# Proposed Chum Restrictions & Steelhead Bag Limits Reductions



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/10dec3a

"The change to chumming regulations refers to allowing no more than 1 quart of chum in an angler’s possession. The proposal to reduce the steelhead bag limit pertains to the Muskegon, Pere Marquette, Little Manistee and Big Manistee rivers."

Encourage you all to go to the meetings if this is of interest to you.

Thanks,
Don


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Thanks for posting Don. Do you know if they are proposing a decrease in big lake creel limits also? Seems odd we would be trying to decrease any creel limits, when is all we have been hearing is, there is not enough bait to sustain the populations we have been at.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranger Ray said:


> Thanks for posting Don. Do you know if they are proposing a decrease in big lake creel limits also? Seems odd we would be trying to decrease any creel limits, when is all we have been hearing is, there is not enough bait to sustain the populations we have been at.


 You've been hearing wrong. There is a lack of forage (alewife) for kings and a reduction in king plants. Other fish, that are more catholic in their diets, are being looked at to take up the slack. The increased plants of Atlantics in Lake Huron and the proposals to greatly increase steelhead production and plants are two examples of this.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Two examples from a system that has already crashed and on the mend, is an example for one they are trying to keep from crashing? Your talking two complete different systems in complete opposite stages of management. Although catholic, they still eat alewives. Anyway, I guess if the steelhead are doing good, there is no reason to pass a lower limit on the river only.


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

What does "Catholic" mean in this context?


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Eating a variety of things.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

The DNR is looking to increase steelhead rearing capacity to plant more in Lake Michigan as well as Huron. Protecting brood stocks may well be a part of that plan. I'll find out at the meeting. It has become very apparent that fish with a broader range of foods will provide more stable fisheries in the future.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Protecting brood stock? If scientifically necessary, I would think we would want to also lower the big lake limit. I mean if they don't make through the big lake gauntlet, there is no brood stock. As usual, I think we will find this issue is not scientific, but being pushed by the guides.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about conspiracies or nefarious influence. If you are unaware of the biological arguments for providing greater protection to spawning fish you should look them up.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

There is no reason that the bag limit on steelhead cannot be reduced to two fish statewide. It should be the same for salmon.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about conspiracies or nefarious influence. If you are unaware of the biological arguments for providing greater protection to spawning fish you should look them up.


There is no difference between taking the spawning fish out of the big lake before it gets a chance to run the river, or once its in the river. Once it's gone, it's gone. If there is a need to lower the limit in the river, there sure the hell is a need to lower it the big lake. Unless of course we are not talking biological but personal want of a few individuals. We shouldn't have to worry about the personal want of a few, as we just reinforced by law, again, the need to manage scientifically. There is no conspiracies, as its well known who is pushing the chumming ban and reduced limits on the river. It's the same guys that have been doing it ad nauseam for years. "Meet the new boss same as the old boss."


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

A fish that dies in August is just as dead as one that dies in March, that's true, The difference is that during the spawn fish are far more vulnerable. A limit of X during the regular season may be fine because anglers average creel is X - Y, but during the spawn the average may be much much higher, so there are spawning closures. In some cases the runs are big enough that it makes no difference, e.g. the PM steel, and Detroit River walleye. In other cases it can make a difference and fishing is closed, e.g. every other walleye run. In yet a third case it makes no difference because the runs are so unsuccessful that fisherman could use gill nets and it wouldn't matter, e.g. the Betsie which is maintained entirely through stocking because it provides recreational opportunity and supports the local economy.

In this latest case, as more info comes out, it appears that the steelhead are doing fine and the proposal will likely fail. According to reports a small but persistent group is making as much noise as they can to try to effect a change. They've failed every time in the past but they are a plucky bunch. Some people are like that, they keep tilting at windmills even though they haven't got a hope of defeating the monster. It's a shame that they waste everyones time and money with their obsession, they could put their energies to better uses and maybe actually build a case for themselves before trying again but that's much harder than making noise. I feel a little sorry for people like that, it's kind of like the guy who is taking a beating in the fight he started but he keeps getting back up. I admire his courage but really wish he would just stay on the ground.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

kzoofisher said:


> A fish that dies in August is just as dead as one that dies in March, that's true, The difference is that during the spawn fish are far more vulnerable. A limit of X during the regular season may be fine because anglers average creel is X - Y, but during the spawn the average may be much much higher, so there are spawning closures. In some cases the runs are big enough that it makes no difference, e.g. the PM steel, and Detroit River walleye. In other cases it can make a difference and fishing is closed, e.g. every other walleye run. In yet a third case it makes no difference because the runs are so unsuccessful that fisherman could use gill nets and it wouldn't matter, e.g. the Betsie which is maintained entirely through stocking because it provides recreational opportunity and supports the local economy.
> 
> In this latest case, as more info comes out, it appears that the steelhead are doing fine and the proposal will likely fail. According to reports a small but persistent group is making as much noise as they can to try to effect a change. They've failed every time in the past but they are a plucky bunch. Some people are like that, they keep tilting at windmills even though they haven't got a hope of defeating the monster. It's a shame that they waste everyones time and money with their obsession, they could put their energies to better uses and maybe actually build a case for themselves before trying again but that's much harder than making noise. I feel a little sorry for people like that, it's kind of like the guy who is taking a beating in the fight he started but he keeps getting back up. I admire his courage but really wish he would just stay on the ground.


As for protecting brood stock, why didn't they do that on the Platte? There was a time that fishing wasn't allowed from Labor Day until November 1st below the lower weir. If one remembers correctly, the Platte was an "indicator" stream to see how the steelhead were doing. It seems odd to me that since the time they stop closing the lower river, the steelhead now have to be stocked. I realize the Platte is one of my favorite rivers, but perhaps the DNR should take a look at that.


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

Reducing the limit on the Muskegon does absolutely nothing on brood stock, there is almost zero reproduction due to water temps.. 100 percent pushed by fly guides.


----------



## fisheater (Nov 14, 2010)

I assumed there was no biological reason or attempting the spawning closure. It is the same people with the agenda. I am not blaming TU for this one. I hope their leadership is aware of how their agenda has changed the way I look at them. My attitude used to be, "Trout Unlimited, thanks for all the work you guys do for trout in the state." Now if I see somebody with a TU bumper sticker, I will not say hello. If they mention I am not friendly I give them my polite but firm response," I have no use for people that support the closing of public waters to anybody that does not use TU's preferred methods of fishing."
Pretty cold, but I feel even colder towards HSUS


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Chumming limits make me laugh. So the proposal allows 1 quart of chum. You use the chum in the first couple of holes then go back to the truck and get another quart. If the DNR wants to protect spawning steelhead they need to have a closure in the most productive spawning grounds. The UP and the NLP have the best reproduction so I would say that they are looking at the wrong waters for limitations. Increasing the size limit on rainbow trout would allow more trout to make it to the big lakes. If the catch is reduced I am okay with that as long as it includes the great lakes.


----------

