# 10 fish limit on Brook Trout?



## B.Jarvinen

Here is one more quick U.P. Brookie story. I fished a waterfall in the central U.P. in May when I had a few hours to kill during a bidding trip. It is perhaps 45 minutes from either of the 2 most populated towns up dere, is in all the Waterfall books and has a sign leading you to it and a nice parking area, etc.

I caught 2 9" Brookies at the base of the fall in just ten minutes.

I met 3 groups of people in those few hours and each had the same basic comment/question - "there's fish in there?"


----------



## Turkey Antlers

Not at all in favor of a 10 brookie limit. These are fragile fish, their environments generally pretty sterile. Recruitment and growth rates are both pretty slow. 

A 10,000 acre lake can take a real pounding without hurting a fishery, but even that has a limit before eventually there are less, and smaller fish. And how much water in total do most trout streams have? We're talking about very, very little compared to most lakes. Most trout streams simply cannot sustain heavy pressure, and a few skilled fishermen can put the hurt on a population. 

IMHO these beautiful little fish should be looked at maybe a bit more as a trophy fish. I have no problem with someone occasionally taking a few to eat, I've eaten a fair number in the past myself. But does anyone really _ne_e_d _to keep 10 a day? You can only keep 2 northern pike per day, but 10 brook trout is okay?? Are northerns somehow worth 5 times as much? Which of the two are more prolific? 

Having fished the same Ontonagon/Gogebic stream for 30 years, I was happy when they dropped the limit on brook trout from 10 to 5. And I hope it stays that way. Want to fill the freezer? Go catch bluegills on Houghton.....


----------



## PunyTrout

Trout King said:


> On the other hand, I see the importance of protecting special resources


This is pretty much the heart of my concern about a limit increase on _all Type 1 Streams in the UP _being implemented...


----------



## Duck-Hunter

I really don't think doubling the limit will bring more people to the UP to chase brook trout. Like stated a couple comments up people especially the younger crowd don't even want to target brookies. They want big trout. This season I got tired of trying to get people to go. I started going after brook trout by myself. Now when the steelhead or salmon are running... Camp is full. 

I've only targeted brook trout a couple times this season and I gotta say it's one of my favorite things to fishing. The best therapy is wading a remote stream hearing nothing but the babbling brook, drumming grouse, woodcock and the pure quiet. I never thought catching a 6-8" fish would be such rewarding. 

I think 10 is a bit extreme, 7 would be cool. Test that out and see how it goes. At the same time how many people do you see or know that target just brookies. My network of fisherman is pretty extensive, I know one guy that is a brook trout nut.


----------



## toto

There were several members of the GLFSA at this meeting and they have been strangely quiet about the issue, only once saying that this could be a problem. At the meeting this spring Dexter brought up that the NRC was pushing for the ten fish limit despite it having been shown to hurt abundance and size structure. I do not remember any member of the GLFSA in attendance arguing that we should cleave to science and keep the limit at five. I have not seen any threads or posts here from members of the GLFSA in opposition to this "social management". Very strange considering that the science showed it would be harmful fish.

How many times have we heard how reasonable and fact based the GLFSA is? They would go along with gear restrictions if the science showed it helped. They would be all for lower limits if the science showed it made a difference. And now when the science shows it? Crickets.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure how you know who was there but just take a look at your statement: you state we don't have a problem if the science shows it. Very true, so if the science shows that keeping 10 is harmful then fine why would we say anything? Of course the science of flies only is unnecessary so what say you?


----------



## kzoofisher

PunyTrout said:


> be respectful and state your opinion. _Please._


 For the record and as a surprise to no one, I'm against it.

I'll start another thread for scrapping about it.


----------



## Quig7557

This would indicate fishing pressure doesn't necessarily limit reproduction, is this your take on it?


----------



## Quig7557

This isn't anecdotal stories, but I feel it's important to use the data available to understand what happens naturally.


----------



## Trout King

PunyTrout said:


> This is pretty much the heart of my concern about a limit increase on _all Type 1 Streams in the UP _being implemented...


Exactly, but I believe we have to set personal "feelings" aside and look at the facts and logic. Curious to see the results of the surveys/studies. Of course Bryan @ TU is against this, saying science doesn't support it, but offered no evidence or reference. I believe they are studying the impacts right now, hence the experimental regs on the few streams.

Personally, I don't think I would ever need to keep 10 trout at a time. Just no need to keep that many for a meal and I don't freeze trout, I'd rather just go catch them fresh for a meal. 

(Here are some random thoughts, not directed at anyone in particular)
By my logic (which may be off to some of you), not many people are really hardcore trout guys. Opening day is the only day I have ran into another fisherman this season. This includes fishing a few times in suburban and metropolitan areas where the population density of people is much greater than the UP, and waters that are no secret. The smaller sterile waters will probably not be fished much, and many of the trout in those waters probably won't ever attain keeper size. Is it better that sometimes we are in there hooking tons of small fish, that when hooked, suffer much more trauma due to their small and fragile nature? Does it make sense to even bother them if we are so worried about the fish? If I thought a stream couldn't take losing fish, I wouldn't fish it regardless of method used to catch the fish and whether or not I was throwing them all back. 

So who is going to keep 10 trout a day? Probably the guy who doesn't trout fish much (if he can manage to catch 10 keepers) may take 10 and throw some in the freezer for later in the year. Possibly me if I happened to be in the UP (which I will be in a few weeks) and I had a gathering of people that liked trout (which I won't) and wanted a special dinner. Of course there will always be the slobs, but I can't recall ever meeting a trout fisherman, from the fly guys in Montana, to the crotchety old worm dunking yooper (that was unhappy about me finding his special place), that I would call a slob out in the brush and tangles. 

Back to more sensible/measurable logic imo: I am curious to see what they get out of the research streams, if raising the limit does not have a noticeable long term effect on the fisheries, then raise the limit (that pressure can spread out a long ways with how many streams there are). If it shows that these populations and fisheries cannot sustain themselves long term with the same limit, leave the limit at 5.


----------



## Trout King

(Copy from the NW thread)
Personally, I don't think I would ever need to keep 10 trout at a time. Just no need to keep that many for a meal and I don't freeze trout, I'd rather just go catch them fresh for a meal. 

(Here are some random thoughts, not directed at anyone in particular)
By my logic (which may be off to some of you), not many people are really hardcore trout guys. Opening day is the only day I have ran into another fisherman this season. This includes fishing a few times in suburban and metropolitan areas where the population density of people is much greater than the UP, and waters that are no secret. The smaller sterile waters will probably not be fished much, and many of the trout in those waters probably won't ever attain keeper size. Is it better that sometimes we are in there hooking tons of small fish, that when hooked, suffer much more trauma due to their small and fragile nature? Does it make sense to even bother them if we are so worried about the fish? If I thought a stream couldn't take losing fish, I wouldn't fish it regardless of method used to catch the fish and whether or not I was throwing them all back. 

So who is going to keep 10 trout a day? Probably the guy who doesn't trout fish much (if he can manage to catch 10 keepers) may take 10 and throw some in the freezer for later in the year. Possibly me if I happened to be in the UP (which I will be in a few weeks) and I had a gathering of people that liked trout (which I won't) and wanted a special dinner. Of course there will always be the slobs, but I can't recall ever meeting a trout fisherman, from the fly guys in Montana, to the crotchety old worm dunking yooper (that was unhappy about me finding his special place), that I would call a slob out in the brush and tangles. 

Back to more sensible/measurable logic imo: I am curious to see what they get out of the research streams, if raising the limit does not have a noticeable long term effect on the fisheries, then raise the limit (that pressure can spread out a long ways with how many streams there are). If it shows that these populations and fisheries cannot sustain themselves long term with the same limit, leave the limit at 5.


----------



## Quig7557

Having fished both "control streams" and a ten fish limit stream, I saw no big difference.

Certain waters produce better, a family of otters can do a number a stretch rather quickly too.

Having watched some people fish, their technique, I feel most fish are safe. I seldom see really effective people while out fishing.

And then there are the conditions, I'd fished a stream and not moved a fish through a stretch the last two times through. Next trip, different conditions, the place was overrun with them.

Other then the legendary streams, I seldom see competition on a river.


----------



## zzcop302

Upon reading all the additional posts to this thread it caused me to reconsider my initial response to puny trouts question.
As I stated as my self described "knee jerk" reaction as being against a 10 fish limit it was based on purely on personal experience and observation of local small steam Brook Trout fishing in the I Pp
"​


----------



## Waif

10 seems like a lot. 
Guess it depends on the pressure.
A brace of trout is enough for my primitive desires if killing is the order of the day. And I've eaten a couple brookies in the past.

Regarding anglers and measuring fish , witness marks can be painted or taped on rod blank above handle for a quick check if any doubt occurs.
Changing species and regulations has some of my rods too striped. Best to write the length and a couple arrows between marks for multiple lengths....
No , I own no expensive rods I fish with . l.o.l..


----------



## PunyTrout

Thank you for your considered responses and thoughts.

For the record, I am still, *not in favor* of a limit increase.


----------



## zzcop302

Oops... I fat fingered my phone... 
here is a continuation of what I meant to post....
Upon reading all the additional posts to this thread it caused me to reconsider my initial response to puny trouts question.
As I stated in my first post as my self described "knee jerk" reaction as being against a 10 fish limit it was based on purely on personal experience and observation of local small stream Brook Trout fishing in the UP .
I think my initial opinion was formed from just the absolute appreciation of both the beauty of the fish itself and the beauty of the location it is usually found to live in.... so, based on that maybe I have developed an unfounded concern that a 10 fish limit could harm what we all seem to have in common in our responses to this thread.... and that is protecting and enjoying/utilizing this unique resource.
My personal experience/history is this: I grew up and spent 24 years living in the Los Angeles area and Trout fished small streams in the local mountains and Sierras...
Needless to say there were loads of people, and unfortunately, many who I would in no way describe as sportsman... they left trash, brought along loud music, no common courtesy on the stream, and seemed intent on catching and keeping every fish they could hook..... and exceed the limit with no qualms if they could.... it was, in a word, sickening..... no respect for the environment or the fish or other people..... so.... when the 10 fish limit question was asked I immediately a flashback to my California memories.... I suddenly pictured hoards of people converging on our beautiful streams, taking every fish they could hook, leaving their trash, and ruining a pristine fishery comparatively speaking.
So, after reading and considering the follow up posts here is my revised thoughts.....
Sounds like those of you who have fished the test waters have not seen a major increase in anglers... that takes care of concern number one....I guess I just assumed that as soon as people knew that they could keep 10 fish they would swarm the area...
Second thought..... I like to panfish.
I have seen quite a few lakes where because of the Overabundance of Bluegills they were plentiful but stunted, often not a decent sized fish for every 20 you caught. Often, as I have read on here, many of us are often catching very small Brookies, 5-6 inches... no ones complaining!!!.. it's fun and we are appreciating the fish itself and the overall all experience and the beautiful surroundings!!
But... it does often seem , at least in many locations, that there can be quite a large number of very small fish, sometimes scads of them. So, I'm wondering.... after a proper study is conducted, maybe it would actually be beneficial to increase the limits in order to actually improve the quality and size of the fish. Maybe thinning some of the waters that seem to contain an over abundance of small fish would be beneficial. I know with panfish for example there was an over abundance of fish for the available food they existed on.... they were prolific breeders but simply didn't have enough food.
I'm not sure if that is applicable to Brook Trout fishing and environmental conditions in which they exist here. Plus it's important to keep in mind that a fishes size is relative to the size of its environment, for example, a 10" Brookies is a trophy size Trout if it's caught from a creek you can step across ! But a 10" fish might not get a second look in another body of water.
I say this still with the fear that an increase in the limit would be abused or attract the wrong type of angler ( and I don't mean that in a judgmental way, I simply mean it in describing someone who does not respect the fish or the surroundings it is caught in)
I have seen where fishing quality has I'm improved by modifying size and possession limits, especially when it came to panfish for example.
Maybe that would be true for Brookies... and I guess if such a modification was implemented and was then monitored it could always be changed back or modified based on its success or failure.
One thing I truly believe reading the responses and just follow Michigan Sportsman in general is that the overwhelming majority of members on here love, respect and have a concern for our local fisheries in whatever part of the state they happen to live.
I think we are all on the same page as far as wanting to protect and preserve what we love and appreciate.
Good luck out there!


----------



## PunyTrout

kzoofisher said:


> For the record and as a surprise to no one, I'm against it.


Thank you.

For the record, I am still, *not in favor* of an increased limit.

Now, if @Ranger Ray could make a simple for or against statement, we might break the internet if you guys could actually agree on something.


----------



## PunyTrout

Lots of thoughtful responses. Thank you.

For the record, I am still, *not in favor* of an increased limit.


----------



## kzoofisher

There seems to be a little confusion about the study that was done. It's over. The DNR found that in 100% of the 10 limit streams it got usable data for, both numbers and size were negatively affected. So if you want to answer the OP's question- Knowing that the 10 fish limit caused harm in 100% of study streams and may cause harm in the streams not studied, are you in favor of the increase?


----------



## kzoofisher

There seems to be a little confusion about the study that was done. It's over. The DNR found that in 100% of the 10 limit streams it got usable data for, both numbers and size were negatively affected. So if you want to answer the OP's question- Knowing that the 10 fish limit caused harm in 100% of study streams and may cause harm in the streams not studied, are you in favor of the increase?


----------



## zzcop302

Having just read kzoofishers reply I am against a 10 fish limit.
Sounds like it has been studied and evaluated in a thorough study . We have a great and beautiful Brook Trout fishery here.
Keeping or eating a few more fish isn't even a concern or desire in comparison to maintaining the quality, fun, and enjoyment of what currently exists.
A great thread and certainly worth investigating and considering.
I would NEVER trade even catching a few 5" fish as opposed to a 10 fish limit if it was in anyway going to adversely affect the quality of fishing or the environment in which they are caught.
I will probably end up eating 5 to 10 Trout between April and September..... I will savor and appreciate each one of them and truly enjoy the experience of fishing for them.
Glad to turn the rest loose....and treasure the day out on the creek.
Good luck everyone!


----------



## Trout King

kzoofisher said:


> There seems to be a little confusion about the study that was done. It's over. The DNR found that in 100% of the 10 limit streams it got usable data for, both numbers and size were negatively affected. So if you want to answer the OP's question- Knowing that the 10 fish limit caused harm in 100% of study streams and may cause harm in the streams not studied, are you in favor of the increase?


I It appears that some of the data shows that some streams have been negatively impacted, while others have not been impacted as much, or not at all. The problem is the broad stoke of "all type 1 water", the DNR/NRC obviously doesn't have the resources to study each stream case by case, but the data I have seen suggests that maybe we need to look into this a little longer than a few years to see what may happen long term. No doubt, environmental factors and non-human predation can wreak havoc on a stream. It appears to me that anglers may not be the contributing factors in size and population. As for right now I would say I probably wouldn't support a 10 fish limit as a blanket reg on all type 1 streams. It also doesn't seem to matter much to the people surveyed if they reduce it back down or up it to 10 fish.


----------



## Trout King

http://www.michigantu.org/images/pd...Brook Trout Bag Summary CRSC Sep 16 (002).pdf


----------



## Trout King

I believe the study will be finished by the end of the year, as it was/is supposed to go through this season (from what I understood). It appears that some of the data shows that some streams have been negatively impacted, while others have not been impacted as much, or not significantly. The problem is the broad stoke of "all type 1 water", the DNR/NRC obviously doesn't have the resources to study each stream case by case, but the data I have seen suggests that maybe we need to look into this a little longer than a few years to see what may happen long term. No doubt, environmental factors and non-human predation can wreak havoc on a stream. It appears to me that anglers may not be the contributing factors in size and population. As for right now I would say I probably wouldn't support a 10 fish limit as a blanket reg on all type 1 streams. It also doesn't seem to matter much to the people surveyed if they reduce it back down or up it to 10 fish.


----------



## PunyTrout

Personally I don't like statistical data 50 percent of the time...

Humans don't know everything there is to know about our planet even though some may pretend to. Our planet is just too complex. Some will give us numbers and figures and charts to back up a point of view. But just because the numbers are _precise_ doesn't mean they are _accurate_...

Thanks for all of the opinions.


----------



## Trout King

PunyTrout said:


> Personally I don't like statistical data 50 percent of the time...
> 
> Humans don't know everything there is to know about our planet even though some may pretend to. Our planet is just too complex. Some will give us numbers and figures and charts to back up a point of view. But just because the numbers are _precise_ doesn't mean they are _accurate_...
> 
> Thanks for all of the opinions.


I have similar feelings. Some of my favorite and most productive streams have had studies done on them that show that there are neither large or many trout in them, and I actually fish right through some of the surveyed areas.


----------



## PunyTrout

Much of this discussion has revolved around Scientific and Non-Science (not nonsense) arguments. That is a fine and well but these camps often oppose one another vehemently and only serve to polarize us as anglers.

The NRC has a mandate to use science based decisions and pass them to the DNR as I understand it.

Well allow me to offer my 2 cents. This proposal has nothing to do with science at all. It has do with Money. Specifically tourism dollars being spent in the Upper Peninsula.

This proposal is supported by John Matonich, Chair NRC (Marenisco, MI) and J.R. Richardson, NRC. (Ontonagon, MI)

Who can blame them? It’s a beautiful place. It should be visited by tourist anglers and their families. The unfortunate reality is that all along US 2 you are more likely to see a closed down business or abandoned house or a For Sale sign than you are likely to see a Whitetail Deer.

The UP could certainly benefit from some extra dollars being spent there by Down-Staters. But a 10 fish limit on Brook trout in a bid to increase tourism is going about it the wrong way.

Let’s quit hoodwinking ourselves here discussing the science stuff. This proposed rule change is about money, pure and simple.


----------



## PunyTrout

Much of this discussion has revolved around Scientific and Non-Science (not nonsense) arguments. That is a fine and well but these camps often oppose one another vehemently and only serve to polarize us as anglers.

The NRC has a mandate to use science based decisions and pass them to the DNR as I understand it.

Well allow me to offer my 2 cents. This proposal has nothing to do with science at all. It has do with Money. Specifically tourism dollars being spent in the Upper Peninsula.

This proposal is supported by John Matonich, Chair NRC (Marenisco, MI) and J.R. Richardson, NRC. (Ontonagon, MI)

Who can blame them? It’s a beautiful place. It should be visited by tourist anglers and their families. The unfortunate reality is that all along US 2 you are more likely to see a closed down business or abandoned house or a For Sale sign than you are likely to see a Whitetail Deer.

The UP could certainly benefit from some extra dollars being spent there by Down-Staters. But a 10 fish limit on Brook trout in a bid to increase tourism is going about it the wrong way.

Let’s quit hoodwinking ourselves here discussing the science stuff. This proposed rule change is about money, pure and simple.


----------



## PunyTrout

Much of this discussion has revolved around Scientific and Non-Science (not nonsense) arguments. That is a fine and well but these camps often oppose one another vehemently and only serve to polarize us as anglers.

The NRC has a mandate to use science based decisions and pass them to the DNR as I understand it.

Well allow me to offer my 2 cents. This proposal has nothing to do with science at all. It has do with Money. Specifically tourism dollars being spent in the Upper Peninsula.

This proposal is supported by John Matonich, Chair NRC (Marenisco, MI) and J.R. Richardson, NRC. (Ontonagon, MI)

Who can blame them? It’s a beautiful place. It should be visited by tourist anglers and their families. The unfortunate reality is that all along US 2 you are more likely to see a closed down business or abandoned house or a For Sale sign than you are likely to see a Whitetail Deer.

The UP could certainly benefit from some extra dollars being spent there by Down-Staters. But a 10 fish limit on Brook trout in a bid to increase tourism is going about it the wrong way.

Let’s quit hoodwinking ourselves here discussing the science stuff. This proposed rule change is about money, pure and simple.


----------



## Trout King

PunyTrout said:


> Much of this discussion has revolved around Scientific and Non-Science (not nonsense) arguments. That is a fine and well but these camps often oppose one another vehemently and only serve to polarize us as anglers.
> 
> The NRC has a mandate to use science based decisions and pass them to the DNR as I understand it.
> 
> Well allow me to offer my 2 cents. This proposal has nothing to do with science at all. It has do with Money. Specifically tourism dollars being spent in the Upper Peninsula.
> 
> Who can blame them? It’s a beautiful place. The unfortunate reality is that all along US 2 you are more likely to see a closed down business or abandoned house or a For Sale sign than you are likely to see a Whitetail Deer.
> 
> The UP could certainly benefit from some extra dollars being spent there by Down-Staters. But a 10 fish limit on Brook trout in a bid to increase tourism is going about it the wrong way.
> 
> Let’s quit hoodwinking ourselves here discussing the science stuff. This proposed rule change is about money, pure and simple.


I don't think most fisherman would go to the UP just to kill 5 extra brookies a day. That is kind of a comical thought.


----------



## Shoeman

I highly doubt that raising the creel limit of brook trout would enhance the UP's economy by even 3% (just a number I pulled out of my head)

UP's tourism has suffered greatly over the last 3 decades, perhaps even longer. The final straw was more than likely caused by 4 dollar fuel. Even many of the LP Camps went up for sale.
I used to catch myself there several times a year, but for one it's too damn far and I have found better fishing below the bridge. 

Add that leisure times have been reduced across the board. 4-6 week vacations were the norm among union workers. 

That coming from a long line of Keweenaw Yoopers. 

My last visit a few years back showed much of the same. Sub-par housing, closed stores, empty motels and restaurants. 

It would take more than a handful of trout fishermen to turn it around. Just my .02


----------



## PunyTrout

Pinefarm2015 said:


> In 2012, Natural Resources Commission members J.R. Richardson, John Madigan, and John Matonich of the Upper Peninsula asked the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to increase the bag limit from five brook trout to 10 across the UP.
> 
> The goal, said Matonich, was to attract more anglers. He recalls a childhood when kids raced to streams on their bikes every weekend at sunrise. Today, those areas are overgrown with weeds and no one seems to be fishing them. Tourism is good for the area.
> 
> “It would be really nice to get smaller creeks used again,” said Matonich.





Trout King said:


> I don't think most fisherman would go to the UP just to kill 5 extra brookies a day. That is kind of a comical thought.


Please convey those sentiments to John Matonich, Chair NRC and J.R. Richardson, NRC


----------



## 357Maximum

I keep my fair share of brookies with ZERO apologies, I love to eat them. I have never once needed 10 fish to make a meal for my Wife and I however. I think a 10 fish limit is a bit excessive anywhere in this state that I have personally fished. Myself I tend to keep the biggest brookies I catch and toss back the small one's even if they are legal assuming that they are healthy after I land/get done playing with them. I choose to remove the apex predators and give the up and comers some room/hole/place to grow. It is just how I do it going from my experience, right/wrong or otherwise....I have never seen my choices negatively effect one of my haunts. I would say quite the opposite in fact. Keeping mostly the big boys/gals seems to make things better in my opinion. I don't know that 10 fish limit is wrong, but it just sounds excessive to me. The biggest threat to my favorite brooks is now and always has been the assorted county drain commissions. In my life they have made more brooks into sterile ditches than any other entity. With property rights being the way they are, that issue has no solution in my opinion. 

The conspiracy theorist in me has me wondering if maybe someone in the upper echelon of the DNR/NRC is in cahoots with the feds/special interests and is trying to lower the brook trout numbers so that there is more room for another native to be reintroduced. Not sure how I feel about that if so. That other native is aggressive and fun, but they do not taste nearly as good and history has shown that the graylings days are over, logging damage and other things man has done to change the brooks/streams has pretty much ensured that methinks. I would not be shocked to see money being thrown at a problem that cannot be fixed......we see it all the time do we not?


----------



## PunyTrout

Shoeman said:


> I highly doubt that raising the creel limit of brook trout would enhance the UP's economy by even 3% (just a number I pulled out of my head)


Please convey those sentiments to John Matonich, Chair NRC and J.R. Richardson, NRC


----------



## PunyTrout

If you think increasing the limit in order to boost tourism is silly or unrealistic tell John Matonich, Chair NRC (Marenisco, MI) and J.R. Richardson, NRC. (Ontonagon, MI)


----------



## 357Maximum

kzoofisher said:


> For the record and as a surprise to no one, I'm against it.
> 
> I'll start another thread for scrapping about it.



For once....we agree. :lol: A lot of meat fisherman see LIMITS as a "goal" and I do not want any of my favorite places to fight with the bugs/shrubs/roots/and whatever else MaNature has to throw at me to make me earn my fish/recreation become a place that 10 brookies is the "goal". I understand the the whole goal thing very well, once upon a day I was right there sharing that fu**** up concept with em. I got over the goal aspect of it all, some never do.

In a nutshell, I am against a 10 fish limit out of my own personal greed. I do not want goals set that high to knock the crap out of my brookie streams. What we have right now works, why screw with it?


----------



## mf2

I doubt raising the limit would do anything for the up tourism. The people that are into fishing brook trout are already doing it, 5 extra fish ain't gonna spark new interest in the fish. But my experience in Colorado streams is that a 10 fish brook trout limit did not hurt the populations there.


----------



## Duck-Hunter

357Maximum said:


> For once....we agree. :lol:


I was shocked to see this myself. Lol

After seeing you and kzoo post in this topic I was waiting for a royal rumble


----------



## 357Maximum

Duck-Hunter said:


> I was shocked to see this myself. Lol
> 
> After seeing you and kzoo post in this topic I was waiting for a royal rumble



I am afraid that at this stage in the game I ain't got much "royal rumble" left in me. My bar fighting days are well behind me I guess. :lol: I have only ever disagreed with two "sects" on this whole forum. Both sects want the same kinds of special treatment to the detriment/cost/lack of opportunity to others that should have the same rights but somehow do not. But because they have a few NRC members in their pocket/on their side they get away with it. I disagree with that on principle each and every time....it is what it is and I blame the NRC just as much as I do the sects getting their way through force of wills. It is no different than the person that steals part of my paycheck to do nothing.......he/she and the government are equally responsible in the theft from me. Unneeded welfare/MAPR/Gear restrictions...... It ain't much different in my eyes and it all comes about the same way. Someone demands something they do not deserve and they get away with it because the powers that be have something to gain by granting it and stealing from the rest of us. I will disagree with that on principle each and every time. PERIOD


I don't envy your job here as I used to have the same job on the worlds largest bullet casting site. It is thankless and believe it or not I do try to behave, but a few things simply push my buttons. That too is what it is.


----------



## Quig7557

I've got to say, stream improvements will help the trout more than limits of five or ten. In a previous study I quoted on here, with a creek closed to fishing altogether, the recruitment for jouveniles was the same, meaning same fish density wether fished or not.

Having fished previous ten fish limits and now the current five fish limit, I can assure you the fishing hasn't improved.

With the study, anyone wanting to keep ten fish could go to the higher limit stream. It's reasonable to think it got more pressure. If all creeks had a ten fish limit, no individual creek would be fished any harder then the next by those wanting ten fish.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

I'm not in favor of it personally unless it makes biological sense. I am wondering how many people will actually fish and keep 10. My observations in anglers I encounter is most practice [email protected] or selective harvest. Some sure will take 10 but how often?


----------



## Quig7557

That is a hog of a Michigan Brookie! 

On the other hand, if I were to let him go and keep two ten" fish, which is better stewardship?


----------



## 357Maximum

Quig7557 said:


> That is a hog of a Michigan Brookie!
> 
> On the other hand, if I were to let him go and keep two ten" fish, which is better stewardship?



Thanks, that fish was caught out of a brook you can jump across in most spots not tangled with alders/willows.

All I know is that everytime I keep a hog like that another almost as big or as big seems to take it's place the next time I fish that same hole.....SO I DO NOT KNOW how to answer your question. All I can do is pose another couple of questions: 

How much longer would have that big fish lived? Did taking a minnow eating apex predator leave room for another to take it's place? How many times have you seen small brookies being digested in a fish like that? (I know my answer to the last question,and it is quite often) All I can do is what my experiences say is the right thing to do within the law, so I go with it.


----------



## PunyTrout

PunyTrout said:


> Sorry about the redundancy. This thread will be added to several of the Michigan Trout Streams forums and sub-forums to get a better understanding of viewpoints from areas across the region.





B.Jarvinen said:


> There were simply too many threads on this one question


Again, I apologize for the redundancy. I tried to say so at the bottom of post #1

I did however refrain from posting in the SE, SW, and Fly Tying forums. I just wanted to get input from the Northern Regions and UP and since not everyone visits the Gear Regs. forum, I decided to post in the NW, NE, and of course the UP trout stream forums.


----------



## Quig7557

Decisions... it's all a crap shoot. I was encouraged by a fishery biologist to keep a specific fish out of a specific creek, all sizes.

(And I'm not disagreeing with you )


----------



## 357Maximum

Quig7557 said:


> Decisions... it's all a crap shoot. I was encouraged by a fishery biologist to keep a specific fish out of a specific creek, all sizes.
> 
> (And I'm not disagreeing with you )



Wasn't "disagreeing" either, and I agree with the crap shot, all we can do is what feels right. All I KNOW is that for 30+ years my pet theory and the application thereof has worked FOR ME in my favorite little honey holes. I am not one to argue with first hand results, so like I said...I RUN WITH IT, but I have ran with scissors a few time too. :lol:


----------



## Trout King

Bobby said:


> I would agree that a 13 plus inch brook trout is a large fish and I have caught a number of these in a type 1 stream, just not in the last 10 years (but then I haven't fished much in MI the last 10 years) Western alpine lakes soured me on MI. But you are a better fisherman than I. Both of our accounts are anecdotal and the study is complete. There is certainly a lot more pressure on most every piece of flowing water than there was when I started in this pursuit. The flowing water is beautiful, the fish are too, there just don't seem to be as many to catch. I would not whine if the limit was decreased to 2 or 3, this could be age, longevity. Taking home game is not high on my list any longer, pursuing game is still right up there. I don't kill many grouse any longer either, though I spend many more hours than I ever have in the grouse woods. Last season, in MI, (and my season runs from July 8th until the snow is too deep) I only carried my shotgun in the woods 1 day. I probably spent 60 days in the woods.


I am not sure about the pressure part. After opening week I rarely see another angler. Of course I make efforts to get to less pressured water. Thr surveys and trends seem to point to less young people involved. Don't assume I am the better angler, I am just some guy online that likes to fish. I would say a majority of the time I fish trout I could take a limit as the rules are now, but usually don't. Whether the rule changes or is reduced back to to 5 on the control streams it will not matter to me personally. 

Now, you mentioned grouse. Yum.


----------



## PunyTrout

Quig7557 said:


> On the other hand, if I were to let him go and keep two ten" fish, which is better stewardship?


How long is a piece of string?


----------



## Trout King

I am going to start following 357. Nice fish. I think when we grt to know places well that we understand what we should be doing or not doing when it comes to harvesting.


----------



## 357Maximum

Trout King said:


> I am going to start following 357. Nice fish. I think when we grt to know places well that we understand what we should be doing or not doing when it comes to harvesting.



Careful I am known to get lost and you may find yourself here:


----------



## Forest Meister

So many folks against increasing the limit but how many rabid anti's actually fish the UP with any regularity? 

Are folks really convinced that the few extra trout taken by the handful of fishermen who are willing to fight brush, mud and ticks will ruin the UP experience? Unless things have changed since the last time the limit was 10, I am not convinced it will make an iota of difference. Personal observations have shown me that areas within a quarter mile of paved or improved gravel roads were almost brookie deserts for fish over 7.25" back in the day of 10 fish limits. When the limit went to 5 fish a lot of us were hoping the general size would improve. Guess what? It did not happen and I was quite disappointed. The overall size did not improve in the easy to access areas (I know, somebody has an exception) nor did it seem to improve in the areas where a person had to bushwack in for 45 minutes or an hour. Again, my dreams were shattered. 

For those who wish to keep the limit at a conservative 5 fish is it because of science or is it merely fear of change? Stream trout have a high mortality rate whether fished or not. Call me selfish but I would rather take home a few extra trout than leave them for the otters, mink, raccoons, herons and other natural mortalities. FM


----------



## zzcop302

PunyTrout said:


> Again, I apologize for the redundancy. I tried to say so at the bottom of post #1
> 
> I did however refrain from posting in the SE, SW, and Fly Tying forums. I just wanted to get input from the Northern Regions and UP and since not everyone visits the Gear Regs. forum, I decided to post in the NW, NE, and of course the UP trout stream forums.


Good idea....anyone who fishes Brook Trout in Michigan would have an interest in this thread I would think, but may normally only look at the forum for their home area, that's usually what I do.
Good way to cover all the bases to get as much feedback as possible.


----------



## vano397

I haven't read all of both posts, so I might be being redundant here... But there were meetings thru march and april all over the state where this was discussed. I went to a lot of them supporting the musky proposals that a few of us spent a lot of time on. Anyhow I got to hear the LP biologists take on it, which was nothing in reality, and the UP biologists/managers take. I was a little disappointed for a few reasons, and confused for a couple others.
First off the disappointments. 
-Surprisingly few people even talked about this like they cared. 
-I heard a lot of comments about how less streams would actually be affected than would be, so there's no point in making things complicated for a few streams. That was a dangerously lackadaisical comment in my opinion by a manager in the heart of the discussion. 
-The other disappointing comments were that they were attributing natural mortality for the lack of trout over 3 years old, completely! Not angler harvest or post release mortality or anything else. Simply that "they don't live past 3 years old anyway, you may as well let people take them". 
This lead to the confusion.
-First, I asked why they had reduced the limit to 5 in the first place. (I am a musky nut that loves trout, so I wanted to get up to date on the whole situation). To my surprise the answer was a unanimous, "to allow more fisherman to catch a limit". To me this implies we were fishing them down to low populations every year, like we do bluegills on smaller honeyholes.
-Then I asked why the increase? Their answer to this was that noone is fishing anymore, and 5 small 8" fish isn't enough to feed Joe Blow's family of 12. (OK that was a little exaggerated). 
-I then asked why they weren't catching bigger brook trout, and the reply was again, "they don't live past 3 years old". 
Anyhow, I am trying to put all these answers together in my head and wonder how noone asked the question "how can we determine that we still aren't fishing out the same streams with a 5 fish limit?". 
My next line of confusion came when talking about walleye, the manager stated that season bag limits are the last method of management, because they have little to no effect. The only way they work is when there is enough pressure (but not too much) and everyone is already catching a limit. The most effective measure of management is MSL increase or reduction. So, when trying to increase number of people catching fish, the method was to decrease bag limits, instead of increase MSL, and then we still wonder why very few fish over 3 years old are found...
At any rate, I am still mildly perplexed at the whole situation. For a good thing, there is still going to be protections on the research streams, and the streams that have had higher MSL's and continue to produce good sizes and numbers of fish. Another bonus is that brookies in Michigan obviously mature quite young, and quite successfully and it is hard to destroy the entire fishery, just make it suck.


----------



## PunyTrout

Forest Meister said:


> So many folks against increasing the limit but how many *rabid anti's* actually fish the UP with any regularity?


This is some of the loaded-language I was hoping we could refrain from using in this discussion. In other words, “Name-Calling”.

We are all anglers. We are all enjoy fishing for Brook Trout. I don’t think the term, “Rabid Anti” is needed. I don’t think a single Rabid Anti has contributed to this thread so far. I doubt there are many on the M-S Forums at all. It’s just not up their alley. I dare say they prefer other Social Sites to congregate and conspire.

If you consider me to be a Rabid Anti then I suggest you get to know me better. I may be crazy, but I’m not rabid. Yet, I am Pro for keeping the current 5 fish regulations and Anti for changing them to 10 fish on all Type 1 streams.



Forest Meister said:


> For those who wish to keep the limit at a *conservative 5 fish* is it because of science or is it merely fear of change


As far as a 5 fish limit being, “Conservative” as you have described it. Are you suggesting that a 10 fish limit that you support is a, “Liberal” limit? (i.e. Generous) Would you like it if people reading this thread thought of you as being, “Pro-Liberal”

Or, did you mean that you would prefer a Conservative Limit of 10 fish? (i.e. Traditional)

Again, this is the type of language I would like to avoid using. Discussions tend to become heated and threads get closed.

Let’s leave the Name-Calling for the Political Forum.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

I am just going to stick to this thread.

I've been looking forward to the results of this Experiment for some time. I have long wondered about what is going on in streams loaded with Brook Trout.

It occurs to me that I'm not sure this is the greatest Experiment, from the Scientific Method point of view perhaps. There is one huge variable that would be impossible to account for - did the Research Streams draw more fishermen because the limit was raised?

There is another Brook Trout experiment ongoing in the U.P. right now as well - the BTRA streams. Brook Trout Restoration Area, where the limit is cranked all the way down to one 20" fish. The idea is to discover if this will generate more Coasters in Lake Superior. I think this is the 3rd season for those streams. I hope I can finagle my way on to one of them, but I will have to straight vacation to one rather than fishing an hour or two after work as I don't have work in that area.

Brook Trout fishing is like a life-long personal research project anyway. I will be Coaster hunting in some other places where I hear tell of these, like one I released last November...


----------



## PunyTrout

@Forest Meister I'm sorry for being heavy handed. I apologize for the personal attack. I'm just hoping we can have this discussion, agree or, disagree or agree to disagree without it spiraling out beyond the original topic.



Forest Meister said:


> So many folks against increasing the limit but how many rabid anti's actually fish the UP with any regularity?



FWIW I usually make 5 trips a year to the UP to fish for Brookies to answer your question.


----------



## PunyTrout

@B.Jarvinen Sweet fish!

I've never caught a Coaster but one day I'd like to fish some of those watersheds.


----------



## zzcop302

Ra


Forest Meister said:


> So many folks against increasing the limit but how many rabid anti's actually fish the UP with any regularity?
> 
> Are folks really convinced that the few extra trout taken by the handful of fishermen who are willing to fight brush, mud and ticks will ruin the UP experience? Unless things have changed since the last time the limit was 10, I am not convinced it will make an iota of difference. Personal observations have shown me that areas within a quarter mile of paved or improved gravel roads were almost brookie deserts for fish over 7.25" back in the day of 10 fish limits. When the limit went to 5 fish a lot of us were hoping the general size would improve. Guess what? It did not happen and I was quite disappointed. The overall size did not improve in the easy to access areas (I know, somebody has an exception) nor did it seem to improve in the areas where a person had to bushwack in for 45 minutes or an hour. Again, my dreams were shattered.
> 
> For those who wish to keep the limit at a conservative 5 fish is it because of science or is it merely fear of change? Stream trout have a high mortality rate whether fished or not. Call me selfish but I would rather take home a few extra trout than leave them for the otters, mink, raccoons, herons and other natural mortalities. FM


Rabid ?
Reading through the threads I've seen nothing posted that would come close to anything that by the definition of the word rabid would apply. 
What I have read is concerned anglers who sound like they are simply trying to figure out if a change in the Brook Trout limit is a good idea or not..... so, the use of the word Rabid sounds a bit dramatic and inaccurate if you are referring to any of the previous posts.... or it may just be my misperception and that you were actually referring to other persons that you know and not the persons contributing to this thread.... if that's the case, I stand corrected .... anyway, when I consider some of the points you made, such as your example of past history as to the size of fish not increasing due to regulation changes I would take your word for it along with other anglers who get out there fighting the brush and rough, hard to access terrain in order to fish way past the bridges and easy access locations.... I would put much more stock in the experiences and opinions of anglers like yourself who beat the brush to catch Brookies and have a good idea on questions of size and limits.... because it's based on years of experience and observation.... and nothing against the DNR or other legitimate organizations but I would probably rather form my own opinion based on a solid group of anglers and their history and experiences than a handful of random creel checks or inadequate or shallow short term studies.
Reading the links posted so far on this thread it sounds like there had been some sound studies conducted...at the same time, im also reading things that do lead me to believe this issue is about Money and Tourism with little or no regard as to the issue of the limit change proposal harmful or helpful to the Brook Trout fishery.
I do like reading the various experiences and opinions on this issue.... it's been interesting and informative...
Good fishing everyone!


----------



## Robert Holmes

I don't think that the 10 fish limit hurts a thing but they should add that no more than 1 fish over 14" can be kept.


----------



## Forest Meister

PunyTrout said:


> This is some of the loaded-language I was hoping we could refrain from using in this discussion. In other words, “Name-Calling”.
> 
> We are all anglers. We are all enjoy fishing for Brook Trout. I don’t think the term, “Rabid Anti” is needed. I don’t think a single Rabid Anti has contributed to this thread so far. I doubt there are many on the M-S Forums at all. It’s just not up their alley. I dare say they prefer other Social Sites to congregate and conspire.
> 
> If you consider me to be a Rabid Anti then I suggest you get to know me better. I may be crazy, but I’m not rabid. Yet, I am Pro for keeping the current 5 fish regulations and Anti for changing them to 10 fish on all Type 1 streams.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as a 5 fish limit being, “Conservative” as you have described it. Are you suggesting that a 10 fish limit that you support is a, “Liberal” limit? (i.e. Generous) Would you like it if people reading this thread thought of you as being, “Pro-Liberal”
> 
> Or, did you mean that you would prefer a Conservative Limit of 10 fish? (i.e. Traditional)
> 
> Again, this is the type of language I would like to avoid using. Discussions tend to become heated and threads get closed.
> 
> Let’s leave the Name-Calling for the Political Forum.


Should my post have hit too close to home, I apologize to those offended but if you have read my previous posts in several other areas I doubt I have ever engaged in a personal attack on anyone and I do not believe I did it here. The term with which you take umbrage is a generalization aimed squarely at those who know what they know and all the facts in the world are not going to change their thinking. Those folks are surely not contributing to this thread but there can be no doubt they are out there.

Yes, consider me a "Pro-Liberal" if it is referring to increasing the limit on most small UP streams, the ones that are fished by the garden hackle crew because they are impossible to fish with spinners unless a person is lucky enough to find just the right beaver pond.



PunyTrout said:


> @Forest Meister I'm sorry for being heavy handed. I apologize for the personal attack. I'm just hoping we can have this discussion, agree or, disagree or agree to disagree without it spiraling out beyond the original topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW I usually make 5 trips a year to the UP to fish for Brookies to answer your question.


Personal attack? If that is what you have been trying to avoid then why on God's Green Earth would you knowingly do it? I was merely attempting to point out that there are those in the world of brookie chasing that believe their way is the only way no matter what other information is out there.



zzcop302 said:


> Ra
> 
> Rabid ?
> Reading through the threads I've seen nothing posted that would come close to anything that by the definition of the word rabid would apply.
> What I have read is concerned anglers who sound like they are simply trying to figure out if a change in the Brook Trout limit is a good idea or not..... so, the use of the word Rabid sounds a bit dramatic and inaccurate if you are referring to any of the previous posts.... or it may just be my misperception and that you were actually referring to other persons that you know and not the persons contributing to this thread.... if that's the case, I stand corrected .... anyway, when I consider some of the points you made, such as your example of past history as to the size of fish not increasing due to regulation changes I would take your word for it along with other anglers who get out there fighting the brush and rough, hard to access terrain in order to fish way past the bridges and easy access locations.... I would put much more stock in the experiences and opinions of anglers like yourself who beat the brush to catch Brookies and have a good idea on questions of size and limits.... because it's based on years of experience and observation.... and nothing against the DNR or other legitimate organizations but I would probably rather form my own opinion based on a solid group of anglers and their history and experiences than a handful of random creel checks or inadequate or shallow short term studies.
> Reading the links posted so far on this thread it sounds like there had been some sound studies conducted...at the same time, im also reading things that do lead me to believe this issue is about Money and Tourism with little or no regard as to the issue of the limit change proposal harmful or helpful to the Brook Trout fishery.
> I do like reading the various experiences and opinions on this issue.... it's been interesting and informative...
> Good fishing everyone!


You make a very rational argument and stating things the way you have I can see where my intended meaning could have been and was obviously misinterpreted. That's the problem with the written word sometimes! In no way was I referring to previous posters. I was merely looking for a term that would convey the fact that there are those out there (not on here) that are so averse to change that they rant and rave and get upset with anyone who does not agree exactly with their point of view. 

As an added aside, and to make things perfectly clear. If changing the limit to 10 was going to do damage to the overall big picture of trout fishing I would be first in line to make my feelings know to the fisheries folks and the NRC if necessary. If it is changed to 10 and it is apparent that the big picture is being damaged, ditto my response above. I say "big picture" because I see no practical way we can micromanage every small brookie stream in the entire UP. FM


----------



## Ranger Ray

I don't care if the science says 0 or 100. There is nothing wrong about "opinions" in discussion. But when it comes to game management, rules and regulations should be based on science with social considerations taken into account. By law, no one ideology should get favoritism over another. I am not picking on anyone but when you say the fish is too beautiful to keep or throw out a random size for not keeping, I have to question, is this the way we want to manage? We certainly are, as we have a hodgepodge of social regulations favoring the gear restrictive ideology going.


----------



## zzcop302

Forest Meister said:


> Should my post have hit too close to home, I apologize to those offended but if you have read my previous posts in several other areas I doubt I have ever engaged in a personal attack on anyone and I do not believe I did it here. The term with which you take umbrage is a generalization aimed squarely at those who know what they know and all the facts in the world are not going to change their thinking. Those folks are surely not contributing to this thread but there can be no doubt they are out there.
> 
> Yes, consider me a "Pro-Liberal" if it is referring to increasing the limit on most small UP streams, the ones that are fished by the garden hackle crew because they are impossible to fish with spinners unless a person is lucky enough to find just the right beaver pond.
> 
> 
> 
> Personal attack? If that is what you have been trying to avoid then why on God's Green Earth would you knowingly do it? I was merely attempting to point out that there are those in the world of brookie chasing that believe their way is the only way no matter what other information is out there.
> 
> 
> 
> You make a very rational argument and stating things the way you have I can see where my intended meaning could have been and was obviously misinterpreted. That's the problem with the written word sometimes! In no way was I referring to previous posters. I was merely looking for a term that would convey the fact that there are those out there (not on here) that are so averse to change that they rant and rave and get upset with anyone who does not agree exactly with their point of view.
> 
> As an added aside, and to make things perfectly clear. If changing the limit to 10 was going to do damage to the overall big picture of trout fishing I would be first in line to make my feelings know to the fisheries folks and the NRC if necessary. If it is changed to 10 and it is apparent that the big picture is being damaged, ditto my response above. I say "big picture" because I see no practical way we can micromanage every small brookie stream in the entire UP. FM


Thanks Fish Meister for clearing up my misinterpretation of your previous post and I am glad to be wrong in my initial understanding of who you were referring to.
You are right, I am the same way, I find my printed statements don't always come across as well as a verbal statement does, at least for me personally.
Thanks again.
I do appreciate your views and opinions along with everyone else who has contributed to this thread.
The main thing I am seeing as this thread progresses is this:
We all love, enjoy, and respect the Brook Trout fishing that is available to us.
We all want to protect and preserve this fishery even if we differ on size and limit opinions.
And that is all very positive.
We all care, just different perspectives which are based a great deal on personal experience, which, of course, is going to vary person to person.
All in all a great thread, informative and interesting.
I'm learning a lot outside my own experiences and perceptions by reading other posters responses.
Good fishing everyone!


----------



## Benzie Rover

Letting the larger fish go and keeping two 10" is better for the population. The larger brookie will almost always be a female. A 13-15" female brook trout has a WAY higher fecundity (# of fertile eggs) than a 10" one. Plus, it obviously has the genetics we want in that stream - the fish was smart and healthy enough to make it that size. We don't know that about the 10" fish. Plus, the 10" is much more likely to be a male. Lastly - the 10" taste much better.




Quig7557 said:


> That is a hog of a Michigan Brookie!
> 
> On the other hand, if I were to let him go and keep two ten" fish, which is better stewardship?


ett


----------



## Benzie Rover

Regarding the OPs point - in simple terms, the 10 fish limit is a biologically stupid choice. Brook trout have the ability to respond to 'adverse conditions' by reproducing at a younger and smaller size compared to all other salmonids. This helps when they are in a low food cycle, have bad water conditions or a myriad of other natural forces that temporarily limit survivorship and recruitment to larger sizes. But when recreational harvest is a force limiting recruitment to larger sizes, it will invariably result in a much smaller average size class distribution in most every stream. The very lame rationale behind their arguments is that brook trout can successfully spawn at 6-7", therefore lots of the fish that are on the border or just under it are already contributing to keeping the population going. So then fisherman start keeping more fish, of which most in the creel will be 8" or greater. It won't more than a few years before we have shift in the populations where there are dominated by 5-7" fish because the vast majority of anything larger is harvested. Yet there will still be a good number of brookies around, just nothing fun to catch. I am stunned our biologists are not putting up more of an argument to the NRC political idiots based on their recent study findings. So much for science based decision making. Pathetic.


----------



## 357Maximum

Benzie Rover said:


> Letting the larger fish go and keeping two 10" is better for the population. The larger brookie will almost always be a female. A 13-15" female brook trout has a WAY higher fecundity (# of fertile eggs) than a 10" one. Plus, it obviously has the genetics we want in that stream - the fish was smart and healthy enough to make it that size. We don't know that about the 10" fish. Plus, the 10" is much more likely to be a male. Lastly - the 10" taste much better.
> 
> ett


I have never noticed any difference in taste between a 10 incher and a 16+ incher. We disagree on the rest. Put in human terms, you saying we should spare the geriatrics and eat the teenagers. I think NOT. Like I said..we disagree and that is fine, we still have that right in this great land.


----------



## Benzie Rover

357Maximum said:


> I have never noticed any difference in taste between a 10 incher and a 16+ incher. We disagree on the rest. Put in human terms, you saying we should spare the geriatrics and eat the teenagers. I think NOT. Like I said..we disagree and that is fine, we still have that right in this great land.


I'm just giving you a biological fact. Take it or leave it. Obviously the NRC chooses to ignore them as well. Big females are far more important to a fishery than small ones. I've eaten plenty of large brookies in Canada. They are tasty, I just prefer the smaller fish. I think their skin tastes more like a potato chip.


----------



## 357Maximum

Benzie Rover said:


> I'm just giving you a biological fact. Take it or leave it. Obviously the NRC chooses to ignore them as well. Big females are far more important to a fishery than small ones. I've eaten plenty of large brookies in Canada. They are tasty, I just prefer the smaller fish. I think their skin tastes more like a potato chip.



I'll leave it, your "fact" is not a fact just because some one says it is, no more than my "facts" are facts because I say they is. Started fishing my favorite spots with a solid blue fiberglass AbuGarcia rod and a little Daiwa spincaster 30+ years ago. I have always done the same thing and got the same results, kill only the big ones and more little uns will have a spot to become big uns...........BIG FISH INSANITY :lol: .....I LOVE IT. I am always in awe of what I pull out of the gullets of them big brookies and am saving the lives of a lot of little brookies by eating them big beautiful cannibalistic beasts. Fact enough for me, and it is well within the law, that's all I need.


----------



## Trout King

357Maximum said:


> I'll leave it, your "fact" is not a fact just because some one says it is, no more than my "facts" are facts because I say they is. Started fishing my favorite spots with a solid blue fiberglass AbuGarcia rod and a little Daiwa spincaster 30+ years ago. I have always done the same thing and got the same results, kill only the big ones and more little uns will have a spot to become big uns...........BIG FISH INSANITY :lol: .....I LOVE IT. I am always in awe of what I pull out of the gullets of them big brookies and am saving the lives of a lot of little brookies by eating them big beautiful cannibalistic beasts. Fact enough for me, and it is well within the law, that's all I need.


Big Brookies like eating little brookies, and I like eating brookies of all sizes.


----------



## 357Maximum

Trout King said:


> Big Brookies like eating little brookies, and I like eating brookies of all sizes.



Damn nice fish, but who told you that you could steal my spinner? :lol: That particular spinner is one third of my m/o slash arsenal...how dare you?


----------



## Trout King

357Maximum said:


> Damn nice fish, but who told you that you could steal my spinner? :lol: That particular spinner is one third of my m/o slash arsenal...how dare you?


Sadly, I probably have more money wrapped into my spinner box with PMs, roostertails and recently a few Mepps than I do with all of my other tackle combined, with the exception of salmon plugs (which don't get used but once or twice a year anymore).


----------



## 357Maximum

Trout King said:


> Sadly, I probably have more money wrapped into my spinner box with PMs, roostertails and recently a few Mepps than I do with all of my other tackle combined, with the exception of salmon plugs (which don't get used but once or twice a year anymore).



You only have one spinner box? I wish I had your control and self restraint. :lol: 

PM's, hand tied bucktail/marabou jigs, a few small Cleo's, Rapalas, and wormin gear are all I carry on me anymore,,,,,but I have a lot of back ups for everything...it is an illness. :lol: I have a few Mepps left but I save them for high snag probability spots where loss is almost assured. No longer use roostertails at all, they just do not work as well for me.


----------



## Trout King

357Maximum said:


> You only have one spinner box? I wish I had your control and self restraint. :lol:
> 
> PM's, hand tied bucktail/marabou jigs, a few small Cleo's and wormin gear are all I carry on me anymore,,,,,but I have a lot of back ups for everything...it is an illness. :lol: I have a few Mepps left but I save them for high snag probability spots where loss is almost assured. No longer use roostertails at all, they just do not work as well for me.


I trout fish enough where I have to replenish it about once a year. Though I don't lose many spinners to the rivers anymore, they seem to get beat up pretty bad after a few trips. I usually keep a stock of about 25-30, I hate vests, so I like to stay compact so I can keep that box and my crank box in my waders when I fish. My typical gear is: Waders/boots, rod, spinner box, crank box, creel, water, bug spray, and sometimes a net, but a lot of times don't feel like fighting the brush, unless I am trying for "the big one".


----------



## PunyTrout

Trout King said:


> Big Brookies like eating little brookies, and I like eating brookies of all sizes.


Best Brookie picture I have seen on here.


----------



## 357Maximum

Trout King said:


> I trout fish enough where I have to replenish it about once a year. Though I don't lose many spinners to the rivers anymore, they seem to get beat up pretty bad after a few trips. I usually keep a stock of about 25-30, I hate vests, so I like to stay compact so I can keep that box and my crank box in my waders when I fish. My typical gear is: Waders/boots, rod, spinner box, crank box, creel, water, bug spray, and sometimes a net, but a lot of times don't feel like fighting the brush, unless I am trying for "the big one".



Sounds about right. I hate vests too. I only carry an altoids tin in my back pocket on my tiny little brooks. On bigger water I carry a "purse" according to my Wife. One of them cheap canvas creels that I modified into...... well a purse pretty much covers it. :lol: I never carry a net, I figure if I am meant to land it I will, and them damn things are like fleece around burdocks and cactus......always snagging something.


----------



## 357Maximum

PunyTrout said:


> Best Brookie picture I have seen on here.



It truly is an awesome photo. I never take on the water pics, I need to change that......but then I would have to carry my phone or a camera.....so I probably won't change that now that I thunk on it a bit. :lol:


----------



## PunyTrout

Forest Meister said:


> Personal attack? If that is what you have been trying to avoid then why on God's Green Earth would you knowingly do it?


@Forest Meister I had a couple of bowls of loud mouth soup prior to reading your post and I took the rabid anti comment personally. Which is always a mistake. Again, I apologize.


----------



## Benzie Rover

357Maximum said:


> I'll leave it, your "fact" is not a fact just because some one says it is, no more than my "facts" are facts because I say they is. Started fishing my favorite spots with a solid blue fiberglass AbuGarcia rod and a little Daiwa spincaster 30+ years ago. I have always done the same thing and got the same results, kill only the big ones and more little uns will have a spot to become big uns...........BIG FISH INSANITY :lol: .....I LOVE IT. I am always in awe of what I pull out of the gullets of them big brookies and am saving the lives of a lot of little brookies by eating them big beautiful cannibalistic beasts. Fact enough for me, and it is well within the law, that's all I need.


Dude, get a grip. I am not bashing you about keeping big fish. Go for it. The question was asked which is better for the fishery. I answered it based on the fisheries management courses I took in Grad school. Call those facts or not. If you don't believe me, pick up a fisheries management text book and have at it. Call them 'fake facts' for all I care. I could care less if you love to kill big trout in order to save small ones. If that pumps you up, great. As I stated in another thread, brook trout will respond to increased pressure by reproducing at a smaller size. You won't ruin a fishery by taking the big ones, but you will impact the size distribution. Will you alone cause this impact? No, hardly. Are your personal stream observations meaningful? No, hardly. And nor are mine. Science is not conducted on personal observations. It is done with controls to determine if results are meaningful or not.


----------



## PunyTrout

@Benzie Rover Do you have any thoughts on post #24 regarding the support from John Matonich, Chair NRC (Marenisco, MI) and J.R. Richardson, NRC. (Ontonagon, MI) to increase the limit to 10 fish for potential tourism dollars being spent in the UP?


----------



## Trout King

357Maximum said:


> It truly is an awesome photo. I never take on the water pics, I need to change that......but then I would have to carry my phone or a camera.....so I probably won't change that now that I thunk on it a bit. :lol:


I've lost a couple phones to water damage. That is why I pay for the insurance, lol. I should probably carry the waterproof camera instead, but photography isn't high on my list of priorities when fishing. Most fish that I photo are soon to be dead as when I play C&R I don't like the fish being out of the water.


----------



## Trout King

Benzie Rover said:


> Dude, get a grip. I am not bashing you about keeping big fish. Go for it. The question was asked which is better for the fishery. I answered it based on the fisheries management courses I took in Grad school. Call those facts or not. If you don't believe me, pick up a fisheries management text book and have at it. Call them 'fake facts' for all I care. I could care less if you love to kill big trout in order to save small ones. If that pumps you up, great. As I stated in another thread, brook trout will respond to increased pressure by reproducing at a smaller size. You won't ruin a fishery by taking the big ones, but you will impact the size distribution. Will you alone cause this impact? No, hardly. Are your personal stream observations meaningful? No, hardly. And nor are mine. Science is not conducted on personal observations. It is done with controls to determine if results are meaningful or not.


Putting aside everything else, is "Scientific *Fact*" pretty rare? Back when I took my college biology courses I thought theories were the more applicable term, they could be disproved, but not proven as "fact". Sorry, I'm probably nitpicking a bit and don't me to sound like an a**.

As far as this specific study it is my opinion the study was not given a long enough time trial due to a lot of environmental factors, but so far the indication is that a 10 fish limit may not be the right answer for the fisheries tested.


----------



## zzcop302

PunyTrout said:


> @Forest Meister I had a couple of bowls of loud mouth soup prior to reading your post and I took the rabid anti comment personally. Which is always a mistake. Again, I apologize.


I think it's a great thing to see everyone on here putting in the effort to keep this non personal and attempting to maintain a good level of understanding the various posts and posters themselves.
Sometimes it's easy to misunderstand or misinterpret a post because you don't get that's voice inflection or tone as you would with a verbal conversation.
By the way Puny Trout, don't feel to bad about having a few sips of Loud Mouth Soup !!!... I think we all have indulged at one time or another and I am sure I'm guilty of consuming a 55 gallon drums worth in my lifetime!!
I think it's easy to do when you feel a passion for anything you treasure in life.
Now...... what's for dessert????
Good fishing everyone!


----------



## PunyTrout

I know 5 pages and 75 plus comments are a lot to read through but I do encourage those who have started this discussion here to go back to page 1 and get an understanding of what has already been discussed.

There are many thoughtful, respectful viewpoints from many different anglers and ideologies. I am grateful that so many have chosen to offer their opposing views respectfully.

I'll reiterate that this discussion is on several M-S Trout stream forums. There is a poll here if one chooses to vote as well. https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/10-fish-limit-on-brook-trout.591808/


----------



## Forest Meister

zzcop302 said:


> ..............................I think it's easy to do when you feel a passion for anything you treasure in life.
> Now...... what's for dessert????
> Good fishing everyone!


Dessert? How about a very carefully grilled 10"- 13" brookie stuffed with lemon slices and liberally seasoned in the cavity with rosemary, basil and thyme, salted to taste, and wrapped in foil to retain the moisture (can I have the cheeks)? Pinot Grigio or Chardonnay optional, of course. Oh, it's dessert and we are in Michigan so maybe the touch of sweetness in Chateau Grand Traverse late harvest Chardonnay would be a more appropriate accompaniment?

Dang, I have a couple jobs that need attention but I'm sure they won't go away if I take a morning off to drive the 75-80 mile round trip to the trout stream and try for two or three fresh trout for dinner. FM


----------



## zzcop302

Forest Meister said:


> Dessert? How about a very carefully grilled 10"- 13" brookie stuffed with lemon slices and liberally seasoned in the cavity with rosemary, basil and thyme, salted to taste, and wrapped in foil to retain the moisture (can I have the cheeks)? Pinot Grigio or Chardonnay optional, of course. Oh, it's dessert and we are in Michigan so maybe the touch of sweetness in Chateau Grand Traverse late harvest Chardonnay would be a more appropriate accompaniment?
> 
> Dang, I have a couple jobs that need attention but I'm sure they won't go away if I take a morning off to drive the 75-80 mile round trip to the trout stream and try for two or three fresh trout for dinner. FM


 Some Moscato for me.... along with the Trout..... and , if possible, work can wait if fishing beckons.... good luck if you end up going.... let us know how you do.


----------



## PunyTrout

I began this thread with an anecdote about harvesting two Brook Trout for my Father. Here they are cooked Sous-vide in compound garlic and chive butter with asparagus and baked potato.










I have nothing against harvesting trout for the table. I just hope that we can do so sustainably.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Fantastic dinner!


----------



## zzcop302

PunyTrout said:


> I began this thread with an anecdote about harvesting two Brook Trout for my Father. Here they are cooked Sous-vide in compound garlic and chive butter with asparagus and baked potato.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against harvesting trout for the table. I just hope that we can do so sustainably.


Hey!!
That looks good !
The one thing about eating a few Trout here and there is you get to enjoy them twice !
Once when you catch them and again when you eat them.
Now please pass the sour cream for my baked potato.


----------



## PunyTrout

zzcop302 said:


> Now please pass the sour cream for my baked potato.


I can assure you that plenty of sour cream and compound butter was added shortly after this photo was taken. And it wasn't the low-fat kind. Daisy brand gets my vote - no weird additives.


----------



## PunyTrout

(Pasted from the UP thread)


I began this thread with an anecdote about harvesting two Brook Trout for my Father. Here they are cooked Sous-vide in compound garlic and chive butter with asparagus and baked potato.










I have nothing against harvesting trout for the table. I just hope that we can do so sustainably.


----------



## PunyTrout

(Pasted from the UP thread)


I began this thread with an anecdote about harvesting two Brook Trout for my Father. Here they are cooked Sous-vide in compound garlic and chive butter with asparagus and baked potato.










I have nothing against harvesting trout for the table. I just hope that we can do so sustainably.


----------



## PunyTrout

DFJISH said:


> What's that I smell? OH...it's C&R zealots fuming about the killing of brook trout to eat.



And a collective groan was heard...

Three different forums, a combined total of 3,894 views and 165 replies and @DFJISH is the first to contribute something less than informed or helpful to the discussion...

Way. To. Go.


----------



## Sparky23

Nrc does what they want without any reasons they will make changes against what are bios tell them.


----------



## PunyTrout

In case others are just now joining the discussion allow me to reiterate what was asked in post #1



PunyTrout said:


> Let’s try and keep the name calling to a minimum. What I mean is, just because an angler focuses on the beauty of trout and their surroundings doesn’t make them a Prima Donna. And conversely, just because an angler likes to eat fish doesn’t make them a Dirtbag or a Bait-flinger etc.
> 
> Let’s keep it civil and constructive.


----------



## PunyTrout

And here is the Cliff's Notes version of some of the questions raised in post #1



PunyTrout said:


> The Brook Trout is Michigan’s State Fish. The UP and the Northern Lower Peninsula are home to the last environments to have native-wild Brook Trout living and I think these fish are worth protecting.
> 
> Yes, I think harvesting Brook Trout should be enjoyed by any angler who pursues them. But do we really need to take 10 per day, per angler?
> 
> So, I would like to open a discussion on the proposed 10 fish limit on Brook Trout in the UP on all Type 1 streams.
> 
> Do you think it is a wise decision? Or a foolish one?
> 
> Should a 10 fish limit be implemented on all Type 1 streams and rivers in the Upper Peninsula? Or, just rivers that are stocked annually by the DNR?
> 
> What do you think?


----------



## PunyTrout

PunyTrout said:


> So this is what I have gotten out of this discussion so far:
> 
> The data gathered thus far does not support an increased limit. Yet the Natural Resources Commission is in favor of it.


As @Ranger Ray was quick to point out, the above reference to the Data gathered thus far is debatable. I agree.


----------



## Trout King

PunyTrout said:


> (Pasted from the UP thread)
> 
> 
> I began this thread with an anecdote about harvesting two Brook Trout for my Father. Here they are cooked Sous-vide in compound garlic and chive butter with asparagus and baked potato.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against harvesting trout for the table. I just hope that we can do so sustainably.


Okay, that's it! I need to go a couple more Wednesday after work. Hoping for the rain.


----------



## Trout King

PunyTrout said:


> (Pasted from the UP thread)
> 
> 
> I began this thread with an anecdote about harvesting two Brook Trout for my Father. Here they are cooked Sous-vide in compound garlic and chive butter with asparagus and baked potato.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against harvesting trout for the table. I just hope that we can do so sustainably.


I'm pretty sure the brook trout populations are not in danger in Michigan. I am confident there are many that will never see a angler. Trout fishing seems to be less popular now than just 20 years ago, and they they and the other trout survived the 10 fish limits for how many decades?
Not saying I now support a 10 fish limit, just saying that I don't think trout populations are in any real danger, especially the UP.

PS, that picture makes me hungry. Off to a local haunt on Wednesday, hoping for rain. I would be there tonight, but the wife works tonight and tomorrow.


----------



## PunyTrout

I would like to personally thank the following members for contributing to this discussion:

(In no particular order.)

@Duck-Hunter @zzcop302 @Fishndude @kzoofisher @Ranger Ray @Pinefarm2015 @Trout King @Turkey Antlers @Quig7557 @itchn2fish @Boardman Brookies @mf2 @Bobby @357Maximum @Benzie Rover @CrickNotCreek @toto @tito @Dead Bird @nyal @Vasilije @B.Jarvinen @Waif @fishinDon @DFJISH @cruiseplanner1 @Forest Meister @Robert Holmes @Rasputin @DecoySlayer @Shoeman @vano397

I also would like to thank those who contacted me via PM to clarify some of my statements.

I know it can be difficult to discuss a contentious issue without what I referred to as name-calling or personal attacks. I myself got a bit prickly at times with a few members. Thanks for bearing with me.

I think it is important that we as anglers can discuss issues with people with whom we don’t happen to agree with. This serves to make us more informed as people I believe. In other words, gathering intelligence or keeping an open-mind.

I came into this discussion Dead-set against increasing the limit to 10 fish per day, per angler. I am still against it personally. Yet as others have made clear, the _Sky is not falling_. Those limits were in place for years in the UP and we still have and will continue to have a Brook Trout fishery there. Thank you for reminding me of that.

I think most of the members on M-S who _might_ have chosen to reply to this thread have done so already. If the Moderators or Administrators would like to have this discussion continue or close it for further replies, either choice is fine by me.

Once again, Thank you to everyone involved for offering our opposing views respectfully.


----------



## PunyTrout

I would like to personally thank the following members for contributing to this discussion:

(In no particular order.)

@Duck-Hunter @zzcop302 @Fishndude @kzoofisher @Ranger Ray @Pinefarm2015 @Trout King @Turkey Antlers @Quig7557 @itchn2fish @Boardman Brookies @mf2 @Bobby @357Maximum @Benzie Rover @CrickNotCreek @toto @tito @Dead Bird @nyal @Vasilije @B.Jarvinen @Waif @fishinDon @DFJISH @cruiseplanner1 @Forest Meister @Robert Holmes @Rasputin @DecoySlayer @Shoeman @vano397

I also would like to thank those who contacted me via PM to clarify some of my statements.

I know it can be difficult to discuss a contentious issue without what I referred to as name-calling or personal attacks. I myself got a bit prickly at times with a few members. Thanks for bearing with me.

I think it is important that we as anglers can discuss issues with people with whom we don’t happen to agree with. This serves to make us more informed as people I believe. In other words, gathering intelligence or keeping an open-mind.

I came into this discussion Dead-set against increasing the limit to 10 fish per day, per angler. I am still against it personally. Yet as others have made clear, the _Sky is not falling_. Those limits were in place for years in the UP and we still have and will continue to have a Brook Trout fishery there. Thank you for reminding me of that.

I think most of the members on M-S who _might_ have chosen to reply to this thread have done so already. If the Moderators or Administrators would like to have this discussion continue or close it for further replies, either choice is fine by me.

Once again, Thank you to everyone involved for offering our opposing views respectfully.


----------



## PunyTrout

I would like to personally thank the following members for contributing to this discussion:

(In no particular order.)

@Duck-Hunter @zzcop302 @Fishndude @kzoofisher @Ranger Ray @Pinefarm2015 @Trout King @Turkey Antlers @Quig7557 @itchn2fish @Boardman Brookies @mf2 @Bobby @357Maximum @Benzie Rover @CrickNotCreek @toto @tito @Dead Bird @nyal @Vasilije @B.Jarvinen @Waif @fishinDon @DFJISH @cruiseplanner1 @Forest Meister @Robert Holmes @Rasputin @DecoySlayer @Shoeman @vano397

I also would like to thank those who contacted me via PM to clarify some of my statements.

I know it can be difficult to discuss a contentious issue without what I referred to as name-calling or personal attacks. I myself got a bit prickly at times with a few members. Thanks for bearing with me.

I think it is important that we as anglers can discuss issues with people with whom we don’t happen to agree with. This serves to make us more informed as people I believe. In other words, gathering intelligence or keeping an open-mind.

I came into this discussion Dead-set against increasing the limit to 10 fish per day, per angler. I am still against it personally. Yet as others have made clear, the _Sky is not falling_. Those limits were in place for years in the UP and we still have and will continue to have a Brook Trout fishery there. Thank you for reminding me of that.

I think most of the members on M-S who _might_ have chosen to reply to this thread have done so already. If the Moderators or Administrators would like to have this discussion continue or close it for further replies, either choice is fine by me.

Once again, Thank you to everyone involved for offering our opposing views respectfully.


----------



## PunyTrout

I would like to personally thank the following members for contributing to this discussion:

(In no particular order.)

@Duck-Hunter @zzcop302 @Fishndude @kzoofisher @Ranger Ray @Pinefarm2015 @Trout King @Turkey Antlers @Quig7557 @itchn2fish @Boardman Brookies @mf2 @Bobby @357Maximum @Benzie Rover @CrickNotCreek @toto @tito @Dead Bird @nyal @Vasilije @B.Jarvinen @Waif @fishinDon @DFJISH @cruiseplanner1 @Forest Meister @Robert Holmes @Rasputin @DecoySlayer @Shoeman @vano397

I also would like to thank those who contacted me via PM to clarify some of my statements.

I know it can be difficult to discuss a contentious issue without what I referred to as name-calling or personal attacks. I myself got a bit prickly at times with a few members. Thanks for bearing with me.

I think it is important that we as anglers can discuss issues with people with whom we don’t happen to agree with. This serves to make us more informed as people I believe. In other words, gathering intelligence or keeping an open-mind.

I came into this discussion Dead-set against increasing the limit to 10 fish per day, per angler. I am still against it personally. Yet as others have made clear, the _Sky is not falling_. Those limits were in place for years in the UP and we still have and will continue to have a Brook Trout fishery there. Thank you for reminding me of that.

I think most of the members on M-S who _might_ have chosen to reply to this thread have done so already. If the Moderators or Administrators would like to have this discussion continue or close it for further replies, either choice is fine by me.

Once again, Thank you to everyone involved for offering our opposing views respectfully.


----------

