# Do you agree with the 5 fish limit for the rivers?



## stelmon (Sep 21, 2000)

What do you guys think of the 5 fish limit being allowed for the rivers? I think if natural reproduction is ever going to take off, it's a bad idea. Seriously, who needs 5 nasty kings anyhow? I could see keeping 5 for your only yearly egg take, but for people that fish alot, I think it's over kill. Opinions?

Email from the DNR:

"Thank you for taking time out of your valuable schedule to assist Fisheries Division and the Department of Natural Resources in our request for your opinion of the proposed change to a Statewide fishing regulation to increase the Daily Bag Limit (DBL) for salmon in the Great Lakes. This proposal included increasing the DBL from a maximum of 3 to maximum of 5 fish, in combination with other trout species. Your input is highly valued and we considered each response in our formulation of the final recommendation. We heard from nearly 300 interested citizens and approximately 70% of those responses were in favor of increasing the DBL for salmon to 5 fish per day.

The proposed rule change to allow for up to 5 salmon per day (no more than 3 of the 5 can be brown trout, lake trout or steelhead) was discussed at three monthly meetings of the Natural Resources Commission. The Michigan Charter Boat Association and about 30% of the survey responses were not in favor of increasing the DBL for various reasons. Each comment that we received along with the discussion we had with anglers presented legitimate points of view, regardless of opinion. Because this regulation does not have a major biological impact, we feel that alternate views are important and that the decision should be primarily based on social considerations. On December 10, 2008, the proposal to increase the DBL for salmon in all public waters, in combination with other trout species, was approved and will become effective April 1, 2009. However, this regulation change incorporates a new management tool that provides an objective evaluation that will allow the Department to modify the bag limit for salmon if fishing success and catch rates changes significantly.

Fisheries Division staff spent a considerable amount of time assessing the comments and concerns submitted by you and we used those comments in the development of a suitable proposal to move forward with a regulation change. A proactive approach (attached) was detailed in November that evaluated the catch per effort of Charter anglers (fish caught per hour) for Chinook salmon over a 22 year period, and assessed Charter anglers catching 3 or more Chinook salmon per day. Using our established data from mandatory charter boat reporting for Lake Michigan, baselines were established for catch rates (0.165 fish per hour) and angler success of catching 3 or more salmon per day (13.1%) which represented "breaking points" based on real data where the DBL could be changed.

Currently both of these benchmarks are being exceeded, which means that catch rates and angler success is high. Under this new proactive approach, both of these benchmarks will need to fall below their baseline values to change the regulation (decrease the DBL back to three). If just one of the indicators drop below the baseline, the regulation will remain in place for a 5 fish DBL in combination. Likewise, if the regulations revert back to 3 fish (meaning both falling below baseline levels), it will take both benchmarks to improve beyond their respective baseline values in order for the Department to change the DBL back to 5.

This tool gives the Department the ability to be more proactive, providing opportunity for annual review, and implement regulation changes as needed using this predefined management tool. When fishing is really good and salmon abundance is high, the 5 fish limit would likely be in effect. Conversely, when fishing is really poor and there are perhaps not as many fish, the limit would revert to 3. The Department will have the ability to make this assessment and consider a regulation change each year based on that years fishery data.

A short briefing is attached that provides the context of evaluating these benchmarks."


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

With the great lakes being overpopulated it is prudent to encourage greater harvest of salmon. Many of the kings are naturaly reproducing fish so a river harvest would make sense.


----------



## Fishbone (Oct 10, 2008)

Kinda funny worrying about someone else keeping 5 fish if they are so nasty.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Fishing was GREAT when the limit used to be 5 Salmonids, in any combination, in a day. A lot of things have changed since then - like Zebra and Quagga Mussels, and the fact that Kings are able to reproduce successfully in many rivers and streams. 

It doesn't really take all that many Salmon to lay enough eggs to hatch all the Salmon a river can sustain until they smolt. If fewer are hatched, then many fewer will be preyed on by larger fish, and enough will be able to smolt to maintain a population. Numbers will naturally increase and decrease with fluctuations in the ecosystem. I don't think increasing the daily bag limit to 5/day will negatively affect the fisheries - although I believe the Mussels will continue to cause bigger and bigger probems as time goes by. If the Alewives disappear, the Kings will also become very scarce. That would have nothing to do with harvest limits.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

That's enough gut/skein/loose eggs to last thru the steelhead "season". If they proposed a 5 fish limit for steelhead, I would be in disagreement but we are talking about salmon afterall, which haven't been able to adapt to other sources of food other than alewives or shad. Obviously, we are experiencing "forage base" issues for salmon in the big lakes so if we get things in balance, the fish will end up larger and healthier. Fortunately, steelhead eat bugs and other food in Lake Michigan.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 21, 2001)

I do not agree, but that is purely for selfish reasons and has nothing to do with biological ones, future returns, etc.

When I say selfish reasons, I do not, however, mean selfish for just myself, but rather for everyone who enjoys catching Salmon in our streams during the full course of a particular run...

You see, my take on "catch & release" is very different from many others in that I think the DNR does a very good job and is correct in most cases about the biological impacts of their rulings, but what they do not take into consideration is that every single fish kept is one more fish another angler will not ever have a chance catch. In that, there can be no argument...

In other words, every time I catch a big 'ole silver King on a Thunderstick down by Twin Bridges, Scottville or Custer and then let it go, I have almost 100% certainly made "at least" one other anglers day (Assuming the next guy kept it.) by allowing him to catch that fish as well during the course of that season.

There is only a finite number of fish that ascend the river during the course of any given run and the more we let go to do their thing, the more anglers that get to catch more fish during that particular run. My argument (If you want to call it that, I guess I'm not really all that fired up about this either way, just board at work right now.) is NOT that it's going to hurt future runs, it is that it will, without a doubt, make this particular run that much shorter and that much more unsuccessful for the next guy up the river. (Yes, that includes my guide clients as well as everyone else's and every other guy that comes here to fish on their own, I did say it was selfish!  )

All that being said, our Salmon run is the *very least *of my worries here on the PM, from all accounts we had about the best run we've had in a long time in '08 while other streams that might get some decent reproduction, but have been very reliant on plants in the past did not get nearly the runs they've had in the past.

I actually get a kick out of watching fish that are any color other than silver being strung up for eating purposes, these things die from the inside out you know?!? Just compare the meat color of one from the lake verses the river. More power to the guy that actually wants 'em and god bless... :yikes:


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

I could have sworn part of the reason given for the baitfish crash was that natural salmon reproduction was far exceding what the DNR had projected, and much more than they though it was even after years of stocking.


----------



## FlyDaddy (Dec 29, 2002)

I will agree with Steve on his "selfish" take with keeping fishne_eye:

For me, salmon fishing is a complete riot......for about 1 or 2 fish, then its back to trout and steel so I guess on a personal note I am not sure I care that much ,and with that, I refuse to fish kings midway upstream wearing thier mating colors..

On another note (without trying to ruin a good thread) I find it hard pressed for the average joe blo who comes out during the run to legitimatley catch 5 kings on the mid or upper stretches. I certainly have not in the past but I am not that good of an angler either . I am certainly not trying to turn this thread south at all but there are many who do not abide by the 3 bag limit anyway. I have known of many who get there 3, take home, run to the car, what have you and return to the river. That said, I am not sure if it will have a huge impact or not. 

FD


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> When I say selfish reasons, I do not, however, mean selfish for just myself, but rather for everyone who enjoys catching Salmon in our streams during the full course of a particular run...
> 
> ...but what they do not take into consideration is that every single fish kept is one more fish another angler will not ever have a chance catch. In that, there can be no argument...
> 
> ...


I think your argument applies much better to steelhead than salmon, which seem to "infest" rivers at times in large numbers. Salmon spend such a short period of their life in the rivers, in such a state of continuous decline leading to their ultimate demise, whereas steelhead may spend up to eight months in the river. Not to mention "most" salmon stop biting with any consistency once they near their spawning grounds.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

This, to me, is one of those debates where you can argue both sides. In this particular debate, I'll go with Steves logic. Fact is, I wonder how many salmon go to waste now from people keeping them. I can see the logic is lessoning the amount of salmon, due only to alewive population, but there, over time other ways to control that. They (DNR) could lesson the amount of salmon planted, which over time should reduce the predation somewhat.

One thing the DNR didn't consider in the beginning was the amount of natural reproduction, and thats understandable as they just didn't know. But, its obviously been a case of great reproduction, and there are some rivers that get a huge return of fish, that have never been planted with salmon. Could we eventually have enough fish without planting? I don't know the answer to that, but I do believe there needs to be a balancing point of predator to prey, or we won't have decent fish at all. But, as I said before that can be controlled through planting. After having said all that, I will have to go with the "NO" on the issue of 5 salmon per day.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

plugger said:


> With the great lakes being overpopulated it is prudent to encourage greater harvest of salmon. Many of the kings are naturaly reproducing fish so a river harvest would make sense.


Yup!

And really why not. They end up on the riverbed anyway. It's not like you can kill them all :lol:


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

This is Michigan, no one buying autos, no one wants to do business here, and way too many behind on the morgage or upside down. People gotta eat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Jennie, your the greatest, extra naturally blacken salmon to fill our stomachs.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

I think the answer is to create a fish czar who knows everything about fishing in general and trout and salmon fishing in particular and let him make all the decision. Perhaps we could convince Stelmon to apply for the post.

Other than that, it would be nice if the DNR experts would make those decisions based on scientific fact and not for political reasons. Every time they make a decision based on emotion, politics or someones ethical beliefs like they did on the chumming rules and I suspect the baiting rules it hurts their credibility and makes it much more difficult to trust them the next time.

Without trust we have to rely on our gut instincts or just some of the facts. For example if some guy hunts the entire season and only sees three does and someone says there are to many does in the county he was hunting he says their crazy based on antidotal evidence. Lets face it there are many outdoors people on this site that have a good handle on what is happening out there, but without the training and the information the DNR acquires we cannot possibly conclude we are better suited to make the right decisions, with of course the one exception I mentioned in the first paragraph.

With all due respect to Lee Wolf and others who benefit directly if more fish are released we should leave the decisions up to the DNR and hold their feet to the fire every time we smell a rat like the special regulation proposed for the Au Sable below Mio.

Fisheries Chief Kelly is being beaten to death by the Gates crowd who are calling for his removal because he hasnt caved in to their catch and release pleas. I think Kelly is showing a lot of guts by making a decision that he thinks is in the best interest of science and I just hope he can hold out.

Then again he might just be doing it because the proposed rule changes dont fit with the current river designations and might cave in later, but for now he is a hero.

If this were a vote, Id say have limits in the lakes and keep all you want in the river. If you are someone who cant catch a fish and feel you need people to release fish so you will have a better chance of catching one you can always purchase a few at Pappys or other establishments that are permitted to sell them. I think I speak for a lot of other fishermen here when I say; Please dont release any fish for me as I prefer to catch my own.


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

being an expert requires 3 things: education, experience and recognition from other experts. i doubt any of us here have those 3 requirements to be considered experts on this matter save for the fish biologists like jim francis that visit this board. that being said, we are all entitled to an opinion and it is a good thing that threads like these will not affect policy when it comes to our states natural resources.

my non-expert opinion is this: the limits on all of our non-native sports fishes should be liberalized and i have no problem with the new 5 fish limit in rivers.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 21, 2001)

Splitshot said:


> I think I speak for a lot of other fishermen here when I say; Please dont release any fish for me as I prefer to catch my own.



I'd be willing to bet a few of the fish you and others have caught "on your own" were fish that I or others had previously released, but... I see your logic! 

Merry Christmas to All!
_Steve_


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> I'd be willing to bet a few of the fish you and others have caught "on your own" were fish that I or others had previously released, but... I see your logic!
> 
> Merry Christmas to All!
> _Steve_


Your propably right about those other guys Steve, but I always catch them first and release them for everyone else. I know this because I always look for little holes in their mouths that would indicate that they have been hooked before. Since I have never noticed a hook hole I conclude no one has ever released one that I caught.

By the way, a Merry Christmas to you too.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 21, 2001)

Splitshot said:


> I know this because I always look for little holes in their mouths that would indicate that they have been hooked before. Since I have never noticed a hook hole I conclude no one has ever released one that I caught.


I realize, I think, that you are of course, kidding about that! :lol:

That being said, *just in case* anyone thinks that this is an honest way to check from reading this I must admit that I do have certain trout throughout the river that I've caught over and over again (At least until they disappear forever and can not be caught again.) and the "holes" heal rather quickly so you sure wouldn't know it by looking at the mouth. 

The "holes" or, marks around the mouth from having been caught on those fish can and do disappear within a week sometimes, but certain tell tale markings do not...

And A Happy New Year!
_Steve_


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

In truth I could care less about kings in the river, especially when they are past the silver stage in coloring. Why people keep those dark green/gold/brown/black fish is beyond my comprehension. Give me upland stream trout any day over those blackening king salmon. As someone said above they are devouring themselves from the inside out.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

The "hook holes" in salmon on gravel tend to be all over their body and DO NOT seem to heal:lol:


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Ha ha ha! It would have to be really arrogant to think I have never caught a fish someone else released. Actually the thought of some sport releasing a trout just so I might have a chance to catch it disturbs me a little, makes my stomach a little queasy and sounds very insincere. I have nothing against releasing fish and I do it all the time. I dont ever think of it as a noble gesture but just as a matter of simple conservation.

There are some very big differences between the way we fish Steve. Its your job to learn all the holes and even where those easy fish live. By easy fish I mean ones that will fall for the same trick over and over and over. On a slow day Im sure a couple of those fish have saved the day for you and your clients.

I try not to fish the same stretch of river twice in the same year. One of the reasons is once I catch a nice trout, I am not as interested in catching that fish again. Sometimes it doesnt work out that way because sometimes I get lazy and go to the easiest stretches a second or sometimes even a third time in the same year.

It also means that I will never learn any one river as well as you but that is not really my goal. I never compete with any other fishermen only the fish. I will say that I do release winter steelhead especially in the PM because I know there are a limited number of fish and I respect the fishermen who brave winter fishing. I know this contradicts what I said earlier but we all make exceptions. Im sure you would keep one once in a while if some friend or elderly person you knew really enjoyed them.

I love fishing, but if my lively hood depended on my fishing abilities I think it would ruin it for me. Anyway, vive la difference!


----------



## james gentz (Mar 28, 2005)

Queequeg said:


> ...nearly 100% of the trout had been wiped out by a fishing club that was once owned by Ford and Firestone. They literally dynamited the rivers straight because ....


Could you provide some more information pertaining to this statement such as what was your source? PM me a Link to your information, or at least a clue to where I can find more on this topic.

Just curious.


G


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Queequeg said:


> As for single hook vs treble, there is ample evidence to suggest single hook is less invasive to the fish that trebs. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/recreation_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_85_5675509,00.html
> 
> Many states have considered laws that outlaw all trebs, replacing them with single, barbless hooks.


Thanks for the link...I, too, am aware of the statistics and that is why I mentioned "single hook artificials", which would be no more harmful than flies.



Queequeg said:


> I can see how this is a controversial issue, but hands down there are more fish in no kill zones than in kill zones. This is true of the PM and the Ausable. There may be fish just as big in other stretches (especially in deeper water downstream) but quantity cannot be matched in no kill zones.


I'll gladly take my fewer, larger fish any day (or night for that matter) 

As I stated in an earlier post, I am not opposed to special regs as they apply to size and kill limits, particularly when they make biological sense to a self-sustaining fish population, such as the Au Sable. The section I fish has a three fish limit with a minimum size of 15". I also release 99.9% of my stream trout. However, I don't agree with the exclusive nature of "flies only" stretches of water. Perhaps someone can explain to me how someone throwing a single hook Mepps spinner will cause higher fish mortality than my #8 Hex dun?



Queequeg said:


> I'm ok with the regs and feel they are there for a reason. What other explanation can anyone supply as to why the DNR would put them there? To annoy spin fisherman? To segregate spinners? Those explanation just don't make sense.


They (flies-only regs) were put there by "flyfishing elitists" and special interest groups well before any scientific evidence that flies are less harmful than bait. As to why these "flies only" stretches still exist is beyond me, given that an "single hook artificial" designation would be no more harmful to the fish.


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

The regs are there to protect the fish. There were not established for elitists, though the Trout Unlimited saw the writing on the wall and urged the Mi DNR to force regulations. 

The Flies only section is there to keep fish in the river, as it is evident and well known that fly fishing yields fewer catches than any other method.

Earlier someone mentioned the DNR's use of money. Since the Holy Waters haven't been stocked since 1965 then one could make the argument that they haven't spent any money stocking fish in the Ausable, whereas they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars stocking all other unrestricted streams. Thus, it is more economical to have no kill zones.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_46403-194797--,00.html

In short: Unlike many streams in Michigan (or elsewhere), the Holy Water of the Au Sable is completely dependent on natural reproduction.

"We have not stocked that section of the Au Sable since 1965," Sendek said. "It is a totally self-sustaining trout population -- brook, brown and rainbow. Combined with our current no-kill, year-round flies-only fishing regulations, we're managing for quality."

Although the Au Sable's fish habitat is very good, Sendek said, it isn't as good as it could be. This summer and next, the DNR will take advantage of federal fisheries grants (from the Sport Fish Restoration Act) to improve the river by adding large woody debris in the Holy Water. The DNR will spend $400,000 over the next two years on this effort.

"We still haven't fully healed from the damage done during the logging era at the turn of the 20th century," Sendek said. "It takes a stream a long time to recover from being completely logged over. But with the maturation of the surrounding forests and the addition of whole trees into the river, we're getting there."


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Queequeg said:


> The regs are there to protect the fish.
> The Flies only section is there to keep fish in the river...


Are you implying that just because someone is fishing "gear", they are taking/killing fish? What about creating a *no kill, single hook artificials *section?



Queequeg said:


> it is *evident* and *well known *that fly fishing yields fewer catches than any other method.


I didn't know that...so you are saying that because flyfishermen catch fewer fish, the population is impacted less? Can you cite a source for all of us? 

I tend to catch more trout flyfishing than throwing my single-hook barbless spinners....does that mean I am a better than average flyfisherman or a lousy spinfisherman?

Your arguments are old, tiring, with little biological or scientific evidence to support the "flies only" regulations here in Michigan. 

I can *agree* on *"No Kill, "No Bait", and "Single Hook Only"* regs because there is indeed evidence and studies to support these.

_edit:Maybe we should all tie woolly buggers and some splitshot on the end of our spinning rods and meet down at Stephan's Bridge? There is a big log jam on the south side of the river just below the bridge, and directly behind a well known flyfishing lodge. Its full of big browns that get "chummed up" by the guests who feed them pieces of bread. Think anyone would give us grief despite the FACT that we would be legally fishing?_


----------



## oldrank (Dec 5, 2006)

I think a 5 fish limit is fine as long as the steelies is still 3......I like catching the biggest nastiest males in the river when it comes to fall salmon........I think they look the coolest......


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

Yes. Catching trout with spinners is a snap. Catching them with a worm is a snap. Catching them with a rapalla is a snap.

Catching them on a fly is more difficult. 

Look, call the DNR if you want facts. They put the regs in place, I just abide by them. They have statistics for the past 60 years, perhaps you can shuffle through their archives. But I suspect no amount of evidence will change your mind about regs so I'm done with this conversation. 

The bottom line is that there are restrictions on many Michigan rives. They have been there for decades. They will continue to be there for decades. The DNR stocks streams and they put regulations in place for a reason. You have two choices, abide by the regs, or break the regs. Whinning about them will not change them.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 21, 2001)

:woohoo1: Whooo Hoooooo! You can sure tell it's winter time here in Michigan... I'll have to keep checking back on this one. Anybody want to talk about the so called lamprey barrier while we're at it!??! :lol:

Try not to get too worked up guys, I've tried it for years and for the most part, it just doesn't help much of anything.  

Tight lines and happy holidays,
_Steve_


----------



## Vicious Fishous (Sep 12, 2006)

I was one of the 300 to write the DNR, and I'm suprised only 300ish replied to their bag limit quandery. 
I told them to keep it the same, my point being, alot folks go out in the morning, get 3 fish go in for lunch, night fishing comes, they take a few more. I know it doesn't happen every where, but I know it happens enough, (not just salmon by any means).
This might not have alot of relavence to this thread but, The place we used to go rocked, and would produce plenty of fish. There were always other campers and day trippers comming in and out, but Judging by the lic. plates and the relitive quickness in which it all happened, the super spot must have shown up in an out of state forum, because in 2 years it became a complete madhouse. It was'nt so much(even though it was) the extra 100 drunk, shark pole toting, dudes, shooting guns off at 3 in the morning, working shifts to lock up holes and runs, trashing the place. It was the fact that they are there for a 2-3 weeks straight, and they keep every thing they catch. most came in 5th wheels and had generators, smokers and refridgeration, and it became a meat factory. The fish basiclly ran the guantlet, they were hunted rather than fished for, and alot get taken out there. in the past People always kept fish there, but there were always fish to take. This is not the case there anymore. There aren't even "enough fish" for their group anymore, but it doesn't stop them. The fish reproduce less, less fish return, right?
So if we almost double the limit, will there be less fish to fight because of all those fish kept? Who will spawn?
Now I know in the MI trout guide, there are many rivers that are closed to fishing when the salmon are going into them, and that uninterrupted natural reprodution has to, and will occur in many of them. 
As I evolved through my slamoniod journey, it became clearly evident that a fresh fish(lake or river) that bites and fights to live, is WAY better than lining some poor fish off of gravel that only fights to get back to the gravel. Especially when the meat is involved. So why take more rotten fish out of the rivers? For every one that naturally dies, alot of nutrients are put back into the river system.

It wish they would have kept the limit in rivers at 3 a day and made the big lakes a 5 fish limit. IMO if they lived their lives in the lake with out being harvested, give them a chance to make more. 
With all the economic crap going on, you'd think the DNR wouldn't want to spend money on replacing fish that could possibly replenish themselves. I don't know the numbers, but big lake fishing has got to draw more money than the river fishing, though I could be wrong. 
But will upping the limit draw anymore people to this "sport" than already do it? Or just make the ones that do it happier? Will more be better? I guess we'll know soon enough.
Such is Life
PETE


----------



## JWheeler (Jun 1, 2006)

Well said.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> :woohoo1: Whooo Hoooooo! You can sure tell it's winter time here in Michigan... I'll have to keep checking back on this one. Anybody want to talk about the so called lamprey barrier while we're at it!??! :lol:
> 
> Try not to get too worked up guys, I've tried it for years and for the most part, it just doesn't help much of anything.
> 
> ...



About that weir; if we ran it in august, sept and october the river would be alot better off!


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

plugger said:


> About that weir; if we ran it in august, sept and october the river would be alot better off!



 Oh Mike, I can't stop laughing. Happy Holidays.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Queequeg said:


> Yes. Catching trout with spinners is a snap. Catching them with a worm is a snap. Catching them with a rapalla is a snap.
> 
> Catching them on a fly is more difficult.
> 
> ...


I don't think there is any "whining" going on. Sorry that you aren't able to further support your position on flies versus artificial lures (single hook, of course) with actual scientific evidence. The only "evidence" you did supply was in regards to the use of treble hooks, which I agree with. I am also familiar with mortality of bait versus lures and also agree. I have no problem with "no kill" sections on rivers that support natural reproduction. Bottom line is that the DNR cannot not justify its current "flies only" regulations from a biological/scientific standpoint, PERIOD! All this leads back to "Toto's" earlier statement that "flies only" sections are simply in place due to social pressure from various groups, such as flyfishing guides, FFF, and Trout Unlimited.

By the way, I only use dry flies on a flyrod for stream trout so I am never in a position to break the law

_edit: Yes Steve, sorry about your lamprey weir problems. Its probably pretty easy to support declining steelhead numbers from as a result of the weir being in place. One has to wonder why there are so many dropback steelhead still in the system, above the weir, well into the June hex hatch? Think maybe that the spent fish don't want to descend the river, the same way that upriver bound fish don't want to ascend it? Maybe they should just build a lowhead dam that the lampreys CAN"T get over but the steelhead can?_


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

The declining steelhead runs maybe due in a larger part due to the fact that they no longer plant the PM.


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

Flyfisher, both our arguments are baseless. I claim the regs for flies only are in place to lower fishing pressure and angler/fish competition. You claim they are they to uphold some elitist agenda. Neither of our claims are supported by evidence. I personally think that the DNR has been trying to get many MI streams back to their prime before loggers, pollution, and over exploitation killed off many of the natural species and natural reproduction. I have a cottage on the Ausable and every authority figure I've talked to has said that the Ausable is a fraction of what is should be and that they are continually attempting to bring it back to a sustainable, viable level once again. Many also claim that may not be possible with any sort of fishing pressure. I personally trust the DNR as they have ichthyology backgrounds and understand the variables that control the river better than I do. Personally, I think the DNR would have no fish zones if they could, but they have to walk a fine line between giving the public recreation and protecting said resources. They have an impossible job because they are trying to appease everyone, and that ironically will not please all. They have a small budget (getting smaller too), they have a short staff (getting shorter too), they have every economic variable working against them and yet they do as best they can. Do they make mistakes? Yes, they probably have made many. But the fact that they are out there doing _something_ in my opinion is MUCH better than doing absolutely nothing. This is why I trust the DNR.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I agree, the fact the DNR is doing something, is better than doing nothing. However, if you think the flies only regs are for the protection of a species, you are badly mistaken. But it doesn't matter, it is what it is, and it won't change. Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, I don't have a problem with flies only per se, but I do have a problem with it from the standpoint of segregation, hopefully you understand what I'm saying. Anyways, we've gotton off track from the original post, and back to that, I still would rather see a 3 fish limit than 5. I really find it hard to figure out why the salmon don't get the respect that steelhead do, I quess it's just one of those things that there is no answer to.

Further more, if you think everything the DNR does is science based, I'll point out a little issue that came up a few years ago, I'll affectionatly call it the "Worm Bill". This was a bill that was pushed by the legislature of the state, and had absolutely no scientific basis for it, it was only a bill drawn up for the sake of one persons wants. Can't remember if it went through or not, but it was absolutely stupid, and the DNR thought so too. That is why, if you study enough, you find an old Administrative Procedures Act, that stated, in short, that the legislature had nothing to do with the DNR when it came to wildlife decisions. The logic was how could a legislator have any knowledge to compare with a biologist when it comes to these things? Therefore, when that was drawn up it was understood, and against the law for the legislature to decide wildlife issues. IMO, it should still be the same way.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

The 5 salmon bag limit has been a discussion point within the ranks of the MDNR and its associated advisory groups for about 4-5 yrs now.It is primarily a regulation change that was designed for the big lake anglers, peir anglers.With Indiana having the 5 salmon rule already, the southern lake anglers were pushing for their share too. In that region, there is not as many chances at the Brown trout, Lake trout, and steelhead as there is from mid lake and to the north.For years the DNR said that they would keep it 3-2-5. In the same time frame, the public had asked for an easier to understand regulation handbook/package.Budget issues rendered the handbook to go to a 2 yr publication to save 50K per year.During this time, the baitfish decline in Lk. Mich and Huron,along with budget issues brought about further cuts of salmon plants, with more concentration on net pen ports and ports where returns were highest. I believe all of these factors came into play for this decision.Like I said earlier(and I will check on it after the holidays) I don't think the 5 salmon rule is gonna be for most if any rivers, alot of them have a 3 fish rule.

More salmon out of the "lake" would help the baifish decline, and help promote a comeback of alewives.

The catch rate for chinook has been through the roof for the past 5 yrs or more in most Lk Mich ports.If there was a time to experiment to see if it made a difference, now would be a good time.

Although I do agree with Queequeg that the DNR have their hands full and a thankless job, and it is best to let them do their job to manage our fishery, his thought process on the "flies only" area described above was because of any scientific study or data, is untrue. It WAS because of special interest pressure.In this day and age, it would never had happened, but back in the times of this designation, it was all about who ya knew, and some good ole boy favoritism.I have spoken with a few" higher profile" individuals,who have admitted it as such.The sources will remain unknown, so don't ask, but I believe it and so do many others. As Toto said, it is segregation, favoritism, and discrimination. Now you tell me that $400,000 of DNR moneys will go into a system that is closed to the majority of anglers in Michigan. That is indeed troubling, and needs to be looked into as soon as the holidays are over as well.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

It is no wonder that someone who would pick their pseudonym from literature and from one of the greatest fishing stories ever told would think he would have all the answers regarding fishing.

Sorry man but you live in a fairy land where people believe that emotions are facts. There is no doubt that fly only regulations were established because of pressure by a select few and Steve Sendek or any other fish biologist will tell you that flies only rules were not set based on hard science, but political science.

You have made a lot of statements, but lets start with this fallacy.


Queequeg said:


> Neither of our claims are supported by evidence. I personally think that the DNR has been trying to get many MI streams back to their prime before loggers, pollution, and over exploitation killed off many of the natural species and natural reproduction.


The fact is that there are over a hundred private organizations that are doing the work to bring our rivers and streams back to pre logging conditions. Of course the DNR and many other organizations are part of the process and provide a great deal of expertise. They are a partner. Never once did I ever hear any DNR representative propose flies only rules as a method to accomplish that goal.

Many fly fishermen think that fly fishing is somehow supperior and therefore they are superior. Some of them even make statements like this one.


Queequeg said:


> Yes. Catching trout with spinners is a snap. Catching them with a worm is a snap. Catching them with a rapalla is a snap.
> 
> Catching them on a fly is more difficult.


If you understood fishing, you would never make a statement like that. Bait fishing is far more difficult than fly fishing but the inexperienced person thinks fly fishing is more difficult because he just believes it and doesnt understand fishing.

Consider the Hex hatch. Is it more difficult to catch a trout on a nightcrawler fished on the bottom or on an imitation giant may fly? I say if you want a challenge fish nightcrawlers on the bottom when the trout are rising to flies on the surface. One fly fisherman told me that would be stupid, yet he will fish flies on the surface when the trout are feeding on live bait on the bottom.

The only reason bait fishing seems less difficult is because the trout feed much more often on the bottom and on live bait than on the surface. When you see a trout rising and taking flies off the surface you know several things a bait fishermen doesnt know. First you know the trout is actively feeding, second you know where he is feeding and third if you look closely at the river you can figure out what the trout is feeding on. After that all you need to do most of the time is match what the trout is feeding on, make a half-*****ed cast and bingo, fish on!

The bait fisherman doesnt know if the fish are feeding and he has to understand stream dynamics to know where the fish are holding and has to make casts that will naturally bring the bait to the fish even though currents on the bottom might be much different than on the surface and dont forget the snags.

Now if you mean it is a snap to catch little trout, easy fish or planted trout, you may have something there. It is easy with all methods although on a given day one method will work better than others. One of the favorite fly fishing techniques is to cast your fly directly downstream and strip it up stream through a pod of planters and you will hook many. 

I know it is more important for some people to catch a trout on a fly than it is to catch a trout and that is fine with me, but me and most of my friends go fishing to catch fish. We sometimes use flies, sometimes live bait and sometimes artificial lures. Our goal is to out smart them and in the end keep a few for dinner. They make wonderful table fare.

Guys who say fly fishing more challenging and then fish for trout in areas where everyone has to release the easy fish so the next sport will have a chance to catch a trout are hypocrites. They claim their method is more superior and then the try to lobby the DNR to make the fishing in certain stretches much easier.

Call your friend Mr. Sendek and ask him if the studies show that No Kill areas hurts the trophy brown trout fishing. There will be more fish but they will be smaller. There might be more trophies in the hook and cook sections but the easy ones are the first to be removed leaving the more challenging trophy educated fish left for the real fishermen. 

When someone says I catch more fish in the no kill areas than in the kill areas, I say no ****, I only ask, what skill does it take to catch that dumb one over and over and over again. 

While were at it, the mortality rate between flies and lures is about the same. It is true that treble hooks damage the fish a little more, they still seem to recover at the same rate as the fly hooked fish. Barb-less hooks penetrate deeper and kill more fish because the hooks penetrate the fishes brain more often.

Ninety-eight percent of all the rainbows and brown trout hatched 7 years ago are dead today because that is their average life span. The sad thing is that if there were a two fish limit some of those fish could be utilized and a great fishery still maintained. Of course for you guys who cant catch them without everyone releasing all the easy fish, my heart goes out to you!

Finally some stretches are planted because those sections dont have the habitat and cannot produce enough food and cover to maintain good numbers. On those sections habitat improvements should be considered like on the Holy Waters as that is the permanent way to improve the fishery. Gary Sendek will tell you that the reason they are spending $400,000.00 on a restricted stretch of river is because the special interest groups like the Friends of the Au Sable showed more interest in working with the DNR. Was that special interest pressure? 

In these economic hard times should we be spending $400,000.00 on a section of river that is already as you have stated one of the best in the state or perhaps should the money be used in an area where all fishermen benefit?


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Thanks Ray for explaining the politics of our fisheries. Unfortunately, some people know it all and are unwilling to learn the truth.


----------



## jrv (Nov 11, 2008)

Below is the e-mail that I received after I wrote the DNR about the five fish limit. I'm sure others have seen this and it may have been posted by someone else. 
I was in the 30% and also it sounds like The Michigan Charter Boat Association was considered one voice/e-mail. 

*FROM THE DNR*
Thank you for taking time out of your valuable schedule to assist Fisheries Division and the Department of Natural Resources in our request for your opinion of the proposed change to a Statewide fishing regulation to increase the Daily Bag Limit (DBL) for salmon in the Great Lakes. This proposal included increasing the DBL from a maximum of 3 to maximum of 5 fish, in combination with other trout species. Your input is highly valued and we considered each response in our formulation of the final recommendation. We heard from nearly 300 interested citizens and approximately 70% of those responses were in favor of increasing the DBL for salmon to 5 fish per day.

The proposed rule change to allow for up to 5 salmon per day (no more than 3 of the 5 can be brown trout, lake trout or steelhead) was discussed at three monthly meetings of the Natural Resources Commission. The Michigan Charter Boat Association and about 30% of the survey responses were not in favor of increasing the DBL for various reasons. Each comment that we received along with the discussion we had with anglers presented legitimate points of view, regardless of opinion. Because this regulation does not have a major biological impact, we feel that alternate views are important and that the decision should be primarily based on social considerations. On December 10, 2008, the proposal to increase the DBL for salmon in all public waters, in combination with other trout species, was approved and will become effective April 1, 2009. However, this regulation change incorporates a new management tool that provides an objective evaluation that will allow the Department to modify the bag limit for salmon if fishing success and catch rates changes significantly.

Fisheries Division staff spent a considerable amount of time assessing the comments and concerns submitted by you and we used those comments in the development of a suitable proposal to move forward with a regulation change. A proactive approach (attached) was detailed in November that evaluated the catch per effort of Charter anglers (fish caught per hour) for Chinook salmon over a 22 year period, and assessed Charter anglers catching 3 or more Chinook salmon per day. Using our established data from mandatory charter boat reporting for Lake Michigan, baselines were established for catch rates (0.165 fish per hour) and angler success of catching 3 or more salmon per day (13.1%) which represented "breaking points" based on real data where the DBL could be changed. 

Currently both of these benchmarks are being exceeded, which means that catch rates and angler success is high. Under this new proactive approach, both of these benchmarks will need to fall below their baseline values to change the regulation (decrease the DBL back to three). If just one of the indicators drop below the baseline, the regulation will remain in place for a 5 fish DBL in combination. Likewise, if the regulations revert back to 3 fish (meaning both falling below baseline levels), it will take both benchmarks to improve beyond their respective baseline values in order for the Department to change the DBL back to 5. 

This tool gives the Department the ability to be more proactive, providing opportunity for annual review, and implement regulation changes as needed using this predefined management tool. When fishing is really good and salmon abundance is high, the 5 fish limit would likely be in effect. Conversely, when fishing is really poor and there are perhaps not as many fish, the limit would revert to 3. The Department will have the ability to make this assessment and consider a regulation change each year based on that years fishery data.


----------



## steelhead1 (Jan 2, 2005)

The 5 fish limit isn't new. It's how it used to be and there were plenty of fish back then too.


----------

