# Trout Season Closure?



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> Didn't know that. Wisconsin sells about 20% more licenses than Michigan with about half the population. Roughly 25% of the population there has a license as compared to about 12% in Michigan. I think it is high time we look at how other states are doing things and if those things would work here.


WI has always historically sold LOTS of fishing licenses, part of their culture. Here's a Department of the Interior report from 1976, way before WI's special regs:

http://www.fws.gov/news/historic/1977/19770613.pdf

I don't agree that WI special regs are doing anything special for their fishing license sales, WI's are declining like the rest of the states. All that in spite of the fact that WI has had a tremendous turn-around in the their trout fishery as a whole due to improved farming practices, smart stocking (native fish), and tons of habitat improvements. They have literally 100's more designated trout streams now than they had a few decades ago.

That said, Special Regs are kinda off topic other than the fact that an early season may need to come with some sort of restrictions. 

What's are your thoughts/concerns on an early season?
Don


----------



## fishinDon

plugger said:


> I would be concerned about the foot traffic, both on the banks and on spawning redds. Our streams and rivers take a beating at peak times and need to heal. I have not felt limited as far as to stream oppurtunities any time of the year. Whilen I dont target browns some days the take is beyod real.


Thanks for your reply Mike, very valid concerns indeed.
Don


----------



## kzoofisher

In 1976 Wi had 1.4 million license holders, with a pop. of 2 million. Mi had 1.25 million license holders, pop. 9 million, so it is true that Wisconsin has a history of stronger outdoor participation than Michigan. As for regulations, Michigan has 40 pages of regulations with 2 pages dedicated to county exceptions and 15 pages for trout and salmon specific regs. Wisconsin has a 71 page reg book with 32 pages of county exceptions and 7 pages for Lakes Superior, Michigan and Green Bay including tribs there; 3 distinct regions for special regs in urban areas and a north/south split for bass management. A quick survey of the county exceptions shows many hundreds (I quit before I got past the letter C at 100) of lakes and streams, with restrictions on sizes, seasons, bag limits (from unlimited to C&R) and trolling for species such as: walleye, sauger, pike, musky, bass, catfish and panfish. Some of these restrictions are designated for a *quality* experience. This does not include the inland trout regulations which is a 42 page booklet that includes a listing of stream types and maps similar to the one Michigan had a few years ago.

Clearly, the anglers of Wisconsin support a much more complicated structure than we do here and they support a broader range of management goals than we do. The point is that Wisconsin's egalitarian spirit maintains a high level of participation in the outdoors. The one size fits all spirit in Michigan seems to be driving a lot of people away.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Clearly, the anglers of Wisconsin support a much more complicated structure than we do here and they support a broader range of management goals than we do. The point is that Wisconsin's egalitarian spirit maintains a high level of participation in the outdoors. The one size fits all spirit in Michigan seems to be driving a lot of people away.


There are many people in Wisconsin that see it quite differently. :lol:


----------



## kzoofisher

I'm sure there are, but they still buy licenses at twice the rate we do in Michigan. A big problem there was in 1995 when Wisconsin made the same mistake we did and gave the governor too much power over the DNR. Heck, things have gotten so politicized in Michigan that some groups, when they are unhappy with the DNR's management, go to a sympathetic legislator and try to get some law to override DNR policy. That results in further politicizing the department, alienating resource professionals and destroying morale in the DNR. It's disgusting, but some people just can't stand to lose an argument.


----------



## fishinDon

Kzoo- what is your opinion on an early trout season? 
Thx, 
Don

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Heck, things have gotten so politicized in Michigan that some groups, when they are unhappy with the DNR's management, go to a sympathetic legislator and try to get some law to override DNR policy. That results in further politicizing the department, alienating resource professionals and destroying morale in the DNR. It's disgusting, but some people just can't stand to lose an argument.


Things have been moving in a politicized atmosphere thanks to social management taking precedent over biological. I think you are just beginning to see groups come to this realization and starting to make stands based on their idiology. Expect more of it, its not going away.


----------



## kzoofisher

No problem with it or an extended season so long as precautions are taken to protect spawning. I think the weather offers enough protection from over fishing. I suppose that creel limits may be set based on a 5 month season so they may need adjustment, but that doesn't sound too complicated. Quite a bit of water was opened up for extended seasons this year and that would provide a good test if anyone wanted to study the effects of a year round fishing.


----------



## REG

I think we need to back up here. First of all, we are looking at data well over 30 years old. Anything out there more current? I found some data from ASA for 2004, but the data categories and numbers were different from the FWS lit that Don had posted.

Moreover, I believe that was well before WI initiated much of their special regulations and more importantly, before much of the habitat restoration, aquacultural paradigm shifts and resultant increase in cold water stream mileage had occured. Additionally, other factors ie % of urban population, access, etc needs to be considered as potential factors. Lastly, I don't think with the data on hand should be extrapolated to mean that their trout fishery primarily was responsible for the difference in numbers, in fact, my guess would be not even close.

At face value, there is that populous state to the south of them that generates quite a bit of out of state license revenue. 

Anecdotally, in Illinois, many more anglers I talk with fish WI on an annual basis than MI, probably by 3 or 4 to 1. This in no way should be interpreted as WI being "better", just much more convenient.


----------



## kzoofisher

*Lastly, I don't think with the data on hand should be extrapolated to mean that their trout fishery primarily was responsible for the difference in numbers, in fact, my guess would be not even close.*


Hope I didn't give the impression that I thought the trout regs were responsible for the difference in per capita participation. The examples I gave did not include any trout regs and were to show that regulations in and of themselves were not a significant factor in angler participation. I firmly believe that a state with as many different rules, on as many different waters, for as many species of fish as Wisconsin has, is a state that recognizes that quality fisheries are a priority and its citizens are smart enough support and adhere to those rules.

I don't doubt that many Chicago anglers fish the driftless area but is it because of its proximity? It is a 4-5 hour drive from the northern suburbs or downtown Chicago to that part of Wisconsin. Hardly more than the drive to Baldwin, let alone all the waters south of the P.M.. I would be stunned if 50% of license holders in Wisconsin were from Illinois. That is about how many it would take to make Wisconsin's per capita angling equal to Michigan's. However, if hundreds of thousands of Illini choose to fish in Wisconsin it is further evidence that regulations do not discourage angling and may in fact encourage it.

Ray,
you do not seem to lament the politicizing of the DNR as I do. Check out the link and then consider the cumulative effect of many small groups getting legislation introduced that will hog tie the DNR and that legislation having *compromises* added to it by people with no interest in our natural heritage. Also imagine that the brother of the single largest donor to our Governors campaign is not a board member of a statewide conservation group, as is the case today, but rather a board member of PETA. I find it frightening.

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/12/right_to_ride_redux_horse_bill.html


----------



## REG

Kzoo, the driftless area can be accessed in less than 3 hours from Chicago. From where I am, I can reach Black Earth Creek in a bit over 2. It's a large area so if someone wants to spend another hour/hour and a half in the car to get further into it, they can do it. Traffic out and back into Chicago of course is a big part of the game, but there are more options for broken field running to get back home from WI. Having to go around the horn of LM to get to MI can be daunting, especially during the summer. 

That said, for my personal interests I much rather fish MI waters, but that is just me.

You are right about the regs being more exhaustive in WI but not all of it is what you might think. For example, walleye limits on a myriad of Northwoods WI lakes are dictated and changable based on Indian treaty agreements. As far as WI trout regs, there appears to have been s shift also to simplify regs and decrease the amount of restrictions.


----------



## fishinDon

I think the driftless area draws a decent crowd from Minneapolis/St Paul as well, based on anecdotal evidence from a few guys I know who live in WI.

All that aside, some great points in here. I think one of the biggest things to think about is that trout fishermen, in general, have changed over time. Most guys aren't harvesting a lot of fish anymore. Many, many guys release every fish they catch and some creel data showing ~90% voluntary release. So I'm not sure that harvest is a big concern of mine. Besides, I'm sure an early season would have different rules than the regular anway, like WI.

While I'd love to have more opportunity to get out fishing (7 months off the river is a LONG time!), my concerns with an early season are primarly centered around a couple points that have already been brought up in this thread. Spring Spawning and wading (banks and redds). Which I think are essentially proxies for pressure. How much pressure would a spring season generate? In the NLP and UP, probably not much - some years our rivers are hardly fishable by the traditional opener...but if we can get some data for driftless (I'm still trying), that may serve as a proxy for what we might expect in SW and Central MI. 

Thx everyone,
Don


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Ray,
> you do not seem to lament the politicizing of the DNR as I do.
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/12/right_to_ride_redux_horse_bill.html


Wrong. I have stated in many posts the politicizing of our DNR is the biggest threat to our sport there is. I think what you are missing is, its our DNR themselves that are introducing social politics to the process. At this point, you either play the game, or get steam rolled.


----------



## REG

Ranger Ray said:


> Wrong. I have stated in many posts the politicizing of our DNR is the biggest threat to our sport there is. I think what you are missing is, its our DNR themselves that are introducing social politics to the process. At this point, you either play the game, or get steam rolled.


Yeah that! 212 miles, additional PM regs came about through the political pipeline.


----------



## redwing11

Here in CO you can fish for trout year round on rivers and lakes and I don't believe it has hurt the fishing. Some of the best fishing is in the dead of winter when the crowds are way down. 

redwing11


----------



## METTLEFISH

redwing11 said:


> Here in CO you can fish for trout year round on rivers and lakes and I don't believe it has hurt the fishing. Some of the best fishing is in the dead of winter when the crowds are way down.
> 
> redwing11


The above quotation is a big part of why the streams are shut down in winter in Michigan. The fish are at a dis-advantage during winter months and can be decimated by a poacher or two, If a C.O. see's activity outside legal fishing rules he knows chances are they are not legal, investigate. I love the Trout and Salmon that are now established in Michigan, I also would love to see as much attention and budget $ going towards our Native Fishes, of which non are Trout or Salmon. If it would not hurt the fishery I would be for more opportunity to fish.


----------



## troutguy26

If ya dont mind me askking what native fish are we talking about here.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Grayling, Coasters, Sturgeon, & so on.


----------



## Robert Holmes

The good steelhead and salmon fishing that we do have is for the most part good due to the closure of the small streams. Loads of steelhead and salmon spawn in the streams that are closed from Sept 30 until the last Saturday in April. I would guess that that is a good thing and a reason to keep these streams closed.


----------



## fishinDon

Robert Holmes said:


> The good steelhead and salmon fishing that we do have is for the most part good due to the closure of the small streams. Loads of steelhead and salmon spawn in the streams that are closed from Sept 30 until the last Saturday in April. I would guess that that is a good thing and a reason to keep these streams closed.


Yep, I agree. Some streams certainly benefit from being closed for a variety of reasons, and natural reproduction of trout/salmon/steelhead would be very high on the list of those reasons.

I've opened a dialog with the biologist from WI that BrookID recommened earlier in the thread, I'm hoping he can provide me with some idea of just how much pressure the early season generates there.

Don


----------

