Starting about a year ago (fall of ’99, winter of ‘99-’00) several members noticed a significant increase in chumming with salmon eggs on the Flies-Only section of the river. The practice is likely the result of low water levels and is an attempt to move steelhead out from under cover to an area where an egg-fly can be cast amongst the salmon eggs. The procedure is legal, as spawn is not considered to be offal, and is quite effective as the fish are feeding. The Council’s directors discussed the matter at its January 8th Board Meeting, including the ethics, difficulties in legislating ethics, more prevalent poaching using snagging or spawn bags, but kept coming back to the intent of the state’s designating quality angling waters to provide fair chase, use of flies or artificial lures only, and the recent designation of categories of fishing areas to best manage trout and salmon while providing for diverse fishing opportunities. The Board then passed a resolution which “ … opposes the use or possession of bait, chum, or scent on Categories 5, 6, and 7 quality fishing waters, and will work with other groups to incorporate this into the fishing regulations”.

A letter was sent to the DNR in February requesting this change and noting that we had received assurances of support from the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited, the Anglers of the AuSable, the Great Lakes Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, and the Michigan River Guides Association. By September we had also received endorsement by the Michigan Resource Stewards (the DNR retirees) but no response from the Fisheries Division, so President Jim Bos made an appearance before the Natural Resources Commission in Lansing. They were surprised to learn that chumming was not already prohibited, and requested an evaluation of the practice for their October consideration. Fisheries Division convened the Coldwater Steering Committee, which advised in the revision of the regulations in 1998. The main issue of contention was the simple possession of bait on an artificials-only stream; on restricted lakes there is no need to have bait, but on rivers and streams anglers can float from an open area through a closed area to get to another open section and be in violation by possession while passing through. Following significant debate, the recommendation from the DNR to the NRC was for “It is unlawful to use or possess live bait, dead or preserved bait, organic or processed food, or scented material on any waters or on the shore” on streams classified as Types 5, 6, or 7. The DNR is also committed to further explore the issue of chumming for all species on all waters, and to make a recommendation to the NRC by next June. The Natural Resources Commission agreed in October to both of these proposals. The Watershed Council is pleased to have played a leading role in achieving these revisions.

Just four years ago, Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved Proposal G which called for scientific management of our wildlife by the DNR and NRC. Despite attempts since 1973, similar efforts to do the same for our state’s fisheries have not been successful. One part of the problem is that twenty-two existing laws dating back to 1929 would need to be combined into one new piece of legislation, and Michigan’s legislature would relinquish control to the DNR and NRC. When first proposed two years ago, the authority to set size and creel limits, lake and stream designations, and license fees was divided between the DNR director and the Commission itself. The Watershed Council along with MUCC, Michigan Charterboat Association, TU, FFF, Resource Stewards, and B.A.S.S. Federation objected to original drafts unless provisions were made to;

• l.) support scientific decisions,

• 2.) allow public participation,
• 3.) allow final authority for DNR revisions to rest with the NRC.

In early October, Representative Sue Tabor introduced a substitute bill (HB 5841), which incorporates all the provisions our Working Group has been insisting on. All groups present, as well as other interests representing the aquaculture industry, bait farmers, and commercial fishermen, have strongly endorsed this substitute bill. We and others have asked our state representatives to support this bill and vote to pass it yet this session. If any of you have the opportunity to contact your representative and/or senator before the end of the year, please make sure they know you want this bill to become law yet this year. You’ll be doing your part to revise our fishery regulations and assure that future changes are based on science instead of politics.

Our watershed assessment, completed in April of 1999 with financial support from the Frey and Steelcase Foundations, not only provided us with a compilation of everything know about our river system, but also listed problems, opportunities, and items which could be finished to make the assessment complete. The assessment is not intended to be a management plan, but rather a management tool to be used to develop a plan. At its August Board Meeting the directors began that process.

The assessment, while detailing the many attributes of our river system, also highlighted five problem issues, thirteen opportunities which present themselves for us, and nine other information databases which could be completed or compiled to make the assessment even more comprehensive. The directors examined these twenty-seven items and ranked them using a 5-4-3-2-1 priority vote. Of the 27, fourteen received at least one vote; the thirteen others, while almost half the entire list, were mostly mapping or coding systems which would be nice to have but were really not considered to be critical. The Board realizes that their inclusion further documents just how comprehensive this assessment is.

The rank order of issues that the Council will be addressing in the Strategic Plan is: (Keep in mind the list includes problems, opportunities, and incomplete inventory.)

Ranking Issue Votes

• 1. Brown Trout population decline 19
• 2. Recreational user impacts 18
  tie Streambank stabilization 18
• 4. Land use planning 14
• 5. Increase monitoring efforts 10
• 6. Non-unified management 9
• 7. Research sponsorship 7
• 8. Road-stream crossing improvements 5
  tie Inventory completed stabilizations 5
  tie Custer Weir fish passage study 5
• 11. River protection endowment 4
• 12. Evaluate sandtraps 3
• 13. Stream system classification 2
• 14. Fish distribution study 1

When ranked by category, the major problem is Brown Trout decline, two top opportunities are streambank stabilization and increased monitoring, and the two items deemed important to complete our assessment are an inventory of completed erosion sites and a study of fish passage at the weir. It should also be noted that a current high priority item is a compilation of an MDEQ-acceptable assessment (PMWC’s is not in DEQ’s format), something that wasn’t even known when our assessment was done last year. This document/format is required in order to be eligible for Clean Michigan Initiative grant funds from the state’s bond proposal. Your directors also frequently pointed out that many of the topics listed are impacted by biological, social, political, and perhaps other concerns. The Board did draw several conclusions from this review and discussion:

• Overall, the Pere Marquette remains one of Michigan’s prime river systems;
• We have no overwhelming problems many other rivers are saddled with (artillery ranges, heavy industry, historic chemical pasts, …);
• Increasing populations and growth will require novel means of providing quality user experiences;
• Practical solutions may not be politically realistic; and
• There is no “one size fits all” resolution.