# The future of Steelhead angling in Norhtwest Michigan. waters.



## sportsman98 (Dec 6, 2010)

SteelieArm14 said:


> If you ask me river guys aren’t the issue…it’s the big lake guys. I have nothing against the big lake guys at all as I love going out there and getting them too. I think the harvest limit should be on the lake too. Michigan outdoors went out of manistee a couple weeks ago and got a 4 or 5 man limit of adult steelhead. That’s more fish than I have kept in my 20 years of steelheading and probably more than a lot of guys even catch in the spring and that’s just one boat on one day. Imagine the amount of fish being harvested if 10 boats do that out of each port all spring/summer/fall. Now there is the argument that you can’t really release fish in the big lake because they will die anyway and I will agree with that too. It’s a tough one. But if you limit them to keeping just 1 fish per angler per day there would be a lot more steelhead in the big lake..period.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


If I had to guess from what I've seen the last two or three years, the majority of the steelhead caught in on the big lake during the open water season are on the Wisconsin side and the limit is 5 over there. Still all for reducing limits on Michigan side though.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Swampbuckster said:


> I think the reduction of limits to one makes sense. Of course there will be an increase in mortality releases, but it will still be less than what's getting pulled from the rivers now. The Big Manistee has had quite the increase in angling and guide pressure alike in the last 10-15 years mostly because of the overall cuts statewide and crash that happened within Lake Huron. The changes have limited the rivers with "guide" fishable numbers of fish. I wouldn't agree with closing an entire river system for steel between January and May. That takes away the entire purpose of why they were introduced to begin with. I agree with the other post about closing streams (some are already) where natural reproduction takes place to help with the wild fish.
> The Manistee is a busy river....I really don't care to fish it myself anymore.


Ok, your opinion matters but I"m curious as to why you think it should be one? The science doesn't seem to say it should be. In fact, have you looked at the streams/rivers they are talking about? We know the Big Man has very little if any reproduction, The PM probably has plenty of reproduction, Bear Creek = reproduction, Little Man=reproduction, Muskegon=marginal. The problem is, there are sections of the streams that do have reproduction that is already closed at certain times. So, if we are talking about The Big Man, and Muskegon, then why are we dictating one fish? What are you protecting? Some of you guys need to sit back, have a beer and think about this for one minute. You have been sold out, and you are going along with it. If the fish were in trouble, I would say fine, but there is no science that says that. We say, well we are seeing any fish this year because of last years non-egg take, well even if had an egg take, you still wouldn't see any fish until NEXT spring. Steelhead take longer to smolt than salmon, I hope you understand that. The simple reality is, as I stated before, we have all been sold out, what we don't know for sure is, what was behind it for sure?


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

toto said:


> Ok, your opinion matters but I"m curious as to why you think it should be one? The science doesn't seem to say it should be. In fact, have you looked at the streams/rivers they are talking about? We know the Big Man has very little if any reproduction, The PM probably has plenty of reproduction, Bear Creek = reproduction, Little Man=reproduction, Muskegon=marginal. The problem is, there are sections of the streams that do have reproduction that is already closed at certain times. So, if we are talking about The Big Man, and Muskegon, then why are we dictating one fish? What are you protecting? Some of you guys need to sit back, have a beer and think about this for one minute. You have been sold out, and you are going along with it. If the fish were in trouble, I would say fine, but there is no science that says that. We say, well we are seeing any fish this year because of last years non-egg take, well even if had an egg take, you still wouldn't see any fish until NEXT spring. Steelhead take longer to smolt than salmon, I hope you understand that. The simple reality is, as I stated before, we have all been sold out, what we don't know for sure is, what was behind it for sure?


I guess my main reasoning behind it, and perhaps my opinion is only based on the little I know of the situation, is that with the overall increase of pressure and guides on rivers like the Big Manistee and other popular NW rivers, wild or planted fish, more would be available for more anglers to catch, more wild returns and planted fish would continue/create more wild reproduction, doing less with more. I understand the non egg take last year isn't rearing it's ugly head yet, We will certainly see a decrease next year and following few for multi-year return spawners. 
As for the science, yes, stocked fish don't produce more fish in a non-sustainable river for reproduction. But stocked fish that are not captured and kept because a group or person caught their 1 and went home leaves more fish to pursue, as well as the 8 fish those two guys landed in a day, 6 of them are returned to the river for other anglers to pursue. As for what more is behind it, yes not exactly on board if there are other agendas to go along with this regulation. About closing the streams, I was referring to creeks and tributaries that flow into the larger rivers to help preserve some of the wild populations of steelhead sustain.


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

Swampbuckster said:


> I guess my main reasoning behind it, and perhaps my opinion is only based on the little I know of the situation, is that with the overall increase of pressure and guides on rivers like the Big Manistee and other popular NW rivers, wild or planted fish, more would be available for more anglers to catch, more wild returns and planted fish would continue/create more wild reproduction, doing less with more. I understand the non egg take last year isn't rearing it's ugly head yet, We will certainly see a decrease next year and following few for multi-year return spawners.
> As for the science, yes, stocked fish don't produce more fish in a non-sustainable river for reproduction. But stocked fish that are not captured and kept because a group or person caught their 1 and went home leaves more fish to pursue, as well as the 8 fish those two guys landed in a day, 6 of them are returned to the river for other anglers to pursue. As for what more is behind it, yes not exactly on board if there are other agendas to go along with this regulation. About closing the streams, I was referring to some of the creeks and tributaries that support great wild reproduction that flow into the larger more popular river systems to help preserve some of the wild populations of steelhead.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

You have a sound response, but you are also alluding to two prongs of the problem.

1) too many guides. I have no idea how much a guide has to pay to operate, but I do know there are a few hundred thousand other anglers who pay for licenses, and part of that money pays for stocking etc, therefore these fish are PUBLICALLY owned.

2) haven't heard from him lately but a poster on this website, who maintains he is a fisheries biologist states that 50% of the fish released die; if that is true, it isn't BTW, then we should have total closure, you want to hear an uproar? Let em pull that crap.


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

toto said:


> You have a sound response, but you are also alluding to two prongs of the problem.
> 
> 1) too many guides. I have no idea how much a guide has to pay to operate, but I do know there are a few hundred other anglers who pay for licenses, and part of that money pays for stocking etc, therefore these fish are PUBLICALLY owned.
> 
> 2) haven't heard from him lately but a poster on this website, who maintains he is a fisheries biologist states that 50% of the fish released die; if that is true, it isn't BTW, then we should have total closure, you want to hear an uproar? Let em pull that crap.


I agree with #1. As for 2, I disagree with that statement. Maybe a higher mortality rate in warm water temps.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I disagree with 50% also, but it is what was stated by one who claims to know. I question how anyone could know.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

toto said:


> You know Mettlefish, there is closures on, at least some, of the natural reproduction streams for steelhead; not the whole river mind you, but at least it's closed at some upper limit. For example, the Betsie River is closed to fishing from Kurick Rd upstream after the regular trout season. I'll have to look at Bear Creek again, but at one time it closed from somewhere around 9 mile rd upstream. Both of those streams have the capability to produce fish naturally, in my mind especially Bear. I'm sure there are others, but I can assure you the Big Man isn't one of them. I agree that we should be looking at it from that point of view, but that's just me. As for the amount of guides, I suspect there are more out there than you realize, and I have a feeling there are a few "non licensed" guides out there too, but that's only speculation. I wonder, does anyone know how many licensed guides are operating on these rivers? I'll bet it would surprise you.


Hmm.
Closure at some upper limit. Or above and below areas /sweet spots to reserve some quieter (nonangler) gravel.
If enforced that could have some gravel be "home free". Left for some fish to spawn in unmolested. No assurance of smolt success following successful hatching. But have to hatch first if "natural" reproduction is being encouraged , where feasable. Not all streams are ideal or much success in. No sense reserving much for spawners in if unproductive.

Night time can allow movement under less pressure and distance during a run.. IF daytime runs and holes are not cleaned out constantly.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yeah and the Betsie has an up stream limit, Bear Creek used to but I'm not certain anymore. Don't know about the PM but I think it does as well. The Little Man does, I think, I know that after Jan 1 you can't fish from the weir to Manistee Lake, so there is that protection for fish getting to the egg take facility at least. So, that leaves us with the Big Man, and Muskegon, and I think we can all fill in the blanks on that. No, the bottom line is, this isn't really about protecting the fishery, except for the guides.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

toto said:


> Yeah and the Betsie has an up stream limit, Bear Creek used to but I'm not certain anymore. Don't know about the PM but I think it does as well. The Little Man does, I think, I know that after Jan 1 you can't fish from the weir to Manistee Lake, so there is that protection for fish getting to the egg take facility at least. So, that leaves us with the Big Man, and Muskegon, and I think we can all fill in the blanks on that. No, the bottom line is, this isn't really about protecting the fishery, except for the guides.


You are correct pm and bear both do until trout opens.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yes, and I know the Betsie, does it is at Kurick Rd.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Swampbuckster said:


> I guess my main reasoning behind it, and perhaps my opinion is only based on the little I know of the situation, is that with the overall increase of pressure and guides on rivers like the Big Manistee and other popular NW rivers, wild or planted fish, more would be available for more anglers to catch, more wild returns and planted fish would continue/create more wild reproduction, doing less with more. I understand the non egg take last year isn't rearing it's ugly head yet, We will certainly see a decrease next year and following few for multi-year return spawners.
> As for the science, yes, stocked fish don't produce more fish in a non-sustainable river for reproduction. But stocked fish that are not captured and kept because a group or person caught their 1 and went home leaves more fish to pursue, as well as the 8 fish those two guys landed in a day, 6 of them are returned to the river for other anglers to pursue. As for what more is behind it, yes not exactly on board if there are other agendas to go along with this regulation. About closing the streams, I was referring to creeks and tributaries that flow into the larger rivers to help preserve some of the wild populations of steelhead sustain.


Sounds a lot like socialized fishing to me! Because you hear the Big Manistee isn’t producing wild fish does not make it so! The last 10
Years unclipped fish have been predominant for me.
Perhaps that has to do with where on the river your fishing? Again… these fish are /were put here to catch. That is the main purpose of planting. To do a sustained plant - these fish need to be removed form the stock. If we remove little -
We only need to stock little? Then the cost per fish goes through the roof, further decaying the fisheries system. I fear some of your thoughts coming to fruition. When the state begins limiting your angling opportunity - your screwed.

This was meant for someone else/ nighttime Swampy! Not you! Sorry.


----------



## GRUNDY (Jun 18, 2005)

SteelieArm14 said:


> If you ask me river guys aren’t the issue…it’s the big lake guys. I have nothing against the big lake guys at all as I love going out there and getting them too. I think the harvest limit should be on the lake too. Michigan outdoors went out of manistee a couple weeks ago and got a 4 or 5 man limit of adult steelhead. That’s more fish than I have kept in my 20 years of steelheading and probably more than a lot of guys even catch in the spring and that’s just one boat on one day. Imagine the amount of fish being harvested if 10 boats do that out of each port all spring/summer/fall. Now there is the argument that you can’t really release fish in the big lake because they will die anyway and I will agree with that too. It’s a tough one. But if you limit them to keeping just 1 fish per angler per day there would be a lot more steelhead in the big lake..period.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app



Triple quadruple like. Its mind boggling how many fish the big lake boats can bonk. Both regular, and guide boats.

I could get behind a 2 steelhead limit lake wide real quick.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

GRUNDY said:


> Triple quadruple like. Its mind boggling how many fish the big lake boats can bonk. Both regular, and guide boats.
> 
> I could get behind a 2 steelhead limit lake wide real quick.


If we don’t take fish from the stock - there will
Be too many of them before long for the food available for them, resulting in plant reductions and cost/fish increases and small(er) fish. There’s more to it than just planting or protecting available fish. Recruitment and stocking must follow the science.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

METTLEFISH said:


> If we don’t take fish from the stock - there will
> Be too many of them before long for the food available for them, resulting in plant reductions and cost/fish increases and small(er) fish. There’s more to it than just planting or protecting available fish. Recruitment and stocking must follow the science.


That is well stated at this point about the only ones not wanting to follow the science is the NRC, just sayin.....


----------



## nighttime (Nov 25, 2007)

METTLEFISH said:


> Sounds a lot like socialized fishing to me! Because you hear the Big Manistee isn’t producing wild fish does not make it so! The last 10
> Years unclipped fish have been predominant for me.
> Perhaps that has to do with where on the river your fishing? Again… these fish are /were put here to catch. That is the main purpose of planting. To do a sustained plant - these fish need to be removed form the stock. If we remove little -
> We only need to stock little? Then the cost per fish goes through the roof, further decaying the fisheries system. I fear some of your thoughts coming to fruition. When the state begins limiting your angling opportunity - your screwed.


Same situation as last thread, not so much of a debate when others share their views and or opinions and only bashed for being wrong in your eyes. I’m only right except others that agree with me……. Already becoming painful to read once again


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

METTLEFISH said:


> Sounds a lot like socialized fishing to me! Because you hear the Big Manistee isn’t producing wild fish does not make it so! The last 10
> Years unclipped fish have been predominant for me.
> Perhaps that has to do with where on the river your fishing? Again… these fish are /were put here to catch. That is the main purpose of planting. To do a sustained plant - these fish need to be removed form the stock. If we remove little -
> We only need to stock little? Then the cost per fish goes through the roof, further decaying the fisheries system. I fear some of your thoughts coming to fruition. When the state begins limiting your angling opportunity,


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Swampbuckster said:


> I agree with #1. As for 2, I disagree with that statement. Maybe a higher mortality rate in warm water temps.


Cold water oxygen depletion is at least as much a problem and perhaps more of an issue.
So many “tumblers” with tears in their mouths (hook damage) because a fish swims off does not mean it survived.


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

METTLEFISH said:


> Cold water oxygen depletion is at least as much a problem and perhaps more of an issue.
> So many “tumblers” with tears in their mouths (hook damage) because a fish swims off does not mean it survived.


I agree with your last statement. Of course some do not make it. But where are all these dead steelhead at? I've yet to see one.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

A former DNR Fisheries Biologist (Tom Rozich, RIP) once told me that he estimated that up to 80% of post-spawn Steelhead in MI die from the rigors of spawning, even after they out-migrate to the Great Lakes. And he was talking about fish that haven't been caught, and fought. Just something to consider......


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

Swampbuckster said:


> I agree with your last statement. Of course some do not make it. But where are all these dead steelhead at? I've yet to see one.


No offense but if you have not seen dead steel you haven't looked much or fished them much. I don't think as many die as some think but definitely depends on water temp. How they are handled. Air temp. Lots of variables. I've seen days the 2nd coffer on the grand has 10 or 15 caught on it dead. Rivers you see bottom better its common to see a handful.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Swampbuckster said:


> I agree with your last statement. Of course some do not make it. But where are all these dead steelhead at? I've yet to see one.


I see the mostly when wading - smaller streams they end up in the wood and eddies and such. And in the cold water they’re not likely to rise to the surface because gas’s are not being produced in the cold. I hooked and landed one after a quick encounter on the Betsie (12lb line I can horse them a bit) I continued fishing standing in the same spot I was when I hooked that fish. About twenty minutes later I 
saw a fish tumbling along the bottom, booted it to shore and inspected it. It was clearly the fish I’d released earlier. I’ve seen many tumblers over the years.


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

Chriss83 said:


> No offense but if you have not seen dead steel you haven't looked much or fished them much. I don't think as many die as some think but definitely depends on water temp. How they are handled. Air temp. Lots of variables. I've seen days the 2nd coffer on the grand has 10 or 15 caught on it dead. Rivers you see bottom better its common to see a handful.


No offense taken, Fish often, look much but as for clear enough conditions to see them along bottom, yeah not much rivers I fish on my end are that clear. I just assumed they would float to the surface like any other dead fish in cold water Temps. I can certainly see them piling up at a coffer below a dam as busy as 6th st. But again, I have a hard time believing it is 50% of releases. When I do release a steelhead, its removed from the net, picture taken, unhooked and put back into the water in maybe around 20 to 30 seconds. I try to be quick as possible with it. Of course if it's bleeding from the gills at all It's being kept. I could also see the battles that take place in fast water with the fish using current to their advantage but then Ultimately being towed in after a long battle, that survival rate I would assume would be lower than say a winter fish in frog water. Like you said, lots of variables.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I suspect that however many deaths there, it can be lowered by proper handling. I think if you are fishing from a boat and want to release it, don't even take it out of the water for that "hero shot". Reach down and get the hook out, no netting. If fishing from the bank, the same applies. It's when it's out of the water and the way it's handled is a bigger part of the problem I know this isn't steelhead, but I suspect that approximately the same thing happens, but with stream trout, if the trout swallows the hook, simply cut the line as close to the fish's mouth as possible, don't try to remove the hook. From studies I've read, it reduces mortality rates to as low as 4 %, that's significant.


----------



## Bob Hunter (Jan 19, 2016)

METTLEFISH said:


> The guides are a fraction of the licenses, and a majority of fish caught when tallying fish/boat numbers. As I said in the previous post (closed) - what are the numbers? A 500,000 fish reduction in the basin is 1/7th in total numbers. So what does a further reduction mean for us?
> Do you remember the Feds. study regarding motor use, guide restrictions (Fed launches only) in the 90’s? Perhaps some of those studies and suggestions should be looked at/revisited now by our agencies. Surely motors destroy redds, resulting in lost (potential) fish. I see guides racing up and down the river all day, sometimes resulting in erosion of river banks.
> The first “volley” has been fired. Perhaps the ecosystem will rebound in favor of the fish, perhaps not. At that point, what privileges do we as anglers have when “they” begin to enact (more) protection of these fish, that are meant to be caught. It’s coming.


Loss of revenue for the guides themselves, not the state.


----------



## Bob Hunter (Jan 19, 2016)

SteelieArm14 said:


> If you ask me river guys aren’t the issue…it’s the big lake guys. I have nothing against the big lake guys at all as I love going out there and getting them too. I think the harvest limit should be on the lake too. Michigan outdoors went out of manistee a couple weeks ago and got a 4 or 5 man limit of adult steelhead. That’s more fish than I have kept in my 20 years of steelheading and probably more than a lot of guys even catch in the spring and that’s just one boat on one day. Imagine the amount of fish being harvested if 10 boats do that out of each port all spring/summer/fall. Now there is the argument that you can’t really release fish in the big lake because they will die anyway and I will agree with that too. It’s a tough one. But if you limit them to keeping just 1 fish per angler per day there would be a lot more steelhead in the big lake..period.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


That show was from 2019, and he’s the only boat operating at that time of the year
out of Manistee. In the fall, weather severely limits the amount of days you can get out. If you look at the catch data from charter boats, steelhead are a very small portion of their catch.


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

toto said:


> I suspect that however many deaths there, it can be lowered by proper handling. I think if you are fishing from a boat and want to release it, don't even take it out of the water for that "hero shot". Reach down and get the hook out, no netting. If fishing from the bank, the same applies. It's when it's out of the water and the way it's handled is a bigger part of the problem I know this isn't steelhead, but I suspect that approximately the same thing happens, but with stream trout, if the trout swallows the hook, simply cut the line as close to the fish's mouth as possible, don't try to remove the hook. From studies I've read, it reduces mortality rates to as low as 4 %, that's significant.


It would be pretty tough and dangerous to try to unhook and release a steelhead caught with a plug alongside a boat without a net I would think.


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

toto said:


> I suspect that however many deaths there, it can be lowered by proper handling. I think if you are fishing from a boat and want to release it, don't even take it out of the water for that "hero shot". Reach down and get the hook out, no netting. If fishing from the bank, the same applies. It's when it's out of the water and the way it's handled is a bigger part of the problem I know this isn't steelhead, but I suspect that approximately the same thing happens, but with stream trout, if the trout swallows the hook, simply cut the line as close to the fish's mouth as possible, don't try to remove the hook. From studies I've read, it reduces mortality rates to as low as 4 %, that's significant.


Interestingly most of the damage is caused from head trauma. I guess Steelhead are not heads of steel afterall. After reading both of these studies, I think I'll continue to net fish I intend on releasing and quickly remove the hook while caring for their head as much as possible, take a photo and release. 

*STEELHEADERS ARE GENERALLY PRETTY SERIOUS ABOUT CATCH-AND-RELEASE, BUT IT’S LIKELY THAT MANY ARE MORTALLY WOUNDING FISH WITHOUT EVER KNOWING IT.*
There are few species of fish as vulnerable as wild steelhead. These fish are beset on all sides by threats both natural and man-made. With their numbers dwindling, it’s safe to say, every steelhead counts. It’s vital that those of us who fish for them practice the best catch-and-release practices.

However, common landing practices can kill fish without the angler ever knowing. My buddy Andrew Bennett told me this story. Apparently, a team of biologists studying steelhead in British Columbia discovered this problem, quite by accident. These scientists were tagging steelhead with GPS trackers. They determined that the least intrusive way to capture the fish was, well, the same way we do it. With a fly rod. They landed the fish, tagged them with the GPS device and released them. When they went to their computer to track the fish’s progress they discovered something alarming.

Within two hours many of the fish they had tagged, and released in good health, were dead. They collected the fish and performed autopsies to determine what had gone wrong. In every case the cause of death was head trauma. It turns out that ‘steelhead’ is a misnomer. The fish’s head is, in fact, its most vulnerable spot.

When landing the fish the researchers had played them into shallow water where they would be easy to tail. As the fish came into the shallows they were on longer, fully submerged. Without the resistance of the water surrounding them, their powerful thrashing was able to generate momentum that is not possible underwater. The flopping fish simply hit their heads on a rock.

The fish appeared fine when released, but their injured brains began to swell and soon they were dead. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Fish have evolved in an environment where hitting their head on anything with enough force to cause damage is almost impossible. Their brains lack the natural protection enjoyed by terrestrial species.

Luckily, this unfortunate outcome is easily avoided. The angler has a couple of good options. Landing fish by hand in knee deep water is a little tougher but much safer for the fish. You can grab the leader to control the fish long enough to tail it. After a fish or two it will feel very natural. When possible, it’s best to use a good catch-and-release net. This is safest for the fish and easiest for the angler. A net helps you seal the deal while the fish is still fresh and requires little reviving.

Always control your fish once he’s landed. Keep his gills wet and support his head in case he makes a sudden attempt to escape. Keeping him, dorsal fin up, will keep his range of motion side-to-side, making it harder for him to injure himself. When possible keep him in deeper water. Never beach a fish when landing him and never lay him on the bank for a photo. It’s just not worth it.

Wild steelhead are a precious resource. Those of us who come to the river looking for them must lead by example and do our best to to be good stewards of these remarkable fish. Their future is, literally in our hands.


But this article states hand grabbing fish is less ideal than netting them and based on the conclusion of the study and the way the fish were handled, mortality was pretty low overall. 

*SCIENCE FRIDAY: HOW DOES CATCH AND RELEASE AFFECT STEELHEAD?*
In Oregon, Science Friday by Nick ChambersJune 8, 2018

Today we review a study on the impacts of catch and release angling on wild steelhead in the Bulkley River, the largest tributary to British Columbia’s legendary Skeena system. Conducted by Will Twardek and several others, this study looked into the effects of catch and release, air exposure and fight time on behavior and survival to spawning.

The study took place during the fall of 2016. Anglers landed 129 steelhead using a variety of methods, including swung flies, spinners and rubber worms using fly, spin and centerpin rods. Of these, 92 fish were caught on fly rods while 23 were caught on spin and centerpin methods. Once a fish was hooked researchers would time the duration of the fight, note the landing method (tailing vs. netting), hooking location, how difficult the hook was to remove, and water temperature.


Of the 129 wild steelhead caught, a subset of 45 fish were also evaluated to understand the effects of air exposure on blood chemistry and responsiveness. Immediately upon capture these fish were exposed to air for either 0, 10 or 30 seconds. A blood sample was then taken to measure peak lactate, elevated glucose levels and pH. The measurements taken from fish caught by anglers were then compared against a baseline of blood chemistry measurements taken from fish at a trap downstream of the study area. The fish in the trap were exposed to minimal handling and were not subject to the physical effects of a fight so their blood chemistry was assumed to be that of a rested fish.

An additional method the researchers used to determine the level of exhaustion from the fight was to time the fish’s ability to turn itself right side up when flipped over. Salmonids have a natural reflex to right themselves and the researchers timed the righting reflex of angled fish, using a cutoff of 3 seconds to determine if the reflex was impaired.

What did they find? Some interesting results.

First, fish that had been exposed to air for either 10 or 30 seconds had a significantly slower righting reflex than fish that had not been air exposed at all. Surprisingly, none of the other variables the authors measured had an effect on the righting reflex — including fight time or water temperature.

Furthermore, fish that failed to right themselves within the three second window had significantly more downstream movement after release than fish that were able to “pass” the righting test. This means that exposing fish to air after they are exhausted from a fight does impair their near-term recovery ability. Fortunately, however, after two weeks there was no significant difference in movement between air-exposed and non-air exposed groups.




Second, blood lactate and glucose levels were elevated in angled fish, but these factors did not seem to impact their behavior or survival. Steelhead swim long distances often passing waterfalls or other major barriers so they are probably well adapted to physical stresses and able to recover relatively quickly.

In other words, these guys could put Michael Phelps to shame. So it makes sense they can withstand short bursts of intensive exercise without significant long-term physiological effects.



Third, steelhead that were caught and then landed with a net had significantly lower blood glucose levels than fish that had been tail grabbed, yet there was no difference in relation to fight time. This means use of a net was not helpful because it reduced the length of the fight, but most likely because it reduced the stress in a struggling fish. Think of how difficult it can be to work a fish into knee-deep water and then tail it.

Lastly, water temperature at time of capture was positively correlated with blood lactate. Warmer water meant more lactate buildup, while the opposite relationship was observed with pH. This suggests that stress levels were actually lower when water temperatures were warmer.

Of course, the Bulkley does not see the high water temperatures that we deal with in many of our steelhead fisheries in the Northwest and this variable did not have a strong correlation with angling-related mortality as has been seen in other studies conducted in warmer water. Nonetheless, the relationship of catch and release mortality with high water temperatures has been well established and we should all pay heed when water temperatures approach or exceed 70ºF.

One of the biggest questions for many anglers — and for fisheries managers — is how many caught and released wild steelhead will survive and spawn. One unique aspect of this study addressed this question, by attaching radio telemetry tags to 68 fish from various air exposure groups. This allowed the researchers to track their movements through the spring spawning season to ascertain the long term survival of released steelhead.

In this study, 95.5% of tagged steelhead survived to 3 days and 94% survived to two weeks. This is consistent with the range of estimated catch and release mortalities at similar temperatures and with similar gear types from other studies. Over the long-term, there was a 10.5% overwinter mortality and an estimated pre-spawn mortality of 15%. Again, these numbers were consistent with previous studies in the Skeena system.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Have to admit, I didn't know that about head injuries, thanks for pointing that out. Also, I didn't even think about using plugs, valid point there also. In the end then, here's the question, should we then go to one fish per day, released or kept? Or should we just have a closed to fishing time frame? Just curious. It's too bad that this probably isn't anywhere near what the NRC was using to determine their new actions.


----------



## riverbob (Jan 11, 2011)

lot of techtalk, this is what i know, spring fish have a hard time, fall fish r hard to kill, today i took 3 fish off my perg line, (all prime orange flesh i think, for xmass gifts nice maple injected smoke fish) one has been on the line since the 10th i think, never had a dead fish in the last 25+ years that i've done it, if there strung right n nothing fouls the line, hell they mite live till spring,,,,,, off topic, how come less then 2% of my catch is planted fish, can't believe the grand tribs produced all these wild fish, don't they plant the grand any more?


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

A buddy of mine hooked a crazed big ole Skam above the coffer at Tippy some years back. The fish tried to burn him over the coffer, and he wasn't having it - bent a fairly heavy rod into the cork to turn it. That fish crashed into the coffer head-first, and killed itself. He reeled in a big ole dead Skam pretty easily after it bashed its head. 

If people are seriously worried about people keeping Steelhead during the spawn, then I would support a completely closed season on all rivers for a couple months. But I really think that only matters on a few decent sized rivers. And a bunch of small rivers that are closed for Trout regs anyway. BUT, I would also support a 1 fish/day keep limit for all Steelhead, year-round. Applied to the lakes, and rivers. Protect the fish wherever they are, if that is the true intent. Big fishing regs shouldn't be slanted to accommodate special interest groups - at all.


----------



## SteelieArm14 (Jan 6, 2012)

Everyone complaining about there being less steelhead but I’ve had one of my better falls in 20 years. Since October I’ve landed 52 steelhead. I haven’t counted how many I’ve hooked but my guess is somewhere between 80-100. I’ve had to work a lot harder for them and spend quite a bit of time on the water but that’s what makes it fun. Less fish=less people and less people=more fish for me haha


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

toto said:


> Have to admit, I didn't know that about head injuries, thanks for pointing that out. Also, I didn't even think about using plugs, valid point there also. In the end then, here's the question, should we then go to one fish per day,
> 
> 
> Fishndude said:
> ...


----------



## tda513 (Oct 24, 2011)

One thing I find interesting - on the southern rivers the fishing has been good this year (at times great), while the northern rivers seem like they have not been producing well. However, the surf/pier guys are doing much, much better in the Northern part of the lake from what I hear compared to down south.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

tda513 said:


> One thing I find interesting - on the southern rivers the fishing has been good this year (at times great), while the northern rivers seem like they have not been producing well. However, the surf/pier guys are doing much, much better in the Northern part of the lake from what I hear compared to down south.


The Southern watersheds have had ample rains. Low - clear water does not draw large runs of Steelhead.
It takes flow.(aka Freshets) to bring them into the systems.


----------



## SteelieArm14 (Jan 6, 2012)

Northwest has fished much better for me this year than the southwest. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Swampbuckster said:


> Interestingly most of the damage is caused from head trauma. I guess Steelhead are not heads of steel afterall. After reading both of these studies, I think I'll continue to net fish I intend on releasing and quickly remove the hook while caring for their head as much as possible, take a photo and release.
> 
> *STEELHEADERS ARE GENERALLY PRETTY SERIOUS ABOUT CATCH-AND-RELEASE, BUT IT’S LIKELY THAT MANY ARE MORTALLY WOUNDING FISH WITHOUT EVER KNOWING IT.*
> There are few species of fish as vulnerable as wild steelhead. These fish are beset on all sides by threats both natural and man-made. With their numbers dwindling, it’s safe to say, every steelhead counts. It’s vital that those of us who fish for them practice the best catch-and-release practices.
> ...


 This was published in STS I believe, or portions were. This study has little to do with a very large portion of our fishing conditions. Oxygen absorption in optimum conditions is very different than in Winter water temperatures with low oxygen, in steams with high turbidity and low oxygen absorption rates due to winter metabolism rates.


----------



## Swampbuckster (Nov 28, 2010)

METTLEFISH said:


> This was published in STS I believe, or portions were. This study has little to do with a very large portion of our fishing conditions. Oxygen absorption in optimum conditions is very different than in Winter water temperatures with low oxygen, in steams with high turbidity and low oxygen absorption rates due to winter metabolism rates.


Even so, the studies resulted in the upper 90% most lived after three days and most of the stresses were temporary. Even 75% survival rate sounds pretty good 

Maybe I'll start tagging them on my own and you can go behind me and catch them a few days later and we can conduct our own study.


----------



## SteelieArm14 (Jan 6, 2012)

Oh man. The swampbuckster-mettlefish debate has found a new home.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Swampbuckster said:


> Even so, the studies resulted in the upper 90% most lived after three days and most of the stresses were temporary. Even 75% survival rate sounds pretty good
> 
> Maybe I'll start tagging them on my own and you can go behind me and catch them a few days later and we can conduct our own study.


 Except it was done (perhaps) under ideal conditions. There really is no comparison to what goes on in Michigan, under winter water conditions.


----------



## Quig7557 (Dec 31, 2008)

Very thoughtful of this guide to suggest reducing limits more. Another idea, no fishing guides..


Some guides want even stricter regulations surrounding steelhead harvest after observing the population's decline in recent years. Jeff Hubbard, a guide at Outfitters North Guide Service, said he believes reducing the daily bag limit year-round would prevent steelhead populations from declining to rates as low as those in the Pacific Northwest.


----------



## Quig7557 (Dec 31, 2008)

riverbob said:


> lot of techtalk, this is what i know, spring fish have a hard time, fall fish r hard to kill, today i took 3 fish off my perg line, (all prime orange flesh i think, for xmass gifts nice maple injected smoke fish) one has been on the line since the 10th i think, never had a dead fish in the last 25+ years that i've done it, if there strung right n nothing fouls the line, hell they mite live till spring,,,,,, off topic, how come less then 2% of my catch is planted fish, can't believe the grand tribs produced all these wild fish, don't they plant the grand any more?


What’s a “ perg line”?


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Quig7557 said:


> What’s a “ perg line”?


A teather that allows fish to clean out their digestive systems prior to cleaning/eating/smoking…


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

riverbob said:


> lot of techtalk, this is what i know, spring fish have a hard time, fall fish r hard to kill, today i took 3 fish off my perg line, (all prime orange flesh i think, for xmass gifts nice maple injected smoke fish) one has been on the line since the 10th i think, never had a dead fish in the last 25+ years that i've done it, if there strung right n nothing fouls the line, hell they mite live till spring,,,,,, off topic, how come less then 2% of my catch is planted fish, can't believe the grand tribs produced all these wild fish, don't they plant the grand any more?


its difficult to analyze for factory or wild fish, not all factory fish were clipped until very recently.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Quig7557 said:


> Very thoughtful of this guide to suggest reducing limits more. Another idea, no fishing guides..
> 
> 
> Some guides want even stricter regulations surrounding steelhead harvest after observing the population's decline in recent years. Jeff Hubbard, a guide at Outfitters North Guide Service, said he believes reducing the daily bag limit year-round would prevent steelhead populations from declining to rates as low as those in the Pacific Northwest.





Quig7557 said:


> Very thoughtful of this guide to suggest reducing limits more. Another idea, no fishing guides..
> 
> 
> Some guides want even stricter regulations surrounding steelhead harvest after observing the population's decline in recent years. Jeff Hubbard, a guide at Outfitters North Guide Service, said he believes reducing the daily bag limit year-round would prevent steelhead populations from declining to rates as low as those in the Pacific Northwest.


Which guide are you referring to?


----------



## Quig7557 (Dec 31, 2008)

Quoted in the article


----------



## jiggin is livin (Jan 7, 2011)

Manolin said:


> Maybe a key is to simply enjoy a few, release what you can, and not shoot to just put up numbers. Maybe it’s my attention span and older age, but I started noticing that I tended to lose count certainty between 5-9 anyway. So I tend to leave after 3 or so now. And my wife likes that I’m home a bit earlier than usual. But I know that everyone that’s invested big money in boats feels the need to justify it.


We release a lot of fish, do our best to handle them accordingly and usually only keep a couple good eaters. I just plain love to fish them, but there are better fish for eating. 

I don't get the people that complain about the fishing either, there is great fishing, but the narrative is it sucks so most people don't try because that's what they have heard. We have bad days, but then there are days that are lights out and more that are decent. Seems pretty good to me, but I am not one to get upset if I don't stroke them every time I go either. One or two don't hurt though. Lol


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

METTLEFISH said:


> May I add - back in the high numbers days - double digit fish were not as common as they are (IMO) now! I’ll take fewer - larger specimens any day of the week!





jiggin is livin said:


> I just plain love to fish them, but there are better fish for eating.


You guys echo my sentiments. There was a time when I used to really chase the steel. Been about two decades though. Now I go three or four times a year and am strictly a wading / bankbilly type. If I want to eat fish, it is rarely steel on the menu. One or two fish a year max. I like fishing these missiles on my flyrod with a 6lb leader. I will gladly take a two 10lb fish day over four or five 3 to 6 lb fish. That said, if I do keep one, its probably going to be the 3 or 4 lb'er. Last couple years, FBD has put me on some Cohos and Browns. No reason to keep a steelhead.

I like steel head fishing better than deer hunting, because of catch and release. I'll take a fresh salmon or a Brown over a steelhead every day of the week for the table.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

I think this question is getting a little overblown. The limit drops from 3 to 1 for 6 weeks on about 6 rivers. This doesn’t mean the future is that fishing will be banned subject to the death penalty. Steelhead @ gravel time are going to be at their lowest point in quality of edibility and probably also their weakest fight on the other end of a line. Check out the Steelhead regs in Wisconsin. Slot limits, 1 possession, and closed seasons. Somehow, they still have bait shops and guides and Steelhead tourism. What they don’t have is very many perfect size & shape rivers to perfectly support the rather exclusive hobby.

If you seriously want to fill a freezer with Steelhead fillets, get out there before March 15 &/or figure out the other rivers to fish that host Steelhead runs &/or step up and drive up to the runs coming in off Lake Superior, which this new regulation largely misses anyway on the dates and the fish taste way better, year-round. You might have a little less room to swing the big fly rod on a bit smaller water but there will be plenty of fish to catch and without the hordes of guides + tourists. You will however have to read a map and the stocking reports all by yourself.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

jiggin is livin said:


> We release a lot of fish, do our best to handle them accordingly and usually only keep a couple good eaters. I just plain love to fish them, but there are better fish for eating.
> 
> I don't get the people that complain about the fishing either, there is great fishing, but the narrative is it sucks so most people don't try because that's what they have heard. We have bad days, but then there are days that are lights out and more that are decent. Seems pretty good to me, but I am not one to get upset if I don't stroke them every time I go either. One or two don't hurt though. Lol


I think my main issue is the limit, like I said - some only fish one or two days a year. (Not necessarily me) and look forward all year to Spring and breaking cabin fever and making it to the river/cabin/campground that they’ve been going to for decades in some cases. Those are the people that spend the money in the local shops/bars/Etc. that the fishery has equated into its economic factor.

There is much more to this than the fish themselves. As has always been here in Michigan since the beginning of the fishery. If some think it’s bad now - wait until “we” begin losing 5/10/15% of license revenues. (again)

I want to see a more pro active fisheries management / programs - not reactive. I want to see fertility equations / calculated carrying capacity prognosis and so on that will enhance the ecosystem, hence enhancing the fishery. I’m tired of reacting to numbers that are 2/4/6/8/10 years old. What are the trends? And what can be done to maintain/enhance the fisheries that we obviously all care deeply about.

Also - Perhaps a “cap” should be put on harvest, similar to what Alaskan and Canadien managers do. If our Bio’s are doing their jobs - they should know (as they claim to) what the population is in the lake(s). When that quota is reached - shut it down. Other agencies do it.


----------



## TerminatorRanch (May 7, 2021)

salmon_slayer06 said:


> its closed for walleye close it for steelhead. but it cant be done because guides make a living on these rivers and those voices will be heard loud and clear.


Guides make a living on catch and release waters all over the world.

I go steelhead fishing for the excitement of the fight. I can eat bluegills, perch and walleye for a few months a year.


----------



## scrriverrat (Apr 19, 2019)

Manolin said:


> I’m glad that I have memories of some really excellent Great Lakes Fishing. I think that we as anglers were uniquely blessed with simply awesome access to the lakes, rivers, and piers. In our declining fishery and the struggle for each of us to preserve our portion, we are rapidly losing the whole. It’s too bad; and very sad that the waters and the people are changing. Those that are coming after us do not share either our love of angling, nor our passion for the fish that we have.
> 
> You can continue to hope to change this tide. However, the future of the waters does not appear to support what we’d crave. I’m reminded at moments like this, how Michiganders who became accustom to the excesses provided by the economic engine that the US auto industry once was, likely felt. Hoping that their seniority, and the raw size would somehow permit maintenance of the lifestyles.
> 
> ...


This is the an excellent well thought out post. Thank you!!


----------



## ThreeDogsDown (Jan 19, 2018)

Couple of thoughts here…great thread. 

The Lake Michigan daily bag limits will be reduced next. Not that it affect us up here in Frankfort/Traverse City because a steelhead limit is rare, but I can see that coming. 

We ought to be watching what Wisconsin is doing and what Lake Ontario Managers are doing. Their multi-species fishery is impressive should be a goal for Michigan. The scape-goat excuse thrown back at you will be lake conditions which will always be used. Its a real “eye-roller” when the salmon and odd steelhead we catch up here are big healthy specimens. 

If you don’t belong to a local fishing club that goes to all the state meetings, partners with the DNR for help in stocking (pen-nets, predators control, scale and head collection etc), then join your local or regional club. All thoughts, and experiences are used to inform our state managers what we are seeing. We are the rod tip scientists that actually confirm or deny the studies and science. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 13, 2006)

Manolin said:


> I’m glad that I have memories of some really excellent Great Lakes Fishing. I think that we as anglers were uniquely blessed with simply awesome access to the lakes, rivers, and piers. In our declining fishery and the struggle for each of us to preserve our portion, we are rapidly losing the whole. It’s too bad; and very sad that the waters and the people are changing. Those that are coming after us do not share either our love of angling, nor our passion for the fish that we have.
> 
> You can continue to hope to change this tide. However, the future of the waters does not appear to support what we’d crave. I’m reminded at moments like this, how Michiganders who became accustom to the excesses provided by the economic engine that the US auto industry once was, likely felt. Hoping that their seniority, and the raw size would somehow permit maintenance of the lifestyles.
> 
> ...


Could be far worse. We could be slaughtering everything to extinction like we used to. Buffalo, beaver, salmon etc, etc.
Ironically, now they are bringing beaver "back" to fix degraded land and it works amazingly well. Go figure.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

ThreeDogsDown said:


> Couple of thoughts here…great thread.
> 
> The Lake Michigan daily bag limits will be reduced next. Not that it affect us up here in Frankfort/Traverse City because a steelhead limit is rare, but I can see that coming.
> 
> ...


We need every angler to be a “special interest”. There is a need for guide services - perhaps they should be State owned or operated? Certainly they need to be looked at more deeply(?) Conditions/structure both in Lk. Ontario and the Western shore of Lk. Michigan are much different than we have. Wisconsin has a lot of big Browns because of structure differences. (Or so I’ve read/been told)

There is a segment that does do limits - those are the guys/girls (why is there a complete lack of woman in the threads?) that watch the weather and fish when it’s right! Not everyone can do that. We’ve been told there is 500,000 less Steelhead in the lake, I don’t remember off hand for what year that was claimed - if it was 2/3/4 years ago has the trend continued? It we don’t have that Info. - why not?

As you said. - we are the rod tip of the fishery! We can and should have more knowledge of the status - and more ears that listen to our data and concerns.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Here’s one with some interesting data.



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235746021_Modeling_Steelhead_Population_Energetics_in_Lakes_Michigan_and_Ontario


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Bob Hunter said:


> I’d imagine that the loss of revenue for the guides would keep that from ever happening.


That's OK. Many of us are tired of subsidizing private businesses anyhow.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I think the concern that this will cause a big reduction in license sales is way overblown. Does anyone really think that (5-10-15%?) of license buyers are people who only fish steelhead, only make one or two trips a year, make their trips in the spring, only fish the NW6, and tend to bag multiple fish? I'm guessing the one/two trips a year folks mostly fish other species and are the 58% that only catch one steelhead. It's a spring fever thing for them and as soon as the weather gets nicer or the walleye runs start they move on to other species that they're better geared for and can do more comfortably. Or it's a fall trip they do before deer hunting and mostly targeting salmon and the new rule won't affect them at all.

I totally get wanting more scientific management. If you’ve ever read my posts you know that I don’t like one size fits all regs trying to find a compromise between the needs of the Niles area and Negaunee. Clearly though, most people don’t feel the same and the DNR has to deal with that. If I had a nickel for every time someone posted that they couldn’t understand the regs I could upgrade my trolling motor. Frankly, I’m surprised the proposal went through even with the current make up of the NRC being more inclined to make exceptions to rules. But here we are, with suggestions of limiting the total take and closing the season at a moment’s notice or going European style and counting any fish landed towards your limit on some streams, and a bunch of the “too complicated!” guys are “liking” the suggestions. And the same guys liking posts that say the regs should be science based and posts that say the DNR has bad data. I suspect a lot of the motivations in this thread are more to bash the DNR/NRC, guides and supposed “fly guys” than to accomplish anything constructive.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

kzoofisher said:


> I think the concern that this will cause a big reduction in license sales is way overblown. Does anyone really think that (5-10-15%?) of license buyers are people who only fish steelhead, only make one or two trips a year, make their trips in the spring, only fish the NW6, and tend to bag multiple fish? I'm guessing the one/two trips a year folks mostly fish other species and are the 58% that only catch one steelhead. It's a spring fever thing for them and as soon as the weather gets nicer or the walleye runs start they move on to other species that they're better geared for and can do more comfortably. Or it's a fall trip they do before deer hunting and mostly targeting salmon and the new rule won't affect them at all.
> 
> I totally get wanting more scientific management. If you’ve ever read my posts you know that I don’t like one size fits all regs trying to find a compromise between the needs of the Niles area and Negaunee. Clearly though, most people don’t feel the same and the DNR has to deal with that. If I had a nickel for every time someone posted that they couldn’t understand the regs I could upgrade my trolling motor. Frankly, I’m surprised the proposal went through even with the current make up of the NRC being more inclined to make exceptions to rules. But here we are, with suggestions of limiting the total take and closing the season at a moment’s notice or going European style and counting any fish landed towards your limit on some streams, and a bunch of the “too complicated!” guys are “liking” the suggestions. And the same guys liking posts that say the regs should be science based and posts that say the DNR has bad data. I suspect a lot of the motivations in this thread are more to bash the DNR/NRC, guides and supposed “fly guys” than to accomplish anything constructive.


No it the fly guys and guides that brought this just like all the other laws you have pushed through by your friends. You were all about many of them including Flys only. No kill. And chumming so don't act as though you actually care about the anglers other than yourself.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Make no mistake, this isn't about bashing guides, or fly guys, at least not for me. You've known me along enough Kzoo to know by now I'm a huge advocate for using biological science to dictate rules and regs, nothing more nothing less. It's just very frustrating to see our outdoor pursuits become a political football, and that's exactly what it is now. We NEVER should have allowed the legislature to have a voice in any of the rules and regs for ANY outdoor pursuit, but here we are. I have no problem with fly guys, as long as the science says we should have it, same with chumming, same with one fish limit, same with APR's, it's all the same. From where I sit, in the aforementioned scenarios, I haven't seen one bit of evidence supporting any of those regulations. In every case, I can argue pretty solidly against why they should do this or that.


----------

