# Large Trout Mortality



## Butch

Reading some of the threads on this forum, one important question seems to be the mortality rate of large resident stream brown trout. Lots of references to annual mortality of 50%-80%. This is misleading at best.

Annual mortality of small trout is high. Annual mortality of large brown trout is much lower, up until the point old age becomes a major factor (probably about 7 years old and 22"). Thus, although the *average* mortality for all ages of trout in combination may be in the 50-80% range, trout over 15" (probably 3 years old in most good Michigan trout streams) usually survive another year. For example, check the Michigan Fisheries Institute radio transmitter studies. 

I have very extensive personal data to support this as well. Without even trying to account for the increased difficulty of catching increasingly large brown trout or the increased difficulty of recatching trout that I have caught before (both factors are probably significant), annual mortality appears to be about 25% as resident brown trout grow from 15 to 20". This is entirely in areas that are open to possession and no GR's. Even from 20 to 22", the annual mortality rate is clearly less than 50%. After that, it's hard to tell from my data, because growth rates tend to slow down and size is a less useful tool to age them, but even then they frequently survive another year or 2 unless there is a bad summer or winter. 

Think about it, they have lots of predators when they are small, but when they are big, the weak and stupid have been culled out and they have outgrown all predators other than man. They are big enough to find and defend prime feeding lies, good resting cover, and thermal refuges when needed (probably a big factor on most Mich streams). They have learned to catch a variety of prey in a variety of conditions.

If you catch large trout and it's legal, you may choose to keep them, but please don't keep them just because you think they are not likely to survive another year due to natural causes.

Butch


----------



## METTLEFISH

There is nothing ''natural" about Trout in Michigan......


----------



## Splitshot

Butch,

I used to think the average life of brown trout was 7 years too, but after a review of the shocking data for the Little Manistee the Pm over several years, and speaking to several DNR biologist, I learned that I was wrong. In the LM for example of the thousands of fish shocked and tested only 3 or 4 of them tested over 3 years and none over 4 years.

You are correct that first year trout represent the largest percentage and then 2nd year fish and finally 3rd year fish and that probably holds true throughout most of nature.

In small streams brown trout at the end of their life dont even make 10 inches while other 3 year old fish can reach 25 inches in rivers with enough food and cover. In Lake Michigan Browns three years old can reach 20 lbs plus just like kings and coho.

We have nothing against returning big fish, but only reject that we must release them based on someones beliefs. As with trout, bluegill, walleye or any other fish nature produces and over abundance to insure survival and the biologist from the MDNR set creel limits to insure fish stocks are protected. Anyone who chooses to return fish above what the biologist conclude based on their scientific data and study is allowed. The problem is when those people dictate that everyone else should because somehow they are more knowledgeable and or enlightened than the experts.

We reject the idea that it is immoral or unethical to keep fish when fishermen are following the rules. Many people think it is immoral to just play with the fish and some even believe it is cruel to catch them over and over. Most fishermen who keep fish, believe they are part of the food chain and not above it and that it is un-natural to fish and not keep some to eat. 

Nature controls how many fish will be available next year not do gooders!


----------



## troutguy26

Thanks for posting that splitshot. 7 yrs is a thing you find when you google and it doesnt pertain to michigan at all. Most fish you find in the 20in era is gonna be around 3yrs. Ive spoken with dnr and some well respected, very intelligent taxidermist and they all agree. 

On a side note. I just found out that ive gotten a dinner meeting set up with a very very smart man. Hes a biologist and is willing to sit and talk. I will pose alot of questions and certainly let all know what the findings are.


----------



## mbirdsley

Splitshot said:


> Butch,
> 
> I used to think the average life of brown trout was 7 years too, but after a review of the shocking data for the Little Manistee the Pm over several years, and speaking to several DNR biologist, I learned that I was wrong. In the LM for example of the thousands of fish shocked and tested only 3 or 4 of them tested over 3 years and none over 4 years.
> 
> You are correct that first year trout represent the largest percentage and then 2nd year fish and finally 3rd year fish and that probably holds true throughout most of nature.
> 
> In small streams brown trout at the end of their life don&#146;t even make 10 inches while other 3 year old fish can reach 25 inches in rivers with enough food and cover. In Lake Michigan Browns three years old can reach 20 lbs plus just like kings and coho.
> 
> We have nothing against returning big fish, but only reject that we must release them based on someone&#146;s beliefs. As with trout, bluegill, walleye or any other fish nature produces and over abundance to insure survival and the biologist from the MDNR set creel limits to insure fish stocks are protected. Anyone who chooses to return fish above what the biologist conclude based on their scientific data and study is allowed. The problem is when those people dictate that everyone else should because somehow they are more knowledgeable and or enlightened than the experts.
> 
> We reject the idea that it is immoral or unethical to keep fish when fishermen are following the rules. Many people think it is immoral to just play with the fish and some even believe it is cruel to catch them over and over. Most fishermen who keep fish, believe they are part of the food chain and not above it and that it is un-natural to fish and not keep some to eat.
> 
> Nature controls how many fish will be available next year not do gooders!


Agree 100%

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Butch

I never said or implied that it is unethical to keep trout, or that it is wrong. My point is that when we keep them, we should do it with an understanding of their likelihood of surviving from year to year.

The expected lifespan of a brown trout that dies of old age is not 3 years. I agree that the average lifespan is probably not more than 3 years, but that's because the mortality of young trout weighs down the average.

The MDNR electro-fishing studies are heavily overweighted toward finding small trout when they study loggy streams with some deep holes, because the study crew cannot get close enough to stun and capture most of the big trout, The places they live are hard to reach, the big fish are wary and hard to approach, and the electrical "dose" is set low (lower than ideal to stun and capture the big fish) to limit the harm to small fish. This comes from observing them at work and talking with Tonello. They also tend to pick study areas at easily accessed, heavily fished spots. I can personally confirm that when they shock 1000' feet of my home stream, they are lucky to capture a couple 15+" fish, but a good fisherman can fish the same stretch and see many more than MDNR studies and statistical analysis indicates are there.

From what I've seen, resident browns in NW Mich streams grow at a fairly consistant rate of about 2"/year in the 15-21" range. This is confirmed by both macro data (good year classes tend to be easy to follow as they grow) and based on observation of individual fish through recatches. Obviously, there is individual variation, but as a population the growth rate seems fairly consistant. I've also never observed an individual trout over 15" that grew over 2.5" in a year, although I've observed many that grew less than 2". I admit I only have enough data to be statistically significant from 3 (maybe 4) streams, but 2 of them are the streams most talked about on this forum.

Keep 'em or let 'em go, your choice, but please don't rationalize keeping a nice trout on the theory that it will almost surely be dead next year if you it them go.

Butch


----------



## kzoofisher

troutguy26 said:


> Most fish you find in the 20in era is gonna be around 3yrs. .


Sorry, but you are going to have to back this statement up. If you mean most Great Lakes fish you might be on to something, if you mean most resident stream trout I very much doubt your sources.


----------



## troutguy26

Ok kzoo i will but you slid the word "most" in there on me so lets just go with what i got. One day on a stream carrying a fish just shy and by just shy i mean an eighth of an inch shy i ran into a field officer and asked the question of how old the fish is. He was very confident in estimating the fish at 3 years and a lengthy conversation came forth on ages of our trout. Jump forward to bout two years later im at a taxidermist and showing him some pics on my camera of trout and that same fish came up and he stated the same answer i was given by our dnr. I know scale samples are truely the only no matter what way to tell so. With that said i have a fish that is over 20 right now in the freezer that i would be more than willing to send a sample in (if possible) to get aged. I can make some calls tomorrow and try to get it done. Im actually very interested and will try to. Lastly like stated before i have a sit down arrainged and that will be one of my questions posed, so for an absolute, not a field officer, taxidermist, my opinion based on all the research ive done answer, you might have to wait a little bit if thats ok and really what you are looking for.


----------



## Butch

troutguy26 said:


> Ok kzoo i will but you slid the word "most" in there on me so lets just go with what i got. One day on a stream carrying a fish just shy and by just shy i mean an eighth of an inch shy i ran into a field officer and asked the question of how old the fish is. He was very confident in estimating the fish at 3 years and a lengthy conversation came forth on ages of our trout. Jump forward to bout two years later im at a taxidermist and showing him some pics on my camera of trout and that same fish came up and he stated the same answer i was given by our dnr. I know scale samples are truely the only no matter what way to tell so. With that said i have a fish that is over 20 right now in the freezer that i would be more than willing to send a sample in (if possible) to get aged. I can make some calls tomorrow and try to get it done. Im actually very interested and will try to. Lastly like stated before i have a sit down arrainged and that will be one of my questions posed, so for an absolute, not a field officer, taxidermist, my opinion based on all the research ive done answer, you might have to wait a little bit if thats ok and really what you are looking for.


I'd be interested in the results of an a scale sample or ear bone analysis of your fish (the only real way to know for sure). I'd bet you a large amount of money (whatever that is to you) that virtually none of the 600+ 18" resident browns, let alone the 250+ 20" browns, in my log were less than 4 years old. Or the hundreds others caught by my Dad, friends and son. But, that's right, you said you caught ONE 19.875 brown and 2 years later you showed a picture of it to a random taxidermist, so I guess that's a scientific lock on how fast they all grow. And now you have a 20 in the freezer which you haven't aged. Rock on.

Butch


----------



## troutguy26

Well please then butch save me some time and show your results! How did you age your fish? Did you scale sample them all? Not trying to be a douche but id love to know.


----------



## troutguy26

Also please dont guess my angling ability. The "ONE" comment isnt to nice.


----------



## Butch

troutguy26 said:


> Also please dont guess my angling ability. The "ONE" comment isnt to nice.


Troutguy26, my comments about "One" were related to you drawing conclusions about trout age patterns based on flimsy evidence, not about your fishing skills.

As for your other post, I went into some detail about how I aged my fish (macro and micro). Sorry, no scale or otolith aging on those.

Butch


----------



## troutguy26

Ah gotcha sometimes hard to tell what people mean. Yes that was one fish and an example i gave for kzoo. Now thats not the only fish just one brought up for discussion.


----------



## kzoofisher

troutguy26 said:


> Ok kzoo i will but you slid the word "most" in there on me so lets just go with what i got. One day on a stream carrying a fish just shy and by just shy i mean an eighth of an inch shy i ran into a field officer and asked the question of how old the fish is. He was very confident in estimating the fish at 3 years and a lengthy conversation came forth on ages of our trout. Jump forward to bout two years later im at a taxidermist and showing him some pics on my camera of trout and that same fish came up and he stated the same answer i was given by our dnr. I know scale samples are truely the only no matter what way to tell so. With that said i have a fish that is over 20 right now in the freezer that i would be more than willing to send a sample in (if possible) to get aged. I can make some calls tomorrow and try to get it done. Im actually very interested and will try to. Lastly like stated before i have a sit down arrainged and that will be one of my questions posed, so for an absolute, not a field officer, taxidermist, my opinion based on all the research ive done answer, you might have to wait a little bit if thats ok and really what you are looking for.


Firstly, I didn't slide the word "most" in there, nice try to discredit me by making up a false accusation. Your words were "Most fish you find in the 20in era..." go back and read it if you don't remember writing it.

Secondly, the average growth rate in Michigan streams is 3" per year. Not even in social science does 3x3=20. For verification of my claim see this paper by two MDNR biologists, page 11. 
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2007-22_225164_7.pdf


----------



## TC-fisherman

splitshot said:


> butch,
> 
> i used to think the average life of brown trout was 7 years too, but after a review of the shocking data for the little manistee the pm over several years, and speaking to several dnr biologist, i learned that* i was wrong*. In the lm for example of the thousands of fish shocked and tested only 3 or 4 of them tested over 3 years and none over 4 years.


Yes, you still are wrong. You are either misinformed or lying.
Shocking data from Little Manistee from only one section clearly shows more than 3 or 4 fish over 3 years old and and 5 year old fish are present. This is just one section.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2005-8_Little-Manistee_River_144067_7.pdf




> Table 9. Brown trout population estimates by age, percent by age, and annual survival at
> Johnsons Bridge, Little Manistee River, 2002-2004.
> Population estimate by age (no./acre)
> Year 0 1 2 3 4 5	Total
> 2002 264 267 56 70 29 1 687
> 2003 290 71 128 41 22 3 556
> 2004 358 148 39 67 13 3 628
> Percent of population by age
> Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
> 2002 38.5 38.8 8.1 10.2 4.2 0.2 100.0
> 2003 52.2 12.8 23.0 7.4 4.0 0.6 100.0
> 2004 57.0 23.5 6.2 10.6 2.1 0.5 100.0





splitshot said:


> nature controls how many fish will be available next year not do gooders!


not according to the DNR biologists



> One interesting phenomenon regarding the brown trout population in the Little Manistee River is the
> number of large brown trout caught in recent years. In 1981, during the marking runs at all six
> stations, a total of eight brown trout larger than 15 inches were caught. In contrast, 31 brown trout
> larger than 15 inches were caught during the marking runs at each of the six stations in 1995, and a
> total of 81 brown trout larger than 15 inches (seven of which were larger than 20 inches) were caught
> during the marking runs at the six stations in 2002. It is unclear why there were more large brown
> trout in the population in 2002, *but it may have to do with fishing regulations, ethics, or a combination
> of the two. In *2000, trout fishing regulations in Michigan became more restrictive. Although the majority of the survey stations have been under flies-only regulations since 1973, they had a five fish
> daily bag limit and an 8 inch minimum size limit on brown trout. In 2000, the regulation for brown
> trout switched to a two fish daily bag limit and a 15 inch minimum size limit.






Data from the Ausable shows fish present from 6 to 9 years old.


page 22
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2007-22_225164_7.pdf


and on page 20 it shows mean lengths at age

3 year old browns 13.5-16.1 inches

4 year old 18.4-19.7

5 year old 20.5-22.1

6 year old 20.1-24.6


and the Ausable in a high growth stream. 





The plain fact is when you take a 13 inch trout you guarantee it will never be a 20 inch.


----------



## troutguy26

In response kzoo. I dont haave alot of time here to get links and all that but i beleive its 2059rr about the pine river clearly shows fish in that system between 18 and 20 that are three years old or older to 4 years. So somewhere inbetween. Im pretty busy this week but when i get some time someday i will try to whip something up. I will also look into gettin a fish aged if possible if you can bear with me for a bit.


----------



## Trout King

TC, 
Just because a 13" brown is taken doesn't mean that fish would have made it to 20". Carrying capacity is the bottom line for fish survival. Food and habitat is the key for fish growth rates. 

I've fished a stream down here for 2.5 hours combined in two trips, the fish I've caught have all been between 11-15 inches(about 12 fish) or 22-24 inches (3) and broke off another. Obviously the habitat and food is available to grow them large, but the carrying capacity isn't capable of holding tons of smaller fish or many fish in general. Haven't seen ANY sign of other anglers being at either of the locations I've fished, but there still aren't a ton of fish. Haven't you ever wondered how many big browns you walk right by? I think the contributing factor to the larger fish being caught is they haven't had enough pressure to make them savvy to anglers. It's my belief trout that spend a few years in a stream get smart to angling pressure very quickly and tend to lay low. Killing what I consider eating size trout (10-16 inches) does not dissallow other fish to grow large, but that is my opinion based on my years of fishing, studying and NRM college work.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Irregardless of the science, your point was well stated Butch. Point taken.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Trout King said:


> Carrying capacity is the bottom line for fish survival.


Yes.




Is every stream in Michigan at carrying capacity?


----------



## thousandcasts

TC-fisherman said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is every stream in Michigan at carrying capacity?


Isn't that up to the biologists to figure out and then set size limits, creel limits and seasons based on what a stream is capable of holding, natural mortality and the amount of angler effort? 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's part of their job responsibilities.


----------



## TC-fisherman

thousandcasts said:


> Isn't that up to the biologists to figure out and then set size limits, creel limits and seasons based on what a stream is capable of holding, natural mortality and the amount of angler effort?
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's part of their job responsibilities.


Does the DNR tailor regulations for every stream so each stream is at is carrying capacity? Is that a goal of the DNR? , max carrying capacity for every stream.


What goals are creel and size limits based upon? (for inland trout)


Are they to mazimize harvest? Maximize catching? Maximize catching alot of fish? Maximize catching big fish?

Or ensure a minimum trout population capable of reproducing?


----------



## thousandcasts

TC-fisherman said:


> Does the DNR tailor regulations for every stream so each stream is at is carrying capacity? Is that a goal of the DNR? , max carrying capacity for every stream.
> 
> 
> What goals are creel and size limits based upon? (for inland trout)
> 
> 
> Are they to mazimize harvest? Maximize catching? Maximize catching alot of fish? Maximize catching big fish?
> 
> Or ensure a minimum trout population capable of reproducing?


Perhaps you should be asking them those questions. I'm not a trout biologist. IF I feel the desire to go trout fishing, then I'm someone who reads the rule book and trusts the decisions that have been made by those who are in a position to make them. When they present information at meetings, I listen and then form an opinion based on the science presented on the relevant subject. 

Unless I missed something, I don't believe we're in the middle of some trout catastrophe are we? If not, then apparently those who are following the current rule book don't seem to be doing any harm, correct?


----------



## kzoofisher

troutguy26 said:


> In response kzoo. I dont haave alot of time here to get links and all that but i beleive its 2059rr about the pine river clearly shows fish in that system between 18 and 20 that are three years old or older to 4 years. So somewhere inbetween. Im pretty busy this week but when i get some time someday i will try to whip something up. I will also look into gettin a fish aged if possible if you can bear with me for a bit.


 I'm crushed at work myself right through the weekend so later sounds great. The variation in stream growth rates, carrying capacity etc. is an interesting subject, might be worth its own thread.


----------



## kzoofisher

TC-fisherman said:


> Does the DNR tailor regulations for every stream so each stream is at is carrying capacity? Is that a goal of the DNR? , max carrying capacity for every stream.
> 
> 
> What goals are creel and size limits based upon? (for inland trout)
> 
> 
> Are they to mazimize harvest? Maximize catching? Maximize catching alot of fish? Maximize catching big fish?
> 
> Or ensure a minimum trout population capable of reproducing?


The DNR tried tailoring regulations to streams back in the 1990's after surveying every watershed and taking recommendations from the field biologists. Unfortunately, far too many people found the regulations overly complicated and complained loudly. The result was the reduction from seven stream types to four and the realization that many people in Michigan don't want each stream to be its best so long as most can be pretty good. At the DNR meeting I attended recently it was made quite clear that having different rules for so obvious a divide as the Upper and Lower Peninsulas is too complicated for many people. I figure that if you can't tell when you are crossing the Mackinac Bridge you probably shouldn't be venturing out alone anywhere.


----------



## thousandcasts

kzoofisher said:


> The DNR tried tailoring regulations to streams back in the 1990's after surveying every watershed and taking recommendations from the field biologists. Unfortunately, far too many people found the regulations overly complicated and complained loudly. The result was the reduction from seven stream types to four and the realization that many people in Michigan don't want each stream to be its best so long as most can be pretty good. At the DNR meeting I attended recently it was made quite clear that having different rules for so obvious a divide as the Upper and Lower Peninsulas is too complicated for many people. I figure that if you can't tell when you are crossing the Mackinac Bridge you probably shouldn't be venturing out alone anywhere.


It's the yoopers that are screaming the loudest about wanting their 10 brook trout limit back. I don't think they'd take well to added regs. :lol:

If I remember correctly, it started out as six stream types and the Type 7 was added to accomodate the current flies only/no kill section of the PM. Before that, it was flies only, but I believe you could keep one fish...or maybe it was one salmon? Anyway, it didn't fit into the six they came up with so a type 7 was created.


----------



## TC-fisherman

thousandcasts said:


> Unless I missed something, I don't believe we're in the middle of some trout catastrophe are we? If not, then apparently those who are following the current rule book don't seem to be doing any harm, correct?


If the goal is to ensure a minimum trout population capable of reproducing than those following the current rule book are not doing any harm. (wasn't that the stated goal of 8 inch browns? let every fish have a chance to spawn once)



But if having a larger number of bigger mature trout is a goal than IN SOME STREAMS they are doing harm. 


I don't think it is an elitist or selfish proposition to suggest restrictive creel limits (even zero) to increase larger trout. Or heaven forbid suggesting people release 13+ inch trout. Keep all the 8-10 inch trout you want.


----------



## kzoofisher

thousandcasts said:


> It's the yoopers that are screaming the loudest about wanting their 10 brook trout limit back. I don't think they'd take well to added regs. :lol:
> 
> If I remember correctly, it started out as six stream types and the Type 7 was added to accomodate the current flies only/no kill section of the PM. Before that, it was flies only, but I believe you could keep one fish...or maybe it was one salmon? Anyway, it didn't fit into the six they came up with so a type 7 was created.


Yeah, it was that or the research type so they could create experimental regs to see how they would do. Getting to be a long time ago, hard to remember the details but it sure was a big deal when that seven color map book came out.


----------



## thousandcasts

TC-fisherman said:


> If the goal is to ensure a minimum trout population capable of reproducing than those following the current rule book are not doing any harm. (wasn't that the stated goal of 8 inch browns? let every fish have a chance to spawn once)
> 
> 
> 
> But if having a larger number of bigger mature trout is a goal than IN SOME STREAMS they are doing harm.
> 
> 
> I don't think it is an elitist or selfish proposition to suggest restrictive creel limits (even zero) to increase larger trout. Or heaven forbid suggesting people release 13+ inch trout. Keep all the 8-10 inch trout you want.


I'm not a "fish eating" guy, so to speak so the 12" trout I keep in a year could probably be counted on one hand. I never keep 8" to 10" rainbows since most of the places I might trout fish are steelhead rivers and I'm not roping up what could be a planter steelhead that hasn't out-migrated yet. And sometimes, those fish don't out migrate right away. 

However, They've tried trophy regs in some streams and based on the science, they didn't have the desired results. Could one argue that the streams in question were marginal? Sure. 

Is a big brown in the Muskegon going to be the same age as a big brown in some cold creek? Doubtful. I mean, the science in the marginal streams or sections shows that few fish get to age 3 or four. 

Not that I go chasing them, but I can appreciate the...well, I can't find a good word, but I appreciate seeing someone with one those 20" plus stream trout and I'd be more inclined to support a slot limit or reduced creel on those larger fish IF it's somewhere that the science shows it could make a difference AND it's something that's put forth by the biologist responsible for that area. 

That's a creel or slot limit though--not a gear restriction. Believe it or not, I can see both sides of this, but I'm going to lean toward supporting what the biologists think and what relevant science they present over someone's fantasy and a study from Idaho that was done in 1973, ya know?


----------



## rockman

Butch said:


> and the electrical "dose" is set low (lower than ideal to stun and capture the big fish) to limit the harm to small fish.
> Butch


Butch makes a good point...similar to a deer hunter's argument about passing up a small buck. If you kill it there is zero chance that it will grow bigger...

Also, just to note, the electrical shock information quoted above is backwards. Larger fish are much more sensitive to electrical current than smaller fish. The voltage accumulation on a fishes body is a function of current intensity x length of the fish...there is more surface body area to absorb the electrical current...so the lower settings are used to keep from killing or injuring large fish not the reverse.


----------



## Trout King

round and round it goes...just follow the rules and everything will e fine. i am sure they would be tweaked if the inland fishery was in danger.
this has been a terrific year for numbers and size for me. i have caught 17 browns over 16 inches since the opener and not one was in gr water. not bragging but pointing out big fish are there and in gr water im.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## METTLEFISH

Gee Wally.... aren't those fish put here to be caught!.... I wanna fish for a trophy Largemouth (or Smallmouth) shouldn't the State be spending valuable resources on them so *I* can catch one, I mean come on Wally there's lots of big Trout at the Trout pond down the road... nnn they aren't even Indiginous..... Wally.....


----------



## REG

thousandcasts said:


> I'm not a "fish eating" guy, so to speak so the 12" trout I keep in a year could probably be counted on one hand. I never keep 8" to 10" rainbows since most of the places I might trout fish are steelhead rivers and I'm not roping up what could be a planter steelhead that hasn't out-migrated yet. And sometimes, those fish don't out migrate right away.
> 
> However, They've tried trophy regs in some streams and based on the science, they didn't have the desired results. Could one argue that the streams in question were marginal? Sure.
> 
> Is a big brown in the Muskegon going to be the same age as a big brown in some cold creek? Doubtful. I mean, the science in the marginal streams or sections shows that few fish get to age 3 or four.
> 
> Not that I go chasing them, but I can appreciate the...well, I can't find a good word, but I appreciate seeing someone with one those 20" plus stream trout and I'd be more inclined to support a slot limit or reduced creel on those larger fish IF it's somewhere that the science shows it could make a difference AND it's something that's put forth by the biologist responsible for that area.
> 
> That's a creel or slot limit though--not a gear restriction. Believe it or not, I can see both sides of this, but I'm going to lean toward supporting what the biologists think and what relevant science they present over someone's fantasy and a study from Idaho that was done in 1973, ya know?



That brings up a good point. With this seemingly advancing trend for public based management, does any of this seem to suggest and/or imply a zero confidence vote in the DNR's ability to manage the resource?? After all, during the 2010 Additional Gear Regulation debacle, the DNR did make it clear that current regulations protect trout populations.


----------



## Trout King

TC-fisherman said:


> Does the DNR tailor regulations for every stream so each stream is at is carrying capacity? Is that a goal of the DNR? , max carrying capacity for every stream.
> 
> 
> What goals are creel and size limits based upon? (for inland trout)
> 
> 
> Are they to mazimize harvest? Maximize catching? Maximize catching alot of fish? Maximize catching big fish?
> 
> Or ensure a minimum trout population capable of reproducing?


i would hope that they would have the goal of a balance of all of these depending on the stream.
the spawning part is probably not a factor in a lot of streams because many rivers are pretty much dependent on stocking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kzoofisher

Trout King said:


> i would hope that they would have the goal of a balance of all of these depending on the stream.
> the spawning part is probably not a factor in a lot of streams because many rivers are pretty much dependent on stocking.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'd rather know than hope. Can one of the DNR biologists tell us how the goals are weighted as to balance harvest with numbers or size? What other goals they may have? I was told recently that streams that rely exclusively on stocking are being phased out so I wonder what is the benchmark for stocking an still calling the fishery sustainable? These decisions come out of Lansing and the biologists are asked only to implement them but I sure would like to know, if they can tell us. I know that around here there are a couple of streams that seem very similar and the one with plenty of public access gets the plants, the one without hasn't seen a state fish in 40 years and that seems like a good balance to me.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Is catching a fish that has been condition to C&R really catching a trophy? I would much rather utilize my skills in water reading, meteorogy & such and catch a wise ol' Fish than one that's existance is contrived....


----------



## fishinlk

> was told recently that streams that rely exclusively on stocking are being phased out


 It will be interesting to see how this works out. I'd rather see streams that are capable of sustained natural reproduction protected and not stocked. It's already been proven in other states that stocking fish over naturally reproducing fish damages the overall reproductive success. PA has completely stopped stocking their Class A bio mass streams in favor of natural reproduction and instituting creel restrictions where needed. 

This has been a great thread!


----------



## Robert Holmes

Ha it goes to show that the bigger brown trout can hide alot better.


----------



## toto

It would seem to me that trying to figure out the carrying capacity of a stream would be pretty tough, if not impossible. About the only way I can think of is stock fish and do studies down the road to see what survives, of course I'm no biologist so maybe there is another way to do it. What I do know is habitat improvements are a great way to increase fish numbers, for a variety of reasons. On that I'll agree with TU, and I think there are easy cheap ways to do it. It would just be a matter of coordinating this with the DNR, and I don't think thats out of the question at all. Another thing that could be done is to do bank restoration and tree plantings on those same banks. The planting of trees would help shade the water and therefore cool the water down a bit. Also, if narrowing the stream is possible, that would speed up the water, and also help in the cooling down process. Maybe I'm off track a bit on this, and if so I apologize now.


----------



## Butch

kzoofisher said:


> I'd rather know than hope. Can one of the DNR biologists tell us how the goals are weighted as to balance harvest with numbers or size? What other goals they may have? I was told recently that streams that rely exclusively on stocking are being phased out so I wonder what is the benchmark for stocking an still calling the fishery sustainable? These decisions come out of Lansing and the biologists are asked only to implement them but I sure would like to know, if they can tell us. I know that around here there are a couple of streams that seem very similar and the one with plenty of public access gets the plants, the one without hasn't seen a state fish in 40 years and that seems like a good balance to me.


K'zoo, From my conversations with MDNR fisheries biologists, you are expecting way too much. The standard-rules streams are not managed to this level of analysis. That's why the "you can't stockpile trout" mantra is an oversimplification. The MDNR tries to use standard rules to simplify things for fishermen, and to maintain a viable population. But there can be a big difference between "maintaining a viable population", and maximizing the number of catchable size trout, or maximizing the number of trophy trout. Thus, some fisheries could likely be improved before we get to the point of not "stockpiling" trout.

As for stocking, again, not always based solely on "science". For example, much to my continuing chagrin, the MDNR biologist (a highly respected biologist on this site) continues to prescribe stocking in my home stream even though there is significant natural reproduction. He acknowledges that there would likely be significantly more large trout if stocking was halted, but he argues that if they stopped stocking, the average fishermen wouldn't catch as many small trout, the big ones are too difficult to catch for most fishermen, and "his phone would ring off the hook" (his words). How's that for "science". 

Even more disappointing to me, he insists on stocking in the exact area of the best natural reproduction, so the "zero year" wild trout (say around 4") suddenly have to compete with the larger more aggresive stockers. Then after stressing the wild fish and competing with them for food at a critical time, the stockers die in droves because they are easy prey, and because they are not genetically prepared or conditioned to deal with the overwarm summer temperature regime in that streamthat arrives a couple months later.

Also, there are some comments in this thread about reduced limits/slot limits, or even total C&R. Those are interesting topics, and I'm intrigued by slot limits. However, this thread was directed toward those that fish standard-rules water and may keep some fish but also voluntarily C&R (probably most of us), to point out that if large trout are released, they have a good chance of surviving another year (or more).


----------



## kzoofisher

Butch said:


> K'zoo, From my conversations with MDNR fisheries biologists, you are expecting way too much. The standard-rules streams are not managed to this level of analysis. That's why the "you can't stockpile trout" mantra is an oversimplification. The MDNR tries to use standard rules to simplify things for fishermen, and to maintain a viable population. But there can be a big difference between "maintaining a viable population", and maximizing the number of catchable size trout, or maximizing the number of trophy trout. Thus, some fisheries could likely be improved before we get to the point of not "stockpiling" trout.


Butch, 
I agree with you completely about the DNR simplifying things and I think they do it because too many fisherman would rather have it simple than great. It's too bad that Lansing is willing to settle for the benchmark of "fishery not collapsing" rather than setting their sights higher. I think that the appropriate benchmark is an unexploited stream, one with good natural reproduction, good habitat and enough food to meet at least the average growth rate. The population in a stream like this would tell us a lot more about how our current management practices are actually doing. Maybe our fisheries are in fact equal to unexploited streams and can't be improved; maybe the number of posts on these forums telling us how great the fishing is if you can just get to where no one else goes tell a differnt story.


----------



## REG

swampbuck said:


> Nope, Kneff lake when the MDNR tried reintroduction in the early 90's. That was the only place they survived, but they didnt reproduce.


Also Ackerman Lake. Got my MI Grayling there.


----------



## Trout King

toto said:


> If I remember right that 30"er was caught up by Kalkaska wasn't it?? I remember reading about it, as it was pretty unusual for brown that big and not being a lake run. I've caught lake runs that big, but to me, that doesn't really count as a big river brown.


a 30 incher is my dream!my buddy got his in a mo trib above the dams, ive never caught on over 20 in that stream, but found a stream where i think it is possible. to all the guys w 30 inch stream browns, i envy you!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## itchn2fish

Trout King said:


> a 30 incher is my dream!my buddy got his in a mo trib above the dams, ive never caught on over 20 in that stream, but found a stream where i think it is possible. to all the guys w 30 inch stream browns, i envy you!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have talked to some people, most of them were old-timers that are now fishing on the Big Stream in-the-sky, and I have heard tales that they have caught or seen caught 30"+ browns AND Brookies over 30"!! I always asked, "don't you think those were lake-run?", and they would answer that some were caught in streams above dams (no way to get to Big Lake), had stream beautiful markings, and said they were definately stream trout...who knows what lurks in MI streams,,,,they do grow them big in the South, I have trout fished in Arkansas & Missouri, and them frickers grow year around and were abnormally big!


----------



## toto

Gotta love those trout streams down south, in fact I'll be going to Tenn next month. I normally fish the Caney Fork, Obey, and maybe parts of Cumberland this year, if I can find the time, I think I'll head over to the Clinch as well. The Caney Fork is where we camp and they have slot limits, but the browns need to be 23" to even think about keeping one. All in all, they've done a nice job with thier trout fishery. Would love to fish the White in Arkansas though. Another good trout stream is the Colorado below Hoover Dam in Arizona. I've fish there at a place called Willow Beach. The feds have a trout hatchery there and they plant browns, and rainbows, but when they plant them they are about 5# as the stripers in there will eat em like candy otherwise.


----------



## Ranger Ray

They grow that big in west Michigan.


----------



## METTLEFISH

The upper Hurine near Wixom has a few 30" Browns.......


----------



## swampbuck

Theres some big ones in the Ausable system also, If you know where to look.

As far as the grayling, didnt know about Ackerman. At the time, We fished Kneff for rainbows and the Grayling were basically a bait stealing nuisance, I didnt realise how fortunate we were until much later.

They Should have planted some in the Cut River, Probably the most pristine and best suited water in the NLP for them.


----------



## Trout King

i will stick to slp for the 30 inch brown quest.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fishinDon

Disclaimer: I didn't read all of this, no time.

One quick point: 

A stream managed for Trophy fish should likely not be managed at carrying capacity. Some fish should be removed, up to and including enough to get you well below carrying capacity. More food/habitat per fish = bigger fish, faster growth rates, etc. Pretty straight forward stuff. I think this is also why marginal streams tend to have HUGE browns, but not many. The food/trout ratio is off the charts for the few big boys that can survive the temps, etc.

It's the same thing with any population and this is exactly how Trophy deer are managed all over - especially in Texas. 

The fishermen harvesting some fish are likely doing the size distribution of the overall population a favor. If they could be encouraged to harvest the right fish (slot), they would be doing even better.

My 2 cents.
Don


----------



## METTLEFISH

fishinDon said:


> Disclaimer: One quick point:
> 
> 
> It's the same thing with any population and this is exactly how Trophy deer are managed all over - especially in Texas.
> 
> The fishermen harvesting some fish are likely doing the size distribution of the overall population a favor. If they could be encouraged to harvest the right fish (slot), they would be doing even better.
> 
> My 2 cents.
> Don


The south is somewhat different than our State. It is doubtful that our management will ever adopt the slot system , why?... it works. If something works, they lose jobs.


----------



## mondrella

METTLEFISH said:


> The south is somewhat different than our State. It is doubtful that our management will ever adopt the slot system , why?... it works. If something works, they lose jobs.


I dissagree with that logic. Trying to compare our rivers to the southern tailwater fisheries is crazy. Our waters change drastically to the seasons of the year. Those bottom draw dams create a very stable environment that happen to fit the niche of trout nearly perfect. Trout here battle cold temps just as much as high temps
As for the number of trophy fish in this state there is plenty if you look. I dont have a hard time finding big fish. I dont get to fish that much anymore having four children vying for my time. Yet every year for the past 10 i have put my hands on a trout over 24". Last year i only fished trout 13 times landing a 261/2" fish for my largest. Still had 2 more over 24" . Catching big trout consistently one has to break from the norm for trout. I only kept one fish over 20" last year. Personal choice.


----------



## toto

One other point on the southern tailwaters fishery. These dams are huge, and the water on the upside of these dams is like over 200 feet deep in most of those waters, at least in Tennessee, not sure of places like Arkansas, maybe shoeman knows, I know he's fished there before. What that means is they use bottom draw dams, and the water get so cold you have a hard time wading them without waders. I have fished the Caney Fork, Obey, Wautauga, and a couple of others in Tenn, and I can tell ya, they are plenty cold. The Wautauga in particular is one cold water system.


----------



## METTLEFISH

mondrella said:


> I dissagree with that logic. Trying to compare our rivers to the southern tailwater fisheries is crazy. Our waters change drastically to the seasons of the year. Those bottom draw dams create a very stable environment that happen to fit the niche of trout nearly perfect. Trout here battle cold temps just as much as high temps
> As for the number of trophy fish in this state there is plenty if you look. I dont have a hard time finding big fish. I dont get to fish that much anymore having four children vying for my time. Yet every year for the past 10 i have put my hands on a trout over 24". Last year i only fished trout 13 times landing a 261/2" fish for my largest. Still had 2 more over 24" . Catching big trout consistently one has to break from the norm for trout. I only kept one fish over 20" last year. Personal choice.


That's exactly what I said!...after the Quote from fishinDon...near optimum Temps. prevail in a LOT of Southern rivers for most if not all year long, meaning optimum growing conditions... Also I agree there are lots of big fish in Michigan, that is why I do not advocate C&R waters, though I do like slots under certain conditions.


----------



## kzoofisher

METTLEFISH said:


> That's exactly what I said!...after the Quote from fishinDon...near optimum Temps. prevail in a LOT of Southern rivers for most if not all year long, meaning optimum growing conditions... Also I agree there are lots of big fish in Michigan, that is why I do not advocate C&R waters, though I do like slots under certain conditions.


Great that you all agree; nobody thinks or said that southern streams are comparable to Michigan waters.


----------



## itchn2fish

Arkansas' & Missouris tailwater trout fisheries are similar to Tennessees. The dams were created to bring electricity to a region that previously had no electrical source. And The Roaring River in Cassville Missouri is a beautiful spring fed river that starts underground and comes bursting out of the side of a mountain and they have a hatchery situated right there along the river (I don't really reccomend this place, it's put-and-take near the hatchery, but there is a more wild feel when fishing this river way downstream from the hatchery. Cool spot to check out, though, easy for kids to fish here.) These are all a hop and a skip away from Euereka Springs, Bransen and Silver Dollar City. The Ozarks are beautiful, please go and visit sometime. AND the people will show a yankee what Southern Hospitality is all about, great, kind, friendly folks for sure.


----------



## Robert Holmes

First of all there are more large brook and brown trout out there than many people on this site can imagine. I have fished in places that rarely if ever get fished. I have seen pools in rivers that you can see 10 or more brown trout in the pool all over 20 inches long. As a kid growing up I fished a river that I would catch no less than 30 or 40 browns that exceeded 20 inches and a dozen or more brookies that exceeded 16 inches. Fishing for big trout is alot like hunting for big bucks, you either know how to do it and are good at it or you don't. I am sure many of you know deer hunters that without fail will shoot two very large bucks every year, the same goes for trout fishing. The first time that I fished on an unmentionable river in the SWLP I found what appeared to be a nice hole and used a technique that has landed many nice trout for me. Within a couple of minutes I was doing battle with a 30 inch 11 pound brown trout. I caught this fish on the opening day of trout season and the river was heavily fished that day.


----------



## TroutStlkr

Robert Holmes said:


> First of all there are more large brook and brown trout out there than many people on this site can imagine. I have fished in places that rarely if ever get fished. I have seen pools in rivers that you can see 10 or more brown trout in the pool all over 20 inches long. As a kid growing up I fished a river that I would catch no less than 30 or 40 browns that exceeded 20 inches and a dozen or more brookies that exceeded 16 inches. Fishing for big trout is alot like hunting for big bucks, you either know how to do it and are good at it or you don't. I am sure many of you know deer hunters that without fail will shoot two very large bucks every year, the same goes for trout fishing. The first time that I fished on an unmentionable river in the SWLP I found what appeared to be a nice hole and used a technique that has landed many nice trout for me. Within a couple of minutes I was doing battle with a 30 inch 11 pound brown trout. I caught this fish on the opening day of trout season and the river was heavily fished that day.


BTW, Robert these are exactly the pools I expect you to guide me to when I win that March of Dimes raffle. And I read all the fine print and see no place where it mentions the winner having to wear a blindfold or prohibiting said winner from plotting GPS coordinates to all these sleeper honey holes. :evilsmile


----------



## DFJISH




----------



## Robert Holmes

TroutStlkr said:


> BTW, Robert these are exactly the pools I expect you to guide me to when I win that March of Dimes raffle. And I read all the fine print and see no place where it mentions the winner having to wear a blindfold or prohibiting said winner from plotting GPS coordinates to all these sleeper honey holes. :evilsmile


 That is in the 1970's and 1980's in Ogemaw County and I had landowner permission to fish certain stretches of that water. I hit it pretty hard and never saw other fishermen. If you win the raffle I will put you on some prime water. I won't hold back, why should I? Catching the fish is up to you though. Good Luck. You can still buy more tickets


----------

