# Perch.......WHY???



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Jimbos said:


> I buy all of my licenses online and answer all polls pertaining to hunting and fishing, and since it's been mentioned here, I've been trying to think back and I just don't remember getting one pertaining to perch limits, if I did I would have voted for 25 inland and 50 in the Great Lakes.


Here is a Migratory bird survey that has to be answered to buy a Small Game/Base license. Go figure.....So how damn hard is it to add a perch survey. It can be done if it was meant for ALL to be heard.


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> View attachment 388921
> View attachment 388921
> View attachment 388921
> 
> Here is a Migratory bird survey that has to be answered to buy a Small Game/Base license. Go figure.....So how damn hard is it to add a perch survey. It can be done if it was meant for ALL to be heard.


I've already bought all of my 2019 base, hunting/fishing and combo tag licenses since I just bought a turkey license and no way did I answer that survey, I would of remembered that.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

Jimbos said:


> I buy all of my licenses online and answer all polls pertaining to hunting and fishing, and since it's been mentioned here, I've been trying to think back and I just don't remember getting one pertaining to perch limits, if I did I would have voted for 25 inland and 50 in the Great Lakes.





Bay BornNRaised said:


> Would actually prefer the limit be 100 on Great lakes.


Once we throw in TK81's desire for a 50 fish limit, it looks like everyone has a different idea, which I guess makes me and two of you guys completely wrong.


----------



## MossyHorns (Apr 14, 2011)

Jimbos said:


> I've already bought all of my 2019 base, hunting/fishing and combo tag licenses since I just bought a turkey license and no way did I answer that survey, I would of remembered that.


If you did not do that survey, then you are not legal to hunt migratory birds like woodcock. My 2018 base license shows that I did the migratory bird survey. That survey has been around for as long as I can remember. In the past I have had to ask for it, but it should be automatically given to you. I believe you can go back and do it after the fact and get a print out, which is free.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

Lund Explorer said:


> Once we throw in TK81's desire for a 50 fish limit, it looks like everyone has a different idea, which I guess makes me and two of you guys completely wrong.


Would you care to share some links that help whatever you are arguing for? Right now I literally have no idea how many different viewpoints you have other than you believe anything that the DNR says and think that it's okay for the NRC to do things that were admittedly not based on scientific based evidence it was strictly socially driven socially driven is not the way to manage a resource. Do you think anyone that's got an idea should just socially be able to say hey let's do this? That's the reason we don't have a dub season. That's the reason we don't have a sandhill crane season. That's the reason we don't have a wolf season already anymore. So if you would like to just put the hands of the majority which the majority means lots and masses of people that have nothing to do with the sport then you should probably rethink the way that you're thinking. So as soon as you find evidence that proves that we should drop the limit of perch and that they should be thinking about dropping the limit on Bluegill you let us know good luck finding that evidence because it's not out there. There's a huge flaw with a system when the minority can bring something up and have it changed. The same went with the Chuming band. The same goals with all the Flies only Waters and the no-kill stretches of river that every year either grow or are proposed to grow. What do you think the majority of people would like to see done with fishing or hunting? The majority of people doesn't matter because the majority of people don't hunt or fish. The NRC was put in place to make scientific based decisions they have failed to do so time and time again they go with the deepest Pockets or whatever they decide to do on a certain day and socially driven laws are not what they were put into place for apologize if some of that doesn't make sense I'm busy working so I can try to enjoy my fishing time when I get a chance and voice texting all this


----------



## WALLEYE MIKE (Jan 7, 2001)

I'd rather be fishing said:


> Misunderstood your point.
> 
> About 10yrs ago I worked, on a job, with a guy that grew up on Walpole. He told me about a "sweat lodge?" he attended that weekend. Anyhow I asked him about duck hunting. He told me they shot ducks until they ran out of shells....then I asked about fishing? He immediately said, "the nets". He told me they didn't fish they ran nets (guessing 40yrs ago). I was wondering if anyone knows if the native Canadian's still run the nets from the reservation. I can't find any info. Doesn't really matter those 2 treaties are still honored.
> From what I've read Little Bay deNoc has been hammered.


Recently (last couple of years) some Walpole Indians did set nets on our side (LSC). They were caught.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

Sparky23 said:


> Would you care to share some links that help whatever you are arguing for?


You have already seen what the DNR decided on, and I've already said that I didn't have a problem with it. That is simply an opinion, something I have a right to.

I have been asking all day for a link to the "science" everyone keeps bellowing about, but haven't seen one bit of it. I'm starting to think that the only science involved is located between the ears of the "real sportsmen".


----------



## WALLEYE MIKE (Jan 7, 2001)

Sparky23 said:


> Yes trap gnats are used and it's also been proven time and time again that the majority of the fish in those trap gnats are killed and not released


I mean't no gill nets here. Canada, I don't know.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Lund Explorer said:


> I'm starting to think that the only science involved is located between the ears of the "real sportsmen".


WOW is all your getting......


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

TK81 said:


> I've read a bunch of your posts and you seem to be a sensible guy. Didn't know you had an interest in anything besides trout and salmonids, but I don't know you.
> 
> I don't have a problem with all "social" regulations, but I do with this one. Sensible social regulations include some level of logic. No matter how hard I look...I can't find that logic with respect to the new perch limit.
> 
> ...


I'm interested in all types of fishing. Just more obsessed with salmonids. I also graduated MSU with a BS in Wildlife management so I have an interest in fisheries management.

The first 3 examples are the ones given by the managers who first brought the idea to stakeholders. Natural inclination would be to say "Why not set the limit to 50 statewide instead of 25 because that would also satisfy at least the first 2" I guess the answer would be standardizing the the panfish limit and also angler satisfaction. Surveys have proven that anglers place a level of satisfaction and accomplishment in obtaining a limit of fish. I've experienced this theory first hand with the change in salmon limits on the great lakes when they went from 3 of any one species to 5. Same thing when the walleye limit went to 8 on Saginaw bay. I was less satisfied with catching the same amount of fish I used to be limited by. Do I personally want those 2 limits to go back to the lower numbers anymore than you want perch to drop to 25? Hell no LOL. But I understand the social science behind it. And in addition those 2 increases were done to achieve specific biologic goals.

And to be honest I think the attitudes by some stating that the survey was done poorly and people didn't have enough opportunity to voice objections are BS. Was it done perfectly? No not more than anything else in life. But the samples obtained were more than statistically significant to have relatively high confindence in the results. Add the public meetings held across the state and I would say they made a reasonable effort to engage public opinion. I for sure don't agree with all or managers decisions but I like to be fair in the criticisms of them. Too often people put forth the opinion that they are ignorant bumbling idiots with no idea what they're doing


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

tgafish said:


> I'm interested in all types of fishing. Just more obsessed with salmonids. I also graduated MSU with a BS in Wildlife management so I have an interest in fisheries management.
> 
> The first 3 examples are the ones given by the managers who first brought the idea to stakeholders. Natural inclination would be to say "Why not set the limit to 50 statewide instead of 25 because that would also satisfy at least the first 2" I guess the answer would be standardizing the the panfish limit and also angler satisfaction. Surveys have proven that anglers place a level of satisfaction and accomplishment in obtaining a limit of fish. I've experienced this theory first hand with the change in salmon limits on the great lakes when they went from 3 of any one species to 5. Same thing when the walleye limit went to 8 on Saginaw bay. I was less satisfied with catching the same amount of fish I used to be limited by. Do I personally want those 2 limits to go back to the lower numbers anymore than you want perch to drop to 25? Hell no LOL. But I understand the social science behind it. And in addition those 2 increases were done to achieve specific biologic goals.
> 
> And to be honest I think the attitudes by some stating that the survey was done poorly and people didn't have enough opportunity to voice objections are BS. Was it done perfectly? No not more than anything else in life. But the samples obtained were more than statistically significant to have relatively high confindence in the results. Add the public meetings held across the state and I would say they made a reasonable effort to engage public opinion. I for sure don't agree with all or managers decisions but I like to be fair in the criticisms of them. Too often people put forth the opinion that they are ignorant bumbling idiots with no idea what they're doing


No disrespect unless you are referring to me as a Idiot. Is that the case? Are you referring to me as a "Ignorant bumbling idiot with no idea what they're doing"?


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> No disrespect unless you are referring to me as a Idiot. Is that the case? Are you referring to me as a "Ignorant bumbling idiot with no idea what they're doing"?


No. Sorry about the confusion Brian. I'm saying that's the opinion some people put forth about fisheries managers.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

tgafish said:


> No. Sorry about the confusion Brian. I'm saying that's the opinion some people put forth about fisheries managers.


All good. I do understand that its frustrating for both sides. Nothing is perfect, although we all know many mistakes usually happen first before it gets close to perfect!


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

tgafish said:


> I'm interested in all types of fishing. Just more obsessed with salmonids. I also graduated MSU with a BS in Wildlife management so I have an interest in fisheries management.
> 
> The first 3 examples are the ones given by the managers who first brought the idea to stakeholders. Natural inclination would be to say "Why not set the limit to 50 statewide instead of 25 because that would also satisfy at least the first 2" I guess the answer would be standardizing the the panfish limit and also angler satisfaction. Surveys have proven that anglers place a level of satisfaction and accomplishment in obtaining a limit of fish. I've experienced this theory first hand with the change in salmon limits on the great lakes when they went from 3 of any one species to 5. Same thing when the walleye limit went to 8 on Saginaw bay. I was less satisfied with catching the same amount of fish I used to be limited by. Do I personally want those 2 limits to go back to the lower numbers anymore than you want perch to drop to 25? Hell no LOL. But I understand the social science behind it. And in addition those 2 increases were done to achieve specific biologic goals.
> 
> And to be honest I think the attitudes by some stating that the survey was done poorly and people didn't have enough opportunity to voice objections are BS. Was it done perfectly? No not more than anything else in life. But the samples obtained were more than statistically significant to have relatively high confindence in the results. Add the public meetings held across the state and I would say they made a reasonable effort to engage public opinion. I for sure don't agree with all or managers decisions but I like to be fair in the criticisms of them. Too often people put forth the opinion that they are ignorant bumbling idiots with no idea what they're doing



Thanks for the detailed response. I admit it is nice to get a limit of gills, but I had a couple trips this fall where I kept 31 and 40 perch. I would have been bummed out to release the 6 and 15 perch from those outings. I don't think I got a limit once this fall. A handful of other outings resulted in my catch ranging from 0 to about 20. I was specifically targeting perch, but I mainly fish inland lakes. I buy perch minnows often occasionally from Al and Bob's and most often from Brenners. I bought my license at Al and Bob's like I do almost every year. I only heard the buzz on this website, never from fellow anglers on the water or in the bait shops. That alone tells me that Bay Born is correct on his assessment of the survey.

I hear your point about anglers feeling better if they get a limit, but since I never limited on specks this year...perhaps we should lower the speck limit to 10 or so? Your thoughts? I sure as heck wouldn't feel any better. I didn't realize the DNR's objective was to make anglers feel better about getting a limit.

*I never asserted that the DNR are ignorant. I asserted that the DNR putting weight into and making law on a flawed survey based on misguided "feel good" instead of science is whacked. Instead of reducing the limit, they should have put a couple paragraghs into the guide to help less informed anglers understand the biology behind sensible management decisions.* I am a big DNR supporter. I just disagree with this action strongly and so does the science.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

I'll say again that I do not believe it was the dnr as much as the nrc. I could care less about the perch limit really. I dont fish them enough anymore for it to matter. It was cool the few times I've taken 50 through the ice but I'm more concerned with the changing of our game laws being driven by social aspects and special interest groups. That is NOT what the nrc was put in place to do.


----------



## Mike Dayne (Apr 29, 2018)

Sparky23 said:


> I'll say again that I do not believe it was the dnr as much as the nrc. I could care less about the perch limit really. I dont fish them enough anymore for it to matter. It was cool the few times I've taken 50 through the ice but I'm more concerned with the changing of our game laws being driven by social aspects and special interest groups. That is NOT what the nrc was put in place to do.



Ok-I got sucked in. You guys are going to crucify me but the reduction in perch numbers is basic population ecology that we (humans) can control. If we want to continue our huge walleye population, we need to plan on maintaining food sources. Basic population ecology, 1lb walleye needs 5lbs of perch/goby/shiner. 5lbs. Of peforage fish needs weight of 25lbs of zooplankton (scuds, wiggelers, etc), 
It’s the whole food chain/food pyramid from high school. 

I’m really not trying to piss anyone off. The reason for south haven does not having a perch fishery anymore was from the exotic species that have been accidentally introduced. Zebra and quagga mussels. Think about it, one little mussel can filter 1 pint of water a day removing all the nutrients needed for the plankton. Multiply that by 50 trillion (NOAA, 2015). That’s how many estimated individual mussels are in Lake Michigan. It used to be ok. Zebra mussels only lived in 120fow (foot of water) or shallower. Now we also have quagga, closely related to zebra mussels, but have been found 975 fow. 
No plankton- no scuds (fresh water shrimp, main food source for perch). No scuds-no perch. 
It scares the hell out of me that if Asian carp get into Great Lakes, they can eat 1/3 their weight in plankton A DAY. Think what could happen to the entire Great Lakes ecosystem. It hard to climb a food chain ladder, when your missing the bottom rung. 

I know in they changed salmon and trout regs from 3/5 rule to 5 of anything. In 90’s salmon had a collapse due to BKD (bacterial kidney disease). We were able to test for BKD at the egg taking weirs (Little Manistee, platt river, traverse city). Eggs that tested positive-destroyed, negative-hatched then planted to rivers. Now, it’s more to help preserve the alwiefe stock. They were finding lower spawning rates of alewives in 2010. You could walk along rivers when alewives were spawning (April) and see a steady “ribbon of fish” 3-5 ft wide. (Pike loved to see that!) Like all things you could get late spawned during the summer and old calm full moon nights, you would hear therm swirling, splashing, making woopie. 
People say “plant more fish”, the only problem with this is there nothing for the stocked fish to eat. 

I’ve rambled on long enough. 
Feel free to pm me if you would like to talk about it. I did a lot of work for DNR in undergrad. Tracking steelhead migrations, bear census un manistee nat forest. Still have many friends I talk to in fisheries and wildlife. All of them are avid fishermen and hunters.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

steveh27 said:


> The survey was NOT available to all. It was only sent to those who bought their licenses online. Most knew nothing about this. I believe the response to that small survey number was under 14% of that flawed electronic sample.


Are you saying people that buy licenses online vote differently than those who buy at a store?


----------



## steveh27 (Oct 23, 2000)

sureshot006 said:


> Are you saying people that buy licenses online vote differently than those who buy at a store?


Yes, they are probably younger.
It also covered the whole state whereas my argument was only for LSC and they did not look only at those near LSC. As much of the state already had lowered limits those distant responders were less likely to care about a statewide reduction as they already had one. LSC perch anglers were definitely against this by a wide margin.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

steveh27 said:


> Yes, they are probably younger.
> It also covered the whole state whereas my argument was only for LSC and they did not look only at those near LSC. As much of the state already had lowered limits those distant responders were less likely to care about a statewide reduction as they already had one. LSC perch anglers were definitely against this by a wide margin.


I agree it would have been different if the survey was focused on LSC. But that was never the intent and therefore it isnt actually flawed. It was as designed, but with unfavorable outcome for those living near LSC.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

It was a Flawed survey all the way around! As stated if it was a fair survey it could of been done just like other surveys done like answering the Migratory bird survey. Which I feel very confident the outcome would of been different.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> It was a Flawed survey all the way around!


Surveys are not designed for your desired outcome.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

sureshot006 said:


> Surveys are not designed for your desired outcome.


Yours either! Far from just "My" outcome many let me say it again Many are not happy with the so called outcome. More are disappointed than HAPPY so Cheers to the minority!


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> Yours either! Far from just "My" outcome many let me say it again Many are not happy with the so called outcome.


I didn't really care what way it went. All I'm saying is blaming it on a flawed survey is just flawed logic. Statistics does work.

The real complaint you have is the sample itself. Not the sample size, not the response rate. If samples were taken from the bay region and LSC region, it would likely have turned out how you wanted. Much like if one state got to rule a whole election.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

What do most people think about the old 25 limit for the bay itself?


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Ok


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

sureshot006 said:


> What do most people think about the old 25 limit for the bay itself?


Stinks to say it nicely!


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> Stinks to say it nicely!


I can understand that, but do folks feel it was warranted to help their population? I get the frustration with commercial fishing, too, but do fishermen feel a reduced limit helps the population?


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

Mike Dayne said:


> Ok-I got sucked in. You guys are going to crucify me but the reduction in perch numbers is basic population ecology that we (humans) can control. If we want to continue our huge walleye population, we need to plan on maintaining food sources. Basic population ecology, 1lb walleye needs 5lbs of perch/goby/shiner. 5lbs. Of peforage fish needs weight of 25lbs of zooplankton (scuds, wiggelers, etc),
> It’s the whole food chain/food pyramid from high school.
> 
> I’m really not trying to piss anyone off. The reason for south haven does not having a perch fishery anymore was from the exotic species that have been accidentally introduced. Zebra and quagga mussels. Think about it, one little mussel can filter 1 pint of water a day removing all the nutrients needed for the plankton. Multiply that by 50 trillion (NOAA, 2015). That’s how many estimated individual mussels are in Lake Michigan. It used to be ok. Zebra mussels only lived in 120fow (foot of water) or shallower. Now we also have quagga, closely related to zebra mussels, but have been found 975 fow.
> ...


I'm thinking we are on the same page...? That is kind of the point why drop limits when there is no science to do so...the science says that more fish means less forage meaning smaller sizes and a slow tumble downhill on fishing like what happened on huron and Lake Michigan with help of zebs. It has nothing to do with zebras now as they are almost gone the quaga's have pushed them out. I agree 100% in the lowered plants on salmon in l. Michigan the problems with that is that it should have been. Uniformed drop in Lakers as well across the board. With the walleye pop booooooming in st. Claire a reduced perch limit will not benefit anglers. Imo.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

sureshot006 said:


> I can understand that, but do folks feel it was warranted to help their population? I get the frustration with commercial fishing, too, but do fishermen feel a reduced limit helps the population?


Recreational perch anglers do not put a significant dent in the population. So my answer would be a lower limit for hook n line will not increase perch populations.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

When it was a hundo most didnt even come close to limits. At 50 anglers struggled to get close to that in many outings. Hell at 25 most couldnt fill their limits. So just because most can't screw the ones that can and do....Again another example of the minority can persuade the Majority.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> Recreational perch anglers do not put a significant dent in the population. So my answer would be a lower limit for hook n line will not increase perch populations.


I think I agree with that, without data. But the limit was decreased due to predation by walleye and birds, right? Aside from reducing limits on perch, and increasing limits on walleye, what current legal options are there?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> When it was a hundo most didnt even come close to limits. At 50 anglers struggled to get close to that in many outings. Hell at 25 most couldnt fill their limits. So just because most can't screw the ones that can and do....Again another example of the minority can persuade the Majority.


No... the last presidential election is an example of how a minority overruled the majority, not the perch survey. Goes back to that whole regional sample thing.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

sureshot006 said:


> I think I agree with that, without data. But the limit was decreased due to predation by walleye and birds, right? Aside from reducing limits on perch, and increasing limits on walleye, what current legal options are there?


The limit was decreased to make it easier for the anglers to understand boundries and CO's to enforce anglers ignorance. Its been stated that and have heard it right from a CO's mouth. Legal options, STOP ALL NETTING of our Game/Sportfish. Junkfish only!


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> The limit was decreased to make it easier for the anglers to understand boundries and CO's to enforce anglers ignorance. Its been stated that and have heard it right from a CO's mouth. Legal options, STOP ALL NETTING of our Game/Sportfish. Junkfish only!


No, I meant the previous reduction. I should have been more clear.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

sureshot006 said:


> No... the last presidential election is an example of how a minority overruled the majority, not the perch survey. Goes back to that whole regional sample thing.


Lol wont go into detail seeing its a political example. Will say tho I feel the same way about Trump as I do about this bogus survey.


----------



## Mike Dayne (Apr 29, 2018)

Sparky23 said:


> I'm thinking we are on the same page...? That is kind of the point why drop limits when there is no science to do so...the science says that more fish means less forage meaning smaller sizes and a slow tumble downhill on fishing like what happened on huron and Lake Michigan with help of zebs. It has nothing to do with zebras now as they are almost gone the quaga's have pushed them out. I agree 100% in the lowered plants on salmon in l. Michigan the problems with that is that it should have been. Uniformed drop in Lakers as well across the board. With the walleye pop booooooming in st. Claire a reduced perch limit will not benefit anglers. Imo.


I agree. As far as salmon, every single hatchery fish now has an adipose fin clip. I remember late 90’s early 2000’s 3/5 salmon were hatchery fish. Now your lucky to be 1/10. DNR really would like to stop hatchery salmon. There is about 95% natural reproduction on many of the large rivers. They started planting Brown trout from Black lake brood stock. The older brown stock (seferellen) was getting a little inbred and the gene pool needed chlorination. I agree, the quaggas basically wiped the zebs out. 
It’s kind of funny, almost all the sport fish we go for were planted. Grayling, lake trout, whitefish, sturgeon were really the only native fish. Steelhead/RBT-Oregon, brown trout-Germany, brook trout-Appalachia, coho and kings- pacific nw, pink salmon—accidental release from a Canadian hatchery, Atlantic-found in lk Ontario originally, now stocked through soo Sault Marie, smelt-came in through locks around niagra falls, ditto for lamprey,ditto for alewife; gobies, white perch, zebs and quagga-balast from freighters.
Reason for salmon was to minimize “stinky beach” from alewife dieoffs. DNR looked at pacific salmon, striped bass. They figured salmon would follow alewives more in open water. They were afraid the stripers would end up going after perch and hang closer to rocks/jettys/break walls beaches.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

And now they just stopped planting browns basically.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

The theories and studies between salmon/trout to perch are at two opposite sides of the spectrum. No comparison to feed to spawing habitat. Not to mention this is a Perch thread, move the biology and theories of the Salmon aspect to the Cold water section.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

Perch thread or not it's a thread of management and lack there of and you can see no greater mistakes management wise than in salmon


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Smelt were planted in Crystal Lake about 100 years ago and escaped into Lake Michigan.

The DNR has tried about 4-5 strains of browns in the last 15 years. Seoferollen or however it's spelled, Wild Rose, Gilchrist, Black River...


Used to work in South Haven, about 20 years ago this time of year the cops had to direct traffic as it was a two hour wait to launch. Bait shops got minnows daily. We could not get to some places to eat lunch as rigs were backed up into town. You can't tell me that many perch getting caught didn't hurt things.


----------

