Monday, December 16 we get the MDNR response on the bass season

[djkimmel]

Speaking of frustration with things not being quite the same at the 'bottom' level, I had a fairly interesting talk about that with Fisheries Chief Jim Dexter Friday - he called me before I called him so we talked though I wasn't completely ready yet. We'll see how things go after our discussion. The best I can do is be as frank as I can be with him, while considering that I also have to represent the interests of both bass federations to make sure we have as broad of support as possible, and that I keep within their parameters too.

As soon as I talk with 2, maybe 3 other partners / involved parties I will share everything I can. Of course, the minutes for most of these meetings are posted on the MDNR website as soon as they are approved by the committee and the MDNR.

They may be available for the meeting that happened Monday before I am able to talk to the people I need to considering the holidays the next 11 days. Anyone can read the minutes to get a summary of some type of what happened at the meeting.

Before I say anything more about my personal opinions and feelings, or any statements and opinions of either bass federation, and possibly screw up some other opportunities of other parties, I need to get their input and advice. I don't want to make things more difficult than they are, or mess up things other people are working on somewhat related but separate to our proposal, or things that are just potentially good for everyone.

I'm not a politician. I'm a nerd, angler, analyst (and redhead) so it's a good thing to hear from people who have other talents.

[djkimmel]

Uniform Bass, Pike and Walleye season is the most simple, fair, and reasonable compromise.  I'd stay away from anything that involves a "year round C&R" because it only opens the door for other vested groups to object - which from what I hear they did just that.  The bottom line is if we don't organize and get on the same page nothing will ever get done......

I can't really repeat myself too many more times. If you know a better way, get to work and do it. I'm already committed to a majority - both bass federations and a good number of bass anglers. We have a position we can all agree and compromise on. We are organized and on the same page.

It's just not the page you want to be on so that makes you the outlier, neither organized nor on any majority page with anyone. I understand what it's like to be a small voice in a big world. It rarely works. If you mean what you say then get involved and help. Stop doing what you want to make it seem like the majority is doing - you are hurting the process.

Otherwise, make sure you read this carefully - I can't help you and I don't have time to tell you the same thing for the - how many times is it now? If you still don't understand why please read all of the above two paragraphs again a time or two until you understand.

[djkimmel]

The one thing that is correct in Luke's statement is the bottom line is being organized and on the same page. We did a great job the last time, but didn't really flip things until the big survey showed our scenario (that wasn't even an official choice) was the best scenario.

We are already ahead of that last process because we have an official position that has been taken up for consideration by the MDNR; That BOTH federations have agreed to; And that a big enough percentage of dedicated bass anglers AND even a decent percentage of non-dedicated bass anglers can agree to all or most.

We have more bass anglers (note I say bass anglers not tournament bass anglers - there were 589,000 anglers who fished for bass in 2011 in Michigan, there are only 16,000 B.A.S.S. members and probably not more than 20,000 or so who fish any tournaments with an unknown percentage who are supportive or at least not against bass tournaments) who can agree to the compromises in our proposal. That is VERY important considering the majority of the bass anglers don't fish tournaments or have the same exact drive some of you have.

A creel survey the MDNR mentioned on Monday showed that 16% of the angler group they talked with said they would fish more because of catch-and-immediate-release (CIR). 37% said they were not aware of CIR and 8% said they were fishing in a tournament. I only use these numbers as a rough idea about how we have a wide range of anglers we want to agree on a specific proposal and a lot more of them don't fish as much for bass as some of us 'dedicated' bass anglers.

I believe once again any surveys and public input will show people just want to go fishing with a shift further towards simplified and less restrictive than last time - partly because I poll people all the time at the various fishing shows, and at various fishing locations, especially when there's no tournament around, just your average mix of anglers, even my neighbors. I already hear plenty from you most dedicated bass anglers and bass tournament anglers. We have definitely debated and gone over this topic a lot.

Our present proposal is a starting point. I expect the MDNR to once again toss out alternative options. Different anglers will fall in behind different options. I know some of you (Luke) will put your vote behind other proposals, diluting our odds. It happened last time at almost every meeting AND that time we had our own pre-meetings where everyone 'agreed' to pick the best overall option for our best odds only to have some of them pick some other option at the meeting where it counted anyway! I expect that because that's what always happens no matter what you do - if I, or any of you, can ever figure out a 'cure' for that, please let me know!!! I will definitely try to keep it to a minimum because we want to come out of this with as much as possible and the dilution makes it harder.

And just because other groups want this exception, or that exception, doesn't mean they're any more likely to get it than we are. This process will go through lots of hands between now and June. There are people thinking about more options than we are. There are people who may surprise us with alternatives that some of you will love, and some will hate. One of those alternatives could conceivably end up winning depending upon what we do, and what happens when the process goes to public meetings and/or public surveys - what exactly will happen is not known by me yet but some of these things are requirements that have to happen.

It is just as conceivable that a more aggressive alternative comes out the other end as there is a less aggressive alternative at this time. Anyone who thinks they know how it is going to turn out already has never done this before. It is way too early. It is way too easy to let thinking a significant number of people think just like you result in what ends up being delusions.

Having done this a number of times before and having heard a good chunk of the big picture, I can at least have a decent idea what the odds are for various possibilities. I can tell you some people have already picked horses that aren't even going to make it out of the gate. We can't let those people distract us. There's no time to waste on noise.

I assure you we have discussed options, alternatives, possible scenarios and even compromises (BOTH plus AND minus), and have adjustments in place to deal with a lot of that. Each new piece of information is met with more discussion, planning and decisions. It will be that way through the whole process. We can count on a lot more discussion, and possibly even changes to things that give us more or better than what we're asking for as a majority group on the same page (meaning the two bass federations, a good number of dedicated bass anglers and many other related parties and persons).

We really do have more support already from outside our core. Even more within the MDNR compared to before. It is just too early to see exactly how it will work out.

Last time the majority of us backed scenario 8, which wasn't even an official position, yet it was the one that won in the end. Some will say it was because that is the one we worked for, but saying that ignores everything that happened during the process, particularly involving the MDNR and the larger number of people who weren't part of our core group. We won because enough of us were organized and on the same page, and because a majority of anglers surveyed said things that our option best matched (which is why we decided to back it in the first place - it was the best possible compromise considering all known factors and things we were fairly confident we were reading correctly.).

We are attempting to repeat that process again, and overall we are ahead of where we were last time. Every few days, more people and groups choose to agree with some or all of our position, and even state they do. We will be speaking at, and attending a number of other meetings and groups in the next 2 months on top of anything that happens directly with our proposal, the MDNR and Warmwater Resources Steering Committee (or wherever the process ends up at).

[Redbone]

Thanks for addressing my comment. My intentions are not meant to be negative.

Here is an example of how I would address MI economy. First off you have to mention that in no way would this change be negative to MI economy. You then can explain the positives. Example.. I would mention that MI fisheries bring in x amount of dollars and I would include all species, salmon and walleye included. For this purpose I will say 100 million. Now by changing the bass season there is the possibility to improve this by .25 percent. .25 percent might not seem a lot but .25 percent of 100 million is 250,000. And all this can happen without any extra effort by the state. Basically they would be getting more bang for there buck. This way you can give factual information (the amount brought into the state). And then you also address the amount of money that can be added. I used .25 percent. This way it keeps it humble but yet still addresses this issue.

The reason I am suggesting this is because when I hear things like "tourneys are going to bring a bazzilion dollars to MI's economy" it kind of falsifies it (not that you said that). When to many numbers are thrown around most people get confused. And if they spot a flaw in your statistics your credibility is shot. Keeping your numbers simple and factual should get you better results and leaves no room for someone to pick you apart. I hope this makes sense.

[Genie]

Redbone for president

[djkimmel]

I understand what you're saying. Didn't take it as negative. Different audiences have different needs and expectations. I have documentation and/or recognized citations for any data I use or quote. I don't quote data I can't back up. Sometimes it matters. Sometimes it doesn't anyway. Sometimes, you have to be in a 'process,' but do all your real 'work' somewhere else. We did that last time, and we won.

I try to be specific and as detailed as it appears is needed. How things are taken or not sometimes has nothing to do with your delivery or your facts. Sometimes you're not received well no matter what you say or how, and sometimes you're received very well and you wonder if they remember what you said.

I try to be in the middle when I can, occasionally settling for the latter and sometimes getting the former regardless. Just going fishing (all year preferably) would be my favorite choice of all, all things being equal.

[Genie]

Kimmel for president...

[t-bone]

25% of $100M would be $25M not $250,000 - Redbone for President but not Treasurer!

Thanks for addressing my comment. My intentions are not meant to be negative.

Here is an example of how I would address MI economy. First off you have to mention that in no way would this change be negative to MI economy. You then can explain the positives. Example.. I would mention that MI fisheries bring in x amount of dollars and I would include all species, salmon and walleye included. For this purpose I will say 100 million. Now by changing the bass season there is the possibility to improve this by .25 percent. .25 percent might not seem a lot but .25 percent of 100 million is 250,000. And all this can happen without any extra effort by the state. Basically they would be getting more bang for there buck. This way you can give factual information (the amount brought into the state). And then you also address the amount of money that can be added. I used .25 percent. This way it keeps it humble but yet still addresses this issue.

The reason I am suggesting this is because when I hear things like "tourneys are going to bring a bazzilion dollars to MI's economy" it kind of falsifies it (not that you said that). When to many numbers are thrown around most people get confused. And if they spot a flaw in your statistics your credibility is shot. Keeping your numbers simple and factual should get you better results and leaves no room for someone to pick you apart. I hope this makes sense.

[Waterfoul]

Na, if he were President he'd get lost in all the international "crap" and lose site of Michigan's fishermen's needs.  I say we just elect him governor.  Keep him close at hand (maybe in our pocket??).

25% of $100M would be $25M not $250,000 - Redbone for President but not Treasurer!

Thanks for addressing my comment. My intentions are not meant to be negative.

Here is an example of how I would address MI economy. First off you have to mention that in no way would this change be negative to MI economy. You then can explain the positives. Example.. I would mention that MI fisheries bring in x amount of dollars and I would include all species, salmon and walleye included. For this purpose I will say 100 million. Now by changing the bass season there is the possibility to improve this by .25 percent. .25 percent might not seem a lot but .25 percent of 100 million is 250,000. And all this can happen without any extra effort by the state. Basically they would be getting more bang for there buck. This way you can give factual information (the amount brought into the state). And then you also address the amount of money that can be added. I used .25 percent. This way it keeps it humble but yet still addresses this issue.

The reason I am suggesting this is because when I hear things like "tourneys are going to bring a bazzilion dollars to MI's economy" it kind of falsifies it (not that you said that). When to many numbers are thrown around most people get confused. And if they spot a flaw in your statistics your credibility is shot. Keeping your numbers simple and factual should get you better results and leaves no room for someone to pick you apart. I hope this makes sense.

[Redbone]

I used .25% or 1/4 percent. Even so, I still screwed it up the first time and had to modify it.  To funny.

[Mojo]

So what I think I read, was there was talk, and more talk, and some guy named Kevin shows up and magically has the ear of EVERY single important person....... Now the bad news.

I read a KVD Q&A where he was specifically asked about C&R in Michigan and then more specifically on LSC. He responded by saying fishing overall healthy in Michigan, but he feels there may be too much fishing pressure on LSC  so he favors No Change. 

Don't go ape ship on the messenger, but I'm suggesting, Dan, to spend time with KVD on the topic....

Also you mentioned a "big survey" - was that the one on GLB or another?

[djkimmel]

There's always lots of talk... lots of noise might be more accurate the way it feels sometimes.

KVD is on my todo list. That was right before the 8 days and 15 1/2 hours of no power or Internet at home hit courtesy of the ice storm following the last batch of meetings. I'm well aware of Kevin's opinions on some of this stuff. We've discussed them before including during the Bassmaster on St. Clair when people seemed to just be finding out that the goby numbers are way down out there. I guess I should have been bringing that up more but I had been noticing it from my own small amount of fishing out there so I thought more people were already aware than actually are.

I'm on catch up from way behind and Ultimate Fishing Show preparation duty right now. If I get the chance to talk to the busiest person in fishing I will do so. Everyone can have their opinion, but I would like people to understand the issues and the science/facts, which are often different, even the opposite of opinion.

Opinions lost weeks of the Ohio spring bass season with no science or facts to back up that it was necessary OR that it would make the fishing any better. I'm well aware that some of the key bass tournament anglers were in favor of that season change. I believe they were in favor because they thought it would help. That is not the way we should be managing our fisheries. I hope I can work with other people to bring about real scientific fisheries management of bass (and other fish) more often verses the social management that still goes on.

The survey I believe you are referring to is the national U.S. Fish & Wildlife survey done every 5 years, and put out by the Census Bureau. The most recent one that I have been referring to for things like numbers of anglers, number of angler fishing days and economics come from the 2011 survey, which includes results by state too. The MDNR has recently stated at meetings that they too refer to and use numbers from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife surveys.

You can read and download PDF copies of these hunting, fishing and outdoor census surveys at: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/fishing.html for 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011. I don't pull numbers and information out of the air. I use data sources such as these.

There's all the data we ever need out there already. The hard part is getting people to agree to and acknowledge it even when the data doesn't support their opinions or predetermined result. Always something to have facts and figures galore only to sit in meetings with people who still choose to go by what they 'think' or like. There's also a troubling amount of cherry-picking that goes on.

I wish it really was about scientific management and providing the maximum opportunity all the time. Whatever amount of energy, time and resources I can spare will go towards getting us closer to those goal even if it is only a tiny bit at a time. Too much wasted energy and wasted opportunity. Needs to be fixed. It is broke. Been broke my entire adult life.

PS: Kevin didn't just show up. A great deal of effort over some time by a number of people through numerous channels occurred before he had 'the ears.' That is almost always the case. Make no mistake about that. It is always nice if more people volunteer to put in more of that effort. There's a small number of dedicated persons who work their butts off so the rest of us can 'just go fishing' (or hunting).

[djkimmel]

Two things about Lake St. Clair and bass:
1) According to the latest fishing data regarding bass and Lake St. Clair, the bass population is still underutilized (only 30% of the effort on Lake St. Clair goes towards bass - walleye is number 1 followed by yellow perch).
2) If we leave the unsupported later opener on our best bass lake, doesn't that send a message that it is necessary for a reason? Yet the MDNR's own fisheries study finds that there is no scientific support for Lake St. Clair needing anymore protection than our other lakes. The MDNR Fisheries biologist most knowledgeable about Lake St. Clair recently repeated that their is so scientific support for a later opener.

He, and others, don't want it to change because they consider it won't add extra bass fishing opportunity. I strongly disagree with that specifically, AND because it sends a message that this later opener has a scientific or necessary purpose when that is not the case. Bass season opens later on Lake St. Clair because they think the anglers want it to! That isn't science, and besides, more bass anglers than ever before want it opened earlier for ANY opportunity just like our other waters that all have much smaller bass populations.

Why would we limit our best water the most?

There was a recent communication shared that maybe Lake St. Clair is better because of the later opener. My question to anyone who wants to go down that road is - then why is Saginaw Bay so much better than it used to be too EVEN THOUGH it opens on Memorial Weekend like the rest of the state. I could list off a long list of lakes that have also dramatically improved that ALL open Memorial Weekend.

That's a pretty simple explanation about the difference between perceived claims and claims that can actually be backed up with science and facts that are worth talking about. Certain MDNR and other persons can bring up 'uncertainty' all they want but if they can't quantify it at all, and there are overwhelming real world examples (45 out of 49 states with no statewide bass season closure) and studies stating it is not a statistically significant factor for black bass, why are we even spending more the 2 minutes talking about it?

It obviously isn't important science. If it was, then there wouldn't be 45 out of 49 states, including 2 of our direct neighbors (Indiana and Ohio), with year-round bass fishing. The last time we added a few more weeks of bass fishing to Michigan's bass season in 2006, two other Great Lakes states - New York and Pennsylvania - went to year-round bass seasons because the science did NOT support their closures. And anglers just want to go fishing.

[Mojo]

Dan, if you were forced to bullet point, using 10 words or less each bullet, only 4 bullet points on why MI NEEDS an Open Season, what would they be?

Could you construct 5 bullet points on why we DO NOT need a closed season? Different bullets I'm sure.

It is critical that KVD is presented something he can use, in simple bullets, that get people to hear his message...... Which is our message. I will help you write them up if you can PM me like 10 bullet points for each.  I'm very good at presenting and providing truths in simple format that makes sense to the majority. It's part of my job too.  This is how I can help you.

[djkimmel]

Kevin VanDam doesn't do what I tell him. If I get a chance, I will discuss the bass season proposal with him, and what we are doing through the various committees, and explain why. It would be up to him, just like any of you, to decide what he accepts or doesn't accept, and what he talks about to others. I sent him the proposal last May or June so he could review. We haven't really had a chance to discuss it in detail due to his busy schedule. Mark Zona did sign on as supporting the existing proposal and I thank him for that.

My understanding is KVD's next meeting with MDNR Fisheries Division chief Jim Dexter is about bass tournaments and B.A.S.S. I don't know anything else beyond that since I've only talked to Jim Dexter briefly about it. Kevin is a very busy person. I don't remotely presume to expect him to call me or talk to me every time I'd like him to. He has generally been a very good supporter of Michigan bass fishing.

You're more than welcome to put together a bullet list for anyone. Check out the Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation Bass Season Proposal also now supported by TBF of Michigan. You shouldn't have any trouble pulling some bullet points from the proposal.

I don't think Kevin will be at the Ultimate Fishing Show. I don't know when and if I will see or talk to him, but I would just ask if he still has the proposal I sent to him, and send it to him again if not, and if he was willing to discuss it with me.

It's my personal opinion that hunters and anglers have to take some of their time to understand, support and protect their hunting and fishing privileges through science and tactics knowledge to keep our ability to do so. Based on that personal opinion, I will continue to try to share more detailed information with people hoping that more of them decide that hunting and fishing is important enough to make some time for the above. I believe we will all be better off if more choose to do so.

Bullet points are great for commercials and politicians, but in the meetings and places where it counts, they require more details. I'm detail-oriented because I need it for meetings and proofs, and I share that on this website because of my personal opinions. I have seen how the less-detailed my presentations get, the easier it ends up being for opponents to oppose them. My personal opinion is that I'd rather hear complaints about too much detail than make it easier for opponents to oppose.

I do summarize many things, but in this age of 'too busy' I recognize it still seems like too much to some people. I will be who I am, and let other people be who they are. The idea of being 'too busy' is an artificially created state of mind in the U.S. anyway (people always make time for what they want to), and I've always been into reality, facts and stats. Just who I am. If I can find people who are more politically savvy than myself, I try to network with them, get their advice and help. I will let them cover the bullet points. I'll stick to the details.

Hope that clarifies things? Like I said before, I already have my proposal I need to support, and it is most time-effective for me to keep using that when I talk to people. I put a lot of time into writing it, and making sure it had good support. I can already had it to people. Now, I have to write a resolution on the same topic for another group that might have a significant impact on this process. That's my next chore. Followed by meetings to get it accepted.

[Mojo]

I'm coaching on effective presentation, I hope you aren't offended. You got 12 seconds to capture anyone attention. If you're good, they will come away with you're base message and a few facts that can be repeated as fact.

The details of course are necessary, as back up slides. Let's go off line, I can help folks with a good message, but too wordy. Ying n yang my friend

[djkimmel]

I'm coaching on effective presentation, I hope you aren't offended. You got 12 seconds to capture anyone attention. If you're good, they will come away with you're base message and a few facts that can be repeated as fact.

The details of course are necessary, as back up slides. Let's go off line, I can help folks with a good message, but too wordy. Ying n yang my friend

I prefer not to go 'offline' most of the time. I built the forum so we could all see and share information with everyone. Pretty much defeats the whole purpose to go offline.

I thought I explained in my way that I'm neither asking for, nor wanting someone to coach me on effective presentation. I'm not offended. Hope you aren't either. As I already said, I have a way that works for me, for the coalition's particular needs.

Make sure you're on the bass season conference call so you can hear how things are going, and the questions and issues at hand. Maybe you can provide some insight on the specific, existing issues. That's what I'll be asking about. I always adjust my presentation depending upon the crowd and the apparent need, and based on the reaction received verses the potential for changing minds or winning people over within the meetings I'm involved in. There are definitely always people that pretty much can't be won over and I try hard not to waste time on them. It's the people who do listen and think, and aren't already fully supportive that I try to connect with. The people I deal with like that at these meetings need more than 12 seconds. They need proof and convincing. It takes more than bullets, even when they sometimes say that's all they want. I've found that to be true over and over again.

I do listen to input. But people offering input will need to listen to me too so they can determine if that input has any bearing on the situation at hand. I don't have a situation where I need to capture anyone in 12 seconds. If we add TV or radio commercials (which I don't expect to happen) then maybe we would need that approach. Someone else would probably have to do that. I'm not an announcer. I'm an analyst nerd. I'd be happy if someone else acquired the knowledge who could also talk like a movie star, taking my place in these meetings. Be even better if the person had never fished a bass tournament! ( )

As I explained before, in my case, the details are needed most of the time up front and center, and it's my method. Even when they aren't always wanted by everyone, they are still needed because of how this process works within the methods I have to work with for the groups involved. For the general fishing public, they aren't usually reading on this website, but I do try to get information to them through other means, and have over the years, along with other like-minded people. If I had unlimited time and budget I would put more effort into reaching them more often with the message. But I don't. So I can't.

I don't need to win over many of you. The majority of you have already stated you want year-round or close to it bass fishing in Michigan, even if you aren't all on the same exact page of how to get that. There is already pretty good support among other anglers for most of the year or year-round bass fishing too really. The last bass season survey showed that, and I believe it is even more true now that we have had 8 seasons of catch-and-release bass fishing without all our bass vanishing.

I only have so much time, resources and money, so some things will not get done by me as I prioritize what I think is the best use of my limited resources, and skip what seems low priority or less important to the proposal I need to work for the groups supporting it. At the moment, considering the overall support among bass fishing anglers and a strong attitude of just wanting to go fishing among general anglers, my priority is to get as much support and acceptance as possible through the MNDR-related groups. I'm not worried if this goes to the public about much opposition. I just need to make sure our proposal is given to the public as an option as it is written now (or better) in a timely manner that allows for a change in 2015. I believe the public will do the rest exactly as they did last time if they have the option to do so.

If someone else successfully does some other things to help outside of what I can do, extra efforts in areas I can't get to, or don't need to work in, so much the better for the overall effort!

If you still want to do bullet points for your needs, read the proposal and pull them out. It shouldn't be very difficult.

[Redbone]

Bullet points are great for commercials and politicians, but in the meetings and places where it counts, they require more details. I'm detail-oriented because I need it for meetings and proofs, and I share that on this website because of my personal opinions. I have seen how the less-detailed my presentations get, the easier it ends up being for opponents to oppose them. My personal opinion is that I'd rather hear complaints about too much detail than make it easier for opponents to oppose.

I think this is what Mojo is saying. You can make the proposal as detailed as can be. But the presentation needs to be "like a commercial". That is what commercials are designed to do, Sell something. Your trying to sell your proposal. With to much information your message gets lost. Me, I am a horrible salesman. 

[djkimmel]

I'm not explaining myself correctly either I guess. I totally get what you and Mojo are saying. Both suggestions may apply with the right audience but a big part of any presentation / commercial / speech / etc. is knowing your audience first. If you don't know your audience, any method can fail or be unproductive.

When I don't know my audience I tend to start out any presentation finding out who the audience is and what they want before I get too far into the presentation. I adjust the presentation based on what I find out too. I've seen good speakers do that very well, and I've seen some do it poorly. When I go to seminars, more often than not, I'm going to see how the person does their presentation more than to hear what they are talking about. I have a really, really good book on public speaking that has been super helpful. I've never done Toastmasters but that would be a good suggestion for anyone who wants to be a better public speaker.

For the type of meetings and presentations I'm involved in right now, I know my audience and your suggestions mostly don't apply to those. They are representatives of fishing groups who are used to the meetings processes we are going through. A few of them seem almost intractable. Doesn't matter what I say to them. The ones who aren't have various reasons they will or might support some, most or all of the proposal, so I need to address all of those reasons based on priorities of mostly likely to help to least likely to help.

The MDNR has also stated as of last year that we have to provide scientific and other support for proposals we want considered. They did a presentation at the last meeting that went into many areas, many of which I need to address to a greater or lesser degree since some of these group reps will make their decision based on this. I can only go into so much detail anyway trying to hit most of the reasons that seem necessary. One slide I could counter with one or two sentences (verbally) while others took a lot more to counter them.

Your suggestions may apply or partially apply the next time I speak to the NRC in February since I just give a short, timed talk. I may or may not get any questions from the Commissioners. Your suggestions may apply if and when we get to the general public, or public meetings. They may apply when new information is put out on the web in places other anglers may see them, or in any radio or news media interviews. The last time in 2004-05 I did a combination of bullets followed by details so people could choose. When I talk to media I try to get a key message or messages across but go into more detail when asked. I also try hard to make sure what I say doesn't get presented in a way I didn't mean it or say it. Media people don't like to be told what to write or how to write it, but that doesn't stop me from mentioning clarifications.

For the online and public stuff, I saw in the past where some people shared some of the GreatLakesBass.com information around. Some people shared the bullets or summaries, some people shared the details, some people shared just parts - all probably based who they thought their target audience was, and what would be most successful.

I appreciate suggestions and will consider them at the point they may apply. I actually do have to present the economics right now with the groups involved. I am changing how I do that part - not to shorten what I say but to change how I say it. Apparently, some people seem to think I'm saying bass are more important than other gamefish. I said they were very important to Michigan. They are - #2 in number of anglers and days fished behind only panfish, and if the USFWS numbers are close - #1 or #2 in economic impact.

I need the people who aren't already opposed for other reasons and listening to understand they are parts of the facts and figures good to know when making this decision, but they don't mean other fishing types aren't important. I support all fishing efforts and 'types' of anglers. I realize none of us can afford to play the who is more or less desirable angler (or hunter) game. It is counterproductive for any of us or the MDNR to do that, and I have said that.

Part of the problem remains how some people look at me as being a 'bass tournament angler' not an angler who cares about the environment and our natural resources just as much as any other angler or hunter. It's a shame that happens but all I can do is keep trying to change that inaccurate and harmful perception. I'm working on that through various avenues.

I need to keep saying too that things are much better than it used to be. There are just some people who fight change a lot harder than others. Sometimes, I need to blow off some steam and I do that on here because of how many of you feel similar about things. It gets a little old to hear the same stuff more than 25 years after I started to hear it, but there is no denying it by any reasonable, honest person that angler attitudes and practices have evolved quite a bit since 1970. We just happen to live in a state that has been managed very conservatively for a long time. That is changing too.

Please don't blame me that some days I really wish it would change a lot faster (I'm only human too! ) Believe you me, anytime I can figure out a way to make it change faster I'll give it a try. Who wouldn't?

[djkimmel]

Bullet points are great for commercials and politicians, but in the meetings and places where it counts, they require more details. I'm detail-oriented because I need it for meetings and proofs, and I share that on this website because of my personal opinions. I have seen how the less-detailed my presentations get, the easier it ends up being for opponents to oppose them. My personal opinion is that I'd rather hear complaints about too much detail than make it easier for opponents to oppose.

I think this is what Mojo is saying. You can make the proposal as detailed as can be. But the presentation needs to be "like a commercial". That is what commercials are designed to do, Sell something. Your trying to sell your proposal. With to much information your message gets lost. Me, I am a horrible salesman. 

PS: Sometimes having too short or simple a message makes it easier for people to try to beat you by just attacking that one part. In these types of processes it isn't always good strategy to provide too few things to counter. Especially if you already know how they will try to counter them (because they've done it the same for a long time).

It's why proposals and resolutions try to summarize as best they can while still providing multiple reasons why the proposal or resolution should be adopted. This is definitely a case where too few reasons make it too easy for opponents to counter them. It's a balancing situation that constantly needs adjustments.

The overall message in this case is pretty simple - we want legal, year-round bass fishing just like 45 of 49 states already have.