# UP brook trout limit goes back to 5



## kzoofisher

A win for scientific management and a blow to special interest groups. At least one group, anyway.
_
An experimental regulation that allowed for 33 streams in the Upper Peninsula to have a 10-fish daily possession limit for brook trout is no longer in effect. During its regular meeting today in Lansing, the Michigan Natural Resources Commission voted to return the five-fish daily limit to those streams, effectively immediately.

The regulation expired Oct. 1, 2019, and the commission then voted in November to extend it.

Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologists had recommended against re-instituting the 10-brook trout daily possession limit on the select streams because of concerns based on biological and social science.

The newly approved regulation means all Type 1 streams, which are designated trout streams, in the Upper Peninsula are back to having a five-fish daily possession limit for brook trout. The streams with previously higher daily possession limit represented about 8% of the total mileage for Type 1 streams in the U.P.

The 2020 season on Type 1 trout streams will open April 25.

For more information on Michigan’s fishing regulations, check out the 2019 Michigan Fishing Guide at Michigan.gov/DNRDigests._

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/27523df


----------



## Ranger Ray

Wow! A real blow. Who is this "one" special interest group you are talking about?


----------



## kzoofisher

The one that wanted to increase limits despite the biologists concerns about harm to the resource. It was a loose amalgam of extremists wanting to push their ideology on the DNR.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Ah, a loose amalgam of extremists. I see. What was the "social" aspect they used to reverse it, according to the link?


----------



## toto

Okay Kzoo, they want to use science, which is how it should be at least as I understand Prop G from a few years ago. Now, how bout using it for every regulation in our outdoor pursuits. Therefore..........


----------



## kzoofisher

*"Occam's razor* (or Ockham's *razor*) is a *principle* from philosophy. Suppose there exists two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least amount of assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation."

The least amount of assumptions is that the science backs up that increased mortality by fishermen leads to reduced fish populations and that is the basis of the more restrictive regulations.

Your mental gymnastics to create conspiracies, skullduggery, malfeasance and corruption actually help, by their complexity, to support the argument that there is enough scientific evidence to warrant more restrictive regulations on all UP streams and more restrictive yet on select other streams. The pro restriction arguments require no mental gymnastics; they offer the straightforward evidence that the DNR itself presented. It's simple because it's true.


----------



## kzoofisher

The link doesn't provide any explanation of the social reasons. In fact, it provides no information at all beyond my c&p. I gave all the info in my post and provided the link for any cynical people who might ASSume I left something out.

If you want to know what the social arguments were you'll have to wrack your brain to remember or search up the old threads and refresh your memory. They were pretty limited reasons so you might be able to recall them if you try really hard.


----------



## Benzie Rover

kzoofisher said:


> A win for scientific management and a blow to special interest groups. At least one group, anyway.
> _
> An experimental regulation that allowed for 33 streams in the Upper Peninsula to have a 10-fish daily possession limit for brook trout is no longer in effect. During its regular meeting today in Lansing, the Michigan Natural Resources Commission voted to return the five-fish daily limit to those streams, effectively immediately.
> 
> The regulation expired Oct. 1, 2019, and the commission then voted in November to extend it.
> 
> Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologists had recommended against re-instituting the 10-brook trout daily possession limit on the select streams because of concerns based on biological and social science.
> 
> The newly approved regulation means all Type 1 streams, which are designated trout streams, in the Upper Peninsula are back to having a five-fish daily possession limit for brook trout. The streams with previously higher daily possession limit represented about 8% of the total mileage for Type 1 streams in the U.P.
> 
> The 2020 season on Type 1 trout streams will open April 25.
> 
> For more information on Michigan’s fishing regulations, check out the 2019 Michigan Fishing Guide at Michigan.gov/DNRDigests._
> 
> https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/27523df


Excellent news!! I applaud the biologists for their efforts to keep science based decisions as a leading voice in management. I personally felt that two streams that I fish in the EUP that got bumped to 10 fish limits fished much worse last summer compared to my other streams that remained at 5. Obviously meaningless data overall, but I personally felt that the impacts were noticeable and I never understood the rationale for going to 10 as there is no need for more than five brookies/person. They don't eat nearly as well out of the freezer. I'm pumped for trout opener already.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Where people really keeping 10 fish a day? Probably not but I like that it isnt even an option any more.


----------



## Ranger Ray

We saw an increase in 1 fish per outing last year, on the streams we fish that had the 10 fish limit. We contributed it to lack of beaver issues and water volume. Which has been the biggest two effects on our fishing for the 42 years we have been going. Massive floods also have an effect sometime, but nowhere near the other 2 issues. Not sure where all these people are, that were hurting the fisheries, keeping 10 fish. They must be cloaked or something. As outside bridges, we rarely see anyone.


----------



## kzoofisher

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much as Benzie said. What is worth a lot are the studies the DNR did that showed significant decline in both numbers and sizes on 10 fish streams compared to the 5 fish control streams. That the studies confirmed what many biologists predicted based on existing science was a nice bonus.


----------



## Forest Meister

I did not read any "studies" to see how they were conducted or where but were the reductions in numbers and or size based on predation from things like otters, mink, mergansers, etc., lack of spawning success in some previous year, water temperatures, limited nutrition due to a reduction of terrestrial and/or aquatic insects, beaver activity, other natural causes, anglers, or some combination thereof? There are a lot of things out there besides fishermen!

Real scientific studies aimed at pinning down cause and effect with any degree of certainty take time, lots of time. One bad year or one good year is pseudoscience, not real science. That said, if a one or two year "study" yields the closed minded and biased results a person was hoping for at the outset, why spend the time and effort to continue? 

When the limit was increased on some of the streams I normally fish I had mixed feelings. I liked the idea of only having to crawl back into those miserable deer fly infested brush holes one time to be able to bring out enough 8"-9" fish for a family dinner. On the other side of the coin I was concerned that with only a few streams having an increased limit it would draw many others to the streams. That last concern never blossomed into reality. 

Cannot speak for other areas or streams I did not fish but I saw no more evidence of human activity along the banks of the 10 fish streams than I did the 5 fish streams. Neither did there seem to be more activity than when the limit was previously 10 fish...or when the limit was 5 for that matter. did not see even one creel census person either nor did I speak with anyone who had seen one. 

Not to rub it in to those who may not have had great success last season, but I was not one of you. FM


----------



## Martin Looker

Most trout fishermen don't get far from the road, you know something might get them. I like to head up steam for half an hour then fish back down. Plenty of fish and no company.


----------



## -Axiom-

Martin Looker said:


> Most trout fishermen don't get far from the road, you know something might get them. I like to head up steam for half an hour then fish back down. Plenty of fish and no company.


 I keep walking upstream until I am satisfied or demoralized, sometimes it's along walk back sometimes not.


----------



## kzoofisher

Forest Meister said:


> I did not read any "studies" to see how they were conducted or where but were the reductions in numbers and or size based on predation from things like otters, mink, mergansers, etc., lack of spawning success in some previous year, water temperatures, limited nutrition due to a reduction of terrestrial and/or aquatic insects, beaver activity, other natural causes, anglers, or some combination thereof? There are a lot of things out there besides fishermen!
> 
> Real scientific studies aimed at pinning down cause and effect with any degree of certainty take time, lots of time. One bad year or one good year is pseudoscience, not real science. That said, if a one or two year "study" yields the closed minded and biased results a person was hoping for at the outset, why spend the time and effort to continue?
> 
> When the limit was increased on some of the streams I normally fish I had mixed feelings. I liked the idea of only having to crawl back into those miserable deer fly infested brush holes one time to be able to bring out enough 8"-9" fish for a family dinner. On the other side of the coin I was concerned that with only a few streams having an increased limit it would draw many others to the streams. That last concern never blossomed into reality.
> 
> Cannot speak for other areas or streams I did not fish but I saw no more evidence of human activity along the banks of the 10 fish streams than I did the 5 fish streams. Neither did there seem to be more activity than when the limit was previously 10 fish...or when the limit was 5 for that matter. did not see even one creel census person either nor did I speak with anyone who had seen one.
> 
> Not to rub it in to those who may not have had great success last season, but I was not one of you. FM


I'm glad you started your post by saying that you had no information to base your concerns on but you were going to offer an opinion anyway. Most people shy away from admitting they're just making it up as they go along.

The study ran over 4 years. It was planned for 5 (standard length) but the data was so plain after 4 that the DNR decided to save the money on the 5th year. 10 fish limit streams saw a 53% decrease of 7"+ fish while 5 fish streams saw an increase of 47%. One stream, Bryan Creek had two years of 5 limit followed by two years of 10 limit. Average number of fish caught by anglers per outing the first two years was 5.3 and the second two years was 2.4. Numbers of fish of all size classes decreased the second two years, while on the control stream it was paired with, nearby Two-Mile Creek, saw increases those years. No evidence of increased numbers of anglers was found either so the regs hurt the fisheries without drawing more people.

You can question the professionalism and competence of the DNR biologists if you want, I suppose. Others have since the facts against them have gotten plainer and plainer. They've done it here and they've done it in committee meetings. But your first sentence pretty much said it all, you don't have any facts but that isn't going to stop you from questioning the people who do.


----------



## toto

It's like I said, IF the science shows it's needed, then fine do it; no problem. My only opinion is that IF you are going to science for certain issues, then you MUST use them for all. As for fishing the U.P. for stream trout, I don't fish there so I guess in reality it doesn't affect me either way, but picking and choosing what issues to use science, and which ones it doesn't certainly is an issue with me. As I said before, be careful what you wish for on the science thing, you just might get it.........

So the question here for you is this: If I could show you a study, which I believe you already have BTW, that shows the mortality rates for bait fishing vs fly fishing shows only about 1% difference, would that be acceptable to you???? For example, if fly fishing creates mortality rates of say 3%, and fishing with bait creates 4%, would that be acceptable to you???

Also, BTW: Are you saying that the reduction in trout on said trout streams is solely due to 10 fish vs 5 fish??? Has it perhaps occurred to anyone that there are a LOT of variables on trout streams, and a good trout stream can be interrupted quickly with the change in only one criteria? Just wondering EXACTLY the rationale for changing from 10 back to 5. Again it doesn't matter to me that much, other than the fact the NRC seems to want to make rules that are socially based, rather than scientifically based, and you know and have admitted it in the past.


----------



## on a call

Martin Looker said:


> Most trout fishermen don't get far from the road, you know something might get them. I like to head up steam for half an hour then fish back down. Plenty of fish and no company.


why not down and back up ??


----------



## PunyTrout

on a call said:


> why not down and back up ??


Generally it's more stealthy to wade upstream.


----------



## ridgewalker

So it had nothing to do with the action filed in court in Chicago against the DNR and NRC? :lol:


----------



## on a call

PunyTrout said:


> Generally it's more stealthy to wade upstream.


Makes sense...so you fish up and walk back. Slap me silly. Thanks. Your comment makes sense...but the post read walk up and fish back ?


----------



## Forest Meister

kzoofisher said:


> ….Then again, maybe none of those things happened and the increased limit really was the biggest factor. *The biologists know all the factors that go into fluctuations in trout populations* and they take them into account in their studies. Again, it's their freaking job.


Being totally serious and trying not to stoop to sarcasm; it is understandable that when someone is passionate about a viewpoint they sometimes say things that might not be exactly what they mean. Blindly subscribing to a definitive statement such as the one in bold is, IMHO, either very naïve or grasping at straws. I have been involved in countless hours of discussion with many biologists, including a veteran trout researcher, and do not recall any of them including one in particular that was "full of himself", ever saying they knew *"all the factors"* that went into anything. FM


----------



## mondrella

Forest Meister said:


> Being totally serious and trying not to stoop to sarcasm; it is understandable that when someone is passionate about a viewpoint they sometimes say things that might not be exactly what they mean. Blindly subscribing to a definitive statement such as the one in bold is, IMHO, either very naïve or grasping at straws. I have been involved in countless hours of discussion with many biologists, including a veteran trout researcher, and do not recall any of them including one in particular that was "full of himself", ever saying they knew *"all the factors"* that went into anything. FM


Yet over the years of no kill on the PM has been studied and what the Data shows. TU and the like say its flawed study. 
I have talked directly with the biologists who did this study and points i brought up could be a possibility but the question is how do you quantify it? I have never met a biologist who say they have all the answers. 
Maybe i have been extremely lucky the past few years fishing up there. Every trip i have caught huge brookies in the 15 to 18 inches. Not just one a trip either.


----------



## Forest Meister

mondrella said:


> Yet over the years of no kill on the PM has been studied and what the Data shows. TU and the like say its flawed study.
> I have talked directly with the biologists who did this study and points i brought up could be a possibility but the question is how do you quantify it? I have never met a biologist who say they have all the answers.
> Maybe i have been extremely lucky the past few years fishing up there. Every trip i have caught huge brookies in the 15 to 18 inches. Not just one a trip either.


In trout fishing, just like many things in life, people usually make their own luck. Once a stretch of stream is figured out good things just seem to happen quite regularly but as any stream fisherman is aware, the figuring out part can take years...and then for either an obvious or totally unknown reason things change and you have to start over. FM


----------



## PunyTrout

mondrella said:


> Maybe i have been extremely lucky the past few years fishing up there. *Every trip* i have caught huge brookies in the *15 to 18 inches. *_Not just one a trip either._


Wow! _Every trip?_ That's impressive. You must be a really good angler to catch Master Angler class brookies all the time... If you can brag without lying, go ahead and brag...

I'm curious. Were those 15 to 18 inch brookies caught in streams with a 10 fish limit?


----------



## mondrella

PunyTrout said:


> Wow! _Every trip?_ That's impressive. You must be a really good angler to catch Master Angler class brookies all the time... If you can brag without lying, go ahead and brag...
> 
> I'm curious. Were those 15 to 18 inch brookies caught in streams with a 10 fish limit?


I would not say i am a good angler at all. Just really lucky most of the time fishing for trout. Wish i could be as lucky on trophy size Northern pike. Toss in dumb enough to do what most people would never attempt. 
It is about 50 to 50 on bigger brookies on the 5 or 10 fish streams. Example on a 10 fish stream i walked in about 2 miles to a spot. Army crawled under all the thick stuff 200 yards because the other option was to walk all the way back out. Got to the stream and had to crawl back and down about 20 yards because the bend below looked awesome. First cast i hooked a 14 incher. Unhooked the fish and the lure dropped in the water and drifted down in front of a root wad with maybe 9 inches of water. Measured the fish in hand on my rod and it doubled over. That one was 153/4". 
Dumb luck runs in the blood.


----------



## kzoofisher

Forest Meister said:


> Being totally serious and trying not to stoop to sarcasm; it is understandable that when someone is passionate about a viewpoint they sometimes say things that might not be exactly what they mean. Blindly subscribing to a definitive statement such as the one in bold is, IMHO, either very naïve or grasping at straws. I have been involved in countless hours of discussion with many biologists, including a veteran trout researcher, and do not recall any of them including one in particular that was "full of himself", ever saying they knew *"all the factors"* that went into anything. FM


Maybe a little hyperbole on my part. But you will admit the the factors of habitat, food, weather, natural predation and human predation are all considered, won't you? Those are just basic to any study. Understandable that those with an agenda to push might assume that basic scientific rigor was not employed when they disagree with the conclusion. That happens a lot.

I'll admit that there were issues with the study which were the result of the NRC forcing a timeline on the DNR. I'm sure the results would have been much better if the streams could have been selected and several years of study done to establish baseline populations as well as carrying capacities of the streams. Unfortunately, the extremists who were pushing this, ≠10% of trout fishermen at most and possibly < a few dozen, demanded results faster than the more rigorous science would allow.


----------



## toto

And so the question becomes, why would they rush a study as in your above scenario? Wouldn't be prudent to let the study run it's course and find the "actual" reasoning rather than finding what you want, and then suddenly stop? Just sayin.... But with some on the NRC, it wouldn't surprise that once they found their reasoning, no point in going further.

Furthermore, since we are on the subject of social science, which we aren't; if social science is important then why wouldn't they ask the people of the local communities what they think? That was one of the excuses used before around Mio if memory serves me well enough.


----------



## kzoofisher

mondrella said:


> Yet over the years of no kill on the PM has been studied and what the Data shows. *TU and the like say its flawed study.*
> I have talked directly with the biologists who did this study and points i brought up could be a possibility but the question is how do you quantify it? I have never met a biologist who say they have all the answers.
> Maybe i have been extremely lucky the past few years fishing up there. Every trip i have caught huge brookies in the 15 to 18 inches. Not just one a trip either.


 That’s interesting, never heard that. I have heard TU argue different conclusions using that study. That's not unusual, prior to this latest 10 fish study biologists disagreed on the impact of the limit based on the available data. They don't anymore. As I've said many times, there's room for honest disagreement when it comes to fisheries management. But, as more and more evidence piles up it's becoming increasingly clear that reducing the artificial mortality caused by fishermen improves the fishing for most species. I'd argue that for the majority of sport fish in this State the fishing is better than it's ever been. Some of that is habitat improvement and a lot of it is fish being left to swim.

But the PM isn't a very good river to study and extrapolate to the rest of the State anyway. It's a steelhead river and that depresses brooks at browns by 50%. In fact, if memory serves, the DNR recently concluded that natural reproduction of browns is quite low on the PM. Most of the fish there migrate into the river from feeder steams that have lower steelhead numbers.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> And so the question becomes, why would they rush a study as in your above scenario? Wouldn't be prudent to let the study run it's course and find the "actual" reasoning rather than finding what you want, and then suddenly stop? Just sayin.... But with some on the NRC, it wouldn't surprise that once they found their reasoning, no point in going further.
> 
> Furthermore, since we are on the subject of social science, which we aren't; if social science is important then why wouldn't they ask the people of the local communities what they think? That was one of the excuses used before around Mio if memory serves me well enough.


Well, it was the people who wanted the higher limit that rushed the study so your point is kind of backwards. And it was the DNR biologists who halted the study, in 2016, when the conclusion became obvious. I just don't understand why you keep insinuating they had nefarious intent. As for the NRC, four of the seven current commissioners weren't even there at that time. Maybe that is the difference, the special interest Commissioners dropped of and the charade ended this year.

Not sure I understand your second paragraph. Are you saying they should have asked people in the UP what they thought?


----------



## toto

On point 1, okay so if it was the people who wanted ended the study, fine. But, how could the conclusion become obvious if in one of your previous post' you claim the study was never completed, therefore the conclusion could not have been obvious, unless of course the outcome was predetermined. 

As to paragraph 2, since you are a high advocate of "social" science, and since we know that the town of Mio was all on board for flies only areas, why wouldn't they ask neighboring towns/cities/villages as to what they want? After all, what other social aspect would be effected more than the economies of the local communities? So yes, they should have asked people of the U.P. what they want?

As for saying using data from the P.M. as a guide to other rivers, again I'll agree with that. You cannot use data from one stream and expect the same results from other streams, that's a given.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> On point 1, okay so if it was the people who wanted ended the study, fine. But, how could the conclusion become obvious if in one of your previous post' you claim the study was never completed, therefore the conclusion could not have been obvious, unless of course the outcome was predetermined.


The conclusion was obvious because trout numbers dropped in the 10 limit streams and went up in the 5 limit streams. It really is simple. No conspiracies. No bad actors. Just obvious facts.



toto said:


> As to paragraph 2, since you are a high advocate of "social" science, and since we know that the town of Mio was all on board for flies only areas, why wouldn't they ask neighboring towns/cities/villages as to what they want? After all, what other social aspect would be effected more than the economies of the local communities? So yes, they should have asked people of the U.P. what they want?


 They did ask the people in the UP. 53% of the people who answered the online survey were from the UP. 66% of the people who returned postcards were from the UP. 50% of the people in the creel survey were from the UP. And the limit of 5 had more support in the UP than 10. It was a terrible idea as a social issue and obviously now, a terrible idea from a biological standpoint.


----------



## toto

Well I'm sorry but just because numbers on the 10 fish steams does NOT mean exclusively that over fishing was the culprit. But, lets just say for a minute it was, or at least think it was, why on earth would you not finish the study? I really don't care about the financial aspect of it, if the money was there and then allocated elsewhere that isn't the way to do things either. As for asking the U.P. folks, that is where social science is a problem. You can ask all these questions you want, but it comes down to the demographics of who you ask? Do you know those demographics? Its' just like a few years ago when there was a survey done about camping and fly fishing near the Upper Big Manistee River, well if I go into a campground that is predominantly used by fly fishermen, and I'm doing a survey on fly fishing, I would expect to get results conducive to fly fishing. Get my problem with social science now? It is just so swayed by who you ask and what demographics used that you cannot get a very scientific conclusive response.


----------



## mondrella

kzoofisher said:


> That’s interesting, never heard that. I have heard TU argue different conclusions using that study. That's not unusual, prior to this latest 10 fish study biologists disagreed on the impact of the limit based on the available data. They don't anymore. As I've said many times, there's room for honest disagreement when it comes to fisheries management. But, as more and more evidence piles up it's becoming increasingly clear that reducing the artificial mortality caused by fishermen improves the fishing for most species. I'd argue that for the majority of sport fish in this State the fishing is better than it's ever been. Some of that is habitat improvement and a lot of it is fish being left to swim.
> 
> But the PM isn't a very good river to study and extrapolate to the rest of the State anyway. It's a steelhead river and that depresses brooks at browns by 50%. In fact, if memory serves, the DNR recently concluded that natural reproduction of browns is quite low on the PM. Most of the fish there migrate into the river from feeder steams that have lower steelhead numbers.


So the stream with the best overall size of brown trout in the control also gets a healthy run of steelhead and salmon. Explain that?? 
I can add 2+2 and it falls back to something a mentioned early on. Guess what it is!


----------



## B.Jarvinen

I only fished Brook Trout in da U.P. a couple days in late September. Tried fishing 'em a bunch in WV this summer - very sad.

I thought #s were way, way down for some reason. I fished my favorite segment, which I have been able to hit for six years running this time of year. It was an odd day in that > 1" of rain hit at dawn. It didn't stop the bite of all the Rainbow smolts though.

There were a lot of moving parts to the experience. A dam has been removed on this now; water levels were way lower.

I remember a hard snow storm hit the area in early May, 2018. The Brookies hatching then would be two years old now. I believe certain ice scour situations can be very hard on trout/salmon eggs, but am not solid on the details of spring weather and basic spawning success. I think it is a factor.

I learned a lot about Mergansers this year. I saw a lot of them the next day, not on that stream, but on a favorite Coho stream near a Lake Superior beach about an hour away. I have learned that certain ice conditions in the winter can concentrate feeding Mergansers on water moving just right to not be frozen, when everything else is. I never get to see this stream in the winter.

On this stretch, I have previously caught double digit Brookies while standing at the county road bridge - in late September. For several years running. On a 10 limit stream. Shouldn't the marauding Trout Eaters have at least cleaned out the hole next to the bridge by late September?

Average catches on this annual expedition have been a minimum 2 dozen fish / day. One year was surely 4 dozen total fish. Different ratios of Brookies:Rainbows and some Browns most years. This year I fished up to my 'walk-out' and lucked in to a ride back to my truck with some bear hunters, giving me a little time to get back in the water before dark. I immediately caught a 16" Brown about 25' down stream from the bridge in the last half hour of daylight for Type 1 season, 2019.

But Brook Trout? 1 this year. I lost track of the Rainbow total after #12. I think only a couple were legal, didn't plan to keep any. I expected to have a nice meal of 5 Brook Trout. (Ten limit was moved upstream from there last year).

Things change, as Mondrella pointed out. I believe that Nature is in charge of the population #s, far, far more than Man. And, September was dry out there. The 'holes' weren't leaving much of a roof over the Brooks' heads. I think they were probably largely to be found a fair bit farther downstream as a result. But I have no idea how now making a several mile wade that used to end at a dam - now into just a segment of headwaters further open up above -- what that did to the Trout population. A lot of moving parts.


----------



## Forest Meister

kzoofisher said:


> *The conclusion was obvious because trout numbers dropped in the 10 limit streams and went up in the 5 limit streams. *It really is simple. No conspiracies. No bad actors. Just obvious facts....


The conclusion was obvious and simple, how so? Assuming the info above is not fake news, it merely reinforces what some suspect is a study that may have been skewed, purposely or otherwise, from the outset. 

If man caused mortality was the sole factor that resulted in a great crash in the population on the 10 fish streams as stated in a previous post, what is the explanation for an INCREASE in population in 5 fish streams? Makes no sense because the 5 fish streams were supposed to be the "control", nothing was to have changed either before or during the study. In every type of sound research I have ever heard of samples (streams in this case) are randomly selected and enough samples are used to make the study statistically sound. If that was the case shouldn't the overall populations in five fish streams been stable? Yet you state they actually increased. The *obvious conclusion* I come up with is that the study was not long enough to even out anomalies either in the 10 fish streams or in the 5 fish control streams. 

If one argues that 10 fish streams drew fishermen away from 5 fish streams, than a strong argument can logically be made that there should be more miles of 10 fish streams open to fishermen than the 8% of Type A streams that were previously open. Maybe a randomly selected 50% +/-, of streams open for not less than five years and then a statistically sound random sample of these and control streams used for comparison. Random being the key word.

We had a 10 fish limit in this state for decades on virtually all brookie streams and to the best of my knowledge fishermen did not eliminate the trout population from any watershed and also to the best of my knowledge the limit was not reduced to 5 for any reason other than political pressure from a certain special interest group, at least that is what I was told by two separate biologists. So, conducting a long term study certainly would not decimate the population in any way shape or form. Sadly, we know that is not going to happen any time soon unless the majority on the NRC grow a pair and resign themselves to the fact they will not be reappointed when their term is up. The irony of that is those are the very people we would want to see remain on the NRC, the ones not afraid to make hard decisions. FM


----------



## B.Jarvinen

(I also fished a reliable Brookie stretch in the east end the day before. I caught some Coho, and zero Brook Trout. Zero nibbles, spooked fish, nada).


As for that study - there was one study. 3-4 years ago. There wasn't going to be another one. My memory of the study is that it showed different things on different segments. One of the segments I believe was a reach right along a road to Michigan's #1 tourist attraction. The DNR has the place plastered with signs bragging on the Brook Trout fishing there, and it is definitely highlighted in their various "where can I catch Trout?" materials. All that before the limit was raised to 10 there. In 2018, I saw a tourist happily walk off the stream having caught a couple 10s just about 200 yards from the big "fish here, fish here" sign. I go there to fill water jugs. Right by the sign, there is never a fish, that you can count on. Everywhere else, there is a heavy Alder jungle and water too deep to wade easily. I know what most posters in this thread would walk out of that jungle with.

I just won't really consider that study much, with so many huge variables on how many people might or might not have fished the studied segments, experimental, or control.

Raise the limit to 10 in the whole U.P. and figure out the results a couple years later, or we will never know the answer to the question of what impact 10 has, vs. 5.



I have fished a Type 2 segment in the west end a little. It is both stocked extensively with Brook Trout, and seems very popular for a little off-pavement camping + fishing, particularly later in the summer. Michigan's #7 tourist attraction (I made up that ranking) is part of the segment. The water is beautiful to look at, and simply listen to. I truly expect that a lot of people who fish it don't know that the limit is 10" on that water. The idea of a stream "Type" is alien to people I meet while still close to vehicle access (not always fishing right then, but wanting to talk fishing when they encounter a person with a fishing pole). They know that Trout Season opens the last Saturday in April, they know it closes Sept. 30th, and they know a Brook Trout has to be 7" to keep. They know a culvert or a bridge might have a quick Trout within reach. They expect that beyond the little worn down spot to stand by the bridge, after that, there will be a lot of bugs. A good amount of people I have met never even heard of the limit being raised, in just those certain places.

I don't think the resulting "violating" really matters, either, nor would I expect a CO to take much interest in it, when they could accomplish so much more on big touristy lakes with idjits in boats determined to do dumb things, safety wise. A much, much larger majority of people would rather sit on their butt to fish. It's just Brook Trout.


----------



## kzoofisher

So, we have two schools of thought here.
1. That the DNR did their usual work and found that an increase in limits decreased fish. Also that among the public the increase was less supported than maintaining the current limits. Reasons for those of us who aren't biologists or sociologists in the field to believe this?
A. The common belief that areas that get fished less have better fishing. You see that in this thread where posters boast of getting away from the bridges and catch many fish (big ones too!) while the average lazy guy gets skunked. We also have the convention of *unmentionable* streams which need protection through secretiveness and complaints by some proponents of higher limits that increased popularity of a stream would "destroy" the fishing, in their words. And the supposition here that the higher limit actually did attract more fishermen which in turn harmed the fishing. This admits that the higher limit is harmful while supposing that if you could just spread out the harmful activity it wouldn't be so bad.
B. From the sociological standpoint we have the increase of C&R fishing for many species to bolster the idea that lower trout limits are likely to be popular. "Limit your catch, don't catch your limit" in the walleye/pike/musky world, one musky per season in MI, bass going back decades and so on. And the survey itself supports the change in attitudes, those who had fished <50 years were more likely to support the 5 fish limit.

2. That the DNR's data is unreliable and should be discounted at least, if not outright rejected. This applies to both the biological and sociological data. Reasons for us to believe this?
A. Confidence that the biologist who designed this specific study was able to tweak methods in the 395 page DNR Survey Methods Manual in order to reach a false conclusion. That's possible, he wrote the Manual. However, it also requires that all the other biologists either missed the tweaking or went along with it.
B. The methods of the study were unreliable, e.g. that it wasn't long enough or didn't cover enough territory. We have no evidence it didn't meet the standards laid out in the manual and the standards used on streams all over the State. It did only last 4 years instead of 5 but that time is a preferred length not a necessity. For instance, the study of tagged stocked fish on the Au Sable was originally set to run 3 years. When the trend is the same each year the extra year isn't necessary.
C. Belief that the treatment streams were adversely affected by weather or other natural forces that decreased the fish in them while the control streams were simultaneously improved by beneficial weather or other forces.
D. Confidence that the public survey that was done was dominated by "fly guys" or somehow the demographics were skewed. The survey garnered more responses than any Fisheries had done to that date. More than half of the respondents were from the UP. The DNR held 17 public meetings around the State where they took comments and encouraged people to fill out the survey. It was promoted on this website by myself and others. The record number of responses indicates how many people heard about it. A higher % than the State average said they primarily fish with bait. 57% said they keep fish. If anything, the survey was skewed to bait fishermen and those who prefer to harvest fish.

Position 1 needs no convoluted additions to be held true. Position 2 needs the assumption of malfeasance, incompetence, divine intervention or all of the above.


----------



## kzoofisher

mondrella said:


> So the stream with the best overall size of brown trout in the control also gets a healthy run of steelhead and salmon. Explain that??
> I can add 2+2 and it falls back to something a mentioned early on. Guess what it is!


I would expect a stream with both steelhead and brown trout to have big browns. I would also expect it to have 50% fewer browns than it would if there were rainbows instead of steelhead. It's a matter of aesthetics whether you like a stream with high numbers of browns and a lower average size or a stream with few browns but the ones there tend to be large. And otherwise the fish are extremely eager young steelhead that are easy to catch. My wife describes that kind of stream as being full of red stripe bluegill. And she won't even bother to fish one.


----------



## mondrella

kzoofisher said:


> I would expect a stream with both steelhead and brown trout to have big browns. I would also expect it to have 50% fewer browns than it would if there were rainbows instead of steelhead. It's a matter of aesthetics whether you like a stream with high numbers of browns and a lower average size or a stream with few browns but the ones there tend to be large. And otherwise the fish are extremely eager young steelhead that are easy to catch. My wife describes that kind of stream as being full of red stripe bluegill. And she won't even bother to fish one.


The stream has great numbers much like the PM


----------



## toto

When it comes to "science" science doesnt prove anything for certain, and that's just a fact. If you look a member of this site by the avatar of pescadero, he will gladly explain that to you. It can give guidance, under assumed conditions or data.

Having said that, no study would ever pass peer review unless said study is totally complete, therefore this study, as stated by you is incomplete. Granted one can assume the outcome from what they do have, but it's difficult for me to 100% confidence in a incomplete study.

Your problem is, and you've stated this in the past (pardon the seque), but in talking flies only you refuse to listen to the facts in the northwest ordinance. So it is readily apparent that you have a bad habit picking and choosing what you want to believe. This is exactly what is being done the "elite" groups, which was stated above. I knew they were going back to 5 when it was discussed by the CRSC based solely on one NRC member who was there, and what he said at that time; which was he knew how he was going to vote signaling it didn't matter what the CRSC voted to do.


----------



## kzoofisher

mondrella said:


> The stream has great numbers much like the PM


I'm not surprised it has good numbers, especially good numbers of big browns. Just not the numbers of fish it would have with a different salmonid than steelhead in the stream. But it's a matter of aesthetics, as I said. Years ago I got tired of fishing waters where it was hard to keep small steelhead off my hook. OK if I'm head hunting with bigger baits, not so much fun for everyday fishing. But that's just me.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> When it comes to "science" science doesnt prove anything for certain, and that's just a fact. If you look a member of this site by the avatar of pescadero, he will gladly explain that to you. It can give guidance, under assumed conditions or data.


Lol. Wasn't that long ago you were arguing that unless the "science proved" something no changes should ever be made. Back then you thought the science proved your point of view and any study that used words like "may" or "could" should be disregarded. As the evidence continues to pile up that your point of view is wrong, you're shifting to relativism. Too funny



toto said:


> Having said that, no study would ever pass peer review unless said study is totally complete, therefore this study, as stated by you is incomplete. Granted one can assume the outcome from what they do have, but it's difficult for me to 100% confidence in a incomplete study.


 The study was complete. Enough evidence was gathered in the first four years that a fifth year wasn't going to change it. And as far as peer review, you'll find that most of the research the DNR does never goes to peer reviewed journals. For the most part they write summaries to present the the Division, NRC and public as appropriate. They do a whole lot of small studies all the time. 



toto said:


> Your problem is, and you've stated this in the past (pardon the seque), but in talking flies only you refuse to listen to the facts in the northwest ordinance. So it is readily apparent that you have a bad habit picking and choosing what you want to believe. This is exactly what is being done the "elite" groups, which was stated above. I knew they were going back to 5 when it was discussed by the CRSC based solely on one NRC member who was there, and what he said at that time; which was he knew how he was going to vote signaling it didn't matter what the CRSC voted to do.


Another one we've been over many times but you don't remember, do you? What's my position on the NWO? Remember yet? No, you don't. I'll hit *enter* twice to give you a second to think about it.

Your interpretation of the NWO is wrong. That's all, just wrong. The DNR and the State of Michigan live up to their obligations under the NWO and the Public Trust Doctrine. It's not a matter of picking and choosing, it's a matter of recognizing that the State lives up to its responsibilities, and the complete lack of cases alleging or finding otherwise is evidence enough.

By the way, you're not keeping much of a secret by not naming Commissioner Walters. He's the only one who has attended any of the CRSC meetings and so far as I know, the only one who attends the other citizen advisory committee meetings. And he's listed in the minutes.


----------



## Sparky23

kzoofisher said:


> This? Again?
> 
> 1st paragraph: science _is_ used for all decisions. The distinction you are unable to make (again) is between when a rule is harmful to the fish and when it is neutral or beneficial. Harmful=DNR obligation to change. Neutral or beneficial=DNR assessing social impacts like desirability and cost. Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean someone cheated.
> 
> 2nd paragraph: how many times are we going to go over this? The study you keep bringing up is what I think Forest Meister calls pseudoscience. It was ONE study who's results have not been repeated so far as I know. It depended on what it called "active" bait fishing, which I never saw defined. It is contradicted by virtually every other study done. It has been dismissed by the scientific community as a whole. You brought it up at a Coldwater Committee meeting and it was dismissed there. It isn't valid. I've told you this many times but you keep bringing it up.
> 
> 3rd paragraph: I'm not saying that and neither is anyone else. What the DNR said is that taking all variables into account the biggest difference between the streams that lost fish and the streams gained fish was the 10 fish limit. What EXACTLY was the rationale for the NRC? I don't know, I wasn't at the meeting and I haven't read any reports of what they were thinking. What I do know, and you do too, is that the DNR recommended the 10 fish limit be dropped because fish populations were hurt in the streams that had it and there was no quantifiable social benefit to having it.
> 
> That's what we know. My guess is that a few fish hogs went in and cleaned the streams out. Maybe they were just greedy pigs. Maybe they thought they could take a bunch of fish out and *prove* that fishing pressure had no impact. Maybe, just maybe, a bunch of locals went in and kept a bunch of fish but kept it secret from the survey crews because keeping secrets about places where you catch lots of fish is how fishermen do. However they got caught, we know the 10 fish streams lost fish while 5 fish streams gained fish. And the streams were comparable in size, geography, weather, productivity and natural predators. We know that part because the DNR designed the study and they aren't incompetent boobs. They always take that into account. It's their freaking job.


So it's ok for one study if it fits your agenda? Like chumming that was one outdated study that was debunked time and time again. But doesn't matter it fits your agenda


----------



## toto

Well actually it is not wrong on the NWO, unless of course you are smarter than an attorney, in fact two of them, so there is that. As for the science, what I'm getting at is the science needs to be complete, and if the study isn't complete it's a moot point. Apparently you have forgotten your studies from High School or college, if you remember correctly, all research papers need to be complete, not just shut off when the studies show what they want it to show. Well now that you've named the NRC commish, congrats, I was trying to keep it a little below the belt line, not everyone knew who I was talking about, they do now, thank you very much. 

Back to the NWO, you do realize that Article 4 means what it says it means, especially the last sentence or so of art 4. In fact, it was the exact point used to help settle the fishing disagreements with the tribe years ago, so if it was relevant then, it's still relevant today. As a matter of fact, I have one attorneys opinion that this article means that unless there is a conservation reason to do, you may not create rules and regs that eliminate the public. So, if the population dynamics are such that these "holy waters" for the elite are at carrying capacity, then what do you suppose that means? You profess to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of fisheries, so you get what I mean. 

On the science proving something, complete science, than yes, don't change it. 

It's guys like you that crack me up, you play right into the hands of the anti-fishing groups such as PETA etc. Almost makes me wonder if you aren't a member. So, let's get back to the science subject.

We had the topic of chumming come up a couple of years ago, and the harm it does to the fish by doing so, especially if one cures the eggs with sodium sulfate. Let's think about this logically for one minute, the anti side of the equation was stating that one guide had over 500 gallons of eggs so he could really throw a giant pile in the river. Now think about that statement for a minute, it's so stupid on 2 sides. 1) you gonna tell me that someone has 10 50 gallon barrels of eggs laying around somewhere, 2) you gonna tell me that he actually cured every one of those 10 50 gallon barrels of eggs? The whole point to this exercise isn't to seque elsewhere, but to show just how much disinformation people use, and how so many people don't do the research to find the truth, and guess what, the NRC bought it. Just like you and the NWO, you haven't done the research and I can see that as you have a much narrower scope of the facts than what it really is. No matter, you are an expert of at changing what you say. 

Look, there is a reason you aren't on the CRSC, not sure what it is, don't really care. You obviously aren't open minded enough to see the forest for the trees, and that is one thing one has to be to be on that board, apparently not the NRC board however, and that we seem to agree on. We've been over these trout rules and regulations, and the flies only stuff for a while now, have we gained much ground, I suspect we have, and I suspect that at some point that will come out, when? Don't know. 

As for the proving anything, that's exactly correct, science (in essence) really doens't prove anything, it only leads to other things. But either way, until you get a complete picture, I just can't see how one can use science without a complete study. I'll say it again, the whole reducing from 10 to 5 was predetermined prior the NRC voting on it, I was there and I heard what was said. Since you brought it up, there are a few NRC commishs that shouldn't be on that board for the simple reason their biographies tell it all. All one has to do is look it up and one can determine what the vote will be long before it's held. If you were being honest, you would admit that's true as well. 

As for our outdoor pursuits in general, they are a mess, and I'm not just talking fishing stuff either. Take a look at deer hunting, this whole APR thing is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. So in the future anyone want to bet they'll up the ante and the deer will now have to have 4 points on one side, even for the first deer? Then what, 5, 6, etc? Getting back to fishing, has it ever dawned on you that your way of thinking is actually more harmful than not being mindful of carrying capacity? If you are looking for stupid, stunted, 6-7 inch trout, keep going the way your going, and that's pretty much what you'll have. 

Kzoo, let's get something straight, you are just trying to protect your part of nirvana, and that's fine and I get it, but not when it's at the expense of the general public. So go ahead and do your best to disparage me, I have no problem with that, but just remember what I said, he that laughs last, laughs loudest.


----------



## toto

kzoofisher said:


> Lol. Wasn't that long ago you were arguing that unless the "science proved" something no changes should ever be made. Back then you thought the science proved your point of view and any study that used words like "may" or "could" should be disregarded. As the evidence continues to pile up that your point of view is wrong, you're shifting to relativism. Too funny


That's right, don't pick and choose your words, the key there is the words "May" or "Could". Those are NOT scientific in nature, they are only words denoting guess work. As I said, in reality, science proves nothing as an end point, it only moves the ball down the road a bit. Check with any scientist who does research, they'll tell ya the same thing. There is always the next question to research, that will never change.


----------



## -Axiom-

Let's be real here.

 If you are keeping 7" trout you are desperate to begin with and chances are those keeping 7" trout probably can't catch 10 trout in a day anyway.


----------



## PunyTrout

-Axiom- said:


> Let's be real here.
> 
> If you are keeping 7" trout you are desperate to begin with and chances are those keeping 7" trout probably can't catch 10 trout in a day anyway.



I have * _heard_* that the bones on those 7 inch Brookies dissolve into deliciousness when fried in grease... 

*Yooper folklore


----------



## mondrella

kzoofisher said:


> I'm not surprised it has good numbers, especially good numbers of big browns. Just not the numbers of fish it would have with a different salmonid than steelhead in the stream. But it's a matter of aesthetics, as I said. Years ago I got tired of fishing waters where it was hard to keep small steelhead off my hook. OK if I'm head hunting with bigger baits, not so much fun for everyday fishing. But that's just me.


Well we agree on something! Steelhead and salmon presence can lower resident numbers. 
Yet i asked a question you skipped over and did not answer. You brought up the info that more browns migrate into the Fly water on the PM than hatched there. We know this from years of studies. The reason HABITAT. 
I brought it up as a reason early on as a possible issue. Fact is we had creel census clerks working these streams and could not find fisherman fishing. Spend anytime on these streams you will see human pressure on these waters is extremely low. I would be surprised on one of them that another person had fished it besides me. Never seen any sign at all. Its loaded with trout BTW.


----------



## Forest Meister

PunyTrout said:


> I have * _heard_* that the bones on those 7 inch Brookies dissolve into deliciousness when fried in grease...
> 
> *Yooper folklore


I have no hard data that would confirm or deny but I "heard" the grease in question must be either bacon grease or lard.

Along those same lines the author Cully Gage in writing about growing up in the UP during the early part of the 20th century, stated in one of his books (The Northwoods Reader or Call It North Country) that 6" trout were the best eating. Without rereading I cannot recall if he cooked said undersized fish over an open fire on the stream or snuck them home for mom to cook for dinner. Back then the limit was 25, the population of the UP was higher, and many folks had to count on nature's bounty to provide part of their diet. Social programs certainly weren't what they are now. Isn't it a wonder we still have trout today? FM


----------



## B.Jarvinen

((Peanut Oil, y’all))

In West Virginia, the greedy types who fish ‘natives’ (Brook Trout), keep all the 5” fish and just make a ‘paste’ out of the cooked results. At a certain size point, it is more like eating Smelt I would guess. I have never eaten a natural Brook Trout in WV; just too much work on the eating end after a lot of work on the catching end. (Ate a couple hatchery raised 11s once, and the real trick there is finding the hatchery fish 2-3 months later - easy if you understand basic Trout structure and basic off-road navigation and can walk some steep terrain - easy, really). They are moving closer to a Zero possession limit on Brook Trout; I expect that will happen in another few years there. The problem is much less fishing pressure than habitat loss - the cold water just keeps retreating higher and higher up the watershed = less and less accessible to your average person, and very few chase the prettiest ‘Trout’ any more. There is nothing that can really be done about base water temps for the most part, and Beavers are pretty determinedly resilient creatures too. (I think a big true friend of the Brookie is the Wolf, which WV doesn’t have). Ever increasing water temps are the Brooks’ most deadly enemy by far, in my opinion. 

As the Brookies lose access to the deeper holes, up at the very top they can’t grow very big for the most part. And there can be a whole lot of little Brookies up there sometimes. An occasional nice fish does eventually wander down into the put&take sections, which is a vibrant fishery. Whatever keeps people outdoors and fishing is better than trying to lock up Nature behind gates. Something I thought the NRC was trying to accomplish here. Purism doesn’t help the sport. 

I see some similarities here with the segments open to the Great Lakes, and especially those where Steelhead are stocked. 

I have fished Pike in inland lakes where the local residents are desperate for someone to control the mass quantities of small Pike in the lake - they want to fish Panfish, but their lake is changing now as less and less people fish. A lot goes into population dynamics beyond the fishing regulations. 

I think the main reality of Brook Trout regs in the U.P. is that a majority of people who live and fish there just don’t care about the regulations. And that doesn’t mean they are a bunch of ‘violators’ to be sneered at. Breaking Brook Trout regs actually takes time and energy that very few Worm Dunkers would expend on the idea, no matter how dark the fantasies of the TU purists. A lot of people who do fish just occasionally and casually never even heard about this now over social experiment. I think more interest may have been from people who don’t fish U.P. Brook Trout regularly. Because if you do, I think you would soon conclude that a peninsula-wide limit of 5 OR 10 just wouldn’t really matter either way. 

You will find either a lot of Rainbow smolts, or a lot of Brookies; sometimes a nicely balanced mix but I think that would change from season to season and segment to segment, with very little influence of Man, aside from the ones that show up with a tanker load of hatchery raised fish, or on a segment next to a famous parking lot, or the first wide spot on the side of the road beyond the last 35 mph speed limit sign. Regs won’t change how many fish you find there regardless. 

I am just repeating myself now in this post. I will say that one of the worst Brookie segments I have fished is one in Iron Co. that is super easy to swing a fly rod on and is discussed at national TU conventions, is how the locals describe it. The next watershed over, hardly anyone fishes, on foot anyway. That one has a far healthier riparian corridor fully recovered from logging, with thicker cover but difficult fly fishing conditions. The great fly shop in Iron Co. closed up now too, and the other bait shop there probably doesn’t have long to go, either, so even the wide open segments of Iron Co. are probably getting better and better now too, with good natural Beaver control now too. There is a really good fly shop over in Vilas Co., highly recommended if you want to chase Muskies with a fly rod, but I give that one a similar 5 years left prognosis, so you had better hurry. 

But I am keeping my copy of the fishing guide with the last set of “BKT 10” regulations for a long time to come. Most, but definitely not all, of those do feature awesome Brook Trout fishing. And always will, because the majority of the fishing done on them is done by Otters and Eagles, etc., who also were unaware of this experiment.


----------



## Ranger Ray

ridgewalker said:


> So it had nothing to do with the action filed in court in Chicago against the DNR and NRC? :lol:





Ranger Ray said:


> What lawsuit? Who filed it? Any more info?


Learning more about this one. The special interests lawsuit had a lot to do with it. Should have finished the study. Anyone want to guess who the special interest was?


----------



## B.Jarvinen

“The fly flickers from Chicago?” As some almost locals on what I call the Boat Parade River described it the other day. Though the happiness of the trout tourists is just as important as the happiness of the locals. We all need more people fishing, and so do the trout. 

But lawsuits are not secrets, so I do hope to hear more about that. I am so glad we have some good citizens involved in all this; a world of difference from some stuff going on with Federal land management for certain wildlife species and outside “enthusiast” groups.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

Oh and I was really wondering why the NRC suddenly reversed itself on this just a couple months after renewing the idea; particularly when the whole idea came from the NRC in the first place. 

And I would wager that just as there is not enough money to really study this question very well, there is not enough money to fight a lawsuit over it, either.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Money is what I am hearing was the issue. Those presenting the lawsuit probably knew that. So who won? Money or science?

What if the "trout tourists" and "happiness" of the "locals" differ?

Can you point to who the "good citizens" are in this instance?


----------



## B.Jarvinen

I meant you and Toto participating on the ¿CRSC? committee. (I forget the exact initials sometimes). 

Was the ‘special interest group’ ever going to tell us about this lawsuit, otherwise?


----------



## B.Jarvinen

As for whether out-state TU members are happy about MI fishing regs, I would say to them that their fishing experience would be just as happy without a bunch of special rules, was more my point. Take odd ‘special’ regs away and overall fishing pressure on the ‘special’ segment might actually go down, once it is not specifically ID’d in the regs like that. The fly flickers should just get out more and fish everywhere, like the rest of us - they might even catch more fish.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

Here is a good, basic, and up-to-date report on the whole long running process around this regulation, including the lawsuit I just learned about today:

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-e...t-enough-michigan-keeps-changing-catch-limits

Kudos to that outlet for some straight ahead basic journalism. I doubt anything close to that would have appeared in Woods&Water News.

Of note from the article: the ‘study’ we kick around so much in this thread cost $200,000. That has been what I have thought for a while on all this - money will always win in that there isn’t enough money to do the science. Paper covers rock. Experimental reg changes on a stream here and a stream there create more variables to a given study that can’t be done anyway. 

5 or 10, I am fine either way and I think so are the Trout. Odds I have time to try for more than five are always low anyway, and my next goal is to fish where the limit is just 1. I would kinda rather see a limit of 5 Brook Trout PLUS 5 Rainbow Trout (Type 1 season) on waters of Superior, but start messing with ideas like that on the ‘silver fish’ and we would soon have flamethrowers on full blast and threads on lock down. 

I think there are a lot more important things for the Department to figure out, like why is it so much more difficult to catch a Lake Michigan Steelhead right now (if you wanna talk limit changes....I’ll skip that one). If you want to catch Brook Trout, in either peninsula, do your homework and fish largely spring fed water with a dam in between you and the Great Lakes and you will be fine. If those basics aren’t enough, the DNR is very good at helping people reach the fish they want to catch in their online resources.


----------



## laserstraight

-Axiom- said:


> Let's be real here.
> 
> If you are keeping 7" trout you are desperate to begin with and chances are those keeping 7" trout probably can't catch 10 trout in a day anyway.


Don't be so sure, there are still some..... 
Some of the best trout fisherman I have ever known keep 
every legal trout they caught because they enjoyed eating them. 
Now with that being said almost all these people are not alive
anymore, but I still know a couple that do...


----------



## B.Jarvinen

Back to the courts it goes ... new lawsuit filed by 2 (ex?) NRC members against ... the NRC. 

Read about it in probably newest issue of Michigan Outdoor News; 4-24-20 cover date I think.


----------



## 22 Chuck

Never trout fished much. Did one trip on the Ausable when in college early 60s. Fellow w/ me was a real fisherman (not fly) and we ended up one time following the DNR plant truck and caught a few 7-8"ers.

Another time on the Manistee he caught 4 or 5 and then we camped. After dinner he was headed to clean em. He noticed that a turtle was dining on his stringer (see not a real fisherman). I dont thinks he ate any of those or the turtle.


----------

