# Michigan DNR fishing survey...



## kzoofisher

> It isn't that hard, all that needs to be done is to determine carrying capacity. Lets say its determined that one hectare can support 100 fish and no more, that should be the goal. If you suddenly have 1000 fish/hectare than there is no reason for protection.


 That isn't how carrying capacity works. A stream might be able to hold 10,000 4" fish per hectare or 50 25" fish per hectare but its optimum natural carrying capacity is much harder to find out. If you go from 100 fish to 1000 the river is almost certainly stunted out and desperately needs a change in regs. I have asked a few Fisheries Biologists if they have a standard for trout populations in an unexploited trout stream so that it can be compared to streams that are exploited but apparently such a thing doesn't exist.* Since it is impossible to close a variety of streams of different sizes for the years it would take for them to reach a balance I'll give up that knowledge as a pipe dream. Knowing how many young of the year survive or 2 year olds or whatever doesn't really tell you what the population structure would be like if the fish were left alone. Heck, the whole reason we have unmentionables on this forum is to protect lightly fished rivers and everyone knows how good the fishing is in a "secret spot". Another problem is that lightly fished streams are usually very different ecosystems from the large popular rivers so comparisons are difficult. 




*It does exist for warm water lakes. In these the average size of bass and bluegill tends to be higher. The young have a lower survival rate but medium age fish have a faster growth rate with say 7"-10" 'gills dominating that population. That's it in a very tiny nutshell anyway.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Carrying Caapcity is never a constant.... that makes it harder to determine....


----------



## fishinlk

Maybe the answer for this would be for the DNR to do a survey at the time you purchase your license. Something similar to the HIP survey's for migratory bird managment. That would give everyone an oppurtinity to particiapte and give them an option to "opt out" if they really don't care.


----------



## kzoofisher

Not a bad idea though the DNR wanted people to read studies before responding to some of the more recent surveys. Maybe giving license buyers info on a link and a random number to put in so they can only answer the survey once. The next choice is a random sample of "x" license holders which is pretty accurate when done right and more expensive than the current methods.


----------



## fishinlk

Good point, people should be encouraged to understand what they are voting for beforehand. Thinking about it, it could be very easy to drive for the desired answers based on phrasing of a question. I was just thinking in terms of a technology that is already there, reaches the masses and validates both a single vote and place of residence.


----------



## fishinDon

I don't think the POS survey of every angler who buys a license will happen. The sytem is old and expensive to update/upgrade. I've brought this up a couple times previous, and I'm not the only one...it's typically quickly dismissed as too expensive.

There is a survey going out to a sampling of anglers in the works through a joint (i think) MSU/DNR partnership. Care is being put into the questions as to not "lead the witness."

Based on the amount of surveys, etc. lately, it's clear that the fish division wants our input. No doubt. 

Don


----------



## toto

As for carrying capacity, I find it hard to believe that the biologists haven't done any research like that, but having said that, its really not that hard. If you fish a certain river and all you catch are 6" trout, then you probably have an over capacity, and doesn't even come close to what these gear regs are intended to do. After all, aren't they trying to create a trophy fishery?? Also, and this is just my opinion, when and if I catch a trophy, its means I've done something right and out smarted a trophy fish that no one thought was there, or in an area where most fish are dinks. To go to an area that is producing nothing but 20" brown trout isn't a trophy in my book, but hey thats just me.

All in all, we'll have to agree to disagree, and there really isn't anything that can change my mind on my original stance.


----------



## TroutStlkr

fishinlk said:


> Good point, people should be encouraged to understand what they are voting for beforehand. Thinking about it, it could be very easy to drive for the desired answers based on phrasing of a question.





fishinDon said:


> There is a survey going out to a sampling of anglers in the works through a joint (i think) MSU/DNR partnership. Care is being put into the questions as to not "lead the witness."


This must be a new goal. This was posted from the last survey a few pages back.



> 7. Currently, 95% of Fisheries Division&#8217;s funding comes from the sale of fishing licenses and from a Federal tax on fishing equipment. People who believe that fishing, aquatic resources, and associated healthy environments have positive economic and quality of life effects throughout Michigan think funding should be more broadly based. Please indicate your level of agreement with funding Fisheries Division programs and services from the following sources:


----------



## fishinlk

> As for carrying capacity, I find it hard to believe that the biologists haven't done any research like that, but having said that, its really not that hard. If you fish a certain river and all you catch are 6" trout, then you probably have an over capacity, and doesn't even come close to what these gear regs are intended to do. After all, aren't they trying to create a trophy fishery?? Also, and this is just my opinion, when and if I catch a trophy, its means I've done something right and out smarted a trophy fish that no one thought was there, or in an area where most fish are dinks. To go to an area that is producing nothing but 20" brown trout isn't a trophy in my book, but hey thats just me.
> 
> All in all, we'll have to agree to disagree, and there really isn't anything that can change my mind on my original stance.


 Toto, not picking a battle just asking a question. 

If a stream is in a natural state with no stocking how can it "exceed" carrying capacity? It could potentially have stunted growth that resulted from an variety of outside influences but I don't see how a stream can exceed capacity. Nature would take care of that one way or another. 


Thoughts?


----------



## toto

That would be an obvious conclusion, nature works that way and I have no argument with that stance. The problem is, it appears as though those behind the regulations believe you can stock pile fish. Thats what I don't get, they believe that if we don't harvest there will be more and more fish, ad infinitum, and that just isn't the case. They'll then move their argument to "trophy" fish, which again, there will be trophy fish if the habitat and food allows it, nothing more, nothing less. Not only that, but isn't the act of catching a trophy suppossed to be something special? Shouldn't catching a trophy be once or twice a lifetime thing? Why should it be that, in theory, all the fish are in the trophy category? Unless I'm mistaken, that seems to be the path these folks are on, and to me, it just cheapens the word trophy. 

I always thought fishing was a way to escape the world we live in the rest of the time. Its a way to get out, and unwind, and think about nothing other than how to catch the next fish. Of course it could also be a way to get away to a more quiet area and think through the problems we all encounter from time to time. Its always easier, to me at least, to think with a clear head no outside distractions from the noise of traffic, phones, or just everything going on around us.

To me this whole thing is about whats right and wrong, whats fair and not. We on the side of eliminating gear regs are called selfish, greedy, and too many other bad names to bother with here, but I ask you, who is really being greedy here? It seems to me that those that want exclusive areas to fly fish are the ones, who asking just too much. I was always under the impression that equal but separate meant something, but apparantly there are those that don't feel that way. I'm sure I'll get hammered for saying that, but go to the Pere Marquette Watershed website, and do some looking and see what they say about bait fishermen, does that sound like someone who believes we are all equal?

This isn't about what I want, or even about what the fly side wants, this is about whats fair to ALL citizens, not the chosen few. I've heard it said tha the fly side would okay with having to pay a little more for their license of separate fees to fish these areas, in fact they've even mentioned numbers that are out of reach of the common person. Does that sound like someone who really believes all we have to do is switch to a fly rod??

When I mentioned earlier that we shouldn't have the state pay for stocking fish in these exclusive areas, think about it. Do you want to pay license fee, and excise taxes on sporting goods for the benefit of the few, and maybe even something you won't use? Is that fair and equitable? 

There are also those on the fly side who are confusing conservation with preservation and there is a difference. Do you really think that people such as the Sierra Club and some of the others are all for fishing and hunting? All I ask if for the legislators of this state, or any state, to leave us alone. Let us fish the way we want, up to a point of course, in other words using dynamite, or seines isn't in the cards for obvious reasons. All I ask, and some others is to use biologcial science, not social science. What we see with social science is the art of groups having the ability to sway the opinions of those that make these decisions, and believe me, it happened in this case. Why do you think TU was offering a free fly rod set up, when all you had to do was contact the DNR with your support for the gear regs. This again is a case of the squeakiest wheel got the grease.

In summary, all we ask is for fairness, and to abide by the laws as stated in Michigan, and the United States. To continue to do what these gear regs are doing is seperating the masses, and once that happens nothing good comes from it. We have already seen the divide on this site of those on both sides of the fence, and I don't like it. The simple fact is however, I can't just let it continue, it isn't fair, it isn't just, and it isn't needed. I have the ability both physically, and financially to fly fish, and I do from time to time, but what I don't have the ability to do is take from people who are less fortunate than me for my own wants, and desires. I wasn't brought that way, and until I die, I'll continue to be that way, thats why I fight on, and hopefully one day, our fight will be worth it as I can't stand thinking of it being any other way.


----------



## troutguy26

That was a dam good post toto.


----------



## TroutStlkr

toto said:


> All in all, we'll have to agree to disagree, and there really isn't anything that can change my mind on my original stance.





toto said:


> They'll then move their argument to "trophy" fish, which again, there will be trophy fish if the habitat and food allows it, nothing more, nothing less. Not only that, but isn't the act of catching a trophy suppossed to be something special? Shouldn't catching a trophy be once or twice a lifetime thing? Why should it be that, in theory, all the fish are in the trophy category? Unless I'm mistaken, that seems to be the path these folks are on, and to me, it just cheapens the word trophy.


The first quote makes me think this is probably going to be a fruitless exercise, but here I go. Actually toto, I'm with you on a lot of points. The idea that social considerations should not be a factor at all is not one of them. If the science shows that different viable outcomes are possible, what's wrong with the dnr getting some opinions as to which of those outcomes the public supports ( whether the polling methods currently in use produce a reliable picture of what the public actually wants is a separate issue)? Your argument above against any potential regulation that might allow a few more fish to reach larger proportions isn't a scientific one. It's purely social based on what you personally would value as a trophy or not. I'll agree that decisions should be backed by science, but value judgments still have to be made based on what the science says.


----------



## toto

Thanks trout guy, as for social issues trt stalker the problem with polling numbers is, it is a feel good thing. It becomes something other than biology at that point. We can say all we want what "could" happen but that isn't science, its speculation. If we speculate this or that could happen, why not try things and see what really happens. In that way 2 things come out of it 1) you find out if changes are really required, and 2) if things change, chances are you can use them down the road to show why some changes need to be made else where. Know what I mean?? So, to make change for change sake just isn't good policy in my mind.

You thing you have to consider is, the people who fill out these surveys, at least most of them, have no idea what is good or bad for the fish, or wildlife, what they know is what they feel. This whole thing then becomes and emotional issue, and emotions play no role now, or ever in science; unless you want to sway that science toward what you believe should be done. Look at the globing warming debate, remember when all these emails were flying around showing a "suppossed" cover up? Thats sort of a parallel to this issue. I'm not saying anything one way or the other about global warming, I'm just using that as an example.


----------



## TroutStlkr

Raw data doesn't make decisions. Value judgments are always going to be part of the equation. The data from the most recent study about UP brook trout limits, showed that we could keep the limit where it is or bump it up and neither choice would have much impact on the population. The scientific study didn't make any decisions. The data didn't favor one choice or the other, so value judgments based on social considerations had to be made. As a resource that is held in the public trust, why shouldn't the public have a say in such a case?


----------



## toto

Very simply, public has the tendency today to what "feels" good. Therefore, it would make sense to me that we use biological science instead of public opinion. Leave public opinion to politics or other things, but not with natural resources within this perview.


----------



## TroutStlkr

toto said:


> Very simply, public has the tendency today to what "feels" good. Therefore, it would make sense to me that we use biological science instead of public opinion. Leave public opinion to politics or other things, but not with natural resources within this perview.


It's not that I don't agree that often opinions are arrived at or votes are often cast that have no basis in facts. This November countless Americans will treat a very consequential election like it's a mock poll for the high school year book and there is also no doubt that many would do the same in a public opinion survey put forth by the dnr. Again though, biological science can guide and inform decisions regarding how public resources are managed, but it does not make them. Kudos to the dnr for seeking public opinion when the science doesn't make a clear distinction between different options that are on the table.


----------



## toto

I agree with 1000% on the upcoming elections, where I beg to differ however is in the rules and regulations for hunting, fishing, and trapping. Yes the DNR wants to make segments of society happy, and thats as it should be, however, rules and regs should only be made based on what the resource can reasonably sustain. That can only be determined by conducting studies to determine the need for protection, or not. What most seem to fail to realize is the amount of natural dieoff from year to year, assuming a natural reproducing population. I've heard as high as 50%, but thats an old argument and doesn't need to be reasoned out now. I think where we disagree is on how the DNR determines the rules and regulations, and it is my firm belief that a resource isn't in any trouble, no changes should be made, at least in reference to gear regs, and the limits. We all know we have to have limits, or our fish will go the way of the wild bison from 100 years ago, and no one on either side wants that.

One thing that is pretty apparant, both side care about the fishery, and I doubt highly you could find one person on either side that wants to wipe out a species. Where we disagree, and it should be obvious by now I'll never change my mind, is just how the DNR determines the rules and regs. Leaving it to surveys, and in some cases surveys alone, is just problematic at best and opens the possibility to all kinds of silliness. Hope you understand my point, as unlike the upcoming elections, fishing, hunting, and trapping shouldn't be a popularity contest. To do so is leading right into the hands of PETA et al.


----------

