|
Urgent Pere Marquette Environmental Assessment report |
|
|
|
|
A quick note: Hey all..sorry about the late notice...basically, there is a push to close the time we can fish as well as the amount of watercraft/anglers on the Pere Marquette throughout the year...Dallas has really hit the major points and constructed a great letter (see bottom of this story). Please put in your 2 cents and send it to (and yes this is the email address, very long, but correct):
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Just a simple couple of lines or a more detailed email will work to let them know how you feel. If we don't put our comments in we have no reason to complain about it later. HA! Seriously, this will really affect our night fishing in the fall as well as any night fishing you do and basically will limit or fishing on the river. Also, the watercraft restrictions will really clamp down on our time on the river.
Here is a link to the original document:
http://www.mrga.net/mainwebsite_html/Final%20October%20EA_kt%20.pdf It's a huge read, but you can skim through it and get the basics in 15 minutes. Please forward this to anyone you know who fishes or has fished in the PM watershed. Read More to read Dallas' response.
To whom this may concern,
I am in support of Alternative Four due to the privatization of the river between midnight and four am during the fall season stated in Alternative Five. The General Overview paragraphs have been the determining factor on how a “USER” perceives the closing of the river. The Pere Marquette River is there to be used and enjoyed by the public. Restricting use by the public (non landowners) during certain time periods and by limiting permits is all about privatization. This could be the first step of many in changing PUBLIC ACCESS in the state of Michigan. Any Alternative chosen other than One and Four will be the start of the same problems that have happened out west that is hitting the fishing media recently.
The biggest concern in the closing time period is the statement in the Environmental Consequences section, page 140. “ What there is no agreement on is who’s access should be limited, by how much, and when.” Letting private landowners to more access was not the intent of making the PM a National and Scenic River. What it is: is a statement to its beauty and resources it produces. The recreation and use capacity is not a factor during this time period and is prejudice access to non-landowners. Also, not all anglers are fishing for salmon in the fall and at night. Resident large Brown and Rainbow trout are more active at night and are the focus of some anglers. A hatch should not determine if fishing should be available in one season to not the next.
The daily maximum of 150 watercraft permits also limits the angler to where they can fish and will lead to more confrontation with landowners. The owners receive a permit and extra fishing hours. The reason boating anglers spend more time on holes and moving slowly down the river has to do with more total anglers on the river and the style of fishing not the boating itself or boating pressure. To compare fall fishing to summer fishing and even winter and spring is a moot point. All four seasons are different and fishing techniques are different. Boating anglers would also be less likely to trespass on private land because of the opportunity to travel. Reducing boat traffic will cause more foot traffic and may lead to more “Negative Experiences” by landowners and to riparian degradation.
I am a boat owner and have been for 10 years and the only time I have been unable to get a permit for the section of the river was due to canoe traffic. I decided to fish the last section of the Flies Only and found that the section had only four trailored boats that day. Taking with the CO the next day at the Forest station, she said that the section had some cancellations late in the day for some boats or people didn’t show to pick up the tag.
The “Negative Experiences” by landowners should be handled by law enforcement agencies to help take care of and make an example of the bad stewards. Most of the campfires I have seen have been in public areas or private land near the public access sites. Everyone knows that the CO’s can’t be everywhere but that includes the troublemakers, poachers, and trespassers. A CO has approached me three times in 10 years asking for licenses and floatation devises. In the first 5 years I was on the river a minimum of 100 days. The last 5 years it’s been around 50 days. The point is the river users and private landowners are the ones trying to stop the troublemakers, poachers and trespassers. While we are policing the river we are supporting the negative experiences by trying to stop and educate the other users. I support our CO’s and we all know we need more all season long.
None of the proposed alternatives can predict future usage. What we do know is that Michigan depends on tourism and so do the DNR and Forestry Service. We need to find a way to increase revenue to help insure we have enforcement of the law. I am for an increase in licenses and parking cost. Increasing the parking will help control the illegal parking along with ticketing. Fines on parking without a pass are inline with cost but the government may need to add fines for parking in the wrong areas. My cost on fishing is $27 for an all species license and $20 for a yearly parking pass. I have stopped purchasing my yearly license to help contribute to the site management and improvement. That has increased the revenue by $130.
The idea of using Bowman’s bridge as an access point is very interesting. The reason I have never gone that far is because the storied “Flies Only” Section ended. Nothing more than that and maybe because that’s always where the guides get out. You may want to extend the Flies Only section to Bowman’s bridge to help increase the use of that access.
I’m in favor of all the improvements. I would support permits to monitor the usage and increase revenue without limiting use. There is a general agreement that the Pere Marquette River is in good shape despite the amount of use. I believe there is also a general agreement that if we have an emphasis on law enforcement we can decrease the “Negative Experiences” except for those breaking the law. Our private landowners would feel more comfortable with the their property being safe and the public users would know the Fed and State have the river under control.
Thank you,
|
