# Brookie limit likely to remain at 5



## Robert Holmes

When and if they change the limit to 10 brookies it will not be the local fishermen that cry the loudest when their creel is full of 7" brookies. The people that will cry the loudest are the people from the LP who spend $200 on gas to go brook trout fishing and only catch a few throwback fish. Becareful what you are wishing for when you want the creel limit set for 10 fish per day. Most Yoopers know of a stream or two that seldom if ever get fished that hold good numbers of brook trout.


----------



## fishinDon

TC-fisherman said:


> my comment on the "high road" was entirely facetious. It was similar to someone repeatedly posting false information then claiming to take the "high road" when called on it.



Since you won't let it go, I'm going to defend myself against your ridiculous rhetoric - this isn't so much for you, but for everyone else reading. 

I always try to give the best information I have available in all of my posts. When I go to a meeting, I put together an open/candid write up of the events that took place so that everyone has some transparency into the process. It is never my intent to mislead people and I take what I post on these boards seriously, as I do my membership on the Coldwater Committee. Yes, I have my own opinion, and I sometimes state it openly, but I never try to purposely slant any facts. I'd prefer people draw their own conclusions based on the best information available, I feel that is one of my primary roles as a member of the Committee.

I will again clarify my intent regarding my opinion and any MUCC comments I made for everyone reading at home:

I said MUCC originally submitted the proposal to the Coldwater Committee/DNR on behalf of one of their UP-based member organizations, at the time the exact name escaped me. I looked it up, the MUCC member organization is Ottawa Sportsmen's Club. MUCC submitted it on behalf of Ottawa Sportsmen's Club prior to the MUCC vote, which took place over a year later - as you also pointed out... 

All of that is true, I sat in the committee meeting and I still have the resolution handout that's on joint Ottawa Sportsmen's Club/MUCC letter head. 

I agreed with you when you said MUCC later voted it down. But it doesn't change the fact that MUCC originally aided Ottawa's Sportsmen's Club in submitting their proposal to the DNR/Committee in the first place, which again, had little to do with my point of requiring some sponsorship, but since it seems to be paramount now, I clarify.

I also stated that MUCC should have voted on the proposal prior to submitting to the DNR on behalf of Ottawa Sportsmens Club. 

At no point was I trying to portray that MUCC was some sort of broad-based supporter of this regulation change  simply that they aided in submission of the proposal/resolution. You read that in all on your own. 

I did submit that any group should, if they were going to bring a proposal to the table, help fund the research/survey or that they shouldn't have helped submit it. Yes, that is my opinion. And it's based on my own idea/opinion that any group or organization that petitions the DNR for a socially driven rule should have some responsibility to the vetting of said proposal. Yes, I've also raised this with the DNR/Committee and I am not the only member to do so in regards to private funding. 

I hope this clears things up. I have no doubt, TC, that you'll attempt further attacks; however I don't intend to further defend against them. I've laid it all out there for everyone to read and judge for themselves and I'm now done. 

If you care to engage me, the DNR, or the Coldwater Committee further, you should come to the next Committee meeting in May 2013, they're open to the public.

Thanks,
Don


----------



## TC-fisherman

fishinDon said:


> At no point was I trying to portray that MUCC was some sort of broad-based supporter of this regulation change  simply that they aided in submission of the proposal/resolution. You read that in all on your own.


...


fishinDon said:


> In my mind, since this is a social issue, *driven* by folks (sportsmen's club, MUCC, and NRC commissioners) from the U.P





fishinDon said:


> MUCC originally *sponsored* the proposal on behalf of one of their member organizations


----------



## kzoofisher

> Who decides what constitutes "stakeholders that have an interest in maintaining the fisheries"? Is the Sierra Club any more a keeper of our fisheries than Peta? Many would say PETA is. You know "socially" that is...Or is it because the Sierra Club is another vote for the fly guys? Kind of odd we have an anti trapping group sitting on any DNR committee.


 The DNR decides who is on the committee and has chosen representatives from groups with a history of conservation in Michigan like TU and the Steelheaders. They also have at-large members whose qualifications are completely unknown to me. I'll say that the two who post here seem reasonable and knowledgeable so that may be a clue to their inclusion. The Sierra Club has a long history as a conservation organization, if they have a seat on the CC I would guess that is why. I was not aware that there is an anti-trapping group sitting on any committee that deals with trapping. If they sit on a committee that has nothing to do with trapping then I have no problem with it. In America we don't have to pass a test that shows we are "ideologically correct" before we can participate in government.



> They had no problem using signatures on this brook trout survey. Why this time but not last?


 This is from the DNR's report on the survey


> We have no means of determining how many of the signatories to any of these petitions also completed the online survey.


 You will also note that the 852 signatures are not included anywhere in the survey statistics. Oops! Ray didn't read the whole paper and got himself worked up over nothing again. The three groups who created their own petitions were unable to provide the DNR with enough information to be included so they were left out. Apparently they didn't learn anything from the fate of the GR petition that got booted. Of course, this doesn't mean that the petitions got no consideration at all, it only means they were not included with the survey.



> Did they inform those that turned them in, they had to be in a certified format. I mean why wouldn't you do so as not to disenfranchise anyone, after all, its you that makes the claim the DNR only wants to do the will of the people.


 Did the petitioners ask anyone what was required? How was the DNR supposed to know this was going on? Do you expect the State to contact every resident and provide them with a booklet on how to exercise their 1st Amendment rights? Talk about wasting taxpayers money.



> Yet they used the 500+ emails for special regulations as testament to the fact many were against.


 I don't see anything in the report about these emails however, emails and letters that contain a verifiable name and address are usually given some consideration while anonymous notes and unverifiable signatures usually are not.



> I can change my I.P. 80 times to vote again and again on online surveys. The same issues that would exist with a bunch of signatures, exist with online surveys and emails.





> Oh and by the way, my wife and 3 boys couldn't vote because they needed the same I.P.


 So was it easy to cheat or hard for multiple petitions to come from the same place? If the survey tracked by both IP and zip code it sounds like using a randomizer would not have been very effective.



> You have a positive mania for twisting reality to fit your argument. Go back and read the DNR's recommendation, the votes were stated as partial evidence to their reasoning. So what if it made no difference, I submitted my opinion as to why I didn't like it.


 You claimed that the results of the survey were the deciding factor for the DNR when you said 13 people made this decision. I refuted this absurd claim easily and all you can come back with is, "What I said was BS and I don't have any other arguments but I don't like it so my complaint still stands." The DNR's surveys aren't perfect but they are getting better and more people are participating each time they have a new one. I think it is great that the DNR is taking the taxpayers opinion into account when it can. I was in the minority with the salmon stocking survey but I didn't cry foul about the results because I don't expect everyone to think like me and I don't resent the fact that other people participate in our democracy.



> What was the reason it was made 5 to begin with?


 Part of the reason was one of the same reasons the DNR wanted to keep it 5 now; to maintain uniform creel limits in the Upper and Lower Peninsulas. I spoke up against the oversimplification of regulations at my local meeting but I doubt the DNR cares about my opinion on that.


----------



## kzoofisher

Don,
I appreciate your openness about your reasons for voting as you did at the CC meeting. I would like to reciprocate about my reasoning. We both agree that the science made no significant distinctions between the two proposals so the choice was purely for social reasons. I tend to choose the more conservative path whenever there is a choice in regulations because I believe that the philosophy of consumption has outlived its viability with our growing population and shrinking budgets. We haven't reached a critical mass yet but I believe it is coming and coming sooner if efforts to introduce young people to fishing and making them life long anglers are successful. You obviously feel differently and chose the other option. Thanks for speaking your mind.


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> Don,
> I appreciate your openness about your reasons for voting as you did at the CC meeting. I would like to reciprocate about my reasoning. We both agree that the science made no significant distinctions between the two proposals so the choice was purely for social reasons. I tend to choose the more conservative path whenever there is a choice in regulations because I believe that the philosophy of consumption has outlived its viability with our growing population and shrinking budgets. We haven't reached a critical mass yet but I believe it is coming and coming sooner if efforts to introduce young people to fishing and making them life long anglers are successful. You obviously feel differently and chose the other option. Thanks for speaking your mind.


Interesting point you just raised. The NRC commissioners who support raising the limit back to 10 believe that more people will fish for brook trout in the UP if they are allowed to keep more of them. I don't share the same belief, but the commissioners have made this abundantly clear to the DNR.

I'm not sure if I'm convinced this issue has much to do with recruitment/retention of anglers as it does with utilization of the resource. Socially, I think it comes down to what you believe is a fair division point...

To your point though, it would be interesting to know how many UP rivers are essentially at biological carrying capacity right now, and which could benefit from reduced or increased harvest. Of course managing river by river is expensive, and we have no money.  

As for river by river, I believe coming next in the UP are discussions regarding coaster brook trout along Superior and maybe a few Northern Lk MI and Huron tribs...that should be another interesting brook trout topic - all over again! 

Don


----------



## brookies101

fishinDon said:


> As for river by river, I believe coming next in the UP are discussions regarding _*coaster brook trout*_ along Superior and maybe a few Northern Lk MI and Huron tribs...that should be another interesting brook trout topic - all over again!
> 
> Don


Keep me posted on that one, Don. That topic right there is one that I have been very interested in for quite some time now....


----------



## TroutStlkr

brookies101 said:


> Keep me posted on that one, Don. That topic right there is one that I have been very interested in for quite some time now....


+ 1


----------



## itchn2fish

http://www.examiner.com/article/michigan-dnr-up-brook-trout-limit-remains-at-5-fish-per-day Trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut


----------



## Robert Holmes

fishinDon said:


> Interesting point you just raised. The NRC commissioners who support raising the limit back to 10 believe that more people will fish for brook trout in the UP if they are allowed to keep more of them. I don't share the same belief, but the commissioners have made this abundantly clear to the DNR.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm convinced this issue has much to do with recruitment/retention of anglers as it does with utilization of the resource. Socially, I think it comes down to what you believe is a fair division point...
> 
> To your point though, it would be interesting to know how many UP rivers are essentially at biological carrying capacity right now, and which could benefit from reduced or increased harvest. Of course managing river by river is expensive, and we have no money.
> 
> As for river by river, I believe coming next in the UP are discussions regarding coaster brook trout along Superior and maybe a few Northern Lk MI and Huron tribs...that should be another interesting brook trout topic - all over again!
> 
> Don


 The DNR said more tourists would visit the UP if there were more wolves up here too. I really doubt that anyone comes across the bridge just to see wolves. As for "coaster brookies" they are no different than coaster coho, kings, steelhead, or brown trout. They get big because nobody fishes for them. I have seen streams thet get some nice lake run brookies in Oct/Nov. I ice fish on the great lakes and catch lots of nice brookies in the winter 12 - 20 inches. I am guessing that most fishermen would call them coasters.


----------



## TroutStlkr

Robert Holmes said:


> As for "coaster brookies" they are no different than coaster coho, kings, steelhead, or brown trout. They get big because nobody fishes for them.


Coho, kings, steelhead and browns get big because nobody fishes for them? Anglers hammer the crap out of all of them. You are probably right if you are suggesting though that a reason a few streams may still get coaster runs is that they tend to be more secluded an receive less pressure. From what I've read ( and I don't claim to be an expert on the subject ), even after migrating to the big water, coasters tend to remain closer to shore and in less sheltered waters. I'm sure that makes them a little more vulnerable compared the other salmonids mentioned that spend more time in deeper sheltered waters fattening up before running the gauntlet.


----------



## kzoofisher

> As for river by river, I believe coming next in the UP are discussions regarding coaster brook trout along Superior and maybe a few Northern Lk MI and Huron tribs...that should be another interesting brook trout topic - all over again


I definitely support a river by river or lake by lake approach but I think Fisheries hates the idea, at least in part because a big chunk of the public hates it a makes life hell for the DNR. I would like to see how higher creels on remote streams with plenty of public land would be received. I'd also like to see different rules for walleye inland, c/r bass through the winter, a greater focus on habitat (especially for lakes) and a unicorn in my back yard :lol:


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> In America we don't have to pass a test that shows we are "ideologically correct" before we can participate in government.


Tell that to the 2000 against gear regulations that were disenfranchised. Your philosophical ideology doesn&#8217;t appear to meet reality. 


kzoofisher said:


> This is from the DNR's report on the survey
> Quote:
> We have no means of determining how many of the signatories to any of these petitions also completed the online survey.
> 
> [/COLOR]
> You will also note that the 852 signatures are not included anywhere in the survey statistics. Oops! Ray didn't read the whole paper and got himself worked up over nothing again. The three groups who created their own petitions were unable to provide the DNR with enough information to be included so they were left out. Apparently they didn't learn anything from the fate of the GR petition that got booted. Of course, this doesn't mean that the petitions got no consideration at all, it only means they were not included with the survey.


I see a claim of the possibility of there being duplicated votes. Where does it say they dismissed them? Let&#8217;s look what they said: 

&#8220;More than 1,400 anglers participated in the survey, but not every participant completed all of the
questions. Most respondents completed the survey online. Twenty-four anglers completed the survey via
telephone and four anglers filled out paper copies of the surveys.&#8221;

Hmm, funny, they didn&#8217;t seem to add a qualifier to the fact those 24 calls or four paper copies could have also been duplicated in the survey, yet we feel a need to put a disqualifier on the signatures. Remember on the 2000 during special regulations, they didn&#8217;t even mention them. You know the people that only wanted their say like you. Pretty hard to say we have 500+ emails in favor of gear restrictions, but we disqualified 2000 signatures against, almost 4 times that which were for, because we couldn&#8217;t verify them. Yet you want me to believe that in a system that wants the will (social management) to determine regulations, someone wouldn&#8217;t question the dismissal of them? Read splitshots post, it states the intent of how and why the gear regulations were passed. If you have something to dispute what he says other than opinion, then let&#8217;s hear it. Or I guess you could call him a liar as to what he said the DNR told him. 

More than 1,400, hmm, their graph shows over 2500 people. Do you say more than 1400 when 2500+ are shown? Wouldn&#8217;t you say more than 2500 people? The way it&#8217;s written, I would say the signatures were included with the 1400+ surveyed. This is exactly why these charts and graphs should be further broke down. 






kzoofisher said:


> Did the petitioners ask anyone what was required? How was the DNR supposed to know this was going on? Do you expect the State to contact every resident and provide them with a booklet on how to exercise their 1st Amendment rights? Talk about wasting taxpayers money. I don't see anything in the report about these emails however, emails and letters that contain a verifiable name and address are usually given some consideration while anonymous notes and unverifiable signatures usually are not.


Taxpayers money? What a lame excuse. Yeah they really used the tax payers money well to push through a political favor in gear regulations. How do we know this. Read it slow: Because the DNR told us. Not sure how one could get any better knowledge of what happened than those pushing it. Yet I sit and watch you defend hypothetical reasons for what happened. The misdirect army was in full force on the special regulations. Sometimes when one tells lies or listens to them long enough, they begin to believe them. 

If a non legislative branch of government wants to seek the opinion of the people and use it to pass law (which is most likely illegal), they have a duty to make sure it is done equitably and without prejudice. It is not the people&#8217;s duty. Especially when those polling are outside the voters ability to vote them out if corrupt. Last I checked the DNR took an oath to represent all people of the state. Kind of funny you say you are thankful for America and your right to participate, yet you dismiss 2000 signatures with contempt and a drop of a hat. Should not those that don&#8217;t own a computer be represented? Phone? Petitions are American as the 1st amendment. To not think you were going to have to deal with them in this "social game management", a little ridiculous. Me, I only want to make sure everyone is counted and we have accountability if we are going to turn our DNR in to a legislative branch. 




kzoofisher said:


> So was it easy to cheat or hard for multiple petitions to come from the same place? If the survey tracked by both IP and zip code it sounds like using a randomizer would not have been very effective.


Again, do you think everyone has a computer. If you want the will of the people, you better be prepared to get it in all forms. There is the Mickey Mouse way, then there is the right way.


kzoofisher said:


> I was in the minority with the salmon stocking survey but I didn't cry foul about the results because I don't expect everyone to think like me and I don't resent the fact that other people participate in our democracy. .


The more appropriate question to the argument is, what if you were the majority? Would you take the same nonchalant, well I guess they didnt't like my vote attitude? 

Bottom line, if you are going to try to claim a right to manage game by public vote, like our legislative branch operates, then you need to have checks, balance and accountability to make sure all votes count. Pretty simple concept. Imagine that, I am for everybody.


----------



## kzoofisher

> Tell that to the 2000 against gear regulations that were disenfranchised. Your philosophical ideology doesnt appear to meet reality.


I have never seen this legendary petition. Get me a copy and I can do something besides speculate as to what was wrong with it.



> I see a claim of the possibility of there being duplicated votes. Where does it say they dismissed them? Lets look what they said:
> 
> More than 1,400 anglers participated in the survey, but not every participant completed all of the
> questions. Most respondents completed the survey online. Twenty-four anglers completed the survey via
> telephone and four anglers filled out paper copies of the surveys.


 Who said the petitions were dismissed? I said "Of course, this doesn't mean that the petitions got no consideration at all, it only means they were not included with the survey." The survey and the petitions are different things and only a complete idiot would mix them together because it would completely invalidate the survey.



> Hmm, funny, they didnt seem to add a qualifier to the fact those 24 calls or four paper copies could have also been duplicated in the survey, yet we feel a need to put a disqualifier on the signatures.


 They didn't put a qualifier in because the were referring to 28 surveys. The qualifier was used for petitions. SURVEY. PETITION. The two words don't even look the same.



> Read splitshots post, it states the intent of how and why the gear regulations were passed. If you have something to dispute what he says other than opinion, then lets hear it. Or I guess you could call him a liar as to what he said the DNR told him.


 How can I possibly dispute his story? Should I contact Kelly Smith in retirement and ask him to verify it? The post is splitshot's story and each of us will believe as much of it as we feel splitshot's reputation warrants.



> More than 1,400, hmm, their graph shows over 2500 people. Do you say more than 1400 when 2500+ are shown? Wouldnt you say more than 2500 people? The way its written, I would say the signatures were included with the 1400+ surveyed. This is exactly why these charts and graphs should be further broke down.


 I have been puzzled by the discrepancy too so I sent an email asking for clarification on that. I'll let you know what answer I get. I'm sure the answer is not that the petitions were included because:
1. the report says they weren't
2. only a complete moron would have messed up the survey that way



> If a non legislative branch of government wants to seek the opinion of the people and use it to pass law (which is most likely illegal), they have a duty to make sure it is done equitably and without prejudice.


 No laws are being passed here, regulations are being set. Your point is silly.



> Again, do you think everyone has a computer. If you want the will of the people, you better be prepared to get it in all forms. There is the Mickey Mouse way, then there is the right way.


 No I don't think everyone has a computer and neither does the DNR. That's why the survey was available by phone and paper as well. In fact that's how it was taken by almost 2%:yikes: of respondents.



> The more appropriate question to the argument is, what if you were the majority? Would you take the same nonchalant, well I guess they didnt't like my vote attitude?


 But see, the survey said I wasn't in the majority. I didn't start crying and saying I was in the majority and somebody cheated and the whole world is going to pot. I just said to myself that that's they way it goes and I better try to sway public opinion a little if I want things to go my way.



> Bottom line, if you are going to try to claim a right to manage game by public vote,


 Again and for the last time I have never said that. My position is that when new regulations are proposed and the state of a fishery allows for more than one option then the DNR should see what the public wants and give public opinion some consideration. The opinion of all the public not just the ones who fish that stream or own property on it or have a business. I don't know why you find that so hard to understand.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Just think, you want all those idiots and morons to help manage game. Manage by science, and eliminate the morons and idiots. Well at least the majority of them. Hey I think there is a bumper sticker in there somewhere.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Just think, you want all those idiots and morons to help manage game. Manage by science, and eliminate the morons and idiots. Well at least the majority of them. Hey I think there is a bumper sticker in there somewhere.


I think you missed my point completely.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Robert Holmes

Why didn't they up the limit to 7 brook trout and no more than 2 brook trout over 12 inches. That sounds like something that would make everyone happy.


----------



## Robert Holmes

TroutStlkr said:


> Coho, kings, steelhead and browns get big because nobody fishes for them? Anglers hammer the crap out of all of them. You are probably right if you are suggesting though that a reason a few streams may still get coaster runs is that they tend to be more secluded an receive less pressure. From what I've read ( and I don't claim to be an expert on the subject ), even after migrating to the big water, coasters tend to remain closer to shore and in less sheltered waters. I'm sure that makes them a little more vulnerable compared the other salmonids mentioned that spend more time in deeper sheltered waters fattening up before running the gauntlet.


 What I was referring to is that nobody targets the coaster brookies in the great lakes. By the time that they spawn the season is closed, so nobody can legally target them in the streams either.


----------



## brookies101

I believe the coasters could have flourished when they started planting them in superior tribs a few years back, if only they would have chosen more suitable rivers to plant them in. Though I've never seen the tribs in person, I've heard that they are very shallow, like down to a trickle around the time they would make their run upstream. Definitely not conducive to spawning

Besides the river(s ?) that they already exist in, there are a few that I have been to/driven over that looked good, all were along the superior coastline.... All west of pictured rocks

Sorry to hijack the thread, the coaster project is one I have taken a great interest in. Its a project I would really love to see take off.


----------



## fishinDon

Robert Holmes said:


> Why didn't they up the limit to 7 brook trout and no more than 2 brook trout over 12 inches. That sounds like something that would make everyone happy.


DING! DING! DING!!! We have a winner. I asked for a couple middle of the road proposals such as this, but unfortunately we got only 2 choices.


----------

