# Is mortality a reason to exclude live bait/



## Splitshot

The fish released by all fishermen that die have no significant influence on the overall fishery and is why a discussion about the impact of released fish is not a reason to restrict bait fishermen from our public rivers. All legal fishermen should have equal access to all public waters and the MDNR is obligated to protect those rights.

Circle hooks and barbless hooks would only be a consideration if fish morality was important and only then if they really worked. Barb-less hooks penetrate deeper without the barb and sometimes kill the fish by piercing the fishes brain. In addition often during a fight the barb-less hook can become dialoged more often causing multiple wounds.

Circle hooks work best when a fish takes the bait deeply and starts swimming away. Because of the design the hook pulls out of the fishes stomach but because the fish is swimming away catches the jaw. Setting the hook when the fish is facing the fisherman often results in the hook pulling free. That is why hooking percentages are 30% less using circle hooks.

Many of us know that trout often reject baits quickly in many circumstances even with live bait. In many cases setting the hook at the first sign of a bite is imperative. Forcing bait fishermen to use methods that are less effective for no good reason is illogical and simple minded.

When I started this thread it was to debunk the reasoning that mortality is a good reason to support bait restrictions. If you believe that trout mortality is a good reason to restrict bait, state your reasons. If you just want to sink into the circle jerk of an argument that fish released by bait fishermen is higher then with other methods when it has no effect on the fishery, your just wasting everyones time.

While I sympathize with those who claim there are no bait only areas, I reject that premise for the same reason I object to flies only waters. Restricting bait or lures or flies does not meet the criteria of equal opportunities for all citizens. I contend there are no good reasons for restricting bait or lures from public waters and for at least the last 13 years on this web-site no one has offered one including any fish biologist in or outside the DNR. 

I have no problem with anyone who chooses to make it harder to catch trout and chooses to fish with barb-less hooks or circle hooks or to fish exclusively with one method, my problem is with anyone trying to force their standards on me and then try to justify those standards using faulty logic or their opinion of ethical standards.

Just for the sake of argument, let us assume there a 1,000 trout in a section of river and bait fishermen catch and release 10% or 100 of those trout and 20% or 20 trout die as a result. As Bronkbuster stated, the DNR chief stated that 300 to 700 of those trout will die of natural causes no matter what. In that case, the 20 trout killed by bait fishermen doesnt justify either as a threat to the fish populations nor does it justify any other draconian rules. 

Just to be clear, I would like to see mortality rates reduced as much as anyone, but the best way to accomplish that goal in my opinion is through education, not through discriminatory rules on public waters!.


----------



## rcleofly

I fish along side a lot of guys who fish with worms. Most of them think I'm nuts for fly fishing. For the most part they all practice catch n release. I figure mostly because ill get cranky if they don't lol. More and more they are using circle hooks. My cousin Brad catches more trout then anyone I know. He is totally convinced that by using a circle hook. He has brought the mortality rate of the fish he releases down. At first I argued it makes no difference. I spent countless hours before my flies only days trout fishing with a worm. Imo trout seem to inhale worms. Causing you to hook them more in the back of the mouth or even deeper. After a few trips along side my cousin he has shown me that for some reason the design of the circle hook seems to prevent you from getting the deeper hook set. He gets way more hook ups in the lips. He also seems to not miss as many hits. I fly fish so the flies only sections don't really bug me. But it does restrict friends like my cousin (who imo does his absolute best to prevent from hurting the fish, way better them some fly guys I've fished with) from being able to fish with me. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## rcleofly

jerrob said:


> And I've seen guys with fly rods ripping gravel beds in the "flies only water" with way too much weight and tandem fly rigs on 10' leaders and then pose for a pic with their "conquered quarry".
> My point being, an unethical A-hole is an unethical A-hole, no matter what kind of gear he's using. The guy ripping out the .25 jig is no more the poster child for bait fishermen then the snagger is for ethical fly fishermen.


Yup... I agree

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Splitshot

I take responsibility for responding to the circle hook statement and giving some a reason to take the discussion off on a tangent. I fly fish when trout are rising but mostly I fish with bait. I dont keep exact records of the fish I catch, but an estimate for last year is around 1200 keeper trout. Less than 40 were caught on flies. I only remember one trout that was deep hooked with bait and 5 or 6 trout that were deep hooked using flies.

What my experience was and what your experience was is anecdotal and therefor unreliable. Besides it has no relevance as to my premise that mortality is not a good reason to exclude bait fishing on any public waters. Therefor discussing trout mortality in this context only makes sense if one wishes to divert and confuse the discussion. However if you disagree lets hear that rational.


----------



## METTLEFISH

HUHU... SILLY ME.... here I thought these fish were put here to be caught.... and eaten if wanted! (Heaven forbid) All these restrictions and descriminative standards being set by the state make me sick. If 
they keep it up.... I may just have to give it all up... RIDICULOUS!


----------



## rcleofly

Cripes sake splitshot relax. I back you 98% of the time on these topics lol. No circle hook tangent. Just talking hooks. No need for emotions. Your talking to a guy who in most cases stands alone amongst his fellow fly guys in supporting your techniques. 

Down boy down.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Lumberman

Holy smokes you guys are so argumentative you can agree and still argue about it. 

And I thought the habitat forum was bad.....


----------



## rcleofly

Here is my honest opinion on the topic in general. I feel saying a guy can only fish a certain technique is the same as saying you have to take weight test at work. Umm sir your to fat to work here. It's ridiculous. If they want to regulate mortality we need more officers on the banks watching for people keeping under sized or to many fish. People need to take responsibility for handling fish they release. Don't drop kick a trout back into the water. Make a law with a huge fine for guys who handle fish in an inhumane way. And put people out on the river to catch them. Either way I'm not going to let it ruin my day. I still will fish and love the fish I catch. As Jerrob said. A-holes are the problem. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## mondrella

Ray, 
No one can give a factual reason to have live bait excluded. I have had this discussion many times. The closest anyone has come to defending it is take a look at the increase in trout numbers on the pm once no kill took effect and the upper manistee once it became fly only water. Then one only has to point to the fact these regulations took place after major habitat improvements occurred. The rule changed had little to nothing to do with it. The truth is most of our riversand streams get better every day as they heal from the damages of the days of mass logging in this state. There are studies done in this state that have shown these regs do little to nothing to improve a fishery. Just look at the PM river assessment. Now certain people will say that study is flawed. Yet they have recently backed a study on another river about who uses the river. The evidence preliminary evidence in that study could be used to undermine their stand. I am still waiting to see the final report. As for hooks and c&r that is another topic for another day.


----------



## broncbuster2

hey mondrella
Will you Pm me a phone #
or a way to get ahold of you...


----------



## Splitshot

I wasnt being argumentative, emotional or upset. I was simply trying to keep the discussion on topic. At this point no one has tried to defend the idea that bait restrictions can be justified based on the mortality of fish released by bait fishermen, but perhaps there is some rational we havent heard yet. If so this thread remains open.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Perhaps bait could even lessen the amount of fish killed. Meat fisherman do not spend a lot of time catching and releasing fish, they get their limit (maybe) then stop fishing. Whereas C&R Anglers keep on catching, thereby increasing the amount of dead fish by percentages.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

METTLEFISH said:


> Perhaps bait could even lessen the amount of fish killed. Meat fisherman do not spend a lot of time catching and releasing fish, they get their limit (maybe) then stop fishing. Whereas C&R Anglers keep on catching, thereby increasing the amount of dead fish by percentages.


That is a good point as well. Another one I often think about is why the flies only and some of the artificial only waters are open year round. I always thought the reason the season closure is for the browns and brookies to spawn successfully. How can it be good for the trout redds to have guys stomping around in them or catching stressed out fish?


----------



## kzoofisher

_The MDNR says that legal fishing has a negligible impact on trout populations-2010_ This is a fact.

_The MDNR says that raising the trout limit has no biological benefits and has some biological risks-2012_ This is a fact.

_Legal fishing has a negligible impact on trout populations_ This is an opinion.


_Raising the trout limit has no biological benefits and has some biological risks_ This is an opinion.

The MDNR's opinion on the issue appears to be evolving. This isn't unusual with scientific findings, especially when new studies are being done all the time and those findings can be added to previous data.


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> _The MDNR says that legal fishing has a negligible impact on trout populations-2010_ This is a fact.
> 
> _The MDNR says that raising the trout limit has no biological benefits and has some biological risks-2012_ This is a fact.
> 
> _Legal fishing has a negligible impact on trout populations_ This is an opinion.
> 
> 
> _Raising the trout limit has no biological benefits and has some biological risks_ This is an opinion.
> 
> The MDNR's opinion on the issue appears to be evolving. This isn't unusual with scientific findings, especially when new studies are being done all the time and those findings can be added to previous data.


The facts are that fish need to be removed to make room for next years plantings. Without legal fishing there would be no funds available to produce, plant, and research the fishery. Without plantings Michigan Trout, Salmon and Char numbers would take a very large hit. That is fact!


----------



## Robert Holmes

METTLEFISH said:


> The facts are that fish need to be removed to make room for next years plantings. Without legal fishing there would be no funds available to produce, plant, and research the fishery. Without plantings Michigan Trout, Salmon and Char numbers would take a very large hit. That is fact!


 Assuming that you reside near one of the areas that is frequented often by the motorcade of MDNR trucks loaded with fingerlings. If not you are paying for the fish to be planted elsewhere and you have to hope that a few swim up the lake.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Robert Holmes said:


> Assuming that you reside near one of the areas that is frequented often by the motorcade of MDNR trucks loaded with fingerlings. If not you are paying for the fish to be planted elsewhere and you have to hope that a few swim up the lake.


I understand your frustration with the number of planted fish in your area. However when the numbers are analyzed it would seem that there are an equal number of fish per Angler hour in your area. I would certainly give up the numbers of fish for the opportunity to live and fish in one of the most beautiful places on Earth, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan....


----------



## Splitshot

Boardman Brookies said:


> That is a good point as well. Another one I often think about is why the flies only and some of the artificial only waters are open year round. I always thought the reason the season closure is for the browns and brookies to spawn successfully. How can it be good for the trout redds to have guys stomping around in them or catching stressed out fish?


Sometimes it is easy to point out the hypocrisy when someone of some group claims to want only what is best for the fish except when it comes to them. On one hand excluding bait is justified because some will die as a result yet dragging anchors through beds or wading through beds when fish are spawning is somehow okay. 



METTLEFISH said:


> The facts are that fish need to be removed to make room for next years plantings. Without legal fishing there would be no funds available to produce, plant, and research the fishery. Without plantings Michigan Trout, Salmon and Char numbers would take a very large hit. That is fact!


Trout are a renewable resource and removing some of them provides a great benefit to humans as a nutritious healthy food source. Doesnt matter if the trout are wild as every body of water can withstand some harvest. Keeping planted trout makes even more sense because one of the reasons plants are made is because someone felt more trout were necessary to attract more people or to sustain reasonable numbers of catch able trout so people will continue fishing and supporting the management of those resources.

This entire catch and release idea in my opinion has gone way to far. It is a conservation measure to release those fish you will not utilize but if you release fish you would other wise utilize because you think you are doing something good for the resource, or it makes you feel good, you are mistaken. It is better for us to benefit from the excess nature provides than to leave the excess for the crayfish or other creatures who reside under the water..

I have had many people criticize me for killing fish and I think at least some of them think releasing fish makes them morally superior somehow and criticizing those who choose to keep trout gives them conformation. As a human I see myself as part of the food chain, not as someone who is above nature, looking down on it.

I dont believe that you can really understand the natural world if you just go there sometimes to play with nature, but thats just me. I also think some of these unrealistic fears some people have about keeping fish leads to their compulsion to over protect them. What is best for our resources should be left to our professionals in the DNR who are charged with that responsibility to protect them and God help us if they let politics or anything but sound hard science cloud their best judgment.


----------



## Robert Holmes

METTLEFISH said:


> I understand your frustration with the number of planted fish in your area. However when the numbers are analyzed it would seem that there are an equal number of fish per Angler hour in your area. I would certainly give up the numbers of fish for the opportunity to live and fish in one of the most beautiful places on Earth, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan....


 You are close there mettlefish, the UP gets fished pretty hard too depending on where you are at. You can certainly move up here ...that is what I did. I will save you a fishing spot or a seat in the boat. The hardest part about fishing downstate is finding a place to fish that is not occupied by other fishermen. Even 15 miles out on L Michigan you have a bunch of boats. I have never complained about the scenery up here. You just cannot beat a trip around Mackinac Island with the riggers set while the sun rises or sets.


----------



## kzoofisher

In the % thread DReihl9896 asked my source for saying that the DNR has changed its stance on the effect of fishing mortality. As most of you will remember, it has been reported for some time around here that the DNR does not believe that fishing has any effect on fish populations. To be honest, I don't know the original source of that claim so someone else will have to provide it. I have said in this thread, as well as in the % thread and some others, that the DNR now admits that recreational fishing poses a risk when it considered raising creel limits. To quote the pertinent section of the paper


> Raising the daily possession limit for brook trout from 5 fish to 10 fish is not recommended at this time for the following reasons; (1) there are no *biological* benefits and some slight *biological* risks with raising the daily possession limit;


That is on page 3 and the whole document can be found here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/d..._Statewide_Opinion_Survey_Review_394769_7.pdf

Don,
As you can see the DNR's position is based on biology. Whether it has to do with spawning adults or a combination of factors is not clear in that report. They reviewed the available data for the entire UP and came to this conclusion. I'm not a biologist so I can't say which data caused this change though I believe most, if not all, the published UP studies are available on the web if you want to check them out. It is important to note that they made a meta study of many studies to come to this conclusion rather than basing it on only a couple. The "no effect" position has been offered up as evidence in this forum many times and the credibility of biologists who disagreed with that position has been questioned. I'm sure you can remember some examples where our state biologists were held up as higher authorities than other biologists so I won't bog down this thread with quotes unless asked, but I certainly hope that the DNR's science will continue to be held in such high esteem now that it may contradict the GLFSA's position.

To me the most significant thing here is that a bureaucracy the size of the Fisheries Division made this change in only two years. It is a credit to Fisheries biologists that they were able to present their findings with the credibility and gravitas to make the brass take notice. It has been my experience that neither bureaucrats nor politicians like to admit they were wrong but it happened here.


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> In the % thread DReihl9896 asked my source for saying that the DNR has changed its stance on the effect of fishing mortality. As most of you will remember, it has been reported for some time around here that the DNR does not believe that fishing has any effect on fish populations. To be honest, I don't know the original source of that claim so someone else will have to provide it. I have said in this thread, as well as in the % thread and some others, that the DNR now admits that recreational fishing poses a risk when it considered raising creel limits. To quote the pertinent section of the paper
> 
> 
> That is on page 3 and the whole document can be found here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/d..._Statewide_Opinion_Survey_Review_394769_7.pdf
> 
> Don,
> As you can see the DNR's position is based on biology. Whether it has to do with spawning adults or a combination of factors is not clear in that report. They reviewed the available data for the entire UP and came to this conclusion. I'm not a biologist so I can't say which data caused this change though I believe most, if not all, the published UP studies are available on the web if you want to check them out. It is important to note that they made a meta study of many studies to come to this conclusion rather than basing it on only a couple. The "no effect" position has been offered up as evidence in this forum many times and the credibility of biologists who disagreed with that position has been questioned. I'm sure you can remember some examples where our state biologists were held up as higher authorities than other biologists so I won't bog down this thread with quotes unless asked, but I certainly hope that the DNR's science will continue to be held in such high esteem now that it may contradict the GLFSA's position.
> 
> To me the most significant thing here is that a bureaucracy the size of the Fisheries Division made this change in only two years. It is a credit to Fisheries biologists that they were able to present their findings with the credibility and gravitas to make the brass take notice. It has been my experience that neither bureaucrats nor politicians like to admit they were wrong but it happened here.


Interesting. I wonder if the data we both saw at the townhall meetings with a couple percent decrease in population was recharacterized or if, in fact, new data was reviewed/obtained/presented. Or maybe we just got carried away with the original no effect characterizations? I'll check with Gunderman. 
Thx,
Don


----------



## DReihl9896

Thanks kzoo. I guess I did read that report, but didn't remember it being such a dramatic reversal because I interpreted it differently. Reason one still reads to me like it doesn't make much of a difference either way so it's tough to justify the rule change given the public support for the change was overestimated (at least among participants in the survey). I guess looking at the process from the study to the survey to deciding against the rule change to finally going ahead with the change in a more limited fashion, I still come away with the impression that the dnr would have still been comfortable with the change (while acknowledging "slight" risks) had the survey turned out differently. I just don't see where they did a 180 based on a review of their research. But then again, that is merely my impression of the way it all went down. I too will be interested to see data from the test streams. I question how conclusive they'll be given the nature and limitations of biological studies and the absence of perfect laboratory conditions that would be able to isolate the precise variable effecting the fishery, but am interested all the same.


----------



## kzoofisher

DReihl9896 said:


> Thanks kzoo. I guess I did read that report, but didn't remember it being such a dramatic reversal because I interpreted it differently.


I see it as a dramatic reversal because "no effect" is a pretty radical stand. "Unlikely to cause major changes" is really very different and far less absolute. Both Don and Ranger Ray are saying that the info came out speeches at the 2010 meetings* so it may be that the "no effect" claim was the GLFSA guys getting a little "carried away" in Don's words and not strictly the DNR's position.

*I didn't attend any of those meetings because this subject wasn't on my radar back then.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Here are the players and some history. 



> Brook trout brouhaha brews in the U.P.
> Posted on October 26, 2012 by CNS
> By SAODAT ASANOVA-TAYLOR
> 
> Capital News Service
> 
> LANSING  Brook trout experts have asked the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to put on hold a proposal to double the brook trout creel limit in 10 streams in the Upper Peninsula.
> 
> They claim the proposal carries a political agenda and lacks scientific data, potentially threatening the overall brook trout habitat.
> 
> The agencys proposal would allow anglers to take 10 fish per day per person. The current limit has existed for more than a decade.
> 
> The daily possession limit would be 10 fish and the minimum size would be 7 inches. All or portions of the rivers and tributary streams would be covered.
> 
> Brian Gunderman, a senior fisheries biologist at the DNR, said the proposal came forward as more anglers from the U.P. requested lifting the limit.
> 
> According to Gunderman, past DNR studies indicated that most people dont catch more then five brook trout per day, so the risk of increased numbers would be slight.
> 
> We did a biological review based on the available data and on a random survey in several streams in the U.P., he said.
> 
> Tom Nemachek, executive director of the U.P. Travel and Recreation Association in Marquette, said he relies on DNR studies and endorses the proposal as a good opportunity to boost the tourism industry in the area.
> 
> We can be a better destination for fishing, and people can come and stay longer, he said.
> 
> But many critics argue that the majority of U.P anglers oppose the change, plus they say the DNR studies are outdated.
> 
> This is a terrible idea and it does nothing for the economy, said Brad Petzke, a Marquette fishing guide and owner of Rivers North Guide Service.
> 
> The people of Michigan voted and said they did not want it, he said.
> 
> Last summer, a DNR survey of anglers in the U.P. showed that 55 percent supported the existing five-fish limit, compared to 17 percent who opposed it, according to the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group.
> 
> In addition, the Sierra Club reported the DNR proposal came despite its own Fisheries Divisions repeated opposition to the Natural Resources Commission to the change.
> 
> Petzke said such a sudden political change in the DNR decision is nothing but political pressure from the Natural Resource Commission that made the agency to fold for the worse.
> 
> Its corruption. Its their friends that want to kill more brook trout, not the people of Michigan, he said.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Sierra Club, along with other experts said there is little biological evidence regarding how many brook trout can be kept without harming sustainable population levels.
> 
> There is absolutely no scientific reason that these limits should be different in the U.P. from the Lower Peninsula, said Marvin Roberson, a forest ecologist at the clubs Michigan chapter.
> 
> Bryan Burroughs, executive director of Michigan Trout Unlimited in DeWitt, said the data the DNR relies on is 30 years old and the agency cannot apply the results of its random survey to all 10 streams included in the proposal.
> 
> They are Bryan Creek (Marquette and Dickinson counties); Dead River (Marquette County); Driggs River (Schoolcraft County); East Branch Ontonagon River (Houghton and Iron counties); East Branch Tahquamenon River (Chippewa County); Ford River (Dickinson and Iron counties); North Branch Otter River (Houghton County); Rock River (Alger County); Upper Tahquamenon River (Luce County) and West Branch Huron River (Baraga County).
> 
> Agencies need to understand the mortality rate of the brook trout population before adopting any regulations, Burroughs added.
> 
> We need to know how many fish are born, how fast they grow and how fast they die so it doesnt affect the next generation of brook trout, he said.
> 
> According to the DNR, it plans to conduct research on the effect of the limit increase after the regulations are changed.
> 
> Jill Leonard, a professor at Northern Michigan University specializing in fish biology, is wary that scientists will lose the power to understand whether any changes in future brook trout mortality will be related to regulations or environmental change.
> 
> It is hard to understand how much pressure is put on the fish. It is very challenging to conduct such research and they take up to several years, she said.
> 
> Leonard said the brook trout reproduce relatively fast, but at the same time they have a high mortality rate, especially in the winter.
> 
> The DNR decision on the proposal is scheduled for early November, with no additional public hearings.


http://news.jrn.msu.edu/capitalnewsservice/2012/10/26/brook-trout-brouhaha-brews-in-the-u-p/


----------



## METTLEFISH

How radical of a change can that be. From the begining there has been plans for the next years plantings. This comes from the knowledge that there will be some harvest and natural death of the fishes. Can anyone show me where in the original outline (s) for the program(s) there was to be no or limited harvest and would be no or little natural losses of these fish?

What are the impending reductions in plantings and cost savings from the abundance of fishes under these programs? Seems that would be a major player in the reduction of harvest and maybe that makes the most sense of all! There must be ample food and habitat!


----------



## Ranger Ray

Roger Kerr is a retired Wisconsin DNR fisheries biologist. He was given awards by TU and the WI DNR for being instrumental in the planting wild strain trout ideology. These wild strains were more hearty then what they had been using and the fish flourished. Roger wrote letters to our NRC and DNR the last round of gear restrictions. Roger was called a kook by our fisheries. Interesting to note today that our own fisheries is trying to copy Wisconsin with using a certain wild trout strain. Seems a kook might have been cutting edge. Its a shame what happens to one that doesn't drink the kool aid. Here is a snippet of his thoughts on morality running the fisheries and on mortality of fish.



> Roger Kerr retired WDNR Fish Manager:
> 
> I spent most of my adult life doing things in the public interest (for the common good). There seems to be a trend away from that these days. Small elite groups run the country and a small elite group by the name of Trout Unlimited runs the Wisconsin trout program. This is not in the public interest. This group does a lot of good things but their "thinking" is "outdated". Trout Unlimited started in Michigan 50 years ago. Their "motto" was that trout are too valuable to be caught just once. This was appropriate when trout were scarce. It serves no useful purpose when trout are super abundant as they are now (at least here in southwestern Wisconsin). Killing and eating trout has been made "sinful" by Trout Unlimited. This is nonsense because natural mortality is continuous . Trout can NOT be "stockpiled". When angling mortality goes to zero or close to zero, natural mortality increases to make up for the reduced angling mortality. This seems to be the #1 biological fact that Trout Unlimited members don't understand


----------



## Ranger Ray

A study on the Black River

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...UTHMtqb5hpVbpkivLbh2SSg&bvm=bv.44442042,d.aWc


----------



## broncbuster2

kzoofisher said:


> In the % thread DReihl9896 asked my source for saying that the DNR has changed its stance on the effect of fishing mortality. As most of you will remember, it has been reported for some time around here that the DNR does not believe that fishing has any effect on fish populations.
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong Ranger Ray,
> If I remember correctly in a meeting with The DNR on March 13th,
> Jim Dexter stated that there was no effect on fish populations by person's fishing...I will have to review the recording to be positive.


----------



## toto

Maybe this will help a bit:

"The law says . . . that the people own this water body. They are not owned by the Governor, the Legislature, the developers, or the polluters. They are owned by the people. Everybody has the right to use them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others. . . This is ancient law." Robert Kennedy, Jr.


----------



## kzoofisher

> If I remember correctly in a meeting with The DNR on March 13th,
> Jim Dexter stated that there was no effect on fish populations by person's fishing...I will have to review the recording to be positive.


This is significant. I didn't know that Jim Dexter was the one who made the statement and that makes this recent change all the more impressive. The change came after the DNR's review of creel census and population data* in the UP and that review was instigated by political pressure to increase the limit. Despite strong pressure** to find in favor of increased creel limits Fisheries found the opposite was true, both biologically and sociologically. Kudo's to Mr. Dexter and his staff for going with the facts and not with the political pressure. Shame on the people who support "DNR science" only when it supports them.

* A quick search of the DNR library of studies shows 296 that refer to brook trout through 2005. I'm not going to parse through all of these to see which ones apply. You are welcome to do it yourself if you want to scientifically question their findings.

** Not only was the change instigated by political pressure but the unelected politicians vetoed the decision of Fisheries and Director Creagh to get their way. That's a lot of pressure for the Division to stand up to.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto,
Let's try to keep this thread about mortality. There is at least on thread already dedicated to the PTD and I don't doubt there will be more. Thanks


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> The change came after the DNR's review of creel census and population data* in the UP and that review was instigated by political pressure to increase the limit. Despite strong pressure** to find in favor of increased creel limits Fisheries found the opposite was true, both biologically and sociologically. Kudo's to Mr. Dexter and his staff for going with the facts and not with the political pressure. Shame on the people who support "DNR science" only when it supports them.


So you talked to Jim? Or is this the world according to Kzoo?



> Raising the daily possession limit for brook trout from 5 fish to 10 fish is not recommended at this time for the following reasons; (1) there are no biological benefits and some slight biological risks with raising the daily possession limit;


You are heralding this as the great change in thinking? Just man walking into a stream creates risk. Its about as elementary science as you get. Go fishing and there is risk to the fishery. Oh lets not forget the other qualifiers to not raise the limit:



> (2) based on the results of the public survey and historic creel data, it appears
> that raising the daily possession limit would benefit a relatively small percentage of the angling
> population; (3) nearly twice as many anglers opposed the possession limit increase compared to those
> who supported the change. Given that there is no biological need to increase the daily possession limit, it
> is not prudent to establish a regulation that does not have a significant margin of support from the angling
> public.


Hmm, number 2 didn't matter in the last round of gear regs. Funny how the qualifiers keep changing. Have to love social management. Looks like human pressure was the overriding factor.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> So you talked to Jim? Or is this the world according to Kzoo?
> 
> 
> You are heralding this as the great change in thinking? Just man walking into a stream creates risk. Its about as elementary science as you get. Go fishing and there is risk to the fishery. Oh lets not forget the other qualifiers to not raise the limit:
> 
> 
> Hmm, number 2 didn't matter in the last round of gear regs. Funny how the qualifiers keep changing. Have to love social management. Looks like human pressure was the overriding factor.


The political pressure is common knowledge by now. It has been reported by various new sources, the DNR has referenced the request of NRC members for it, been argued in the UP forum by you and othersand Don has mentioned it in some of his posts. If you still don't remember any of this by 5:00 pm today let me know and I'll get you some links. You will be able to remember a post from this morning in a few hours, won't you?

Yes, I am heralding it as a great change. Dexter went against the wishes not of his boss but of the guys who call the shots above the Director. The next step up is the Governor or an act of the Legislature. That's a big deal. It made the NRC so mad that they forced the Director to create a whole new category of trout stream. A big deal with big consequences. I hope it doesn't cause Dexter to suffer any long term cosequences. 

Your last bit isn't about mortality so I'll wait for the appropriate thread to discuss it. Stay focused my friends.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toto

Kzoo, I'll do as you ask, but one thing for sure, this thread and any following threads will most likely head there. Just sayin....


----------



## fishinDon

I received a reply from Gunderman, the exact text of my email and his reply are below. 

I have a lot of respect for Brian and all of our biologist. They always have time for my questions and they always "shoot it straight" when I ask. 

I believe his response to be honest and accurate. I also believe this to be a misunderstanding between the DNR's comfort level with what was always understood by them to be a very small risk associated with this or any liberalization of regs and the characterization of that comfort level by me and others as "none" - not a radical departure in the DNR's thinking or methods. Their comfort level with this small risk was high enough that they were willing to raise the limit if the public wanted it, ultimately the survey showed that the majority of respondents did not.

Here's the email...



> Hi Don,
> 
> At the time of the public opinion survey, we basically were considering two options: Option 1 was the status quo. Obviously, there was no biological risk to retaining the current possession limits. Option 2 was to raise the daily possession limit on all Type 1-4 Upper Peninsula streams to 10 fish. Any time we liberalize regulations, there is some risk. All of the available evidence suggested that the risk was very small, but we could not state that there was no risk at all.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that there was no biological reason why we had to liberalize the daily possession limit. Given that the biological risk was slight, we could have increased the possession limit if there was broad public interest in increased harvest opportunities. In the absence of that interest, it did not make sense to take on any additional biological risk.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I&#8217;m interested in understanding a statement that was made regarding slight biological risks to Brook Trout in the document here:
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...w_394769_7.pdf
> 
> &#8220;Raising the daily possession limit for brook trout from 5 fish to 10 fish is not recommended at this time for the following reasons; (1) there are no biological benefits and some slight biological risks with raising the daily possession limit;&#8221;
> 
> Here&#8217;s a quote from slide 7 of the slides you guys presented in committee and again at the town hall:
> 
> &#8220;For the four streams in Wagner&#8217;s study, harvest would have been decreased by 10% with a 5 fish bag limit. Based on the electrofishing and creel survey data, Wagner estimated fishing mortality at 10% for these streams. Thus, reducing the creel limit to 5 fish would have &#8220;saved&#8221; about 1% of the adult brook trout population. This actually is an overestimate, because some &#8220;saved&#8221; fish would have been lost due to natural or hooking mortality. To put this in perspective, total annual mortality for these streams ranged from 71-81%. Thus, natural mortality was much more important than fishing mortality.&#8221;
> 
> And another quote from slide 12:
> &#8220;To review, on average the computer simulations predicted a 2% increase in total population size, about a 5% increase in abundance of trout 7 inches or larger, and a 10% increase in catch of brook trout 7 inches or larger. The maximum increase in catch of brook trout 7 inches or larger predicted under any of the model scenarios was 30%. These modest gains in population size and catch rates were observed even though harvest was reduced by 25-100%. Recall that the results of the Upper Peninsula creel surveys suggested that harvest only would have been reduced by 10% if the daily possession limit had been reduced from 10 fish to 5 fish. So why do reductions in harvest have such limited effects on brook trout populations? The answer lies in their life history strategy. Brook trout grow quickly and commonly mature at age 1. Natural mortality is high, so even in the absence of harvest few brook trout survive to age 3. Most brook trout do not reach harvestable size until age 2. For every age 2 fish that could be harvested, there are 5 age 1 fish to take its place.&#8221;
> 
> 
> Everything I&#8217;ve seen from you guys (and that I&#8217;ve read on my own) in terms of science on fisheries for trout (char) and salmon is that it takes relatively few adults to provide enough fertilized eggs to then saturate the river to its carrying capacity for fry based on habitat/food/etc. In fact, it seems brook trout are particularly prolific spawners, who reach sexual maturity at young ages and have relatively high percentages of fertilized eggs that survive to fry.
> 
> However, the statement in the.pdf above seems to indicate that there may be some slight biological risks to brook trout if we were to raise the brook trout limit back to 10 fish. Based on the data above, we expected a <1% decrease in the adult population by raising the limit, which to my mind would hardly pose any biological risks, since we&#8217;d still have a significant adult population present to provide fertilized eggs for the future.
> 
> I want you to know that I&#8217;m not stirring the pot on this issue again, it&#8217;s done and I&#8217;m happy with the result, which I find to be a reasonable compromise. That said, I&#8217;d really like to understand this based on the science, because if there&#8217;s new data or another interpretation showing that it&#8217;s true that there are biological risks, then it really may make me reconsider what I know of trout biology and my approach to conservation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Don


----------



## Ranger Ray

Thanks for that clarification Don. I had put my waders on with all this talk of Jim the white night fighting off the evil politicians and the premise this constitutes a total position change in our DNR BS. Jim may be a good man but it was getting pretty deep. :lol:


----------



## kzoofisher

Good to know Don. All that's left to argue about is the biologists interpretation of risk . Seeing the bus go over our biologists in this thread was kinda fun though.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

