# The descrimination of G.R.'s ....



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

TC-fisherman said:


> yes, the existing regulations prevent populations from being extirpated. Which isn't saying much.


Comment was made earlier in the thread regarding overharvest, I was simply pointing out that the DNR has stated that it does not believe that to be a risk, even when the bag limit was still 10.

I'm curious TC, what would the statewide regs (green streams) be if you were king?

Don


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

Thanks Don for posting that link. Now I've read the DNR standpoint i would like to see TU for comparison but my internet searching ability isn't that good and i couldn't find it. If someone could provide that link i would be very grateful of you doing so. Thanks.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

troutguy26 said:


> Thanks Don for posting that link. Now I've read the DNR standpoint i would like to see TU for comparison but my internet searching ability isn't that good and i couldn't find it. If someone could provide that link i would be very grateful of you doing so. Thanks.


I'm not aware of any opposing TU research on the PM that was presented. I do know that TU disagreed with the DNR biologist that you just read though...if anyone has a TU paper on the matter, I too would like to read it.

Don


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Hey Don, Did that PM assessment study hit your desk yet?


----------



## DReihl9896 (Nov 20, 2012)

fishinDon said:


> Comment was made earlier in the thread regarding overharvest, I was simply pointing out that the DNR has stated that it does not believe that to be a risk, even when the bag limit was still 10.
> 
> I'm curious TC, what would the statewide regs (green streams) be if you were king?
> 
> Don


Being that I believe I had brought up the possibility of overharvest earlier in the thread, I should probably clarify a little.

kzoo had tried to highlight what he perceived as hypocrisy on the part of the anti-gr individuals for not displaying the same level of outrage over spearing and bowfishing being excluded as methods of take in trout waters as they do over the exclusion of bait and hardware. He challenged the anti gr crowd to provide a biological justification for supporting one but not the other. I brought up the possibility of overharvest as a possible biological distinction. 

I'm aware of the brook trout report and don't in general disagree with the dnr's position that increasing possession limits wouldn't lead to overharvest. I believe they stated in their report that a large component of the reason that it doesn't lead to overharvest is because a significant portion of the angling population wouldn't likely even reach the limit of 5. It simply wouldn't matter if it were 10,20, 30 or even 100. Most are still just not going to catch that many. First, that study focused on resident brook trout in certain fisheries of the UP. Maybe many other fisheries across the state are also similarly not impacted (in terms of simply overall population) by possession limits. Still, that study and report can't automatically and universally be applied to all other fisheries though. Also, the study also applied only to current legal methods of take. Sadly, I do have anecdotal evidence from my teenage years that bowfishing and spearing makes it a lot easier for one to reach current creel limits. Changing that variable, I thought could potentially lead to a greater percentage of individuals being capable of reaching their possession limit and therefor could potentially bring the possibility of overharvest into play. I don't believe that would be the case on current fly waters in the ban on hardware and bait were lifted (btw, I wouldn't believe that spearfishing or bowfishing would have impacted this particular study anyway, because it dealt with brook trout).

I should also add the disclaimer, that I wasn't putting that idea out there as a certainty. It just seems feasible to me based the best information that I currently have. It may be quite likely that I am wrong in this case. Again, I was just trying to answer kzoo's challenge with an explanation of how at least one individual (me) would be apprehensive about removing bowfishing and spearing bans as methods of take for salmon and steelhead, while disapproving of bans on hardware and bait in flies only stretches. I simply view one practice as unnecessarily discriminatory (both socially and biologically) while I view the other as not so unnecessarily discriminatory and don't believe this is contradictory.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

DReihl9896 said:


> Being that I believe I had brought up the possibility of overharvest earlier in the thread, I should probably clarify a little.
> 
> kzoo had tried to highlight what he perceived as hypocrisy on the part of the anti-gr individuals for not displaying the same level of outrage over spearing and bowfishing being excluded as methods of take in trout waters as they do over the exclusion of bait and hardware. He challenged the anti gr crowd to provide a biological justification for supporting one but not the other. I brought up the possibility of overharvest as a possible biological distinction.
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to clarify in your well thought out reply. I agree with the premise that if it were to become significantly easier to "get a limit" that we may then need to consider changes to it. 
Don


----------



## scooter_trasher (Sep 19, 2005)

Look what I found, thought I would never find one, just knew they did not exist!!!









fishin is fishin is fishin


----------

