[BGilson]

Carp1831- I didn't interpret Rob's email like lzbowfisher did either. Unless I missed something, I didn't see any mention of cancelling the proposed changes. My interpretation is this: the MDAA has a common interest in getting the restricted waters on FO-219 removed as well. After all, if those waters are off limits to us, they are off-limits to them since the spearing/bowfishing regulations are shared. The difference is that we (BAM) is willing to compromise by accepting the new regulations as they are currently written, and address the remaining restrictions at a later date. The MDAA, however, wants a first round knock-out so they're going for everything during this first re-write. The only caveat that I see is that the vote will be at a later date, but that's just my interpretation.

Seriously? Sort of a red flag question in my mind, i.e. what is the real agenda of this question? I mean rough fish are generally non-predatory which means their mercury levels should be lower, then lets say walleye or pike etc. If the real concern here is that bowfisherman may be indirectly "threatening" the environment through mercury… then that concern should be re-directed to rod-n-reel harvest where the fish (generally predatory in nature) are actually being consumed by human beings! Not to mention potential entrails discarded into lakes, landfills, public trash facilities etc. What about the natural die-off of fish with mercury in their systems and simply rot in the lake? Any concern over bowfisherman reducing rough fish populations and using them as fertilizer or burying them on private property seems a bit over the top.

My thoughts exactly. :tu:

 

[BGilson]

I am taking liberty to communicate Rob Miller's EXCELLENT summary (BAM rep to NRC Workgroup for proposed MI FO-219 changes) from the 9/15/11 NRC meeting. He presented a cogent and well-constructed comment in support of the proposed changes which will be of great benefit to all bowfishing sportsmen. However, there is a new wrinkle that could delay or even cancel the proposed changes! Please read the ALL of the following, and GET ACTIVE! If you do submit comment to the NRC, be sure to copy Rob so he will be well-informed for upcoming NRC meetings!

P.S. I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say thanks for getting the word out lzbowfisher. :clap: I'm really surprised that only 4 letters were sent. It's not too late for others to send a letter of support to the commission. If somebody has writers block but they would like to contribute, PM me and I'll send you my letter to use as a reference.

 

[lzbowfisher]

P.S. I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say thanks for getting the word out lzbowfisher. :clap: I'm really surprised that only 4 letters were sent. It's not too late for others to send a letter of support to the commission. If somebody has writers block but they would like to contribute, PM me and I'll send you my letter to use as a reference.

You are most welcome. I am planning to comment to the NRC again, but after I complete some research on methylmercury in the environment and fish. I've found some great stuff on the MI.gov and the US-EPA site, but digesting a 303 page EPA study takes a little time. However, after a quick review, I feel highly optimistic that the information contained in the study will provide excellent support for the harvesting of rough fish.

I too hope that other bowfishing folks get involved and submit comments to the NRC. For those considering doing so, just be sure to use your own words, as the commissioners take individual comment much more seriously than copied or chain-type letters or petition letters. BGilson's right - don't worry about writer's block, so feel free to PM me also for suggestions.

Quoting from Rob Miller: "As always, get involved or settle for the consequences"

 

[carp1831]

Just sent in my followup letter of support to the NRC addressing what transpired in September. Bowfishers in Michigan (and nationally, BAA members, folks from local clubs); Note that if FO-219 passes, (and this is not guaranteed yet, there is some opposition apparently), this would be one of the biggest boons to bowfishing in Michigan ever! Please send in your comments to the commission, help get the word out!. From what I can tell they need to hear from more bowfisherman.

Public commissioners generally need to hear letters of support on an issue before they act. They like to feel backed up by members of the public in their positions. Without such support, they are more susceptible to be influenced by the opposition or simply take the "easy road" of doing nothing.

 

[lzbowfisher]

Just sent in my followup letter of support to the NRC addressing what transpired in September. Bowfishers in Michigan (and nationally, BAA members, folks from local clubs); Note that if FO-219 passes, (and this is not guaranteed yet, there is some opposition apparently), this would be one of the biggest boons to bowfishing in Michigan ever! Please send in your comments to the commission, help get the word out!. From what I can tell they need to hear from more bowfisherman.

Public commissioners generally need to hear letters of support on an issue before they act. They like to feel backed up by members of the public in their positions. Without such support, they are more susceptible to be influenced by the opposition or simply take the "easy road" of doing nothing.

AMEN! I did submit my comments to the NRC last week, strongly supporting the proposed FO-219 changes. My comments also included a summary of my research on Mercury contamination risks from Bowfishing. Basically, removal of rough fish is a benefit in that it removes Mercury that would otherwise bioaccumulate in the food chain, ultimately increasing the risk to humans through eating game fish.

So, I see hundreds of views on this thread, but maybe only a handful of people (less that 10) actively commenting? Is anyone else taking time to get informed as to what really going on with proposed FO-219? Are you involved? Will you take a few minutes to submit your comments to the NRC? This isn't rocket science, but the future of bowfishing may well ride on whether or not YOU get involved. All the info you will need to become informed and who to communicate to is detailed above in this thread.

PLEASE DO IT NOW, as the next NRC meeting is in Lansing October 13!!!!!

 

[nettek]

Illinois here, sent emails in support, good luck!

 

[lzbowfisher]

Once again, I am taking liberty to post Rob Miller's report on what took place at the Oct. 13, 2011 Michigan Natural Resources Commission in Lansing on the subject of MI FO-219 proposed regulation changes that will GREATLY and FAVORABLY impact the 2012 Bowfishing season for all Michigan sportsmen and sportswomen.

If you have NOT done so, PLEASE submit your comments on this matter to the NRC c/o Debbie Whipple at the email addrress Rob cites below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yesterday we had another NRC meeting and were offered an opportunity to speak to this FO 219. To follow is my synopsis of how this meeting went with a copy of comments offered by myself and my gut feel of where we are at. This may not be indicative of the final outcome and continuing e-mails and or letters to the NRC is extremely important. NRC attn: Deb Whipple whippled1@michigan.gov

Before I start this, if anyone can contact our BAM officers and ask them to contact Rob Miller at 616-437-9820 I would sure appreciate it. With the responses I have not been getting I am concerned that they are not getting this valuable information. Also if anyone is concerned with getting this information out please do what you can to share this. I only have the mailing list being used here and am doubtful if this is including all members. Help is appreciated.

NRC members were thankful for our response on the mercury contamination question, this was very well handled by Larry Zadonick of BAM and was well worth his time. Thank You Larry!

There really has been no opposition to expanding the rough fish take and season, the hold up still seems to be over gathering more information on spearing closers of Musky and Pike, we are again a by-product of a different debate.

I believe the NRC plans a vote next month on this---Not 100% on this but am hopeful.

Comments offered by Miller

The Bowfishing Association Michigan (BAM) still supports these proposed modifications to FO 219. I have had the opportunity to view several notes of support to this that have hopefully made there way to all of you via e-mail. Commissioner Brown last month asked about the possibility of mercury contamination being spread due to burying or disposal of the rough fish. Through members comments from BAM I believe and hope we have offered (through e-mail) a satisfactory answer to this question. It is our belief that for this to become an issue we would have to see repetitive dumping of fish in the same spot for quite an extended period of time and an extremely large amount of fish would need to be dumped to create an issue. The likelihood of this happening is very small, in our opinion. If we need to get more information to you on this issue than was previously supplied please let us know and we will do so. Page 9 of the Guiding Principles and Strategies (GPS) DNR brochure, bullet point 3 clearly states that sound science be used to manage wildlife. Science clearly shows tah rough fish are destructive to our waterways and desired game fish. This alone, we believe should be reason to pass FO 219. Like the MDAA we are still being restricted with this proposal – We are proposed to not be allowed to take rough fish via archery means on trout streams. MDAA is restricted on 29 lakes to no pike or musky spearing through the ice. We do not believe science supports are restrictions which therefore do not follow the DNR GPS. It is our ultimate goal to get these restrictions removed.

At this time we are supporting FO219 to recognize the proposed gains in our season and harvest opportunities. We are doing this because FO 219 as proposed will greatly enhance bowfishing opportunities in Michigan and we do not want a debate on the remaining closures cause us to miss out on the newly proposed FO 219 regs. Please support as-is or with enhanced opportunities as we have stated here. Please do this in a timely manner so these change scan be enjoyed for the 2012 season.

Thank You,

Rob Miller



Good bad or indifferent those are the comments offered.

Thanks to all who have taken time to get involved it is appreciated.

Rob Miller "

 

[carp1831]

Some good info on the MUCC site on this

http://www.mucc.org/2011/10/dnr-proposes-expanded-spearing-bowfishing-regulations/

Please write in your letters of support per lzbowfisher's instructions above

 

[BIGchris]

Just sent a letter to Deb Whipple mailto:whippled1@michigan.gov to show my support. What are you guys putting in these letters? Just curious

 

[lzbowfisher]

Since it is now a matter of public record with the NRC, this is what I submitted back in September:

"I have been a resident of Michigan all my life and a moderately active outdoor enthusiast, including fishing, for most of my life. I developed an interest in bowfishing only in the last 3-4 years through my son (Colorado resident) who introduced me to the sport during a summer visit when we were out on Muskegon Lake. I must say I have become more interested in bowfishing than traditional hook & line angling due to the more active nature of seeking fish visually and developing the necessary skills required for successful harvest. The challenge is nearly addictive, and I enjoy it immensely – it is exciting!



Relatives and friends that I’ve introduced to bowfishing ask, “Why is the season so short and why are so few rough fish species permitted?” I’ve had the same questions, without a reasonable or logical answer – until just recently when I became aware of the NRC Workgroup’s proposed changes to FO 219.



I have fully read the background and the proposed changes to become effective April 1, 2012. I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly recommend that the NRC approve the proposed changes as presently written. The current spearfishing/bowfishing regulations are too complex and difficult to understand as well as too limiting of length of season and number of species to accomplish the intended purpose of controlling the rough fish population and it’s negative impact on game fish species and their habitats.



It is my personal belief that adoption of the proposed changes will also produce the following benefits to Michigan:



-Introduce more sportsmen to spearfishing/bowfishing
-Promote tourism
-Improve the economy
-Increased equipment sales (Archery suppliers, i.e. C.P. Oneida, Marion, MI)
-Increased MI Fishing License sales/revenues
-Increased tourism revenues (lodging, restaurant, fuel, etc.)

Assuming the proposed FO 219 changes are indeed adopted and approved at the October NRC meeting, I recommend the DNR consider rolling out a promotional or advertising campaign to get the word out as a means to more quickly realize the benefits I’ve enumerated above.



Respectfully submitted, "

 

[Flints Finest]

I hate to sound lazy but im not reading through all of that. Can someone just say email this person? If someone already did I apologize for missing it.

 

[BGilson]

Yes and her contact info is above. :tu:

For those that are going to send a letter of support, remember that our goal is for the commission to pass the proposed regulations as they are currently written. The new regs aren't perfect, but they are a huge improvement for bowfishermen. They were supposed to be voted on at the October meeting. Then the vote got pushed back to November, and now it will hopefully be passed in December. This isn't a huge national bill where your letter will get lost among thousands of others. There have only been a handful of letters sent in, so every one counts!

 

[BIGchris]

Any new news?

 

[Flints Finest]

Sent my email in...but we need more I'd like to see there inbox overloaded with emails

 

[carp1831]

Will be sending in my 3rd set of comments on this before the Dec. meeting. All bowfishers out there, this issue is huge! Everyone should send one in, the more they here from interested folks, the great chance we will be able to bowfish year-round in MI + more species + more lakes!!

 

[Flints Finest]

TTT you don't have to be from Michigan to send an email

 

[Flints Finest]

Free punch and pie for anyone who sends in an email in support of this

 

[carp1831]

A news article on the potential bowfishing regulation changes in MI: http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/11/anglers_split_over_proposed_ch.html

Everyone please email the NRC your comments encouraging them to pass FO-219 in their upcoming December meeting! Email the NRC attn: Deb Whipple at whippled1@michigan.gov

 

[lzbowfisher]

For the latest, click on this new thread:

http://bow.fishingcountry.com/forum...S-HYDRO-STRIKE-BARRACUDA-AND-ALL-OTHER-BOWFISHERMEN-–-HELP.&p=260317#post260317

 

[BGilson]

Here’s one last push to get a few more letters in to the NRC since the vote is tomorrow. For those that haven’t seen the new regulations, here’s a comparison to illustrate what we have to gain. Here’s the old regulations:

…and here are the proposed regulations:

If this passes tomorrow, these will be implemented on April 1, 2012. As you can see, the new ones are MUCH simpler, we have a continuous season, and we have several new species. Currently, there are still 19 bodies of water that are still restricted & inland trout streams are still off-limits, but we’ll tackle those at a later date. Since FO-219 is such a large step forward, we really want the vote to pass tomorrow.

Please take 5 minutes to send a simple letter to Deb Whiffle at whippled1@michigan.gov Here’s what you should have in your letter:
- Endorse the proposed regulation changes as written (MOST IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR LETTER)
- Offer factual data/studies to support the benefit of rough fish removal or the destruction of carp (optional)
- State that bowfishing is an asset to their conservation goals since we reduce the rough fish population (optional)
- Question the scientific methodology for the restricted waters (optional)
- Thank them for their efforts, time, and consideration

Sign your name
Home address

It’s that easy and thanks for your support!
BAM/Michigan guys- this affects you, so hopefully every one of you have sent at least one letter. If not, you still have today.