# Longer bass season might be on the way



## JVS (Aug 15, 2003)

I have tried to stay out of the fray since in the past I have put in my 2 cents regarding djkimmel's REAL agenda, though I now see that I didn't read between the lines closely enough.



djkimmel said:


> but I also have no doubt that I know much more about bass biology and management than you do.
> QUOTE]
> 
> What an arrogant statement. For you to state this about anyone that frequents this page just confirms (to me) that you think the world of Michigan bass fishing (though you have tried in vain to extend it to other states) revolves around you. Your attempts at understanding what scientific research is about are, to me, lame. It doesn't sound (to me) like you've spent one minute at the bench of an academic research lab. Have you spent countless hours studying limnology (you do know what that is djkimmel, don't you?) or ichthyology? Oh, that's right, you've said it is not necessary to have a PhD to be a fisheries biologist. Another slap in the face of all the men and women (at least the ones I know) who have spent their 20's on their thesis work and writing their dissertations (most of which I doubt you've read) in order to make a career as a fisheries biologist. I'll bet my GLX that you've never even used a Secchi disk, let alone touched one, or that you even know that pH is measured on a logarithmic scale. But, you sure are the expert at selective reading! And that makes you Michigan's foremost authority on bass fishing and God forbid ANYONE should challenge your self-righteous cause to have tournament fishing year-round here in Michigan.
> ...


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

Yep you got me right. I haven't read any of the articles. I am part of the great conspiracy along with the biologists of the DNR, Editors of IN-Fisherman, Biologists from states similar to Michigan such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Ontario and New York that still have a closed season. We are all jealous of those shiny boats and are out to get tournament fisherman. Unfortunately we haven't gotten the guys from Alabama, Nevada, New Jersey etc. to play along yet. 



DJKimmel said:


> Complaints about charter captains had a lot to do with changing their season also on Lake Erie


Those dang charter boat captains are so out of touch with the fishery. They are probably part of the conspiracy to keep tournament anglers down as well. Either that or they just needed a three month break from hauling customers around to catch bass. We know they couldn't be seeing any negative effects.

This thread has gone from silly to absurd. I will try to keep my concerns about the resource out of the way of your extra three weeks of tournament season from here on out.

BTW - My comment about abstracts being available online to everyone was just to those that are interested in seeing a little more detail. If they want the full text of the articles they are free to contact me since I do have full access. I guess you read my posts about the same way you read the journals. Looking for what you want to see . . .


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Gee. I wondered how long it would take you to come back in Jim. Great to hear from you again. A pleasure as always.

I've posted consistently what I want. You guys consistently twist it to make me look bad and then you're surprised when I call you on what you know since you're so sure I don't know what I'm talking about. You still haven't told me what biologists you've learned from personally.

You don't agree with my positions. No one has missed that. Some may feel the same way you do. Some don't. That's the way these kinds of issues always go.

Jim, you're way more abrasive than I could ever be. You're the one who keeps bringing up PhDs and 'academic research' this and that, not me. You've posted the same thing before. You seem to be the one saying that people who don't have a PhD or do 'academic research' can't understand things for themselves. Why does it bother you so much that I say I know more about bass biology and management than you two do. It doesn't bother me that Tbone knows more about heart surgery than I do. You probably know more about something than I do too. That doesn't bother me either. No one can be an expert in everything. I haven't studied CABG or rocket science because it doesn't have anything to do with bass biology and management.

All I keep saying is you don't really know a particular subject until you've studied it thoroughly. You can have an opinion, but it's better to have an educated opinion. I'm just letting anglers who want to know how they can learn what studies and data are available can go about it if they want to. Or they can ask me since I've already done the homework.

That's what I'm talking about - bass biology and management. I'll say it again - if you'd actually spent the time I have with the biologists, then you'd understand what I'm saying about this topic. I'm sorry that my saying I know a lot about this subject offends both of you so much to the point that you mainly resort to twisting what I say and claiming to know my 'alterior motives' and insinuating I'm a liar and that I can't possibly be very bright, etc. You keep making this personal.

I personally don't want to spend too much of my time trying to prove I know what I'm talking about or trying to prove my credibility. There's plenty of people who agree with my general positions already and there are anglers who can read what's been posted and make up their own mind.

Anglers can decide for themselves if they believe what you guys claim or what I and others with similar opinions post. I think more than anything, it's very interesting that after all the things that were said last year on this board, that the MDNR did allow any spring catch-and-release bass fishing. Some people could have gotten the impression this would never happen from some of the 'known' things posted and yet here we are already part way to legal spring catch-and-release bass fishing. It should get a lot more interesting before it's over.

For those of you interested in more legal bass fishing in Michigan, watch the bass issue coming out in a few days of the Michigan Outdoor News and listen to 97.1 FM - Bob Bauer's Outdoor World in the Detroit area on Saturday, May 22 for more on this topic. The next MDNR meeting is scheduled for June 3. Ron Spitler, retired MDNR biologist and avid bass angler will be their representing the Michigan BASS Chapter Federation (and on the radio show too). Don't feel bad or selfish about wanting to have a longer bass season. The studies and vast majority of real-world practices are on your side.


----------



## JVS (Aug 15, 2003)

Dan,

It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to see that you are a hard core bass tournament angler. All one has to do is visit your personal website and read about your many accomplishments on the bass tournament circuit. You're right, you've made your agenda clear, just not in the most direct way, IMO. You want Michigan's bass season opened up year 'round, for bass tournament purposes! Plain and simple. I sincerely doubt you carry a torch for "Joe Lunchbucket" (to quote Roland Martin) fisherman, otherwise you would be upset about ALL regulations which limit fishing for MI license holders, right?

As far as your claim to know more about bass biology and management, well, let's see. What and how many species of zooplankton exist in Michigan's waters? What can you tell me about phytops (phytoplankton)? What's the life cycle of each of the various species of goby? Their temperature preferences? Name every species of crayfish that lives in Michigan waters. What's my point? Sure, I admit that you have read a relative few journal articles about largemouth and smallmouth bass. You've talked directly with fisheries personnel about bass management in Michigan. But, how much do you really know and understand about freshwater ecosystems and bass biology?? Oh yeah, more than myself and T-Bone for sure, you've said so.

But, let me ask you this, have you talked with all types of Michigan anglers? And I mean other than bass tournament anglers, about how they feel about bass tournaments and how they affect bass populations? Do you care about the general public's view towards tournament bass angling? Are you personally trying to improve the public's perception of bass tournaments and anglers? Why aren't you out lobbying for walleye anglers? Their season on Erie got screwed. What about coldwater anglers? They have restrictions too. 

Or, are you simply putting in all your efforts into getting MDNR professionals to change their minds (because of course YOU know the bass populations won't be adversely affected) and open up MI bass fishing year round so that you and your buds can have bass tournaments wherever and whenever you want??

I would have thought you'd be jumping for joy that the MDNR is considering opening bass to be targeted (CIR) preseason. Now you can legally go out and not have to fish for rock bass and walleye on LSC (and all lower MI waters). But no, you gripe because you may lose 3 weeks of potential tournament fishing season. Remind me again, what exactly is your crusade??

Jim


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

If Michigan gets legal catch-and-release bass fishing from January 1 until the existing opening days, which Ive been clear all along is my goal in everything I have written (anyone can try to say I mean something else  but Ive been consistent in my goal on my site and in my posts), then ALL bass anglers will get more bass fishing opportunity and no angler has to worry about getting a ticket because he/she catches a bass in the spring, whether on purpose or not. Seems like all bass anglers who want more fishing benefit as much as I would. 

How could anyone honestly say Im trying to get year-round tournaments in Michigan? Ive been consistent about wanting legal catch-and-release bass fishing and look at the reaction I get from a few anglers just over that! If I tried to get year-round tournaments in Michigan with the way some people feel about them, Id be completely wasting my time and not get anywhere. I dont waste my time on impossibilities. I said all along getting spring catch-and-release bass fishing in Michigan could and probably would happen. Ive also commented many times that a longer tournament season and/or special exemptions for bass tournaments will not happen in my lifetime. Thats too obvious for anyone to miss.

If other anglers want to push for more, they have the right to do so. I wont help them with anymore than Ive consistently posted  leave the existing seasons as is and add legal catch-and-immediate-release bass fishing from January 1 until the regular openers.

Ive made my agenda very clear. Anyone who wants to can make up whatever they want out of it, but my agenda does not deviate from what I just posted. That doesnt mean I wont point out errors related to any other issue in bass fishing people claim to know about, especially derogatory comments about bass tournament anglers. Im well aware of the how some of the public and MDNR feel about bass tournament anglers.

Ask any federation angler how many times during my 10 years as Conservation Director I lectured them about their behavior in public and reminded them that perception is reality. Look at how a few treat me here. The day I bought my bass boat  the first weekend I went out in it  some people began reacting to me completely different than the way they had the weekend before when I was the same person, but in a different kind of boat. Two weekends ago, I got after a bass boat angler for breaking the 10mph speed limit on Kent Lake. Last year, I went up to a weigh-in I was not involved in and got after an angler who had run through the Clinton River channel no-wake. There were a number of witnesses to this. I did not previously know that angler, but since some of you think all of us guys in a bass boat look alike, I knew I had to make it clear to him that what he had done was unacceptable.

Back in the late 1980s I tried to push through several changes in the federation that caused me much grief. The anglers just werent ready for it yet. I tried to get us to voluntarily lower our team limits from 10 bass to 5 along with not running Lake Michigan  not transporting bass from one lake to another  and a couple other things. I wasnt alone in this, but I was the recognized as the leader in the process. I upset many anglers who thought my moves were too restrictive and unnecessary. It was an ugly time for a while. In the end, most of the changes did not go through and my best friend left the presidency of the federation after suffering a heart attack from the stress.

I felt it was important enough to work hard for the changes even though most were not adopted. Now, through just working it out as anglers get more used to things and more acceptable over time and through learning  many team tournaments circuits voluntarily have adopted reduced team creels of 5 to 8 bass instead of the 10 they could legally bring in. Several circuits or tournaments have had policies to not allow anglers to run from Lake Michigan. Im comfortable that Im putting as much effort as I can into improving things and that some of it does eventually pay off over time.

Im wondering if I wasnt a tournament angler and pushed for the same thing (many of the anglers who have contacted me to be involved are not tournament anglers and want the same thing including a fair number on this board), what would your strategy to discredit me be then?

Ive never said I was smarter than anyone. Some people may take it that way, I guess. Ive never claimed more than being knowledgeable about bass biology and management. When a few have challenged, I have claimed Im more knowledgeable about bass biology and management than they are. Im basing this on what Ive been taught and learned, and the errors they make in their posts.

I dont have any agenda for walleye or salmon or trout or catfish. They all have their own supporters and organizations. Im a bass angler. That is my favored fish. I enjoy catching plenty of other fish, but I concentrate on bass. If I could figure out a way to make my entire living some way in fishing, I would do it in a heartbeat. I dont see anything wrong with wanting to make a living at what I enjoy most.

Thanks to all of you who want more bass fishing and especially to those of you who have contacted me. I completely understand why some of you dont want to make your opinions public.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

Original posting at www.basscanada.com 

Originally published in IN-Fisherman

The Science of Smallmouth Bass

Consequences for Angling and Fishery Conservation

By: Gord Pyzer 

It is ironic that smallmouth bass anglers thirst to know more about their favorite fish. Where they live throughout the year. Why they move to different seasonal locations. What triggers the sometimes mass migrations? Why the fish behave the way they do. 

If we could answer those questions we could fine tune seasons, adjust regulations and create, maintain and enhance smallmouth bass fisheries the likes of which we can only dream about. 

So what is the paradox? 
It is the fact that we can answer those questions  and many more  right now. Science and technology have allowed bass biologists and fisheries researchers unprecedented opportunities to probe almost every aspect of the smallmouth's fascinating life history. In fact, we're more overwhelmed with new bass information, data and insights than we are underwhelmed.

Unfortunately, researchers haven't adequately transferred that knowledge to the majority of bass anglers. Still, we know enough today to create and maintain marvelous smallmouth fisheries. Much better than already exist. The question is: Do we want to? 

On the life history side of things, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources research scientist Dr. Mark Ridgway is the undisputed pioneer. Ridgway has broken more new smallmouth ground, initiated more innovative studies and opened up more eyes to smallmouth bass behavior than any other researcher. 

Over the past decade, In-Fisherman Magazine has carefully chronicled the results of Ridgway's research. Particularly his radio tracking experiments and his investigations into the homing and nesting behavior of male smallmouth. Ridgway's research is so enormous it contributes to the longest continuous census of any animal population on earth. 

BASS BIOLOGY 101 
What we've learned from Ridgway is that in northern smallmouth bass populations, fewer than 30 percent of the mature and typically five-to nine-year old plus, male bass actually spawn in the spring. More shocking, he discovered these spawners are predetermined, through an elaborate fitness and feeding regimen, a year in advance. So, if one of these males is caught and killed the previous fall  or disturbed or removed from its nest in the spring  no other male will replace it that year, or compensate for its loss.

The significance of that finding really doesn't hit home, though, until you relate it to a series of other Ridgway discoveries. Such as his finding that larger smallmouth bass nest first in the spring in the best locations. 

If these larger males are no longer present in the population, however, spawning chores fall on the shoulders of the much smaller males. But, for some inexplicable reason, these younger fish nest later than the older fish they replace. So their offspring don't have the benefit of an early head start. They have a strike against them before they emerge from the yolk sac.

Ridgway's research also revealed the following information. For all intents and purposes, guarding males do not eat for up to six weeks while they defend their nests and fry. Seventy percent of the nests fail to produce young-of-the-year. The fry that endure must be at least 2.5 inches long by the fall to have any chance of surviving the first winter of their life. Total year class failures are the norm rather than the exception. And finally, if we force smaller and younger males to spawn, they will have to devote so much of their energy resources to protecting their nests and progeny that a disproportionate number of them will starve to death over the subsequent winter.

TURNING RESEARCH INTO ACTION 
Knowing what Ridgway and others have learned, the logical question becomes, how can we use the information to create, maintain and enhance existing bass fisheries. Especially those in the middle and northern portions of the smallmouth's range  in states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Maine, Vermont and the Canadian provinces  where his work is most applicable.

Protecting the larger (two-and-a-half pound plus) members of the smallmouth bass population is paramount. It may be through: the establishment of spring spawning sanctuaries, protected slot limits, minimum size limits, maximum size limits, reduced creel limits, live bait restrictions, seasonal angling restrictions or a combination of these tactics. Whatever the methods, protecting the mature breeding segment of the smallmouth population appears to be the foundation upon which great fisheries are established and maintained.

In many of the areas where these measures have been applied  Connecticut's Quality Bass Lakes, Wisconsin's Pallette Lake, Alabama's Shoal Reach of the Tennessee River and Minnesota's Zumbro River to name but a few ... the results have been encouraging. Some would say predictable. 

When managers implemented a 16-inch minimum length limit and two-fish daily creel limit for smallmouth bass in tiny Pallette Lake, Wisconsin for example, they found that the number of quality size fish increased by 300 percent. So did the big bass survival rate. 

They discovered two other equally remarkable results. Fishing effort increased by a whopping 62-percent. And the harvest of bass greater than 16-inches improved significantly. Before the regulation changes few if any smallmouth lived long enough to reach 16-inches in length. After the changes, however, more quality fish were available. And they eventually moved out of the protected slot and into the potential harvest category. Clearly, the regulations showed how you could have your quality smallmouth cake and eat it too. 

What is most intriguing about the Pallette Lake results, however, is that rather than discouraging interest, as some might have assumed, the new regulations improved the quality of fishing and heightened angler awareness. Little wonder at the end of the seven-year study period, the Wisconsin researchers concluded that, "for managers wishing to increase angler interest and numbers of fish 16.0 inches and greater, we recommend considering similar or even more restrictive regulations."

Comparable results occurred on The Shoals Reach, a 20-km section of the Tennessee River below Wilson Dam in Alabama after a 356-mm minimum length limit was applied in 1991. Electrofishing catch rates for both juvenile and adult smallmouth bass skyrocketed after the regulations were applied. At the same time, a high proportion of the bass population fell within the preferred length and weight parameters of the bass anglers who flock to this internationally renown fishery. Not surprisingly, to help maintain this marvelous fishery, Shoals Reach bass anglers release a whopping 98 percent of their catch, even though they could keep some of the fish above the minimum size limit.

In Minnesota, on the other hand, a special experimental 9-inch maximum size limit was placed on a 1.9-mile section of the Zumbro River. Under maximum size restrictions, fish larger than the prescribed size limit must be released. In the case of the Zumbro River, the goal was to increase the number of bass greater than 9.0 inches in length in the regulated section. To ensure that as many of the released fish as possible survived, an "artificial lure only" regulation also was adopted for the special stretch.

Not only did the regulations meet their objectives and demonstrate the viability of catch and release  some bass were caught as many as four times  but fish initially caught and released in the special regulated area, spilled over and "fed" neighboring unregulated sections of the river. So there was an added spin-off benefit.

Still, the Minnesota regulation that has most bass anglers and biologists watching with keen interest is the state's new no-kill smallmouth policy from the first week in September until the end of the season in February. You can still fish for smallmouth bass in Minnesota in the autumn, but you have to release them immediately. You get a sense, talking with researchers like Ridgway, that they're delighted with this move and believe it will reap huge benefits.

As most anglers know, smallmouth often congregate in massive numbers in deep river pools and wintering areas in lakes. According to Ridgway, in many waterbodies, the entire population of adult bass can be jammed into a shockingly few number of spots. Sometimes only three or four. Mature bass that are the foundation of the fishery and spread out along miles of shoreline in the summer cram themselves into these small areas in the fall where they're prone to over harvest. In the extreme, it can be like shooting ducks in a barrel. Or yourself in the foot. 

The other feature that Minnesota's fall catch-and-release regulation prevents is the movement and transfer of bass from one area of a lake to another as might happen in a late season tournament or as a result of culling fish from a livewell.

While Ridgway has discovered through his tracking experiments that smallmouth bass are capable of finding their way back to home ranges in the spring and summer, they simply may lack the time to do the same thing in the fall, before ice up, especially if the fish are released miles away from familiar territory. 

Couple this with the fact that the fall feeding period is critical for over winter survival and the potential problem emerges. The fish need to gorge and fatten themselves up like bears in order to survive the cold water winter starvation period when, for all intents and purposes, they do not eat. However, they may not be able to store sufficient energy, and in fact, may well use it up when they're released in new territory in the fall and spend the time when they should be feeding, looking for home.

At the other end of the calendar period, a team of fisheries scientists associated with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Queen's University Biological Station and the Center for Aquatic Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, suggests bass anglers need sometimes to simply better police themselves. To act more ethically if they expect better bass fisheries in the future. 

Monitoring the activities of bass anglers in the spring, when spawning fish in southeastern Ontario are protected by a closed season, the researchers determined that as many as 63 percent of the anglers on Opinicon Lake targeted nesting bass under the guise of fishing for some other species. When the researchers subsequently went underwater and counted the number of fish with visible hook wounds, they determined the percentage of nesting male bass that had been caught approached 100 percent. 

This illegal springtime catch-and-release angling had an impact on the production of young-of-the-year. In the lakes and rivers that received the greatest amount of pre-season fishing pressure, the reproductive success was the lowest. More than half the smallmouth bass nests were either abandoned or failed to produce fry. Compare that to the 84 percent of nests that produced successful broods on the other study lakes and rivers where anglers respected the closed bass season regulation and guarding males were not targets.

THE MYTH OF SUSTAINABLE YIELD 
As study after study, research project after research project has demonstrated, conserving large smallmouth bass and ensuring they spawn each spring appears to be the foundation upon which quality bass fisheries are maintained. It is why many biologists these days are wondering out loud about what they call the myth of managing for sustainable yield. 

The sustainable yield is the number of pounds of bass (or any fish for that matter) that anglers can safely harvestfrom a lake, river or reservoir on an annual basis without jeopardizing the population. It is similar to the interest in a bank account and it is the number usually of utmost importance in the minds of bass anglers and bass managers. But Ridgway and others are starting to caution that managing up to the maximum sustainable level may come at a very high price. You could lose any vestige of a quality fishery.

The reason is that big smallmouth bass, indeed the large members of any fish population, are like the cream that floats to the top in a can of milk. There is precious little of it to skim off. And according to Ridgway, when you harvest only a small percentage of the total sustainable smallmouth bass yield and concentrate that harvest on the larger individuals, you lose any semblance of a quality bass fishery. 

The problem with a simple maximum yield figure for a lake, river or reservoir, is that it doesn't take into account matters of quality. You could still have a viable fishery but it might be composed mostly of small 8-, 10- and 12-inch bass. It is also why, under even moderate angling pressure and modest harvest rates without special regulations to protect the larger fish, that many smallmouth waters now seem incapable of producing many bass bigger than two pounds.

The north end of Lake of the Woods may be a perfect emerging example. Before the Kenora Bass International catch-and-release tournament was established some fifteen years ago bass were a relatively unknown and unappreciated resource. Walleye were kings. But word spread quickly about the number and size of smallmouth being caught and released in the annual August event. Anglers became more aware of the fishery and thesubsequent bass harvest sky rocketed. It is still within the bounds of sustainability, mind you, but much closer to the maximum level. And certainly much higher than Ridgway's "small percentage". As a result, the high quality shine appears to have faded. 

WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY 
As Pogo once proudly pronounced, "we have seen the enemy and he is us." Pogo must surely have been a smallmouth angler. Because often, the only thing that stands between smallmouth bass anglers and the best possible smallmouth bass fishing is, well, smallmouth bass anglers.

We now know just about everything we need to know about how to manage these magnificent fish and fisheries so they remain viable, improving and the highest quality. We can even produce world-class smallmouth fisheries that cater to the needs of each segment of the bass angling fraternity. The tournament crowd, the big fish specialists and the folks who enjoy eating a few. And we can produce and manage these fisheries at little or no cost. Other than the ability to learn from science, to dare to see things as they could be and to adhere to a few possibly new and simple rules.

Of course, we could use more studies, more information, more data and more bass knowledge. We can always use those things. The bottom line, however, is that we have the knowledge today to produce the smallmouth bass fisheries we desire. Some would say crave. Even the ones we thought were impossible to enjoy. Smallmouth fisheries better than the good old days. It really is ironic. 

THE CHALLENGE OF MANAGING DATES ON A CALENDAR 
Where bass seasons exist, opening day is a highly anticipated date. But the weather can vary dramatically from one year to the next. It is why, from a management perspective, the season can open too early one year and not early enough the next. In a perfect world, it would open when the males and fry have dispersed. 

Creating A Quality Smallmouth Bass Fishery 

From: North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 90-99. 

According to Mark Ridgway, the decline in the abundance of young-of-the year smallmouth in the fall is most pronounced when the bass season opens when the males are first establishing nest sites and beginning parental care. "At these early dates," he says, "the declines are dramatic, even with only small increases in the daily probability of capture by anglers. For example, with a daily probability of capture of 0.1, most nesting males would be caught at least once over a 20 day parental care period, and the abundance of young-of-the-year smallmouth in the fall could be reduced by up to 80-percent."

In south eastern Ontario, where Ridgway conducted his research, the official opening date of the bass season is the last Saturday in June. But that day can fall anywhere between June 23 and June 30, depending on the calendar year. Ridgway's modeling and simulations indicate that significant changes in the abundance of young-of-the-year smallmouth bass can occur simply as a result of the calendar-controlled opening date of the season.

Notice the dramatic build-up in the number (and harvest) of quality size smallmouth bass after a 16-inch minimum length limit and a two fish creel limit were imposed in Pallette Lake, Wisconsin. Prior to the implementation of the regulation, fishing pressure was so high, few bass survived ong enough to grow this large. The results also highlight the benefits of catch and release.










*CRITICAL CONSERVATION ISSUES FOR NORTHERN RANGE SMALLMOUTH MANAGMENT* 
Smallmouth bass repeatedly home to the same specific nesting sites year after year, generation after generation. 
DNA testing reveals this homing tendency is inherited and so strong that male smallmouth bass actually nest with distantly related females q Nesting sites are critical and need protection from shoreline disturbance. 
Nesting male bass are predetermined a year in advance of spawning. q Smallmouth bass don't mature to spawn for the very first time until they are between 5 and 9 years of age and between 10 inches and 16 inches in length. 
Big bass are critical for spawning success. They nest earlier, they recuperate faster and their offspring are more likely to survive the winter starvation period. 
Force a small bass to spawn and its remaining life span becomes less than two years  such is the cost of reproduction. 
Young-of-the-year smallmouth must grow big enough by the fall, about the size of your little finger, to survive winter starvation. 
Targeting nesting males, even when a catch and release spring season allows it, affects recruitment. 
There is a negative relationship between the time it takes a male to return to its nest after being released and the rate of nest abandonment. 
When a male takes ten minutes to return to its nest, the eggs and fry are typically predated upon more than 90 percent of the time and over 90 percent of the nests are abandoned. 
When males return to the nest in as short as two minutes, more than half the nests are still often deserted.
Kill a nesting bass and no other male will replace it that year.
Excellent year classes are the exception not the rule and winter determines everything. If fall freeze up is late and spring ice out arrives early, the winter starvation period is short and the previous bass year class survives. 
If cold fall weather arrives early and winter drags on for an eternity, the previous spring hatch can be lost. 
Smallmouth bass typically establish summer home ranges and remain faithful to these areas for life. 
The size and area of a summer home range is governed by the availability of food. When food is abundant the summer home range is small. When food is scarce the summer home range is large. 
Quality smallmouth bass fisheries teeter on the ability of the population to maintain as many large fish as possible. Fortunately, catch-and-release of large bass is very successful q In lakes and rivers, smallmouth bass home to specific wintering sites in the fall. These home ranges are often used by huge numbers of bass. Harvesting or moving these fish to other areas can have serious negative consequences.


----------



## JVS (Aug 15, 2003)

djkimmel,

I love bass fishing too. In fact I love it so much it kills me to see and read about the dozens, if not hundreds, of brown bass (and good sized ones) floating belly up after summer tournaments on LSC. Why aren't you and the other "legitimate" bass tournament fishermen out there at the weigh-ins of these poorly run tournaments taking names and numbers to ensure that these folks don't keep killing fish? Why isn't more effort being put in to ensure the survival of these LSC smallies? Surely with all the manpower that is at the MI Federation's disposal there could be a group effort to prevent these mass killings of smallmouth? Is it acceptable behavior? Is it a don't ask, don't tell situation among tournament bass anglers? Please educate me on this.

MDNR's job (among other things) is to manage the waters and fish within the state. No small task. IF ALL anglers would respect their authority and their decisions and, as the Free Press article states, not illegally target bass out of season on LSC (and probably other waters, let's not be naive) just maybe their job would be a little easier. 

There are proposals on the table which would allow preseason bass fishing. No more hiding from DNR, etc. You should be happy. But since the proposals also mean possibly losing 3 weekends of bass tournament fishing, you are up in arms and writing the powers that be telling them the proposals are unacceptable. What that tells me is that you care more about you and the boys losing 3 weekends (6 days) of tournaments than gaining what, 2+ months (60+ days) of LEGAL preseason bass fishing???? 

No Dan, I think I know what your priorities are. You guys have been "rock bass fishing" for years so you're not gaining anything, right? No way you'll sacrifice three weekends for the benefit of ALL bass anglers (including TBone and myself) to now fish for bass on LSC. That mentality sir, is exactly why I am turned off by the image some/most bass tournament anglers project. That and the "because I've got a $30,000 Ranger/Skeeter and you're in a jonboat I own the water" attitude. And I have personally experienced that more than once. 

I sure wish I had more time to spend working towards maintaining the fishery but, being a single dad of two, I just hope that I won't have to tell my kids stories of "the good old days" of fishing, like my father told me...


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

This isn't the 'complain about the bass tournament angler' thread. Start another one on that and I'll get to it eventually.

If you were actually a federation member though, you could see first hand all the good things organized anglers do instead of the few things some people like to bash at us with (we could legally keep and kill all those bass if we wanted, in case you've forgotten). I will get into more of that, although I'll probably do it more on my forum or the federation forum or others where there are more tournament anglers - where it will do the most good.

There are a bunch of really great guys and gals who also like to fish tournaments. Many of them do a lot of wonderful things on their own time like holding all the Bassmaster CastingKids events around the state. We just happen to be real visible, which is exactly why I have been hard on my fellow tournament anglers at times over the years. Sorry guys, but you see why.

I sure don't think that 'some/most' non-tournament anglers think like you do. In a few years, when I'm catching-and-releasing bass legally in the spring with all the other decent tournament and non-tournament bass anglers, just enjoying ourselves, I won't even remember your mean-spirited posts.

(BTW, Gordo Pyzer is in favor of much earlier spring bass fishing than the present MDNR proposal allows. He recently had an article about that too. I actually agree with him on that part. I don't mind if anyone reads his articles. They may learn a number of interesting things although possibly not the things you two would expect.)


----------



## unregistered55 (Mar 12, 2000)

I have followed this thread with the interest of both a lifetime bass fisherman and a student of this particular species. I appreciate the dialog. It takes more than a little knowledge to sort out the facts from the ideas(opinions). Data(studies) are always subject to interpretations, and the motives of indivuduals and groups can, and do, affect those interpretations. I sincerely hope that any decision made on lengthening the bass season by the NRC is based on sound management for the resource, and not on politics or economics.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

perca, I would like to hear that from more anglers. That's what I want too. It doesn't seem that way to some people, but I knew being a 'bass tournament angler' would cause problems for me with some people from the start.

A lot of our regulations are based more on social issues than biology. There's always a mixture, but it's much like politics and special interest groups... the squeaky wheel gets the grease sometimes. If there is no squeaky wheel nothing changes usually. 

I've been 'wordy' because I do want to convince other anglers that I'm not just doing this because I'm a greedy, selfish tournament angler. I knew from the start (back in 1987) that some anglers would never get by the fact that a major part of my fishing is in bass tournaments, but I'm an angler at heart first. I started out fishing exactly the same way many other anglers did and I still love to catch any fish that bites. Just ask my partners how often I stop bass fishing when something else comes along and is willing to bite.

I completely understand anyone being skeptical of my motives. I also understand that change is always difficult. It's been that way every time I've been involved in any activity like this.

I hope some anglers can look at the issues like this example: the major tackle stores aren't going to the MDNR and saying we'll lose money and sell less boats unless you leave the season open; what they will say is that this change may cause us economic harm and we don't believe a case can or has been made that the change is necessary.

Then the MDNR needs to make that case. If they make the case, I can't see these companies wanting to be shown to be uncaring about the resource that some of their business relies on anymore than I would risk anyone's children's 'heritage' just to bass fish a few more months every year.

Because data is subject to interpretation and because even biologists have bias and personal opinions is exactly why I've been reading many studies and talking to many biologists from a variety of areas for so many years.

There's an unreleased study on fishing seasons that was done in Michigan that doesn't support some of the claims being made at the moment. It has been held for several years. One of the researchers who did the study reported on it to the committee and apparently demonstrated the contradictions. None of his information is included in the MDNR report. They still won't release the study either. I would think that would make many anglers besides me suspicious.

Ontario did a study that shows the benefits of a fixed opening day that claims to protect the spawn - a moving event - are questionable at best. I believe one recommendation of that study was - to have any benefit - the date had to be moved late enough that you could assume the spawn would be done most years, but it couldn't actually say this was really even necessary since it had been this way for years and apparently bass were doing okay despite it (my notes are at home). I could not get a copy of this study either. I had to settle for talking to one of the biologists involved in the study.

I don't know exactly how this will all turn out, but it won't be hard for either 'side' to come up with plenty of information and opinions to throw around. I will continue to point out the difference between what studies say verses what people want them to say at least with the studies I have first-hand knowledge of. Other people will disagree, but in the end I think enough of everyone's motives will be out in the open and there's enough people wanting this done right on all sides of the issue, that this may be one time when we end up closer to that than on some issues before. I hope.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

djkimmel said:


> hope some anglers can look at the issues like this example: the major tackle stores aren't going to the MDNR and saying we'll lose money and sell less boats unless you leave the season open; what they will say is that this change may cause us economic harm and we don't believe a case can or has been made that the change is necessary.


Seems like a tough sell to me. Extending the current season to include roughly 120 more potential days of fishing but it's going to hurt tackle stores? We're not talking about closing bass fishing for the three weeks from last saturday in May to third Saturday in June. People can still fish during that time. It does prevent tournaments but how does that create monetary harm? Are you going to tell me that guys won't fish if they can't fish a tournament?

But what about out of town anglers coming to fish tournaments you say? Do you think that the DNR is going to believe that BASS and FLW will only hold events if they can do it during the spawn? Most of those events have been held on Erie / Lake St. Clair where the opener was already the third week of June anyway. There will still be the same amount of national trail events as there always has been. It might affect state/local/club tournaments but most of those anglers are local and will be spending the same amount if they are in a tournament or just going fishing. We have enough guys that drive from Indiana to poach out of season as it is now, I don't think they are going to stop because they can't fish a tournament when they can now fish that time legally.

I'm sorry but the fiscal harm case makes no sense. It makes even less sense considering the DNR is liberalizing restrictions as it is.

I for one would put the resource ahead of individual desire to make money off of the resources anyway.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

djkimmel said:


> (BTW, Gordo Pyzer is in favor of much earlier spring bass fishing than the present MDNR proposal allows. He recently had an article about that too. I actually agree with him on that part. I don't mind if anyone reads his articles. They may learn a number of interesting things although possibly not the things you two would expect.)


 :lol: Good thing that you took that post down on your website complaining about Mr. Pyzor and his articles and threatening to write the editors of In-Fisherman. That would seriously put a dent in your credability. :lol: 

I am glad that you like his articles. He actually sent me a couple more that I will go ahead and post (once he gives his permission.) You are right though, I do learn lots of good things when I read his work.


----------



## ZobZob (Oct 27, 2002)

I would like a change in the regulations to allow catch and release since I catch quite a few bass before the opener when trying for walleye. I'm not targeting them but I would hate to think I would get a ticket for this. 

Zob


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

That is the current recommend proposal Zob. To make a catch and release season for the time that full bass season is not in effect. It would only be closed completely during the same period that walleye / pike season is closed that way DNR officers will not have to distinguish intent.


----------



## Gardenfly (Jun 7, 2001)

See that DNR proposal makes no sense to me. Why close bass season during the walleye and pike spawn? You are always going to have poachers of these species in the spring weather they are bass fishing or not. To me that just plan stupid. If they close bass season at all it should be during the time frame when bass spawn not the walleye and pike. How is it protecting bass when they are closing it during a spawning stage of completly different fish? When they should be closing bass season it to protect spawning bass. This is about bass regulations not pike and walleye.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

I agree with you that isn't logical for protecting bass. You make a lot of sense to me Gardenfly. 

You should read the report on the DNR's site. One of the things that they are taking into consideration is the noncompliance with the current bass season. They don't want this spurning of the law to transfer over to other species and have lots of people disregarding the law. They are trying to make sure that it is easy to enforce all closed seasons. Including pike / walleye. From a bass management perspective, the closed season in April doesn't make much if any sense.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

More articles as promised. These were also first published in In-Fisherman.


*KILLING THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGGS*


Gordon Pyzer
January 1996

For decades, bass managers, especially those working in the northern states and Canadian Provinces have preferred as a management tool, closed fishing seasons during the spawning period.

Spring closures have taken on even greater importance recently, as biologists have discovered that fewer than 30 percent of the adult smallmouth population typically breeds each season. More startling still is the discovery that these critical spawners are pre-selected a year in advance. What this means is that if something negatively happens to these fish or their eggs, entire bass year classes could be adversely affected as no "new" spawners will move in to replace them.

But, do closed seasons provide the protection spawning bass need? That question takes on even greater significance in areas where the fishing season for other species, like walleye, pike or trout is open during the critical bass nesting period. Under the guise of angling for one of these other species, unethical anglers may intentionally target nesting bass. And, what if the fish are immediately released? Does catch-and-release angling have an affect on the reproductive success of the fish?

That was the question uppermost in the minds of an international team of fisheries scientists working with the Center for Aquatic Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Queen's University Biological Station. The researchers selected a series of lakes and rivers in southeastern Ontario, near the Ontario/New York border where the bass season is closed in the spring, but the season for other species is open. The results were chilling.

In one lake (Lake Opinicon) as many as 63 percent of the anglers were observed targeting nesting bass. Worse still, when the researchers went underwater and counted the number of fish with visible hook wounds, they found the affects even more dramatic. In the most heavily targeted lake, they determined that the percentage of nesting male bass which were caught in the spring approached an astonishing 100 percent. But, did this albeit illegal catch-and-release angling have an affect on the reproductive success of the bass population? It did, say the scientists, in a major way.

Not surprisingly, they found that in the lakes and rivers which received the greatest amount of pre-season angling, the reproductive success was the lowest. Fewer than half the nests were successful. On the other hand, in the lakes and rivers where catch-and-release angling for nesting males was minimal, 84 percent of the guarding males raised a successful brood. 

There also appeared to be a detrimental relationship between the time it took a male bass to return to its nest after being caught and released and the rate of nest abandonment. For example, when a bass, droggy from a long fight, took more than 10 minutes to return to its nest, the eggs and fry were predated upon more than 90 percent of the time and over 90 percent of the nest were subsequently abandoned. Even when the males returned to the nest in as short a period as 2 to 5 minutes, more than half the nests were eventually deserted.

"Illegal pre-season angling of nesting bass," concluded the Canadian and American researchers, "even on a catch-and-release basis, appears to be detrimental to overall fry production and survival because of an increase in brood predation and male nest abandonment rates.

While the wisest approach is to avoid targeting bedding bass altogether, if one is accidentally or inadvertently caught in the spring, the scientists say you should land it immediately, handle it as little as necessary and release it as close to the nest as possible.



The Impact of Pre-season Catch and Release Angling on the Reproductive Success on Bass. D.P. Philipp, C. Anna Toline and B.F. Philipp, Center for Aquatic Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey and F.J.S. Phelan, Queen's University Biological Station. Bass Management in Ontario, Southern Region Science and Technology Unit Workshop Proceedings, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. October 1994.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

CLOSED BASS SEASONS

Conservation Concern or Needless Restriction?

Its spring and you spot a big bass circling in the shallows. The fish is obviously protecting its nest. Your heart skips a beat. But do you pick up a rod and cast to the bedding bass? It all depends. On where you live, what your local state or provincial regulations allow and even your personal angling ethics.

In some jurisdictions, bass fishing is a year round sport. Big cast-for-cash competitions are timed to coincide with the major waves of bass moving shallow in the spring to spawn. Indeed, last January at the Florida BASSMASTER Top 150 event on Lake Tohopekaliga, Dean Rojas shattered the all-time Bassmaster top tournament performance. Rojas sight-fished his way into the record book by targeting bedding bass. His four-day catch of 20 bass weighed a mind boggling 108 pounds, 12 ounces. His first day five fish limit alone weighed 45 pounds, 2 ounces.

In many parts of North America, Rojas feat would have been forbidden. The bass season is closed and it is illegal to intentionally fish for them. Additionally, key bass spawning areas are sometimes declared out-of-bounds, sanctuaries, where it is against the law even to angle for other species for which the season is open. 

Who is right and who is wrong? Indeed, does fishing for spawning bass have an impact? 

The Illusion of Abundance

Interestingly, the answer depends on where you live. And geography may very well play a key biological role. In the southern half of the United States and Mexico, for example, where anglers routinely enjoy year-round fishing seasons, bass grow quickly and mature early. Take, for example, a four-pound smallmouth bass in Alabama, Tennessee or Kentucky. A fish that size is likely to be five or six years old and to have spawned several times. 

The very same smallmouth, though, living in northern Minnesota, northern Michigan or Ontario is likely to measure twelve inches in length, weigh 15 ounces and never have spawned. Lets look at it another way. If you were to catch 15 or 20 of these foot-long sausages in a day, you wouldnt consider it much of a feat. Yet, from a fish-age perspective, it is comparable to catching 15 or 20 four pound plus smallmouth bass in more southern waters. Most would consider that a feat of heroic proportions.

Some other things to consider. Generally speaking, most southern lakes, rivers, pits, ponds and reservoirs are bass friendly in terms of living conditions. The water is warm year-round and there is plenty of food. Sometimes, so much, that species like striped bass are planted to control the forage base. Southern lakes, rivers and reservoirs are also usually less complex in terms of species mix and diversity. 

By comparison, northern bass waters are like the Amazon rainforest. They give the illusion of abundance. But its a false impression. A typical northern bass lake, like Minnesota and Ontarios famed Rainy Lake and Lake of the Woods, grows about three or four pounds of fish flesh per acre annually on a sustainable basis. But that meager productivity is then spread among 30, 40 or more different species of fish. Everything from walleye, perch, pike and muskies to suckers, ciscoes and whitefish. So the amount of annual production apportioned to the bass population is peanuts. In fact, it measured as ounces an acre a year. 

And unlike in many southern lakes and reservoirs, bass in northern waters are usually neither the top predator nor the most abundant species. More often, they are relegated to occupying environmental niches within the lake, river or reservoir that you find them. 


Protect Adults or Aid in Reproduction?

In consideration of some, or all, of these factors, fisheries agencies in several northern states and Canadian provinces close the bass season during the spring spawning period. Sometimes the strategy is designed to protect potentially vulnerable adults. Other times, it is tailored to ensure the survival of as many bass eggs and fry as possible. Usually it is intended to achieve both objectives. 

Spring bass closures have taken on even greater importance in recent years following the efforts of Ontario MNR bass scientist Dr. Mark Ridgway. For the past 16 years, Ridgway has headed up a team of biologists working out of the Harkness Laboratory of Fisheries Research in Algonquin Provincial Park. His work on the smallmouth bass of Lake Opeongo has contributed to the longest continuous census of any animal population on earth. Its approaching 70 years worth of data. Ridgway's findings have shed new light on the factors that determine the reproductive success and year class production of smallmouth bass in northern lakes and rivers. 

One of Ridgways most significant discoveries is the fact that northern smallmouth don't spawn for the first time until they are between five and nine years of age and between 10 inches and 16 inches in length. More importantly, precisely when a smallmouth lays its eggs or guards a nest is based on the size of the fish. As a rule, large males and females spawn earlier in the spring than their smaller brothers and sisters. This difference is hugely important for reasons well see in a minute.

Perhaps Ridgways most astonishing finding, though, is the revelation that only about one-third of all the smallmouth bass big enough to spawn in a northern lake actually reproduce in any given year. Even more amazing, the factors that determine which bass will comprise the one-third spawning group are established during the previous summer. 

What this means, says Ridgway, is that if you pull a bass off a nest there is no rush of new fish waiting to move in. Once the spawning decision is made, it is absolutely final. Pull a male off his nest and no one else will replace him. 

Furthermore, says Ridgway, if the population of larger smallmouth is angled down, smaller bass must be rushed to the front  ahead of their time  to assume the spawning chores in subsequent years. But smaller bass spawn later than larger fish. This fact holds true even when they are the only nesters left in the lake. 

The young-of-the-year that the small bass produce are at a distinct disadvantage in terms of reaching the critical size necessary to survive the winter starvation period. In the north, for all intents and purposes, bass dont eat once a lake freezes. As a result, young-of-the-year bass must eat and grow fast enough in the first year of their life  typically to the size of your little finger  to survive to the following spring. So every day theyre delayed in the egg-laying stage is another potential nail in their coffin. Still, it can get worse. 

"Once you force small bass to start spawning ahead of their time, Ridgway explains, because youve ratcheted down the big bass population, their reproductive life span becomes only one or two years. Like the young-of-the-year, they starve to death during the winter. These smaller nesting bass, typically 12 inches or so, have a very high mortality rate. It is the cost of reproduction. Very few of these fish survive to reproduce twice. But, as nesters increase in size, up to seven, eight, nine plus years of age, you get a much higher return rate. These older fish do not pay a survival price in terms of reproduction like the smaller fish do."

Of course, these conditions do not affect southern bass  or southern bass anglers  where cold water temperatures and frozen lake surfaces are almost unimaginable. In the more moderate, even semi-tropical, areas of North America, largemouth and smallmouth bass can feed year round. For all intents and purposes, they can avoid the crucial winter starvation period resulting in fitter bass and greater numbers of spawners. In fact, the annual production of steady, stable, secure and strong bass year classes increases the further south you travel.


What about Catch and Release in the Spring?

That appears to help answer another north - south dissimilarity question. The impact of angling  even on a catch and release basis  for nesting bass. In the south, the often long drawn-out spring spawning period is considered by many anglers to be the best time to go fishing. In the north, however, the practice can be harmful, and according to Ridgway, can seriously decrease reproductive success.

There is a tendency for bass to abandon the nest because of physiological stress, he says. Other scientists have taken detailed physiological measurements and the bass were truly exhausted. Nest abandonment was high. 

The studies that Ridgway refers to, were cooperative ones recently undertaken by researchers working with the Center for Aquatic Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Queen's University Biological Station. The biologists selected a series of lakes and rivers in southeastern Ontario, near the Ontario / New York border where the bass season is closed in the spring, but the season for other species is open. They wanted to assess the impact of pre-season catch-and-release angling on the reproductive success of largemouth and smallmouth bass. 

In one of the lakes (Lake Opinicon) as many as 63 percent of the anglers were observed targeting nesting bass under the guise of fishing for another species  typically walleye, pike, perch or crappies. When the researchers went underwater and counted the number of bass with visible hook wounds, they found in the most heavily targeted lake, almost 100 percent of the nesting males had been caught and released. If the bass season had been opened, it was possible that every single nesting male could have been killed. 

But the season was closed so the researchers turned their attention to determining if the illegal catch-and-release angling they had observed had any affect on the reproductive success of the bass population? It did, they say, in a major way.

In the lakes and rivers that received the greatest amount of pre-season angling, the reproductive success was the lowest. Fewer than half the bass nests were successful. On the other hand, in the lakes and rivers where catch-and-release angling for nesting males was minimal, 84 percent of the guarding males successfully raised a brood. 

There also appeared to be a relationship between the time it took a male bass to return to its nest after being caught and released and the rate of nest abandonment. When a groggy bass took more than ten minutes to return to its nest, the eggs and fry were predated upon more than 90 percent of the time and over 90 percent of the nests were abandoned. Even when the males returned to the nest in as short a period as two to five minutes, more than half the nests were eventually deserted.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources biologist Barry Corbett, who recently completed an extensive multi-year smallmouth bass-tracking study on Lake of the Woods, reported seeing the same thing. In order to surgically implant radio transmitters inside a number of bass, Corbett waited until the males were guarding nests. When he dove below to net a fish, he says he was shocked to see two things. The number of males with obvious facial hook wounds  and the number of the rusticus strain of crayfish ringing the beds and harassing the bass. 

It was like a scene out of the movie Aliens, Corbett says. There were so many crayfish surrounding the nests, waiting for a chance to gobble up the eggs, that we had to leave a technician underwater to protect the site, while we placed the transmitter inside the bass and then returned it to the nest.

Aliens from above and aliens from below  its enough in many northern lakes and rivers to give the bass fits, say the Canadian and American researchers. "Illegal pre-season angling of nesting bass," they concluded, "even on a catch-and-release basis, appears to be detrimental to overall fry production and survival because of an increase in brood predation and male nest abandonment rates.

And we should never forget, cautions Ridgway, referring to the paltry thirty percent of male smallmouth that are pre-selected to spawn each season, that there are no more bass waiting out there to come in.

(Side Bar)

Russian Roulette

According to Dr. Mark Ridgway the odds of north country bass surviving the first year of their lives are about the same as playing Russian Roulette. Its a game, by the way, southern bass dont have to play.

According to Ridgway, spring spawn conditions can be wonderful. The ice can go out early, water temperatures can warm up quickly and large genetically fit fish can nest ahead of time. These conditions occurred across most of North America in the spring of 1983. But then something else occurred. Freeze up in the fall was delayed and warm summer conditions were extended. The spring of 1984 also arrived ahead of schedule, so the winter bass starvation period was short lived. As a result of all these conditions meshing together perfectly, the 1983 bass year class was the biggest most biologists had ever seen. In fact, so many bass were born in 1983 that they sustained many bass fisheries for years, well into the mid- and late 1990s. 

But having all the stars line up perfectly is rare. More often, says Ridgway, you can have a wonderful spawn, and then see all the gains you thought you made in the summer, wiped out over the winter. Similar to what happened in the spring of 1995 over much of the northern bass range. Warm temperatures soared early and bass flooded the shallows and nested. Anglers and biologists alike reported seeing dense balls of fry everywhere. Many crossed their fingers and hoped the 1995 bass hatch was going to mirror 1983. 

It didnt. Record cold weather swept across much of the mid-Western United States and Canada in late October and early November. Winter dragged on for eternity. And a superb bass year class in the making was dealt a blow. 


(Side Bar)

Be Careful What You Wish For 

An ancient Chinese proverb warns to be careful what you wish for  it may come true. Without understanding the complex biological factors at play across the huge and diverse geographical range that we find largemouth and smallmouth bass  anglers often misinterpret the management subtleties. Often they lobby for the implementation of policies and practices they see in other jurisdictions. After all, they reason, if it works in Florida or Texas why not in Minnesota or Ontario? And sometimes they find biologists and politicians who are only too willing to give them what they want.

Its not talked about openly in scientific circles, but there remain some fish managers  especially in northern areas  who do not support bass management policies or practices. Even though bass populations have been established for over a century in many areas, the result of stocking efforts in the late 1800s and early 1900s, some biologists still view bass as exotic and non-native species that compete with native fish like walleye and trout. At the extreme edge, a few biologists believe bass in these areas should be totally eradicated. 

Hence, when bass anglers come knocking on their doors with the suggestion that more liberal practices should be implemented, such as fishing for bass on beds, they are often welcomed with open arms. That why you need to be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

I apologize djkimmel. I did find that quote on your message board. You didn't delete it



> I'm thinking about writing In-Fisherman too. They're starting to sound like the Gordon Pyzer anti-spawn fishing magazine. It's irritating me. I hate to waste time, but if people don't make their views known, nothing changes... even though some things don't change anyway.


See now, I thought that you didn't think much about Mr. Pyzer after reading that. I must have totally misread your sentiment. I don't know why you would be writing to In-Fisherman if you really are glad to have people read his work. Oh-well.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

> Seems like a tough sell to me. Extending the current season to include roughly 120 more potential days of fishing but it's going to hurt tackle stores? We're not talking about closing bass fishing for the three weeks from last saturday in May to third Saturday in June. People can still fish during that time. It does prevent tournaments but how does that create monetary harm? Are you going to tell me that guys won't fish if they can't fish a tournament?


There comes a point for many anglers that you wonder why youre spending all the money you are on a good boat and motor, and good equipment if your ability to use it where you live keeps getting limited more and more. Its well known that complex regulations have helped caused a decline in the number of hunters and anglers. Tournament anglers are no different. Many anglers will understand that frustration.



> But what about out of town anglers coming to fish tournaments you say? Do you think that the DNR is going to believe that BASS and FLW will only hold events if they can do it during the spawn? Most of those events have been held on Erie / Lake St. Clair where the opener was already the third week of June anyway. There will still be the same amount of national trail events as there always has been. It might affect state/local/club tournaments but most of those anglers are local and will be spending the same amount if they are in a tournament or just going fishing. We have enough guys that drive from Indiana to poach out of season as it is now, I don't think they are going to stop because they can't fish a tournament when they can now fish that time legally.


We are no longer at the top of BASS/FLWs list of places they need to go. They might not come back at all if it werent for the great fishing on a large body of water. There are many reasons they have backed off on the number of tournaments here. As for the rest, please see my paragraph above.



> I'm sorry but the fiscal harm case makes no sense. It makes even less sense considering the DNR is liberalizing restrictions as it is.
> 
> I for one would put the resource ahead of individual desire to make money off of the resources anyway.


Unless of course, my information from studies and biologists is correct and there isnt a need to shorten the regular season. If you became convinced the resource could more than handle the fishing, then it looks like you wouldnt make an issue of anyones individual desires. Thats the whole point, isnt it? Maybe instead of putting our individual desire ahead of the resource, we just want to be allowed more fishing somewhat closer to what 43 other states anglers get to enjoy.



> Good thing that you took that post down on your website complaining about Mr. Pyzor and his articles and threatening to write the editors of In-Fisherman. That would seriously put a dent in your credability.


Didnt know I took it down. Dont remember doing that. But it shows how easy it is to misinterpret meaning from typed words. I was actually thinking that I believe many anglers are smart enough to see holes in anyones writing including Gordon Pyzers. Its pretty obvious he is trying to get anglers to see things his way too. He can have his own opinions. I can disagree with some of them. Im not the only one who disagrees just like you arent the only one who agrees. I would ask any angler to look at what he writes as closely as some look at everything I write and see if you think he is telling you he wants you to fish his way because the science is behind him or is he trying to say the science is behind him so you'll only fish when he thinks you should?

Ive read some of the same things he has and talked to some of the same people. Its always an interesting discussion. I think everyone already knows that some anglers believe fishing for spawning bass is unethical and some dont. I doubt that will ever change. I dont have a problem with anglers reading as much as they want to on a subject. I think they will see where things seem clear and where things seem fishy.



> I am glad that you like his articles. He actually sent me a couple more that I will go ahead and post (once he gives his permission.) You are right though, I do learn lots of good things when I read his work.


As youve pointed out to me, we all seem to get what we want to out of things. Ive gone a step further and asked other biologists (including some who know him personally) to comment privately on what Gordon writes. They have also been interesting discussions. I think everyone should be skeptical of things written or posted by anyone, including me, if they haven't seen the source study or talked to several biologists about what the studies actually show and don't show.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

CameraGuy said:


> I consider any comments from a guy who would ban a movie because he didn't like the message (even though he didn't see it), to be dismissed without consideration.


Where do you see me advocating banning a movie?



CameraGuy said:


> Why don't you answer my three questions about bass fishing? Is it because you never fish for bass and just want to be able to control people just like you do on this board?


Controlling people? My history would hardly make that an accurate asessment of what I do. I certainly don't have to explain how much bass fishing I do, but trust me, there is plenty done on my boat.

Yet there is no response to justify your advocating poaching. HMMMM.
A true sportsman indeed.:sad:  

I will come out fully in favor of an extended, or even no closed season on bass when I am convinced that the fishery will not be harmed. Until then I reserve the right to remain skeptical.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

Pyzer's early bass season is always prespawn. Like you say, he is pretty adament about not fishing during the spawn and his reasons are well thought out, and backed by science.



djkimmel said:


> Ask yourself why the MDNR bass season report uses the word 'may' so many times as in 'this may happen' or 'that may happen' if they have so much concrete evidence behind their statements. Maybe we just live in a state that prefers to withhold fishing opportunity because the sky 'may' fall rather than try what most other states have and see what ACTUALLY happens.


The MDNR is dead on when saying that there is no certainities on pre-season catch and release fishing and its effect on the population and that they wish to proceed with caution. Unless you can show me specific studies that prove that there is no reason to be concerned versus subjective observation that poaching has been gone on for quite some time and the fishery is yet to collapse. I have laid out my concerns. I am done. Now show me the proof that what you are looking for will not negatively affect the fishery. What article are you specifically refering to from Ridgway? It shouldn't be hard. As cameraguy has already stated just like I have heard several times from djkimmel that there are "several studies" that prove it. I just haven't found them.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Poaching means to keep something out of season or from a protected area (poach - to put into a bag). Anyone who catches a bass out of season and throws it back is not poaching. I suspect a few people consider anyone in a bass boat to be poachers just by being out there in the spring, but any other kind of boat that catches a bass and throws it back is not a poacher. That's why the regulation has to change.

Doesn't matter whether I'm fishing for bass or not. I know some guys are looking at me because of my boat and thinking "POACHER" but the only thing you'll find in my livewell in the spring are a few walleye, perch, bluegill or crappie on those rare ocassions I keep fresh fish to eat. I'm not a poacher any more than anyone else fishing who catches a bass in the spring and throws it back, except in the mind of the biased.

It still comes down to how long anglers have been catching bass already during the spring whether they are trying to or not and yet we have some of the best bass fishing available... because we have abundant clean water, habitat and forage. That's what bass need in all the states (the majority by far) that practice the philosophy of not taking angling opportunity from their anglers needlessly. That's why closed seasons are NOT a commonly accepted bass management tool.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Targeting fish out of season is illegal. see #2

Main Entry: 1poach·er 
Pronunciation: 'pO-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: 2poach
1 : one that trespasses or steals
2 : one who kills or takes wild animals (as game or fish) illegally


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

CameraGuy said:


> As far as the early bass fishing on LSC...the last couple of years I have refrained (for the most part),


 

 

1. transitive and intransitive verb catch game illegally: to catch wild animals or fish illegally.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

TBone said:


> Pyzer's early bass season is always prespawn. Like you say, he is pretty adament about not fishing during the spawn and his reasons are well thought out, and backed by science.


Correct and if you paid attention, you'd know that research has been limited to a few small lakes and mainly shield lakes in Canada that are infertile compared to most Michigan lakes which compare more favorably to lakes in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York with some of our lakes even comparing in growth to much more southern lakes - for example St. Clair - where the MDNR has shown smallmouths grow faster than the NATIONAL average. If you read Pyzer's stuff, you will see he even qualifies some of his comments as 'northern' waters. He isn't talking about every bass lake every. He's talking about infertile lakes with limited productivity like we have a few of in the UP and no where else.

He also fails to mention that only on a couple small lakes have they even shown the possibility of populations changes the MAY be related to spawn-fishing. This has not been shown on non-shield lakes or any lake larger than about 200 hundred acres. In Michigan, studies have shown the large catch-and-release ethic has actually allowed small lakes average bass size to IMPROVE even though a large percentage of the adult bass are caught.

The reason Pyzer often says it's an ethical decision is because that's really all he has going for him. It comes down to another example of one sportsman telling another what he should and shouldn't do for no real reason other than he/she doesn't personally agree with it. NOT because it's necessary to protect the bass. It's just the common approach to try to justify personal ethical beliefs you want to force on others by trying to create science that doesn't exist. It's what a handful of people have accused me of, yet the vast majority of states including Northern states seem to be on the side of my opinion which I would think means the vast majority of anglers also agree with me then.

On the Lake St. Clair site the vote in favor of spring catch-and-release was over 90% in favor. On the Michigan Outdoor Network - a site not frequented by hardly any bass tournament anglers the vote was 63% in favor. Even on this site a YEAR ago a similar vote was about 50/50 despite how hard some of you jumped on my posts. I'm betting it would be a little better even now.

82% of all anglers surveyed in our MDNR study were in favor of more spring catch-and-release bass opportunities and that includes many surveys from Muskegon Lake were the MDNR felt the majority of spring anglers were NOT targeting bass. Only 10% were not in favor.



Tbone said:


> The MDNR is dead on when saying that there is no certainities on pre-season catch and release fishing and its effect on the population and that they wish to proceed with caution. Unless you can show me specific studies that prove that there is no reason to be concerned versus subjective observation that poaching has been gone on for quite some time and the fishery is yet to collapse. I have laid out my concerns. I am done. Now show me the proof that what you are looking for will not negatively affect the fishery. What article are you specifically refering to from Ridgway? It shouldn't be hard. As cameraguy has already stated just like I have heard several times from djkimmel that there are "several studies" that prove it. I just haven't found them.


You won't find what you aren't looking for in a couple magazines or even on the Internet. Even Michigan doesnt have all their studies available on the Internet. The only way you will find them is to call the biologists and ask. You still haven't read any studies. You've just read a few summaries. The Ridgway season study is not an article (although I believe it was mentioned somewhere in one of the recent bass symposiums). It is a study you will only find out about if you call Ridgway and talk to him. Most studies don't end up ever being seen by the public on the Internet or through a few magazine articles. You have to be willing to call the researchers and find them... like I have.

The funny thing about all your comments about Michigan is you sound like them - Michigan is alone in a vacuum. You don't seem to be able to consider that most other states don't have closed bass seasons, including northern ones, and their bass haven't collapsed - after years, decades... maybe NEVER having a closed season. How do you explain that? I know how you try to explain it, but the truth is northern states are liberalizing their spring seasons now because bass anglers want to fish and because they DON'T have good reasons to not let them fish at all.

Most states do not withhold fishing opportunity from their citizens because the sky might fall. They let them fish and then address any problem that occurs IF they occurs. Most bass 'problems' in the majority of states are addressed through length and creel regs, and through habitat work, but their anglers still get to fish and STILL have plenty of bass to catch.

The proof is all around you. You just aren't looking. Did you know that at most annual bass symposiums, the subject of managing bass with closed seasons doesn't even come up? Why is that? Why can I call biologists in most states and hear the same thing over and over - 'we don't take away fishing opportunity from our anglers without good reason; we've searched all (the same studies everyone else looks at) available studies and can't find scientific support for a closed season when it comes to bass management.'

Our own MDNR studies, even couched in MDNR conservative-speak, says we can add more lakes to our catch-and-release season and now the MDNR says it's invalid because they don't like the results or that so many anglers fish these lakes and still catch bass after 15 seasons. 15! How many more do you want? It is so obvious the MDNR is looking for as many outs as they can so they don't have to worry about getting beat up by anglers later if things even remotely look funny on any lake anywhere. They definitely arent going to be giving out any kind of guaranty on anything.

No one knows for sure what will happen next year or in 10, but I do know that Michigan bass anglers would be the first to complain if something where happening to the bass and the MDNR would have to act if enough anglers were complaining (theres always someone unhappy about something). In the meantime, let them fish. Why should bass anglers have the shortest season of any gamefish when they are the most numerous, wide-spread and prolific gamefish that needs the smallest amount of direct attention from the MDNR? It doesnt even make sense. That's why so many anglers ignore the regulations. It doesn't make sense and doesn't match what they see with their own eyes regardless of whether they read studies or not.


----------



## shametamer (Jul 22, 2001)

A Question? How do u keep the dam*&^% things off? I catch them on muskie pugs, walleye rigs, pinkie jigs for crappie, you name it! in LSC generally i hook 2 smallies to every 1 of another species..in other lakes the ratio(especially the largemouth heavy lakes) is even wider!..Fletchers in the 60's i used to get 10 pike to each bass, but, whoa ,the last few years its 5 bass to each pike...If u ever got Up at 4 a.m. worked all day, drove 4 or 5 hours north grabbed an hours sleep in the car to hit Midnite walleye fishing on known eye producing water and fished all nite and all u get are bass it gets disheartening! Short of doughballs and chicken livers(and i'm afaraid they would hit them also), how do you keep them off the hook? Have you any info on that? I gave up 90% of my live bait fishing, trying to eliminate the problem, but still it persisits...LOL


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

djkimmel said:


> You won't find what you aren't looking for in a couple magazines or even on the Internet. Even Michigan doesnt have all their studies available on the Internet. The only way you will find them is to call the biologists and ask. You still haven't read any studies. You've just read a few summaries. The Ridgway season study is not an article (although I believe it was mentioned somewhere in one of the recent bass symposiums). It is a study you will only find out about if you call Ridgway and talk to him. Most studies don't end up ever being seen by the public on the Internet or through a few magazine articles. You have to be willing to call the researchers and find them... like I have.


So, what you are saying is that the studies that you are eluding to aren't of acceptable quality for peer reviewed journals? Scientists don't invest funds and time in a study not to publish them in a journal if they are accepted by the editors. You do know what a peer reviewed journal is don't you? I guess we'll just take your word for it that they really are good scientifically sound studies that the biologists only want to tell you about.

The whole discussion keeps going in circles. You always throw out most of the country doesn't have bass seasons . . . You fail to mention that all the states / countries around us do. Such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, NY, Ontario, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Is Michigan more similar to those states in climate or to Alabama / Mississippi? Why should we care what Texas's biologists think?

You always drag out the old statement - "We would have to be sure before we limit our angler's oppurtionities." Great for whatever state that is. Personally I want our biologists to put the resource first. Or do you think that the DNR should only be around to issue tournament permits and build boat ramps?

Used to be that you always harped about scientific management and principles. Since you don't have a lot of those to put forward, now you are looking for a popularity contest and willing to quote angler survey numbers. I am sure that you can find a lot of people around Tippy dam every year that think that salmon are just going to die and rot. They won't bite anyway and they believe that snagging should be legal again. Just because a certain group of people (mostly avid tournament anglers on the LSC site that you mentioned) want something doesn't mean that it's the best for the resource.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Neal said:


> Targeting fish out of season is illegal. see #2
> 
> Main Entry: 1poach·er
> Pronunciation: 'pO-ch&r
> ...


A few of you really want to make a federal case out of this don't you? Well it will only be for a year or so longer.

Regardless, you aren't poaching if you aren't keeping. Poachers don't have empty livewells or empty game pouchs. Taking means it is in your possession. If it doesn't go on my stringer or in my livewell, it's not in my possession. That's part of the nonsense about this 'attempting to take' regulation.

It's not even illegal if I didn't attempt to take the bass. Since I often don't purposely intend to take the bass that hits my 1 inch crappie tube on a bobber and I throw those back that I do catch, I'm not even illegal, let alone a poacher.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

tbone said:


> So, what you are saying is that the studies that you are eluding to aren't of acceptable quality for peer reviewed journals? Scientists don't invest funds and time in a study not to publish them in a journal if they are accepted by the editors. You do know what a peer reviewed journal is don't you? I guess we'll just take your word for it that they really are good scientifically sound studies that the biologists only want to tell you about.


Trying to insult me once again  thats what you only seem to really have to fall back on  wont change things. I was clear in what I said. Not all studies end up in the few magazines available. There are many more good studies performed besides those mentioned in magazines. And Ill put this as clear as I can for you: YOU ARENT reading the studies if you only read the summaries in those magazines. You are also missing many more studies. You havent even understood the summaries you may have read.

The biologists will tell anyone who bothers to call them and ask. Apparently, Im the only one from around here calling them. You still have never said which of the researchers youve discussed what studies with. We both know why. You claim knowledge you dont have. I post what biologists and researchers tell me personally because I do talk to them.

We dont have to go in circles. Why dont you start calling some of them and asking them does their study guarantee that spring catch-and-release bass fishing will be bad for all of our Michigan lakes. Actually, you havent even really said it will be bad. You say you arent convinced it wont be bad. There are no guarantees and you wont get them  thats not how most studies work, but anyone can look at what other states have been doing for years and see that they still have bass.

You made some mistakes in your list of states: Pennsylvania - you can fish for bass LEGALLY all year. Ohio - you can fish for bass LEGALLY all year. Youre right. They are near us. Ohio has not had a closed season at all. They adopted that short catch-and-release season on only on Erie this year. (BTW, did you see the latest In-Fisherman where other Ohio fish biologists said gobies eat mainly mollusks and other invertebrates, not fish eggshmmm?) Pennsylvania Lake Erie  you can legally keep bass all year with just a reduced creel in the spring.

Indiana  you can legally fish for bass all year. Iowa you can legally fish for bass all year. Illinois  you can legally fish for bass all year. Wisconsins bass season opens in early May. Minnesotas NE section bass season opens in early May. South Dakota  open all year.

We should care what every biologist says. I do. But I also take care to understand what any study can be said to really have shown verses suggested verses the questions it still leaves unanswered. I think plenty of anglers on this site and others are smart enough to understand that many things can be compared and some things may be somewhat different. For example, how hard is it to understand that St. Clair smallmouths grow above the national average? Not very. So maybe theres more involved in determining growth rates in bass than just the length of the growing season? 



> You always drag out the old statement - "We would have to be sure before we limit our angler's oppurtionities." Great for whatever state that is. Personally I want our biologists to put the resource first. Or do you think that the DNR should only be around to issue tournament permits and build boat ramps?


Thats the common philosophy of most other states. I heard that just in this past year from biologists in Indiana, Ohio, Alabama, and Tennessee. Its the second most common reason they give me for not having a bass season time and again after weve studied all the available research and find no scientific support for a closed bass season. You can find MDNR biologists who will tell you this also. I think the same thing Ive always thought about the MDNR, they should maximize the amount of angling and hunting opportunity for anglers and hunters based on what even their own studies show (not just FTR 91-6 the early spring bass season study  there are additional older studies referred to in that study  its on my website for anyone to read).



tbone said:


> Used to be that you always harped about scientific management and principles. Since you don't have a lot of those to put forward, now you are looking for a popularity contest and willing to quote angler survey numbers. I am sure that you can find a lot of people around Tippy dam every year that think that salmon are just going to die and rot. They won't bite anyway and they believe that snagging should be legal again. Just because a certain group of people (mostly avid tournament anglers on the LSC site that you mentioned) want something doesn't mean that it's the best for the resource.


Guess youve forgotten a major thing Ive harped on and is mentioned in studies, especially in Michigan, is the social aspect has a lot to do with what happens (Ohio changing their season years before the study results are done) over the science. The 1987 MDNR Lake St. Clair study on bass said there was no scientific support for a later opener so moving the opener back to Memorial weekend would allow more recreation, but since they felt the majority of anglers at that time did not want a change, they decided to leave it as is.

Im just showing the times have changed. We convinced them of that back in 1987 that there were more anglers who wanted a longer bass season than they thought. Hence, the early bass study was started. Now, they are only proposing a change some told me would never happen in the first place because they realize there is a strong demand for more bass fishing. Again, pretty simple to comprehend.

All Im talking about is bass fishing and bass management here. Not salmon. Not pike. I also mentioned that this site was 50/50 a year ago and I bet its higher now AND the MON site was 63% in favor with almost no tournament anglers. You want to make this a tournament/anti-tournament issue somehow, but its an issue of allowing Michigan bass anglers of all types to enjoy more bass fishing.
If you really want whats best for the resource quit fishing. Fishing isnt good for the resource unless you consider that because anglers (including tournament anglers) love fishing they are also the ones who put the most effort into protecting it and dont mind being the ones to foot most of the bill for what management does occur.

Just like I dont mind that I spend an incredible amount of money each year to enjoy fishing even though very little of what I spend mainly on bass fishing goes directly to bass. I know that things that help the environment and even other fish probably help all fish in the long run including bass. Thats why I worked so hard on the CSO issue in Michigan for several years and getting passage of the legislation that created the pump out stations for large boats with indoor plumbing on the Great Lakes  cleaner water is good for everyone and everything.

There has to be a payoff for many of us and that payoff is to get to enjoy more and better fishing. Its my love of fishing that makes me want to do these things in the first place. Its probably the same for many anglers, Im betting. They see states nearby and most states allowing their anglers to fish for bass quite a bit. They see the MDNR do very little directly for bass because conceivably, bass need very little in this state and they wonder aloud what makes our bass so different? What makes it different is simply the attitude of some of the MDNR partially caused by the attitude of some anglers. (Why do we have such a hard time getting a dove season while 38 or so states have a season? Its because of a related attitude. We cant shoot doves. Theyre a pretty songbird, not a gamebird. We cant fish for spawning bass. Its unethical to disturb them while they are procreating. Of course the same bird is shot at in other states as it travels just like the same bass are caught and sometimes killed later in the year and will never spawn again.)

Its also a pretty simple concept that if the MDNR needs to do so little for bass compared to other species, why do bass anglers have the shortest season to fish for them legally?


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

TBONE,

Insults don't win debates. A rational argument does. You lose. How does it feel to get your fanny handed to you?

Why won't you answer my three questions? Is it because you don't even fish for bass and just want to control others who do? Are you an elitist snob? ...A social engineer? Are you a member of PETA? What do you enjoy in the outdoors? Anything?


----------



## shametamer (Jul 22, 2001)

geez! is there anyway to get you guys to lighten up?..............I might have a few questions of my own.....1) do the current regulations HARM the fishery? 2) if some management isn't needed; why has the catch and keep size limits been raised from 10 inches to 12 inches to the present day standard of 14 inches(over the past decades)? 3) Has anyone taken into account, the regs on St. Clair,may be,in part responsible for the tremendous bass factory it is? 4)If the bass fishery(in this state) can't be harmed, why the special regs on lakes like Fumee, Wakely,or the Sylvania wilderness?


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

Pennsylvania:

April 17 through June 11
NO HARVEST -
Catch and immediate release only
(No Tournaments Permitted)


I thought we were still talking about the whinning that was going on because one of the DNR proposals was to move the catch and keep season back to third week of June and cutting back on the tournament time available. Isn't that what brought all of this up in the first place? Didn't we have the discussion about the overall merits of catch and release last year? Go back to page one and refresh yourself on what we are talking about again please. The Michigan DNR proposals are right in line with neighboring states. Except for Indiana. We all want fishing like what they have in Indiana don't we? 



djkimmel said:


> Now, they are only proposing a change some told me would never happen in the first place because they realize there is a strong demand for more bass fishing. Again, pretty simple to comprehend.


That and they want to see the blatant disregard of current laws to end before it spreads to other laws.



djkimmel said:


> Not all studies end up in the few magazines available. There are many more good studies performed besides those mentioned in magazines. And Ill put this as clear as I can for you: YOU ARENT reading the studies if you only read the summaries in those magazines. You are also missing many more studies. You havent even understood the summaries you may have read.


Nope. Read the articles. I haven't even had to call the biologists involved to get help understanding what I've read. Trust me, journal publications are the lifeblood of the scientific community. If a paper is of good quality it will be submitted and accepted. I assume that you are talking about journals when you refer to 'magazines'. Although their editors might take exception.

Cameraguy - nice sophomoric post.


----------



## Gone Fishing (Jul 31, 2001)

shametamer said:


> geez! is there anyway to get you guys to lighten up?..............


Im pretty easy going but one more insult or personal attack and this thread will be shut down and the offender will be issued a strike. State your facts and opinions but leave the personal stuff out. Thank you.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

djkimmel said:


> (BTW, did you see the latest In-Fisherman where other Ohio fish biologists said gobies eat mainly mollusks and other invertebrates, not fish eggshmmm?)


I did see that. Considering eggs are only available for a small portion of the year, that is hardly surprising. Did you see in the _Transactions of American Fisheries Society_ where the Ohio biologists said the following:

Round goby Neogobius melanostomus first appeared in Lake Erie in 1993 and now occur in extremely high densities in some areas. As known nest predators, round goby currently pose a threat to nest-guarding smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu. We conducted manipulative experiments to evaluate the combined effects of round goby predation and catch-and-release angling during 19992001 in the Bass Islands, Lake Erie. We quantified how many smallmouth bass offspring were consumed by round goby when nest-guarding smallmouth bass males were present, removed, and recovering from angling-related stress. In 10 h of video observations, we only saw one instance of round goby consuming smallmouth bass offspring while the nest was guarded. Upon removal of nest-guarding smallmouth bass, round goby quickly entered unguarded nests (4.3 round goby/min for nests with unhatched embryos and 1.8 round goby/min for nests with hatched embryos). During experimental catch-and-release angling, round goby consumed an average of 2,000 unhatched embryos before the guardian male returned, but postreturn offspring losses were minimal while the male recovered from angling stress. For an average smallmouth bass nest in the Bass Islands, round goby could consume all offspring from an unguarded nest in about 15 min. Round goby predation and smallmouth bass angling combined to reduce survival of smallmouth bass embryos, but we did not observe round goby consuming free-swimming larvae or juveniles. If the number of surviving smallmouth bass embryos drives adult population size, managers should consider angling regulations that reduce interference with nesting males, thus limiting the deleterious effects of round goby.

I guess if smallmouth eggs are available to them, they will eat eh?


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

TBONE,
Back to name calling again, huh? I guess that's just going to be your M.O. 

Why won't you answer questions regarding your interest in bass fishing? Until you do, you have NO credibility regarding the season change discussion. Unless you have a vested interest in the upcoming season change, you are one who just has an interest in controlling people. In that case, who cares what you think?


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

TBONE, 
And despite the finding the you post, what was the action taken by Ohio? They closed part of the season to harvest, not CIR. What does that tell you?


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

ESOX,
Sorry about the banning-the-movie comment. I just checked and it wasn't you. I apologize.

I do have a question though. This is an excerpt from the SALBRC report, "SALBRC was strongly united regarding the importance of protecting the spawning seasons of other major predators. Northern pike, muskellunge and walleye often congregate in small areas of relatively unique habitat during their spawning periods in early spring, making them highly vulnerable to anglers. Therefore, fishing for these species has been closely regulated to protect them during this time period."

I guess they should have said that Lake St. Clair doesn't count. As you know, northern pike and walleye seasons are open all year on LSC. Since they are more vulnerable, why aren't you making a case for closing the season to protect the ESOX Lucius or Northern Pike?


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

cameraguy said:


> Why won't you answer questions regarding your interest in bass fishing? Until you do, you have NO credibility regarding the season change discussion.


I guess I am not too worried about my credibility with you. I certainly don't feel the need to prove anything to you.



cameraguy said:


> And despite the finding the you post, what was the action taken by Ohio? They closed part of the season to harvest, not CIR. What does that tell you?


I think that is what this whole thread has been about. People complaining about the period of time from the last saturday in May to the third saturday in June becoming a CIR season. I believe that it would be best to leave bedding bass alone, and the next best thing would be a CIR season. If we are going to create an earlier period of CIR, then we should extend the opener of catch and keep to a point where most of the spawn has occured. Before we allow fish to be transported a long ways from their beds.


----------



## WALLEYE MIKE (Jan 7, 2001)

Seems you guys have state your cases and will not agree, which is fine. But this thread I think has run its course. I see no sense in keeping it open any longer. Thanks for all your input guys.

Lets all go out fishing and have fun.


----------

