# Timber Coulee Creek Study



## Ranger Ray

Interesting study. Interested to hear peoples take on what they are looking at. 

http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/documents/TCCS.pdf


----------



## TSS Caddis

If angler utilization is the goal, then the stream is being utilized more, so that is good. This could be based soley on the perception that special regs makes the river more desirable. I'd have loved to see catch rate for flies in 1984 vs 2008.

It is also being used more as a destination fishery which means there is a "perception" that it is now worth driving to.

Average trout length declined, but there was a higher number of larger trout now. Would have liked to see trout density changes per mile, really here nor there though since density means nothing compared to catch rate IMO.

Catch rate declined with special regs, but one could also argue that artificials are not as effective as bait. I guess I'd counter in that it is 10x easier IMO, to catch sub 10" trout on flies.

For me the bottom line is size and catch rate. So I take a couple things from this:

1) Harvest had no impact in 1984 when you compare to current.
2) Catch rate decreased.
3) Average size declined but there were more larger trout in the system.

From a fishery standpoint it is a wash to me. If you are managing for utilization though, you really need find out why it is utilized more? Perception that special reg water means it's better? Has the river been publicized a lot more in recent years? Other? If it is purely the perception that special regs make it a better fishery, even if facts do not back it up, then special regs obviously helped in utilization and may be a good thing.


----------



## fishinDon

TSS Caddis said:


> If angler utilization is the goal, then the stream is being utilized more, so that is good. This could be based soley on the perception that special regs makes the river more desirable. I'd have loved to see catch rate for flies in 1984 vs 2008.
> 
> It is also being used more as a destination fishery which means there is a "perception" that it is now worth driving to.
> 
> Average trout length declined, but there was a higher number of larger trout now. Would have liked to see trout density changes per mile, really here nor there though since density means nothing compared to catch rate IMO.
> 
> Catch rate declined with special regs, but one could also argue that artificials are not as effective as bait. I guess I'd counter in that it is 10x easier IMO, to catch sub 10" trout on flies.
> 
> For me the bottom line is size and catch rate. So I take a couple things from this:
> 
> 1) Harvest had no impact in 1984 when you compare to current.
> 2) Catch rate decreased.
> 3) Average size declined but there were more larger trout in the system.
> 
> From a fishery standpoint it is a wash to me. If you are managing for utilization though, you really need find out why it is utilized more? Perception that special reg water means it's better? Has the river been publicized a lot more in recent years? Other? If it is purely the perception that special regs make it a better fishery, even if facts do not back it up, then special regs obviously helped in utilization and may be a good thing.


Hey TSS - I read this exactly opposite on utilization, I took away that utilization decreased...60% fewer angler trips, etc...what part are you looking at? I see anglers took longer trips in 2008 than in 1984, is that what you are referring to?

Don


----------



## Ranger Ray

I read it the same way Don. Hours fished per trip increased. Probably due to distance traveled, wouldnt you think? :lol: Like how they spun it to distract from numbers of fishermen being down though.


----------



## TSS Caddis

fishinDon said:


> Hey TSS - I read this exactly opposite on utilization, I took away that utilization decreased...60% fewer angler trips, etc...what part are you looking at? I see anglers took longer trips in 2008 than in 1984, is that what you are referring to?
> 
> Don


Thx, passed right by that. So fewer trips but more hours per trip. In that case, utilizatin is down = bad.

So, I take maybe another thing from that, why is utilization down? Is it bait guys didn't want to switch? Since the majority of trips turned into destination type trips, it looks like the locals quit fishing it. Only reason I'd think the locals would quit fishing it is the reg change.

So here we have a special reg change that promoted less use and a wash as far as the fishery. Failed experiment. Sort of like the failed experiment below Thornapple on the Mo.


----------



## toto

I'd have to agree with that last statement, failed experiment. Can't figure out though, why it is our DNR can't see these studies, and determine something from that. I'm telling ya, this is stinking more and more everyday. The evidence keeps piling more and more against these gear restrictions, but yet, they keep saying its needed.


----------



## quack head

Maybe it's me. But I am have a difficult time finding any studies on gear and c/r studies on western rivers. I found one on the Black hear in MI. that I posted in the Court Case thread. I truly want to know if Gear restriction are the answer or is it a combination of habitat, water levels, pressure, and water temp. It's just hard for me to understand why it is we do not have the amount and size of trout that alot western rivers have. :help:


----------



## kzoofisher

The full report may outline things that the brief write up did not but...
Were the trips in 1984 by a limited number of locals who quickly caught their limit and went home, fishing perhaps three days a week? Are the 2008 trips by more anglers who because of distance can only make it on weekends? Is this why angler hours are increased? Is catch rate an apples to apples metric? When I'm fishing with hardware, streamers, nymphs or bait I'm pretty indiscriminate, just looking for a strike. However, when I'm dry fly fishing I will usually wait out the bugs and look for the fish I want to target, often ignoring lots of "catchable" fish so that a good one will get comfortable. I have to admit that I can't think of any quantifiable replacement for catch rate.

The articles conclusions is an interesting paragraph. Is the goal increased harvest or something else? The authors leave it up to the public to decide because in the end all fishing regulations are a reflection of the society that creates them.


----------



## fishinDon

I was looking for something else for quack head and found this research paper today. Interesting stuff in there all based on complicated simulations of the natural trout population in the Au Sable:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fishery/aag2862.1895.001/2?view=image&size=100

Here are some quotes from the paper. It certainly seems to indicate that you can, at least statistically speaking, grow a small number of additional trophy trout (defined as 16" or larger in this paper) with gear restrictions coupled with C/R Only regs. Unfortunately, the paper also concludes that the difference is so small that most fishermen and even our field studies would never be able to detect it. (Field studies and their difficulties detecting larger/older trout is something I recently had a good conversation about with one of our MS members offline.) 

Even if you conceed that we don't detect some of the large fish with the electroshocker - which I will conceed based on my recent discussion, the quote below essentially shows that the best case is that you'd have roughly 3 trophy trout per hectare with Flies only (fishing mortality = 0.05). A hectare is roughly 2.5 surface acres of river - which is roughly equal to just shy of a half mile in a river 50 feet wide. In contrast you'd have 2.85 trophy trout with artificial lures (fishing mortality = 0.10) and about 2 trophy trout with any lure, including bait (fishing mortality = 0.20). So one more big trout every half mile with flies only vs bait.

It also indicates that you actually catch more trophy sized fish with artificials only regs than you do flies only because of the higher catch rates on hardware.

"When gear restrictions were considered under the hypothetical management scenario, it was no surprise to find that the most exploitative, any-lure regulations, provided the maximum total catch of 620 trout per hectare (Table 5). It was somewhat surprising, however, to find that artificials-only regulations provided the maximum catch of trophy-size fish at 1.01 per hectare. This result can easily be explained by examining the simulated data. The artificials-only restrictions reduced the number of trophy fish in the population below the level obtained under flies-only (2.85 versus 3.05 per hectare, respectively), but more of those fish were caught because of a higher catch rate (0.40 versus 0.30, respectively). The any-lure restriction reduced the number of trophy fish in the population to 2.06 per hectare which was below the point where its higher catch rate (0.50) could produce more trophy fish in the catch. It seems unlikely that such small differences in the total catch of trophy fish could be detected in field studies."​

The paper also echos what we just saw above in the Timber Coulee study, that utilization will drop with gear regs:


"For example, researchers have consistently found that a significant reduction in fishing pressure is one of the results of imposing gear restrictions like fly-fishing-only rules (Shetter and Alexander 1962 and 1966, Hunt 1964, Shetter 1969, and Latta 1973). Data from the North Branch of the Au Sable River, Michigan, indicate that this reduction in fishing pressure also means a reduction in fishing mortality."​

And maybe the most interesting thing that I found in the paper is something that probably most of us already knew. You can manage for numbers, or you can manage for trophies, but you can't manage for both at the same time:


"Results Among the many fishery statistics that were produced by TROUT.DYNAMICS, two were chosen as the major indices of fishery performance, the catch of trophy-size trout (over 406 mm long) and the total harvest (or kill) in numbers of trout. Both of these products from a fishery are of great interest to anglers, and consequently, trout fisheries are often managed to maximize one or the other. In general, the results showed an inverse relationship between the two, so it is obvious that both cannot be maximized at the same time."

"The general conclusion of this study concerning quality fishing regulations on trout streams may sound rather archaic to natural resource managers either a large number of small fish or a small number of large fish can be produced by changing regulations."​

That about sums it up for me. It looks like from most of the simulated data that they expect roughly 40% less utilization with gear restrictions than without. The end result of 40% less utilization then produces a result that's so small that most anglers can't tell and our field studies can't measure. To me, even the simulators saying I'll see one more trophy per half mile can't make a good enough case for gear restrictions. 

I would love to see more big trout. I love catching them. If there's a good way to get that without getting rid of 40% of the fisherman, I'd be all for it. 

Don


----------



## quack head

Thanks alot F.D. I'll be Floating the the big water this Thurs. I might have to bring a few jointed rapalas with me for after dark.


----------



## fishinDon

quack head said:


> Thanks alot F.D. I'll be Floating the the big water this Thurs. I might have to bring a few jointed rapalas with me for after dark.


Interesting you mention rapalas, if you are worried about mortality, I saw a study done in MI that showed 0% mortality with rapalas on 126 fish. So fish away! They're certainly as safe as flies!

http://www.70degreepledge.org/uploads/Nuhfer_and_Alexander_1992.pdf

Don


----------



## Bull Market

fishinDon said:


> Even if you conceed that we don't detect some of the large fish with the electroshocker - which I will conceed based on my recent discussion, the quote below essentially shows that the best case is that you'd have roughly 3 trophy trout per hectare with Flies only (fishing mortality = 0.05). A hectare is roughly 2.5 surface acres of river - which is roughly equal to just shy of a half mile in a river 50 feet wide. In contrast you'd have 2.85 trophy trout with artificial lures (fishing mortality = 0.10) and about 2 trophy trout with any lure, including bait (fishing mortality = 0.20). So one more big trout every half mile with flies only vs bait.


"So one more big trout every half mile with flies only vs bait"

Someone else reading that same summary might say . . . "Hmmmm, a FIFTY PERCENT increase in big trout . . . maybe this Flies Only stuff REALLY makes a difference."


----------



## fishinDon

Bull Market said:


> "So one more big trout every half mile with flies only vs bait"
> 
> Someone else reading that same summary might say . . . "Hmmmm, a FIFTY PERCENT increase in big trout . . . maybe this Flies Only stuff REALLY makes a difference."


It's all part of the debate. It's obviously what this boils down to. How much you are willing to give to get? In my eyes, giving up fishing with bait/hardware to potentially get one more large fish per half mile (in a simulation) is craziness, but that is how I fish 80-90% of the time. 

In your eyes, it means this stuff really works...but you are clearly not a bait/hardware fisherman. So you lose nothing.

Lets not lose site of the fact that everything I just posted above is based on a simulation - a computer program. With essentially two variables (mortality and pressure), that are completely under the control of the user. I write computer programs for a living. If you want me to write one that makes bait fishing look like nirvana, I can do that.  

They pulled mortality numbers out of a hat - 5% mortality for flies and 20% for bait. Then they pulled 10% out for hardware. Where did those come from? I just posted a study that said mortality with Rapalas was 0%. Why didn't they use that number instead of 10%? It would have made hardware look like the gates to heaven in the simulator. 

I have another study that shows that bait fishing mortality is between 2% and 7%, and spinners were less than 4%, rather than 20% and 10%. The point is you can tinker with the inputs and get any result you want. When they tinkered with them, they got 1 more big fish. 

The point is no one knows what the true mortality is. It varies for every fish, by day, by fisherman, by stream, by technique, by hook type, by how long you keep it out of the water, how long you play the fish, the water temp, how much protective 'slime' you took off the fish, etc. There are probably 50 variables or more that effect the trout's survival after being caught and released - none of those except hook type were accounted for in the simulator. We've singled out one thing and decided it's the answer to the question. It's no more the answer to the question than any of those other factors. I can catch a fish on a fly, perfectly lip hooked, play it on 2lb test for 10 minutes and then release it in 70+ degree water and with almost 100% certainty tell you that fish is not going to survive being caught and released, despite the lip hooking location. 

Winners and losers, which side are you on? It probably determines how you feel about gear regs...I fish by all legal methods. And because of that, gear regs make me a loser. And for me, that stinks.

Don


----------



## Butch

Bull Market said:


> "So one more big trout every half mile with flies only vs bait"
> 
> Someone else reading that same summary might say . . . "Hmmmm, a FIFTY PERCENT increase in big trout . . . maybe this Flies Only stuff REALLY makes a difference."


Good point, BM. Would anyone out there prefer to fish in a reach that holds, not 3 instead of 2 16+" per hectare, but 15 instead of 10? How about 75 instead of 50?

Butch


----------



## Boozer

Butch said:


> Good point, BM. Would anyone out there prefer to fish in a reach that holds, not 3 instead of 2 16+" per hectare, but 15 instead of 10? How about 75 instead of 50?
> 
> Butch


The problem with it is, this is NOT a realistic scenario here...

The truth is, there is no way to actually tell just how many fish are in a given stretch of water and be 100% accurate.

To take it a step further, there is no real accurate way to know exactly what the percentage of fish that die after being caught on any particular method is. You can't just list all forms of artificials under one category as some are most certainly more lethal than others, you can't just list bait fishing under one category as some forms of bait angling would have less chances of killing a fish than some artificials would. However, none of this matters in reality because our fisheries are not unhealthy, anyone with any common sense should realize that taking the best water in the state and making it flies only is backwards, if the true reasoning for making flies only regulations was to make a fishery better, then why are we not putting these regulations on marginal Trout streams and keeping them off the good ones that don't require any assistance beyond common sense creel limits and current laws already on the books? Can anyone answer that???

However, it is 100% accurate to say that a stream can hold only so many fish and many die every year simply because there are too many of them. It is also accurate to say that having the largest amount of fish one can have in a section of stream will inevitably lead to less larger fish. It is also 100% accurate to say that NONE of the sections of streams which have special regulations rely on those regulations to keep them as top notch fisheries. They already have what it takes for that to take place. (structure, food and proper water temperatures among other things)

So when you look at it from that perspective, flies only regulations don't really accomplish anything. A fly fisherman can kill just as many if not more fish than a bait fisherman and vice versa.

It's not the anglers method IT'S THE ANGLER...


----------



## Butch

Boozer said:


> The problem with it is, this is NOT a realistic scenario here...
> 
> The truth is, there is no way to actually tell just how many fish are in a given stretch of water and be 100% accurate.
> 
> To take it a step further, there is no real accurate way to know exactly what the percentage of fish that die after being caught on any particular method is.
> 
> However, it is 100% accurate to say that a stream can hold only so many fish and many die every year simply because there are too many of them. It is also accurate to say that having the largest amount of fish one can have in a section of stream will inevitably lead to less larger fish. It is also 100% accurate to say that NONE of the sections of streams which have special regulations rely on those regulations to keep them as top notch fisheries. They already have what it takes for that to take place. (structure, food and proper water temperatures among other things)
> 
> So when you look at it from that perspective, flies only regulations don't really accomplish anything. A fly fisherman can kill just as many if not more fish than a bait fisherman and vice versa.
> 
> It's not the anglers method IT'S THE ANGLER...


It's true there are a lot of variables, and it's impossible to accurately count all the large trout (at least without rotenone possibly, which would defeat the purpose). However, what part of my scenario is not realistic? How do you know for sure?

I guarantee that *every* stream reach I've fished for trout this year (according to my log, 19 reaches on 4 streams) holds at least 10 16+" resident trout per hectare, some a lot more. And the areas I've fished on 2 streams are generally known to hold relatively few trout...

Butch


----------



## Boozer

Butch said:


> It's true there are a lot of variables, and it's impossible to accurately count all the large trout (at least without rotenone possibly, which would defeat the purpose). However, what part of my scenario is not realistic? How do you know for sure?
> 
> I guarantee that *every* stream reach I've fished for trout this year (according to my log, 19 reaches on 4 streams) holds at least 10 16+" resident trout per hectare, some a lot more. And the areas I've fished on 2 streams are generally known to hold relatively few trout...
> 
> Butch


The part of the scenario that is not realistic is the fact it is based on a study which cannot be accurate, there is no way to count all the fish in a section of a Trout stream without poison as you stated.

I don't doubt your statement about large fish, I never did...


----------



## Butch

Boozer said:


> The part of the scenario that is not realistic is the fact it is based on a study which cannot be accurate, there is no way to count all the fish in a section of a Trout stream without poison as you stated.
> 
> I don't doubt your statement about large fish, I never did...


For the reasons you and others have stated, no study can ever be "accurate" with certainty, and it's even more "impossible" to extrapolate "certainty" from a study of one stretch of river to a different stretch of another river, or even year-to-year in the same water. I agree there is no certainty, but I disagree about the need for certainty. 

However, some on this site point to this lack of certainty, then argue that because there is no certainty, there can be no attempt to manage the resource. I disagree with this. The scientists in this field must do their best to extrapolate and test theories based on whatever data they have. 

When someone argues that it's not worth the trade-off of potentially reducing angler opportunity to attempt to enhance selected fisheries, that is an opinion I can respect, and an important reason why I didn't nominate or support any new artificials-only water. But, I dislike when people argue that studies are fatally flawed because we can't be sure whether incidental mortality from artificial lures is 4% or 5% (ok, that's hyperbole, but I think you can see my point). That's just obfuscation, not rational debate.

My OPINION is that Michigan trout fishing now is generally very good, and better than "the good old days" because (in large part) trout fisherman voluntarily release more fish than they did 30 years ago. It seems logical to wonder if less mortality in selected areas would improve the fishing even more. There is undoubtedly a limit to carrying capacity (which varies year to year), but I don't know if we've reached that limit yet. Do you?

Butch


----------



## Boozer

Hey Butch,

Perhaps I came off in a manner I did not mean to, was trying to do 10 different things at once when I made my last post.

I agree, just because we cannot be certain, does not mean these studies cannot give us any sort of idea just what may or may not need to be done. However, I look to biologists to determine what should count and what should not, not a bunch of guides or local anglers.

However, when the experts "fisheries biologists" are making statements that these gear restrictions will essentially have no effect on the fishery which through my research is essentially what I have found to have been said, I am against those changes being made in spite of the recommendations of the very guys we pay and trust to manage our fisheries, simple as that. I could care less about anything else, if the biologists said our fisheries needed these changes, I would support them 100%, but they are not saying this, so why were these rules implemented anyway?

It's simply human nature to want more, the grass will always be greener on the other side and so on, but sometimes we just don't realize, the greenest grass is right under our feet...


----------



## Butch

Boozer said:


> Hey Butch,
> 
> Perhaps I came off in a manner I did not mean to, was trying to do 10 different things at once when I made my last post.
> 
> I agree, just because we cannot be certain, does not mean these studies cannot give us any sort of idea just what may or may not need to be done. However, I look to biologists to determine what should count and what should not, not a bunch of guides or local anglers.
> 
> However, when the experts "fisheries biologists" are making statements that these gear restrictions will essentially have no effect on the fishery which through my research is essentially what I have found to have been said, I am against those changes being made in spite of the recommendations of the very guys we pay and trust to manage our fisheries, simple as that. I could care less about anything else, if the biologists said our fisheries needed these changes, I would support them 100%, but they are not saying this, so why were these rules implemented anyway?
> 
> It's simply human nature to want more, the grass will always be greener on the other side and so on, but sometimes we just don't realize, the greenest grass is right under our feet...


You're right, nothing "needs" to be done. I'm just not willing to say that trout fishing is the best it can ever be the way it is. If it never gets better, I'll still keep fishing as much as I can, and I'll be happy about it. I won't even complain (much) about the tribal right to spear in trout streams; you know, based on the arguments that carrying capacity has limits, they have a long history of doing it that way, their tribal biologists say it won't harm the fishery, etc., etc.

Also, don't underestimate the degree to which the DEQ biologists tailor their management prescriptions to their perceptions of public opinion, as well as their personal biases. This works both ways; sometimes the flies only crowd gets what it wants, and sometimes the management prescription is tailored to the "average joe" that wants to catch a few small trout. As 1 DEQ biologist told me, he doesn't care that by managing the river differently, he and I could catch 2 20+" instead of 1, most fisherman rarely see any of those fish and his phone would "ring off the hook" if he tried to enhance the trophy fishing at the expense of more easily-catchable trout. I have a site meeting with that same biologist on Friday to discuss a potential habitat improvement project that will hopefully make fishing better for all, but I'll probably lobby him with my opinions about his presciption for that river during our meeting:evilsmile.

Butch


----------



## fishinDon

Butch - I have to say that I really respect the way you banter. If we could all debate this subject in such a manner we might actually get to a place where the vast majority of fishermen are happy with the outcome. And then we could get down to business on things that really matter, like the habitat project that you're headed to on Friday. Thanks for caring about the river.

Don


----------



## Butch

fishinDon said:


> Butch - I have to say that I really respect the way you banter. If we could all debate this subject in such a manner we might actually get to a place where the vast majority of fishermen are happy with the outcome. And then we could get down to business on things that really matter, like the habitat project that you're headed to on Friday. Thanks for caring about the river.
> 
> Don


Thanks Don. Same to you.

Butch


----------



## Boozer

Hey Butch, I'm with you bud, I agree there is no reason to just concede it's the best it can be and not strive for better, however I am more eager to be involved with projects which are proven to have an even greater impact on our fisheries, projects like stream restoration and surrounding habitat improvements, not so eager about gear restrictions which alienate anglers whom would be great candidates to aid in these stream restoration projects because they feel left out when they are forced to not fish with the legal method of their choice.

Take care


----------

