# Muskegon River



## Ranger Ray

Hearing about some size limit changes coming on the Muskegon. With the big lodge, not surprising this was coming.

Heard they want to go to 15" size limit on browns. Thought I heard upping the plantings also.

On a river that warms to temps that kill browns, what is the die off going to be, to produce a few bigger fish? There is potential for a major waste of our resources. So my next question would be, is there a study tied into this?


----------



## Sparky23

Also has been a push for a fly only section.


----------



## Mike

I think it should be reserved for Spey fishing only! Troll for the win!


----------



## mondrella

It does not make much sense to me. The question is how many trout would be in the river if no plants took place?? Is it a fishable population? Highly doubt it. It would be like it is near my home. Yes there are trout. Can you go out and target them daily? The odds of catching a single brown trout is 1 in 5 trips for an angler like me. Years ago when plants took place I could land 2 to 4browns over 15". Much like it is below croton right now. Increasing plants make no sense to me. If they do increase size there should be plenty of fish at current plant levels to make their Utopia. 
To me it is a waste of resources when the increased plants could be put somewhere else and improve or create another fishery.


----------



## toto

mondrella said:


> It does not make much sense to me. The question is how many trout would be in the river if no plants took place?? Is it a fishable population? Highly doubt it. It would be like it is near my home. Yes there are trout. Can you go out and target them daily? The odds of catching a single brown trout is 1 in 5 trips for an angler like me. Years ago when plants took place I could land 2 to 4browns over 15". Much like it is below croton right now. Increasing plants make no sense to me. If they do increase size there should be plenty of fish at current plant levels to make their Utopia.
> To me it is a waste of resources when the increased plants could be put somewhere else and improve or create another fishery.


Hey gotta keep those guides happy. BTW see ya on the 26th


----------



## 357Maximum

The DNR is just gonna run out of money from the average fisherman someday soon if they keep letting special interests stick it in and have their way with them.


----------



## Logic5

I wish there were more _special interests _folks fishing the Mo instead of those who just exploit the resource and are always complaining about any little change to the regulations that would keep them from catching one less trout. I guess it all boils down to plain and simple greed. The
river belongs to everyone, even the _special interests _folks and yes, even the folks who have _no interests _at all except catching every last 10" trout in the river they can, or can't.


----------



## mondrella

So how does one exploit a put and take fishery if they stay within the limits?
Everyone thinks this river is some holy grail of trout water it is not. Dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into this river and not allowing harvest one might as well burn the pile of money. 
Sorry some can not catch those bigger browns. Rest assured once this reg happens I will be filling my smoker with them end of March. Pike spearing closes then I will hammer the browns since it is fairly close to my home.


----------



## Logic5

mondrella said:


> So how does one exploit a put and take fishery if they stay within the limits?
> Everyone thinks this river is some holy grail of trout water it is not. Dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into this river and not allowing harvest one might as well burn the pile of money.
> Sorry some can not catch those bigger browns. Rest assured once this reg happens I will be filling my smoker with them end of March. Pike spearing closes then I will hammer the browns since it is fairly close to my home.[/QUOTE


----------



## Logic5

You are correct, the Mo is managed as a put and take river. 
Yes, thousands of dollars are spent stocking the river, correct again.
But saying "_not allowing harvest one might as well burn the pile of money" _is absolutely false!
The last time I looked, there were catch limits of trout allowed on the river, are there not? If and when the new regulations take effect on the Mo, they will be the same that's on the river now from Newaygo to Lake Michigan. They'll be same regulations that have been on the Big Manistee from Tippy Dam down to Lake Michigan for decades.
I just don't understand all the hostility and threats coming from the "no interests" groups. Any person that fished the Mo back when the regulations were the same as the new proposed ones will tell you that the fishing down river from Thornapple was far better than now. Whatever the new regulations turn out to be, it will be a move in the right direction for all.
That said, I'm sure there will still be a few folks who will never be happy unless that can catch everyone of those 10" trout before July. The _"no interests"_ groups I guess.


----------



## mondrella

Back in 2000 or so the Biologist did studies to see how survival of those trout were doing. Less than 1 percent of those planted make it to a second year. Those that do make it a few years to reach a 15 inch or bigger size do it by holding very select water spots so they can survive. I dont see any way possible you can increase fish numbers of what many consider trophy size trout when they dont have the habitat to survive. It is not rocket science. Guess what those few browns that do exist now are available for harvest during the heaviest angler pressure times of the year. Yup!! Great thing this issue is pushed by a certain group of anglers and guides on the Mo who really dont understand. Destroy what you have going that is what they are best at.


----------



## Logic5

That "certain group" of anglers and guides you speak of are not the threat to the river or the fish that swim in the Mo, they are the ones who are trying to make it a better river for all.
The 2000 data that you speak of by the DNR has all been debunked. The group that did the study new nothing of the many spring holes that exist on the Mo between Croton dam and Newaygo. If only 1% make it to the second year, it's because of mostly over
harvesting, poaching and how the sub-legal trout are caught and released. Living on the river
I see first hand how many folks release there big catch of 8" only to ripe the hook out along
with much of the gills. You think many of those trout live, hardley! Anybody who thinks there
are no large trout in the river (in good numbers) don't have the skills of patience to even get
close to a 20" brown, not alone catch one. The only trout these folks even have a chance at
catching are the 6.5" trout the DNR release at the boat launches in May. I have no problem whatsoever if a family wants to go out with their kids and catch a limit of trout to take home and eat. It's the folks who who think they can harvest as many trout as they can legally or not
are the ones that account for only 1% making it to the second year.
The river is for all anglers to use, even the ones who constantly complain and moan about any
little change in the regulations or limits. Get over it already and follow the rules like everybody else does....without all the crying, complaining and fear of all the special interest groups.


----------



## mondrella

Logic5 said:


> That "certain group" of anglers and guides you speak of are not the threat to the river or the fish that swim in the Mo, they are the ones who are trying to make it a better river for all.
> The 2000 data that you speak of by the DNR has all been debunked. The group that did the study new nothing of the many spring holes that exist on the Mo between Croton dam and Newaygo. If only 1% make it to the second year, it's because of mostly over
> harvesting, poaching and how the sub-legal trout are caught and released. Living on the river
> I see first hand how many folks release there big catch of 8" only to ripe the hook out along
> with much of the gills. You think many of those trout live, hardley! Anybody who thinks there
> are no large trout in the river (in good numbers) don't have the skills of patience to even get
> close to a 20" brown, not alone catch one. The only trout these folks even have a chance at
> catching are the 6.5" trout the DNR release at the boat launches in May. I have no problem whatsoever if a family wants to go out with their kids and catch a limit of trout to take home and eat. It's the folks who who think they can harvest as many trout as they can legally or not
> are the ones that account for only 1% making it to the second year.
> The river is for all anglers to use, even the ones who constantly complain and moan about any
> little change in the regulations or limits. Get over it already and follow the rules like everybody else does....without all the crying, complaining and fear of all the special interest groups.


See you are one of them. For the number of fish planted there are not that many big trout. That is a fact. I have no problem catching big trout in fact I know most every place in that river come June I can hammer a 20 inch trout. I did it for years and seldom fish down there because it is to easy really. Last time I fished down there was the first week of March. I landed 3 browns 19 22 and 25 along with a dozen steelhead. And numerous resident bows. I watch 3 different guides fish and not one of them caught a fish. So it's not about having a place to catch fish to eat for me. 
Like I said I eat northern pike all spearing season. Now in March I can go and pop a limit of browns for the smoker which I have been out of since Christmas. Better believe I will because I am already hungry for trout and browns taste better than bows.


----------



## mondrella

Oh and show me where they debunked it! I know for a fact they took a certain biologist fishing and when he pulled out his tape measure those 18 inch fish were 141/2.


----------



## Mike

Ranger Ray - I owe you an apology. I thought your post was just stirring the pot. I didn’t realize actual changes were discussed and appear to be happening:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/CRSC-Minutes-April262018_625190_7.pdf

Mondrella - you mentioned a study from 2000 regarding trout survival rates. Wasn’t a bubbler installed at Croton since then? I haven’t followed temperature trends on the river in the summer months to see if there’s been a difference or not...

Full disclosure - I rarely keep trout, prefer to eat perch/walleye/bluegill. I do like catching big trout, so it’ll be interesting to see if the new regs work. On the other hand, I think the regs are too complicated and would rather see them simplified overall.

Mike


----------



## mondrella

Mike
They did install a bubbler. It has helped slightly at times by what I have seen watching the temps it still not a fix to what the river is. One has to realize even up here in Big Rapids the river is mid 70s in the summer. The river has always grown big trout. They grow fast and heavy. The river has not changed that much to grow more big fish. I learned how to trout fish on the Mo. I have what myself and 2 friends have what we called the milk run. We would fish from pine down to Newaygo once the water gets up around 68. Knowing where those springs drop temps a few degrees we would catch several large trout. Those spots are going to hold fish of size year in and year out. Those big trout hold them areas. most big browns are territorial. Until those fish are pulled from those spots another fish cannot use them.


----------



## kzoofisher

Quite the revealing thread so far.

It starts with the implication that there has been some skulduggery. No evidence is offered of course, the object is to create a narrative and facts get in the way of narratives. Others add on, also without a shred of evidence, and here we are almost a year later still with no evidence for the narratives but some events that put the lie to them.

Next we have Logic5 making a very fair point, that the change would simplify the regulations on the river. Wasn't that a big complaint once upon a time, that the regs were too complicated? Turns out that was just an excuse, another false narrative used to defend the real goal, to kill fish wherever and whenever they please. Because as Mondrella said, what is the point if you can't kill fish? They have no value if you can't kill them. "Dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into this river and not allowing harvest one might as well burn the pile of money." Catching a fish and putting it back for the next guy to catch? A waste of time and something you only do because the law set a limit on you. The heck with other fishermen. 

But what about the science, they ask? Is there any? If they don't know there must not be any, right? In the past they were always happy to defer to *our* biologists opinions. That changed when *our* biologists started to find that their social goal of taking more fish wasn't the best option biologically. That started the questioning of Fisheries biologists scientific methods and questioning of whether the biologists had any scientific backing to their decisions at all. Because it was never about Science. It was about advancing the social goal of maximizing harvest above any other consideration in management. Mondrella said it out loud above, a fishery that doesn't allow harvest, no matter how good or popular it is, is a waste of money and a waste of food for his belly.

This proposal was made by Fisheries biologist Mark Tonello. He posts updates on DNR research on MSF sometimes and also sometimes helps people understand the biologically based reasoning behind Fisheries decisions. I've heard him speak at committee meetings and read his reports on fisheries. Never has he said anything that wasn't based on his knowledge of fisheries management and the data he has available. To suggest, as has been suggested in this thread, that his proposal was motivated by special interests and not founded on sound scientific reasoning is frankly, revolting. He's a fisheries biologist who seems to like his job and does it with integrity, not some political animal clawing his way to the top of State government. But that's the way it is with these guys. They don't give a damn about *science* and they don't give a damn about the fishery and they don't give a damn about the public at large and they don’t give a damn about questioning the integrity of anyone who stands in the way of their social goals. All they care about is getting to keep whatever fish they want to keep, wherever and whenever they please. They know what their style of fishing does to a fishery, that's why they're so adamant about keeping their "unmentionable" streams unmentionable. Put another ten guys on that water with the same attitude they have and the fishing will be ruined. They've said it themselves. But they're more than happy to ruin your fishing so long as they can keep their private nirvanas where they can kill almost enough fish to satisfy their greed.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Whew boy! Talk about a bunch of scheiße.
The above post was hard to read. As usual, it has all the drama of Cohen's testimony today, and probably about as much truth.

Lets look how ones mind works on just one claim.
*
"Next we have Logic5 making a very fair point, that the change would simplify the regulations on the river. Wasn't that a big complaint once upon a time, that the regs were too complicated? Turns out that was just an excuse, another false narrative used to defend the real goal, to kill fish wherever and whenever they please."*

Can't we also simplify by making the whole river a 4? Funny how that works. Simple reasoning, for a simple mind. Went right over your head. Doesn't surprise me.

Oh, and the "hate the biologists" picture is getting old. I know the old tactics are hard to kick, but you look like an ass making them. Which reminds me. Where did the fly guys stand backing Tonello's recommendations on the last round of gear restrictions on the PM? Oh yeah, they said he was wrong. Had science to prove it. Never could show it. Oopsee! Can't make this silly stuff up.


----------



## kzoofisher

You could change the whole lower river to a 4 but most of it is 3 now. Interesting that type 3 is the best fit for the lower water and somehow wrong for the last bit before the dam. Simpler and less confusing to make it all 3. Unless your goal is to make it more confusing so fewer people will fish and you can have more for yourself. 

It’s one thing to look at the data and draw a different conclusion and another thing to disagree with the conclusion and then claim that the data is either invalid or doesn’t exist at all. The first is common among scientists, the second is common among agenda driven politicians and special interests. One is a professional disagreement and the other is an attack on the professionalism and integrity of the biologists. I don’t really expect you to see the difference. 

As we’ve discussed before, much of the disagreement on the PM involved interpretation of the same studies, the ones that the DNR have been doing there for more than 40 years. Fisheries does pretty much all the research and shares it with interested parties. What little gets done independently* gets shared back with Fisheries. 

*I think that the DNR has some oversight and consulting with anything a private group or school does in public water. If you want confirmation of their role I’ll shoot off an email and get an answer.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> You could change the whole lower river to a 4 but most of it is 3 now. Interesting that type 3 is the best fit for the lower water and somehow wrong for the last bit before the dam. Simpler and less confusing to make it all 3. Unless your goal is to make it more confusing so fewer people will fish and you can have more for yourself.
> 
> It’s one thing to look at the data and draw a different conclusion and another thing to disagree with the conclusion and then claim that the data is either invalid or doesn’t exist at all. The first is common among scientists, the second is common among agenda driven politicians and special interests. One is a professional disagreement and the other is an attack on the professionalism and integrity of the biologists. I don’t really expect you to see the difference.
> 
> As we’ve discussed before, much of the disagreement on the PM involved interpretation of the same studies, the ones that the DNR have been doing there for more than 40 years. Fisheries does pretty much all the research and shares it with interested parties. What little gets done independently* gets shared back with Fisheries.
> 
> *I think that the DNR has some oversight and consulting with anything a private group or school does in public water. If you want confirmation of their role I’ll shoot off an email and get an answer.



Well except, one needs to present the reasoning, facts and figures behind the difference of interpretation. Which the "special interest" (think fly guys) in this case, couldn't. Yet they claimed to have it. Guess what happened when they couldn't produce it, and were questioned on it? They then went on to question the biologists prejudices. I like how they who questioned the biologists motives last gear restrictions, are now lecturing on how to treat them. But, I am talking to Kzoo, so it shouldn't surprise me.


----------

