# Proposal would increase salmon catch limit



## Steelhead Addict (Dec 16, 2004)

Ok here is the link to what the dnr is proposing

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/SalmonDailyBagLimitFAQ_232622_7.pdf


_____________

this is the text in the doc:

*Michigan Department of Natural Resources**Fisheries Division*
*April 28, 2008*
Proposal to review the daily bag limit for salmon
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is considering a change in bag limit regulations
for some salmon species in the Great Lakes and connected rivers. This review is in response to
requests from anglers over the past two decades, and especially the last three years, for the
Department to consider changes to the current daily bag limits for Chinook salmon and coho
salmon. Potential changes in regulations would be applied statewide.
1. What are the current regulations for trout and salmon in the Great Lakes?​
&#8226; 
Atlantic salmon, Brook trout, Brown trout, Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, Lake trout,
Pink salmon, Rainbow trout and Splake: 5 in any combination but no more than 3 of any
one species, except that up to 5 pink salmon may be harvested.
2. How long have the current regulations been in place?
&#8226;​The current daily bag limits have been in place on all trout and salmon (except Lake trout)
since April 1, 1989. Prior to that date the daily limit for all trout and salmon species was 5
in any combination, except for lake trout.
3. Which species are being considered for a change in the daily bag limit?
&#8226;​Chinook and coho salmon only.
4. Why are Chinook and Coho Salmon the only species being considered?
&#8226;​Anglers throughout the Great Lakes are generally satisfied with the daily bag limit for the
other trout and salmon species. An opportunity exists to consider a higher daily bag limit
for these two species.
5. What is the new proposal?
&#8226;​The daily bag limit for Chinook and coho salmon could be increased to 5 per day. The
regulation would read &#8220;5 in any combination but no more than 3 of any one species, except
that up to 5 Chinook, Coho, or Pink salmon may be harvested.
6. Why would the bag limit change for these two species be considered for all the lakes?
&#8226;​The Department is committed to making regulations less confusing. Changing the daily
bag limit for these two species across all four lakes would be consistent with this
commitment. In addition, all other State and Provincial jurisdictions bordering the four
Great Lakes currently have a 5 fish daily bag limit for these species.
7. Why the focus on daily bag limits; have you considered changing size or season restrictions?
&#8226;​Virtually no trout or salmon are caught and harvested below the designated size limit of 10
inches and, except for lake trout and splake, the season for trout and salmon in the Great
Lakes is already open all year. Daily bag limits are generally viewed by biologists as a
*April 28, 2008 -2-*tool to limit fishing exploitation by experienced anglers while attempting to distribute
harvest more equitably among all anglers. Research has shown that the vast majority of
anglers do not catch the allowed daily bag limit. Based on those findings, bag limits tend
to be modified based on social consideration rather than biological factors.
8. Why are daily bag limits not very effective for Chinook or coho salmon?
&#8226;​Natural mortality sources on fish populations exert the most control over their numbers in
the wild. In fact, natural mortality rates in most fish populations are higher than fishing
mortality rates, especially for most Great Lakes populations.
9. What are the potential biological implications of this proposal?
&#8226;​For all practical reasons there are none. Biologically it is unnecessary to restrict harvest
for these two species to 3 per day, although it is possible that higher bag limts could, in
rare circumstances, negatively effect natural reproduction of salmon. In most years
increasing the daily bag limit to 5 fish for Chinook and coho salmon would result in very
small increases in total harvest. Maintaining lower bag limits may restrict harvest of fish
when their abundance and catch rates are very high. When abundance and catch rates are
very high, a few more anglers might catch their limit.
10. What would be the potential effect on fisheries if the daily bag limit was increased?
&#8226;​While the vast majority of anglers do not catch their limit of these species, there are rare
and potentially localized circumstances where a higher daily bag limit could possibly result
in some level of reduction in natural reproduction by these species in Michigan&#8217;s rivers. In
addition, greater fishing effort on streams could result in increased harassment of spawning
fish, thus indirectly reducing natural reproduction.
&#8226;​A higher daily bag limit may be more consistent with management of the open lake
fisheries. Although highly unlikely, in extremely rare circumstances there is a small
possibility that additional harvest might help to mitigate any unbalance in predator and
prey populations.
&#8226;​Since angler effort and harvest could be higher in select waters, there could be a potential
increase in user conflicts between anglers, especially in river systems.
11. Does the proposal include changes to the daily bag limit for these two species in rivers and
streams?
&#8226;​Yes. Regardless of where these species are caught, the daily bag limit would be consistent
to ensure simplicity of regulations for the fishing public.
12. If there are relatively few biological implications then this must be primarily a social issue,
correct?
&#8226;​Correct. In previous reviews of fishing regulations for the Great Lakes, the angling
community noted that while harvesting fish is important, harvest should not be
concentrated on a few successful anglers. For nearly two decades the three fish limit for
these two species has generally been viewed by the public as sufficient harvest for one trip.
*April 28, 2008 -3-*13. What are the potential positive and negative aspects of this proposal from a social
perspective?
&#8226;​There may be unintended shifts in fishing effort. For example, anglers may fish longer to
get the limit, make more or less trips, or they may quit fishing because the limit is
unattainable.
&#8226;​There may be unrealistic changes in expectations. The daily bag limit is frequently used as
a benchmark of success by anglers. Increasing the bag limit will most likely decrease
satisfaction with the fishery over time since the expectation of anglers will be to achieve
the higher limit each day. Achieving the limit will become increasingly difficult as the bag
limit is increased.
&#8226;​A reasonable number of fish to harvest can be a personal choice, so increasing the bag
limit may not be important to some anglers.
14. When would this change be effective?​&#8226; April 1, 2009 at the earliest.


__________________


so the speculation on what the dnr / nrc is considering is over. if this moves forward, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the tournament circuit where the odds can play a significant role in strategy.

I would call the wording on in this document "strange" especially the dnr's concerns for the sports-person's feelings and perceptions of success. 

as stated before, I would love to see the dnr / nrc consider reducing the trout bag limit to 2. The primary biological argument for the changes to salmon limits is to help mitigate predator /prey imbalance issues with salmon. As well as, its population's ability to absorb high catch rates. 

The trout population is NOT facing the same issues and is a significantly smaller population. they should manage this population differently than the salmon population. I believe this proposal is a step in that direction. However, I would like to see it go further. I enjoy both and wouldn't like to diminish either one....However, I do see that steelhead has a much broader angling opportunity for us river rats. Especially in the fall/winter when over harvesting can have a season long impact on the handful of fish that move in to feed.

proposal for 3 rods - this seems like a no brainer
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Three-lines-FAQ_232625_7.pdf
​


----------



## Ultra-Light (Oct 4, 2007)

> *The Department is committed to making regulations less confusing.*


I will believe it, when I see it. :lol:


----------



## Ultra-Light (Oct 4, 2007)

*Quote from PDF**:*


> In addition, greater fishing effort on streams could result in increased harassment of spawning fish, thus indirectly reducing natural reproduction.


Even the DNR assumes the fish are harassed indirectly during the natural reproduction process. Indirectly?  That is some good stuff. :lol:


----------



## bowonly (Oct 31, 2006)

As a steelhead guy and big lake fisherman, I'm against the 5 fish limit. The 3 rod deal I don't care. I average over 80 fish a year on the big lake and I split those up with the guys I fish with. How many fish do people need? You can only give so much away. I only keep fish under 8 lbs, anything bigger goes to somebody else. Personally I'd only keep the tail section and throw the rest away. The only people this limit is going to benefit is the charter guys and they take too many fish as is. The days of big kings have left along with the smell of dieing alewives that use to plague the beaches of lake michigan. The only time a 5 fish limit would be nice is the spring for catching those coho's. The current reg's are sufficient anymore than that would be over kill!!!!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

bowonly said:


> As a steelhead guy and big lake fisherman, I'm against the 5 fish limit. The 3 rod deal I don't care. I average over 80 fish a year on the big lake and I split those up with the guys I fish with. How many fish do people need? You can only give so much away. I only keep fish under 8 lbs, anything bigger goes to somebody else. Personally I'd only keep the tail section and throw the rest away. The only people this limit is going to benefit is the charter guys and they take too many fish as is. The days of big kings have left along with the smell of dieing alewives that use to plague the beaches of lake michigan. The only time a 5 fish limit would be nice is the spring for catching those coho's. The current reg's are sufficient anymore than that would be over kill!!!!




I love this part from the proposal:



> Since angler effort and harvest could be higher in select waters, there could be a potential increase in user conflicts between anglers, especially in river systems.


Gee, ya think? I wonder how the PM guys are gonna like seeing stringers of 5 fish getting drug up from Indian Bridge or what not before those fish can get up to the Flies only stretch? I'm sure their reaction will be about the same as mine is now. Better yet...what about when the Tippy snaggers are dragging ropes full of fish up to the cleaning station. Naaaaaah, no conflicts waiting to happen at all.


----------



## SuperSnapper (Nov 6, 2007)

Steelhead Addict said:


> I ran into this article:
> 
> *Proposal would increase salmon catch limit*
> 
> ...


Where are you getting the info that says we have healthy natural reproduction, 50% in areas?
I think your grossly misinformed.
I'm all for the increase. Wont hurt the population, might even help produce better, bigger fish.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

SuperSnapper said:


> Where are you getting the info that says we have healthy natural reproduction, 50% in areas?
> I think your grossly misinformed.
> I'm all for the increase. Wont hurt the population, might even help produce better, bigger fish.


It's common fact based on several studies that at least 50% if not more of the Lake Michigan salmon fishery is the result of natural reproduction. That's the issue out there as far as the number of salmon is concerned--mother nature is putting more in than the forage base can handle.


----------



## Steelhead Addict (Dec 16, 2004)

SuperSnapper said:


> Where are you getting the info that says we have healthy natural reproduction, 50% in areas?
> I think your grossly misinformed.
> I'm all for the increase. Wont hurt the population, might even help produce better, bigger fish.


 
wow those are pretty strong words. 

as stated by TC...its been backed up by several studies. an example would be the PM. It hasn't had a king plant in a very long time...if not ever. where do those fish come from? hmmm.

sometimes its better to know than to think.

One of the big reasons that kings have such a good reproduction rate is that they hatch and smolt the same year they are laid. They get the heck outta dodge before the rivers get too warm. Unlike other cold water species, which have to survive atleast 1 summer and up to 1 winter in our rivers. The natural repoduction rates on these fish are much lower cause our temps are killing them. Why do yo think steelhead, coho, browns and others are at least 4x as expensive to plant?


----------



## Incognito (Apr 16, 2008)

> It's common fact based on several studies that at least 50% if not more of the Lake Michigan salmon fishery is the result of natural reproduction. That's the issue out there as far as the number of salmon is concerned--mother nature is putting more in than the forage base can handle.


I am not purposely trying to disagree with anyone here, but if this is the case based upon scientific analysis of chinook salmon reproduction & with a scientific analysis on bait populations, why is it the Michigan DNR continues to plant all these chinook salmon on a annual basis? (Especially if they claim based upon the scientific studies there is a shortage of forage base?) It might be true there are several tributaries throughout the state that have a higher reproduction rate than others, but 50% plus is a pretty high number. Just curious, as there is no *accurate data* to present this. 

If the 50% + natural reproduction rate is a known fact through scientific studies & there is a shortage of forage base, why is it there is an additional 175,000 chinook smolts that are currently sitting out in the feeding pen, by the City Docks?


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Why are there 175,000 in a net pen? Because if they didn't plant the fish there wouldn't be d*** from Grand Haven south to New Buffalo unless wild fish happen to be migrating through there. Natural reproduction is out of this world from Muskegon to the north. If you want to see for yourself, go to the Muskegon river in a couple weeks and stop at any access site from Croton down to Newaygo. What you'll see is clouds...and I mean clouds of young chinook getting ready to migrate down to the lake. Go to the White and you'll see the same thing...the PM...the Little M...the Big M...the Betsie...etc.

Guess where all those fish are going? Since a study on the Big Manistee revealed that four out of every five returning adults are wild fish, I can tell you where those fishing are going. 

Do the math. If they plant 100,000 out of Manistee and the standard expected return rate is 2% that will survive to return to spawn, then that leaves about 2,000 fish based on that. However, creel studies indicate that anglers harvest between 15,000 and 25,000 salmon from the river alone. 

The above is fact.


----------



## Ultra-Light (Oct 4, 2007)

> I am not purposely trying to disagree with anyone here, but if this is the case based upon scientific analysis of chinook salmon reproduction & with a scientific analysis on bait populations, why is it the Michigan DNR continues to plant all these chinook salmon on a annual basis? (Especially if they claim based upon the scientific studies there is a shortage of forage base?) It might be true there are several tributaries throughout the state that have a higher reproduction rate than others, but 50% plus is a pretty high number. Just curious, as there is no *accurate data* to present this.
> 
> If the 50% + natural reproduction rate is a known fact through scientific studies & there is a shortage of forage base, why is it there is an additional 175,000 chinook smolts that are currently sitting out in the feeding pen, by the City Docks?


 

I asked the same question to an DNR official a few years back while they were out by the feeding pens, and he told me the data was 'inconclusive'.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Ultra-Light said:


> I asked the same question to an DNR official a few years back while they were out by the feeding pens, and he told me the data was 'inconclusive'.


The data is not inconclusive. Call the biologists, call the head of the great lakes fishery, Jim Dexter, and ask the question. Pull up the Big Manistee or Muskegon river assessments on the DNR site and read the data point blank in black and white. Obviously dude at the net pens wasn't a biologist.


----------



## Steelhead Addict (Dec 16, 2004)

I'm surprised about all reactions around the 50% number. 


I thought I was being conservative since the rivers I was averaging were these ones:

Manistee natural recruitment: 80%
Muskegon river natural recruitment: up to 30%
Pere Marquette natural recruitment: not measured but there has NEVER been Chinook plants so...its gotta be pushing a very high percentage


Furthermore, i used the words "some areas" to soften the statement bit more....


Regardless, studies have used numbers in the 2-3 million as the recruitment rate of natural reproduction salmon. this is very much in the ball park of the number of chinooks that are being planted by the states that border lake Michigan. 

The statement "upwards of 50% in some areas" is reasonable, even though there is a wide range of natural salmon recruitment percentages among rivers in the lake Michigan system. 

I can't answer why the dnr is still planting at the rate that they are...but I would guess that plants are still an important part of the management strategy since there is only a 50% natural recruitment rate.

we have an artificial fishery...but nature has a way of sending us a curve ball every once and a while. Increases in natural reproduction, as well as, instabilities in the bait fish population has caused the surrounding states to work cooperatively to cut chinook plants by 50% in the last decade.


oh ya...that's right, we were talking about salmon limits...

the dnr is asking for the public's feedback on the issue. let them know what you think: [email protected]


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> I can't answer why the dnr is still planting at the rate that they are...but I would guess that plants are still an important part of the management strategy since there is only a 50% natural recruitment rate.


From day one, people have been programmed that salmon aren't capable of spawning in the great lakes environment...and until the run of the river operations at the large dams went into effect that was, for the most part, an accurate assessment. Since the run of the river regs were put in place, natural recruitment has sky rocketed, however there are many anglers who think all those salmon in the lake are a result of DNR planting. If they cut plants altogether in certain areas, there would be an outcry like we've never seen. Also, in some areas the DNR plants salmon as part of the tribal agreements, I believe. Look what happened five years ago when the DNR first suggested cutting chinook plants. The third rod on the big lake deal basically came about as a way to appease the charter guys on the cuts. More like, here's a small bone since we need to cut plants, ya know?

A lot of this stuff is PR driven as much as it is science driven. I can tell you right now that the biologists have wanted to cut chinook plants even further, but the higher ups in Lansing are thinking, "Nope...we've gotten away with two rounds of cuts over the last five years, we're not going there again." So, the next best thing is raise the harvest...and viola, here comes the five salmon limit.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 16, 2008)

> Natural reproduction is out of this world from Muskegon to the north. *If you want to see for yourself, go to the Muskegon river in a couple weeks and stop at any access site from Croton down to Newaygo*. What you'll see is clouds...and I mean clouds of young chinook getting ready to migrate down to the lake.


Your right, based upon previous average stocking dates of Michigan Chinook Salmon smolts, they are due to arrive in the next few weeks (In Mid May) along the Muskegon River as you stated. 2008 has to be the year for a smolt plant. :lol:

*Photo Courtesy of the Michigan DNR Fishstock Database:









*I'm wondering if they plant smolts in the Little Manistee too? I think I will take a trip up to the Little River near Mid May, so I can watch clouds of chinook smolts swim by my feet. 

*Photo Courtesy of the Michigan DNR Fishstock Database:









*Wow, 377,364 smolts just in 2007. 

Since 2005 (and previous years) that were prominent for no OTC & fin clips, I'm waiting this fall (or the fall of 2009) for my natural fish to show up in true numbers on the Little Manistee. 

Before further possible debate, are you guys talking about *return rates*, or actual natural reproduction rates?


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Uh...those clouds I speak of are not from a planting truck, I can assure you. But, believe what you want to believe, I suppose.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 16, 2008)

thousandcasts said:


> Uh...those clouds I speak of are not from a planting truck, I can assure you. But, believe what you want to believe, I suppose.


Just curious as to why the natural chinook smolts decide to hang out at all the river access points? The majority of the time after planting, the smolts always form up along the shoreline until they get adjusted to the new environment.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Incognito said:


> Just curious as to why the natural chinook smolts decide to hang out at all the river access points? The majority of the time after planting, the smolts always form up along the shoreline until they get adjusted to the new environment.


Like I said, you don't have to believe a word I say. Simply call or e-mail any of our biologists and ask them about this yourself.

Yes, they might plant at Henning and in a net pen down near Muskegon, however, I'm talking about smolts in just about every little piece of slack water from Croton down to Newaygo. Planted smolts aren't known for traveling several miles upstream after planting. Like I said though, I know what I know about this subject from talking to biologists at length about it...including a very lengthy and detailed article I did for Woods N Water News a few years back about the natural reproduction in the Muskegon. All of my information and FACTS came straight from the DNR biologists and multiple studies done on this subject.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Yeah, that might be why minnows work so well for Browns from now into Summer. Clouds of Salmon parr is a pretty good description. They are tiny, though - probably around 1 - 1.5 inches long. The planted fish might be a bit larger.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

The continuing salmon assesment program has noticed a few more"red flags" in the last yr or more, and if the trend continues, there will be further reductions of Chinook plants. Thats what determines the cuts. There are numerous variables that go into the decision process.


----------

