# Minutes from 10/30 CRSC meeting



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Includes a reference to the 12/10 NRC meeting that toto started a thread about and a timeline for the next round of GR discussions.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/CRSC-Minutes-Oct2015_507694_7.pdf


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

Do you have a link to Toto's thread on the 12/10 meeting, i haven't found it yet


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto gave a heads up to the meeting before it took place and a discussion followed. http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/nrc-and-chumming.553286/

Minutes from the 12/10 NRC meeting are out and have a section in the committee reports and on the public appearance by Steven Kuieck of RiverQuest Charters
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/December_Signed_Minutes_511127_7.pdf


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

thank you


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Just for record, Kzoo, where do you stand on the chumming issue? I know where you stand on the flies only stuff, but let's stick to the chumming and limit issue with steelhead.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto said:


> Just for record, Kzoo, where do you stand on the chumming issue? I know where you stand on the flies only stuff, but let's stick to the chumming and limit issue with steelhead.


Don't care about chumming since it has been shown not to be a vector for disease. On the limits I think they should be set to provide the most opportunities to catch fish to the most people on rivers that have limited or negligible nat repo. Rivers that naturally help sustain the fishery should be managed to allow that to continue. I don't think there is anything like enough data to say what changes if any might be useful on the Kalamazoo, eg. lower limits, more plants, size limit, slot limit, anything that hasn't occurred to me. I support funding the necessary science and would gladly chip in or attend meetings/write letters to get it done.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Kazoo, have you ever seen the steelhead runs in Northern Michigan, UP, and Canada. I have places (tributaries and small streams) in the UP that are loaded and I do mean loaded with steelhead. I really do not expect the steelhead to disappear like the salmon did. Southern Michigan is more of a put and take fishery unlike the northern waters. Planting steelhead up here is more or less a waste of the fish but they do plant them way up in the rivers so that they can survive better


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I can agree with you on that. I did attend the meeting in Onekama about the chumming and steelhead limits. One thing of note, that stood out to me was, one of the biologists made a statement that '' in the opinion of the DNR" the steelhead numbers are adequate to sustain a 3 fish limit. I presume them to mean that they are in any danger at this point. Over time with the lower numbers of salmon around, that may change as more and more charters etc will be targeting steelhead more, and I get that. They have a lot of money tied up in equipment they have to do something to get customers. As for protecting natural reproduction of steelhead perhaps closures on certain stretches of streams or rivers would be acceptable. For example, years ago the Platte was considered an indicator stream, and it was used in conjunction with the Little Man to determine and protect natural reproduction stocks, at least on these two rivers. As the years went by, the Platte went from a closure from Labor Day until the 1st of November from the lower weir to the mouth, to no closure at all. Over this time, there was at least one person that convinced the DNR to allow fishing within 300 feet of the lower weir, once the gate was opened. 

On the one hand, I can see where the DNR is coming from, why not allow the people to catch those salmon that are in the river below the weir, okay makes sense. The problem is, you also have people catching steelhead too, not a lot, but as the water cools down, more and more. And the idea of allowing fishing once the weir gate is opened makes absolutely no sense to me. These fish have a maybe 3-4 feet of open weir gate to go through, is that fair chase? Anyways, as we all know the Platte is a mere shadow of itself, and now they even plant steel there now, where there wasn't any plantings of steel for a very long time, not sure of how long but long before I can remember and I've fished this river for around 35 years now. Sad indeed.

Getting back to the original, I wouldn't have a problem with banning chumming, as I've stated I don't do it so it really doesn't effect me either way; what does trouble me is the ones squealing the loudest are guide services, and mostly on the Muskegon River. Frankly, it's about two things, jealousy, and money. These guys are really after one person, it isn't about protecting the fishery, it's about protecting their pocket books. What these guys are scared of is taking folks out and not catching much, if anything, while at the same time their clients are watching this other guy chumming and catching fish. Well you can guess what happens, the clients who weren't catching fish, are all of sudden hiring the guy who is. That in a nutshell is what this is all about, nothing more, nothing less. I'll stand behind the science as you've already stated and say if it isn't harming the resource, I have no problem with it.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Robert Holmes said:


> Kazoo, have you ever seen the steelhead runs in Northern Michigan, UP, and Canada. I have places (tributaries and small streams) in the UP that are loaded and I do mean loaded with steelhead. I really do not expect the steelhead to disappear like the salmon did. Southern Michigan is more of a put and take fishery unlike the northern waters. Planting steelhead up here is more or less a waste of the fish but they do plant them way up in the rivers so that they can survive better


Yes I have Robert, that's why I made post #6 which you seem to agree with completely. Thanks for chiming in!


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto,
As you saw in the NRC meeting minutes the subject came up twice, once with acknowledgment of a report that the DNR had made and once when a member of the public addressed the Commission. Anyone can go in front of the Commission and speak, Constitutional right and all that sort of thing, I wouldn't give it anymore weight than it deserves. Fishing regs have already been set until 2018 and there are no changes to the chumming rules. Relax, there is no grand conspiracy. Our shadowy overlords have other concerns for the moment.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Toto you are right about river closures. I think that sections of rivers should be closed for spawning fish in the spring and fall. I watched a video of salmon being taken on flies from one of the rivers that I fish. I think that 5 or 6 salmon were caught on gravel (all were snagged) in the video. They all were released but taking them off from the gravel when they are spawning is not fishing.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I don't think there's a grand conspiracy, I just think the DNR sometimes gets caught in a trap of going in an opposite direction from science. If you read some of what the discussions were with Burroughs, Dexter, etal you see where they even talked about that. I really believe, and have all along, the only options the DNR should use are the ones that science (biological) tells them to do. If these eggs are causing a disease, then stop, if keeping more than one fish per day isn't hurting anything, why change it? After all, if a guy want to keep some fish, as long as it's within the legal limits, why shouldn't he? After all, in the case of salmon, steelhead, trout, walleye, and some others, the guy paid for it?


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

toto said:


> I don't think there's a grand conspiracy, I just think the DNR sometimes gets caught in a trap of going in an opposite direction from science. If you read some of what the discussions were with Burroughs, Dexter, etal you see where they even talked about that. I really believe, and have all along, the only options the DNR should use are the ones that science (biological) tells them to do. If these eggs are causing a disease, then stop, if keeping more than one fish per day isn't hurting anything, why change it? After all, if a guy want to keep some fish, as long as it's within the legal limits, why shouldn't he? After all, in the case of salmon, steelhead, trout, walleye, and some others, the guy paid for it?


Toto the DNR follows the $$$$$$ more than sound or biological science. I think that all of the river guides are chumming some more than others. I don't see why the guys are wasting the eggs. I have taken a handful of river sand or fine gravel and tossed it into a hole with the same results. Now that salmon are few and far between I hope that they keep the three fish limit on steelhead. I need a couple of good days on the water to get my fish for canning. I also need to get some suckers too.


----------



## Chasingchrome (Mar 16, 2016)

Robert Holmes said:


> Toto you are right about river closures. I think that sections of rivers should be closed for spawning fish in the spring and fall. I watched a video of salmon being taken on flies from one of the rivers that I fish. I think that 5 or 6 salmon were caught on gravel (all were snagged) in the video. They all were released but taking them off from the gravel when they are spawning is not fishing.


You don't sound like you fish. Not everyone can afford a $50,000 boat to fish the big lake in the summer. There is a reason we buy a fishing license and rivers get stocked yearly. If stocking stopped there would be very little fish to spawn. River improvements need to be made. Look at the Betsie River. Miles of river with only sand. No gravel. Why not add lots of gravel? Even so there are a ton of fish in the river every run. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

Chasingchrome said:


> River improvements need to be made. Look at the Betsie River. Miles of river with only sand. No gravel. Why not add lots of gravel? Even so there are a ton of fish in the river every run. Just my 2 cents.


What exactly do you think would happen if gravel was added to a river section that is all sand?

Why do you think the sand is there in the first place?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I've heard people wanting to see the Homestead taken out, but if you look upstream from the dam, that would ruin the river downstream due to that much sand. There is lots of gravel way upstream on the Betsie, more than you think. I can't even imagine how much gravel it would take if you were to put gravel in a stream, just not practical.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Chasingchrome said:


> You don't sound like you fish. Not everyone can afford a $50,000 boat to fish the big lake in the summer. There is a reason we buy a fishing license and rivers get stocked yearly. If stocking stopped there would be very little fish to spawn. River improvements need to be made. Look at the Betsie River. Miles of river with only sand. No gravel. Why not add lots of gravel? Even so there are a ton of fish in the river every run. Just my 2 cents.


You realize the Betsie actually has plenty of gravel for suitable spawning, right? I mean, it does pump out quite a few wild fish.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

The Betsie gets too warm in the summer for steelhead, that's the limiting factor there. Bank stabilization will help bring gravel back, vegetation will help cool the water, taking out the dam never hurts.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Kzoo, I'm assuming you are talking about Homestead which may or may not be good in a way. The problem there is take a look at the sand build up behind it, that sand has to be about 8 feet deep or so. The only way you could it without ruining the stream down stream would be suck the sand out first, and that is terribly expensive. I have talked to Conservation Resource Alliance about removing the Grass Lake Dam, but they say it would matter as the water up there is too warm anyways. Probably the best idea, and it would take a long time, is to plant trees or narrow the river channel to speed up the water in an effort to cool it down. As someone said, there is plenty of gravel up stream from Homestead to produce enough fish to make it decent river again, it would just take a lot work, time, and money to do so.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Sediment building up behind the dam is always a problem and a large part of what makes them so expensive and time consuming to remove. Every dam loses its utility because of sediment and becomes structurally unsound so they all have to go someday. If it weren't for the sediment you could draw the dam down pretty quickly and be done with it. We saw what a rapid drawdown does at Brown Bridge, which turned out a lot better than many feared they day after it happened but was still pretty bad. The two biggest objections to removing any dam are the public not wanting to foot the bill and the riparian owners on the backwaters not wanting to lose the public subsidy of their property values. Dam removal isn't an insurmountable problem and anytime you can get funding to do it then it should be done as quickly as possible. Down here the DNR got Enbridge to pay for removing the dam at Ceresco. Yes, it was a bitter pill for a few owners on the pond but a huge savings to everyone else who would have had to foot the bill someday. Finding someone to pay for Homestead won't be so easy.

The thing about bank stabilizing and revegetation is it doesn't take that long to start cooling the water. In just a few years you have a narrower channel with a harder bottom and shade on the shallow edges. The difficult things are getting enough riparian owners to join in and to stop bank degradation by recreational users. The owners can be shown how improving the quality of a coldwater fishery increases property values and of course, fishing. Recreational users can be led to better behavior just by providing obvious and well designed access points.


----------

