# Poll: Perch creel limits



## DFJISH (Mar 30, 2009)

MSUICEMAN said:


> If there isn't a scientific reason to drop the limit, then don't. Pretty simple if you ask me.
> 
> Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2


That's exactly the way it _should_ be. It never ceases to amaze me how fishermen (and hunters) come up with their own opinions of how to impose more restictions, _the purpose of which is ALWAYS self-serving._ Trout fishermen do it, musky fishermen do it, walleye fishermen do it, bass fishermen do it, and now apparently perch fishermen are going to try it. The fisheries division of the DNR has the credentials to manage fish and do a great job of it.


----------



## treeman (Mar 18, 2002)

mdad said:


> It sounds to much like locals in some areas feel like people come up and take all of "their perch" so lets change the rules so I'll have a better chance kind of thing.


I suspect you are right. Keep the good comments coming. This is an opportunity to have your voice heard directly by those in Lansing that consider these issues. I will make sure your voices are heard.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Social science vs sound science. An issue we trout fishermen that use bait know too well. It starts out with size, limit and then progresses to gear. Its preservationist vs conservationist. Its nirvana and philosophy vs reality. Anyone against social science making the regulations, should join the GLFSA.org, an organization fighting for management by sound science, not social science. If sound science says it doesnt matter in the overall health of the game, than there is no reason to further regulate. If you would like to join GLFSA and help us in our fight, PM me and we will hook you up.


----------



## mcfish (Jan 24, 2010)

Don't worry, Ray. I think we'll still be able to use wigs and minnies.


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

I will have to post a few blogs i wrote on stunted fisheries when i get home.I think the issue covered in them is what is in question here.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## raisinrat (Feb 9, 2006)

Ok I finally made it home to post this up. My views on this topic come from seeing lakes being over harvested of large panfish and seeing them never come back to what they were or worse becoming totally stunted due to over harvesting of the largest fish in the system.I did a lot of research for these blogs,I also have some time and background studying ichthyology, which is a branch of zoology that focus on the study of fishes. There is plenty of states across the counrty that on certain bodies of water do manage them for trophy gills, crappies, and perch. It works, they happen to have great numbers of larger fish every year available to anglers. I would love to see Michigan become one of those states also some day.

Greedy fisherman = stunted fisheries? (part one)

Stunted fisheries &#8211; Management tools (part 2)


----------



## fishindude644 (Jan 3, 2001)

WALLEYE MIKE said:


> Inland lakes, maybe.
> 
> LSC or Erie, I don't see the need.


 Inland if needed.


----------



## treeman (Mar 18, 2002)

Where do you draw the line regarding complexity of regulations? You almost have to be a country lawyer to figure out how and where you can fish for trout. There are special regulation lakes for pike. Do we really want to add to the complexity of regulations for panfish by having special regulation lakes for them as well? We have gotten a little off topic so please keep in mind the original question.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Yes, though ironically not for the Great Lakes. I agree that inland can be managed for large fish in some places and numbers in others much more easily than the Lakes. I also don't think the regs are too complicated.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## broad1kj (Jan 14, 2011)

Bob D said:


> I had to vote no. They could just close the season if they are worried about harvesting spawning fish.


I totally agree!


----------

