# September CRSC minutes



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I wasn't at the meeting and can't provide any more detail. Happy to see them proceeding with the Grayling reintroduction. I'm sure there is a long way to go before it happens but they are moving forward and will get there if it is viable.

Also very pleased with the result of the brook trout study. Hopefully this information will receive considerable weight in the new Inland Trout Management Plan. 

_Artificial fly/lure only, year-round fishing update– Troy Zorn

Following up on this item from the previous meeting, Zorn and Dexter asked management biologists to look at opportunities for increasing year-round stream trout fishing opportunities in their units (if such opportunities are lacking). If year-round opportunities were lacking, they were to identify reaches with Type 1 or 2 regulations that could potentially be changed to Type 4. Each unit expressed support for the idea, but did not nominate any stream reaches within their unit, since they felt that well-dispersed, year-round angling opportunities on trout streams in their units were currently being provided through existing Type 3, Type 4, and Gear-Restricted regulations. 


Arctic Grayling update –Jim Dexter.

Jim Dexter provided a brief update on Arctic grayling reintroduction efforts in Michigan. Highlights included discussion of the Fisheries Division and Little River Band of Ottawa Indians as Founding Partners, and the formation of core teams for leading efforts in key areas of research, management, hatchery, and outreach. We think another reintroduction attempt is worthwhile given increases in our understanding of Michigan rivers, improvements in grayling rearing techniques, and recent successes with grayling reintroduction in Montana rivers, including some with resident populations of brook trout and brown trout. Jim mentioned the August 18th kickoff meeting among potential partners, which included a myriad of interested and enthusiastic parties. The next partner meeting is planned for early December. 

Ten-brook trout bag limit update- Phil Schneeberger

Phil provided an update on this study, showing summary results that had been presented earlier in the month to the Natural Resources Commission. Data from 2012 to 2016 for electrofishing, creel, postcard, and internet surveys were compiled and a couple of questions that had been raised at the NRC meeting were clarified. Contrary to predictions going into the study, it was found that the ten-brook trout bag regulation had potential to negatively affect abundance and size structure of local brook trout populations and the opportunity for higher harvests did not result in increased angler activity. The audience commended Fisheries Division on their forthrightness in conducting the study and sharing findings. Dexter provided additional info on how study results will be incorporated into further discussion of this topic at the December NRC meeting. 

Inland Trout Management Plan comments– Jim Dexter and Troy Zorn

Jim and Troy acknowledged receipt of written comments from several CRSC members and organized groups. Jim provided clarification on a goal pertaining to use of artificial lures only regulations. Attendees were then provided an opportunity to verbally express their comments on the draft document in a roundtable fashion. Several of the comments are listed below.


 Are we managing for maximum sustainable harvest or maximum sportfish potential? Stocked vs wild fisheries? Overall management philosophy lacking.


 Aquaculture nutrient loading concerns. Would like more specific metrics and timelines. General funding should be obtained and used for the permit reviews and other environmental issues that benefit the larger public, and license dollars put towards activities that directly

benefit anglers.

o During the comment period Amy Trotter also provided some highlights of the guide registration legislation that is being developed with Representative Zorn (Monroe). They include minimal oversight and monthly reporting of clients, take, etc; $150 fee for a 3-year permit; recent felons and fish and game violators are prevented from getting a guide license; fines for guiding without a license; NRC would have the authority to potentially regulate use and take via hunter/angler guides. It may or may not move soon due to lame duck session.


 Need to discuss mortality of barbless vs. barbed, flies vs. lures vs. bait.


 Crowding and possibly over-crowding on stream reaches that are gear-restricted (GR),

suggesting an attraction to GR reaches, and potential need to expand GR waters to spread out effort. The DNR should promote Trout Trails to draw anglers to quality waters that aren’t GR and continue to recruit young anglers.


 Dam issues need DNR involvement to work more closely and proactively with permittees. For example, is the DNR going to adopt the 70° Pledge, which is similar to the “Hoot-owl” closures that Montana is implementing during periods of elevated water temperatures on some trout streams?


 Landscape changes and trout habitat. Water withdrawal issues, drain commissioners and influence on tributaries, and land use.


 Don’t limit discussion to what we’ve done, but question everything we do. Take a look at slot limits. Habitat and instream wood and natural stream design is where discussion is now. Stay current on the science. Hatchery upgrades and nutrient releases. Manage for all trout anglers.


 Some said the report looked good, while others had not read it in detail and had no comments to provide. 

_http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/CRSCminutes2016-9-28_543745_7.pdf


----------



## Infidel (Jan 9, 2014)

Thanks for keeping us in the loop! Good information


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Infidel said:


> Thanks for keeping us in the loop! Good information


My pleasure. The current regs expire next year and any changes for 2018-19 will be brought up soon so the Inland Trout Management Plan will be a very important document. I expect this forum will heat up quite a bit. Of course, thanks to the recent court decision involving PA 281 I don't really understand who has authority over what right now. I think we're back to the way things were in the spring of 2014 but that can change again with the next court case. Hopefully it gets resolved by August and we don't have rules changing in April 2018.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yep, you are right, it was stated about over crowding on GR waters, so now that's their new excuse to confiscate more water from the rest of the fishermen/women. One thing you can be sure of, it will not go so peacefully the next go around. With the bill in place, they will have to come up with something more substantial than, "we have too many people and it ruins my experience" excuse. They better have the science in hand to prove the fish are in trouble, otherwise too bad, but you'll just have to share the resource just as the salmon fishermen do in the fall, if you get my drift.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Whatever happened to the fish study TU was doing with Michigan State on fishing trends? They were done with the info gathering over a year ago.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranger Ray said:


> Whatever happened to the fish study TU was doing with Michigan State on fishing trends? They were done with the info gathering over a year ago.


A draft was presented to the CRSC at the September 2014 meeting. I don't remember all the details but do remember that the one finding that drew the most skepticism was that it predicted GR water would be lightly fished. Lupi and his Grad Student were going to go back and look at creel surveys to see how their prediction matched reality. That is the last I heard of the study.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto said:


> Yep, you are right, it was stated about over crowding on GR waters, so now that's their new excuse to confiscate more water from the rest of the fishermen/women. One thing you can be sure of, it will not go so peacefully the next go around. With the bill in place, they will have to come up with something more substantial than, "we have too many people and it ruins my experience" excuse. *They better have the science in hand to prove the fish are in trouble, otherwise too bad, but you'll just have to share the resource just as the salmon fishermen do in the fall, if you get my drift.*


 First, my recollection is that there are only 34 miles left before GR water hits the statutory limit and, as always when you get down to the end, that water will be chosen very carefully if it ever gets chosen at all. As for the *science*, you were at the meeting and heard what they had to say about the ten brook trout limit. Already some of your ilk have begun to question the integrity of the MDNR biologists to discredit the *science*. Many in your group were quick to cry fraud about biologists outside the DNR (Feds, college professors, other States etc.) and to say that we could only trust our own State employees but now that the results are not 100% to your liking..... FRAUD! My take is that same as it has always been. Once you have populations that are not in imminent danger of collapse there is room for a lot of honest disagreement about the margins and the management of those margins brings us back to our misunderstood boogeyman Sound Scientific Management.

Sound Scientific Management does not mean management only by biological necessity. This is understood by the people who wrote Prop G and the SFWCA and now this latest bill. I've made the point before and I'll make it again. Allowing the taking of game only as it relates to biological necessity is the end of fishing and hunting in our State. Fishing and hunting are important traditions in our State and are protected as traditions by the bills so that they can continue. That is a _social consideration_ and it is the primary reason we enjoy our past times. If we only fished for species that *need* to be removed we would be down to carp as targets. You and your brethren and I have been over and over this and you are going to agree that of course, there is some social aspect to our rules. And in a while you will forget and come back and post something like the bolded part of your quote above. And then I'll make this post again and you'll agree again. Why not just put a post-it note on your computer screen to remind you what the definition of Sound Scientific Management is?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yep I was at the meeting, and this may come as a surprise to you, but it wasn't us who questioned the 10 brook trout limit, it was one from one of the fly groups. I would say we were actually surprised at the study, and in fact, based on what was presented, I think we can see where it could be a problem increasing to 10. 

Sound science is NOT intended to be a social issue in the sense that the public determines what happens AFTER a species is in effect. I DO NOT agree with using social science to dictate our fish and game management. In this scenario, if you want to have the lobbies dictate who, what, when, and where we fish, then by all means use social management, you want to talk about something becoming a mess.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto said:


> Yep I was at the meeting, and this may come as a surprise to you, but it wasn't us who questioned the 10 brook trout limit, it was one from one of the fly groups.


 OK, who asked and what was the question? Hard to be surprised by information as vague as you have offered. I don't need the exact question, just the gist of it.

As for your second paragraph, I'll take a stab at deciphering what you mean and ask a question. Which current fishing or hunting regulation(s), including season and species closures, do we have that you feel is based on biology without any social considerations?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well, the person who asked the question was from either Anglers of the Ausable, or one like it, can't recall which group frankly, and I certainly don't remember his name, however, the question was," of the people who were surveyed by the DNR, how many of them fish every day". The gist of the question, and I wasn't the only one who picked up on it, was if you have the same people fishing everyday, wouldn't that skew the numbers? His question not mine. IN fact, the people I went with were surprised by the survey in that apparently you can have too high of a limit. Which brings me to part two of your response, you have limits on take, I'm talking fishing here, and this is predicated by what the biologists feel the fish population can handle, not by what people can handle. The same would go to deer hunting for example, the biologists determine just when, and how many does should be eradicated from the population. Look, you might as well save your typing fingers, you will never convince me that having rules and regulations put in place due to what the people want, is a good thing. The people have no idea of what limits should be invoked, what type of habitat is best for a particular species, etc. All that needs to happen is for the DNR to explain to people why things won't work the way they would like, for example, I'm sure that people would love to see grayling in the Grand River but does that make sense? I think the biologists would be smart enough to know that. This philosophy of yours falls under the guise of "those with the least knowledge are the most dangerous".


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

You don't know who it was or what group he's affiliated with but assume he is a flies only purist because.......? He wasn't a friend of yours? There are some members from the UP, who aren't fly purists, and the methodology of the study might well be of interest to Yoopers in general. Besides that, why wouldn't someone anticipate objections when the results of the study show the opposite of what proponents of the limit increase had claimed was "proven". Nothing surprising here at all.

Your examples of limits and deer hunting are perfect examples of social regulations. Society has determined that a certain biological make-up is the most desirable for recreation, economics and as a general moral good. They then instruct wildlife managers to achieve those goals. The fact that you happen to agree with those goals doesn't mean that they are mandated by *science*. It means that when you approve of social goals you delude yourself into thinking they are actually some sort of universal truth and when you disagree with them you cry that it isn't fair and that the process that was great before has been corrupted. The example of grayling in the Grand is maybe the best choice for showing how well social pressure works for managing natural resources. It isn't unusual for some group or another to make a proposal that isn't viable and because the DNR has a social mandate to spend its budget responsibly it rejects the idea. There is no perfect answer, some of our most hotly contested regs are from the days when the Legislature passed a law putting them into effect and some of our most discriminatory predate the NRC. The current system allows the public to propose things, the DNR to have input on the viability and then a public process to gauge interest. I support that sort of open process, not one that reflects back on an imaginary time when the public had no input or one that relies on magical thinking that *science* has intention.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well first of all, the person who asked the question was from either Federation of Fly Fishers, or perhaps Anglers of the Ausable, sorry, I'm not familiar with who these people are, as it was the first meeting I went to. I can tell you with certainty it was one of those groups.
Secondly, as for limits being science based, they have to be as the DNR spends money to plant fish, or the spend money of doing surveys to be assured there is no over pressure. Case in point, no too long ago, year or so, the DNR was holding meetings to discuss chumming, and at the same time discuss steelhead limits. There were those who wanted it to be reduced to 1 fish, while others felt 3 was fine. In asking the DNR personnel present, biologists by the way, their answer was the fish population is fine and sustainable with a 3 fish limit. That isn't social science. The problem with social science is that it is fraught with unintended consequences. For example, a survey can be written in such a way to secure the desired results. I would feel much better if these rules and regulations for fish and wildlife were left up to the experts, and use rational discussion to explain to the public why.


----------

