# Captains like rule limiting chinook catch



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Captains like rule limiting chinook catch 

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/grpress/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/115892917171560.xml&coll=6

9/22/06 By Howard Meyerson The Grand Rapids Press [email protected]

GRAND HAVEN -- Who says anglers are not philosophic? 

The question of whether "less" is more -- or less -- was hotly debated Tuesday during a meeting here of the Lake Michigan Citizens Fishery Advisory Committee. 

That is the body formed 18 years ago to bring sportfishing groups and charter captains to the table to talk with the fish biologists and mangers that establish fishing rules for the state. They may hash out questions of how many salmon to plant or legal-possession limits.

For instance, the Great Lakes trout and salmon possession rule says anglers can catch five fish in combination, but only three of any one species. That often effectively creates a three-fish limit for charter boats on Lake Michigan when fishing for chinook salmon. 

Support from captains 

That's because steelhead, brown trout, lake trout or even coho salmon may not be available when the chinook are hot. Or it is that charter captains are targeting chinook and would have to change their tactics to catch the other species. 

But the charter guys are not beefing about the rule. Just the opposite. They support it. 

"I tell customers that we can get five fish apiece, but only three of one species, so when we get three of one, we will consider that a limit," said Jim Fenner, president of the Ludington Charter Boat Association. "We're not here to throw fish back. They will die." 

Fenner was a voice of moderation in a sometimes noisy discussion about whether to change the rules to allow Michigan anglers to keep five chinook salmon instead of just three. It was a position being advocated by the sportfishing community.

Fenner was one of several charter captains who voiced a concern about raising the limit. 

"I don't see a real need for it," echoed Capt. Willis Kerridge, a 35-year charter-fishing veteran and owner of Thunder Duck Charters in Spring Lake. "When four people come home with 12 kings that are 12-to-14 pounds each, that's a lot of fish. When we get to a cleaning station and start cutting fillets, we hear: 'What are we going to do with all this fish.' " 

Kerridge doesn't want to see the fish go to waste. He also prefers not to put any additional burden on the chinook salmon resource. 

Concern over raising limit

"People are more than happy with three now," he said. "When they get that limit, it's an achievement." 

But the sport-fishing community has a different perspective. They are the guys who go out to the lake in their own boats. They crab that the other Lake Michigan states have a five-chinook limit, so why not Michigan. 

"Everyone knows those fish are going to croak," exclaimed Andy Pelt, the executive director for the Michigan Steelhead & Salmon Fisherman's Association. "There is no reason -- none -- not to have it." 

Biological reason, that is. The three-of-a-species limit is the product of a conservation effort that followed the chinook salmon crash due to BKD in the early 1990's. Salmon anglers used to be able to keep five. 

But Pelt and others say the salmon fishing today is the best it ever has been and Department of Natural Resources studies show that a higher limit would have no adverse impact on the forage base. 

Pelt's members would like to catch and keep more big kings. They pay a premium to fill their tanks with gas and may not fish as frequently because of it. When they do go out they want to maximize their catch. Many also don't like the seemingly arbitrary limit change at the state line. 

"What irritates these guys is the imaginary line between Michigan waters and Indiana. One side you can keep three fish. On the other side you can keep five," Pelt said.

State officials, on the other hand, suggest that Michigan is taking an "enlightened" approach with the hopes that other Lake Michigan states eventually will come around. There is more to consider than simply how many fish an angler takes home. 

"Limits set expectations," said Kelly Smith, the chief of the DNR fisheries division, explaining that anglers who fish Michigan waters are more inclined to go home satisfied, having caught a limit (of three chinooks). Fishing is big buisness in Michigan. Catching a limit is equated with having a quality fishing experience. 

When the limit is five, anglers can go home grumbling about not getting a limit. Angler expectations, he said, are essential to consider.

That checks with Fenner, too, who has seen just that occur. 

"I've seen where people have caught a limit of three and they go two hours longer (to catch five) and a great trip turns into a disaster. 

"I would not like going back to a five-chinook limit. I truly hated seeing a customer carry away all that meat and know it would be wasted." 

Fenner and others had ideas for possibly changing the rules, things like split limits based on size, which might allow anglers who catch smaller fish to take five while limiting bigger fish to three. Another idea was to develop two sets of salmon rules, one for charter anglers and another for individual anglers. 

Smith hammered the latter, reminding people at the table that today's rules were, in part, a response to pressure from anglers to simplify overly complex regulations. 

DNR staffers seemed inclined to hold the less-is-more line, but said they would return to the table in future months to discuss new ideas. The regulatory tightrope they walk requires a delicate balancing of ethics, aesthetics, science and pragmatism.


----------



## STEINFISHSKI (Jan 30, 2001)

Hamilton Reef said:


> Captains like rule limiting chinook catch
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/grpress/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/115892917171560.xml&coll=6
> Fenner was one of several charter captains who voiced a concern about raising the limit.
> ...


Wow, they sure peg the recreational viewpoint as crabbing, grumbling, wasteful anglers. The captains and DNR staffers have spoken.


----------



## MoneyMan11 (Jan 8, 2004)

Could it be that the charter captains would like to get back to the dock ASAP to conserve fuel and time. I guess I can't blame them, but it's hard not to think that is their motive. The current limit is certainly in their best interest. More fish in the lake and less time to get them in theory.


----------



## Tacklemaster (Apr 27, 2005)

I don't believe any charter captain just wants to get you out and get you in as fast as possible. I think most want you to have a great time on the water because even if you catch a lot of fish and dont have good time you wont come back. The problem is this idea that only a limit is a good day of fishing. I need to remind myself and a client some times that as good as a charter captain is its still just fishing. Anything can happen. Personally I fell the limits are pretty far as they stand right now. 3 salmon is a lot of meat. I have friends who fish every day and have 3 limits of salmon that worked out to almost 10 meals. Now really how much fish does that average person really eat in a year?


----------



## milmo1 (Nov 9, 2005)

Keep the 3 limit, although *I** think all in the Great Lakes should have the same limit - Indiana, Ill, Wis., etc*. Anytime I say "I got a limit" it raises eyebrows and people say "wow". Perception is key. 
My father and I recently returned from a trip to Traverse City. We came home with 2 12 lb chinook (we lost 4 other hookups), and we have lots of meat, especially when you add in the walleye in the freezer.
Similarly, when the woodcock limit was lowered from 5 to 3, it had the same effect. Limiting on 3 birds is plenty, I wouldn't shoot 5 in any given day if they let me - just feels wateful and cheapens the experience. 
The fishery is a very valuable resource, lets treat it as such.
Just my .02, FWIW.


----------



## Alpha Buck (Jan 24, 2006)

MoneyMan11 said:


> Could it be that the charter captains would like to get back to the dock ASAP to conserve fuel and time. I guess I can't blame them, but it's hard not to think that is their motive. The current limit is certainly in their best interest. More fish in the lake and less time to get them in theory.


 Its more money in their pockets.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

For once, I agree with the charter captains and, as usual, disagree with the MSSFA. Three fish has been fine for years, leave the limits alone. Maybe some of of us river guys would like to have some left for us, ya know? 

And that's the biggest part of the problem. Everything pertains to the big lake fishery, while the river guys constantly get the shaft. We spend money just like the big lake guys--river boats aren't cheap, crank baits, spoons, etc, aren't cheap. Yet, the mentality is "the river guys should be happy with whatever they get." 

Sorry, but I don't care how many fish are out in the lake, it's still nice to enjoy the bunch that survive to come up river. I had a big lake boat for years and I still found the river fisheries to be my favorite--that and as an individual angler, I was quite content with a big lake limit of three fish.


----------



## Beave (Aug 26, 2002)

I'd like to see the coho limit raised to 5. Too many trips out of St. Joe end way too quickly in the spring when the coho are biting, and those are some small 1-3lb fish. We have bonus rules in effect for Pinks.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

In a couple years, you're going to be saying, "I'd like to see some Coho, period." 

And "chop, chop,chop" go the hatchery plants...


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

As I just posted in the charter-tip thread, my customers are ecstatic and more than pleased to catch 3 apiece and go home. Usually they have been on the rod 6 or more times when fishing is that good....and lost plenty. 3 fish is alot of fish.

The money saved argument is B.S. I run 2500 rpms on 2 engines to 100 FOW, catch my 12-15-18 salmon based upon head count, and run 2500 rpms on 2 engines back in. That is my cost, and it is a given. Trolling around for 3 hours vs 6 is NEGLIGIBLE at 600 rpms on one engine from a cost savings perspective. I have no use in getting back to the dock early, all I have to do is then sit around and wait for my afternoon trip to show up....so no advantage to me there.

The reason why indiana has a 5 salmon limit is because (and solely because) of SPRING COHO. You could catch a hundred in a few hours if you could catch two. Some areas of MI (st. joe, etc) experience the same fishery...but there would be no responsible way to give St. Joe anglers the same limits as Indiana just because of the proximity to the same fishery. If you want 5, go to indiana in the spring.

We practice what we preach as well.....we personally do not fill capt or mate tags, though unfortunately some captains do as a way to say they caught "more" than the next boat. That is wasteful and unnecessary.


----------



## adjusted3 (Feb 3, 2003)

I personaly like the 3/2 limits. Catching 3 kings in the late season per person is plenty of fish. I would not change a thing. The really tough part of our state limit is obtaining a 3/2 limit on any given day. It make one really concentrate on presentation targeting certain species and avoiding another. I think that if one can do this, on a consistant basis, that person is a very good fisherman. The best change in the law a few years back, IMO, was moving to the 3 rod rule on the great lakes. I have more fun playing with the toys and hooking up a fish tends to be a bonus. Changing limits will result in more Coho taken in the spring and more Kings taken in the fall. Does one really need 15 kings for 3 people?

I will say, that in the 30 odd trips this year, with 2 others on the boat, I never boxed out once with a 3/2 limit for everyone on board. I came very close a few times, but never acheived it. I did fill the "3" side of the tags many times though. I consider it more of a challange to go 3/2. I also consider every trip a success, even the one time I could not kick out the stinky kitty. 

On another note along the same lines, I give away almost 90% of all the fish caught. My neighbors, friends, family, can eat only so much. Taking a 2 15 lb fish to the elderly couple down the street is akin to buying them groceries for a week. The same with my wife and I, 6 fish will last us a long time.

Mark


----------



## caznik (Jun 3, 2002)

I say leave the limit at 3 like it is now.


----------



## smoke73 (Jun 4, 2006)

Leave it like it is!

Lets say that late summer Kings averaged 12 lbs. A charter has 6 clients. A limit of 5 Kings per person would total 360 lbs :yikes: I believe he/she would have to add a third cooler to his/her boat  

Most charter captains already know how to fill a 5 fish limit. They do so by targeting Lakers and other species. I don't think that the "gas $$$" theory is comes into play, when they voice there opinions.

I can just see it now. A once a year fisherman is has reeled in four fish on core and a half. It fires again: :rant: " I don't want to take it, you take take it".:evil:


----------



## fish-on (Nov 27, 2004)

3/2 makes ya work.switching set-ups,location,lures to target another spieces is much more challengeing than just smacking a bunch of one kind.a good capt will know how to get the orther colors.besides,you'd need a crane to get the cooler off the boat wih 30 4 year olds :yikes::lol:


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

The article is pretty accurate, but to clear up a couple of things.

I was at this meeting, just like the majority of these advisory meetings. I represent the sw mich area, and have sat on this committee for over 3 yrs now. I got to sit next to Hamilton reef, and chat breifly with him. The meetings was over 3 hrs long and was very crowded and a bit noisy. Usually their are 10-15 of us "region representatives" and some DNR managers and personel, and a few distinguished guests. At this meeting, I counted almost 50 people in a room designed to hold about 30.

The creel limit issue did get a bit heated, but came - up late in the meeting and time was limited. Remember, the spokemen at these meetings speak for their groups that they represent, including me. I represent the Battle Creek chapter of MSSFA, and also share the constructive thoughts of folks from here, and other groups that I belong to. I often share my personal feelings, but mainly project the thoughts and ideas of the folks I represent. The majority of guys/anglers I talk to, want 5 fish limits. For different reasons than some, but they feel they deserve it since other states get 5. And the reason Ind, Ill, and wisc has 5 is NOT because of the spring coho. Its because they refuse to bend to Mich DNR requests to standardize and manage the fishery as a "lake wide system". The MDNR has been butting heads with neighboring states for decades, Fin clips, fish marking, stocking healthy fish..ect.

I personally think 3 fish is fine. I would also like to say, like TC, I really enjoy the river/stream fishery more than the trolling/lake fishery. Unlike TC, I don't think river anglers are getting the shaft. The river folks have a fishery almost all year long, deffinately 8-9 months of it anyways. The lake fishery runs from late april till mid sept, 5-6 months at best. The diverse fishery that we have access to makes it even better. Browns, and steelhead are mainly river fish, and salmon are better suited as trolling fish. There are exceptions, but the majority of the time . 

Just so you guys know, as far as the coho's, some Indiana sportfishing groups have raised enough money to keep the cohos online for next spring, and because of the money they raised, It is more than likely that Mich will stock 600-750 thousand yearlings in the spring of 2007. It has also been mentioned that sportsfisher groups in Ill, and Wisc. have raised enough money for another 600,000 yearlings in 2008. This shows alot of cooperation between the different interest groups and DNR's in th lake mich fishery.

We have another meeting in Nov, so if any of you folks want me to voice an issue for you about our Lk. Mich fishery, feel free to contact me, by Pm, or email.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Spanky is accurate with his observations and comments. I was there listening in as GLSFC. There were times during the debates that I felt a bit embarrassed for the DNR fishery staff. They are charged with the responsibility to serve the clients of the whole Lake Michigan committee, including all the other lake basins and inland coldwater fisheries. They are strapped with gutted funding and hatchery limitations.

Remember the NIMBY syndrome? I heard a strong sense of the opposite (me, mine, my river, and I want more local fish) syndrome. When fishing is tough (2005 lake-wide hearings) fishermen complain, and when we get lucky (2006 good fishery) fishermen still complain? Some things never change on our 40-year anniversary of the GL salmon fishery.

The DNR will in good faith come forward with future fishery options at the next meeting. The DNR will still be strapped for cash and hatchery limitations. There will be several trade this for that debates. Can the LMCFAC please be more realistic and a bit less selfish and greedy at the next meeting? I hope so.


----------



## WALLEYEvision (Dec 5, 2003)

caznik said:


> I say leave the limit at 3 like it is now.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

I agree on the greedy stuff, HR, I too was a bit embarassed for the fisheries department. The arguing parties on opposite ends of the room have not been at previous meetings , and I wonder what brought them to this one. Its good to have some new ideas and discussions, but these folks, especially some of the captains from the northern Lk. Mich ports continued to drill the DNR about planting more steelhead, and ending the coho plants in the state altogether, because they didn't get many cohos in their ports!

One of the most important goals for the fisheries department is to continue managing a diverse fishery with opportunities for all michigan anglers, and to protect our native species of fish and wildlife.
I also would like to mention that the "general consensus" from the majority of captains is: this years king fishery is the best it has been in over 2 decades, lakewide. The trawl surveys are looking slightly better than last year, and reports from anglers show healthier fish and fuller stomaches than the last few years.

When I do recieve the agenda for the Nov. meeting, I will post it in this forum, and if anyone wants to speak their" constructive" mind/ thoughts, I will compile them for comment at the meeting if need be. 

The Lk. Mich fishery is in very good shape as a whole, and the department is not gonna take a nap just because it is well. We still have alot of issues, like invasives, budget constraints, tribal issues, and water quality/diversion. The lamprey problem is getting very bad, and the cormorant issue is getting some attention. Money is the biggest problem, and after this election year, There will be a license increase for 2008, the work has already begun on it, and it has to happen. I would expect 2-3 dollars increase per license, and another couple bucks per trout stamp. The wildlife department has the same budget woes, and I would bet the increase will come to their permits too!

Thanks for the input guys!


----------



## STEINFISHSKI (Jan 30, 2001)

I have no real issues with the current limits, but do believe that with all of the reduced stocking and baitfish levels concern that a change should be made without impacting the overall fishery. The DNR has already stated that raising the limit to 5 fish will not impact the fishery, so it stands to reason why not change it back. Since Michigan has made it's change and other states have not followed suit like they intended, why not change back to make all of the Lake Michigan states fisheries limits and rules uniform? Why should Michigan alone lower their take of this shared resource?

I'm really not buying into the overall satisfaction rating of "limiting out" and that angler satisfaction would decrease with a 5 fish limit. A successful day on the lake has little to do with taking a limit every day out, and each angler has the responsibility to limit their catch to what they can use. I have supplied my friends, neighbors, and co-workers with all they can use, and have donated some of my catches to the needy and other causes as well, including guys at the dock who had no luck and wanted some fish. I have yet to see any fish go to waste in all my years fishing Lake MI. It almost seems like they seem intent on protecting ourselves from ourselves. This article paints the recreational anglers with a broad brush with the labels like crabbing, grumbling, wasteful, which I fully disagree with overall. This was quoted by a charter captain, who I understand have their own agendas, and should consider a catch based on what their clients can use, instead of being intent on catching their clients limits each time out. I could see this leading to waste, and should be a consideration before heading out, under their own condemnation.

I really appreciate the people who take the time to attend and speak on behalf of captains and anglers in Michigan. I applaud the efforts to maintain our coho fishery, and the DNR to take action to reduce stocking levels for the health of the fishery. Keep up the great work, and THANK YOU for investing time and energy in these issues that affect us all!


----------



## waterfoul (May 18, 2005)

I got a HUGE king in the Grand Saturday that had the biggest lampry I've ever seen stuck to it. Unfortunatly it released from the fish before any of us could do anything about it. I'd gladly pay an increased license fee if it means getting rid of these kinds of invasive and parasitic species. As for the limits, since I rarely keep a fish the limit question is moot with me.


----------

