# Pushback: UP brook trout proposal faces stiff opposition



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

http://howardmeyerson.com/2012/05/14/pushback-up-brook-trout-proposal-faces-stiff-opposition/

In case you don't want to read the article to summarize Icthyology professors who do research on Brook Trout in the UP from both Michigan Tech and NMU oppose the limit increase. The US fish and Wildlife Service is also formally opposing the limit increase due to concerns it will negatively effect coaster brook trout reintroduction efforts. Roughly half of the local anglers showing up at the public meetings are opposed. TU of course opposes the increase.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Disagreement among scientists? Unpossible!


----------



## Sisuhntr (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm glad to hear the opposition is strong. I personally oppose the increase not because I have science on my side (maybe I do, maybe I don't. I'm no fisheries biologist.) but because I don't see there being any benefit or need. There's no reason for one person to keep ten brookies in a day, and while whether or not such practices would have negative consequences is obviously under debate, I'd be willing to bet cash money that it wouldn't have a positive outcome. 


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## slabstar (Feb 25, 2009)

Considering the few trout fisherman that are actually capable of pulling a limit of UP brookies, I don't think a 10 fish limit will have any negative impact. You might have about 10% of brook trout fisherman getting a 5 fish limit. I would guess a lower percent would get a 10 fish limit. 
It is a bit of a suprise to me that so many fisherman and organizations are opposed when the brook trout fishing has been consistantly excellent over the last two decades plus!
My thoughts are, quite a few streams would benefit by taking out more trout. Leaving more food and prime cover for other fish to grow. 
Last year I used an aquaview unit in a couple UP trout streams. I was AMAZED at how many trout didn't take my offering! And, how many trout were in the few places I dropped the camera down. This year I will try and video with it so I can share. I think the amount of trout in some of the UP streams is largely underestimated.
I am all for a daily possesion increase to 10 but they would have to raise the total possesion to 20.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Some fishermen just cannot be happy. Raise the brook trout limit to 10 and you have 4 guys fishing for a weekend, with any luck they can catch 80 brook trout. Let's assume that they do this 4 times in a year that is 320 brook trout. Most guys with good salmon boats don't catch that many fish in a year. It would be hard to say that they will have no impact on the population of brook trout. Now throw in a few predators that thrive on brook trout year around. The predators are happy catching the smaller fish that are not mature enough to spawn. Humans on the other hand target the mature spawning fish. I have lived long enough to see the DNR screw up more than once. Look at what happened when the DNR allowed weirs on every river & stream that salmon spawn in on Lake Huron. Need I say more.....biologists at work scary thought.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

How did they ever survive when it was 10? According to you guys, they should have already been extinct in 2000 when they changed the limit to 5 based on social science. Which by the way probably consisted of one organizations ideology.  Amazing how that works. Biggest difference in brook trout populations I have seen in my life, came when the beaver population increased. One group of beavers probably do more harm than all the fishermen put together.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

slabstar said:


> Considering the few trout fisherman that are actually capable of pulling a limit of UP brookies, I don't think a 10 fish limit will have any negative impact. You might have about 10% of brook trout fisherman getting a 5 fish limit. I would guess a lower percent would get a 10 fish limit.
> It is a bit of a suprise to me that so many fisherman and organizations are opposed when the brook trout fishing has been consistantly excellent over the last two decades plus!
> My thoughts are, quite a few streams would benefit by taking out more trout. Leaving more food and prime cover for other fish to grow.
> Last year I used an aquaview unit in a couple UP trout streams. I was AMAZED at how many trout didn't take my offering! And, how many trout were in the few places I dropped the camera down. This year I will try and video with it so I can share. I think the amount of trout in some of the UP streams is largely underestimated.
> ...


 It is sad and unfortunate that this proposal is being sullied by social emotions instead of biological, logical science. Oh well. Ranger Ray also has a level-headed perspective.
I respectfully disagree with the nay-sayers, but your opinions are none the less appreciated. Keep the master-debate going........


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I live in the UP and know of several brook trout streans within 45 minutes of home. It would be rather easy for me to bag 1000+ brookies in a year. Now someone from the LP comes to the UP to brook trout fish and hits a couple of streams that I have been fishing hard all summer. Unfortunately that person just spent $200 on gas in the SUV and only caught 2 brookies. I will bet that he is complaining about the locals all of the way home. Imagine that he is the same guy that wants the limit increased to 10.


----------



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

itchn2fish said:


> It is sad and unfortunate that this proposal is being sullied by social emotions instead of biological, logical science.


So I'm guessing that when you are talking about biological, logical science your reffering to the 15 year old creel survey data done on a couple streams that the MDNR used in its proposal. Sorry but I think I'll defer to the PHDs that have dedicated their whole lives to brook trout who think a limit increase is a bad idea and the USFWS biologists who are working in the field right now to restore coaster brook trout populations. They are the scientist that have a pulse on whats actually happening on the trout streams that this would impact. MDNR fisheries managers have to deal with all fish species across large regions of the state. Funny how the scientist that work with brook trout think its a bad idea but people that want the increase keep saying the "science" is on their side.


----------



## slabstar (Feb 25, 2009)

itchn2fish said:


> It is sad and unfortunate that this proposal is being sullied by social emotions instead of biological, logical science. Oh well. Ranger Ray also has a level-headed perspective.
> I respectfully disagree with the nay-sayers, but your opinions are none the less appreciated. Keep the master-debate going........


There is no bilogical data to support either daily creel limit, so it never should have been changed in 2000.
There are thousands of untapped brookie haunts in the UP. I understand why the colvert fisherman would be upset when they can't catch their 5 under the county road colvert....
And btw...it is now reffered to as TroutUnlimited with restrictions and creel limits!lmfao
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

It is funny how fishermen who live in the UP would like to see the limit kept at 5 per day. The people who visit the UP want it pushed to 10. When they handed out doe permits in the UP like candy people headed south on I-75 with truckloads of deer (many I assume were wasted). Now the same people complain that they never see a deer. The camps that had 20+ deer hanging are vacant now.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

it kind of stinks when i come to the up to trout fish three days and get my 5 in about an hour each day. i release a lot too. last time i spent about 4 total hrs to bag limits of nice trout in 3 days. i then had to fish for pike eyes and bass which i dont really care to fish mu
ch, so i ended up at foggys,lol. im pretty sure they could raise it to ten and it wouldnt hurt as the avg wild brookie doesnt make it past 3 yrs old and they are able to spawn within a year. for streams getting fished out, well most people i run into on thr streams have trouble getting a few let alone 5.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## slabstar (Feb 25, 2009)

Robert Holmes said:


> It is funny how fishermen who live in the UP would like to see the limit kept at 5 per day. The people who visit the UP want it pushed to 10. When they handed out doe permits in the UP like candy people headed south on I-75 with truckloads of deer (many I assume were wasted). Now the same people complain that they never see a deer. The camps that had 20+ deer hanging are vacant now.


According to the article the OP linked, the head UP fisheries biologist said "yoopers want a 10 fish daily limit".
Did you read the article?lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

They thought yoopers wanted it because thats what an influential NRC member told them. What they are finding out is its far closer to 50/50 amongst local anglers than they were led to believe. The only reason this push even got started was a prominent NRC member essentially made it his pet project and assured the DNR that they would have the public's support. Its backfiring and wether it passes or not now there is going to be a lot of controversy.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

slabstar said:


> According to the article the OP linked, the head UP fisheries biologist said "yoopers want a 10 fish daily limit".
> Did you read the article?lol
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 Gee a UP DNR wolf biologist once told me that wolves will only attack weak, sick, or injured deer about 2 months later I watched a healthy doe get nailed by 2 wolves. After that I completely lost faith in what the DNR biologists say. I have actually had a biologist from the DNR tell me that we are supposed to say" what Lansing says to say" but......The 10 fish limit probably would not hurt until people start keeping 10 browns which are scarce up here and 10 rainbows.


----------



## Sisuhntr (Nov 16, 2011)

I find it hard to believe that most anglers can't catch five keepers. I'm not am especially skilled fisherman, and I would say that 75% or more of the time I catch well over that amount. I will say there are some streams that could support a higher harvest and maybe even benefit from it, but these are streams that don't get much pressure as it is. A blanket limit increase would have the most effect on those streams that are closer to larger population centers and are already pressured a little too much in my opinion. That said, if the DNR can present recent and thorough scientific data to support an increase I would be more likely to support it. 

Also, the fact that the fishing has been so good for the last decade, as some have mentioned, is all the more reason to keep the current regs. If it ain't broke don't fix it. 


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

The important point here is not what any of us think. The important point is that there is disagreement between biologists and ichthyologists as to exactly what the studies mean. "Science" is almost never as clear cut as some here like to make it sound and the debates about regulations are powered by reasonable differences of opinion surrounding the meaning of research or the importance of one study over another. While everyone, including researchers, comes to the table with their own biases and those biases inform the interpretation of studies, it is important to recognize your own point of view and try to filter out your predisposition. I believe that the researchers involved in this debate have been able to do that and even so they continue to disagree because the facts are often a little murky and the variables are so many that no one has the budget to account for them all. That is why in the end the DNR must also take in to account the desire of the public; because no overwhelming biological need or effect can be shown.

Knowing that the professionals in the field don't all draw the same conclusions we should each ask ourselves, "How many studies have I read that made me question my own conclusion?". If the answer is, "not many", maybe we need to be a little more open to the opposite side.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Robert Holmes said:


> Gee a UP DNR wolf biologist once told me that wolves will only attack weak, sick, or injured deer about 2 months later I watched a healthy doe get nailed by 2 wolves. After that I completely lost faith in what the DNR biologists say. I have actually had a biologist from the DNR tell me that we are supposed to say" what Lansing says to say" but......The 10 fish limit probably would not hurt until people start keeping 10 browns which are scarce up here and 10 rainbows.


Here is how it works:

If the biological science doesnt meet our philosophical ideology, than we want to rule by social science. If the social science doesn't meet our philosophical ideology, than we want to rule by biological science. Just make it come out like *I* want. Welcome to fish management in the 21st century.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Ranger Ray said:


> Here is how it works:
> 
> If the biological science doesnt meet our philosophical ideology, than we want to rule by social science. If the social science doesn't meet our philosophical ideology, than we want to rule by biological science. Just make it come out like *I* want. Welcome to fish management in the 21st century.


You sound like a college professor there Ranger Ray. Look at the pictures posted in this forum. You don't see too many 8 inch brook trout being stringered do you? What you do see is the 12 to 16 inch brookies on the stringers. If you can't eat 5 brookies that are 12 to 16 inches long then cook up some taters & beans too.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> You sound like a college professor there Ranger Ray. Look at the pictures posted in this forum. You don't see too many 8 inch brook trout being stringered do you? What you do see is the 12 to 16 inch brookies on the stringers. If you can't eat 5 brookies that are 12 to 16 inches long then cook up some taters & beans too.


yep 12 to 16 inch brookies are at the end of their life cycle anyway, unless they are one of the rare specimens we all treasure. the u.p. and lp survived a ten trout limit for how long? heard it was better and fish were bigger...but this came from fisherman. 
robert, i want you to show me some of those 20 inchers! i want ome for my growing collection on the wall. my goal is every adiposed species in mi. still hunting for the 18, but 17 is the best ive done
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

