# Proposal would increase salmon catch limit



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Proposal would increase salmon catch limit

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2008/04/proposal_would_increase_salmon.html

04/25/08 by Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press

What is enough? Can more be less? These are questions you may want to ask about new rules in the works for Great Lakes salmon anglers.

The DNR is proposing to raise salmon catch limits to five fish from three. It is also proposing to allow anglers to use three lines rather than two for any kind of fishing, anywhere.

Anglers are being asked to share their thoughts and concerns about the proposals, which, if adopted, would go into effect in 2009. Neither is expected to have a negative biological impact on the fishery.

A DNR analysis of the new catch limit shows that perhaps 20,000 more salmon would be caught, out of a total catch of 800,000 to 900,000 fish.

"The difference is a pittance," said Jim Dexter, the Lake Michigan basin fishery chief. "What this really is, is a social issue. What is enough fish for people?"

Dexter has a unique perspective on the topic, born of years working closely with Great Lakes anglers and charter captains. He knows anglers love to catch their "limit." When the limit is three they more often go home satisfied.

When it is five, that isn't always so. Those focused on "limit" catches can go home unfulfilled with four. Legal limits, he said, have a way of establishing angler expectations.

"We know a lot of anglers can't get three fish," Dexter said. "There are going to be a lot more that can't get five."

Great Lakes anglers can currently catch five fish total, but no more than three of any one species (other than pink salmon). That means three coho or Chinook salmon or steelhead or a mixture of five.

That policy started in 1989 after the Lake Michigan salmon fishery collapsed due to Bacterial Kidney Disease. Limiting the take to three conserved what was left.

That limit has grown on some in the fishing trade. I've heard charter captains say they like the rule. Three salmon sometimes means they can go home quicker. With rising gas prices, that means less out-of-pocket costs for the captain and the customers.

Other captains have expressed concerns about what they perceive as waste; clients who hold out for a limit of five (50-100 pounds), but start whining at the cleaning station about what they will do with "all that fish."

You don't have to be Einstein to recognize that fish matter changes shape only to the extent that there is freezer space. The rest goes to friends or into the trash.

Gas prices also impact recreational anglers, those who fish from the piers or troll offshore in their own boats. Anglers who drive to Lake Michigan from Pontiac, Ann Arbor, Flint or Jackson fish less frequently these days because of gas prices and economic conditions. If they do go, some want the option of taking a five salmon.

"Three is plenty for some while five is not enough for others," Dexter said. "There is no right or wrong here."

The decision to return to a five salmon limit is something that anglers have been asking for, according to Dexter. It was also recommended in a 1990 DNR report on trout and salmon management in Lake Michigan.

Dexter maintains that there is no biological reason not to do it. Natural mortality for coho and Chinook is much greater than fishing mortality.

"There are, say 10 million Chinook swimming out in Lake Michigan," Dexter said. "We harvest just under one million of them, 10 percent. We get 20 to 30 percent dying naturally.

"Taking fewer might give us a small percentage savings in forage fish not eaten, but what that means is unknown and no matter how many we take, it may not help."

Part two of the proposal, to allow anglers to use three rods anywhere, in part, comes from anglers, who have said, 'We can use two lines, why not three?"

It is a long lament, according to Dexter, backed up by the argument that legal limits still prevail. Anglers argue it should not matter whether they use two or four rods. Either way they are only allowed 35 perch, for example. The only difference is they may catch them quicker.

Michigan anglers have been restricted to two rods for almost 100 years," said Dexter. That changed in 2001 for anglers fishing the Great Lakes.

Those who troll for salmon were allowed three rods per licensed angler. Everyone else is still required to use two. The proposed change to three is expected to simplify otherwise complicated regulations.

Anglers on Lake Huron also troll for walleye. But they are allowed only to use two lines per angler. Law enforcement becomes a challenge under those circumstances.

"The only issue we see may be space issues at the piers," Dexter said. "People may take up more space with more rods. Hopefully, etiquette will drive the day."

More space, more rods, less time spent fishing. It is an axiom only Albert Einstein could love.


----------



## stinger63 (Nov 25, 2003)

I dont realy like the reasoning behind this proposal I think raising the limit to 5 salmon is going to impact the salmon fishery more than what the DNR thinks.Of course the dnr doesnt think correctly most of the time anyways imo.Also changing the limit to 3 rods for use anywhere is going to impact smaller places on shore where access is limited.One place I know that this ruling if this proposal passes mis along the river front in port Huron also know as the wall.Theres limted space to accomadate all the fishermen as it is now.You have a few fishermen who fish with 10 poles for 5 people as it is this meens this person can use an additional 1 pole for each member of the 5 people him/her brings to fish her with the propsed 3 pole limit person thats 15 poles.The unwritten standard is everyone who fishes spreads their poles out every 4 rails apart/I persdon as it is uses 15-20ft of space do the math the space people use is going to increase up 30 ft per person.If a group or several groups of 3-5 people bring 3 poles per person its going use up more space accomdating more poles less people being able to fish.The 1st lot by the bridge can accomidate roughly 40 poles maybe a few more.Another alot closer to pine grove park can accomodate up to 48-50 poles at the current standard of which people use for setting up their poles.I do hope this propsition isnt passed as this being one of the areas I fish most frequently this is only going to cause mr sqabbles and fighting over fishing spots among the thousands of fishermen who fish here already.


----------



## friZZleFry419 (Aug 21, 2007)

5 salmon yes 3 rods no


----------



## Hunt4Ever (Sep 9, 2000)

5 salmon yes; 3 rods yes.


----------



## mkroulik (Jan 14, 2003)

I would like to see 3 lines for ice fishing. Maybe even a combination rule, 3 lines, but it can be either 2 tip-ups, and 1 jigging pole, or 2 jigging poles and 1 tip-up, but not 3 of either. I don't see this as big deal since generally you are fishing for completely different species.

As for 3 salmon vs 5. Maybe early season it could be 5, and from August 1st on it would be 3. Come August those fish stack up like cord wood, and with the number of boats out there and usually 2-4 people on a boat, that could have a pretty significant impact. To say anglers would only take 20,000 more fish I think is a huge under estimation. You figure 75 boats per port per day in Lake Michigan in August. Which I think is way low too. Say 10 ports, Average 3 people per boat, and 2 extra salmon each. That's 4500 fish per day. You could reach 20,000 in a week in late august. I didn't notice if it mentioned this, but would that raise the limit to 7, and no more than 5 kings or coho, or would it be 5 and no furhter restrictions, or would it be 5 total, but no more than 3 trout, but up to 5 kings or coho? Anyone have any idea?

Mike


----------



## Sixshooter (Mar 16, 2003)

I would assume it would be 5 in any combination but no more than 3 steelhead/browns or no more than 2 lakers. But if you catch all kings and cohos then so be it.

I don't have a problem with this at all.

In fact is is WAY overdue. all the other states that border lake michigan already allow 5 salmon. Michigan is the odd ball. Plus they are limiting planting because they state there are too many predetors for the prey. 

So why not remove a few more fish.

Besides the cost of gas is going to get people fishing less so even with teh 5 salmon I don't think catch numbers are going to be that much higher than previous years.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 28, 2008

CONTACT: Todd Grischke 517-373-6762, Jim Dexter 269-685-6851, Kelley
Smith 517-373-3375 or Mary Dettloff 517-335-3014

DNR Seeks Input on Requests for Changes in Salmon Daily Bag Limits 

The Department of Natural Resources today announced that Fisheries Division is seeking public input on a draft proposal to increase the daily bag limit for Chinook salmon and Coho salmon to five fish per day. If adopted, the regulation would apply on all Great Lakes and rivers.

The regulations currently in place for trout and salmon in all waters of the State set the daily bag limit at five fish in any combination but no more than three of any one species, except that up to five pink salmon may be harvested. The proposed change would increase the harvest limit for Chinook salmon and Coho salmon to five daily in combination or for either species. The DNR does not believe that any increase to the daily bag limit for these two species would be biologically harmful. Bag limits for all other species of trout and salmon would remain unchanged.

The current regulations for salmon have been in place since 1989. Prior to 1989, the daily limit was five fish in any combination for all trout and salmon species except lake trout. The limit was changed due to bacterial kidney disease decimating Chinook populations in the late 1980s, and anglers voicing the opinion that three fish of any species was a reasonable daily harvest.

A higher daily bag limit for these two species could result in a limited number of additional fish being harvested, but only when populations are high and catch rates are high, said DNR Lake Michigan Basic Coordinator Jim Dexter. This situation may be experienced in localized areas or waters. 

Dexter added that if large increases in river harvest became the norm that reproductive potential could be lost. While there is currently no information available to quantify this possibility, there is no reason to believe that reproductive potential will be lost by increasing the daily bag limit.

DNR Fisheries Division Chief Kelley Smith said that because Lakes Superior, Huron and Erie have low salmon populations and catch rates, this type of change would mean little to anglers in those waters. 

This is about providing consistent opportunity for anglers and maintaining our commitment to simplify regulations. Any bag limit change for these two species will not be harmful to their populations, said Smith.

Smith added that the current limit is not effective in terms of limiting catch in most years or controlling populations. Natural mortality exerts much more control than angler harvest.

For all reasonable purposes this is a social question, said Dexter. Most anglers never catch a daily limit, although in times of high abundance their catch rate can increase.

A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list has been posted to the DNR Web site and is available at www.michigan.gov/dnr under the Fishing menu. The angling community is invited to review this document and send email comments on the proposal by June 13 to [email protected]. For those who do not have internet access, a copy of the FAQ can be obtained by calling one of the contacts listed.

The DNR is committed to conservation, protection, management, use and
enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

Personally I don't care for the 3 rods anywhere thing. Not so bad in a boat but like on the piers or other public places that get crowded and common sense doesn't exsist...nope. 
Most times 1 rod is enough for me .
Not that I am a limit fisherman but the limit used to be 5 anyways. So what did going to 3 all those years ago accomplish if it's OK to go back to 5 now? Whatever is good for the fishery IMO.
Just my .02 on it.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Hell no on a five fish limit...and I will be sending the DNR my thoughts on this.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

You know, we're supposed to be in this together as anglers, but what this does is let the big lake guys box up all the fish and leave us river guys with d**k...and that is not OK with me. Some of us actually know how to fish for salmon in the lower rivers with no snagging, lining, etc. I, in fact, enjoy it a hell of a lot more than I do my steelhead fishing. So, I spend a lot of money each year on lures, lodging, ect and for what? A diminished fishery because the big lake guys are boxing up all the fish. BS. 

As one can tell, I am not happy about this in the least bit. :rant:


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

Steve, the big lake guys have always held priority over the river guys, BS in my opinion.....


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

ausable_steelhead said:


> Steve, the big lake guys have always held priority over the river guys, BS in my opinion.....


Well yeah, that's a given, but this is pure BS plain and simple. It really does amount to them getting all the benefits and us river guys getting d*cked yet again. What good is us getting that third plug rod or whatever when most of the fish are gonna be boxed up like a *&^%$# as soon as they get stacked up within a mile of the pierheads. Might as well put a gill net at the river mouths and give us river rats a middle finger in the process.


----------



## Tom 26133 (Feb 28, 2007)

I think it is way over due for a five salmon limit and a three rod limit. have you ever tried to find crappie in the summer spider rigging with two or four rods. six would be way more fun. And i do catch and release crappie to help the population.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

It seems as though the Majority of salmon anglers in Michigan are in favor of the increase. Its never gonna apeal to everyone! There are lots of rules that PO one group or another. Majority of salmon that come in the river die without going in anyones cooler. No reason that they can't be harvested by those who want them.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Spanky said:


> It seems as though the Majority of salmon anglers in Michigan are in favor of the increase. Its never gonna apeal to everyone! There are lots of rules that PO one group or another. Majority of salmon that come in the river die without going in anyones cooler. No reason that they can't be harvested by those who want them.


Well, my point is that with a five fish limit, there's gonna be a whole lot more harvesting going on before us river guys can even get a crack at 'em...which means we get the short end of the stick yet again. Like I said, what good is that third rod if most of the fish have already been harvested? 

I know I'm in the minority on this issue, but damn...this shaft the river guys crap is getting ridiculous.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

i am all for 5 fish coho/salmon. only 1 problem i fish in lake huron which is mission impossible right now for a 3 fish limit,:lol: but it's a nice jesture for us guys if we can ever get a hot day on the poles.:coolgleam


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

I know what ya mean, I am a river guy too!
But the river guys get a crack at em for 1 month, maybe 2 at max, the other anglers fish for them for 5-6 months, so should the limits be driven by a minority of anglers who fish fot these fish 1/3 of the time as the majority. Its just common sense and math. TC, you seem to do real well for river kings, I doubt that you will notice any decline in your catch rates over a salmon limit increase. All the other states have it, why punish michigan anglers, to keep it at 3.

I also think that your comment about the MSSFA being anything less than a great group, is wrong to state in public, or print. You should know better!
Who goes to bat for many of michigan fisheries? Who helps continuously with statewide netpen projects, and has done so for dozens of years.I could list a bunch of stuff that the Michigan steelheaders do for michigans natural resources and its youth,senior, handicapped anglers. Your selfish attempt to blast another organization in hopes of proving your point, or getting things YOUR way has again, placed your foot into your mouth. I hope your ego is satisfied, and the foot is clean!

Have a nice day!


----------



## greelhappy (Feb 20, 2004)

Admit it guys, if you were allowed to use 100 lines, someone would have 101.:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

I myself think they should do it for lake Michigan!! Not that i really need that many more fish but we need to thin the population down so we can get healthier fish and get the bait population back up so we can have bigger kings again!! I dont think the lake guys are gonna deplete the salmon population that much if they raise the limit, there will be plenty of fish in the rivers to catch!!

Scott


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Spanky said:


> I know what ya mean, I am a river guy too!
> But the river guys get a crack at em for 1 month, maybe 2 at max, the other anglers fish for them for 5-6 months, so should the limits be driven by a minority of anglers who fish fot these fish 1/3 of the time as the majority. Its just common sense and math. TC, you seem to do real well for river kings, I doubt that you will notice any decline in your catch rates over a salmon limit increase. All the other states have it, why punish michigan anglers, to keep it at 3.
> 
> I also think that your comment about the MSSFA being anything less than a great group, is wrong to state in public, or print. You should know better!
> ...


Spanky, 

I have no arguments or beef's with you, my friend, but I was not happy with said organization when I belonged many years ago. Granted, I'm speaking from past experience and if things have changed within that organization, then I'll apologize for that statement. What I encountered in the early to mid 90's however, left a bad taste in my mouth, ya know? That's where my statement came from.

You're right...I should know better than to make comments like that. Sometime emotion gets the better of me and I say some stupid things. I'll just continue to say I'm not happy about this five fish proposal and leave it at that.


----------



## fishlkmich (Sep 18, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> You know, we're supposed to be in this together as anglers, but what this does is let the big lake guys box up all the fish and leave us river guys with d**k...and that is not OK with me. Some of us actually know how to fish for salmon in the lower rivers with no snagging, lining, etc. I, in fact, enjoy it a hell of a lot more than I do my steelhead fishing. So, I spend a lot of money each year on lures, lodging, ect and for what? A diminished fishery because the big lake guys are boxing up all the fish. BS.
> 
> As one can tell, I am not happy about this in the least bit. :rant:


How much do you spend on all of that? What is "a lot" to you? I spent $30,000 on a boat, $16,000 on a camper, $19,000 on a truck to pull the boat and haul the camper, $40,000 to replace the old truck with a new one, $40,000 on a parcel of land for a fish camp, $18,000 on a barn to keep the boat and camper in, about $10,000 on electronics and gear (probably more) and because I NEED a big truck I get 13 MPG and have the 38 gallon tank required to get very far. The boat has an 80 gallon tank to fill. Taxes on the land are a couple of grand a year. A slip costs me a few hundred per week and then there are repairs plus additional expenses.

Now you are crying because we get the SAME limit of fish and you spend "a lot"?:gaga: You can catch salmon during the summer months, too. You don't have to wait until they get in the rivers. You have to watch the surface temps. When I'm fishing the top 30' because it's 44 degrees at 30' you can slay your five fish limit from the pier. You would probably do better than I do because I won't get close to a pier, where the bait is when the big lake is cold on top.

I'm sorry, but if the boat fishermen did get some sort of advantage it would still be difficult for you to make a valid argument. We have thousands of square miles of lake and have to find fish. You have them at your feet. We INVEST a LOT more money and a LOT more time at the sport than shore fishermen. When the wind blows you can fish and we can't. When lightening is possible we have to wait until we are sure that the storms pass, but you can fish. Spare me the "diminished fishery" whine, please.

I fished in rivers and from the piers and surf for almost 30 years before I got a Great Lakes boat. I took plenty of five fish limits before it went to three fish and a LOT of guys had boats way back then. I took a LOT of five fish combination limits after the limit went to three. I gave it all up as soon as I could afford to get away from the combat fishing. Four or five guys would hog the end of a pier, with two rods each, at 3:00AM. When I showed up at 4:00AM it was too late. Now you want three rods? I remember taking five salmon and releasing five salmon on one rod in one night. Why any shore fisherman would advocate a three rod limit is beyond me. It will make a bad situation even worse.

Shore fishing is a lot easier than big lake fishing. Fish are more concentrated when fishing from shore than they are in the open Great Lakes. We should be allowed an extra rod and five fish if we are lucky enough to put them in the box. Common theory has it that if we do take more fish it will actually be better for you in the long run. You will have larger fish returning to spawn. Thank a boat fisherman today!


----------



## Blueump (Aug 20, 2005)

fishlkmich said:


> Shore fishing is a lot easier than big lake fishing. Fish are more concentrated when fishing from shore than they are in the open Great Lakes.


*THAT* quote is unbelievable! I've fished from shore all my life, and only fished from a boat starting this past summer. I caught more fish this past summer from the boat than I had in my entire life from shore!

Fish *ARE *more concentrated, which means when they are not near shore...you won't catch them...they aren't there! In a boat at least you can move to find them.

A 5 fish limit will definitely help the big water boat fisherman more than the shore fisherman. 3 fish from shore, river, or pier is a great day of fishing. How many charter captains however come back early each fall due to limiting out with 3 per person. This will give them an opportunity to fish longer, catch more fish, and yes...even increase their rates.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

This is very simple for me. If science is used to determine if less fish can be kept, than the same science should be used to determine if more fish can be kept assuming only science will be used.
The reason they changed the limit from 5 to 3 was for political reasons because the river guys felt the big lake guys were keeping a bigger share of the fish.

As Jim Dexter stated in the report it may mean the lake guys will keep perhaps 20,000 more fish which is a very small percentage. Personally if you figure in the increase in gas prices, I believe that number will be much smaller because less people will be fishing the big lakes.

In the end, we should rely on the experts and not on emotions.


----------



## 7MM Magnum (Sep 10, 2003)

Ya' know,.... I too am for the increase to 5 fish. 

I spent tons of $$ for my boat, gear, electronics, 100 gallon fill ups,... matter of fact I just got done shelling out for a new engine for the dang thing and just installed it this past weekend. (350 cu. in. / V8 )

Talk about contributing to the economy ,... I'm not rich by any means. 

My fishing this year will probably average out to my fish costing me $50 per pound. I really don't get to go out as much as I'd like,.. but I try to get out whenever I can.

The people that REALLY need to have some tighter regulations on limits are the Indian tribes and their nets! :rant: Hell,.. they can't even conform to the proper marking of the nets let alone what they take and how much! I don't know how many times I just barely avoided nets do to them being marked only with plastic milk jugs if anything at all. Those dang things look like seagulls bobbing up and down till your right on em'.

3 years ago I had to cut 2 rigger cables due to no markings at all (was NOT happy) It's a good thing I had the where-with-all to carry a good pair of wire cutters. 

For the amount of money I spend every year and this year probably twice as much due to the outrageous fuel prices. That increase alone forced me to go out and get a 30 hp. outboard kicker motor to do my trolling with to try and get *some* *relief* from the fuel cost increase 100 gallons at $3.67 a gallon,.. do the math. It's not a cheap venture for those of us who get out on the water, as opposed to the shoreside fishermen. :16suspect The fuel bill alone will kill you!

Just my personal opinion


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

A poll would be interesting. Not sure how I'd vote though. 
I would like to think the DNR knows what it is up to, but after the chumming thing I ain't so sure. They haven't really crashed again yet but I wouldn't want to see that happen.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> This is very simple for me. If science is used to determine if less fish can be kept, than the same science should be used to determine if more fish can be kept assuming only science will be used.
> The reason they changed the limit from 5 to 3 was for political reasons because the river guys felt the big lake guys were keeping a bigger share of the fish.
> 
> As Jim Dexter stated in the report it may mean the lake guys will keep perhaps 20,000 more fish which is a very small percentage. Personally if you figure in the increase in gas prices, I believe that number will be much smaller because less people will be fishing the big lakes.
> ...


Ray,

Read the statements from Dexter and Kelly Smith--where was science used in this? In fact, even Dexter stated it's a social issue and the over all effects are unknown. Flies only designations are also social issues...and our temporary chumming ban...and...and...and.

So, what's it gonna be out there--five kings and then you can still get your three steelhead? How about five and done if they really want to make this socially acceptable? Get your five kings and head back to the dock...not get your five and then change tactics so you can go get your three steelhead as well.


----------



## 7MM Magnum (Sep 10, 2003)

Well after finally getting around to reading all of the input from everyone so far it's beginning to sound kinda' like the crossbow issue thread. 

There's a pretty simple solution for all of you out there griping about not getting your share of fish from the rivers and piers,....


*Buy yourselves a boat !! :16suspect *



I fished from the shore for a few years myself before I decided to get one. Every damn time I'd get to a dock, pier, breakwall, there'd be no place to put your line in,.. and when you did find what looked like a spot someone would walk down to your newly found spot claiming it was their's,... *"WHAT you didn't see my EMPTY chair right there???" " I just went up further to see how they were bitin' up thata' way for a bit and was coming right back".*

Yeah,... BS !! 

IF you want to be able to reap the rewards of big water fishing your gonna' have to let loose of those "purse-strings" and let a few pieces of change hit the dirt like the rest of us had to. Your not going to get ANY sympathy from this angler. 

And I'll tell you right now,... it isn't going to get ANY cheaper to get one the longer you wait to do it ! 

Not to leave out the costs of maintenance and upkeep on all of it to boot.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Steve,

They are scientist and I dont think we should try to require some kind of study before they make every decision. They make both scientific and social decisions as evidenced in the chumming fiasco . If this is a decision based on some lobbying effort I would be against it. If through their experience and professional opinion they think the fishery is being under utilized I would back them.

I know they changed the limits from 5 to 3 for non scientific reasons and the fishery was okay before that rule change. I think there are other factors that affect the fishery much more than sport fishing. The decline in the bait fish population, gill netting, other commercial harvest or even cormorants all have a greater influence in my opinion.

I have no dog in this fight. I probably wont even fish for salmon unless they invade the big hole just below my cabin and I doubt I will keep any even if I am lucky enough to hook one. I say the DNR are our managers, so let them manage. We cant let the Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia chumming stink from the Resource Sellouts and the ethics of Mr David P. Borgeson linger on the DNR and Mr. Dexter forever.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

7MM Magnum said:


> Well after finally getting around to reading all of the input from everyone so far it's beginning to sound kinda' like the crossbow issue thread.
> 
> There's a pretty simple solution for all of you out there griping about not getting your share of fish from the rivers and piers,....
> 
> ...


Some might get the impression that I'm against the big lake guys--and it's easy to get that impression, I'll openly admit. However, I have no issues with the big lake fishermen because I was one for several years and if it weren't for acute motion sickness, I'd still be one on a regular basis...hell, I still look at big lake boats and think, "damn...one of these days I gotta get another one!" LOL!!! Even said, I've always been a river rat and I get far more enjoyment tossing a crankbait or drifting skein under a bobber than I do watching rod tips on the open water. The problem for me with this is that the DNR seems to think that it's OK to allow greater harvest out there, while diminishing the river returns in the process. That's my point of contention, not something against the big lake guys in general. Like I said, I was one for quite a while. 

Suffice to say, I don't support the limit increase, but I also recognize it's basically a done deal. Doesn't mean I'm gonna roll over, bite the pillow and enjoy it, but to me it's another reason why my support for the DNR has diminished greatly.

By the way, I do have a boat. You don't think I'm fishing the rivers from shore do ya? LOL!!!


----------



## 7MM Magnum (Sep 10, 2003)

thousandcasts said:


> Some might get the impression that I'm against the big lake guys--and it's easy to get that impression, I'll openly admit. However, I have no issues with the big lake fishermen because I was one for several years and if it weren't for acute motion sickness, I'd still be one on a regular basis...hell, I still look at big lake boats and think, "damn...one of these days I gotta get another one!" LOL!!! Even said, I've always been a river rat and I get far more enjoyment tossing a crankbait or drifting skein under a bobber than I do watching rod tips on the open water. The problem for me with this is that the DNR seems to think that it's OK to allow greater harvest out there, while diminishing the river returns in the process. That's my point of contention, not something against the big lake guys in general. Like I said, I was one for quite a while.
> 
> Suffice to say, I don't support the limit increase, but I also recognize it's basically a done deal. Doesn't mean I'm gonna roll over, bite the pillow and enjoy it, but to me it's another reason why my support for the DNR has diminished greatly.
> 
> By the way, I do have a boat. You don't think I'm fishing the rivers from shore do ya? LOL!!!


I understand what your saying but even still no one said you had to troll while out on the big water.

You can cast, still fish, vertical jig, and even drift around with a drift sock. 

As for the motion sickness they've got meds for that stuff,.. no reason to keep yourself off the water and land-locked. The first boat I got was a 16 ft aluminum,.. 9 hp outboard and an electric trolling motor. That's good enough to get you off the banks and out in the water. You need not venture out very far if you choose not to. For that matter,.. you could manuver your way to the other side of the docks and piers parallel to the spots you liked on the pier and have the whole area to yourself. 

I did just that for a while,... and that guy with his spot and his chair I had supposedly taken,... guess what,.... I was directly across from him for a week, talk about a guy who was pissed. Not a thing he could do about it unless he could walk water. :lol:

Your options are endless when you get on the water. An' by the way,... I still own that 16 footer and still use it on occasion.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

Its gonna be 5 fish period, not 5 plus three, or two, or anymore.FIVE!


the temporary ban on chumming is not a social issue, it is science based, and a federal order because of VHS>

Like oldgrandman said, 'I hope it is based on science", It is, and if things change with the indicators, the rules/bag limits will be adjusted.

The Department is doing a fine job managing our salmon, and continue to plant less, yet healthier fish every year.



As far as the MIchigan Steelhead and Salmon Fishermans Association goes, they have been a voice in this state for 40 yrs, and continue to be a strong Organization. The whole beginning to this dream, began right here in my little town of Kalamazoo, many , many years ago by three men with the foresight to apply themselves for what they believed in. Today the MSSFA has grown to thousands of paid members, and is a powerful partner in the fight for:
Balast Water reform
Tribal net issues,
pollution awareness, 
Habitat rejuvination
programs for the handicapped
education workshops for the public
netpen projects through out the state
volunteer work within the DNR
fundraisers for numerous programs. The list goes on and on.

Anyone who knows me, or has spoken with me in person knows I support this group. How do they know? Every day I wear a T shirt, that carries the MSSFA logo on its left side, and my name on its right. I wear a jacket, that does the same, I have stickers on my boats and vehichles, all of them,Hats, can cozeys, you name it> ia am involved with ALOT of different public groups from fishing, to sports, BBQ, home builders ect. The MSSFA logo, goes where I go. It is a part of my life, and my families life. They all have been to functions and events held by different local chapters. I was a steelheader, before I was a man. Has it changed, you bet. Has anyone else on this forum changed in 30-40 yrs? I think so. Does the MSSFA have clicks, or different groups who do things different, well, they are composed of PEOPLE, so I guess that would be expected.
TC, you have already stated that your emotions may have fogged your perception, or intentions of the MSSFA, and apologized, I can accept that. If you have issues with the organization, you are allowed your opinion, and I can understand that. But to lump this whole MSSFA machine into a bunch of meat fishermen,or to think that we are all Big water trollers, is a mistake. Quite a few chapters are made up of a majority of river anglers. Almost all chapters have anglers who do both, like myself.

It should NEVER be a river thing vs. a Lake thing. Its a fishery thing. The Lake and the river are both parts of the equation. Like someone else said, if you feel cheated in the amount of fish you can get in the river, get a boat, or get onboard with some good friends/captains that may need someone to go along and share the expenses. Variety is the spice of life, and to just be good at one kind of fishing is just plain cheating yourself.

the last thing I will say about this, is lets let the DNR do their job. They have been managing fish for well over 100 years. They have educated personel, and a growing database.They take care of our resources every day, while we work. On weekends we get to go fishing or hunting, and some folks who don't do well, or understand the issues, go back to work on monday and blame others for their poor fishing, or the bathrooms at a certain facility being closed, or a stump in the river that wasn't there last spring. BIG PICTURE, thats what we need to focus on, thes little trivial digs, or personal issues about something that happen 2-3 yrs ago, that stuff is old. Move on, get over it. 

The 5 salmon change has been in the works for a long time, it has been a discusion point in almost every meeting I have ever been to. Some are in favor, some not. If your not, then don't keep 5, if you are then support the change. In the spring when there is nothing but cohos, and they are the 2-3 lbers, well its a long drive for some, and a few bucks to drive to the lake, and get the 6 or 9 cohos and then go home after 3 hrs of fishing, many have spent that long on the road getting there for4-6 lbs of fillets. This increase allows them a few more fillets and perhaps a couple more hrs on the water. Many ports , especially the southern ones, have very few steelhead or browns and depend on the salmon for their catches, through alot of the season.

Charters captains are mixed on the increase, the ones who only run 1 trip a day are in favor, the captains that can "squeeze" 3 in a day are not in favor, because the longer fishing time will change their timetable. That has also been part of the discusion for many years.

There are some public meetings to voice your opinions, so thats what you guys should do , If you Don't want it, as of now , It is on track to happen in 09.

good day!


----------



## adjusted3 (Feb 3, 2003)

Dan,

When I read this statement from the DNR:

*"The regulations currently in place for trout and salmon in all waters of the State set the daily bag limit at five fish in any combination but no more than three of any one species, except that up to five pink salmon may be harvested. The proposed change would increase the harvest limit for Chinook salmon and Coho salmon to five daily in combination or for either species. The DNR does not believe that any increase to the daily bag limit for these two species would be biologically harmful. Bag limits for all other species of trout and salmon would remain unchanged."*

It concerns me. Based on what you say and I trust you are in the know, the limit will be at 5-period.

But what I am reading is that it will be like the pinks.... 5 salmon and 3 "others" unless I am taking that quote out of context. Many of us are very successfull at taking a DNR limit and cathcing our "off" fish. I just cannot see keeping 8 fish per person x 3 on a recreational boat for 24 fish!! That is insane...at the same time, is it 5 fish period? 5 steel? 5 browns? 5 lakers? I am not so sure about that as well. I have had many days that I could of taken 5 per person limits of steels off shore with little effort. Same with lakers. I target fish--I don't fish for what ever bites.... Over the last several years, I have moved over to target fishing which is whole different ball game. 

Danny, 

You know how much I respect the fishery as well as the DNR. I am just concerned with where this is going. If they go to a 5 salmon +3 or a 3/2 of other species, or a 5 of any, I can see mass confusion over that one. Can you clairify this a bit from what you understand?

Mark


----------



## adjusted3 (Feb 3, 2003)

OK 

I just got off the phone with Dan....Now I am on board

It is 5 period....

3 of any species... add two salmon. 

3 steels, 1 brown, 1 salmon....

2 of any species, add 3 salmon......

5 salmon.....

end result is it is a 3/2 species, but you can keep 5 salmon as your 5. 

I am good with that. 

Mark


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> As for the motion sickness they've got meds for that stuff,.. no reason to keep yourself off the water and land-locked. The first boat I got was a 16 ft aluminum,.. 9 hp outboard and an electric trolling motor. That's good enough to get you off the banks and out in the water. You need not venture out very far if you choose not to. For that matter,.. you could manuver your way to the other side of the docks and piers parallel to the spots you liked on the pier and have the whole area to yourself.


I had a 22' with 250 i/o and the bells and whistles. Believe me, I tried the meds, the bracelets, voodoo and anything other than glass calm had me chumming like a *&^%$!! :lol:


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

adjusted3 said:


> OK
> 
> I just got off the phone with Dan....Now I am on board
> 
> ...


That's far better than a 5 + 3 scenario. 

This whole thing has me thinking even further. The whole three salmon limit came about during the BKD salmon crash back in the early 90's. So did the closing of Manistee lake at the mouth of the Little Manistee from Sept. 6 to until they get their quota of eggs. The point was to make sure that enough fish made it to the wier, since salmon numbers were at a drastic low. Now, if salmon aren't at a shortage, then why keep the closure in effect? They open the river up to fishing on April 1st during the peak of their spring steelhead egg take, why keep closing an entire section of Manistee lake every year from September 6 until mid-October? 

If there's enough salmon to justify an increase to the five fish limit, then isn't there enough to drop the Manistee Lake closure every Sept.?


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

You talk about gay, tightling in the old stinkhole!


----------



## suckerbass (May 30, 2003)

adjusted3 said:


> OK
> 
> I just got off the phone with Dan....Now I am on board
> 
> ...


I'm all for it!!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

plugger said:


> You talk about gay, tightling in the old stinkhole!


Very. There's also some great legit fishing available there, though. cranks, skein...damn good fishing.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 21, 2008)

I think the 5 fish and 3 rod will be a good change. I really don't think it will hurt the fishery.


----------



## Fixin' to Fish (Nov 13, 2006)

This is quite the interesting topic because of all the many factors involved in coming up with a good plan for this. I feel the issue lies between these two groups "weekend boats" and the "charter boats." However this issue also looks at topics such as "whats good for the fishery" vs. "whats good for the customer." Personally I like the 3/5 rule, but don't see any good reasons beyond "helping the fishery" for the 5 fish rule. I typically think the *worst excuse* is the one where _someone complains that they spend all this money on fishing equipment, their boat, fuel, the 6 hour drive to the boat launch and then complain that they catch their limit in an hour and have to go home. 

_Disappointing, I know. I wish i had that problem. It's like they are blind and can't see that they already have the option to catch 5 fish, but just 2 of them have to be a different species. If they have issues targeting other species they should be reading or posting on the forum here for more insight on how to target other species. Sure they may kill some fish along the way, but I thought the reason for the proposed increase is to get some of the salmon out of the system anyway.

As far as the rod rule goes, i would say keep it how it is. The dam and the piers would be ridiculous if it was raised to three. There would need to be a special restriction for piers and dams or something.

*My proposed solution:*
Since I work on charter boats I have a may have gained a bias here, but this is what i think would work. They should just make the one-day licenses still restricted to the current 3/5 rule. I would guess that about 90% of charter customers come to the dock without any license and then buy their one-day license right on the boat(as they are expected too). Then there is also the other 10% that already possess an all-species annual fishing license. *I think that this "restricted one-day" scenario would be the best of both worlds because many charters are completely composed of the "one-day license people" and this program could reap the following possible benefits:*
1. Trips ending early (save on fuel $$)

2. Not sending the customers home with more fish than they can handle. (You would seriously have to see this to believe it, I don't think I can even count the number of customers that come with a lunch cooler and expect me to fit their fish in there. I also have had numerous customers offer me some of their catch, nice gesture, but I seriously have plenty already)

3. Customers get the satisfaction of catching "a limit." 
(I really don't care who you are, but catching a limit typically makes most feel good about themselves because it gives one a sense of accomplishment, and when the customer is happy at the end of the day everyone wins _usually_) 

_*Ok, sure this looks all great for the charter boats, but what are the benefits for everyone else?(some of the things I could think of)

*_1. Everyone that bought a fishing license will still get to take their 5 fish if they want them.

2. If a charter customer does want to catch their 5 fish limit then they should just go out and buy an annual license. This would force some people to buy an annual fishing license and would cause more money going to the DNR.

3. Help the fishery without hurting the economy surrounding it.


*Final thoughts:
*I believe that we need to do what is best for the fishery yet at the same time we need to pay close attention as to how these changes will effect the economy surrounding it.(charter boats + bait companies). I believe it would be really hard for anyone to say that we always need to do what is best for the fishery all the time. If that was the case, what would happen if they said that the best thing for the fishery is if that no one fishes it for the next 5 years. A scenario like that would put a lot of people out of business.


----------

