# Commissioner Nybergs amendment



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Steve said:


> In general I support the proposal along with Ray's suggestions on guides. Why isn't there a limited number of them just like canoe permits in the summer on popular rivers? Give the regular Joe a chance.


. Because there are more than just governing body making decisions and on some rivers both depending on reach of the river. Couple more things, one steelhead, ok, but during the summer do we change trout refs also? Because I sure can’t tell the difference between a smolt and a native bow at the same age. Habitat as mentioned has changed a lot in the last ten years on many cool water streams. Smolts like the faster, gravel bottom areas and sand has reduced those areas dramatically, especially on the pm


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

mondrella said:


> Alright I should have commented on this yesterday but was extremely busy. On other social platforms and fishing.
> This issue has not really been discussed by the cold water steering committee. In fact fisheries division is not happy about this proposal at all! I have personally been in contact with several of them. Commisioner Nyberg bypassed the proper channels because he feels it is right thing to do.
> The biologist have stated that this will have no effect on improving numbers it is a social science deal. Talking to several biologist we have plenty of fish hatching and reaching fry size. The issue comes with available habitat for them to reach adulthood. When streams and the lake can only support so many fish. Not just steelhead but take the better natural reproduction waters they have extremely healthy resident populations. We have experienced high water conditions we have seen a boost in pike and walleye numbers. Its been great conditions across the board. This rule change will have no effect on the numbers of adult steelhead. Sounds good but not going to do a thing.
> What will help is more and better habitat. This means removal of more dams along with other things.
> ...


Wow! Just wow! I wondered why it didn't go through the cold water committee. Because the science doesn't support what he is doing. It's social, and he is either doing it for himself, or for the select few. Was afraid that once the Coldwater eliminated the good old boys club, some commissioner(s) would go rogue. Disgusting!

Has this passed the NRC?


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Cork Dust said:


> You might want to read this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*"This means that lower bag limits probably won’t affect the long-term prospects for the population, Wesley explained (see fact sheet for additional details). Bag limits might serve other functions, though. Although lowering the bag limit probably won’t result in higher steelhead numbers in years to come, it could allow for more ‘recycling’ of steelhead if fish are released to be caught again."*

Bingo! 

Numbers coming out of the big lake, also effect this "recycling."


----------



## nighttime (Nov 25, 2007)

Recycling for sure. I’m still kinda up in the air about it but one thing for sure keeping more fish isn’t going to equal more fish, but surely releasing more surely will equal into more bites year after year. Steelhead are not native species to Great Lakes anyway so I’m a little surprised someone push for hard regulation on something not native to the waters. Lol I think nrc should regulate guides further more…….


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Ranger Ray said:


> *"This means that lower bag limits probably won’t affect the long-term prospects for the population, Wesley explained (see fact sheet for additional details). Bag limits might serve other functions, though. Although lowering the bag limit probably won’t result in higher steelhead numbers in years to come, it could allow for more ‘recycling’ of steelhead if fish are released to be caught again."*
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> Numbers coming out of the big lake, also effect this "recycling."


Good job of cherry picking!
How odd, you opted to skip the data that Ms.Claramunt presented that indicated the open water fishery had very limited impacts when contrasted to stream catch rates in the rivers under consideration...you know the segment of the fishery where most of the "Catch" pressure is.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

This issue was just talked about today, at least to me. It surprised me that Commissioner Nyberg would try to do an end run and make this happen. That only brings up one question, is it social science, or fisheries science driving this? If it's the first, no way can I support it. It feels good to say only one steelhead during the spawning period, but if in the end it does nothing to increase numbers, than why do it? Now, if it's a biological thing, and the numbers will come up and stabilize, than by all means do it. 

I think, in reality, we all know the truth behind this, we've been seeing it played out for years. Anyone remember the chumming debacle a few years ago? Anyone remember what was tied to it, or at least was trying to be tied to it? It was one steelhead limit. It was stated at that time, and I remember it very well, there is no need to limit it to one fish per day, the numbers were fine, and that was said by one of our resident MS biologists. 

We can sit here and debate it all we want, but the real debate is this: Do you want our DNR to make regulations and rules based on biological science, or would you rather it based on the following? Money, emotions, or social science? That's the real question.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

toto said:


> This issue was just talked about today, at least to me. It surprised me that Commissioner Nyberg would try to do an end run and make this happen. That only brings up one question, is it social science, or fisheries science driving this? If it's the first, no way can I support it. It feels good to say only one steelhead during the spawning period, but if in the end it does nothing to increase numbers, than why do it? Now, if it's a biological thing, and the numbers will come up and stabilize, than by all means do it.
> 
> I think, in reality, we all know the truth behind this, we've been seeing it played out for years. Anyone remember the chumming debacle a few years ago? Anyone remember what was tied to it, or at least was trying to be tied to it? It was one steelhead limit. It was stated at that time, and I remember it very well, there is no need to limit it to one fish per day, the numbers were fine, and that was said by one of our resident MS biologists.
> 
> We can sit here and debate it all we want, but the real debate is this: Do you want our DNR to make regulations and rules based on biological science, or would you rather it based on the following? Money, emotions, or social science? That's the real question.


Your sentiments should carry-over to the whitetail herd management as well...particularly when WDC have been repeatedly identified as a key component of the Region 1 deer herd's surival, yet they are not even considered in the Deer Management Plan developed by Ms. Autenrieth and Mr. Stewart. Oh, while we're on the subject, do we have an actual assessment of grouse and woodcock population trends on a statewide or regional basis. IF so, where is it?

Here is the other leg to the steelhead origin and population contribution issue, which subpopulations contribute differentially to the fishery:


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Cork Dust said:


> Good job of cherry picking!
> How odd, you opted to skip the data that Ms.Claramunt presented that indicated the open water fishery had very limited impacts when contrasted to stream catch rates in the rivers under consideration...you know the segment of the fishery where most of the "Catch" pressure is.


What does "catch pressure" have to do with anything? It's numbers harvested (think removed from system) we are talking. Come back when you understand the discussion.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

Cork Dust said:


> Thanks again for totally missing my point, to insert another rambling diatribe via yout observstions. A pike, fifty or five hundred inches long will NOT consume an 8" prey item frequently in fifty-some degree water...
> 
> Thanks for failing to actually read my post accurately for content, as you note, you are not alone. Where did I state that Pike do not eat large prey? Where did my statement touch on musky prey consumption? What I did try to convey is that Pike are not a fish that spends alot of time feeding in high current areas, nor do they consume large numbers of 8" size prey when water temps are at the low end of their preffered physiologic range. As poikilotherms, their digestion rates are impacted directly by ambient water temperatures, which I conveyed. I strongly doubt that steelhead smolts spend a great deal of time in these drowned rivermouth sections, largely because they warm up first and fast and can actually form a thermal barrier to their passage. Ingesting a large prey item generally shuts a fish down from the standpoint of rate of consumption of additional prey, particularly of the same or similar size. Add-in the added impacts of thermal segregation of these two species and the evidence driven conclusion is not massive consumption of a fish that is not readily or continually abundant, compared to other prey that is more abundant in these drowned rivermouths.
> 
> ...


Really. Pike won't eat 8in. Prey in water under 50? May wanna check all of your degrees and such if you believe this. Or go fishing and see some actual facts not book based.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Chriss83 said:


> Really. Pike won't eat 8in. Prey in water under 50? May wanna check all of your degrees and such if you believe this. Or go fishing and see some actual facts not book based.


Thanks for failing to read accurately what I actually said. 

Based on prey size, background water temperature's impacts on pike feeding rate and activity as well as rate of digestion and the simple reaity that, IF steelhead smolts were more numerouse than other prey fish in these drowned rivermouth systems making them a routine or the preferred prey item of pike at this time of year, that would likely mean that elevated steelhead mortality while in rivers was not an issue. This is already well documented. Fishing effort on the targeted rivers, too, is well documented. But, via your logic, pike are responsible. What I did learn from ten years as a fishery research biologist, four of them spent identifying and quantifying stomach contents of pike, muskellunge, walley, smallmouth bass and cisco in the St. Marys River via sampling with trap nets, gill nets, otter trawls, and fishing gillnets under ice through the winter months over forty-five miles of the system is that ambush predators like pike tend to eat what is both easiest to catch and what is most numerous during that season of the year. 

Say, isn't the St. Marys River known as a world class steelhead fishery via the American and Canadian rapids? Seems I read that in a book somewhere... Did I mention that I also worked on the PM and Pentwater River systems for several years when I worked for MSU's Great Lakes Research Lab. in Ludington. Say, don't these rivers contain drowned rivermouth estuaries? I think I read that somewhere else. Would you like to know how many pike we sampled, again over the entire year, with steelhead in their stomachs? Less than the fingers on one hand...


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Cork Dust said:


> Thanks for failing to read accurately what I actually said.
> 
> Based on prey size, background water temperature's impacts on pike feeding rate and activity as well as rate of digestion and the simple reaity that, IF steelhead smolts were more numerouse than other prey fish in these drowned rivermouth systems making them a routine or the preferred prey item of pike at this time of year, that would likely mean that elevated steelhead mortality while in rivers was not an issue. This is already well documented. Fishing effort on the targeted rivers, too, is well documented. But, via your logic, pike are responsible. What I did learn from ten years as a fishery research biologist, four of them spent identifying and quantifying stomach contents of pike, muskellunge, walley, smallmouth bass and cisco in the St. Marys River via sampling with trap nets, gill nets, otter trawls, and fishing gillnets under ice through the winter months over forty-five miles of the system is that ambush predators like pike tend to eat what is both easiest to catch and what is most numerous during that season of the year.
> 
> Say, isn't the St. Marys River known as a world class steelhead fishery via the American and Canadian rapids? Seems I read that in a book somewhere... Did I mention that I also worked on the PM and Pentwater River systems for several years when I worked for MSU's Great Lakes Research Lab. in Ludington. Say, don't these rivers contain drowned rivermouth estuaries? I think I read that somewhere else. Would you like to know how many pike we sampled, again over the entire year, with steelhead in their stomachs? Less than the fingers on one hand...


That's a lot of gobbly **** just to claim pike don't consume trout plants.
Good thing you can prove the return rates on plants confirm no mortality and less need planting as a result.
A major breakthrough thank's to your research.

How many of the pike you killed were missing all thier teeth in summer after they molted and quit feeding till thier teeth grew back?

How did you prove no pike enjoyed smolts following a planting? Temps? Digestive rates? What you found in other pike elsewhere?

I'm all for pike.
Don't agree they don't eat trout though given the opportunity.
Do they eat more or less young trout than other trout eat? Depends which is where at the same time.
All fish are opportunistic. not just pike.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

[/QUOTE]


Cork Dust said:


> Thanks for failing to read accurately what I actually said.
> 
> Based on prey size, background water temperature's impacts on pike feeding rate and activity as well as rate of digestion and the simple reaity that, IF steelhead smolts were more numerouse than other prey fish in these drowned rivermouth systems making them a routine or the preferred prey item of pike at this time of year, that would likely mean that elevated steelhead mortality while in rivers was not an issue. This is already well documented. Fishing effort on the targeted rivers, too, is well documented. But, via your logic, pike are responsible. What I did learn from ten years as a fishery research biologist, four of them spent identifying and quantifying stomach contents of pike, muskellunge, walley, smallmouth bass and cisco in the St. Marys River via sampling with trap nets, gill nets, otter trawls, and fishing gillnets under ice through the winter months over forty-five miles of the system is that ambush predators like pike tend to eat what is both easiest to catch and what is most numerous during that season of the year.
> 
> Say, isn't the St. Marys River known as a world class steelhead fishery via the American and Canadian rapids? Seems I read that in a book somewhere... Did I mention that I also worked on the PM and Pentwater River systems for several years when I worked for MSU's Great Lakes Research Lab. in Ludington. Say, don't these rivers contain drowned rivermouth estuaries? I think I read that somewhere else. Would you like to know how many pike we sampled, again over the entire year, with steelhead in their stomachs? Less than the fingers on one hand...


Say....your right I quit reading most of what you say long ago. You are never wrong. Haven't been in your life


----------



## Bob Hunter (Jan 19, 2016)

gooseboy said:


> Basically changing limits of rainbows on Big Man, Bear, PM, Carp, and Little Man during spawning season. Hoping Mr Tonello could way in. I don’t care as long as it’s not a group or two with money behind the change such as guides both Lake and river.
> View attachment 792075
> 
> 
> ...


I saw yesterday on another guy’s post that you have to stop fishing once you keep your one fish, and the CIR(catch and immediate release law) no longer is in effect with this proposal, is there any truth to this?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Bob Hunter said:


> I saw yesterday on another guy’s post that you have to stop fishing once you keep your one fish, and the CIR(catch and immediate release law) no longer is in effect with this proposal, is there any truth to this?


NO. I had a friend of mine call me that is on another forum called Trout Streams or something. Over there they have this issue as being a DNR fault (not true) and that one could catch one fish, and then they have to stop (probably false). The first part is spot on as to the OP of this thread. The second part may, or may not be true but I haven't heard, or read that anywhere. 

If we are all correct in that it is the guides who are pushing this, then why would they push for one fish, then your done for the day? That wouldn't make any sense in that scenario, why would the guides want to shoot themselves in the foot? 

Look, if the steelhead numbers could be increased by closing a river during the spawning cycle, then do it, just shut it down completely just like they do for walleye and other species. As for me, I will wait till I see the data from the DNR, and then, and only then, make my decision. I would rather not select rules and regulations based on emotions.


----------



## hhlhoward (Mar 1, 2012)

Bob Hunter said:


> I saw yesterday on another guy’s post that you have to stop fishing once you keep your one fish, and the CIR(catch and immediate release law) no longer is in effect with this proposal, is there any truth to this?


I saw that it was true as part of the bill.

Sent from my moto z4 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SteelieArm14 (Jan 6, 2012)

Cork Dust said:


> Thanks for failing to read accurately what I actually said.
> 
> Based on prey size, background water temperature's impacts on pike feeding rate and activity as well as rate of digestion and the simple reaity that, IF steelhead smolts were more numerouse than other prey fish in these drowned rivermouth systems making them a routine or the preferred prey item of pike at this time of year, that would likely mean that elevated steelhead mortality while in rivers was not an issue. This is already well documented. Fishing effort on the targeted rivers, too, is well documented. But, via your logic, pike are responsible. What I did learn from ten years as a fishery research biologist, four of them spent identifying and quantifying stomach contents of pike, muskellunge, walley, smallmouth bass and cisco in the St. Marys River via sampling with trap nets, gill nets, otter trawls, and fishing gillnets under ice through the winter months over forty-five miles of the system is that ambush predators like pike tend to eat what is both easiest to catch and what is most numerous during that season of the year.
> 
> Say, isn't the St. Marys River known as a world class steelhead fishery via the American and Canadian rapids? Seems I read that in a book somewhere... Did I mention that I also worked on the PM and Pentwater River systems for several years when I worked for MSU's Great Lakes Research Lab. in Ludington. Say, don't these rivers contain drowned rivermouth estuaries? I think I read that somewhere else. Would you like to know how many pike we sampled, again over the entire year, with steelhead in their stomachs? Less than the fingers on one hand...


Someone get this guy a cookie


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Bob Hunter (Jan 19, 2016)

toto said:


> NO. I had a friend of mine call me that is on another forum called Trout Streams or something. Over there they have this issue as being a DNR fault (not true) and that one could catch one fish, and then they have to stop (probably false). The first part is spot on as to the OP of this thread. The second part may, or may not be true but I haven't heard, or read that anywhere.
> 
> If we are all correct in that it is the guides who are pushing this, then why would they push for one fish, then your done for the day? That wouldn't make any sense in that scenario, why would the guides want to shoot themselves in the foot?
> 
> Look, if the steelhead numbers could be increased by closing a river during the spawning cycle, then do it, just shut it down completely just like they do for walleye and other species. As for me, I will wait till I see the data from the DNR, and then, and only then, make my decision. I would rather not select rules and regulations based on emotions.


Both the law to ban chumming on many rivers, and implemation of the “flies only” stretch on the PMcame about from emotions.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

Bob Hunter said:


> Both the law to ban chumming on many rivers, and implemation of the “flies only” stretch on the PMcame about from emotions.


Very true. Some said when the chumming ban happened it shouldn't just because it was setting a precedence for future laws only done for fly guides mainly river quest and tu.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Bob Hunter said:


> Both the law to ban chumming on many rivers, and implemation of the “flies only” stretch on the PMcame about from emotions.


You are absolutely correct. Whatever happened to Prop G from a few years ago, you know the one where fishing, hunting, and trapping laws were to be predicated on biological science? Seems no one even thinks about this stuff, and it just keeps happening.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Believe me, guides were at the forefront of chumming. It became a issue when the rest of fishermen started doing it


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

toto said:


> You are absolutely correct. Whatever happened to Prop G from a few years ago, you know the one where fishing, hunting, and trapping laws were to be predicated on biological science? Seems no one even thinks about this stuff, and it just keeps happening.


The problem was it said just science. So we magically have social science so they can still use emotions to decide. 
Look at just the comments in this thread. Many people think releasing these fish will improve numbers. That they release the fish it is going to live. The problem is the constant barrage of hooking fish and releasing them during the spawn is a death sentence. Just look how weak a fight a drop back hen has compared to prior to spawning. 
If you choose to release a fish that is your choice. To force the release of fish that if one wants to utilize as table fair that according to our biologist will not effect numbers one should be able to. 
Life is not fair. So you do not catch as many fish as you want. Some other individual catches what you feel is more than his share. Learn to fish better. Read water properly and numbers will go up. So many anglers even guides do not see the seams that really make a difference in hooking up with fish.


----------



## SteelieArm14 (Jan 6, 2012)

mondrella said:


> The problem was it said just science. So we magically have social science so they can still use emotions to decide.
> Look at just the comments in this thread. Many people think releasing these fish will improve numbers. That they release the fish it is going to live. The problem is the constant barrage of hooking fish and releasing them during the spawn is a death sentence. Just look how weak a fight a drop back hen has compared to prior to spawning.
> If you choose to release a fish that is your choice. To force the release of fish that if one wants to utilize as table fair that according to our biologist will not effect numbers one should be able to.
> Life is not fair. So you do not catch as many fish as you want. Some other individual catches what you feel is more than his share. Learn to fish better. Read water properly and numbers will go up. So many anglers even guides do not see the seams that really make a difference in hooking up with fish.


The last two sentences of your post couldn’t be more true...once I learned to read water my numbers damn near doubled. I feel like people overlook the importance of reading water and understanding it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Bob Hunter (Jan 19, 2016)

riverman said:


> Believe me, guides were at the forefront of chumming. It became a issue when the rest of fishermen started doing it


It became an issue when the fly guides were getting shown up by the bait guides who were chumming.


----------



## nighttime (Nov 25, 2007)

Lol Guides, show up with five gallon bucket with scoop, and start scooping. I’m guessing it’s pretty easy to find fish lol. Seriously that’s how many guides would run. Kinda blew my mind but it’s been done by man fishing forever I guess.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

mondrella said:


> The problem was it said just science. So we magically have social science so they can still use emotions to decide.
> Look at just the comments in this thread. Many people think releasing these fish will improve numbers. That they release the fish it is going to live. The problem is the constant barrage of hooking fish and releasing them during the spawn is a death sentence. Just look how weak a fight a drop back hen has compared to prior to spawning.
> If you choose to release a fish that is your choice. To force the release of fish that if one wants to utilize as table fair that according to our biologist will not effect numbers one should be able to.
> Life is not fair. So you do not catch as many fish as you want. Some other individual catches what you feel is more than his share. Learn to fish better. Read water properly and numbers will go up. So many anglers even guides do not see the seams that really make a difference in hooking up with fish.


Frankly I don't recall exactly how it was written then, but I think that's about right. It would seem to me that somebody, whether be in the legislature, or courts or wherever could/should get an opinion on that. In other words, define exactly what science means. Again, I'll go back to the original establishment of the Department of Conservation in the early 1900's, the legislature, by statute, was not allowed to have anything to do with our conservation laws.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

BTW, I'm not going to come right out with it, but there is a way to put a little pressure on this Nyberg guy. Once you find out where he's from, and his background, perhaps you can figure one way to fight this.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

I don’t consider steelhead good table fare, my parents do, so I kill 1 a year for them, so this proposed reg isn’t going to impact me. But if it sets a precedent for social science trumping the biologists, then I say hell no. 

Emotions are not designed to drive decisions. And social = emotion. 

And Toto, stop educating the guides. Guides fish holes, fishermen fish seams. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

What needs to happen is him being called out publicly for circumnavigating the fisheries division to add this proposal to the order. 
It's time all the commissioners know we are not going to stand for it. The wrong people on the commission we could lose more than people imagine. One has to take a stand on principle alone.

Nyberg is from the Upper Peninsula. His family help start bay de Noc lure company the makers of the famous swedish pimple.


----------



## treeman (Mar 18, 2002)

mondrella said:


> What needs to happen is him being called out publicly for circumnavigating the fisheries division to add this proposal to the order.
> It's time all the commissioners know we are not going to stand for it. The wrong people on the commission we could lose more than people imagine. One has to take a stand on principle alone.
> 
> Nyberg is from the Upper Peninsula. His family help start bay de Noc lure company the makers of the famous swedish pimple.


This is exactly correct. Regulations proposed by a NRC commissioner must be treated the same as any other proposal. It needs to be vetted by the department of natural resources biologists. It must be subject to discussion by the appropriate advisory committees and to public scrutiny. This is a flagrant end run around that process.


----------



## Quig7557 (Dec 31, 2008)

I didn’t read all the post, however, I have to agree, more gravel less sand. I’ve contacted multiple biologists on several streams, always a lot of pushback on silt traps.

What do they spend the extra money when they doubled a license cost.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

treeman said:


> This is exactly correct. Regulations proposed by a NRC commissioner must be treated the same as any other proposal. It needs to be vetted by the department of natural resources biologists. It must be subject to discussion by the appropriate advisory committees and to public scrutiny. This is a flagrant and run around that process.


Here's the thing, some of these commissioners just don't care what the biologists say, and they certainly don't care what some of the committees say. For example, the 10 brook trout limit in the U.P. was talked about a couple of years ago by the CRSC; at that time they voted to increase the area that 10 fish were allowed. One of the NRC commissioners was sitting right there and stated that he already knew how he was going to vote on it for the NRC, signaling his stance in opposition to it. 
As Mondrella said, if we aren't careful, we could lose a lot of our fishing and hunting privledges if we aren't careful. All it would take is just enough commissioners who make decisions based on "feelings" vs science. We can argue the science definition all day long, but I think we all know what was inferred by this proposition. If we sit back and allow this to happen, whether you agree with or not, we are setting a dangerous precedent. If the NRC knows that there will be very little pushback, what's to stop from making any ingnorant decision? Just sayin...


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

Quig7557 said:


> I didn’t read all the post, however, I have to agree, more gravel less sand. I’ve contacted multiple biologists on several streams, always a lot of pushback on silt traps.
> 
> What do they spend the extra money when they doubled a license cost.


Make more sturgeon habitat


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Quig7557 said:


> I didn’t read all the post, however, I have to agree, more gravel less sand. I’ve contacted multiple biologists on several streams, always a lot of pushback on silt traps.
> 
> What do they spend the extra money when they doubled a license cost.


When did "they" double the cost of fishing licenses? I remember the DNR going from having Basic license, with add-on stamps that cost (Trout and Salmon being most popular) to having just a single license that allows us to fish for all fish in MI. But I don't think the cost of licenses doubled for that. I am sure that the cost of licenses has more than doubled over time, due to inflation, but that isn't really a real cost increase, when you factor inflation in.


----------



## Tron322 (Oct 29, 2011)

Fishndude said:


> When did "they" double the cost of fishing licenses? I remember the DNR going from having Basic license, with add-on stamps that cost (Trout and Salmon being most popular) to having just a single license that allows us to fish for all fish in MI. But I don't think the cost of licenses doubled for that. I am sure that the cost of licenses has more than doubled over time, due to inflation, but that isn't really a real cost increase, when you factor inflation in.


Maybe he means getting just the old fishing license, which I remember being 15.00. that options is done now so they have to get the all species which is 26.00.

But I remember the old trout/salmon stamp or additional tag being 15.00 at the end there before the new 26.00 all species.

Used to be 30.00 for me to fish bluegills up to salmon, now it's 26.00. I could be misremembering but either way it never bothered me at all to pay that and fish all year.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

I thought the 10 U.P. Brookies experiment devolved into lawsuits in multiple directions, aimed at NRC and one by an ex-NRC member. Never have gotten around to trying to figure out how those ended.

As for sand in the rivers, it is my understanding that “sand plugs” are moving downstream in many places. Some of these were created during the logging era over 100 years ago. And in places, cold trout water simply flows through a sand substrate soil, and always will.

So that is a complex, and dynamic thing to consider. But overall, I don’t think sand covering gravel is getting worse. Bank stabilization work is always ongoing and I regularly see sites where such work was done, and was successful, years or decades before I fished in front of them. (I have worked on a lot of such projects outside of Michigan). Dirt roads crossing cold water streams are frequently paved now. Logging impacts are monitored by a legal system and are now minimal.

All that said, I don’t understand why sand traps are just seemingly abandoned. I know one in the east U.P. that is now full. Just 1/4 mile downstream is a beautiful stretch of gravel used by Steelhead and wild Salmon. That stretch looks to me like a Trout Unlimited project from more than 20 years ago perhaps. The whole system is still impacted by the logging era and the entire headwaters is a big fat glacial sand plain that will create a sandy flow for all eternity, right into that sand trap. But - why not clean it out and save that well used bit of gravel? The equipment access lane is right there adjacent, still hard pack and ready to support heavy equipment just 20 yards from a year-round all weather quality road. 

One impact that has been bad is the loss of Ash trees, a major riparian tree species, which has probably had an impact on water temperatures in places. Nature is busy replacing those Ash with other tree species and the Emerald Ash Borer is probably going to become just a background pest held in check by other predators, so riparian Ash will return as well, in my opinion. But the tall canopy will take a while to return. Threats to Hemlock and now Balsam Fir as well loom on the horizon however. Losing evergreen cover over cold water streams would be far worse than the Ash losses.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> What does "catch pressure" have to do with anything? It's numbers harvested (think removed from system) we are talking. Come back when you understand the discussion.


I believe in her presentation catch equated to harvest. It was last year so I'll have to check back and verify. I can tell you that Mi fisheries managers believe Mi harvest numbers have little to do with the steelhead populations whether it happens in the lake or river. This would be a 100% social science decision. That is most likely what will be presented by fisheries managers to the NRC at their next meeting. Under their charter that should make it difficult for them to agree to the changes but you never know when it comes to govt.

_Even so, Claramunt shared creel results that suggest Great Lakes anglers catch far fewer steelhead than river anglers. The AuSable River, a tributary of Lake Huron, was surveyed in 2009. Anglers caught roughly 30,000 steelhead from the AuSable in 2009, which was around six times more than the total steelhead catch in all Michigan waters of Lake Huron that year. Similarly, the steelhead catch in the Manistee River was higher than all Michigan waters of Lake Michigan in 2015._


----------



## Quig7557 (Dec 31, 2008)

Fishndude said:


> When did "they" double the cost of fishing licenses? I remember the DNR going from having Basic license, with add-on stamps that cost (Trout and Salmon being most popular) to having just a single license that allows us to fish for all fish in MI. But I don't think the cost of licenses doubled for that. I am sure that the cost of licenses has more than doubled over time, due to inflation, but that isn't really a real cost increase, when you factor inflation in.


I wasn’t clear, the price didn’t double, the requirement for having both license’s, trout stamp & general license, added a lot of cash. I thought they were both $13, it doesn’t really matter however. All the extra cash, where does it go. Similar to the base license, where does the money go.

I’m not complaining about the cost, we were told about habitat improvement, I’m not seeing much on rivers that is funded by the state. I could be wrong however.

The best fish hatchery is well managed stream, sand is the equivalent of a desert, not much for food there. Recently a biologist told me it was “natural” sand. Right, where are those white pines that once held the sand in check, gone.

Get the sand out, keep it out, the best way to improve spawning success.

I’ve got cabin on the little river, the spring fishing pressure isn’t anything compared to 25 years ago, not even close. Catching fish isn’t the problem.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Catch does not equate to harvest, especially on the river. The study itself showed release rates reaching in the 90% range from river fisherman.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> Catch does not equate to harvest, especially on the river. The study itself showed release rates reaching in the 90% range from river fisherman.


_How do these Lake Michigan harvest levels compare to river harvest impacts? River harvest has been estimated periodically on some larger river systems that connect to Lake Michigan (Table 1). Harvest on the more popular steelhead rivers range from 200 on the Pere Marquette to 23,000 annually on the Muskegon River. Steelhead catch and release rates also continue to increase and range from 20 to 95% of the total catch. *Not only is average harvest on rivers higher than Lake Michigan*, the total catch (accounting for harvested and released fish) in rivers is four times higher than the average harvest of Lake Michigan. _


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

The river "harvest" includes "released." "4 times!" Sounds huge until you look at "keep" numbers. Also, when you look at the average estimates for the two rivers that account for the majority of "river catch," they go back to 1999. What happens when we drop 1999 and 2000 river numbers? Or add 1999 and 2000 big lake numbers? Especially when the highest harvests were occurring during this time. Not comparing apples to oranges. Why would that be? The study was formulated to answer this: *"Should Lake Michigan Steelhead Bag Limits be Reduced?"*

If you are going to punish one group over another, how about doing a little better research? We already know the scientific answer, we have enough fish to sustain the fishery. This is about feelings, and screwing one subset because of them.

From the science:

*"Point being that there is a steady supply of steelhead from hatchery systems, an increasing amount of natural reproduction to sustain both our lake and river fisheries and managers believe there are enough steelhead available for both Great Lakes and river anglers if the current regulations are maintained."*

Amen


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> The river "harvest" includes "released." "4 times!" Sounds huge until you look at "keep" numbers. Also, when you look at the average estimates for the two rivers that account for the majority of "river catch," they go back to 1999. What happens when we drop 1999 and 2000 river numbers? Or add 1999 and 2000 big lake numbers? Especially when the highest harvests were occurring during this time. Not comparing apples to oranges. Why would it be? The study was formulated to answer this: *"Should Lake Michigan Steelhead Bag Limits be Reduced?"*
> 
> If you are going to punish one group over another, how about doing a little better research? We already know the scientific answer, we have enough fish to sustain the fishery. This is about feelings, and screwing one subset because of them.
> 
> ...


Dude I'm just giving you the *science *that has been presented by the fisheries managers. Just because it doesn't fit your narative doesn't make it any less true. I have zero skin in this game as I only keep clipped steel to help in the CWT tag study, stomach content study, and to donate to the needy or neighbors. Just my personal choice. If it's less or more so be it. And we both agree that angler harvest is not the limiting factor in Steelhead populations. But ask any fisheries biologist on Huron or Michigan which Mi fishery accounts for more harvest and they will say rivers. I know. I've listened to them say it at the Steelhead group meetings and the citizens advisory group meetings for both lakes for the last 2 years. I'll take their word over yours. No offense.
Lastly,
RIVER ANGLERS are the ones pushing for the RIVER limit reductions for social reasons. It is NOT big lake fisherman pushing this. Keep us out of it.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

And I am showing their methodology to get to their conclusion. Has nothing to do with “me.”

Sorry that you don’t want to be included, but when someone is trying to regulate one stakeholder groups limit, to promote “more fish,” all stakeholders should be looked at. Especially when the “keep rate” isn’t much different between them.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I just got an email from Seth Herbst from the DNR. In it he states that the real problem with lower steelhead numbers isn't angler harvest but rather the quagga and zebra mussels basially downgrading the water quality. Now downgrading may not be the right choice of words, and they are mine, but rather what he's saying is that the forage base is lessened due to the mussels, and we all know and have this same thing for years. So again, why should we go to one fish? It sounds to me like the DNR has issues besides the steelhead populations.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

toto said:


> I just got an email from Seth Herbst from the DNR. In it he states that the real problem with lower steelhead numbers isn't angler harvest but rather the quagga and zebra mussels basially downgrading the water quality. Now downgrading may not be the right choice of words, and they are mine, but rather what he's saying is that the forage base is lessened due to the mussels, and we all know and have this same thing for years. So again, why should we go to one fish? It sounds to me like the DNR has issues besides the steelhead populations.


That said with all the forage issues why have we had bigger fish over the last 5 years than ever before? Just a thought


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Can't answer that, except perhaps the fact there are less fish, makes it easier for them to find forage. In reality, I have no answer for that, I suspect though that the size of the steelhead isn't much different (size wise) than they ever have been. I'm not a biologist but if any animal doesn't need to fight as hard to find forage, they will probably put on size. But again, I ain't no biologist so maybe you could ask one of them.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

toto said:


> Can't answer that, except perhaps the fact there are less fish, makes it easier for them to find forage. In reality, I have no answer for that, I suspect though that the size of the steelhead isn't much different (size wise) than they ever have been. I'm not a biologist but if any animal doesn't need to fight as hard to find forage, they will probably put on size. But again, I ain't no biologist so maybe you could ask one of them.


I get that and agree more or less. Average size for me has went way up. 2 guide friends in sw say the same. Fish are thicker and heavier. Imo. Quite obvious salmon averages have been way up last few years. Just saying bio says there isn't forage I claim bs. Sure is enough for damn near every lake cleaned from mid may till now is full of ales. Very few gobies show up in sw. Outside of spring. Not asking for more plants or trying to argue. I've always valued your opinions. Just saying


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Chriss83 said:


> That said with all the forage issues why have we had bigger fish over the last 5 years than ever before? Just a thought


We don't have bigger fish over the last 5 years than ever before. Before the DNR started planting Steelhead in large numbers, there weren't a lot of Steelhead that returned to the Little Man to spawn. But it was common to hook 15# Steelhead, and larger. Landing them was another matter. And the average size of Kings @ Lake MI tribs now, is about the same as it was in the 1980's. There was a new State record King caught last summer, but it broke a record that stood for 43 years. There used to be the oddball 40# King caught most years back in the 1970's and 1980's.

The Mussels definitely are the biggest reason our Great Lakes fisheries aren't as productive as they once were. But from observation, the Mussels seem to be dying back - numbers declining. And I'm hearing about lots of different baitfish that are rebounding. Smelt, Sticklebacks, and even Alewives. Things are looking up.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

Fishndude said:


> We don't have bigger fish over the last 5 years than ever before. Before the DNR started planting Steelhead in large numbers, there weren't a lot of Steelhead that returned to the Little Man to spawn. But it was common to hook 15# Steelhead, and larger. Landing them was another matter. And the average size of Kings @ Lake MI tribs now, is about the same as it was in the 1980's. There was a new State record King caught last summer, but it broke a record that stood for 43 years. There used to be the oddball 40# King caught most years back in the 1970's and 1980's.
> 
> The Mussels definitely are the biggest reason our Great Lakes fisheries aren't as productive as they once were. But from observation, the Mussels seem to be dying back - numbers declining. And I'm hearing about lots of different baitfish that are rebounding. Smelt, Sticklebacks, and even Alewives. Things are looking up.


Well I know your data is normally all you look at from reading your posts. However contrary to your thinking other may see different. Some of those other have been keeping track and have boated over 200 steelhead many years running. Sw musk. Grand and kazoo the size has went up significantly since numbers have dropped. I suppose salmon are no bigger now than 10 years ago either in your eyes?


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Chriss83 said:


> That said with all the forage issues why have we had bigger fish over the last 5 years than ever before? Just a thought


We had a down turn in size when food was scarce. It starts from the bottom up. The quagga mussels have declined food sources are rebounding. It takes time. We have seen more 30lb kings than in some time. It takes the food recovering first. It will take some time. Will the lake ever be able to produce like it did before? I doubt it.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Chriss83 said:


> I get that and agree more or less. Average size for me has went way up. 2 guide friends in sw say the same. Fish are thicker and heavier. Imo. Quite obvious salmon averages have been way up last few years. Just saying bio says there isn't forage I claim bs. Sure is enough for damn near every lake cleaned from mid may till now is full of ales. Very few gobies show up in sw. Outside of spring. Not asking for more plants or trying to argue. I've always valued your opinions. Just saying


Well stating the forage base and the mussels aren't combined problems is a misnomer. Why do you think it is that we have had reduced stocking rates the past few years; reduced forage. Now it's sort of a weird deal in that these fish were planted to control the alewife population, and yes to take a once dead lake and revitalize it. What wasn't perhaps understood is what sort of monster this fishery created.

I am not one to take social science much to heart, but there are times when something is created that actually helps ALL the people, business', local towns, and villages. That isn't a bad thing, but remember this wasn't done for that reason alone, and that's the red line for me. If it's done like the salmon planting in an effort to eradicate alewives, but in the end creates a multi billion dollar boost to our states economy, I have no problem with that. It's when rules and regulations are made for the express purpose of looking out for a small groups pockets is where I get bent, and going full circle, that's what this original thread was all about.

Why should the DNR be responsible for the livelihood of a few guides (in this case) at the expense of the public outdoorsman/woman? The old idea of finding out what business you would like to be in, and then doing the research to see if it's viable is what should matter. If one wants to start a business and it works, great, but don't have it start to fail only to want the DNR or any governmental entity step in to help you out. Sure there are large corporations that do do that, think GM, Ford, Chrysler etc, but that's a little different deal than a bunch of whiny guides. If you take the Big 3 from above, you consider just how many jobs that is if any of these fail? Compare that to how many jobs are lost if a guide fails?

Another point to consider, has anyone thought about the internet? You know the exact thing we are using right now to complain about this rule? Has anyone thought about the fact that folks get on here, or wherever and find out where the fish are biting? There are plenty of bragging boards out there that tell the story; so why would anyone bother to hire a guide for $300 when all they have to do is go online, find the hot river, go to the river and start fishing. Sure they have to put in a little effort to find the "honey hole" but isn't that half the fun anyways?

What I'm getting at is, these guides are blaming limits for them not catching fish, and therefore losing clients, when I say it's most likely the above scenario. Just for the record, I mentioned the chumming thing from a few years ago in another post, the guides got chumming eliminated because it was harming their business, now it's this. What's next, the guides getting with the right NRC commissioner that they can manhandle and having entire rivers blocked off for them? Wouldn't surprise me if they tried it.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

toto said:


> Well stating the forage base and the mussels aren't combined problems is a misnomer. Why do you think it is that we have had reduced stocking rates the past few years; reduced forage. Now it's sort of a weird deal in that these fish were planted to control the alewife population, and yes to take a once dead lake and revitalize it. What wasn't perhaps understood is what sort of monster this fishery created.
> 
> I am not one to take social science much to heart, but there are times when something is created that actually helps ALL the people, business', local towns, and villages. That isn't a bad thing, but remember this wasn't done for that reason alone, and that's the red line for me. If it's done like the salmon planting in an effort to eradicate alewives, but in the end creates a multi billion dollar boost to our states economy, I have no problem with that. It's when rules and regulations are made for the express purpose of looking out for a small groups pockets is where I get bent, and going full circle, that's what this original thread was all about.
> 
> ...


More research led to finding salmon introduction was not wholly based on having major alewife blooms. (Per an article quoting one who took the gamble of introducing salmon) But were a good prey to have as a benefit at the time.

Guides , in my opinion have the same privilage as we do. And neither should have more privilage than the other. With both keeping the resources well being in mind.
That means not eroding banks into waterways for example by both parties. And not dragging anchor in some areas for guides.

Natural reproduction should be encouraged and sustained where habitat and forage are in balance , and suited to hosting cold water fish. Planting/put and take simply depends on numbers planted vs take.
In a plant only system , limits sure affect the time length of perceived success.
When the take shows a too negative return , obviously reducing take can help ,in theory.
But there's more to it than take itself. Important a factor as it can be.

Vulnerability of a given fish has variables. As it does for a specie.
Neither party needs to hammer on one extensively in any unlimited fashion. So take being dialed up or down for the right reason(s) makes sense. As does reducing pressure at specific times.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

In your post above, you stated that guides have the same privileges. Yes they do, but you can't think it's OK for guides to push their agenda, when that agenda is nothing more than their wallet, can you?


----------



## BMARKS (Nov 6, 2017)

Release all wild fish. if its clipped you can keep 1 per day.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

toto said:


> Well stating the forage base and the mussels aren't combined problems is a misnomer. Why do you think it is that we have had reduced stocking rates the past few years; reduced forage. Now it's sort of a weird deal in that these fish were planted to control the alewife population, and yes to take a once dead lake and revitalize it. What wasn't perhaps understood is what sort of monster this fishery created.
> 
> I am not one to take social science much to heart, but there are times when something is created that actually helps ALL the people, business', local towns, and villages. That isn't a bad thing, but remember this wasn't done for that reason alone, and that's the red line for me. If it's done like the salmon planting in an effort to eradicate alewives, but in the end creates a multi billion dollar boost to our states economy, I have no problem with that. It's when rules and regulations are made for the express purpose of looking out for a small groups pockets is where I get bent, and going full circle, that's what this original thread was all about.
> 
> ...


No i agree with ya. Just saying they are obviously finding plenty of food muscles or not or they wouldn't be big. And I'm not asking for more plants or cuts Unless it was a green species with more cuts. I think over predation had a much larger factor than they are willing to admit. Or the combination of to many salmon and rebounded lake trout. The lake has recovered nicely. Size is better than ever on salmon. Buy they still say not enough food for steel that eat anything??


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

toto said:


> In your post above, you stated that guides have the same privileges. Yes they do, but you can't think it's OK for guides to push their agenda, when that agenda is nothing more than their wallet, can you?


My post you referring to?

If guides can push thier agenda , then anyone else can / should.

I'm no fan of any group getting too possessive of a resource that is also utilizing the same resource..
And rental floats and the aluminum hatch used to annoy me more than guides. Or even jet boats! l.o.l..
More so when a launch is plugged up for periods of time by rentals. (Yes , folks can and should float rivers.)
But the fish really didn't care....

Guides have a place. I don't support them much beyond thier being able to fish where anyone else can.
One gets possessive of a hole or stretch when someone is ahead of them already , my minimal support would thin quickly though. Same as anyone else /non-guides.

Guides vary I'd guess. Stories abound of disagreeable ones.
Draw on the resource needs considered of / by any group.
A couple guys out of Ohio (or choose any state or area) that wants a guide vs going solo?
I can swallow my competitive spirit and wish them a good experience.
No , not day after day of limits all season. L.o.l.. But that's just me.
The draw/take weighed against recruitments of the resource should be how a limit is established. (My opinion.)
Evening out that take among competing interests to follow. Within reason.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Chriss83 said:


> No i agree with ya. Just saying they are obviously finding plenty of food muscles or not or they wouldn't be big. And I'm not asking for more plants. Unless it was a green species. I think over predation had a much larger factor than they are willing to admit.


The fish we are seeing return right now are the fish that made it when the food sources were near their lowest point. Once the quagga mussels stabilized. We should see a uptick in numbers in 2 to 3 years. It is a cycle. We want instant change that does not happen.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Chriss83 said:


> Well I know your data is normally all you look at from reading your posts. However contrary to your thinking other may see different. Some of those other have been keeping track and have boated over 200 steelhead many years running. Sw musk. Grand and kazoo the size has went up significantly since numbers have dropped. I suppose salmon are no bigger now than 10 years ago either in your eyes?


10 years ago, and forever, aren't the same spans of time, are they? I've been fishing for Salmon, and Steelhead in Michigan for 45 years. A lot of things have changed in that time.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Waif said:


> My post you referring to?
> 
> If guides can push thier agenda , then anyone else can / should.
> 
> ...


Don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with guides per se, most of them are decent guys, courteous to the wade fishermen etc. It's the one's that think they should have some special benefit with a resource that is paid for by the public. Not only that, but if the biological science doesn't support it, then it's a non issue to me. In this particular my biggest fear is that a commissioner can do end around and get this on the docket. It isn't supposed to work that way.

Look, you can think it's just fine that the guides are trying to dictate what everyone else can do. The simple fact is, if you really think about it, these guys fish every single day, well a day off here and there, but you get my point. The bottom line is they are more fearful of disappointed customers than they are about the common Joe catching fish. It's really just that simple, and I just can't condone that.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

BMARKS said:


> Release all wild fish. if its clipped you can keep 1 per day.


Now this makes some sense. I can agree with that. For the record, I probably keep 2 fish the entire year so it really isn't an issue IMHO, it's just the rest of the issue.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

toto said:


> Don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with guides per se, most of them are decent guys, courteous to the wade fishermen etc. It's the one's that think they should have some special benefit with a resource that is paid for by the public. Not only that, but if the biological science doesn't support it, then it's a non issue to me. In this particular my biggest fear is that a commissioner can do end around and get this on the docket. It isn't supposed to work that way.
> 
> Look, you can think it's just fine that the guides are trying to dictate what everyone else can do. The simple fact is, if you really think about it, these guys fish every single day, well a day off here and there, but you get my point. The bottom line is they are more fearful of disappointed customers than they are about the common Joe catching fish. It's really just that simple, and I just can't condone that.


If you extracted from my post that I'm fine with guides dictating what everyone else can do , you didn't grasp my meaning...
IF Nyberg is lobbying to favor guides , then lobby against guides being favored.
Writing me about what you presume I'm fine with won't change anything..
Guides can and will fish. Driven undercover , they'll just be harder to regulate.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yeah it's fine if someone wants to push an agenda, but it's also ok for someone to say no, which is exactly what Nyberg should have done, or at the very least should have gone through the proper vetting process first. 

If you want to try to convince me that's fine, but the simple fact is, there is no way it's gonna happen. If you've paid any attention to my thought process over the years, you'll see I don't change my mind easily. When it comes to this sort of stuff, I'll always, always go with the biological science, and from where I sit, the guides wallets have nothing to do with biology. 

I, personally, couldn't care less about chumming, but look what happened and it was based on BS. They were claiming there was guide who had 500 gallons of eggs cured with sodium sulfite, or sulfate but whatever. Anyone with any amount of common sense could see through that one. At that time the guides were trying to get 1 fish per day, and here we are 5 years or so later, and they are still pushing this. 

You have your opinion, I have mine, perhaps neither is wrong, but the simple fact is, I will always favor the biological science (I know I"m repeating myself) and I always will. The DNR is not, nor should they concerned about the welfare of a business, unless that business was created and has done well as a fringe benefit. In other words, if you own a restaurant and it does well because that particular town gets a lot of fishermen/women, then fine. But to center your rules and regulations around making sure ANY business does well is just not the job of the DNR, or the NRC.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

I could care less about natural reproduction as a result of this proposal. Carrying capacity is finite in streams that have natural repro. You can have a million spawning pairs make it up there you are only going to get so many smolts that trib can support. Habitat is limited. I support this for re-catch purposes only. Let them go we can catch them over and over again. I would support year round one in possession


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

mondrella said:


> The fish we are seeing return right now are the fish that made it when the food sources were near their lowest point. Once the quagga mussels stabilized. We should see a uptick in numbers in 2 to 3 years. It is a cycle. We want instant change that does not happen.


Guess I can't agree with that. Shortage was worst 4 5 and 6 years ago. Sizes have went up last 3 years. Majority of Steelhead still don't make it past multiple spawns


----------



## Quig7557 (Dec 31, 2008)

It shouldn’t be the concern of the DNR, but that isnt the reality anymore, and it’s a shame.

The DNR is not, nor should they concerned about the welfare of a business, unless that business was created and has done well as a fringe benefit. In other words, if you own a restaurant and it does well because that particular town gets a lot of fishermen/women, then fine. But to center your rules and regulations around making sure ANY business does well is just not the job of the DNR, or the NRC.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Waif said:


> That's a lot of gobbly **** just to claim pike don't consume trout plants.
> Good thing you can prove the return rates on plants confirm no mortality and less need planting as a result.
> A major breakthrough thank's to your research.
> 
> ...


"How many of the pike you killed were missing all thier teeth in summer after they molted and quit feeding till thier teeth grew back?" Apparently you are privy to pike life history information that no one else has documented, or you are just an idiot offering more blather.

The real opportunist in this thread is you: Always looking for an opportunity to reel-off another free form riff vi innuendo and conjecture without substance. You are a true one trick pony!


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Cork Dust said:


> "How many of the pike you killed were missing all thier teeth in summer after they molted and quit feeding till thier teeth grew back?" Apparently you are privy to pike life history information that no one else has documented, or you are just an idiot offering more blather.
> 
> The real opportunist in this thread is you: Always looking for an opportunity to reel-off another free form riff vi innuendo and conjecture without substance. You are a true one trick pony!


Tell us more about how pike don't eat trout. Mr. Bullwinkle know it all. Feel free to repeat your claim of size limits of pike diet as not including prey over 8 inches..
Meanwhile , your inaccuracy proven elsewhere shows your butt still sucks buttermilk.


----------



## fisheater (Nov 14, 2010)

Salmon and steelhead sizes have gone up because there was and still is a large cut in stocking, both salmon and steelhead to to reduced forage numbers. This means there is more forage now. However please remember to have forage, there must be breeding forage fish. So stocking can’t just be ratcheted back up without regard to forage.This cut is further complicated by the amount of lake trout required to be stocked via the consent decree, and the long life span of lake trout. If 60% of steelhead are stocked (number from this thread), one doesn’t need a degree in Chinese arithmetic to understand why numbers might be down. It certainly seems like salmon numbers are down.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

toto said:


> I just got an email from Seth Herbst from the DNR. In it he states that the real problem with lower steelhead numbers isn't angler harvest but rather the quagga and zebra mussels basially downgrading the water quality. Now downgrading may not be the right choice of words, and they are mine, but rather what he's saying is that the forage base is lessened due to the mussels, and we all know and have this same thing for years. So again, why should we go to one fish? It sounds to me like the DNR has issues besides the steelhead populations.


So steelhead can’t survive without alewife now either? Got it. Listen to all these Huron guys and you would think all they need are insects and larvae to grow to 15lb.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

toto said:


> Here's the thing, some of these commissioners just don't care what the biologists say, and they certainly don't care what some of the committees say. For example, the 10 brook trout limit in the U.P. was talked about a couple of years ago by the CRSC; at that time they voted to increase the area that 10 fish were allowed. One of the NRC commissioners was sitting right there and stated that he already knew how he was going to vote on it for the NRC, signaling his stance in opposition to it.
> As Mondrella said, if we aren't careful, we could lose a lot of our fishing and hunting privledges if we aren't careful. All it would take is just enough commissioners who make decisions based on "feelings" vs science. We can argue the science definition all day long, but I think we all know what was inferred by this proposition. If we sit back and allow this to happen, whether you agree with or not, we are setting a dangerous precedent. If the NRC knows that there will be very little pushback, what's to stop from making any ingnorant decision? Just sayin...


Nrc has to and should anyways consider social and economic impact. They are not there to rubber stamp what dnr biologists “feel”. Science is not exact. Why do you think they are always asking for angler data? Because they only have about 25% visibility into what they are trying to manage. No the nrc cannot and should not ever rubber stamp bad or incomplete science.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

slightofhand said:


> So steelhead can’t survive without alewife now either? Got it. Listen to all these Huron guys and you would think all they need are insects and larvae to grow to 15lb.


I didn't say it, as you can see. We'll have to agree to disagree, the DNR is not a social welfare program.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

slightofhand said:


> So steelhead can’t survive without alewife now either? Got it. Listen to all these Huron guys and you would think all they need are insects and larvae to grow to 15lb.


The mussels took the food from the bottom of the food chain. It effected everything! It is not going to bounce back instantly. 
It was not long ago Huron barely had any fish.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Chriss83 said:


> Guess I can't agree with that. Shortage was worst 4 5 and 6 years ago. Sizes have went up last 3 years. Majority of Steelhead still don't make it past multiple spawns


 That was when the mussels were near their peak numbers. We have seen a slow in the numbers to allow more food just recently. (3 years) It takes time for things to level back out.
You will never see big numbers of returning steelhead. Yes they can physically do it. 
Spawning takes so much out of them. Think about how a dropbacks hen fights. They are whipped. Being caught at any stage or fighting on a line legally or snagged lowers that fishes chance of survival. Guides want to recycle fish just for their pocketbook and they have many diehards also believing it will improve the fishery. No we will have what the system can hold . We will see more dead fish than we do now. Only so many times they can floss fish and have them expend energy and build lactic acid before they go belly up.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

mondrella said:


> That was when the mussels were near their peak numbers. We have seen a slow in the numbers to allow more food just recently. (3 years) It takes time for things to level back out.
> You will never see big numbers of returning steelhead. Yes they can physically do it.
> Spawning takes so much out of them. Think about how a dropbacks hen fights. They are whipped. Being caught at any stage or fighting on a line legally or snagged lowers that fishes chance of survival. Guides want to recycle fish just for their pocketbook and they have many diehards also believing it will improve the fishery. No we will have what the system can hold . We will see more dead fish than we do now. Only so many times they can floss fish and have them expend energy and build lactic acid before they go belly up.


Ok. I'm not for this and never was lol


----------



## salmon_slayer06 (Mar 19, 2006)

catch and release does work. have caught a few mangled plug fish blind in one eye, hacked up jaw and still hit a spawn bag in high surf.


----------

