# The Ugly Truth



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

about our most prized Lake Michigan tribs in this state. Tribs that have cold water and can sustain natural reproduction for native trout and anadromous species. Simply put, they are being neglected because of lack of foresight and funding that is being used to maintain fisheries in water that lacks their quality and a Lake Michigan fishery. Until dedication and funding is made to maintain or improve the quality of these streams, the slide will continue. There is a reason why the DNR does not want to introduce hatchery anadromous fish to these systems and I hope they never have to resort to that, but perhaps the time has come to seriously
reconsider what these stream have to offer that others do not and channel their efforts to the conservation of these gems.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

What would you like to see done to improve these streams?

1-Bank stabilization would probably be #1 to me. It seems every time I go down the river it's wider, shallower and sandier.

2-woody cover correctly placed to create habbitat. 

3- Lmit use or over use. esp during salmon season. The banks get tromped down and broken down by too many people entering and exiting carelessly.

4- Reduce commercial use of the river, Ie guides and canoe liverys. 

5- Reduce the size of bikinis in the upper river.

6- I cant beleive I am saying this but maybe going to a traditional trout season. Closed sept 1 to the last saturday in april. Thefish might not need the closure but the river does.

I have come to beleive we asking too much from too small a river. Put the canoes guides ect on the muskegon or big M. The larger rivers could better handle the traffic and these rivers are dammed and not the natural rivers the PM is.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

I'd like to see some of what you said Mike, esp bikini size, but mostly I'd like to see our state make a commitment to all these cold running streams, not just the PM.


----------



## johnnie555 (Jan 25, 2005)

riverman said:


> I'd like to see some of what you said Mike, esp bikini size, but mostly I'd like to see our state make a commitment to all these cold running streams, not just the PM.


 AMEN TO THAT!!!


----------



## duxdog (Apr 13, 2008)

I fish Bear Creek aLot. I have for 22 years now. It used to be a treasure for fishing. Now it is in a sad state due to the tremendous pressure that it has endured in the last 10 yrs. Now it seams every time I am there there are guides on the river and countless numbers of people whether it is a Tuesday or a Saturday. This river receives ZERO plants of any species and should be taken care of and embraced especially by the BM crowd because it is the life blood of that river. This is what I would like to see for this watershed.

1. No guiding on this river

2. No kill of female of any species

3. 1 fish limit all year

4. close to fishing March 15-April 15 and Sept 15- Oct 15


----------



## Tunaman (Apr 17, 2006)

How about starting from scrach again and get some eggs from the west coast of the U.S. Maybe a different strain of fish will fare better in our waters.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I dont beleive fish stocks are the biggest problem facing our cold water streams.


----------



## duxdog (Apr 13, 2008)

Fish stocking is not the answer.It is a short term solution. Focusing on allowing and improving natural reproduction is a better road to travel.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Look at the needs of the river first, when those are met then worry about the fish.


----------



## troutblood (Jan 6, 2011)

I would have to say that the dwindling numbers of returns may be due to the lack of baitfish and invasion of zebra mussels and other invasive ******** but I guess i could be wrong. Put the condition of the lake on the back burner its cool let the charter boats continue to murder fish all summer and see how good of returns we get in the future. And ya continue to stock less and less fish too that will definately equate to more fish in the crick. You would think the MDNR would get smarter over the years not dumber.


----------



## wdf73 (Sep 14, 2009)

duxdog said:


> I fish Bear Creek aLot. I have for 22 years now. It used to be a treasure for fishing. Now it is in a sad state due to the tremendous pressure that it has endured in the last 10 yrs. Now it seams every time I am there there are guides on the river and countless numbers of people whether it is a Tuesday or a Saturday. This river receives ZERO plants of any species and should be taken care of and embraced especially by the BM crowd because it is the life blood of that river. This is what I would like to see for this watershed.
> 
> 1. No guiding on this river
> 
> ...


I can see your points, however it seems to me that over regulating is really a two edged sword. Maybe it is just me, but it seems that the more stringent the laws become, the less enjoyable it is to get out and fish. I think that the first step is to simply enforce the laws we have now. I fished Bear Creek during the salmon run last fall. I saw about 3 people for each fish, and as I recall a substantial number of these were using the new "DNR approved" Turk's Ticklers. I assume steelhead are treated in a similar manner. 
Once we can figure out how to put the plug back in the drain, then we can look at filling the tub back up. I would support the regulations you mention as a temporary measure. I think two or three years of this sort of thing would see an amazing resurgence of fish.
There is a small 'unmentionable' creek in our area that used to receive a great run of both salmon and steelhead. Last fall I walked the banks and spotted a female on the nest and two or three males behind her. I made a few casts and hooked and lost one of the males before deciding to check out a spot downstream. 
When I came back, a couple of guys had "caught" the female and one of the males and had them on a stringer. I noticed his rig, and am 99% sure they were foul hooked. 
I would fully support a temporary tightening of regs on this sort of streams, but still feel like it will do no good if we don't enforce the ones we have.


----------



## steelyphil (Feb 10, 2010)

Why not put a one fish limit on all stretches of streams and rivers that have an average yearly flow of LESS THAN 500 cfs? This would encompass small rivers i.e. Betsie, Bear Creek, Little Man, Boyne, Jordan, White, East Branch, Rifle as well as the _upper stretches_ of main rivers where steelhead typically spawn i.e. the PM. 

A relatively easy study could be done to determine the % of wild stocks in any given steelhead and/or salmon run. Special regs could be placed on those rivers with higher rates of natural reproduction.

This seems like common sense to me. Unfortunately, the DNR has NOT always been known for their "common sense." WHO EATS 3 STEELHEAD AT ONCE ANYWAY? FAT ALBERT?


----------



## wdf73 (Sep 14, 2009)

I assume you are talking 1 fish per day? I could live with that. Maybe this is what duxdog meant; I read it as 1 fish per year.
I do still contend that new regs will do no good whatsoever if we don't tighten up the enforcement of current ones. From what I have seen, if the laws regarding the keeping of foul hooked fish were enforced, I would guess the fish kill would be reduced by 75%. If these guys can snag all day and never get checked, why would they think they would need to worry about limits?


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

if you want to save a few fish,go to a single hook reg.with a max.size of #8,anything larger,and you loose your gear,and $1000 fine...yes we all know you can snag with single hook flys,but the smaller the hook,the less chances and less damage to the fish..add tis with reworking the rivers,might help alot..


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

steelyphil said:


> Why not put a one fish limit on all stretches of streams and rivers that have an average yearly flow of LESS THAN 500 cfs? This would encompass small rivers i.e. Betsie, Bear Creek, Little Man, Boyne, Jordan, White, East Branch, Rifle as well as the _upper stretches_ of main rivers where steelhead typically spawn i.e. the PM.
> 
> A relatively easy study could be done to determine the % of wild stocks in any given steelhead and/or salmon run. Special regs could be placed on those rivers with higher rates of natural reproduction.
> 
> This seems like common sense to me. Unfortunately, the DNR has NOT always been known for their "common sense." WHO EATS 3 STEELHEAD AT ONCE ANYWAY? FAT ALBERT?


 
Ding Ding Ding - the carry capacity will be reached every year, right now it is reached most years, but why not try something, anything to help.

Take advantage of good conditions.

After habitat improvement, this is number one to me! I am not for closing rivers, but I am for reducing upstream limits, this would make it more crowded in other places, but there would hopefully be more fish to go around.

Fritz


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Steelheadfred said:


> Ding Ding Ding - the carry capacity will be reached every year, right now it is reached most years, but why not try something, anything to help.
> 
> 
> Fritz


I don't think the state has a clue what current carry capacities are now on these cold streams. Unless someone can prove me wrong I'm willing to bet they are working off old studies and making decisions on that old data. I can say there are sections/areas on the PM that are not even close to capacity or maybe the carry capacity has been drasticly reduced the last ten years by sand overload and habitat destruction. Like I said, a commitment needs to made on these gems.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

The DNR and the Coldwater Regs Committee are currently looking at changes regarding steelhead regulations, it was a pretty hot topic at the Feb meeting and is on the agenda again for June. Most of the discussion was surrounding a 1 fish per day limit on at least the Little Man, and maybe other West side rivers (especially those that are not stocked).

I support the rule on the Little Man, because of not only the importance of that river to the entire state (broodstock), but also because I believe there is some evidence of returns shrinking. If research shows a similar problem for all of our west side rivers, then I'd be on board with the same across the board. 

That said, while I support a 1 fish rule, I have to say that I'm not in love with the idea and it's not 'cause I want to stringer up a bunch of fish. I've kept exactly 1 steelhead in my entire life from a river. I just don't think a 1 fish rule is a "cure all." I think it might help some, but if our biologists think our spawning populations are in real trouble, we need to look at more options.

Simply put, most guys (me included) typically can't catch 3 steelhead in a day but on maybe one "magical" day a year. I bet 5% or less can consistently fair hook and land 3 steel in a day. Most catch 0 or 1. That means going to a lower bag limit is a rule that only effects 5% or less of the fishermen. A better rule would effect every fish caught.


IMO, If you really want to improve the runs you need to do three things in this order:
1. If possible, figure out what's wrong with the big lake and fix it. It's broken and it's only going to get worse (see Lk Huron). I don't have an answer for this, but I believe it's the biggest problem.

2. Improve degrading habitat in the rivers to ensure spawning habitat and good juvenial survival in the rivers. Natural reproduction is the key. Stocking is a band-aide.

3. Adopt a rule that regulates steel harvest equally across the board (big lake and river). Keep the bag limit at 3 or lower to 1, doesn't matter. But make the size limit some number that protects at fairly high percentage of the fish and you'll be on to something...Based on the research I've read the size limit is by far the most effective tool at regulating harvest, effecting population level change, lets use it. I don't know what the right size number is or the right percentage is, but I'm sure the DNR does, so let's find out and start talking about it.

I think you might get buy in from the big lake and near shore guys with an increased size limit as opposed to a reduced bag, and a properly adjusted size limit will protect more adults and get more repeat spawners. This rule is also much easier to understand and enforce than differential bag limits on different rivers.

My 2C...
Don


----------



## wdf73 (Sep 14, 2009)

fishinDon said:


> The DNR and the Coldwater Regs Committee are currently looking at changes regarding steelhead regulations, it was a pretty hot topic at the Feb meeting and is on the agenda again for June. Most of the discussion was surrounding a 1 fish per day limit on at least the Little Man, and maybe other West side rivers (especially those that are not stocked).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

troutblood said:


> I would have to say that the dwindling numbers of returns may be due to the lack of baitfish and invasion of zebra mussels and other invasive ******** .


Bingo!

While everyone reminisces on how good the steelhead fishing was back in the '90's (me included), this also coincided with the highest numbers of steelhead taken by the boat fishery. As the big lake chinook fishing rebounded from the late 80's/early 90's, less big lake captains were willing to run out far off shore when great chinook fishing was happening in much closer. Yet, here we are.

Alot of the current situation is likely to be the food supply or, more precisely, the lack thereof.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Tunaman said:


> How about starting from scrach again and get some eggs from the west coast of the U.S. Maybe a different strain of fish will fare better in our waters.


Unfortunately, or perhaps, fortunately (?), due to disease threat there is a self-imposed quarantine by the various fish management agencies across the great lakes.


----------

