That didn't take long.

[Walleye Express]

I declined to post an answer to this on their link http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2009/05/commercial_fisherman_sues_to_c.html as I am known to well by both Sag Bay commercial fishermen and anglers alike. And my use of several 4 letter words would probably not be the best way to enrich my reputation or get my point across. But feel free to post yourselves.

Commercial fisherman sues to catch Saginaw Bay walleye

by Tom Gilchrist | The Bay City Times

Tuesday May 12, 2009, 9:38 AM

State officials say Dana Serafin hopes to do something commercial fishermen haven't done "in recent history" on Saginaw Bay - catch walleye.

Serafin, a commercial fisherman from Bay County's Pinconning Township, has filed a federal lawsuit seeking permission to do just that.

Serafin proposes to "harvest walleye in certain concentrated areas to avoid further overpopulation in these pockets" of Lake Huron, according to the lawsuit, filed in April.

He alleges Michigan Department of Natural Resources employee Tammy Newcomb ignored his request - in September 2008 - for a three-year study allowing a "controlled commercial harvest" of walleye on the bay.

Serafin maintains the controlled harvest's goals would include increasing the density of walleye in the bay, and to expand the walleye fishery until the species increases its natural reproduction.

Newcomb, manager for the Research Section of the DNR's Fisheries Division, denies she ignored Serafin's request, but declined further comment.

Newcomb declined to address any of Serafin's claims from his lawsuit.

In his lawsuit, Serafin claims the DNR "has continued to limit and/or eliminate" species of fish Serafin may fish for commercially. He alleges the state agency, through its continuous and arbitrary actions, and by not allowing him to be heard, violates his constitutional rights.

The Times could not reach Serafin for comment.

DNR documents tell of a commercial harvest of walleye in Saginaw Bay in the early 1940s, but Newcomb said commercial fishermen no longer are allowed to catch the popular sport fish.

Such a commercial harvest hasn't occurred "in recent history," she said.

The population of walleye in Saginaw Bay hasn't recovered to targets DNR officials have set, but a "crash" of the population of alewives - predators and competitors to walleye - has helped the walleye fishery, according to the DNR.

"The fishing is very, very good for walleye in the Saginaw Bay right now. ... As word has gotten out, people are starting to harvest more walleye," Newcomb said.

"They're taking advantage of that recreational opportunity, and that's a help to the entire bay area."

During the early 1940s and earlier, commercial fishermen took walleye from the bay, according to a DNR special report from 2004.

The study found the bay's walleye fishery collapsed in the mid-1940s, however, principally due to degradation of spawning habitat "brought about by a series of human activities."

The opportunity for recovery began in the 1970s with improving water quality, according to the study.

"Historically, Saginaw Bay supported the largest commercial walleye fishery in Lake Huron," with walleye noted in commercial fisheries' catch records as early as 1858, according to the study by David G. Fielder and James P. Baker.

The study didn't blame commercial fishermen for the collapse of the walleye species in the bay in the 1940s. It does, however, maintain that "intensive exploitation by the (commercial) fishery no doubt hastened the demise of the population and left it vulnerable" to failure of young walleyes to survive at that time.

[Adam Bomb]

I read this earlier today on another site. I would be P.O.ed to say the least if they allowed this to go on. What a crock of (fill in your own profanity). We finally get the fishery going again and right away commercial people want to take liberties with it. Heck, the DNR hasnt even met its target recovery goals...Come on Dana!

[Indybleck]

My post is bc49boy. Just had to rant.

[Walleye Express]

I read this earlier today on another site. I would be P.O.ed to say the least if they allowed this to go on. What a crock of (fill in your own profanity). We finally get the fishery going again and right away commercial people want to take liberties with it. Heck, the DNR hasnt even met its target recovery goals...Come on Dana!

My main worry would be the "What about Me's" that would fallow from the other licensed netters on the Bay as well as the indian tribes from Linwood to the Makinac Bridge. And once allowed, theres no going back.

[Adam Bomb]

I completely agree Dan...Once they got their foot in the door,then everyone will want in. Ecspecially the Natives now that they have a foot hold on a marina well within the Bay. Would be a great base camp for them to some prime fishing waters....No No and No is where i stand.

[JWheeler]

Ok, so who can we talk to about this seriously to express concerns as a group. You know the worst part of all this, is the state is desperate for cash, and may see this as a way to generate revenue. While doing so, they would kill the fishery slowly. If that happens, I would like to see a group of sportsmen get together and sue the commercial fishermen. I personally don't see anything happening with this, however, there is always a chance that things can go the other way.

[Walleye Express]

To compare the revenue of commercial fishing license money brought in per year, versus lost revenue in personal license, boat, equipment, marina, hotel, motel, bait shop and resturant revenue, is like comparing my Tomato Garden canning with Heins Catsup. And being this is a law Suit, we are legally restricted as to what we can do. But I sent this E-mail off this morning.

To: Kelly Smith. Chief of Fisheries.

This is Capt. Dan Manyen of the Walleye Express Charters. I and my fishing board members have just received news about the law Suit filed against the DNR to allow certain and specific people to commercially harvest walleyes from the Saginaw Bay. We want you to know that many of us are willing to stifle our anger over this outrage and add calmly either our written voices of reason, or (if need be) add our physical presence to testify concerning this Law suit. Please keep my E-mail address handy and feel free to contact me/us (if and/or when) something like this would or could help keep what is now a 70 year moratorium of netting walleyes off of Lake Huron. Thank you, Capt. Dan.

[JWheeler]

To compare the revenue of commercial fishing license money brought in per year, versus lost revenue in personal license, boat, equipment, marina, hotel, motel, bait shop and resturant revenue, is like comparing my Tomato Garden canning with Heins Catsup. And being this is a law Suit, we are legally restricted as to what we can do.

There is no dispute here, however, the shortsidedness of the state to generate revenue may overlook these points.

[Daddyo]

JUST SAY NO. If they let one commercial netter in they all will follow suit and The Bay and huron will become a killing field. Kiss the fishery good bye.

Daddyo

[salmonquest]

First I would like to say that I really enjoy this site and the great people on there. I am going to offer a different opinion that I hope can be respected and I admit it may be based on my ignorance. Here goes.

I find it interesting that charter boat captains are some of the loudest opponents to netting. I would throw out that if there is a charter business in operation that this would be considered commercial fishing. If there is already commercial fishing allowed than it would seem reasonable that it could be opened to other comercial fishing methods.

I'm just a lowly recreational fisherman who takes out maybe 30 or so fish a season for consumption. Charter boats remove exponentially larger takes compared to me and therefore limit my catches by depleting the population, Comercial nets take out more than charter boats and would probably reduce the population even further. I guess my point is if we are going to keep commercial fishing out of areas that would imo include charter boats.

Having said that I don't think we should keep charter boats out, Heck I'd like to run one but I find it slightly odd that one commercial fisherman would keep out another. It doesn't really seem fair. They say it's about quality of fishing but I believe it's about their bottom line which is understandable since it's their livelihood but it's also the commercial netter's livelihood so how can one be more right??? It's like an axe murder complaing that a chainsaw massacre isn't fair....

Which brings us to the real question is will the population be sustainable when subjected to that kind of pressure. For that we must rely on the state...which is a scary thought. From the article it would appear that the cheif complaint is that the DNR has not studied this or even contemplated it. I also don't believe in the there is no going back argument. Of course comercial fishing can be reduced at anytime the state would deem worthy. My understanding from the article is that the idea is a three year trial period. I don't see the problem with that. Would it decrease populations?? probably. Would it limit the number of catches on charter boats maybe?? Could it mean a few less fish in the frying pan for the recreational angler?? I don't know but I don't think it would mean the extiction of the species.

I guess my point in all of this is what's the real problem. If charter captains are worried aobut their livelihood that's understandable but they are doing it at the expense of other commercial fisherman who I would argue would have a reason to question the double standard. If you are worried about catching a few less fish I understand that also but that would seem secondary to economical factors. If you're worried about the extinction of the species that seems highly unlikely.

Understand I have no horse in this race and there are probably a lot of factors I don't completely understand I just find it.....I guess slightly hypocritical for one commercial fisher to throw stones at another. The fact that it's possibly native americans involved smacks a little of racism.

[Walleye Express]

Jason.

Your opinion when comparing charter boat captains with commercial fishermen is not that surprising to me. There's this reputation that us captains seem to have gotten, that runs from raping the resource to having rolls of Fifty dollar bills in every pocket. I addressed that fabrication before and tire of it's telling. Let's just have a side by side comparison. The commercial netter pays for his license but that's where his public, state or federal monitary contribution ends. I pay for my federal license, my state inspections, my TWIC card, my liability insurance and may run as many as say 30 trips per summer. 4 people per trip = 120 people coming to our state or immediate area eating at the resturants, buying licenses, staying in hotels/motels and maybe shopping in the malls or our mom and pop stores while here. And the fish carnage may look bad on film, but each fisherman only takes home 5 fish if he's lucky enough to catch a limit. But these total charter caught fish kills would pale when compared with just the numbers of casual mortality of wasted dead walleyes in the netting process. They do now (I and others have seen it) and they are not even targeted. I was told that there are literally miles of licensed and unused nets not being set on the bay. The commercial fishermen monitor themselves in this reguard. But open this windfall can of worms and it will be over.

[salmonquest]

Dan,

.."having rolls of Fifty dollar bills in every pocket" I thought you guys had at least Hundreds.

I really don't feel that way about charter boats. In fact I would argue that, as you've shown, they have a more vested interest in conservation than many others. I guess I was also applying that logic to commercial fisherman. I could be way off on that. I understand that it might bring the populations down but do you think with proper regulations they coudln't co-exist? Couldn't the state regulate a catch limit and a open and closed season? I know that's putting a lot on the state's shoulders

I see your point with the income from charters and I think that's awesome. I don't know much about the commercial fishing process but I assume they must be A.) profitable and hopefully some of that profit goes to the communities they live in. B.) They require some resources such as fuel, parts, etc. which can be purchased in teh communities.

I appreciate talking about this because it's an education for me. It is certainly nice to know that people like you are looking out for our resources. I also appreciate the fact that you certainly seem to know your stuff about this. I kind of bristle at the general idea that all netting is bad. Just having the fish out there in abundance so it's convenient for the casual fisherman is a nice idea but also, I think, a waste of a "hopefully" sustainable resource that can provide food, and jobs. The saginaw bay area is certainly a different story due to it's only recent recovery and I agree whole heartedly that it needs to be carefully managed.

[Walleye Express]

Jason.

Heres a little more Walleye/Bay history for you to read. http://bay-journal.com/bay/1he/places/fish-sagbay-manyen.html

[Nailer]

Here's my simple question; When the DNR decided to reintroduce Walleye to Saginaw Bay with aggressive plantings, how much did the commercial fisherman chip in?

Comparing Charter Captains to Commercial Fisherman isn't fair. Every Fisherman on a Chartered Boat has a DNR Fishing License, which go's toward managing the resource.

[Adam Bomb]

Just so we're clear, my mention of tribal fisherman has nothing to do with race, it is purely stated because i dont want the things that are happening in Manistee to happen here....Nets being left out and lost, poorly marked etc...you all know the mess. My problem is that their governing body has allowed it to continue yet again this past winter and problems ensued this spring. Things like that just cant happen. Not good for the fishery, public health or fair to those that put money into the sportfishery to make it what it is.

And at this point, theyre not really even in the conversation. But, when one netter gets in the door, theyre all gonna push to get in, despite Dana's limited netting study proposition. Thats all im getting at...Dont need a snowball effect here.

[Walleye Express]

Good point Nailer. Myself and many of the first Saginaw Bay Waleye Club members donated a lot of our time back then to the early planting, feeding and harvesting of those first Bay planted walleye fingerlings, as well as a couple of seasons helping with the tagging and egg taking efforts on the Tittabawassee. Nothing is ever helped, sustained or restored by those who only take and never give back. It's a harsh statement, but IMV Netters only take from the resource.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Walleye Express

[salmonquest]

Dan,

That's a very nice article. I always enjoy the historical photos. The shanty town looks like a place I can get used to. I found interesting in the articles I've read about this that almost all of the fish declines in the great lakes can be attributed to pollution and invasive species i.e. alewives, zebra mussels etc.

I found an article that pointed out that commercial fishermand in other states and canad are able to undercut michigan commercial fisheries. If I understand correctly most of the whitefish, perch, and walleye for sale in our restaurants wouuld come from another country taking money from our economy. I guees if these fish are going to be commercially harvested anyway shouldn't that benefit our economy?

i came acros this article it's really long but very interesting. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/eh/9.1/szylvian.html

These are the points I thought relevant to this discussion.

The funds required to develop and maintaining the Great Lakes sport fishery paled in comparison to the larger economic, environmental, and social and cultural costs incurred. Commercial and subsistence fishermen paid a large portion of the price of the creation of the Great Lakes sport fishery.

Howard Tanner, who returned to state government to head the Michigan DNR in 1975, acknowledged in an interview with historian Michael J. Chiarappa that the DNR's policy was so rigid it practically forced the lakeshore tribes to go to court to fight it

Tourism related to sport fishing not only has brought traffic and congestion, but has contributed to rising real estate values that make it difficult if not impossible for wage earners and business owners of limited economic means to retain their land, especially if it is on or near the lakeshore. In an examination of the impact of sport fishing on local Native Americans, historian Robert Doherty concluded that tourism has "seldom helped long-term residents towards economic security. It merely hid them behind the façade of affluence. Northern Michigan may seem better off than it was thirty years ago, but only because newcomers moved in and pushed the former residents aside. This process, by which tourism reallocated resources, can be clearly seen in the development of the Great Lakes sport fishery

[Walleye Express]

Jason.

We could kick this can down the road 40 miles and it would not change my mind about what I've seen during my life and how I see it. Like Spock would say, "The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few".

[salmonquest]

Yeah. Thankfully the fishing now is good. WE all hope that will continue.