# Interesting - DNR Proposes certain streams for 10 fish limit



## TroutStlkr

fishinDon said:


> Some changes since the press release:
> 
> 5 streams (1.East Branch Ontonagon River 2.East Branch Huron River 3.Dead River 4.Driggs River 5.East Branch Tahquamenon River), down from 10, are now on the list for the new designation - Type 5.
> 
> FO-200 is being updated. When that detail is made available, I'll share it.
> 
> Don


Looking back at the original release, it said the dnr was "proposing" to establish a new category. Is this new distinction what will actually be in place next year as opposed to what had been proposed? Why the change? Public outcry against the original list? Just trying to understand the process.


----------



## kzoofisher

TroutStlkr said:


> Just trying to understand the process.


At this point I think the word that applies best to this process is "cluster". This is turning into an embarassment for all involved. It needs to get settled on Thursday and then go away for a while.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fishinDon

Click on the top link on this page to download the updated FO-200 (PDF) if you want to read more about the Type 5 regulations.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-39002_11862_13888---,00.html

Don


----------



## TroutStlkr

fishinDon said:


> Click on the top link on this page to download the updated FO-200 (PDF) if you want to read more about the Type 5 regulations.
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-39002_11862_13888---,00.html
> 
> Don


Thanks Don. "Based on comments received" is listed as the reason for revising the list. I see other changes being proposed include reduced steelhead possession on the Little Man and Platte. Eligible for approval on November 8th. Is approval basically a formality at this point? It appears all that is lacking is for the director to sign off on the changes. Again, just curious as to the process.


----------



## fishinDon

TroutStlkr said:


> Thanks Don. "Based on comments received" is listed as the reason for revising the list. I see other changes being proposed include reduced steelhead possession on the Little Man and Platte. Eligible for approval on November 8th. Is approval basically a formality at this point? It appears all that is lacking is for the director to sign off on the changes. Again, just curious as to the process.


Yes, this order is pending the director's signature at the November meeting in a couple days. Assuming it's signed, then these changes will be in the rule book starting in 2013. 

The changes to the steelhead limits on the LM and Platte were requested by field biologist Mark Tonello who's in charge of the egg take on the LM. I support the reduced limit based on Mark's reasoning that these are necessary to ensure we always have enough steelhead eggs to continue the current program. 

Don


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Email I got from MITU today:

*DNR Director abandoning science-based fisheries management:
MITU to comment in opposition at Nov 8th NRC meeting*

Dear Shane

New DNR Director Keith Creagh plans to approve Upper Peninsula brook trout bag limit doubling tomorrow at the Natural Resource Commission meeting in Lansing (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/agnNov12_402057_7.pdf ). This plan of action comes despite biological and social science. TU has opposed this move repeatedly, and will be doing so again tomorrow in person, prior to the Director taking action on this issue. If you believe our fisheries should be managed based on sound science and not politics, let the Director know that, and that you oppose this change in regulations ([email protected]).

MITU has commented on the biological basis of this issue, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding it (www.michigantu.org). Despite extensive uncertainty of the biological science  MITU has received no discussion of any of these technical points from the DNR.
DNR surveyed the public on this issue, and received a record 1,400 responses to a survey they created for this issue. DNR Fish Divisions analysis of this public response (www.michigantu.org) showed that by a wide margin the majority of the public was opposed to changing the bag limit of brook trout in the U.P. This formed the basis for the Fish Division originally recommending no change to the regulations at this time, which the Director is deviating from now.
MITU has formally opposed this regulation change in writing to the Director, and provided a comprehensive explanation of its objections based on biological science, social science, flawed public decision making process and criteria, and the implications from rushed research design intended to address biological uncertainties. (www.michigantu.org). MITU has not received any return communications from the DNR to these extensive concerns.
Trout Unlimited was founded in Michigan over 50 years ago, to advocate for progressive fisheries management based upon the best available science. This proposed action by the new DNR Director represents a serious deviation from those standards we stand for and demand. Please join us in urging Director Creagh to take a better direction on this issue. But, if he doesnt, please renew your commitment to helping TU right the direction of trout management in Michigan.

Thanks for your passion to coldwater fisheries conservation,
Michigan Trout Unlimited


----------



## Boardman Brookies

More, from MITUs website:

http://www.michigantu.org/index.php/news/181-mitu-apposes-upper-peninsula-brook-trout-harvest-limits


----------



## fishinDon

Boardman Brookies said:


> More, from MITUs website:
> 
> http://www.michigantu.org/index.php/news/181-mitu-apposes-upper-peninsula-brook-trout-harvest-limits


I absolutely applaud TU for taking a firm stance on a biologically based scientific approach to our fishery. I have been begging for this for years now and I feel it's the only way to manage our resource and to cut out the in-fighting that will continue to drive away anglers and kill funding for the sport we love. Kudos to TU for taking a stand for biology. I hope this stance is a trend that we see continue on all coldwater fisheries issues.

Don


----------



## kzoofisher

fishinDon said:


> I absolutely applaud TU for taking a firm stance on a biologically based scientific approach to our fishery. I have been begging for this for years now and I feel it's the only way to manage our resource and to cut out the in-fighting that will continue to drive away anglers and kill funding for the sport we love. Kudos to TU for taking a stand for biology. I hope this stance is a trend that we see continue on all coldwater fisheries issues.
> 
> Don


Did the GLFSA have a position on this?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TC-fisherman

kzoofisher said:


> Did the GLFSA have a position on this?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Don's proxy and another GLFSA member voted against the fisheries division decision keeping the brook trout limit at 5 at the August 2012 coldwater meeting. They were the only 2 to do so.


----------



## fishinDon

TC-fisherman said:


> Don's proxy and another GLFSA member voted against the fisheries division decision keeping the brook trout limit at 5 at the August 2012 coldwater meeting. They were the only 2 to do so.


True. Based on exactly what I just said about what I admired about TU - a stance on biological science. The fact that TU has a different intrepretation of the research biology is a different issue entirely, and a waste of time debating all over again here...

GLFSA took no official position on the issue, same as TU until just a couple days ago. We informed members of the data, surveys, etc. and that was it.

Don


----------



## fishinDon

Approval now in for 5 streams as experimental (no Type 5):

http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/MIDNR-5c772d

Don


----------



## itchn2fish

Cool beans. Thanks for the update.


----------



## dasuper

Haven't been on here for a while but I see that insulting fellow members still seems to be the way this forum works so I'm gone.


----------



## itchn2fish

dasuper said:


> Haven't been on here for a while but I see that insulting fellow members still seems to be the way this forum works so I'm gone.


What happened that raised your ire?


----------

