# Public Meetings to Discuss Chumming and Steelhead Bag Limits on Muskegon, PM, and Manistee Rivers



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

The rivers mentioned get 90 percent of the hatchery raised fish stocked in them. They also get fished very hard all year long. Keep the limit of three steelhead on these rivers and put more hatchery fish elsewhere in the state. I am all for the DNR planting 250,000 steelhead in one of my fishing rivers which by itself supplies the state with very high natural reproduction numbers. They should make chumming illegal. Anytime that a dollar value is placed on fish or wildlife it increases illegal activities. If guides are using eggs for chum there is a dollar value on the eggs. It also increases the killing of hens for the sole purpose of removing the eggs and wasting the fish.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

,


Robert Holmes said:


> The rivers mentioned get 90 percent of the hatchery raised fish stocked in them. They also get fished very hard all year long. Keep the limit of three steelhead on these rivers and put more hatchery fish elsewhere in the state. I am all for the DNR planting 250,000 steelhead in one of my fishing rivers which by itself supplies the state with very high natural reproduction numbers. They should make chumming illegal. Anytime that a dollar value is placed on fish or wildlife it increases illegal activities. If guides are using eggs for chum there is a dollar value on the eggs. It also increases the killing of hens for the sole purpose of removing the eggs and wasting the fish.


They can dump a million steelhead in your river and carrying capacity would still limit how many fish make a return trip, not to mention would probably cause thr native trout population to declinedue to increased competition.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Trout King said:


> ,
> 
> They can dump a million steelhead in your river and carrying capacity would still limit how many fish make a return trip, not to mention would probably cause thr native trout population to declinedue to increased competition.


Most of the planted fish in the streams that I fish in are in the lake within a few days. You catch a few fin clips and they are gone. The naturals and there are plenty are there all summer and into the early fall then they go to the lake also. Most of the fish that return to the EUP waters are from Wisconsin plants or natural reproduction.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

kzoofisher said:


> Last September is it, spring meeting was cancelled.


Thanks. My next question is, based on previous meeting minutes, since there was no spring meeting did these two issues bypass the CWRC, or was there some other type of communication (ie conference call, email, etc.) and a vote taken within the CWRC before this was set up for general public meetings?


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

It was discussed at a CWRSC meeting in 2014 - at least the bag limit issue and no consensus was reached.


----------



## Treven (Feb 21, 2006)

ausable_steelhead said:


> Why just these 4 rivers? What about other rivers with natural repo in west Michigan or on the east side? The Bear, Boyne and Jordan in the upper NW all have significant wild steelhead production. So does the East branch of Au Gres, the Rifle, and the Black in the NE. Other rivers have tribs that give them wild contributions as well. Do these not matter!? I'm tired of the same hollywood rivers always getting everything for them, and nothing for anything else.
> 
> I also agree that if the river guys get cut, so do the lake guys. They may not fish as long as the stream segment does, but they stack 10-20 steelhead a trip. That's A LOT of rainbows leaving the population. Funny when a river steelheader releases a dropback, only to see it dead, hanging from a meat hook in a lake trolling report a month later. Pics of skinny, raggedy-finned hens in coolers abound on this site in May/June/July. River fisherman take all the flak and regs, while the boat guys kill everything and fly under the radar. Enough is enough.


Couldn't agree more on the lake side of things fist of all. Also couldn't agree more again, especially since the induced demise of the salmon fishery. What species will be / is targeted instead? That's right steelhead, well before the to-be "beloved" grease bass that are being planted ever-so rampantly.



plugger said:


> I can only speak of the PM with much experience but I believe that the PM is well managed. Since the switch from stocking to only natural reproduction our steelhead numbers are much lower but definitely are there in fishable numbers. If you know when where and how the trophy trout fishing is superlative. Too many steelhead put a large biological load on the river as they brood, unlike salmon that migrate out and do almost all their growing in the big lake. Other rivers, like the Mo and big M are put and take fisheries without a major resident trout population. There definitely needs to be a balance between fish numbers and carrying capacity. In the days when the PM was heavily stocked there were still guys who would get skunked while others hit twenty fish in a day. When our biologist explains that there are more than enough spawners dropping more than enough fertilized eggs why would we consider changing mandatory bag limits? I seldom keep steelhead but if the next guy wants to he may be doing more good for the river than I am releasing my fish. It's obvious from a biological stand point that we would not gain from a change. I think it may be a case of "If I don't enjoy eating steelhead you shouldn't either". *The river fisherman would see a greater benefit from increased restrictions on commercial use of the river of the river rather than reduced creel limits.*


If I could double bold / italicize / underline this, I would. Couldn't agree more. Wish it was different.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Well, I don't fish those four rivers much so I don't have too much input on them. What I would like to ask the DNR is what their plan is to augment the fishery should the numbers of kings collapse in the near future? We all know steelhead will be more heavily targeted. Will Lake Michigan become a lake trout dominated fishery or will the DNR plant more steelhead and maybe coho? I know I would prefer more steelhead and coho. I don't even care to pursue lake trout often. 

Now, as far as changing the limit on steelhead in the four above-mentioned rivers... I have a feeling that steelhead will be targeted MUCH MORE HEAVILY OFFSHORE due to the declining numbers of kings. That will leave even less for the river angler looking for steelhead. Not sure how much lowering bag limits will help then. It will probably just pass off more people.

We need our baitfish population to recover. I don't just mean alewives. I mean all baitfish. The other problem is the heavy stocking of lake trout, which is counterproductive to baitfish recovery. But of course, the DNR seems to have their hands tied there too. Not good when you look at the big picture.


----------



## Julez81 (Feb 6, 2009)

I have been at the "conversation meetings" the last couple years voicing concerns about our river fisheries. I will be at the meeting next week. With all the questions regarding long term impact of mussels to the top of the food chain and our low bait fish numbers I am concerned. I wouldn't want to see Steelhead become the target of Salmon fisherman who can't find Salmon and don't desire Lakers.

On chumming I say either we allow or ban it, rather than limit to 1 quart. Hell, I might have to try this chum thing out. We have caught plenty of plug fish barfing eggs before, doesn't bother me that much really.

Maybe on this bag limit question it should be statewide inc. Lake Michigan. And perhaps we should have a spring closure as well, I could support that. It would bring us in line with other world class Steelhead fisheries and allow the fish to have a chance to spawn unmolested on the gravels. But mainly it will give the chance for more people to catch fish and more fish at that. At least a chance.

I have been asking for large increases in Steelhead stocking and some more Brown Stocking, which I believe, in time, with funding, the DNR will be able to increase hatcheries and the stocking of these. Or, god forbid, Alewives decline to a level where Salmon stocking must be further reduced and some hatchery space is gained.


----------



## limpinglogan (Sep 23, 2009)

jpmarko said:


> Well, I don't fish those four rivers much so I don't have too much input on them. What I would like to ask the DNR is what their plan is to augment the fishery should the numbers of kings collapse in the near future? We all know steelhead will be more heavily targeted. Will Lake Michigan become a lake trout dominated fishery or will the DNR plant more steelhead and maybe coho? I know I would prefer more steelhead and coho. I don't even care to pursue lake trout often.
> 
> Now, as far as changing the limit on steelhead in the four above-mentioned rivers... I have a feeling that steelhead will be targeted MUCH MORE HEAVILY OFFSHORE due to the declining numbers of kings. That will leave even less for the river angler looking for steelhead. Not sure how much lowering bag limits will help then. It will probably just pass off more people.
> 
> We need our baitfish population to recover. I don't just mean alewives. I mean all baitfish. The other problem is the heavy stocking of lake trout, which is counterproductive to baitfish recovery. But of course, the DNR seems to have their hands tied there too. Not good when you look at the big picture.


The answer is to plant more Skamania. If they sprinkled plants of those things in all the rivers all up and down the coast it would improve off-shore fishing, it would improve pier fishing, It would improve Summer/Fall/Winter steelheading in the rivers...it improves fishing for a lot of anglers! Those things are cruising along the surface in the big lake right now slurping on bugs...they don't rely on the alewives....they can return to the rivers multiple times...they get big and fight hard...they are a great replacement! 

Why NOT to supplement with more coho...#1. They already plant a crap load of coho...I think the Grand gets over 200K...we need more?!?! #2. I rarely see any size to the coho...a couple 8lb'ers here and there...but they are usually tiny. #3. One return to the river and they die. #4. They shoot up the river in two days...the Coho season in the river is super short! You can catch Skams from July-February in the rivers...the coho give you a window of a few days. So we invest all this money in coho and the river guys get a few days of fishing...with Skams you get a 6 month season. #4. No one likes coho.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Julez81 said:


> I have been at the "conversation meetings" the last couple years voicing concerns about our river fisheries. I will be at the meeting next week. With all the questions regarding long term impact of mussels to the top of the food chain and our low bait fish numbers I am concerned. I wouldn't want to see Steelhead become the target of Salmon fisherman who can't find Salmon and don't desire Lakers.
> 
> On chumming I say either we allow or ban it, rather than limit to 1 quart. Hell, I might have to try this chum thing out. We have caught plenty of plug fish barfing eggs before, doesn't bother me that much really.
> 
> ...




Josh I gotta say, it's already happening when it comes to targeting steel in the big lake. Many of the charters even last summer started targeting steel. Agreed, if we do limit harvest in the river, it must be statewide including lakes. It has been long stated that steel is managed for the river fishermen, and kings for the lake fishermen. Limiting harvest in the rivers while maintaining the same bag limit in the lake certainly goes against this management scheme.

Speaking with biologists in nw, sw, and here in the SE even, the emphasis is this proposal is social, not biological. They say we have more than enough fish to fill the gravel and redproduce. As for me, I release far more than I harvest, but I do keep a fish or two here and there for the grill or smoker. I must add, not a single fillet I ever put in the freezer has ever been thrown out either, every one consumed.

There is an economical side to the possible reduction to consider here too. Let's face it, we have some anglers whom are purely meat gatherers. I know two of them personally. If they can drive from Detroit to either the west side of the state, or the east side of Ohio, it makes no difference, the drive distance is the same. I have to say, when it comes to numbers, east Ohio and PA eclipses lake Michigan rivers. So if the goal is to harvest, and the limit is equal or even less here, why would the meat gatherers not take their dollars to ohio?

As for chumming, again, it's a social push 100%. Biologists again say there is zero biological concern. You are spot on, enforcing a quart limit is impossible to enforce. Gaurateed that we will see the CO'S and prosecutors modify any proposal to "nothing" if this shows favor. How else do you enforce the guy who has one bag of "bait eggs", one bag of "chum eggs", and "oh this bag, I'm river curing them from this hen on the rope".... all too silly and how could a CO possibly decipher all of that, and how would the story hold up in court? Waste of tax money and court time. Bigger fish to fry. Let the cos focus on chasing down true illegal activities and not social management.

As for these rumors of massive amounts being dumped, I have heard claims even up to 5 gallons!.... I have to say, no way is anyone doing that, not even the one heavvvvvy chummer on the mo. A five gallon bucket is either what, about 6 kings, or if you purchase surplus from hatcheries, the best price you will find is 3 bucks a pound. 30 lbs or so in a bucket would be 90 bucks. The claim is unrealistic.

Most who chum, do so sparingly. Does it change fish behavior, not always. I'll say it, I chum.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Sorry keyboard froze on phone.....

Do I use more than a quart a day? Nope. Does anyone need to use more than a quart a day? Nope. Do I support one quart limit though? Nope, due to the massive gray area of interpretation from prosecution I discussed already.

Then there is the "fair chase" argument. Define "fair chase", it is a matter of personal opinion, social.... is an artificial "hatch" of eggs turning on a bite "fair chase"? To some, no. But, it does trigger willful BITERS. My view of "fair chase" however, does not include a 12 foot leader with 2 number 14 stones on 4lb test swept across the gravel.... but that is getting too social and opinionated for this topic. And off topic, but I included as an alternate view for everyone to understand "fair chase" is a null argument for those opposing chum as a viable method for willful biters.

As for changing fish behavior, the fish either want eggs, or they dont. A normal program on the water for us is 4 plug rods, one floating a jig, the other guy floating a bag or bead until we key in on a program. Sometimes chum will get a bead or bag bite going. Sometimes it makes no difference and they still won't touch the eggs, but the plugs or jigs get beat on. I wish I could ay that is opinion, but watching that happen as many times as I have, I personally consider it fact.

Protein: eggs that otherwise would end up in the trash, instead are being placed back into the ecosystem where they should have been in the first place, and a number of other species can fatten up, including some of those football browns out there!

In summary, there is no biological need for either of these issues to proceed to law. As such, I can't support either one. Flash back to 07, and I fully support the chum ban. But now that we understand eggs are not a vector for vhs, there is not a biological concern.

Exploring this topic is a huge waste of our license and fisheries dollars, which could be better spent elsewhere, on topics suggesting a scientific concern. Expounding upon tufts study of air exposure in catch and release mortality, and implementing regs appropriately is one I personally wish we were exploring further instead of chasing this social interest brought forth by a select few. Hell, even the money spent thus far, I'm sure we could have a few nice big tanks of skams or London strain being raised. Regardless of social stance, that is something I think all anglers would like to see.

Finally done. Haha!


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

I think "we" need to wait and see what effects the crash will have on the Steelhead. Historically Steelhead were 3-6 Lb. fish prior to the Alewive invasion. How much effort will the Angling population place on 3-6 Lb. Steelhead? Not Much I would think. Furthermore these fish are placed here to be caught. They are not some endangered specie that needs protection. The Bio's jobs are to know what the environment can support and produces and plan accordingly.
If "we" go to a naturally produced fishery only (no plants) I could see some form of protection during the spawn being in order. However that would produce other issues as well.

Perhaps the Bio's could begin working on facilitating a healthy Alewive population to keep the fishery in the big lakes going, or throw in the towel and begin re building the Native Specie fisheries.


----------



## ORION5 (Jul 23, 2015)

To chum or not to chum? A decision our DNR will have to decide on very soon.
For those who think this anything but a social issue doesn't understand the meaning
of the word social. The fact that the DNR even exists is based on social laws to 
protect the natural resources from human interference. We can all imagine what our
woods and waters would be like if there were no DNR, no laws no rules no protections.
Yes, the decision that the DNR will have to make, has to be socially based providing the
decision is based on scientific data that the ruling would neither harm or help the fishery.
That said, what are the social reasons the DNR should be looking at to make the decision.
Here lies the battle lines between those who think chumming (or any similar issue) is either
fair or not fair to the beliefs of the greater angling population.
We all fish for different reason with different methods and different techniques. That said, we should
all play fairly in this past time we call sport fishing (not harvest fishing) in an ethical and respectful
manner towards other anglers. This is why we fish with hook and line instead of nets and
explosives. Let's face it, the money that us fishermen spend on our sport can not be justified for
the sole reason of putting as many fish in the freezer as possible. Where do we think the revenue
comes from to fund a good portion of the DNR. Not only does the DNR have to weigh the social
issues, it has to look at the economic issues also. Many of the small towns and communities that are near or on these rivers depend heavily on tourism and fishing. To attract more out of state anglers
to these small towns, world class fisheries have to exist with proper rules and regulations in place that protects the resource. The DNR is well aware of this or they wouldn't have made it part of their
Fisheries Division Tactical Plan going forward. I'm confident that our DNR will rule in favor of public opinion,economics and the science when the final decision is made and we should all support
whatever decision the DNR rules on and move forward.


----------



## johnny5alive (Jun 11, 2011)

Good thing there will be meetings because a message board is just the same tired retreads. A chummer claiming things shouldn't be social but then turning around and using the same tired false statement that steelhead don't hit stoneflies on gravel. I wonder how many people on here think the limit currently is five fish? At least the "I'm being discriminated against " hasnt come up in awhile.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Economics? I will be extremely interested in seeing how they figure the economic impact of those that will stop fishing because of more restrictions vs those that will join the fishing ranks because of further restrictions. I have never heard a person ever say they started fishing because of added restrictions, but I have heard and seen some quit fishing because of it. Are we selling ourselves short in the overall growth of our sport for an increase in localized economics of existing fishermen? How short sighted.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

More social regs that will amount to warm fuzzy feelings for some but more wasted time towards actually fixing the resource.
Fix the lake not the take.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

johnny5alive said:


> Good thing there will be meetings because a message board is just the same tired retreads. A chummer claiming things shouldn't be social but then turning around and using the same tired false statement that steelhead don't hit stoneflies on gravel. I wonder how many people on here think the limit currently is five fish? At least the "I'm being discriminated against " hasnt come up in awhile.


Sorry if you took offense to that, I didn't mean for it to come off as steel will not hit bugs. They will..... what I did make a brief mention of is 12 foot leaders, tiny stones, and 4 lb test has one intent in mind, employed by a number of the less ethical. Whether or not they want to admit intent, or are naive to why they are hooking fish is a different aspect..... and the label of "a chummer" is a bit narrow minded, being that I mentioned in the same post that I fish jigs and plugs as well..... I also should have mentioned, I drift bugs as well, with 3-4 foot leaders and larger bugs that can be seen adjacent to gravel. I acknowledge it was a slight social stance mention amongst all of the other facts and data, however, just keeping context of the same folks that have rallied to get this thing directly to dexter.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

johnny5alive said:


> Good thing there will be meetings because a message board is just the same tired retreads.


It's the same with the meetings. Same with those that are pushing these special regulations. If "same tired retreads" is somehow a disqualifier, I guess we don't need these meetings.


----------



## Jones (Mar 5, 2010)

Ranger Ray said:


> Economics? I will be extremely interested in seeing how they figure the economic impact of those that will stop fishing because of more restrictions vs those that will join the fishing ranks because of further restrictions. I have never heard a person ever say they started fishing because of added restrictions, but I have heard and seen some quit fishing because of it. Are we selling ourselves short in the overall growth of our sport for an increase in localized economics of existing fishermen? How short sighted.


People fish because they want to catch fish. When someone is chumming in front of you, you catch less fish. When you don't catch fish, it's hard to get into the sport of fishing. It's really pretty simple. 

As far as limits go, the proposed reduction in harvest is meant to support more people catching fish when they are in the rivers. Its not biology. It's not carrying capacity. It's not about Lake Michigan.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Jones said:


> People fish because they want to catch fish. When someone is chumming in front of you, you catch less fish. When you don't catch fish, it's hard to get into the sport of fishing. It's really pretty simple.
> 
> As far as limits go, the proposed reduction in harvest is meant to support more people catching fish when they are in the rivers. Its not biology. It's not carrying capacity. It's not about Lake Michigan.


People also fish to eat them. 10 fish to 5 supported people catching more steelhead. 5 to 3 over 15" supported people catching more steelhead. You ought to be catching so many steelhead, they are coming out your ears. Maybe you should be supporting the planting of more fish, as it appears the restriction of others as to what they can keep, so you can catch more, isn't working.

Chumming is so prevalent, people are leaving the sport because they can't catch fish behind those doing it? I can't catch fish on the PM during the fall because there is a guide in every good hole. Maybe we should stop guiding because they are hindering others from catching fish. May even be people leaving the sport because of it.


----------



## 19rabbit52 (Jul 15, 2007)

Ranger Ray said:


> People also fish to eat them. 10 fish to 5 supported people catching more steelhead. 5 to 3 over 15" supported people catching more steelhead. You ought to be catching so many steelhead, they are coming out your ears. Maybe you should be supporting the planting of more fish, as it appears the restriction of others as to what they can keep, so you can catch more, isn't working.
> 
> Chumming is so prevalent, people are leaving the sport because they can't catch fish behind those doing it? I can't catch fish on the PM during the fall because there is a guide in every good hole. Maybe we should stop guiding because they are hindering others from catching fish. May even be people leaving the sport because of it.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Well, I wouldn't say nobody likes coho. But since we are talking about the river fishery here, I fully agree with you. Increasing skamania plants for Lake Michigan would bolster the near shore and river fishery throughout a large part of the year. I was mentioning coho in terms of the offshore fishery, although skams are great for offshore anglers too. Most anglers would love to see skamania plants in their home ports.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

Biologists at the meeting last night said that the current limits are sustainable and supported by their science. I'll take their word over a special interested Muskegon group anyday. Hopefully these proposals get shot down due to our newly citizen lead legislation that was just upheld in federal court, the Scientific Fish and Wildlife conservation act.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

I'm at Tippy Dam 5 days a week at a minimum....I'd say, based on my daily observations, that less than 5% of anglers will catch more than a single steelhead, let alone a limit. In fact, I know of only one make that limits with any type of regularity. 5%, in statistical terms, is zero. Which means those 5% have zero impact on the fishery. Lake boats have a much larger impact. I've never seen a charter go out and throw back a fish if they haven't met their limit. Just sayin'.


----------



## steelton (Jan 29, 2012)

I was at Monday night newaygo meeting and I was concerned about the bag limit changes more than the chumming but, the rest of the group was a different story. I think 75% of the group was there to ban chumming rather than reduce chumming and vote on a bag limit. I listen to many people make the arguments one way or the other and many times found myself swaying on my choice but, in the end it was several guys speaking of similar events that solidified my choice on a bag limit. Both guys spoke of how they have watch the Pm fishery go through its changes over 30+ years and as the catch got reduced to nothing the river only got more traffic turning a once tranquil river into the zoo it is today. Also the Dnr said that a reduced bag who push some anglers to other nearby rivers that don't have any current reduced bags which I felt wasn't fair to the guys that call those rivers home. Did seem fair for me to say I want more fish year round why do you guy bother thus other guy and take his also limited fish. In the end a stayed with a 3 bag limit but, I was of a few that choose that route on Monday. It was 13 to 27 in favor of a 1 bag limit, not a single vote for 2 bag. The chumming went the same way 25 and 9 in favor or a reduced amount. I would like to see a full ban on chumming. It's not how I was raised fishing and from personal experiences on the Mo looking disgusting to watch guy ladle 2 or 3 cups into a run prior to fishing. We're better than that we know how to catch fish without stooping so low. The Dnr pointed out that the Mo and big man are world class fisheries and other states look towards us for guidelines so let's show them what a world class fishery can be, through cooperation we can produce bigger fish and everyone be satisfied with the days outcome.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Gabe thanks for the report... I don't quite understand your numbers tho, are you saying majority was for maintaining the status quo with no change on both topics?.... I know that is how Manistee as well as Oakland county went.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

AdamBradley said:


> Gabe thanks for the report... I don't quite understand your numbers tho, are you saying majority was for maintaining the status quo with no change on both topics?.... I know that is how Manistee as well as Oakland county went.


Manistee at 53ish in attendance. 49 against proposed limits, 3 in favor. 

49 against new chum regs, 3 in favor.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Thanks gvdoc... is your name also Gabe by chance? I was referring to steelton, sorry if that confused things with two gabes!.... our Oakland meeting was small at 20-30 folks and focused mainly on bass... bass guys didn't weigh in much on steel topics. We had 1 in favor of reducing harvest and banning chumming... i didnt get the exact count, but i would guess 10 or so in favor of maintaining the status quo with no changes.


----------



## steelton (Jan 29, 2012)

The vote went 13 in favor of a 3 bag limit 0 for a 2 bag limit and 23 for a 1 bag limit. And the chumming went 9 in favor of keeping chumming unlimited and 25 in favor of reducing it to 1 quart.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Wow, reducing steelhead limits to one per day? Aren't they afraid that might deter people from going there in the first place? Might hurt the local economy, too. I know I would think twice if I were making a trip to catch steelhead and found out I could only keep one per day. 

Have they ever thought of stocking more steelhead in those rivers in order to increase catch rates? I imagine they have but wonder what their exact reason is for not doing it. Is it funds or hatchery capacity?


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Thanks for the correction gabe.... I'm curious what other areas are saying as well. Kzoo is tonight I beleive.


----------



## steelton (Jan 29, 2012)

There are plans in the works to allocate more hachery space to the production of steelhead d from what I've been told. Jot sure how much of an increase and where those fish would be planted to bolster weak returns. Time will tell. It's the Dr's belief that steelhead are safer in the big lake where than in the river. Nearly 100,000 fish were taken in the river and something like 45,000 from lake michigan. To me the numbers seem a little fudged but, that's only from personal experience.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

I agree it seems a little off, and I asked if the numbers included last summer on the lake, when they became far more targeted than years past. I did not receive a reply to that question.... I just wish that with the additional space, consideration would be given to the London strain, so we have something more to play with in the fall/winter.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

No, my name is Bryan. 

I am 100% against a reduction in current limits because it won't change anything. It's a reduction in opportunity for zero return. 

Just like the combo tag for whitetail...we don't go to a 1buck tag because less than 5% of second combo tags are used for a second buck. So why limit the opportunity of everyone when it'll net zero change. 

These new proposed steelhead limits are the same thing. 

The way I see it, river fisherman as a whole had 45,000 less fish to catch last year than lake fisherman. Then divide the remainders between a dozen rivers....and it's even less. So lake fisherman have nothing to complain about. Maybe they should just limit the lake catch to a single fish so more fish have a chance to make it into the river to spawn. I wonder how they'd like that.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

jpmarko said:


> Have they ever thought of stocking more steelhead in those rivers in order to increase catch rates?


That question was asked, as I brought it up. They said with the extra steelhead hatchery capacity it could be an option, but topic didn't go any further than that. I gathered 6 guys to come, none knew anything about this until I informed them. Sure was an eye opener for them. These meetings are getting very little exposure.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranger Ray said:


> That question was asked, as I brought it up. They said with the extra steelhead hatchery capacity it could be an option, but topic didn't go any further than that. I gathered 6 guys to come, none knew anything about this until I informed them. Sure was an eye opener for them. These meetings are getting very little exposure.


The DNR had a press release and sent emails to anyone who has signed up to receive them, it has been discussed extensively here, there was an MLive three weeks ago story by a writer from the Muskegon Chronicle, may have appeared in the newspaper, too. I don't know what the DNR can do with people who never pay attention until after the fact. Maybe you should get those guys to sign up for the emails so in the future they will know. It's free after all. Of course, ignorance is free too and it's probably less trouble.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

That's very true. I did the same on my end.... I brought 3 that otherwise would not have seen it... one a verrrrry avid steelhead dude who admitted it! (Sorry if you read this bud!)


----------



## Julez81 (Feb 6, 2009)

I also got three to come with me tonight that otherwise would not go hopefully they all make it. On my way now


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> The DNR had a press release and sent emails to anyone who has signed up to receive them, it has been discussed extensively here, there was an MLive three weeks ago story by a writer from the Muskegon Chronicle, may have appeared in the newspaper, too. I don't know what the DNR can do with people who never pay attention until after the fact. Maybe you should get those guys to sign up for the emails so in the future they will know. It's free after all. Of course, ignorance is free too and it's probably less trouble.


Hey, don't shoot the messenger, although I know how it's a habit for you. Say what ever you want, the word is not getting out to very many people the way it is being done now. Thanks for the lecture on what I should do. Did you notice that I brought some new people to the meeting? So they could get involved and learn how the system works. How many new people did you bring?


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Get your popcorn here!!! .... hehe not to insinuate, but I will admit, the dnr is a little old school in notifying the public of the public meetings. That's something none of us should get personal about though... I heard of it thru the emails I am signed up for, if anyone else isn't signed up for those, I highly recommend it.


----------

