Walleye Discussion Forums
| ||
| View previous thread :: View next thread | |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] Walleye Fishing -> General Discussion -> Say it aint so JOE. |
| Message Subject: Say it aint so JOE. | |||
walleye express |
| ||
 Member Posts: 2680 Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | I talked to some important people with the DNR last night about this. I'm posting and sending this to everybody I know, including businesses, local Chamber of Commerce, TV stations and/or anybody who will listen. I'd like anybody in position to help in any fashion in this matter to do so. Draft concerning a Lawsuit filed against the Mi. DNR for license to Commercially net walleyes out of Lake Huron/Saginaw Bay. My only intention here in writing and sending this draft to you, is foremost to inform you and (if possible) seek a response by all that receive and/or see it. Our DNR is being sued by one commercial fisherman, for the exclusive rights of this one man, to harvest walleyes on Lake Huron. This may very well (and probably will) include Saginaw Bay. The hearing date to hear this law suit by a federal judge is set for February 10th. How he will rule on this matter may very well effect the quality of fishing all of us will have in the coming years. If nothing else, it would surely effect the catch rate and peoples mind-set and willingness to come to our community to spend their leisure dollars in our local businesses. IMHO if this one man is licensed to net walleyes, other commercial fishermen will surely fallow suit and petition for those same rights. I do not have to mention the huge (Volunteered) public and private efforts, along with the cost and time spent over the last 25 by the state to bring this fishery back to wear it was 70 years ago. And all that time with no walleye netting of any kind allowed. This is not a personal Vendetta against commercial fishermen. I only seek to have those who have concerns for this fishery and its future to know about and have a voice in this matter and its possible results. And is my intention at this juncture, along with another concerned fisherman (Bill Olar) to simply make a plea to seek support of businesses, fishing clubs and/or individuals who can and who will get behind an effort to spread this word and to have a voice in it’s conclusion. We could also use any (Pro Bono) legal advise or help in this matter, as we are not (yet) monetarily able at this time to hire a lawyer to join with the DNR attorney as litigants in this case. And in fact could likely be denied that opportunity by the federal judge at this late hour. But can (if need be) get in on an appeal that would then be brought by the DNR into the states court jurisdiction. We may also call or have a meeting of concerned citizens to discuss this matter and our alternatives. Thank you for your time and please respond with comments to my E-mail address. Capt. Dan Manyen. Fallow up: Michigan sued over walleye rules Associated Press DETROIT - One of Michigan's most successful commercial fishermen is suing the state to try to overcome a decades-old ban on catching walleye in the Great Lakes. Dana Serafin of Pinconning is forced to release thousands of walleye from his nets while catching other fish in Lake Huron. In 2008, he proposed a three-year study of the walleye population that included a provision for him to keep and sell some of his haul. No thanks, replied the state Department of Natural Resources "They're the bully in the lake, 2 to 3 feet long - we have pictures," said Serafin's lawyer, Anthony Calamunci. "In Saginaw Bay, there is cannibalization going on. It's killing perch and whitefish at enormous rates. "There's just not enough food." Calamunci filed a lawsuit in April in federal court in Bay City, claiming the state's ban on commercial walleye fishing is a constitutional violation that diminishes the value of Serafin's license. The DNR is asking a judge to dismiss the case. "The restrictions on walleye fishing have been in place for at least 35 years, long before Serafin obtained his first commercial license," Assistant Attorney General Louis Reinwasser said in a Nov. 13 court filing. Michigan law gives the DNR "complete discretion to limit the amount of fish taken by species and kind," he wrote. The DNR describes Serafin, 42, as the largest commercial fisherman on Lake Huron, catching 990,000 pounds of whitefish worth approximately $1 million in 2008. His license is "indisputably" valuable, despite the walleye ban, Reinwasser said. A DNR official, James Dexter, suggested that the state does not want to change the policy because that could reduce the walleye population and disappoint recreational anglers. The fish can be found across the Great Lakes region, and Michigan's neighbors have similar restrictions. "It is estimated that more than 2 million Michigan residents fish for sport in the state's waters, and thousands more travel from all parts of the world," Dexter, who oversees fishing regulations, said in an affidavit. "The economic impact is estimated to be $2-4 billion annually." Calamunci accuses the DNR of treating walleye like a "sacred species." He said Serafin at a minimum would like to keep some walleye as well as tag others and return them to the lake. "And then over a three-year period we could test the impact on other species. There's a science to this," the lawyer said. He noted that Canada allows commercial fishermen to keep walleye caught on its side of Lake Huron and sell them to stores and restaurants. U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 10. | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | What donation amounts would you be looking for and by what time frame would they be needed Edited by RedNeckTech 12/9/2009 7:35 PM | ||
| |||
| walleye express |
| ||
Member Posts: 2680 Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | The main plan right now is to just inform people of the law suit and date of the hearing. And to build a (knowledgable) (silent) coalition of sorts just in case the federal judge rules in favor of this guy. Any demonstrations or getting legally involved at this juncture might muddy the waters where a federal judge is involved. They basically have no horse in the race and look with displeasure on anybody trying to sell them one. If the netter looses the hearing, he can file an appeal. That appel would then be heard in a local courtroom where both a DNR and any other attorneys (on the publics behalf) could join in on the suit. That is also the only place a public demonstration or show of force of any kind could determine the outcome, as local judges are elected by the people in that county. Hopefully all this becomes mute when the judge does what he should do and denies the law suit and the netter gives up. If not, then we lay out the plan of attack and think about some kind of a donation fund from the public. Thank you for your interest and I'll keep this thread updated. Edited by walleye express 12/9/2009 8:49 PM | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
Member Posts: 617 Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | What's wrong with a limited commerical fishery? Canada already allows it. | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | There are several things wrong with it as I see it...at minimum is the way he is going about it. First off I believe if the DNR thought that the lake would be able to accommodate a commercial fishing operation on walleye without it having a negative impact on the recreational fisherman and the over all population they would allow it. Second, he is suing for the right to fish the walleye...when it is not legal. He is suing in an attempt to make a law. It is like you or I suing the DNR over bag limits. Heck, I see a lot of walleye on Winnebago so why not sue to get my bag limit exclusively raised to 30 walleye a day instead of the 5 like everyone else. Third, he makes over a million dollars a year on whitefish...he wants to start harvesting walleye because he sees a lot of lunkers in his nets and walleye would bring a huge chunk of extra money for him. If this was permitted it would cause all commercial fishermen to sue for the right to harvest the walleyes. Just the fact that he is suing in an attempt to give himself preferential treatment is wrong. Try doing this with bear...lots of bear up north so what the heck, just sue to give you the right to harvest bear out of the normal and legal season. Commercial fishing did the perch population no good. | ||
| |||
| walleye express |
| ||
Member Posts: 2680 Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Thank's Tech. You explained and covered (with examples) the legal end of it quit well. It was never/ever on the books as a law to begin with. And I won't beat to death the fact that it brings 2 to 4 billion a year into the coffers of businesses around Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay yearly because of this great and growing fishery. Versus him and probably other (who would sue for those same right) catching and selling the fish (that now sustains our ravaged economy) in many ways, to out of state buyers. But I digress. Edited by walleye express 12/11/2009 10:03 AM | ||
| |||
| bagz |
| ||
Member Posts: 185 Location: Port Washington, wisconsin | I wonder if that commercial fisherman has that million bucks piled up in his closet, or is it distributed thru out the community in the form of wages, tax's gas, etc..., and maybe even a walleye charter fishing trip. Edited by bagz 12/11/2009 12:34 PM | ||
| |||
| walleye express |
| ||
Member Posts: 2680 Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Good question Bagz. From what I've heard most of his profits are going into building his New Custom built, Brand new 65 footer he's having built. And if you think this is about all the MEGA Cash I haul in every season on my charters, you don't know to many charter boat captains. And this isn't a bag of crap I decided to carry for the publicity. It's my last choice to get involved in things like this. But when I see that will hurt my comuninity, I get involved. I've been in the charter business for almost 24 years. I've seen BLACK INK in 3 of those years. But this isn't the real issue and I won't bite to hard on your ploy to make it about that. Edited by walleye express 12/11/2009 12:55 PM | ||
| |||
| walleye express |
| ||
Member Posts: 2680 Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Ya know. I went back and read what Bagz wrote. And it was unfair of me to assume that he was trying to turn things around, and make my concern about this issue into something more about my own business interest in it. I apolgize and would edit the post now if the time had not ran out. Having this thing hanging over our fishery and taking an open and public stance against it, is something I really do not cherish. I'd rather be talking about how good our fishery is, but will not shrink from what I see as an obligation to protect it. Edited by walleye express 12/11/2009 2:49 PM | ||
| |||
| bagz |
| ||
Member Posts: 185 Location: Port Washington, wisconsin | Thanks Dan. You do what you believe is right for the fishery. I'll aplaud you for it. And I will do what I can to protect the Great Lakes in general, from what I believe is a bigger issue, invasive species. Good luck. Edited by bagz 12/11/2009 3:14 PM | ||
| |||
| stacker |
| ||
Member Posts: 2445 Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I think some of my wisconsin friends need a history lesson on saginaw bay. So I will educate them. Saginaw bay was once a fishing metropolis in the 20-30-40's. The perch and walleyes were thick and commercial fishing was at every port. Even today you can see the old buildings at every port where the fisherman went out. However, in there mad dash for greed they took a walleye fishery that would rival erie and decimmated it. For many years catching a walleye from saginaw bay was non existant. 50's 60's 70's this went on for a long time. The commercial fishing on the bay was for rough fish only and most netters left the buisness. Since the netters were gone a few guys that seen out into the future, yet could read about the past decided that saginaw could support a walleye fishery again. After all erie was on fire in the 70's and now in the 80's they had millions of people flocking to cast erie dieries and catching fish after fish. So, The likes of OJ Sieferlein, arenac county sportman club, bay county sportsman clubs, saginaw bay walleye club formed, and many many others petitioned the state to stock the bay with walleyes. The state said they had no funds for this. The netters that took all the fish were dead so they could not repay to society what they took, so everyone stood and stared at each other. NOW LISTEN, this is where it gets good. So, one of these people doid some research and found out that if we built a yeast pond and it was on the shores of the bay, we could raise the walleyes in these ponds till they became cannibalistic they we could open a shoot and they would drain right into saginaw bay. It was a hand free raising of fish to stock. We raised enough money to buy land and build the ponds and to put millions of the fishes in these ponds to grow. WE, THE SPORTSMAN, raised the money and restocked saginaw bay. Now this dirt bag wants to take them to make money, hell no, as I said, many many many ,many of people worked for this. Nates Dad was huge organizer. Now do you think he should be able to make a living from the walleye? | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | Where the man's influx of money goes is really not the issue. Of coarse some of it goes back into the community and taxes. He is trying to create and get a law passed via the court system and what he is trying to get is for him to be the only person to be able to commercially harvest the walleye on the lake. How about turning it around like this...I am going to take the DNR to court and try to force a ruling that makes me the only person allowed to recreationally fish for walleye on the lake and it will ban everyone else from doing so. The DNR is given the authority, by law from the legislatures and governor, to regulate and make the rules on the harvesting of any recourses...not a commercial fisherman or a court. What is next…someone taking the state to court and try to get a ruling where they are the only person allowed to drive drunk on the roads because the roads he drives on has no traffic during the night? How about someone taking the DNR to court and suing for the exclusive right to hunt sandhill cranes in the state of Wisconsin because there are a lot of them and the person feels he should have the right…the only one to have the right? | ||
| |||
| walleye express |
| ||
Member Posts: 2680 Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Thank's Stacker. I was the 10th member of the Saginaw Bay Walleye Club. I spent many a day throwing yeast on the water of those first rearing ponds, for those little zooplancton to gobble and grow on, while the walleye fry ate their way to fingerling size. Then helped sein out and plant the ones that refused to use the culvert we opened to the Kawkawlin River, to escape to the Bay. Watched as many more clubs sprung up around the Bay, and aquired many more ponds to raise walleye fry and keep the ball rolling. Now that the walleye are spawning naturally on their own, our job should be done and we should only be looking forward to reaping the rewards of our efforts. But those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them. Did a inteview this afternoon with our local TV station. They aired it tonight as they're lead story. Here's the link. http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/video.aspx?id=389345 Edited by walleye express 12/11/2009 6:18 PM | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
Member Posts: 617 Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Sigh.... "First off I believe if the DNR thought that the lake would be able to accommodate a commercial fishing operation on walleye without it having a negative impact on the recreational fisherman and the over all population they would allow it." What part of "Canada already allows it" do you not understand? There is NO way the lake can not support some kind of commercial harvest. No one, not even the guy behind this, is looking for unlimited access. "Second, he is suing for the right to fish the walleye...when it is not legal. He is suing in an attempt to make a law. It is like you or I suing the DNR over bag limits. Heck, I see a lot of walleye on Winnebago so why not sue to get my bag limit exclusively raised to 30 walleye a day instead of the 5 like everyone else. " Like it or not, this is a common practice to force legislator's hands. There is nothing illegal, underhanded, or even the least bit shady about the techinque. Ever hear of "Brown Vs. Board of Education" or "Texas Vs. Johnson". Our system of goverment is designed to work this way... "Third, he makes over a million dollars a year on whitefish...he wants to start harvesting walleye because he sees a lot of lunkers in his nets and walleye would bring a huge chunk of extra money for him. " Gross or net? Does a person's net worth determine the validity of his opinions? Since when is the desire to make money make you a bad person? Its honorable that so many people spent time and $$$ trying to restore the walleye fishery on Saginaw Bay. I also completely understand the stance on wanting to protect that which many care so much about. But the fact remains, Saginaw Bay does not belong to the sport fishing industry. It is a natural resource and if it can support commericial harvest without significant concern for its viability, then there is no reason it should not be permitted. | ||
| |||
| walleye express |
| ||
Member Posts: 2680 Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | At this point I'm satisfied that I've done my job. I've gotten what is the sportsfishermans opinion out and made a lot of people aware of the hearing on Febuary 10th. Have what I think would be quit a bunch of people who would both voluteer their time and (if need be) their monies to fight this one man trying to change the laws for his own benefit. And for those looking to site law with the risk of killing the patient verus saving him, heres a couple of reads. Goggle, Reynolds vs. Buchholzer or Burns Harbor Fish Co. Inc. vs. Ralston. Both of these were Federal decisions against the same type people trying to change the laws to suit their individual needs. Edited by walleye express 12/12/2009 9:09 AM | ||
| |||
| stacker |
| ||
Member Posts: 2445 Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Brad, sorry man, but I spent many hours helping this cause over the years. Everyone is entitled to there opinion. Mine is a black and white stance, NO, NEVER, If they allow it, I will never again help the resources. NEVER!! He had zero to do with this. The resource would have never been there with out others. The likes of him allready killed it once. Kind of like how our govt. works. One side kills it, the other fixes it. Pick which every side you want. Edited by stacker 12/12/2009 9:23 AM | ||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
Member Posts: 794 Location: Elgin, Illinois | I suppose an economic argument could be made for allowing commercial harvesting of Geese, Ducks, Deer, Pheasent, etc. There is absolutely no reason to allow commercial harvesting of walleye. I don't even think you can justify the Canadian program given the success that pond raised fish have experienced. I can make an economic argument for allowing drug dealing, murder for hire... Come on... Just because someone wants to make a profit with an activity does not raise it to the level of acceptable.. So, lets weigh the real factors.... The resource belongs to the public. Commercial activity involving that resource is acceptable if there will be no realistically significant harm to the resouce and the commercial activity provides both social and economic "good" for the general public. I don't see a "fit" here. Edited by hgmeyer 12/12/2009 12:06 PM | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | Brad, Sure at times the hand of government has to twisted but this is not a case of people trying to get a commercial activity allowed on the water where there is equal opportunity for the activity in the first place...it is one man asking the courts to give him an exclusive activity on a body of water. I don't care what Canada allows, I don't live up there. The US has its own laws and rules. If this was happening on Winnebago I'm sure there would be a different perspective coming out. He is suing to get him special treatment on an illegal activity...what would stop him from suing again at a later date and wanting his harvest limit raised because he thinks it should be. Commercial fishing did the perch population no good either. Heck...let's just allow timbering of walnut and oak trees in every State and Federal own property, after all, it is not just for the recreational people, trees grow back and there are a lot of them. | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
Member Posts: 617 Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | I stand by my opinion. Your welcome to yours. | ||
| |||
| stacker |
| ||
Member Posts: 2445 Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | oh, by the way Brad, the fish that are in saginaw bay, never come in contact with the canadian side of the lake hundreds of miles away, so they are netting there own fish, not ours. I will go the extra mile and say that, if this hillbilly gets his way over there, I will petion the federal courts to havest winnebago. Lets see who squeals then. Maybe green bay should let the perch guys up there take the walleye as well. I know that there are millions and the white fish nets get plenty allready. why should they not be able to keep them up there if they can in saginaw? Heck, they are natural in green bay, they will replenish, right? Edited by stacker 12/14/2009 10:45 AM | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's