# Brook Trout Regulations in MI



## M. Tonello

Hello everyone,
We in the DNR are currently looking at brook trout regulations in Michigan, and we're looking for public comment. See here: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364-274228--,00.html

Thanks...


----------



## M. Tonello

We're also looking at northern pike and muskellunge regs too, for those that might be interested in those species:
Northern pike:http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364-274229--,00.html

Muskellunge: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364-274232--,00.html

Thanks...


----------



## TroutStlkr

Put my two cents in for the survey, though I have to admit to never actually having targeted brookies in the UP. It's been a big to do that I just haven't made happen yet. The power point that goes with the survey does make a compelling case that there is little gained with keeping the limit at 5 versus raising it to 10. Natural mortality seems to be the largest limiting factor of the fishery. 

Still, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a management model that produces more actual trophy sized brookies as opposed to just looking at total population and population over 7 inches. Slots limits of some sort maybe? I really don't know. The report mentioned that UP brookies naturally rarely live past 3 years, but maybe the few that do reach a certain size are more likely to survive the natural perils they face and could be protected to gain those extra few inches that might make the different between being just a really nice fish to one that becomes the talk of fishing camp for years to come. I really don't know if there is any merit to the idea or not, just that I'd love not to have to travel north of the border for a legitimate chance at that kind of brook trout. I know made in Michiagn brookies in the upper teens and even going over 20" get caught every year. I'm for whatever management plan that makes those catches a little more common.


----------



## Splitshot

Based on the science the limit should be increased to 10 fish. The decision to reduce the limit to 5 fish was based on social reasons and is not a valid reason according to the mission statement of the MDNR Fisheries Division.

The fisheries division recently posted a 2011 Accomplishment Report which stated; The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.

If this is true, how can reducing limits when it doesnt protect brook trout numbers, imposing gear restrictions on public rivers, managing some streams for trophy fish which all restrict recreational opportunities for the people of Michigan be reconciled with the stated mission statement above?

It is pretty clear to me that these social rules cannot be reconciled. Yes I would like to enjoy the quality experience of having a river full of trophy trout to myself but that would be selfish if I had to convince the DNR to pass restrictive rules that would limit that opportunity to most other fishermen, women and kids to enjoy it. 

The argument that these rules bring in more money from out of state fishermen or benefit local businesses and other commercial interest who rationalize that their rights are more important that managing our public resources to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan just mock that mission statement and the Public Trust Doctrine.

Please set the limits based on the best science to protect our fisheries and get rid of restrictive rules that favor certain commercial interest and special interest groups. Every person should have equal access and opportunity to our public resources.


----------



## fishinDon

Splitshot said:


> Based on the science the limit should be increased to 10 fish. The decision to reduce the limit to 5 fish was based on social reasons and is not a valid reason according to the mission statement of the MDNR Fisheries Division.
> 
> The fisheries division recently posted a 2011 Accomplishment Report which stated; The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.
> 
> If this is true, how can reducing limits when it doesnt protect brook trout numbers, imposing gear restrictions on public rivers, managing some streams for trophy fish which all restrict recreational opportunities for the people of Michigan be reconciled with the stated mission statement above?
> 
> It is pretty clear to me that these social rules cannot be reconciled. Yes I would like to enjoy the quality experience of having a river full of trophy trout to myself but that would be selfish if I had to convince the DNR to pass restrictive rules that would limit that opportunity to most other fishermen, women and kids to enjoy it.
> 
> The argument that these rules bring in more money from out of state fishermen or benefit local businesses and other commercial interest who rationalize that their rights are more important that managing our public resources to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan just mock that mission statement and the Public Trust Doctrine.
> 
> Please set the limits based on the best science to protect our fisheries and get rid of restrictive rules that favor certain commercial interest and special interest groups. Every person should have equal access and opportunity to our public resources.


x2 - Biologists know what they are doing. I trust them to make good decisions based on the best science we have available.


----------



## Steve_D

Honestly I think there should be slot limits on most of our species of fish, and I'd be more than willing to follow these regulations that the DNR and fisheries biologists have come up with. This includes steelhead and salmon; even if its a 2-3 inch slot restriction, wouldn't that greatly improve on their spawning success and size averages? I hear talk of reducing limit catches or closing seasons at specific times, but why not slot limit and reduce keep limits? Who wants a million small fish because everybody keeps the "keepers"? Shouldn't we have, lets say, half big, and half small? It could be done, and is much healthier than what happens now. Similar to the "don't shoot the buck, only the doe" rule that many old-fashioned people still abide by when allowing others to hunt their land. Totally unhealthy, right?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## troutguy26

Splitshot said:


> Based on the science the limit should be increased to 10 fish. The decision to reduce the limit to 5 fish was based on &#147;social reasons&#148; and is not a valid reason according to the mission statement of the MDNR Fisheries Division.
> 
> The fisheries division recently posted a 2011 &#147;Accomplishment Report&#148; which stated; &#147;The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.&#148;
> 
> If this is true, how can reducing limits when it doesn&#146;t protect brook trout numbers, imposing gear restrictions on public rivers, managing some streams for trophy fish which all restrict recreational opportunities for the people of Michigan be reconciled with the stated mission statement above?
> 
> It is pretty clear to me that these social rules cannot be reconciled. Yes I would like to enjoy the quality experience of having a river full of trophy trout to myself but that would be selfish if I had to convince the DNR to pass restrictive rules that would limit that opportunity to most other fishermen, women and kids to enjoy it.
> 
> The argument that these rules bring in more money from out of state fishermen or benefit local businesses and other commercial interest who rationalize that their rights are more important that managing our public resources to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan just mock that mission statement and the Public Trust Doctrine.
> 
> Please set the limits based on the best science to protect our fisheries and get rid of restrictive rules that favor certain commercial interest and special interest groups. Every person should have equal access and opportunity to our public resources.


I will third that one. Sound science should be the only determining factor involved when decisions are made for our resources. Period.


----------



## Splitshot

It sounds like a good idea, but is not based on science. It makes very little sense to have slot limits on brook trout since they only live an average of two years. Actually it makes more sense to me to keep more trout so there is more food for those remaining.

An even better idea would be to work on habitat improvements to provide more food and better fish hides. The MDNR fish biologists have been studying this issue for years and have come to the conclusion and published their findings that sport fishing has no noticeable effect on trout. That means that a slot limit would have very little if any effect either.

Since 1992 over a million dollars has been spent improving the habitat mostly on the flies only stretch of the Pere Marquette River and as a result the DNR no longer plants fish in that section and that was true before the no kill rule. Any rule that restricts access to our public waters does a disservice to all the people of Michigan. If you make trophy rules and gear restrictions that restrict recreation there might be some bigger trout, but to the detriment of the general public.

Some deer hunters want rules on public land that would produce bigger bucks, but in the end it can only be done by reducing the opportunities of the public. None of the deer ranches from Texas to Maine would produce the same trophy bucks if they opened their lands to the public. It only works if they limit the number and type of deer that are killed. I have no problem with the big private ranches but if you have to take away some opportunities from some people to provide trophy deer or trophy fish, it violated the public trust.

Remember what the mission of the MDNR is; The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.

Optimum use does not mean to implement rules that restrict some people in order to grow bigger deer or bigger trout for people who are only interested in trophies.. We are talking about public land and waters that belongs to all of us. Many people say antler restrictions and gear restrictions protect the resources and are in the interest of the Greater Good, but most of the time it is really and excuse to promote their own selfish desires.


----------



## troutguy26

Exactly. Many people "say" alot of things but have no proof to back it up. Its a form of discrimination in my eyes.


----------



## TroutStlkr

I'm not definitively saying that slot limits are a viable solution. Splitshot maybe absolutely correct in saying that they are not. I would love to see some actual data where a management model incorporating slot limits was put in place and see whether or not it did have a measurable affect on the proportion of trophy sized specimens in that population. I'm really just asking the question. I'm really not advocating putting major restrictions on anybody's angling, but only those that make sense according to sound studies and those where the potential gain justifies the level of restriction. 

I may be completely wrong in this, but it just seems that those few brook trout that are hardy enough to reach say 14 or 15 inches might also be hardy enough to endure another winter or two along with maybe being caught and released, so that they might really become a special catch. Maybe it's even something genetic that allowed that fish to make it to the slot and therefor allowing those fish a few extra spawns might improve the population. Because most of a given season's catch would comprise of trout that do not reach this size, I don't think having to put just a couple back is all that restrictive. But again, I could be way off. Just really posing the question.

As for the mission of the MDNR. There is a little bit of room for interpretation in the phrase "The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan." What does one consider optimum. I'm someone, who would stress trophy potential. Maybe that makes me selfish, but I think there are probably a lot of other Michigan anglers who would share that selfish hope. I don't think there is anything wrong with citizens discussing what really should be the goal for all of our individual fisheries. Lots of small keeper sized trout for the frying pan without much hope of a real lunker or selectively and slightly fewer for the pan but a real chance at that brookie of a lifetime? Maybe there is nothing we can do regulationswise that would make the latter more likely. I just think there are other things to consider besides numbers when looking at what is "optimum." As citizens who pay taxes and license fees and who all want to utilize these resources, I don't think there is anything wrong with debating what the goal should be and what is best for everybody who takes part in that fishery.

BTW Spitshot, I do agree that habitat improvement would probably do more good than any regulation. I would love to see more emphasis on that.


----------



## Steve_D

Splitshot said:


> It sounds like a good idea, but is not based on science. It makes very little sense to have slot limits on brook trout since they only live an average of two years. Actually it makes more sense to me to keep more trout so there is more food for those remaining.
> 
> An even better idea would be to work on habitat improvements to provide more food and better fish hides. The MDNR fish biologists have been studying this issue for years and have come to the conclusion and published their findings that sport fishing has no noticeable effect on trout. That means that a slot limit would have very little if any effect either.
> 
> Since 1992 over a million dollars has been spent improving the habitat mostly on the flies only stretch of the Pere Marquette River and as a result the DNR no longer plants fish in that section and that was true before the no kill rule. Any rule that restricts access to our public waters does a disservice to all the people of Michigan. If you make trophy rules and gear restrictions that restrict recreation there might be some bigger trout, but to the detriment of the general public.
> 
> Some deer hunters want rules on public land that would produce bigger bucks, but in the end it can only be done by reducing the opportunities of the public. None of the deer ranches from Texas to Maine would produce the same trophy bucks if they opened their lands to the public. It only works if they limit the number and type of deer that are killed. I have no problem with the big private ranches but if you have to take away some opportunities from some people to provide trophy deer or trophy fish, it violated the public trust.
> 
> Remember what the mission of the MDNR is; &#147;The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.&#148;
> 
> Optimum use does not mean to implement rules that restrict some people in order to grow bigger deer or bigger trout for people who are only interested in trophies.. We are talking about public land and waters that belongs to all of us. Many people say antler restrictions and gear restrictions protect the resources and are in the interest of the &#147;Greater Good&#148;, but most of the time it is really and excuse to promote their own selfish desires.


I agree! Brook Trout aren't a species I am very familiar with, so you're right.

You caused me to reconsider my opinion. Very valid points, and very realistic as well. As far as habitat restoration, well, good luck to you, and I'd love to help. I am infuriated with the nature of which many people treat the land and water. Sickening.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Steve_D

I think we could all agree that the DNR, regardless of their often times viewed "tough guy" persona, that we need somebody to protect our resources. I've never even been talked to by the DNR, but if I ever am, I'd be proud knowing a law enforcement organization isn't the reason why I protect what I enjoy. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## troutguy26

Troutstlkr there are alot of things involved that grow those trout to that size far beyong angling. And ive never met a co with a tough guy persona. Every officer ive ever met is very polite and we end up shooting the breeze for awhile about fishing and whatever river, crick im on.


----------



## TroutStlkr

troutguy26 said:


> Troutstlkr there are alot of things involved that grow those trout to that size far beyong angling.


So what you're saying is that it is kind of complicated. Interesting.


----------



## kzoofisher

Biologically there is no difference between the 5 fish limit and the 10 fish limit. Part of the reason that there is no difference is that most anglers catch 5 or fewer fish anyway. Therefore, the push to change the limit is social. The DNR is responding now because the public has been complaining since 2001. The reg proposals have nothing to do with science, they have been proposed because the science doesn't contradict the social goals of the Yoopers.


----------



## quest32a

kzoofisher said:


> Biologically there is no difference between the 5 fish limit and the 10 fish limit. Part of the reason that there is no difference is that most anglers catch 5 or fewer fish anyway. Therefore, the push to change the limit is social. The DNR is responding now because the public has been complaining since 2001. The reg proposals have nothing to do with science, they have been proposed because the science doesn't contradict the social goals of the Yoopers.


Were you at the Portage meeting tonight? I was the younger guy in the front right. I was going to respond with pretty much what you said. 

The drift I took from the meeting on this issue is that there is very, very little difference in overall Brook trout mortality with a difference between 5-10 fish. Approx. 1% on most streams. 

The downside of implementing this decision really seemed to be tied to complicating our regulations further. Many anglers complain about the regulations be difficult to read as they are, and our bioligists are afraid this may make it more difficult. Personally I don't see this as a major issue, but I am sure for some this is a point of contention. 

The general drift I got from the anglers at the meeting was one of apathy. Many had no strong feelings one way or another. Most were fine with the limit being 5 and were just as ok with the limit being 10.


----------



## kzoofisher

quest32a said:


> Were you at the Portage meeting tonight? I was the younger guy in the front right. I was going to respond with pretty much what you said.
> 
> The drift I took from the meeting on this issue is that there is very, very little difference in overall Brook trout mortality with a difference between 5-10 fish. Approx. 1% on most streams.
> 
> The downside of implementing this decision really seemed to be tied to complicating our regulations further. Many anglers complain about the regulations be difficult to read as they are, and our bioligists are afraid this may make it more difficult. Personally I don't see this as a major issue, but I am sure for some this is a point of contention.
> 
> The general drift I got from the anglers at the meeting was one of apathy. Many had no strong feelings one way or another. Most were fine with the limit being 5 and were just as ok with the limit being 10.


I was sitting behind you and agree with your take. I think some of the reasons folks are apathetic about the UP are distance, the fish are small and they are pretty common to catch elsewhere. Jay never mentioned any fixable limiting factors to brook trout size and after the meeting I wondered if browns lower in the rivers prevent brookies from migrating down to more fertile waters with better growth potential. Not that anyone is going to support eliminating browns. 

Enjoyed the meeting and and the chance to communicate directly with the DNR (Jay). Too bad more people couldn't be there (6), at least the surveys will give them the chance to be heard.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Therefore, the push to change the limit is social. The DNR is responding now because the public has been complaining since 2001.


I would imagine they have been complaining since the change to 5. Was there science to change to 5? I bet that was a social change also. Its a guessing game at best.


----------



## quest32a

Ranger Ray said:


> I would imagine they have been complaining since the change to 5. Was there science to change to 5? I bet that was a social change also. Its a guessing game at best.


Jay openly said it was a social change then, and it will be a social change now. The science doesn't really support it one way or the other.


----------



## fishinDon

A bunch of interesting stuff in this thread. I'm glad a couple people are posting in here that actually went to a meeting. Too bad it was only 6 people.  I have a feeling the meetings in the northern lower and the UP will be more widely attended since we're closer to the "action." 

Kzoo fisher and Ranger Ray are both correct. The bag limit being set at 5 or 10 fish makes no difference biologically, it's a social rule. Most of us who read the trout forums are skilled trout fishermen, so it may be difficult for us to get our heads around the creel data. Not sure if they showed all of it at the Portage meeting, but the fact that some creel data showed as many as 60+% of the fishermen were not able to catch even a single trout was pretty sobering. It's hard to hurt the population, no matter what the bag limit is, when you can't hook one.  

It was socially motivated when it was lowered to 5 in 2001 and it's socially motivated to push it back to 10 now. 

One other thing that seems to be being loosly debated in this thread is all the complexity that goes into the trout fishery in terms of numbers/size of the trout. I think the study does a pretty good job of explaining the biological factors that go into brook and brown trout fishery on the Au Sable and how they can account for the vast majority of the variations you see year over year in the fish - all of this essentially separate from regulations:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/665-Zorn-Nuhfer-2007a_232139_7.pdf 

If you're wondering about the science behind the trout fishery, you should try to make some time to read it. 

Good Thread,
Don


----------



## kzoofisher

It is true that the some of the factors that limit fish populations are beyond our control. The rest are social decisions, controlling the behavior of the public either by preventing them from some action or allowing someone to perform an action, e.g habitat improvement. The argument that social considerations can't be considered is based on the fallacy that they are not the basis of all our regulations today. The Public Trust Doctrine does not prevent the DNR from regulating what methods are used to pursue fish. Restrictions on bait are no different than restrictions on spearing or bowfishing or creel limits that the public finds palatable. The science shows that a limit of 500 on brook trout in the UP would not hurt populations at the current level of fishing pressure, but that is a proposal that would not fly with the public and would never be considered. Why? Because social considerations are always and have always been a part of the equation. As quest32a said, none of the statewide proposals are based on science, they are all based on what the DNR thinks the public might prefer for the fisheries and will be enacted according to popular opinion.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> It is true that the some of the factors that limit fish populations are beyond our control. The rest are social decisions, controlling the behavior of the public either by preventing them from some action or allowing someone to perform an action, e.g habitat improvement. The argument that social considerations can't be considered is based on the fallacy that they are not the basis of all our regulations today. The Public Trust Doctrine does not prevent the DNR from regulating what methods are used to pursue fish. Restrictions on bait are no different than restrictions on spearing or bowfishing or creel limits that the public finds palatable. The science shows that a limit of 500 on brook trout in the UP would not hurt populations at the current level of fishing pressure, but that is a proposal that would not fly with the public and would never be considered. Why? Because social considerations are always and have always been a part of the equation. As quest32a said, none of the statewide proposals are based on science, they are all based on what the DNR thinks the public might prefer for the fisheries and will be enacted according to popular opinion.


Hard to address this post because it is so generally sweeping and broad, but I will try. 



kzoofisher said:


> It is true that the some of the factors that limit fish populations are beyond our control. The rest are social decisions, controlling the behavior of the public either by preventing them from some action or allowing someone to perform an action, e.g habitat improvement.


Not sure what exactly your point is here, but I don't think I know of any habitat improvement that isn't based on science.



kzoofisher said:


> The argument that social considerations can't be considered is based on the fallacy that they are not the basis of all our regulations today.


:lol: OK. Not even sure what to think of that statement. Social science is not the basis of all our regulations today. They have been steadily increasing through my years of fishing though and why the discussion at hand. The 80's, 90's and 2000's ushered in the ideological fishing moral minority.



kzoofisher said:


> The Public Trust Doctrine does not prevent the DNR from regulating what methods are used to pursue fish.


Yes it does. First, the methods have to be based on the good of all, and administered equitably. Second, there has to be some scientific reasoning for limiting methods.



kzoofisher said:


> Restrictions on bait are no different than restrictions on spearing or bowfishing


Sure it is. Baiting, you release an undersized or out of season fish. What do you do when you spear or bowfish an undersized fish? Out of season fish? This has always been the scientific argument. Many scientific arguments though are driven by ideological thinking and the line can become blurred.



kzoofisher said:


> Because social considerations are always and have always been a part of the equation. As quest32a said, none of the statewide proposals are based on science, they are all based on what the DNR thinks the public might prefer for the fisheries and will be enacted according to popular opinion.


If I remember right, the argument in 2000 to reduce the limit wasn't just social. TU was arguing for 5 because of voodoo ideological science numbers. You know, the sky is falling and 5 has to be better than 10. If this new study would have shown harm to the brook trout population, 10 wouldn't have even been considered, and the DNR is on record as saying so. So I guess science was considered and found to be irrelevant in this case. Social considerations are certainly becoming more the norm. Again that's the issue. What constitutes public opinion? 6 people at a meeting? Easy to pass ideological and moral rules based on a small minority or special interests thinking. This problem has been seen and challenged in other states based on the PTD. Many states now regulate game with PTD as a rule not the exception. Google states and the PTD, its interesting reading, and its not a fallacy. :lol: Michigan DNR originally challenged flies only water based on the PTD and won. Through the years, we have lost any manner of management by it. When you look at the management during the 80's, 90's and early 2000, its easy to see why, ideology and politics ruled. I present the Indian Club land swap as an example. First presented as win for all, because the public would now be able to fish not only the land the Indian Club swapped, but the Indian Clubs land that was normally private. Oops, all of a sudden someone throws some garbage in the river and the club stops all public from fishing their land. A violation of the public trust? Absolutely, and one that should have been challenged at the time by our DNR. What did the public gain by the swap. The state is mandated to manage for the benefit of the public, someone will have to show me how this was a benefit. These are people that take an oath. But if one looks deep into the circle of players, its enough to make one puke. 

Anything is legal until it is challenged. Its always an option of last resort. I believe we have a good group of DNR guys in there now. I think there is good dialog going on. Make no mistake, I bare just as much responsibility as everyone else that has not engaged in conversation up to this point with the DNR. If social science and politics rule, then the public will have to stand up or the special interests will rule. 

If only to be young again, when fishing was for fun, food, and to not have a care in the world.


----------



## woolybug25

http://alexkain.com/2012/03/27/gluttony-in-da-u-p/


----------



## fishinDon

woolybug25 said:


> http://alexkain.com/2012/03/27/gluttony-in-da-u-p/


Wow, the author of that piece did a great job of not only insulting his fellow anglers, but doing so without providing one shred of evidence to further his position. Impressive! 

Don


----------



## itchn2fish

Ranger Ray said:


> If only to be young again, when fishing was for fun, food, and to not have a care in the world.


 Back in the day when you didn't need to be a lawyer & a cartographer to figure out the trout regs & a kid could dig some worms, grab a pole a go torutin'.


----------



## Jfish

Well I'm all for the limit being 10. I've only caught that many when they're all dinks. If I happen to find a good hole (still on the search) I would like to keep 10 nice ones for dinner. Then, the next time I go to the hole I'd just catch and release. That is probably what most would do anyway or they wouldn't even keep any at all ever. I like fish but I only feel like cleaning so many and eating so much. I think some people are just greedy.

There are some that are just adamantly opposed to the limit being 10. Those are the same guys that think you should throw every steelhead or atlantic back too. What a joke.

We go out West to Rocky Mountain National Park every year. The limit in the park is 18 if I recall correctly. Now that is a lot of fish!

I voted for 10.


----------



## Trout King

fishinDon said:


> Wow, the author of that piece did a great job of not only insulting his fellow anglers, but doing so without providing one shred of evidence to further his position. Impressive!
> 
> Don


my thoughts exactly!


----------



## pikedevil

Its surprising to me how much apparent support changing the limit to 10 is getting on this forum. I'm not going to refute the science in the proposal but I will say that this data is largely based on studies done on small streams that have high density populations of trout. Of course natural mortality of 1-3 year old fish is going to be very high, they live in tiny streams where birds and other predators can easily kill them. A bird eating some 4 inch trout doesn't bother me nearly as much as a stringer full of 7-10" fish does. The problem with basing regulation on studies done on tiny creeks is that the majority of the angling pressure is on larger streams that can often have less fish but have the potential to grow more fish in the 10-15" range. These larger streams often have more fish that make it to 3-5 years old. While its true that raising the limit to 10 wont harm the population of most streams it can hurt the amount of legal trout, and particularly the potential to produce larger fish which could be under even more harvest pressure with the 10/day limit. A lot of the angling community would like the oppurtunity to catch more large trout. I guess what I'm saying is the scientific data can be manipulated regardless of what side on the argument you are on. There is also substantial evidence that brook trout populations and distribution are considerably down from historic levels. 

Ultimately this does come down to being a social regulation but as a primarily catch and release fisherman I feel like there needs to a be a compromise. 5/day is that compromise. I'm sick of the state catering to meat fisherman, while anglers who want more oppurtunities to catch and release larger fish get the shaft. 5 trout seems like plenty of trout to kill in a day. Noone wants to fish a stream thats loaded with 4-7 inch fish, regardless of wether or not those fish can reproduce.


----------



## Trout King

pikedevil said:


> Its surprising to me how much apparent support changing the limit to 10 is getting on this forum. I'm not going to refute the science in the proposal but I will say that this data is largely based on studies done on small streams that have high density populations of trout. Of course natural mortality of 1-3 year old fish is going to be very high, they live in tiny streams where birds and other predators can easily kill them. A bird eating some 4 inch trout doesn't bother me nearly as much as a stringer full of 7-10" fish does. The problem with basing regulation on studies done on tiny creeks is that the majority of the angling pressure is on larger streams that can often have less fish but have the potential to grow more fish in the 10-15" range. These larger streams often have more fish that make it to 3-5 years old. While its true that raising the limit to 10 wont harm the population of most streams it can hurt the amount of legal trout, and particularly the potential to produce larger fish which could be under even more harvest pressure with the 10/day limit. A lot of the angling community would like the oppurtunity to catch more large trout. I guess what I'm saying is the scientific data can be manipulated regardless of what side on the argument you are on. There is also substantial evidence that brook trout populations and distribution are considerably down from historic levels.
> 
> Ultimately this does come down to being a social regulation but as a primarily catch and release fisherman I feel like there needs to a be a compromise. 5/day is that compromise. I'm sick of the state catering to meat fisherman, while anglers who want more oppurtunities to catch and release larger fish get the shaft. 5 trout seems like plenty of trout to kill in a day. Noone wants to fish a stream thats loaded with 4-7 inch fish, regardless of wether or not those fish can reproduce.


I'm sick of the state catering to fly fisherman and catch and release only fisherman (flies only and no kill regs, which happen to be the highest quality trout waters in the state). The size of those fish doesn't differ much from "meat hunting grounds". There are large fish out there still and always will be. Do you really think that many people are able to take their limit of 5 trout now? Fish, especially large trout, wise up to angling very quicky. There will always be larger fish and smaller fish. The dumb ones just get weeded out quicker, though all the studies show it will make no difference in overall health/population of a stream. Where did you conclude that the studies were only done on small streams? Not trying to start a pissing match, but I think it is a healthy debate.


----------



## pikedevil

Trout King said:


> Where did you conclude that the studies were only done on small streams?



Well I participated in some of them for one. I was a fisheries major in the UP and most of my studies/projects were done on lake trout and brook trout. I surveyed numerous streams in my time in the UP and have been able to view a lot of the data done from other surveys. I never said the data was based "only" on small streams but most of what we know about brook trout populations comes from electrofishing surveys, many of which are conducted on very small streams that receive very little recreational fishing pressure and aren't representative of some of the larger more famous brook trout water, water that is capable of growing decent numbers of trout over 12 inches. If you think a stretch of stream can't essentially be fished out of legal sized brook trout by anglers than I don't know what to tell you. Sure the population will be ok and another year class will grow up and replace them the following year but it still can ruin the fishing for that particular year. Exactly how many quality sized trout do you think there are at any given time in these small streams? I've seen them get overharvested, it does happen.


----------



## pikedevil

Trout King said:


> Fish, especially large trout, wise up to angling very quicky. There will always be larger fish and smaller fish. The dumb ones just get weeded out quicker, though all the studies show it will make no difference in overall health/population of a stream.


Using terms like NO or 0% when talking about biology is almost always gonna get you into trouble. In this case a difference of 10-15% of legal sized fish in the population if what is expected between the 2 regulations and that is assuming the majority of anglers wont take their limits. Is that insignificant? I guess that depends what side of the fence you are on. 

Also brook trout are not like browns, they dont really "wise up" and elude anglers in the same capacity. In my experience they are incredibly easy to catch compared to browns, even the larger ones. Big brook trout are just rare, and the survey data backs this up.


----------



## Jfish

pikedevil said:


> I've seen them get overharvested, it does happen.


Please don't take offense but I'm just curious as to what specifically you've seen to define over harvested?


----------



## pikedevil

Jfish said:


> Please don't take offense but I'm just curious as to what specifically you've seen to define over harvested?


I have seen catch rates of legal sized trout dramatically decrease in a just a few weeks of heavy human exploitation. We shocked some of these streams as well and found very few legal sized fish so I know it was not a case of the fish simply not biting/hiding. This is different from biological overharvest because in these streams fish were spawning at age 1 and at sizes under the legal size limit, thus insuring there were enough YOY trout to continue to repopulate the stream. The problem was there was an unnatural size and age structure due to too much human exploitation, thus creating a poor fishing experience.


----------



## troutguy26

Ya kinda lost me here. Are you saying that because the 10 fish limit there are less YAO fish but plenty of YOY sublegal fish?


----------



## kzoofisher

Ray,

I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

"Not sure what exactly your point is here, but I don't think I know of any habitat improvement that isn't based on science."

I said that habitat improvements were a social, read political, decision. Science does not make decisions because it is not a thing, it is a process by which people arrive at conclusions. People also arrive at conclusions by other processes. The important thing to remember is that it is people or society if you will, that make the final decision.

"Social science is not the basis of all our regulations today."

I never said anything about social science so I can't respond.

"Yes it does. First, the methods have to be based on the good of all, and administered equitably. Second, there has to be some scientific reasoning for limiting methods." and "Baiting, you release an undersized or out of season fish. What do you do when you spear or bowfish an undersized fish? Out of season fish? This has always been the scientific argument. Many scientific arguments though are driven by ideological thinking and the line can become blurred."

You counter your first argument with your second. All studies show that bait fishing has a higher mortality rate than artificials. How you choose to interpret the affect of the difference is the basis of disagreement between artficials only and general regulations. As for out of season fish, it is unlikely with a bow or spear because you are targeting a specific animal, not casting your net upon the waters and hoping for the best. Your belief that bow and spear fisherman cannot make those distinctions is simply your belief, not a scientific conclusion. If you truly believe in equitable treatment of anglers based purely on the viability of fish stocks then I assume that you support spearing and bowfishing on all our lakes and streams and for all species. Certainly there is no problem in identifying legal size salmon and steelhead in rivers and there is already a long tradition of spearing pike and musky through the ice, why not in the summer too? There is no biological reason that I can see to continue these outrageous bans on the methods that bow and spear fisherman prefer. I certainly hope that you and your cohorts will stand up for all anglers and not just the ones who like to fish the way you do.


----------



## Trout King

pikedevil said:


> I have seen catch rates of legal sized trout dramatically decrease in a just a few weeks of heavy human exploitation. We shocked some of these streams as well and found very few legal sized fish so I know it was not a case of the fish simply not biting/hiding. This is different from biological overharvest because in these streams fish were spawning at age 1 and at sizes under the legal size limit, thus insuring there were enough YOY trout to continue to repopulate the stream. The problem was there was an unnatural size and age structure due to too much human exploitation, thus creating a poor fishing experience.


So there is really no harming the actual population of the fish in a particular stream? Just the age/size structure. Personally I take a lot of legal brook trout in a year, but don't like to dip into the same well too often in a year. I do however hit streams 2-3 times a year and usually take a limit each time. I guess I understand how legal sized fish can be overfished a bit by someone killing a limit day in and day out, but still I would support the UP limit changes. From personally fishing the UP in some of the heavier and lighter fished areas I seem to see many legal sized fish every trip. It is the UP and fishing pressure is not nearly what it is in the LP. I don't think I could support upping the limit down here for brookies, as I could see that the fishes aggressive nature could put the population of a stream into some trouble, especially the more popular streams. Everyone has their own opinions and I can respect that. Thank you for your personal input and having some solid foundation to why you feel that way.


----------



## Jfish

pikedevil said:


> I have seen catch rates of legal sized trout dramatically decrease in a just a few weeks of heavy human exploitation. We shocked some of these streams as well and found very few legal sized fish so I know it was not a case of the fish simply not biting/hiding. This is different from biological overharvest because in these streams fish were spawning at age 1 and at sizes under the legal size limit, thus insuring there were enough YOY trout to continue to repopulate the stream. The problem was there was an unnatural size and age structure due to too much human exploitation, thus creating a poor fishing experience.


How can you be so sure that the larger fish just didn't move? I assume that you were shocking the same area season after season, year after year? I also will assume that you're shocking a very good sized stretch of stream?

The dnr here in Ohio will net walleye in the same spot, the exact same day every year. IMO that is not accurate. The fish move day to day sometimes and conditions can be totally different one day to the next. They need to do it for at least a week to have any valid info.


----------



## kzoofisher

Jfish said:


> How can you be so sure that the larger fish just didn't move? I assume that you were shocking the same area season after season, year after year? I also will assume that you're shocking a very good sized stretch of stream?
> 
> The dnr here in Ohio will net walleye in the same spot, the exact same day every year. IMO that is not accurate. The fish move day to day sometimes and conditions can be totally different one day to the next. They need to do it for at least a week to have any valid info.


When you question the thoroughness of DNR studies the best solution is often to fund your own so you can see if their models are accurate. It's expensive so getting together with a group of like minded people can be a real help for funding.


----------



## pikedevil

Jfish said:


> How can you be so sure that the larger fish just didn't move? I assume that you were shocking the same area season after season, year after year? I also will assume that you're shocking a very good sized stretch of stream?
> 
> The dnr here in Ohio will net walleye in the same spot, the exact same day every year. IMO that is not accurate. The fish move day to day sometimes and conditions can be totally different one day to the next. They need to do it for at least a week to have any valid info.


 Ohh they definately moved, right into someone's frying pan. :lol:
Look you can poke a thousand holes and play "what ifs" in any fishery study thats not done in a controlled laboratory setting. Its possible that this non migratory population of brook trout made an unprecedented mass migration somewhere else in a short period of time for reasons completely unknown to science. Or for me it seems more logical that the heavy angling harvest that was present at the time simply removed a high percentage of them. I may be a lousy scientist but theres one scientific fact that I will hang my reputation on, an individiual fish that has been killed can no longer be caught anymore.


----------



## Splitshot

I realize there are not many strong opinions among people that do not brook trout fish, but to say all regulations are based on social constructs so we should just accept all social regulations because the regulation agrees with your ideology are very short sighted. 

The limit on brook trout has been at least 10 fish since I can remember and Im pretty sure those regulations were originally based on the best science available. Based on DNR budgets and the complexity of fish habitats, weather conditions and all the other changing variables the science will never be exact. We rely on the fish biologist to use the best science available and their experience and judgement to do what is best for the resources and what is best for the public. In fact that is their mandate and is reflected in their mission statement.

That mission statement is; The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.

They set limits to protect the fishery and those limits I believe are conservative. Just because some of you dont eat brook trout where does the arrogance come from that allows you to dictate how many fish someone can utilize or keep. My favorite fish to eat are bluegills and if the limit were five fish I would spend much less time fishing for them. If the reason for a five fish limit was that taking more than 5 fish would endanger that fishery I would have no problem with it, but if the decision were made by a small group of people who didnt like to eat bluegills or thought they were to valuable to catch only once, I would have a problem.

If any of you want to release all your bluegills or trout, go for it, but dont try to stop others from keeping fish when there is no scientific basis for doing so. Lots of people love to eat brook trout and it is a grand tradition for trout fishermen to enjoy and share their catch with friends and family. Science and years of evidence set the brook trout limit to 10 fish and in 2000 a bunch of fish huggers lobbied the DNR to reduce the limit out of their belief that Billy Bob didnt need to keep 10 fish.

The DNR caved in and did so against their own mission statement, the public trust and the people of the state of Michigan. All the evidence including most of the DNR biologists shows the sport fishing has little if any effect on our fisheries under current rules, so the idea that because someone who took a few classes in fish biology somehow knows more than the professionals with degrees who work daily in the field and have years of experience is not very convincing.. Someone wrote, ....an individual fish that has been killed can no longer be caught anymore really doesnt understand what really happens to the fish. Yes I do, they die!

The question is would it be better for that fish to be utilized and food for fishermen and their families or to end up as crab meat at the bottom of some river?

There is no mandate for the DNR to manage for trophy fish to satisfy some peoples desire to catch trophy fish and in fact it is in direct conflict with their mission statement!

Personally I believe there are trophy fish in most of our rivers. I catch them every year and lots of them while others in spite of the evidence believe the waters are fished out. To some extent some people would like us to believe that over fishing is the reason they cannot catch trophy trout instead of their inability to figure out how to catch them..

So for the guy who says he is sick and tired of the state catering to meat fisherman, while anglers who want more opportunities to catch and release larger fish get the shaft and feels that. 5 trout seems like plenty of trout to kill in a day needs to face the reality that his solution is to learn how to fish better.

In the end, Mother Nature decides how many trout will survive in our rivers and how large they will get and the stated duty of the DNR is to set rules so the public can maximize the number of fish they can consume and still protect our resources.

We all reject the old days when you killed every fish you caught and many went into the trash. Today most of us only keep the fish we plan to utilize and by doing so do our share to protect our resources. We follow the scientific rules assigned by the hard working members or our Michigan Department of Natural Resources because they are the experts and because of them, the trout fishery in our state is as good as it has ever been and some years even better.

There are very few ideologues in the department and most of these hard working men and women are faced every day with political pressures but it is up to us to get involved and try to balance those pressures by working with them. It wont be easy and as long as we have people like some of the posters on this thread that think they know more than the experts or try to justify social management tools it will be a hard job.


----------

