNR Fisheries biologist most knowledgeable about Lake St. Clair recently repeated that their is so scientific support for a later opener.
He, and others, don't want it to change because they consider it won't add extra bass fishing opportunity. I strongly disagree with that specifically, AND because it sends a message that this later opener has a scientific or necessary purpose when that is not the case. Bass season opens later on Lake St. Clair because they think the anglers want it to! That isn't science, and besides, more bass anglers than ever before want it opened earlier for ANY opportunity just like our other waters that all have much smaller bass populations.
Why would we limit our best water the most?
There was a recent communication shared that maybe Lake St. Clair is better because of the later opener. My question to anyone who wants to go down that road is - then why is Saginaw Bay so much better than it used to be too EVEN THOUGH it opens on Memorial Weekend like the rest of the state. I could list off a long list of lakes that have also dramatically improved that ALL open Memorial Weekend.
That's a pretty simple explanation about the difference between perceived claims and claims that can actually be backed up with science and facts that are worth talking about. Certain MDNR and other persons can bring up 'uncertainty' all they want but if they can't quantify it at all, and there are overwhelming real world examples (45 out of 49 states with no statewide bass season closure) and studies stating it is not a statistically significant factor for black bass, why are we even spending more the 2 minutes talking about it?
It obviously isn't important science. If it was, then there wouldn't be 45 out of 49 states, including 2 of our direct neighbors (Indiana and Ohio), with year-round bass fishing. The last time we added a few more weeks of bass fishing to Michigan's bass season in 2006, two other Great Lakes states - New York and Pennsylvania - went to year-round bass seasons because the science did NOT support their closures. And anglers just want to go fishing.
Dan, if you were forced to bullet point, using 10 words or less each bullet, only 4 bullet points on why MI NEEDS an Open Season, what would they be?
Could you construct 5 bullet points on why we DO NOT need a closed season? Different bullets I'm sure.
It is critical that KVD is presented something he can use, in simple bullets, that get people to hear his message...... Which is our message. I will help you write them up if you can PM me like 10 bullet points for each. I'm very good at presenting and providing truths in simple format that makes sense to the majority. It's part of my job too. This is how I can help you.
Kevin VanDam doesn't do what I tell him. If I get a chance, I will discuss the bass season proposal with him, and what we are doing through the various committees, and explain why. It would be up to him, just like any of you, to decide what he accepts or doesn't accept, and what he talks about to others. I sent him the proposal last May or June so he could review. We haven't really had a chance to discuss it in detail due to his busy schedule. Mark Zona did sign on as supporting the existing proposal and I thank him for that.
My understanding is KVD's next meeting with MDNR Fisheries Division chief Jim Dexter is about bass tournaments and B.A.S.S. I don't know anything else beyond that since I've only talked to Jim Dexter briefly about it. Kevin is a very busy person. I don't remotely presume to expect him to call me or talk to me every time I'd like him to. He has generally been a very good supporter of Michigan bass fishing.
You're more than welcome to put together a bullet list for anyone. Check out the Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation Bass Season Proposal also now supported by TBF of Michigan. You shouldn't have any trouble pulling some bullet points from the proposal.
I don't think Kevin will be at the Ultimate Fishing Show. I don't know when and if I will see or talk to him, but I would just ask if he still has the proposal I sent to him, and send it to him again if not, and if he was willing to discuss it with me.
It's my personal opinion that hunters and anglers have to take some of their time to understand, support and protect their hunting and fishing privileges through science and tactics knowledge to keep our ability to do so. Based on that personal opinion, I will continue to try to share more detailed information with people hoping that more of them decide that hunting and fishing is important enough to make some time for the above. I believe we will all be better off if more choose to do so.
Bullet points are great for commercials and politicians, but in the meetings and places where it counts, they require more details. I'm detail-oriented because I need it for meetings and proofs, and I share that on this website because of my personal opinions. I have seen how the less-detailed my presentations get, the easier it ends up being for opponents to oppose them. My personal opinion is that I'd rather hear complaints about too much detail than make it easier for opponents to oppose.
I do summarize many things, but in this age of 'too busy' I recognize it still seems like too much to some people. I will be who I am, and let other people be who they are. The idea of being 'too busy' is an artificially created state of mind in the U.S. anyway (people always make time for what they want to), and I've always been into reality, facts and stats. Just who I am. If I can find people who are more politically savvy than myself, I try to network with them, get their advice and help. I will let them cover the bullet points. I'll stick to the details.
Hope that clarifies things? Like I said before, I already have my proposal I need to support, and it is most time-effective for me to keep using that when I talk to people. I put a lot of time into writing it, and making sure it had good support. I can already had it to people. Now, I have to write a resolution on the same topic for another group that might have a significant impact on this process. That's my next chore. Followed by meetings to get it accepted.
I'm coaching on effective presentation, I hope you aren't offended. You got 12 seconds to capture anyone attention. If you're good, they will come away with you're base message and a few facts that can be repeated as fact.
The details of course are necessary, as back up slides. Let's go off line, I can help folks with a good message, but too wordy. Ying n yang my friend
Quote from: Mojo on January 02, 2014, 08:51:36 PM
I'm coaching on effective presentation, I hope you aren't offended. You got 12 seconds to capture anyone attention. If you're good, they will come away with you're base message and a few facts that can be repeated as fact.
The details of course are necessary, as back up slides. Let's go off line, I can help folks with a good message, but too wordy. Ying n yang my friend
I prefer not to go 'offline' most of the time. I built the forum so we could all see and share information with everyone. Pretty much defeats the whole purpose to go offline.
I thought I explained in my way that I'm neither asking for, nor wanting someone to coach me on effective presentation. I'm not offended. Hope you aren't either. As I already said, I have a way that works for me, for the coalition's particular needs.
Make sure you're on the bass season conference call so you can hear how things are going, and the questions and issues at hand. Maybe you can provide some insight on the specific, existing issues. That's what I'll be asking about. I always adjust my presentation depending upon the crowd and the apparent need, and based on the reaction received verses the potential for changing minds or winning people over within the meetings I'm involved in. There are definitely always people that pretty much can't be won over and I try hard not to waste time on them. It's the people who do listen and think, and aren't already fully supportive that I try to connect with. The people I deal with like that at these meetings need more than 12 seconds. They need proof and convincing. It takes more than bullets, even when they sometimes say that's all they want. I've found that to be true over and over again.
I do listen to input. But people offering input will need to listen to me too so they can determine if that input has any bearing on the situation at hand. I don't have a situation where I need to capture anyone in 12 seconds. If we add TV or radio commercials (which I don't expect to happen) then maybe we would need that approach. Someone else would probably have to do that. I'm not an announcer. I'm an analyst nerd. I'd be happy if someone else acquired the knowledge who could also talk like a movie star, taking my place in these meetings. Be even better if the person had never fished a bass tournament! ( ;D )
As I explained before, in my case, the details are needed most of the time up front and center, and it's my method. Even when they aren't always wanted by everyone, they are still needed because of how this process works within the methods I have to work with for the groups involved. For the general fishing public, they aren't usually reading on this website, but I do try to get information to them through other means, and have over the years, along with other like-minded people. If I had unlimited time and budget I would put more effort into reaching them more often with the message. But I don't. So I can't.
I don't need to win over many of you. The majority of you have already stated you want year-round or close to it bass fishing in Michigan, even if you aren't all on the same exact page of how to get that. There is already pretty good support among other anglers for most of the year or year-round bass fishing too really. The last bass season survey showed that, and I believe it is even more true now that we have had 8 seasons of catch-and-release bass fishing without all our bass vanishing.
I only have so much time, resources and money, so some things will not get done by me as I prioritize what I think is the best use of my limited resources, and skip what seems low priority or less important to the proposal I need to work for the groups supporting it. At the moment, considering the overall support among bass fishing anglers and a strong attitude of just wanting to go fishing among general anglers, my priority is to get as much support and acceptance as possible through the MNDR-related groups. I'm not worried if this goes to the public about much opposition. I just need to make sure our proposal is given to the public as an option as it is written now (or better) in a timely manner that allows for a change in 2015. I believe the public will do the rest exactly as they did last time if they have the option to do so.
If someone else successfully does some other things to help outside of what I can do, extra efforts in areas I can't get to, or don't need to work in, so much the better for the overall effort!
If you still want to do bullet points for your needs, read the proposal and pull them out. It shouldn't be very difficult.
Quote from: djkimmel on January 02, 2014, 08:34:51 PM
Bullet points are great for commercials and politicians, but in the meetings and places where it counts, they require more details. I'm detail-oriented because I need it for meetings and proofs, and I share that on this website because of my personal opinions. I have seen how the less-detailed my presentations get, the easier it ends up being for opponents to oppose them. My personal opinion is that I'd rather hear complaints about too much detail than make it easier for opponents to oppose.
I think this is what Mojo is saying. You can make the proposal as detailed as can be. But the presentation needs to be "like a commercial". That is what commercials are designed to do, Sell something. Your trying to sell your proposal. With to much information your message gets lost. Me, I am a horrible salesman. ::) >:(
I'm not explaining myself correctly either I guess. I totally get what you and Mojo are saying. Both suggestions may apply with the right audience but a big part of any presentation / commercial / speech / etc. is knowing your audience first. If you don't know your audience, any method can fail or be unproductive.
When I don't know my audience I tend to start out any presentation finding out who the audience is and what they want before I get too far into the presentation. I adjust the presentation based on what I find out too. I've seen good speakers do that very well, and I've seen some do it poorly. When I go to seminars, more often than not, I'm going to see how the person does their presentation more than to hear what they are talking about. I have a really, really good book on public speaking that has been super helpful. I've never done Toastmasters but that would be a good suggestion for anyone who wants to be a better public speaker.
For the type of meetings and presentations I'm involved in right now, I know my audience and your suggestions mostly don't apply to those. They are representatives of fishing groups who are used to the meetings processes we are going through. A few of them seem almost intractable. Doesn't matter what I say to them. The ones who aren't have various reasons they will or might support some, most or all of the proposal, so I need to address all of those reasons based on priorities of mostly likely to help to least likely to help.
The MDNR has also stated as of last year that we have to provide scientific and other support for proposals we want considered. They did a presentation at the last meeting that went into many areas, many of which I need to address to a greater or lesser degree since some of these group reps will make their decision based on this. I can only go into so much detail anyway trying to hit most of the reasons that seem necessary. One slide I could counter with one or two sentences (verbally) while others took a lot more to counter them.
Your suggestions may apply or partially apply the next time I speak to the NRC in February since I just give a short, timed talk. I may or may not get any questions from the Commissioners. Your suggestions may apply if and when we get to the general public, or public meetings. They may apply when new information is put out on the web in places other anglers may see them, or in any radio or news media interviews. The last time in 2004-05 I did a combination of bullets followed by details so people could choose. When I talk to media I try to get a key message or messages across but go into more detail when asked. I also try hard to make sure what I say doesn't get presented in a way I didn't mean it or say it. Media people don't like to be told what to write or how to write it, but that doesn't stop me from mentioning clarifications.
For the online and public stuff, I saw in the past where some people shared some of the GreatLakesBass.com information around. Some people shared the bullets or summaries, some people shared the details, some people shared just parts - all probably based who they thought their target audience was, and what would be most successful.
I appreciate suggestions and will consider them at the point they may apply. I actually do have to present the economics right now with the groups involved. I am changing how I do that part - not to shorten what I say but to change how I say it. Apparently, some people seem to think I'm saying bass are more important than other gamefish. I said they were very important to Michigan. They are - #2 in number of anglers and days fished behind only panfish, and if the USFWS numbers are close - #1 or #2 in economic impact.
I need the people who aren't already opposed for other reasons and listening to understand they are parts of the facts and figures good to know when making this decision, but they don't mean other fishing types aren't important. I support all fishing efforts and 'types' of anglers. I realize none of us can afford to play the who is more or less desirable angler (or hunter) game. It is counterproductive for any of us or the MDNR to do that, and I have said that.
Part of the problem remains how some people look at me as being a 'bass tournament angler' not an angler who cares about the environment and our natural resources just as much as any other angler or hunter. It's a shame that happens but all I can do is keep trying to change that inaccurate and harmful perception. I'm working on that through various avenues.
I need to keep saying too that things are much better than it used to be. There are just some people who fight change a lot harder than others. Sometimes, I need to blow off some steam and I do that on here because of how many of you feel similar about things. It gets a little old to hear the same stuff more than 25 years after I started to hear it, but there is no denying it by any reasonable, honest person that angler attitudes and practices have evolved quite a bit since 1970. We just happen to live in a state that has been managed very conservatively for a long time. That is changing too.
Please don't blame me that some days I really wish it would change a lot faster (I'm only human too! :)) Believe you me, anytime I can figure out a way to make it change faster I'll give it a try. Who wouldn't?
Quote from: Redbone on January 03, 2014, 12:43:35 PM
Quote from: djkimmel on January 02, 2014, 08:34:51 PM
Bullet points are great for commercials and politicians, but in the meetings and places where it counts, they require more details. I'm detail-oriented because I need it for meetings and proofs, and I share that on this website because of my personal opinions. I have seen how the less-detailed my presentations get, the easier it ends up being for opponents to oppose them. My personal opinion is that I'd rather hear complaints about too much detail than make it easier for opponents to oppose.
I think this is what Mojo is saying. You can make the proposal as detailed as can be. But the presentation needs to be "like a commercial". That is what commercials are designed to do, Sell something. Your trying to sell your proposal. With to much information your message gets lost. Me, I am a horrible salesman. ::) >:(
PS: Sometimes having too short or simple a message makes it easier for people to try to beat you by just attacking that one part. In these types of processes it isn't always good strategy to provide too few things to counter. Especially if you already know how they will try to counter them (because they've done it the same for a long time).
It's why proposals and resolutions try to summarize as best they can while still providing multiple reasons why the proposal or resolution should be adopted. This is definitely a case where too few reasons make it too easy for opponents to counter them. It's a balancing situation that constantly needs adjustments.
The overall message in this case is pretty simple - we want legal, year-round bass fishing just like 45 of 49 states already have.