# Define trophy fishery



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

With all the talk about different ways to keep flies only, or gear restrictions, one thing that keeps popping up is trophy fishery. Can someone explain it?


----------



## aimus1 (Feb 28, 2011)

Take a U.P. brookie lake for example.

No wheeled access. Walk and Haul your watercraft and gear.
Artificials Only.
One Fish Per Day Limit.
15 Inches or bigger.

Trophy Fishery


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I probably should have clarified this, but I was referring to rivers/streams only since the whole discussion on here has been centered around that.

Not to demean your point, but lakes are not what has been discussed as admirable as you point is. I do find it remarkable though that I posted this 4 days ago and this is the first response to my question. Odd, don't you think?


----------



## aimus1 (Feb 28, 2011)

yep


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Trophy status is relatively arbitrary, but a Master Angler fish is a good place to start. 

You talked about this before, but it depends on the water, the person and the circumstances. A 24" stream dwelling brown can be considered a trophy, but if it's a LRB, it's just a run of the mill fish.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2007-22_225164_7.pdf


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

toto said:


> I probably should have clarified this, but I was referring to rivers/streams only since the whole discussion on here has been centered around that.
> 
> Not to demean your point, but lakes are not what has been discussed as admirable as you point is. I do find it remarkable though that I posted this 4 days ago and this is the first response to my question. Odd, don't you think?


No response yet? 

108 pages of our funds based on findings from our top Bio's. (and that's just a drop in the bucket considering all the other sections and additional rivers that fit the criteria)

It also mentions mortality rates. Seems like several millions were spent over the last 50 some years and data gathered just to publish this. 

I only browsed it, but found a wealth of evidence why certain restrctions work!

Yes, Flies Only was reversed in the 70's, to be replaced by "artificials only" since the mortality rate of released fish was within 2%. 

I keep hearing about Biologists making decisions. Here they did, for 5 decades, in marginal waters, infested with weekend tubes, canoes and restricted fishing. 

Seems to work!


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I've read this report before, and if you really read it closely, a couple of questions come up. 1) If they've planted over 1 million brown trout, and over 1 million rainbow trout through 2006, then why is there not more trout in there? They are using flies only, and gear restrictions as a way to increase the amount of trout found in these reaches, not a bad idea on the surface, but in this study it also says that the water gets over 70 degrees in the summer, and if it gets over 76 degrees, no chance for the trout to survive. 2) Have any of these groups, TU, FFF, Anglers of the AuSable etc, thought about making a push to eliminate the dams on the AuSable? Seems to me that is one highlight of this study was water temp. If you really, truly want to make this site better, and if you really, truly want to have fishermen back on the same page again, then I would start a push to eliminate all dams in Michigan, now that's something I think we can agree on. As for this study, I've read this particular one 3 times and it really does show some sort of mixed message. I'm disputing the idea that they feel gear restrictions are the best answer, but what I'm not seeing is the increase in size, and numbers of trout, it does show some evidence of maintenance, but those numbers don't seem all that good to me either.

In this study, they stated that in a 56 year period, 1938-2006 2.2 million browns and rainbows have been planted in the study reach, when they did electro and rotenone studies, they found a very small number of trout, can't remember the number now, but I want to say only a very small handful, which basically leads me to one other question, and it probably should have led the biologist to ask a question as well: If that small of a number of trout were found after planting 38,000 fish per year, on average, then why are we wasting the money, at least for now, and what is really keeping these numbers so low?? To me, it isn't the fishing, as this has been a flies only, gear restricted section for a while now, but yet the numbers aren't increasing, and that is what this study is saying, which, go around again, wants me to know why? You can't blame it on the "worm dunkers" they haven't fished there is years, so is it a high mortality rate from fighting a fish too long in warm water? Is it the mis-handling of trout during the C&R process? Is it due to warm water species eating the fry like candy?? Is it a water temp thing, it does point to that in the study btw. So, just what is the excuse, can't blame the worm dunkers.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

toto said:


> I've read this report before, and if you really read it closely, a couple of questions come up. 1) If they've planted over 1 million brown trout, and over 1 million rainbow trout through 2006, then why is there not more trout in there? They are using flies only, and gear restrictions as a way to increase the amount of trout found in these reaches, not a bad idea on the surface, but in this study it also says that the water gets over 70 degrees in the summer, and if it gets over 76 degrees, no chance for the trout to survive. 2) Have any of these groups, TU, FFF, Anglers of the AuSable etc, thought about making a push to eliminate the dams on the AuSable? Seems to me that is one highlight of this study was water temp. If you really, truly want to make this site better, and if you really, truly want to have fishermen back on the same page again, then I would start a push to eliminate all dams in Michigan, now that's something I think we can agree on. As for this study, I've read this particular one 3 times and it really does show some sort of mixed message. I'm disputing the idea that they feel gear restrictions are the best answer, but what I'm not seeing is the increase in size, and numbers of trout, it does show some evidence of maintenance, but those numbers don't seem all that good to me either.
> 
> In this study, they stated that in a 56 year period, 1938-2006 2.2 million browns and rainbows have been planted in the study reach, when they did electro and rotenone studies, they found a very small number of trout, can't remember the number now, but I want to say only a very small handful, which basically leads me to one other question, and it probably should have led the biologist to ask a question as well: If that small of a number of trout were found after planting 38,000 fish per year, on average, then why are we wasting the money, at least for now, and what is really keeping these numbers so low?? To me, it isn't the fishing, as this has been a flies only, gear restricted section for a while now, but yet the numbers aren't increasing, and that is what this study is saying, which, go around again, wants me to know why? You can't blame it on the "worm dunkers" they haven't fished there is years, so is it a high mortality rate from fighting a fish too long in warm water? Is it the mis-handling of trout during the C&R process? Is it due to warm water species eating the fry like candy?? Is it a water temp thing, it does point to that in the study btw. So, just what is the excuse, can't blame the worm dunkers.


I think it is the simple laws of biology...some prefer to ignore those.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto,
Sorry to take so long to respond but I've been more crushed than usual at work and haven't been on the site in months. 

In your careful reading of the study you seem to have gotten the impression that that stretch is flies-only, it's not. Never has been. Maybe your reading is selecting out and in some cases manufacturing the data you so carefully want to find. In any case, that study was one that was cited to justify the continued protection of a trophy fishery. Not a fishery that was created through management but one that is being maintained. Those same studies were also used to justify the removal of protections from rainbows in that stretch because those fish provide sport but almost never survive to large size. A nice compromise of fishing goals. Planting fish simply to provide sport without much hope of natural reproduction is something Fisheries does all the time, examples are steelhead plants in the Betsie, Joe and Kazoo as well as walleye all over the inland waters.

Like many of our big fish waters it has low overall survival but high growth rates. Different than many such streams, it receives heavy pressure and has for decades. Even some of the staunchest supporters of the GLFSA like splitshot and Ranger Ray will tell you that increasing pressure will "destroy" a fishery. To their credit they also say that the public has a right to destroy the fishery, I disagree and think the public has a right to utilize the fishery without destroying it.
As for the dams, they were relicensed by the FERC in 1994 and won't come up again until 2044, no point in wasting resources on an impossible goal. With the push for more renewable energy none of the power producing dams are coming out, no chance no way so why tilt at windmills? Other dams on the river and its tribs have been removed or are in the process. All the stuff you are asking for was seen as an issue many years ago by those groups and they are way ahead of you on this. During the relicensing period the groups you mention and the DNR did fight to have "run of the river" mandated rather than having a handshake agreement because the water levels had been spiked up and down for years without it. Actually getting the dams removed was a non-starter with Consumers and the Feds so they did the best they could. In fact, those groups still monitor flows and have joined in with others to get new controls below Foote in the last few years because of erratic flows. They have also continued to do studies on the stretch, you can get a copy of a recent temp study here, http://www.asbwpa.org/ and have used those studies to argue for other improvements to management practices. Most notable is the upcoming large woody debris project which will differ significantly from the last one, in large part because the ASBWPA took the time and effort to do the temp study and to show the Forest Service what became of the last LWD work. For one thing the trees will be anchored. Another change is placement, which is being decided by using temp studies to provide the most effective thermal refuges and get the best bang for the buck. The contract for that work has not been awarded yet but I would bet that the Anglers or TU end up overseeing it on the civilian side. There is plenty of work going on there and I encourage you to come along and join in.

As for C&R being a problem due to warm water temps you're absolutely right. That's why the ASBWPA runs this website
http://www.70degreepledge.org/
The fly shops in Mio and Grayling have signed on because there are 10 months to fish in safe temps and really only a few days during the caution months when the river should be avoided.

Mis-handling of fish during release is a problem everywhere because mortality matters, especially in places with low survival or heavy pressure. To help educate the public about that there is this.

http://www.catch-n-release.org/


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Very nice post kzoo, and well thought out. My only disagreement with it is this:

First of all, yes higher pressure would harm a fishery, but only to a point, I would assume that is why they would have daily bag limits. Whatever the particular area could support would be determined by the science involved in that particular stretch. My other problem is, if there are special regualtions, and everything you read says "general public" I would assume that to mean everyone. I realize you will say that everyone can fish it, as long as the proper gear is used, but when you combine all the factors, such as the PTD, and the fact that is a social issue as stated by Jim Dexter, than it would seem wrong to use public funds to plant fish in these areas.

As for the woody debris projects, I can get behind that, but why is it is always used on areas that are gear restricted? You mentioned the Betsie, theres a river that could the work also, but since it's not gear restricted, is it just being ignored? Look, I would have no problem with any of it, IF it were for sceintific reasons, but at this point it hasn't been, and continuously doesn't seem to used.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Interesting posts. I think that the flies only waters are a big part of Michigan History and politics more than the quality of the fishing that is available. The DNR will plant loads of small trout in these waters to give fishermen something to catch and call it trophy waters. Most fly fishermen will probably catch a dozen small trout for every half way nice trout that they land. Being that they are small trout many probably die shortly after being released. If you want true trophy waters you have to have limited public use fishing, canoeing, tubing and so on.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Don't you guys ever get tired of just making stuff up? Even when you do careful research you end up fabricating "facts". Really calls into question your facts as a whole. A quick search of trout planted in some flies only stretches from 1979 to present:

Pere Marquette- 94,990 for an average of 2,794 per year in seven miles of river*

Au Sable Mainstream- 0
Au Sable South Branch- 0
Au Sable North Branch- 0

* This statistic is terribly misleading. All those fish were planted between 1985 and 1999 with 2/3 planted at the M-37 access and Gleasons. Those two points are at the ends of the stretch and it is safe to assume that a substantial portion of those fish move away from the flies only water so the actual number of planted fish in that water is considerably lower than the number printed. The per year average for the years when plants occurred is 6,785.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Would you not realize that McKinley Bridge is the border line of the flies only, or at least gear restricted waters: The answer, yes and here's what happened just this year.

4-15 6000 browns
4-15 6000 browns again
4-15 12,200 rainbows.

Now I'm sure you'll say that these would migrate to parts that aren't protected, but the point, to me, is still the same.

Also, you have to factor in the plantings for the Fife Lake Sportsmans Club, which I can't remember the numbers off hand, but those fish are planted into the flies only sections of the Manistee. Now, where did the club get them, that's right the DNR. And if you don't think the DNR knows exactly where they are being planted, than I am missing something. The bottom line is, public funds should not be used to plant even 1 fish in these rivers, at any time, period.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Are you serious about this? McKinley Bridge is close to 30 road miles from the fly water, goodness knows how many river miles. Your wild inaccuracy on this is one of the many things that makes me question your accuracy on other things. Did you see how I posted a statistic? The one I posted was "true" but it was far from honest so I threw in the asterisk to give the more accurate number. No scary buzzwords, no almost true oops my bad claims, no total misrepresentations of information to try to spin the narrative. It doesn't take very long to make sure that what you post is accurate or to qualify statements when you're not sure. Try it if you want to taken seriously about your scientific and legal research into extremely complicated subjects.

That stretch is gear restricted and has been since '65, longer than any other water in Michigan. The reasons for it needing plants were discussed above and as you may realize from the reasons given for the reg changes half those fish planted are dropped there purely so the public can easily catch them and take them home to eat. Creating opportunities like that are part of what the DNR does.

As for the fish planted by a private group, I have no idea where they came from and I'll bet you don't either. The only time I have been involved with a private planting of trout in a stream all the fish came from a commercial hatchery. Does the DNR even act as a commercial supplier of fish? I've known them to provide fish for net pens and rearing ponds where local conservation groups take over, and those plants were always listed as State Plants. I believe you're retired, why don't you take today to find out if your claim is true or just something that sounded good in your head and get back to us. Maybe it is, it would be nice if you could get back a little credibility on this stuff.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Planted fish do not make for a true trophy fishing area. Many of the streams in the UP have never had a fish planted in them yet they produce some very large trout every year. I have landed many large trout out of these waters and see very few fishermen. On the other hand I have fished some waters in the LP that see loads of fishermen and have landed large trout in those waters. Fishing is a lot like deer hunting only 1 percent of fishermen can catch trophy fish on a regular basis. Only about 1 percent of deer hunters shoot large bucks on a regular basis. Most fishermen are in the 99 percent that just are not going to land a trophy trout no matter how hard that they try.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I stand corrected, you are right in that I should have said Wakely, why I get those two mixed up is beyond me. Anyways, as far as the other deal I can say for a fact, as one of my best friends is involved in that project, the fish, at least according to him, come from the DNR perhaps he's wrong, but I doubt it. But back to the orginal question, what quaifies as trophy waters?? Or rather, what makes it trophy fishing? It appears that your argument is weak at best, and if landing a 6" brown trout on a fly is a trophy, so be it. The bottom line is, this is a battle that will continue, and at some point all the truth's will come out.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I would consider trophy waters a river, stream, or lake that produces one or more master angler fish per year. Many fishermen like myself never apply for master angler awards so that leaves it open.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto,
Perfectly reasonable mistake however, your concern about planted fish is even less founded when we move upstream. I don't see any plants for Wakely since '79 and the last plants at the lower end of that GR stretch (McMasters/Rainbow Bend) were nearly 20 years ago. Add in that those GR are only a few of years old and your entire complaint seems baseless. I think we can let that part go.

As for the planting in the Manistee, I can't account for what your friend told you but it isn't the first time you've reported bad information honestly obtained from your friends. I'll recommend again that you take Ronald Reagan's advice when it comes to the info you get from your friends, "trust but verify". A check of the permit process that is listed on the DNR's site shows that one of the requirements is that the source of the fish be certified disease free. At no time does the permit mention using DNR facilities for procuring fish but it does repeatedly mention private aquaculture facilities. I talked today to the two DNR offices I have in my phone, Plainwell and Gaylord, and both told me the DNR will not provide fish for private plants. The State isn't in the business of raising fish for a couple of years on the off chance some private parties may want to buy them. Having said that, if you want to tell me where and when these private plants took place I'm sure I could get the permits and see what they say about the source.

As for what constitute trophy waters, I think REG and Robert Holmes have a pretty good starting point - Master Angler Awards. The DNR has a trophy classification so we can use that. Quite a few shops also have a "bragging board" so you could use Master Angler size fish on those to judge streams, too. For many streams the DNR already has growth rates and size distribution on file but I'm not sure many people would be happy if those were openly promoted. People tend to get pretty mad if you publicize *their* honey hole. My personal definition of trophy varies some from the DNR's because I grade with difficulty as well as size. On a streamer, hardware or bait I wouldn't call a stream trout a trophy until it got to 26", 24" for fish caught on a Hex or other night fly and 22" for fish caught on "standard" size dries and nymphs. My system is kind of like using degree of difficulty in judging Olympic sports, totally subjective and wide open to cheating by the judges.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Thanks for letting me off the hook there a bit, but on the Ronald Reagan thing, I asked him a couple of times and that's his statement, I have no other way to verify. As to where exactly they were planted, all I know is he said they were upstream of M72 and that I believe is flies only, but again I wasn't there. As for trophies, I am sure your defination fits well for you, but in most of the threads it seems others define it differently. But whatever, I've thought about this fight and frankly I just don't have the energy for it anymore. If the state wants to make every piece of water flies only, or gear restricted so be it, just don't care anymore. But once the economy of the state, and the state of fishing economy goes to pot, don't blame me.


----------

