# Salmon and Trout Limits



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I could go eithor way on this issue.

A further explanation of the third choice would be to keep the currents regulations the same, but make it illegal to keep fishing once everyone of board has caught 3 of one species of trout or salmon. This would stop people form continuing to fish after they have limited out on one species and helf save the resource from people throwing back fish that would have a low survival rate. It has been proven that salmon have a very low survival rate when caught and released.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

Trophy Specialist said:


> It has been proven that salmon have a very low survival rate when caught and released.


I'm curious about this subject. Can you share where this has been "proven"? It may affect my vote.

Butch


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

Voted to keep the same. But raising it wouldn't bother me one bit either. I assuming your talking open water not rivers.
Choice #3 was ahead when I voted, I disagree with that 100% myself. Be interestiong to see how this vote pans out.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Butch said:


> I'm curious about this subject. Can you share where this has been "proven"? It may affect my vote.
> 
> Butch


Well maybe "proven" was too strong of a word. I did read where researchers did a study on king salmon where they caught them with hook and line and then put a transmitter in them and the vast majority just died. That study may have put more stress on the fish than normal catch and release. I do know though that when there are big salmon tournaments that allow culling and the fish are biting good, you'll see much more dead fish floating aroud and washing up on the beaches. I don't allow any catch and release on salmon on my boat unless the fish is so small a net is not required and the fish does not show any signs of injury.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Oldgrandman said:


> Voted to keep the same. But raising it wouldn't bother me one bit either. I assuming your talking open water not rivers.
> Choice #3 was ahead when I voted, I disagree with that 100% myself. Be interestiong to see how this vote pans out.


I just looked at some data from two studies: one showed a catch and release mortality rate on chinook of 22.1% and the other showed a 25% mortality rate.

There have been many studies done on coho catch and release mortality which is very high at from 42 to 69 percent depending on the study.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Mike,

Are you aware of any study that shows how many salmon or what percentage die in the rivers and go un-utilized?


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Splitshot said:


> Mike,
> 
> Are you aware of any study that shows how many salmon or what percentage die in the rivers and go un-utilized?


All of the adult king and coho salmon that enter rivers will die there. I have never seen a specific study that shows what you are asking though, but my guess would be most of them die and are not utilized. However if they spawn then they have served a benificial purpose whether they are utilized or not.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I just looked at some data from two studies: one showed a catch and release mortality rate on chinook of 22.1% and the other showed a 25% mortality rate.
> 
> There have been many studies done on coho catch and release mortality which is very high at from 42 to 69 percent depending on the study.



Thanks. Can you post a link(s)?

Butch


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Sorry Mike, I asked the question wrong. first I know all the adults die. I meant if they plant 500,000 how many of those come back to our rivers and out of those how many go un-utilized? I don't want to complicate the issue with spawning and natural productions statistics.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Splitshot said:


> Sorry Mike, I asked the question wrong. first I know all the adults die. I meant if they plant 500,000 how many of those come back to our rivers and out of those how many go un-utilized? I don't want to complicate the issue with spawning and natural productions statistics.


I am not aware of any such studies, and it would be nearly impossible to do so because of non-human caused mortality factors.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Splitshot said:


> Sorry Mike, I asked the question wrong. first I know all the adults die. I meant if they plant 500,000 how many of those come back to our rivers and out of those how many go un-utilized? I don't want to complicate the issue with spawning and natural productions statistics.


They do have stats on how many of them have come back to the rivers in the past. Forinstance, the Swan River has a wier on it right at the mouth and no salmon are allowed past the weir. There is no natural reproduction in that river eithor. It would be a simple mater there of subtracting the number of fish taken at the wier from the total number planted in the Swan. Determining the number of those planted salmon that were "utilized" though would be impossible.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

on lake huron right now if we had a 3 fish only limit....most days 45 minutes and we would be done with amount of lakers out there...i know no one really likes them but the mortality rate is high even a lip hooked fish bleads like a stuck pig...the only law id like to see changed is leaving lakers open all year,,,,the ones caught through the ice die any way...and there seems to be quite a few peir fisherman who want them


----------



## Fletch09 (Jun 4, 2002)

You should add an option where the bag limit for Lake Trout in southern Lake Huron is removed entirely.


----------



## salmon_slayer06 (Mar 19, 2006)

I think 3 fish and you are done. But, you can go back out the same day and catch 3 more, but you can't have more than 3 of one specie at a time.


----------



## Alpha Buck (Jan 24, 2006)

I would not mind seeing an increase for the salmon to 5 fish, but a reduction to 1 for steelhead and browns. Lakers I really do not care what the limit is.


----------



## Tech Rally (Jan 10, 2003)

Splitshot said:


> Sorry Mike, I asked the question wrong. first I know all the adults die. I meant if they plant 500,000 how many of those come back to our rivers and out of those how many go un-utilized? I don't want to complicate the issue with spawning and natural productions statistics.


The following is based on wier counts and plantings on the Little Manistee.

Data based on Little Manistee Wier Counts and Plantings from the DNR 
Wier Count Yr.	Chinook Wier Count Plant Yr Qty Plante %Return
2000 13,029 1998	701945	1.86%
2001 18,279 1,999	491393	3.72%
2002 19,385 2000	317845	6.10%
2003 14,419 2,001	493684	2.92%
2004 15,618 2,002	491525	3.18%
2005 11,075 2,003	591313	1.87%
2006 12,772 2,004	495499	2.58%


----------



## Ozzman (Apr 12, 2007)

Several years ago, when everyone was working on changing the law to allow us to use 3 rods, there was a trade off with the DNR. I will lay odd's that the trade off was if they allowed 3 rods, then there was to be no change to the limits (several groups were working getting both rod count and limits changed concurrently, didnt happen). So do not believe there is much chance of the limits changing at this time or in the near future as the people who agreed to trade off, are still in places of responsibility at the DNR. 

Double check with Kelley Smith Michigan DNR Fisheries, but I believe I am correct in this statement.

Ozzman


----------



## bombcast (Sep 16, 2003)

Steelie limit of 1. 

Hell, take 10 salmon if you want, I don't care.


----------



## TrapperJohn (Jan 14, 2001)

Tech Rally,

The numbers you posted mean nothing! You assumed that all the fish returned in a given year are from a plant 3 years prior. It's not a direct proportion to what was stocked a few years back Mature salmon returning to any given river or weir are of many age fish ranging from 1 to 5 years old. Thus the importance for fisheries biologists to be able age fish.

Example would be Mature Chinook Salmon returning to the Little Manistee River (or any river) this fall will consist of fish from the 
2006 year class (stocked or wild) as mature age 1 males (True Jacks),
2005 year class age 2 both males and females typically this will be the 2nd largest prortion, 2004 year class age 3 again both males and females this will be the largest protion of the run, 
2003 year class age 4 which usually make upp the smallest portion of the returning adults and maybe 2002 year class age 5 which do oocur in Lkae Michigan but are very rare. Aslo rare would be a 2007 year class (hatchery) fish returning in the fall at age 0 (called mini-jacks). A few of these are seen from time to time they are 8-9" long and sexually mature males!

The Year to year year class strength can vary do to many things. But most on the mortality occurs in the first few months of the salmon life be a wild fish or a hatchery fish shortly after stock out. Also, older salmon do not always mean bigger fish, these salmon are all individuals and grow at different rates. Some of the oldest fish are always the oldest fish. And many of the faster growing fish returns at an youger age.

I hope this clears p a few things.

Also I hope that a few of you drop the fisherman lingo of catching "4 year olds" cause I bet 90% or more of those fish you are calling 4 year olds are not!


----------



## Tech Rally (Jan 10, 2003)

TrapperJohn said:


> Tech Rally,
> 
> The numbers you posted mean nothing!


With all due respect trapper, you can take those numbers as nothing if you choose, however the numbers are what they are. As you pointed out, salmon will return at different ages, a very few at 1 yr, some at 2yrs, most at 3yrs, a few at 4 yrs and very, very few at 5+ years. This mix of returns, while it will vary from year to year, will generally be consistent from year to year. I would certainly like to know the age of all the returns however that info is not available so just like the DNR I used the best data available. You also failed to point out other normal variations that would affect the return numbers such as salmon planted elsewhere in the state running up the Little Manistee "in error". 

A key point in all the sciences is understanding the uncertainty principle, which is, the only thing that you can be 100% certain of, is that you can not be 100% certain about ANYTHING. Knowing this, you will realise that the data is what it is. It will not be 100% pure and you will never get 100% pure data no matter what precautions you may take. For example, let's assume that at the Manistee wier the DNR saved and studied all fin clipped salmon heads. Those salmon heads that were not saved because there was no evidence of fin clips, were they truely naturally reproduced fish, or were they mearly fish that when through the clipping process however failed to be properly clipped? Were those unclipped fish, naturally reproduced in a different stream and ran the Little manistee in error or did they run up the little Manistee after the wier was removed in November? You can not know and control every variable in any study, however it does not make the data obtained as meanless. Without any data, you and the DNR are just guessing. Personally, I would rather the DNR use the best data available. If you would rather they just guess, why don't you write them and request that.


----------



## Duckman1 (Oct 14, 2004)

I voted stay the same but I think the limits and regs should be different for each of the Great Lakes. 
Huron is holding different fish than Michigan and Superior has differences than the others. They can break down all the trout streams with some complicated regs why not do it for 3 great lakes.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

TrapperJohn said:


> Also I hope that a few of you drop the fisherman lingo of catching "4 year olds" cause I bet 90% or more of those fish you are calling 4 year olds are not!


I've often wondered about that one. Kings spawn in the fall. Now depending on when you believe life begines, at conception or birth (in this case hatching), kings have their birthdays during Sept. thru Dec. A king is hatched in 2003, and catch it during August 2007, do you consider it a 3 or a 4 year old? Technically it won't be 4 until Sept. thru Dec. What age does the DNR classify a 2003 hatched fish taken at the wier during the fall of 2007?


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

> I think 3 fish and you are done. But, you can go back out the same day and catch 3 more, but you can't have more than 3 of one specie at a time.


You broke your what??? 

Get on board with Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. 5 per angler per day, no more than 2 lakers. Geesh...that is as easy as it gets.


----------



## TrapperJohn (Jan 14, 2001)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I've often wondered about that one. Kings spawn in the fall. Now depending on when you believe life begines, at conception or birth (in this case hatching), kings have their birthdays during Sept. thru Dec. A king is hatched in 2003, and catch it during August 2007, do you consider it a 3 or a 4 year old? Technically it won't be 4 until Sept. thru Dec. What age does the DNR classify a 2003 hatched fish taken at the wier during the fall of 2007?


Typically a birthday is when the fish hatches but fisheries biologist uses Jan 1st as birthday for all fishes weither they hatch in Dec or sometime in the spring.

So a Chinook Salmon that hatched from eggs that were collected in Oct of 2003, hatched in the hatchery sometime in Mid Dec 2003 and were stocked out in spring (May) 2004 if caught this August or anytime this year (2007) would be aged as a 3 year old.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Fishing for Salmon and Steelhead was never better than when the limits were 5 per angler, per day. It is well documented that Alewife numbers have declined significantly in recent years - on both lakes Huron and Michigan, although lake Michigan seems to have this happening more slowly. I say return the daily limit to 5 fish per angler, and see if that might reduce the numbers of predatory fish to a level which will allow the Alewives to maintain their numbers better - which would give us larger predator fish. 

If it just wasn't for those darned Zebra Mussels, ya know? They are messing everything up. Truth.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

4 fish creel. Separate 5 fish creel for lakers. Big water creels.

Streams-4 salmon, 2 steelhead.....hit your limit...done


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

It might be wise to expand the limit on lake michigan if the forage base continues to decline. The charter capts are the most vocal on limits and number of lines. When they limit a group out they go in. If you increase the limit to 5 fish the 2.5 hr charters ludington was seeing last summer will stretch into 6 hrs as advertised.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

I flip-flop on this all the time. In the end, just leave it alone...although I think the river guys fishing salmon and steelhead with plugs should get three lines just like the lake guys.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I'm a little suprised at the survey results so far. I thought there would be more of a concensus for option one. It seems like most people are satisfied with three.

I could go eithor way on this one. As a charter, the earlier we limit out the less gas I burn. However, when I'm away from home running charters, and we limit out in short order, I get board for the rest of the day and it would be more fun to stay out fishing longer. I also know I could market trips better if we were allowed more fish. Even now though, I know that when people really load up on salmon, that a lot of it eventually goes to waste, so increasing the limit to five would make that worse.


----------



## J - Rod (Oct 27, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Even now though, I know that when people really load up on salmon, that a lot of it eventually goes to waste, so increasing the limit to five would make that worse.


3 kings I'm fine with.....but 3 little cohos, just isn't nearly enough.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

J - Rod said:


> 3 kings I'm fine with.....but 3 little cohos, just isn't nearly enough.


Why not? What's wrong with letting some of those little cohos grow up to be big cohos?


----------



## J - Rod (Oct 27, 2004)

thousandcasts said:


> Why not? What's wrong with letting some of those little cohos grow up to be big cohos?


I get 1 or 2 chances for them all year. I've only got about 6 servings in my freezer and that has to last till next April. This in the only fish I have to ration. Besides, smaller ones taste better.

Judging by the amount of fish flowing through the ladder last year, there's plenty that grow up and lot's of those wind up going unused. What a waste.

Lastly, as I mentioned in a previous thread, guys that stay out after gettting their 3 coho, to fill out their limit of 5 (me included) are releasing a lot of coho and I'm sure a percentage of those don't make it. Another waste.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Mike,

I have been thinking about your poll and earlier I asked some questions to try to get a handle on the fishery. Finally I realized that I would have to be a fish biologist to understand all the studies and to draw the best educated conclusions. Therefore, I would like the DNR to set limits based on science and never let emotion or politics enter the equation. If that means fishermen can only keep one fish like sturgeon or fifty fish like perch, I can live with it.

They may make some wrong decisions from time to time, but overall I believe we will all be better served if we leave the decisions to them.


----------



## syonker (May 7, 2004)

Allow the 5 fish per person limit to include up to 5 kings or coho.

These species are "put-take" anyway & typically do not survive past 4 years.

Regardless of what's decided, the limit should be the same for that body of water no matter what state you are fishing from. To have a 3/5 rule in Michigan when our neighbors don't defies logic IMHO.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

Alpha Buck said:


> I would not mind seeing an increase for the salmon to 5 fish, but a reduction to 1 for steelhead and browns. Lakers I really do not care what the limit is.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

Splitshot said:


> They may make some wrong decisions from time to time, but overall I believe we will all be better served if we leave the decisions to them.


That's kind of where I am at. If they say no spawn, so be it. No chumming, no problem.
I may not agree with it all but, you gotta admit, we have some dang good fishing oportunities all over Michigan and I will comply with any and all restrictions implimented in order to help maintain them.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

limits probably could be increased if people wouldnt doulbe or tripple dip.....it happens often...how many people do the rest of you know who limit morning and afternoon if they can...


----------

