# Michigan Bass season opinions



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

I can't believe some of the things I've heard on this thread. There are guys out there who would want to take away from our trout/salmon fund to put toward bass? 
Every spring and fall I fish for salmon & steelhead and in the parking lots I've read the lisence plates of well over half of the fifty states. I meet guys every year from South Carolina, Florida, Colorado, etc., who come here to catch salmon, steelhead and trout. We have probably the best trout fishing this side of the Mississippi right here in michigan. We deffinately have the best salmon and steelhead fishing this side of the whole west coast. Our tributaries recieve a ton of pressure anually because of this.
as many of you have said, the return of surviveing fish in the salmonoids here in Michigan, planted or stocked, is not huge. All the more reason to give them all the help we can muster, I think.
I've meat and heard of alot of anglers who visit our state for the great musky fishery we have in Lake St. Claire. I've meat people who come for the walley, pike, pearch, bluegille, smelt, and even the anuall spring sucker run here in the great lakes and their trib's (Michigan especially). I have never heard of or meat anyone who travells to the state of Michigan for the bass fishin'.
As far as I'm concerned we have a pretty damn good number of bass as it is without mutch help. They ARE prolific breeders and without preaditors, will take over a lake or pond in a matter of a few years. I know of several places where one can go and catch them pretty much hand over fist all day long. The only problem I see In our bass population is that Michigan has a verry short growing season for them, and the overpopulation in some waters dosen't help, as far as the average size goes. I don't think we'll ever have bass as large as say Texas or the Carolinas' no matter what. I'd like to say catch and keep year round, but haven't kept a bass myselfe since I was twelve or so (they just taste......BAD). I certainly wouldn't advocate takeing money from our other QUALITY, money-making fisheries to support the "doing as good as we can be expected to in Michigan" bass population.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Glad you think the bass are doing good on their own in Michigan. I don't necessarily want to take money 'away' from trout or salmon. Some anglers do and I respect their opinion since bass are the number one large gamefish (only perch are more popular) in Michigan according to MDNR and US F&W surveys.

Bass anglers spend 60% of all freshwater dollars nationally. Michigan has become very popular nationally in the last 7 years due to national tournaments covered by national magazines and TV. There are anglers coming from all over the country now, hiring guides and contacting locals like me, just to catch Michigan bass.

I've met anglers and corresponded personally with anglers from Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Coloroda, Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Georgia, Missouri Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Kentucky, West Virginia, Nebraska, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Oklahoma just to name a few off the top of my head and email list. These are anglers coming just to fish bass in Michigan - a lot of it on St. Clair, but not all.

We are lucky people to live in a state with such great fishing that anglers are coming from all over just to fish here for bass, walleye, pike, musky, perch, trout and salmon. Our tourism industry is lucky to have a wide range of great angling to attract a lot of different kinds of anglers. We wouldn't want to lose that attraction for any kind of fishing.

I agree that trout and salmon need more help than bass do in general. It doesn't mean bass anglers can't expect their fair share of treatment for their tax dollars. We just all need to be reasonable about it.


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

I know that bass are a popular game-fish, even here in Michigan. I admit, I don't know quite why they are so popular. My only guess is that they are a fish found in most all of our lakes and rivers, and provide a fairly easy catch of somthing other than panfish, that dads can take the kids out and have a reasonable expectation of catching something a bit larger. That in itselfe is a good enough reason (for me), to continue our funding, status quo, to ensure that we keep the bass fishery that we have today.
Taking money from other fisheries more in need of the states help is another matter altogether, I think. I don't know what you have in mind for improving the fishery, as we have (in many of our lakes) all the bass we can handle already. As I've stated the growing season is probably the other biggest reason we don't have "big" bass here in Michigan, and we can't do a thing about that.
If the state must take money from our trout/salmon fund to improve bass fishing, I advocate that it comes in the form of planting more pike and muskie to keep the population in check. this MAY help the average size of our bass, but I wouldn't put my money on anything resembeling a large improvement.
Just my take.


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

Just to clarify, I was never saying that trout and salmon get too much money. My main point is, for a fraction of the millions that get dumped down the river to make this state such a good trout/salmon state, the bass, pike, or musky fisheries could be greatly improved. 

Im not sure where Lake St Clair ranks overall for bass fishing, but I know its in the top 100 lakes of the nation. Several of the last many bass fishing shows on OLN ive watched had either past results, flashbacks, or other comments about LSC. And none of them were bad. 

And bass most certainly do have natural predators, in ANY body of water. Not only are they canibals, but pike and musky both will happily prey on bass. Not to mention the millions of anglers out there. Do I think bass are having a problem sustaining numbers? No. Do I think that given better management of funds the bass fishing could be improved without making an impact on trout and salmon? Most definitely. The same can be said for pike, which the pike masters have been having one hell of a time getting any help with. The same can be said for musky, which if im not mistaken havent received ANY help from the dnr in the past couple of years since wolf lake hatchery bit the dust. Someone feel free to correct me if im wrong, but im fairly sure the only stocking of muskies being done in michigan comes directly from the pockets of the MMA. 

So, to reiterate, trout and salmon dont get too much money, they just get an unfair share of the money that is available(as in: damn near all of it), in my opinion. Given the amount of money pooled into trout and salmon every year, the dnr could make ANY species attract anglers from all over the world. Take 5% of the money dumped into trout / salmon every year, and instead put it into bass, pike, and musky, and youd have a state with not only yearling trout and salmon to catch, but self sustaining populations of trophy bass, pike, and musky that wouldnt need to be restocked twice as often as they are caught, and have their water run through hepa filters.

As for being against taking money away from the other worthless species like bass and musky, without bass and musky dollars in michigan, your precious trout and salmon wouldnt get enough yearly dollars to restock 1/3 of the numbers that get stocked now. 


blah.

Someone needs to find the list of dollars spent / species...


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

Dude, you need to re-read my last post. Particularly the first and last paragraph. I never called bass worthless (first paragraph), or especially pike or musky (last pargraph). The toothier guys may be part of the "solution", if ther is any, as I mentioned. 
Another thing you've got to look at is that there are a billion places from the east coast to the west that can and do support a healthy bass population (as well as other warm-water species). I can't think of too many that can han handle the full blown salmon-steelhead fishery that the 'Great Lakes' states (Michigan in particular) have, aside from the west coast itselfe. 
Better "bass management" (at least in our short-growing-season-state) = more pike/muskie. I suggested that in my past post, and I believe it would be a wothwhile investment for Michigan, as that is another fishery that brings dollers to our state ( and it looks like a hell of a lot of fun). We already have one of the better pike/muskie fisheries in the states. 
Look, all I'm saying is (for example) if you wanted to go elk hunting, and you lived in, say, Delaware, Would you come to Michigan? Or would you go to Montana, Wyoming, something out there? Well, If you wanted to go bass fishing, and you were willing to travell and pay dollars to catch the bign's, wouldnt you go to Florida, or Texas or something? The big money you guys keep talking about are national numbers, And there's no doubt that bass are the most popular fish in the country. What are the local figures? I'm betting it's not the 60% I heard about.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

I just want to fish a longer season, legally for bass by having a legal catch-and-release season in the spring. That was debated over a bunch earlier on this site. I think we have great bass fishing, especially for smallmouths, in Michigan.

As you said, if you want to catch or shoot something, you go were the activity is best and we have some of the greatest smallmouth bass fishing anywhere because of the explosion over the past decade of Great Lakes smallmouth in particular. There are many anglers willing to spend a lot of money to come here from a long ways away to fish for the smallmouths here. I think that's great.

A large percentage of national pro's are now listing St. Clair in their top 5 favorite lakes in the country. Some of the past national tournaments have seen record weights from St. Clair. The top two all time weights for national BASS were recently St. Clair and Champlain. I don't know if Toho passed them or not, but that's pretty darn impressive that the smallies in the Great Lakes areas have become so large and numerous to attract that kind of attention and provide that level of angling success.

The fishing here is that good. I'm sure your having fun with the salmon and the trout, but you're missing out on some of the best smallmouth fishing ever. Tons of guys aren't missing out. It's well known that the coldwater fish are getting a higher proportion of the money in Michigan than the amount being spent on them. You'd be surprised what the dollars are being spent on bass fishing even in Michigan. Remember more anglers bass fish in Michigan than trout or salmon and bass anglers are known high dollar spenders among all anglers.

I'm not going to demand the MDNR spends the exact proportion of money on bass, or that they even just take more away from trout/salmon. I just want to see bass anglers get more attention and have necessary issues looked at with the priority that their popularity and impact to this state deserves, whatever that requires, whenever it is required.

Just remember, it doesn't matter if anyone believes it or not, surveys by the MDNR and the US F&W show more anglers in Michigan bass fish than trout, salmon, walleye or musky. I already posted the site earlier for the US F&W survey numbers.

The most important thing is that anglers should all be on the same side all the time instead of trying to make some case that their type of fishing, or the fish they 'specialize' in is superior. We should be fair with each other.


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

Let me try a new angle to argue my point. I spend a hell of a lot of money to fish for several specias of fish every year. Almost all of that money is speant in targeting species other than bass. It is true, however, a slow day on the trout stream of my choice may lead me back to grandpa's lake to wade around the shallows, and fill my afternoon catching a few bass. I am not particularly passonate about this kind of fishing, and I wish the trout were biting, but this makes me a "bass fisherman" as far as the state is concerned. 
There are many a pike, perch, walley, and even catfish guys who do the same type of thing. We are all "bass fishermen" in the state of Michigan's eyes, as there are verry few of us who don't break out the rod and reel and just go bass fishing at least once or twice a year.
Does this mean that we all prefer bass over all the other species this state has to offer? I don't think so by a long-shot. It means that bass are plentifull here and might just save your afternoon when when the conditions arn't right for the fish that you ARE after. 
There are too many good fisheries in this state to say that "most of the people fish for bass". It may be true in the sense that most of us enjoy getting a fish on the line when there is one to be had (and ,yes, usuallly it's a bass of some kind), but the majority of those bass fishing dollars are not spent with the intent of catching bass. I guarantee it.


----------



## chad helsel (Nov 13, 2002)

i have been living in mid-michigan for 1.5 years, before that i resided in indiana. i have spent my entire life fishing, have fished local bass tournaments for the last 8 years. in indiana, ohio, and michigan. i have made a couple observations on the michigan bass season. first of all it doesn't make sense to me that the season, if so vital to the survival of the bass in the cold, short growing season of michigan, starts right in the middle of the spawn. i have fished up on the elk chain of lakes, the last three opening weekends, and last year the smallmouth, which spawn before largemouth, had barely started, the year before they were right in the middle of spawning, and both years there were lots of guys fishing for them right in there spawning area, on wixom lake in early june last year there were some huge spawning females brought in to the tournament weigh in of one of the tournaments i fished. which bass does the season protect? in indiana, we have some great times catching bass through the ice in the middle of the day on jigging raps all winter, and in the early spring, right after ice out is the best time to catch a real wall hanger on a jig and pig, I am all for having a season, if it really helps the fishery, but our season does nothing but take 5 months of our bass fishing away. maybe in the far southern portions of the lower peninsula, some bass may be protected while they spawn, but i feel that a great portion of the bass are spawning after the season comes back in. i'd like to know if anyone else feels the same way. and for the record, i have been strictly catch and release on bass since i was 15 years old. they are fun to catch, not eat. 
as far as the salmon and trout fishery goes, i don't get it. i know quite a few people enjoy eating them, but perch and bluegill are the only way to go for me. i have salmon fished and steelhead fished in a dozen rivers from the u.p. to grand rapids in the last year, and have caught some salmon and steelhead, and they are fun to catch, but i throw them back also. to oily and fishy, if you have to spend hours covering up the taste of a fish, why eat it?
and it makes no sense to me to see hundreds of dead fish, that were stocked and paid for by me, floating down the river. to be eaten by the raccoons. what is that gaining anyone? i don't know, obviously i am not as experienced with trout and salmon as bass, but i, and many friends from indiana have been coming to michigan for a lot of years bass fishing, and now i live here. i would like to see the season opened up. and some more money spent on cleaning up lakes than feeding the raccoons. maybe even put a light at a few of the DNR boat launches, what a concept!


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

The spawn last year and the year before were late compared to the average. If Indiana has no season, and that isn't detrimental to the fishing, why is it that Indiana anglers come here in droves to fish for fish that ostensibly arent being protected by our regulations? I sure don't see many Michigan Bass anglers heading to Indiana for it's quality fishery after the season is open in Michigan, except for a tournament.


----------



## chad helsel (Nov 13, 2002)

i was talking to kevin vida last spring, and he said his favorite two lakes to fish in the US were lake wawasee, in syracuse, IN and lake Okeechobee in florida. so there are a few people from michigan that wonder down to indiana. and the reason that i and others that i know come to michigan to fish is for the smallmouth, not many smallmouth in the lakes of northern indiana. largemouth fishing in my opinion is far better in the lakes i fish in northern indiana than in mid michigan


----------



## shametamer (Jul 22, 2001)

gee paul! does that mean our fishing trip to the salamonie resevoir (near huntington, ind.) is off? i was planning on the date coinciding with the muskie opener on st. clair...lol


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

LOL yea Bill, I guess I'll have to pass on that one. I already have a boatload for the opener. Gee let me think Bass or Muskie, Bass or Muskie........This is some kind of sick joke, right????
Hows the arm?


----------



## shametamer (Jul 22, 2001)

i dunno! I SEEN PICS OF U SETTIN OVER A 'HOLE IN THE ICE'...figured maybe the ski's were scarin ya..and maybe u needed a little 'tamer' fishin! lol...arms great! hangs from the shoulder 'like a crawler left out in the sun'..lol..thanks for askin


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

Heres a few numbers i found somewhat interesting. These are the stocking numbers for January 2002 to December 2002 from the dnr's site, now i just need to find out the average cost of these fish, and we can get some real numbers going:

Atlantic Salmon: 96,050
Brook Trout: 263,388
Brown Trout: 1,695,034
Chinook Salmon: 4,335,473
Coho Salmon: 1,568,973
Lake Trout: 593,967
Rainbow Trout: 723,276
Steelhead: 1,324,672
Splake: 421,265

Total for Trout and Salmon: 11,022,098  

Largemouth Bass: 715
Smallmouth Bass: 50
Northern Pike: 248,839 (of which 235,000 were .12" long)
Great Lakes Musky: 0
Northern Musky: 0
Tiger Musky: 0

I know I pay taxes, and spend a lot of money on fishing every year, and based on these numbers and the species I target, I dont think im getting a very fair return, personally.

Maybe this will shed some light as to why the bass, pike, and musky anglers (namely: me) can be a little touchy about the dnr's allocation of funds. Thank god for the MMA...


----------



## jeremy L (Sep 19, 2002)

The reason that most, if not 99%, of the money for stocking goes to the trout/salmon fishery is because that is the fishery that brings in the most money and that is why a All species linsence(sp) costs more then a "warm water" one, so some of the money can be put towards salmon plants and other plants. I know i would be pretty mad if the extra money which i pay to be able to fish and keep a salmon or brown is put towards planting smallmouth. 

If there wasn't any salmon, browns, etc., the amount of money that would be spent on michigan fishing by out of state vistors would be very low. Our cold water fishery gives us a fishery which can't be found in most states, which leads to more money and jobs for people from the state and so on. If we were to take away the salmon and such, what would we have? People are not going to flock to michigan for bass, panfish, pike when most every other state can produce those types of fish. We need something that makes us standout and we do, our cold water fishery.

BTW, I have heard the DNR stocking page is very inaccurate and there are many more plantings then listed, can anyone confirm this?


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

> If there wasn't any salmon, browns, etc., the amount of money that would be spent on michigan fishing by out of state vistors would be very low


Of the ~4 billion a year spent on fishing in michigan, id be absolutely amazed if more than 50% of that comes from salmon and trout combined. That said, why do 90% of all funds go to stocking salmon and trout, every single year. Why not take a little shred of the millions of dollars required to "maintain" what is a non sustainable fishery, to invest in what would be a self sufficient fishery, that is bass/pike/musky, after only a few years? No matter what, no matter how much stocking is done, trout and salmon will never be able to maintain strong numbers in Michigan without the help of additional yearly stocking. Bass, pike, and musky on the other hand, all are very capable of maintaining numbers once the initial investment is made. I cant understand how that can be overlooked. I guess im just extremely greedy for wanting fish other than trout and salmon in this state. 

You vastly understimate the dollars spent for both bass, and musky fishing in michigan. As ive said before, im not asking for an equal distribution of funds. The trout/salmon zealots can have 75% of all funds for all I care. In the case of muskies, im asking for ANYTHING. You get 11 million salmon and trout per year, give me 10 thousand muskies, and ill shut up. 



> If we were to take away the salmon and such, what would we have?


One of the best pike fishing states in the nation. And one of the best musky fishing states in the nation. And one of the best perch fishing states in the nation. And one of the best walleye fishing states in the nation. When people talk about the best of the best for musky lakes in USA, Lake St Clair is always going to be in the top handful. For perch, Lake Michigan is up there. For walleye, Lake Erie is up there. Contrary to the salmon/trout union of Michigan, there are other fish worthy of catching. Stock 11 million of anything per year, and youll have one hell of a fishery.



> BTW, I have heard the DNR stocking page is very inaccurate and there are many more plantings then listed, can anyone confirm this?


Regarding musky, they are right on the money, a big fat zero. So I know that is accurate. The bass stocking numbers seem high to me. I cant say with any amount of certainty how accurate they are with other species.

Edited: miller lite + vbulletin = poor grammar


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

Jade,
Sorry dude, but I'm just not buying it. I have to agree with Jeremy L. He makes a good piont with the trout & salmon stamp issue (one I overlooked) and seems to agree with what I've been saying all along about our cold water fishery being pretty unique this side of the west coast.
I find it hard to believe that anyother fishery brings more money to the state than trout and salmon. Sure there are alot of bass fisherman in Michigan, and there may even be a few who travell to our state to catch bass (I'll go ahead and eat my hat on that one). How many people come to Michigan and hire a guide ($2-300/day) or a charter boat ($500/day-easy) with all the electronics and thousands of dollars worth of equipment (who's money also trickels down to the marinas), or pack the hotels and lodges of towns like baldwin and ludington several month's out of the year to fish for bass. It doesn't stop there though. Most of the river fishermen I see are sporting pretty nice equipment these days too. When was the last time you spent $150-$500 on a rod alone to go bass fishing? Then another $100-$300 on a reel, and fly-line will run you $20-$60, and on an average weekend a guy may lose a dozen or so flies at a couple of bucks apiece. Thats not to mention waders and all the other gadgets that guys spend money (probably way more than they should) on. If you fish for both trout and salmon you've probably got at least two setups. I've got five myselfe and I know plenty of guys with more than that. Figure in the cost of travell, as even most Michigan citezens (let alone the out-of-staters) don't have a trout stream just down the road from there house. Top it off with a trout and salmon stamp (and that hits pretty hard for out-of -staters) and you're talking about ALOT of money speant, and most of it in the state of michigan. 
I mention alot of fly fishing junk here because that's what I know most about, But I'll bet those 9'-10' graphite Loomis's and St. croix's that I see the spinning guys casting on the river ain't cheap either.
Now I realise that some of this stuff I mentioned pertains to Bass (and other warm water species) fishing too, But not much of it, or at least on alot smaller scale. Now other warm water species, such as walleye, do have a little piece of the charter boat pot, and pike and musky, as well as walleye and perch draw some people to the state. I can't see takeing money away from the only good (great) cold water fishery any where near this part of the country to suport species that are everywhere already and doing just fine right here, bass included. In your last paragraph you talked about how we have some of the top warm watter fisheries in the country already. From what I've learned from the stocking numbers posted in this thread, they heven't needed much help to get that way either. So where's the money going to go that you want to take away from trout and salmon? 
Just to tie things up, I have one more quick issue. you mentioned the Salmon run not being self sustaining, and you are for the most part right on that. Take a Look at the Pere Marquette river though. To the best of my knowlege the DNR has never planted salmon in it, yet it is one of the top three salmon rivers in the state. The Mo and Big Man host a strong majority of wild returning salmon. I could go on about that, but what it boils down to is that all (well, alot anyway) of our rivers, If properly managed may end up closer to that standard. 
I could care less what you do with the bass season (wich is what this thread is suposed to be about), as I think It would take alot to put a dent in our bass fishery. I just don't want to see anything taken away from trout and salmon for the sake of a fishery that doesn't need the help yet.


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

Again, Ill give you guys the 75/75 benefit of the doubt, and I know for a fact im being overly leniant there. That is, Im saying sure, you can claim trout/salmon get 75% of the money, so you can have 75% of the funds. All I want is SOMETHING back on the money i dump on fishing. Is it really asking too much for me to say I would like the dnr to stock at least 1 musky per year for the 11 million fish per year the trout and salmon anglers get? Get real. I dont think it is, nor will I ever think it is, fair that bass, pike, and musky anglers get screwed when they spend as much money as they do. 



> How many people come to Michigan and hire a guide ($2-300/day) or a charter boat ($500/day-easy) with all the electronics and thousands of dollars worth of equipment (who's money also trickels down to the marinas), or pack the hotels and lodges of towns like baldwin and ludington several month's out of the year to fish for bass.


Are you familiar with Lake St Clair? Its not uncommon to hire musky guides in that range at all. As for packing a hotel, try to book a room during a B.A.S.S. event, good luck. 



> When was the last time you spent $150-$500 on a rod alone to go bass fishing?


Last september. The next time if you are interested, will be next month. Then we can talk musky rods, the prices go up from my bass rods, typically. Not all of my rods are outrageously expensive, but a good bass/pike/musky rod can cost just as much as any other rod just about. Sure a 10' custom fly rod might set ya back a grand, but I dont see many people on the river carrying 6 of them around at a time. 



> Then another $100-$300 on a reel,


abu c4 - $80 (musky)
abu uc 6550 - used - coming soon I think! $Great deal! 
shimano scorpion - $150 (bass)
shimano axis 101 v2 - $140 (musky and bass and pike)

And trust me, im by far on the 'cheap' side of the spectrum when it comes to musky fishing. Ask somebody serious about it how much they drop in a year. $5k a year wouldnt surprise me. 



> and fly-line will run you $20-$60


hrm, about the same price as my power pro.



> on an average weekend a guy may lose a dozen or so flies at a couple of bucks apiece.


Lose one musky lure at $20 or so a piece, adds up pretty quick. 



> Thats not to mention waders and all the other gadgets that guys spend money (probably way more than they should) on.


musky net($100+), hook outs, jaw spreaders, bolt cutters, etc etc etc





> From what I've learned from the stocking numbers posted in this thread, they heven't needed much help to get that way either. So where's the money going to go that you want to take away from trout and salmon?


The numbers I posted are the dnr's numbers. The MMA stocks like crazy, and is single handidly responsible for making michigan the excellent musky fishery it is quickly becoming. As for pike, the pikemasters do most of the stocking and preservation for the pike. These groups have had to step up in order to keep these fish from becoming extinct in michigan. Even though we do have an excellent pike and musky fishery here in michigan, it shouldnt have to be supported by third parties just to keep species from dying off. The dnr is being careless. If you think that the trout and salmon cant stand to lose a little money, I dont really know what to say. If you took 5% of the stocking away from the trout/salmon, such as in lakes like three lakes in vicksburg where they insist on stocking rainbows for the pike to eat, it wouldnt hurt the streams and big water fisheries at all. And the flipside is, groups like mma and pikemasters could get a little support from michigan anglers and the dnr, and really show off the potential of the area lakes. And as I said in my last post, once the numbers get established, the conservation is put in place, and the anglers are educated, pike and musky are very much capable of sustaining their numbers. So this isnt something where it would have to take a dent out of the precious trout/salmon money forever. Give it 3 or 4 years, and then you can have the precious money all to yourself again. The dnr might as well split up, and have one branch dedicated just to trout and salmon, and then hire one guy to read a newspaper all day and pretend to care about the other species. I always thought the dnr was there to preserve natural resources. I guess in my opinion, if a resource has to be replenished by man every year in order to sustain it, is it really a natural resource any more?



> I could care less what you do with the bass season (wich is what this thread is suposed to be about), as I think It would take alot to put a dent in our bass fishery. I just don't want to see anything taken away from trout and salmon for the sake of a fishery that doesn't need the help yet.


I agree that the bass season isnt tremendously important, bass are quite hardy and prolific. However I do feel bass fishing could be improved in michigan given some work from everyone from the everyday angler to the dnr. And like you, Im concerned about the species Ive chosen as my favorite. The only difference is, yours gets 75%+ of all funds, and mine gets 0. The dnr stocks more trout/salmon each year than there are musky in the entire state. 

I still feel cheated.


----------



## chad helsel (Nov 13, 2002)

lets talk about spending money on fishing, i have a $30,000 boat, 
ten tournament rod and reel combos on a rack in my basement, the least of which cost $150. at least $3000 in tackle sitting in my basement $2000 worth of electronics on my boat, and i buy the same license as the diehard trout fisherman, then i go to the launch fish till 10 at night, and pull my boat out in the dark. 
why can't they spend $10 a month and put dusk to dawn lights in at more launch sites. but i go to the white river last year and snag my spinner on something across the hole from me and can't get it off, wade across, and in the middle of nowhere on a river that doesn't get an obscene amount of fishing pressure, there is geotextile lining on the bank to prevent erosion. why can't some of my money go to improving the lakes instead of lining a bank 2 miles from the nearest road on an underutilized stream?


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

I completely agree, chad. It seems the dnr is creating more ways to spend money on trout and salmon every year, at the expense of the little things that make a difference to the masses, like boat launch lights, and just improving landings in general. Anyone been to bankson lately? You park below what used to be the launch. And this is a lake that does consistantly have the out of state anglers that all the attention seems to keep getting directed at. Ive met people from kentucky, ohio, indiana, and illionois all on Bankson. And I only fished on Bankson for 3 months last year. 

I still think that the amount of money spent by non trout and salmon anglers is greatly underestimated. I dont think chad is in the minority when he says he has spent $35k+ on fishing gear. Theres a lot of money out there being spent on fishing, and its not all being spent on trout and salmon. So why not spend some money on improving things for those people that fish for species other than trout and salmon?


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

jade & chad,
Would you guys really say you represent the average Joe blow bass fisherman in Michigan, 'cause I just don't know about that. I know that among trout and salmon anglers, you have your share of guys who head to the river with a $30 wal-mart rod and a dozen crawlers, and then you have guys who wouldn't dare be seen with out at least a $1,000 bamboo rod and all the bells and wistles. I think I fall somewhere in the middle, and the #'s of dollars I posted are pretty much average. The equipment I use and the mony I spend are pretty much comparable to what I see most and hear about up and down the river. I'm just an average guy out there. I fish more than a couple of weekends a year (maybe 50-60 days on the river/year), for sure, but I dont have the time or money to spend as the giudes and tackle reps who may log 100-250 days/year on the rivers and lakes and go through more rods and reals than I'll probably ever own. As far as the Big lake fishing goes, there ain't no cheap way around it. It starts out at expensive and goes up fron there. I couldn't even comment on the money speant there.
In the bass fishing realm, you guys sound more like tournament anglers, as most (not all) bass fishermen I know would cringe at the thaught of paying more than say $40-50 for a rod. One of the great things about bass is that the average guy doesn't NEED to spend a ton on fancy equipment, and doesn't NEED to travell further than the nearest lake or river (in most cases) to have a good time and catch a few. And I think most of the bass fisherman I know tend to be more on the conservative side, simpley because they can be. Sure you can go and spend thousands on a nice new Ranger boat, complete with gps, fish-finder, twin Merc's, and all that stuff, but most of the guy's I see are sitting in a 14' aluminum (if they fish from a boat at all), with an ugly-stick, $10-15 zebco reel, and a couple dozen crawlers. Either way, you're still not even scratching the surface of a typical Lake Michigan set-up.
As far as the pike and musky fisheries I tend to agree with you guys, that the DNR cuold be doing more, But you keep lumping them in with bass, and that is a different situation all together (as I said in my last post, thats what the thread is supposed to be about, so I'm just trying to focus on that). I could see giveing A small portion of the dollers to try and make the fishery here like the stories I hear about from the Canadian fly-in trips. You know, where the guys run out of shiners or whatever and start catching them on cigarette butts and pieces of shoe-lace and stuff? THAT would be a blast. One of you guys mentioned the MMF (I think). are there more clubs out there for pike and muskie? I hope so. Just an FYI, but trout and salmon do recieve a ton of there support from non-gvt. funded clubs like that also. Trout Unlimited, the Federation of FlyFishers, Anglers of the Au Sable, to name a few. They are responsable for alot of the bank improvement and under-water structure on our rivers, Not the DNR. I don't know if that kind of support is really happening In our warm watter fisheries or not, but it should be. The DNR has to spend most of the money on the trout and salmon, as it's really the bread and butter fishery. Do you really think they don't know what they're doing? .....Wait, dont answer that (I've got some issues with the states deer heard, so......).
Anyway, back to bass, I guess that I just dont see the need for improvement, the possibility of much improvement, or the bucks rolling in that would make it a big priority for the DNR. I must admit though, you guys keep making some good arguement. Keep it up.....This is kinda' fun.


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

Chad,
By the way, you are definately on to somthing as far as the spawning time in northern michigan. I've seen (and ,yes, even caught) tons of bass that are still on the beds well into july in the Grayling area. Those are the days when I tend to hit the lake a bit more, as the trout fishing starts to go to hell after the hex hatch. I agree with the point you made about the opener being a bit off scheduall, especially in our northern lakes. This seems to be more the norm vs. the exception, in most rescent years.


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

> Would you guys really say you represent the average Joe blow bass fisherman in Michigan, 'cause I just don't know about that.


No, I dont really do that much bass fishing these days. Ive never fished a bass tournament in my life. Of all the guys I fished with last year, we all spent about the same amount of money on bass fishing. None of them have ever fished a tournament either. 



> In the bass fishing realm, you guys sound more like tournament anglers, as most (not all) bass fishermen I know would cringe at the thaught of paying more than say $40-50 for a rod.


Again, never fished a tournament at all. And all of the people I know, while possibly not excited about running out and dropping 100+ on a rod, dont consider spending that sort of money out of the question. 



> One of the great things about bass is that the average guy doesn't NEED to spend a ton on fancy equipment, and doesn't NEED to travell further than the nearest lake or river (in most cases) to have a good time and catch a few.


Agreed. The same can be said for any species. You dont need a $1000 flyrod or a $1.5million dollar fishing boat to catch trout and salmon. A snoopy rod and a mepps will work just fine. 



> but most of the guy's I see are sitting in a 14' aluminum (if they fish from a boat at all), with an ugly-stick, $10-15 zebco reel, and a couple dozen crawlers. Either way, you're still not even scratching the surface of a typical Lake Michigan set-up.


I dont agree that is the norm. On every lake ive been to, the norm is quite a bit more high tech than that. Even so, for every one boat on lake michigan, there are easily 100 boats inland. 



> As far as the pike and musky fisheries I tend to agree with you guys, that the DNR cuold be doing more,


I dont want more, I want SOMETHING. The DNR is not doing anything for musky fishing. Give me ANYTHING!



> But you keep lumping them in with bass, and that is a different situation all together


The reason the lump got started (after the thread had already gotten off topic) was because someone decided to make a bold statement and say that it wasnt fair for the trout/salmon to give up any funds to the non quality species. 



> I could see giveing A small portion of the dollers to try and make the fishery here like the stories I hear about from the Canadian fly-in trips. You know, where the guys run out of shiners or whatever and start catching them on cigarette butts and pieces of shoe-lace and stuff? THAT would be a blast.


It would only take a small portion, and thats all im asking for. Something, anything, is better than what we have now, that being NOTHING.



> One of you guys mentioned the MMF (I think). are there more clubs out there for pike and muskie?


Not familiar with the mmf. The mma is the michigan muskie association, and their pike counterpart would like be the pikemasters. Im glad that trout and salmon receive additional support also. Im not against having trout and salmon in michigan. Im against dropping funding for all other species in order to 'maintain' a population of trout and salmon that requires stocking upwards of 10 million fish per year to maintain a fishable population.



> Do you really think they don't know what they're doing?


Im sure they know what they are doingl. Do you really think they are trying to conserve natural resources by ignoring all species other than trout and salmon? Afterall, the dnr should not be financially driven. They have a responsibility to you, to me, and to everyone in michigan. And as far as im concerned, they dropped the ball. And they arent so much as even trying to pick it back up.



> back to bass, I guess that I just dont see the need for improvement, the possibility of much improvement, or the bucks rolling in that would make it a big priority for the DNR.


The need for improvement is evident to me in that most of the lakes I fish on are littered and could be improved easily. The possibilities for improvement are endless. As for the cash rolling in, go to any town in michigan that doesnt border a major trout/salmon river, and/or lake michigan. Look around in the store. Tell me what kind of tackle they sell. The biggest fishings stores near me (D+R Sports and Gander Mountains) stock 80% bass lures. D+R has a few fly rods, a few fly reels, an extrememly modest supply of flies and tying accessories, and about 10 isles of bass lures. Gander Mountain has an even steeper percentage of bass tackle. And as far as boats go, for every one salmon boat on the lot at a marina and/or boat store around here, there are 25 bass boats. Dollar wise, im happy to again give you the benefit of the doubt and say that trout/salmon anglers spend more. But I will not budge when I say that bass/pike/musky/everyone else/etc deserve some return as well, as trout and salmon fisherman most certainly are not the only ones paying into the system so to speak. We want something back too. Even if it is a tenth of what a trout/salmon fisherman gets. Even if it is a hundredth of what a trout/salmon fisherman gets. Give us something, give us anything.


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

Jaid,
I'm running out of steam with this arguement. it seems that you have your opinion and I have mine. Good points have been made on both accounts, and we've gained nothing. I stand firmly to the things I've said as I'm sure you do. It's been fun, but there's just no way were going to agree on ...... well, anything it seems. 
how 'bout we make a deal. Let me take you salmon fishing on the PM next year. Seriously. You've got too see for yourselfe what I'm talking about. I've got plenty of tackle so the cost would be verry little ( maybe a share of gas and food). You take me out on the lake and blow my mind on our warm water fishery (I'll pay for my share), and we can argue this issue again next year. I'm thinking that if you like to catch big muskies and pike on the lake, than the fall salmon run and even our spring steelies are going to kick your butt (and I mean that in a good way).They are an absolute blast. As far as the differences in the fight, just emagine a 15lb fish (pretty average, overall) In the current of a powerfull river, and several runs are pretty normal. It's a whole 'nother ballgame dude. 
Get back to me if you are game. We just don't seem to be making any headway here. ([email protected])


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

Salmonator, 

We agree on a few things. Like, I agree that neither one of us is going to budge.  

Id be happy to take you up on your offer. I get out on the big lake a few times a year and do some salmon trolling. Its a blast. I love catching salmon. Its just not something that I have access to do more than a few times a year. A buddy of mine went salmon fishing on a river (not sure which river) last year and hasnt stopped talking about it since. He had a blast. 

That said, given the choice of fishing for salmon every day for the rest of my life, and fishing for musky every day of my life, id take musky in a heartbeat. I cant say as though I have ever fished for salmon on a river, though. But I also cant imagine anything coming close to musky fishing. You are very right when you say its a whole different ballgame. Im not sure if youve dont much musky fishing, or ever caught one, but I can say the first time I caught a musky, and held it up for a picture, I was awed. They are an amazing fish. They easily have all of the strength of any salmon, and more. They just dont have the stamina a salmon has. Leaning out of a boat and having a 40"+ fish swim out of your hands is an equally awesome feeling. Ive only been musky fishing since last september (only fished until mid november). There is one lake that I have put enough hours on to begin establishing patterns. Other than that lake, and possibly one other, I probably wouldnt be able to help you get on any musky. Im still a musky newbie big time. Id certainly be happy to try, though. I dont have a boat or anything though, as I fish out of all my friends boats. Im sure we could get you out if you wanted to go though. The only other downside to musky fishing is, its not like anything else in terms of numbers. I know a lot of people that have been at it for quite some time and never caught one. Myself and three of my friends started last september, and by november we had all caught at least one fish. But two of them only caught one fish, in probably 75 trips. Im fairly sure I could put you on a fish, but no guarantees in musky fishing, thats for sure.!

No hard feelings on anything ive said in this thread. If it came out as an attack on you, it really wasnt meant to be. Im just really stubborn, and becoming more and more protective of our musky every day. Its something everyone needs to help with if there is any hope of keeping the musky around for the long haul. I think its about the only game fish that is catch/photo/released more than bass. Id say at least 75% of all musky caught are released. The few that are kept, are probably kept under size limit by inexperienced anglers that think they have a whopper of a pike. Even with the strong CPR numbers, these fish really do need our help if they are gonna stick around. 

I could go on and on and on about musky, they are quickly becoming my #1 passion in life...


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> _Originally posted by jaid _
> *Salmonator,
> 
> We agree on a few things. Like, I agree that neither one of us is going to budge.
> ...



First of all, I would like to commend you guys for agreeing to disagree in a civil fashion. This has got to be one of the longest threads in internet history that didn't need any editing or deletion.


Next, Jaid, Beware!!! As the passion for Muskie grows, you will find insignificant things like food and sleep take the back seat.


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

Considering its the weekend, and my only chance to sleep in, and I posted once at 12:20am, anda again at 7:20 am, its safe to say sleep has already been cut into! 

And I have no doubt that id give up a dinner to buy a new musky bait instead. 

Im afraid it may be too late to save me!  

1 hour 'till "fishing with joe bucher" is on!


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

jaid,
Glad you're interested in the offer. I'm looking forward to it myselfe. No I've never caught a Muskie or pike, but it's something I've wanted to try for quite some time. I read an article about a guy catching a BIG muskie with a flyrod on St. Clair a couple of years ago (new state record for a flyrod, I think), and since then it's been on my to-do list. Me and a fishing buddy are going to hit St. Clair this spring pretty hard and give it our best between the steelheading we'll be doing on weekends. I even posted about it a couple of weeks ago on the fly-tying/fishing forum.
I do understand muskie are verry strong, and verry tough to hook (fish of a thousand casts, right?). It took me five seasons before I caught my first steelhead. Want to talk about goosebumps? It was 32", 14lbs., and released like your muskie and yes, that too is a good feeling. Salmon (and this is just my opinion, and contrary to most of the things I've read or heard) are harder even than steelhead to interest in your offering. The shere numbers of fish however, by compareson, make it almost impossible to at least hook up with a few fish/day. There are often times when they'll bite pretty good though, and I've learned that low light almost always is the best part of the day, be it morning or evening. When you get them on the line, hold on to your a$$ 'cause all hell is about to break loose, especially if they are fresh from the lake. They all fight a bit differently. Most will run, run, run, and many of them are quite acrobatic too. most of the fish I've caught are out of the water way more than any steelie I've had on (this too is contrary to what most guys will tell you). Some of them just don't care that there hooked and will just bull-dog you and go back to the hole and go about buisiness as usual 'till you put enough preassure on them to get them moveing. THEN it's time to hang on to your a$$ cause usually the the ones that do that are pretty big (or fat pregnant hens). If you let them get down stream on you, you are instantly going to know what I'm talking about as the 15-20+lb. fish at the end of your line turns sideways in that current and turns, as if by majic, into a 30-40lb. fish (and there are 30 -50lb'rs in there). You've got youre work cut out for you at that point. 
Then you have all the naturall obsticals. Log-jams, rocks, other anglers. Most fish will head streight for the nearest wood once hooked. I've had fish jump and try to wrap me around the branches of low hanging trees to break off. I've had fish who get wrapped around the legs of other anglers. You ever try to STEER a fish around a gazillion possible hazards all within 10-80 yds. of where you're standing? 
I know that every single muskie you catch is a trophy, reguardless of size. Just hooking one is a difficult task. You could hook fifty salmon a day in the river, and if you bring two or three of them to the net, you've had a pretty good day. I've had days like that, as well as better and worse ones. If you think you can get me into a Muskie or pike that tops the feeling of my first steelhead, or the 25lb. salmon I caucght a couple of years ago (and I hope you do), hell, I'll write the check to buy us some more muskies. No fish will ever top the 27", 9lb+ brown I caught last year though. Whole 'nother ballgame.........


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

Im pretty sure I can get you on a musky, probably not a monster, as I havent even found one of those for myself yet. Like I said, im pretty much a rookie, but ive got a pattern and a lot of ideas for the lake i fish most. Give me a couple weeks into the season, and we should be on the fish. 

That said, if you want to catch some pike, I can put you on 18-26"rs all day long. Weve got a nice lake we hit up when weve been shut out several times in a row by the musky just to give or reels a workout. We usually hook up with a dozen or so pike every time we hit the water there. 

Pike are definitely the acrobats, and musky more the tough guys. Although, weve had musky come completely out of the water also. 

Speaking of steering fish, I have a quick story about one of my friends first musky last year. We were out on campau lake and had been fishing about 6 hours already. It was the middle of the day and the sun was scorching us pretty bad, and we were all getting a bit tired and hungry. We agreed to make one more drift over some weeds to see what turned up, and then head for some dinner. I was standing on the front seat of the 14' aluminum boat we were in. one friend was in the far back, tossing off the back of the boat. And another friend was in the middle of the boat, sitting down. As we were drifting, he cast out, reeled his little cleo in, and then set down his rod. As soon as he sat down the rod, some weeds got hung up on his lure, so he grabbed his rod, and shook the weeds off. As soon as he started to shake off the weeds, BAM, musky on! He jumped to his feet and started to fight this guy, his drag was set pretty low. The musky made a quick run straight behind the boat. My friend in the back of the boat was trying to get his line in. I got my line in, and grabbed the net. My friend that was in the middle of the boat, had moved more toward the back of the boat, and in the process had snagged the other friends line. After a struggle, and a lure getting dropped in the lake, he was unsnagged from the other line and back to fighting the musky. It ran straight under the boat, and before i saw where the fish was headed, my friend was coming straight at me trying to fight this fish. It ended up doing a few more laps around the boat, and after the 4 or 5 minutes of chaos, we managed to get a net on his fish. Ended up being a 35"r. The pic can be seen here: http://www.muskyhunters.com/pics/2002/andy/andy-muskie-35inch.jpg Trust me when I say that behind that musky, he is smiling!

Sorry bout the long story, and to further hijack this thread!


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

Nice pic! I've heard those guys like to hit pretty close to the boat sometimes. I just wish you lived out here and we could hit St. Clair for those guys all summer. Would be a blast I'm sure. 14' aluminum?..........Hmmmmmm. Sounds familiar. 
You guys ever use flies? I'd like to catch one that way. I've been tying up some big streamars for just that type of thing. Bunny leeches and the like. What do you guys catch most of your fish on? Do you mostley reley on trolling or do you stop and sight fish for them ever? 
off the subject, how do you post pictures on the site, 'cause I've got a few myselfe, that I'd like to show you. I'm rather new to the site and I don't know how anything works yet.
How them bucktails coming? should I have a few in my boxes this spring? If they are hand tied by me, I can probably justify them as being a fly, at least in my own mind.


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

> I've heard those guys like to hit pretty close to the boat sometimes.


Yea, seeing a big shadow following your lure as you vigorously figure 8 it around at the side of the boat, all the while your knees wobbling in anticipation of the strike, is a pretty cool feeling!

We fished out of a 14' aluminum all year last year. We also had a 12' that we took out a bit. When all 4 of us went, we took both out. This year, two of my friends are upgrading a bit. So we should have a couple 17' bass boats!  



> You guys ever use flies? I'd like to catch one that way. I've been tying up some big streamars for just that type of thing. Bunny leeches and the like. What do you guys catch most of your fish on? Do you mostley reley on trolling or do you stop and sight fish for them ever?


We havent used any flies yet. This year, im going to hit em hard with soft plastics, and some bunny leeches wouldnt be out of the question. Id just have to figure out how to tie one!

Most of the fish we caught last year, were on bucktails. Between the 4 of us that went regularly, we caught 15 muskies. Of the 15, 7 came on bucktails. I caught a total of 8 for the year, 5 of which came on bucktails. Its my go to, confidence bait. We have done a little bit of trolling, mostly in the late fall when it was so cold on the lake that our hands went numb trying to cast. I know I personally, and I think most everyone else I fish with, prefer to cast. Trolling takes part of the challenge out of it for me. As far as sight fishing goes, There have been a couple occasions where we saw them before we casted, but weve never had any hookups that way. Generally, the only sight fishing we get a chance to do, is seeing them follow a lure, and doing whatever we can to convince them to eat the lure next to the boat! Im a big fan of sight fishing though, so im always on the lookout. Another thing that may qualify as sight fishing, we do a lot of spot lighting at night. We like to cruise the shallows with a big spot light to get an idea where the fish are at. Its great for nailing down a pattern. Every once and a while we toss a bait out while spotting. So far, 9 out of 10 that we toss a lure at arent interested. But when you get that one that is, he normally nails it. I caught one while a friend spot lighted him, that was pretty cool to see!

As far as posting pics goes, I normally post pics to my own website (www.muskyhunters.com) and then link them here. That way I dont put any strains on michigan-sportsman's bandwidth, and I like to be able to manage all my pics anyway. If you click on the "Your Pictures" link up at the top of the page, im pretty sure you can post pics here.

The bucktails are still coming along pretty decent. I went back through my box and repaired a few from last year, and ive tied a couple more. I tried tying one 'mepps style' and it turned out pretty good. Much easier to tie them that way! Only problem is, I need bigger hooks. The biggest I have are 4/0's, I shouldve gone bigger. Ill be ordering 6/0's in the near future, I think theyll be about the perfect size. Heres one next to a mepps musky killer:










Its a safe assumption my tackle box will have at least 12 bucktails in it at any given time


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

jaid,

Good lookin' bucktail! Still working on that picture thing, as I don't have a website. The fishing sounds like a lot of fun though. Just heard something on the news tonight that earned me alot of sympathy for the muskie fishery, especially on St. Clair, as I'm sure youve heard about. The rash/disease they've found on several of our fish. That deffinately presents a whole new scenerio in how the fishing dollars are allocated. I hope the DNR see's it's way clear to free up some dollars (and I don't care where they come from) to allow for some research into this and help to maintain our great muskie fishery. They now deffenatly quallify as a species in need of the states help. Sorry to hear about it to say the least. 
Anyway other than that, I was thinking that maybe it's time to return this thread to jpollman, and get back to the bass season issue that it was orrigionally intended for (I assume you've taken my Email for further discussion) or start a new thread. 
As I've said I don't have a real strong oppinion on the bass issue either way, but the point I have the most exerience with is one I agreed with previosley, that I see most of the bass around the state spawning after the season opens up. I've, in fact, caught bass off the beds as late as early August some years (northern Michigan, of coarse)What's your experience with this?


----------



## jaid (Jul 5, 2002)

Hey SALMONATOR, 

Yea, I had heard about the bad news with the st clair 'skies. Hamilton Reef started a thread on it over in the st clair section. Sad news indeed. Luckily, it seems to be a situation that has been caught at a fairly early stage, as much if not most of the st clair muskies seem to be clear of the disease for now. Hopefully we are catching it early enough to make some quick advances and resolving the issues. 

It brings up another point for the bass needing a little extra funding too. Southern michigan bass lakes have been getting hit hard in recent years with the Largemouth bass virus (lmbv). This, unlike the musky virus, has been shown to be fatal in many bass. The real kicker is that it is most common in bass that have already matured(I think theyve said bass in the 2lb range tend to be the most commonly infected). I know that in a few of the lakes we regularly fish, it is becoming pretty common. On Austin Lake this year, more than 50% of the bass we caught had sores (see the other thread for a pic!). Another good project for the dnr to get involved in!

My experience with bass spawning has been different nearly every year for the last 10. Of course, 4 of those last 10 I didnt do any fishing(I should have been commited for spending that much time off the water!). Prior to that, I spent my life growing up on, and fishing, what was a really great fishing lake, with very little fishing pressure. I probably knew that lake better at the age of 12 for bass fishing than 98% of the others that lived on it. The bass always spawned in the same major areas. I can remember seeing them on the beds as early as late april, and I can remember years when they didnt move in until mid july. It really just seemed to depend on the year, and on the weather. That said, the weather will never be consistent, especially in michigan. So I guess in that regard, im more of the opinion that the bass season(and other species for that matter), should be variable. If we have an unusually long winter, its quite possible that the bass could be moving in to spawn as soon as the season opens up, and that certainly wouldnt be good. In years that something like that may happen, I think it would be very prudent to change the season opener. 

As far as the whole catch and release dispute goes, im all for catch and release, but too much catch and release can be bad sometimes also. If it were up to me, id rather see too much c+r than I would too little. It really is something that I think needs to be carefully managed. If the population explodes, predators need to be introduced or 12-16" bass will overrun the lake in no time. And while a 4 or 5 pound bass can take down a 12"r, a 16" surely cant. 

Its all about balance, which takes a lot of time, a lot of research, and unfortunately, a lot of money!


----------



## SALMONATOR (Jan 7, 2003)

Yeah, I agree that our winters this past ten years or so make it difficult to predict when or what the spring spawning srason is going to produce (in more species than bass). Overall, they seem to be late, or at least long runing, though. A streach of a few years there had them in and out pretty quickly, though we seem to be getting back to that late or long running thing the last couple of years. Maby a more seasonal aproach would be a better answer. 
Rather than to say that the bass season will open up on the third saturday in june every year (Lk St Clair regs for example), like rifle season is always on nov. 15, perhaps they should handle it more like the goose or duck season, where they evaluate untill the last minute before posting the seasonal regs and/or dates. Or zone a season that opens up in our northern counties later than it does in our neck of the woods. Again, I ain't no bass pro, but based upon what I've seen it's the best thing I can come up with.


----------



## Shoes (Apr 12, 2000)

A few years ago the DNR changed the regulation to make it illegal to even "target" out of season bass. I assume its to take away the temptation to keep any fish that are taken out of season, but you'd have to ask the DNR. By the way, I hope you find that lost lake.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

It also means COs have the power to make a judgement call when an angler who is legally fishing for an open species catches and even releases a bass in the spring. The CO can decide that the angler 'meant' to catch the bass and give him a ticket, ruining a day of fishing that was really legal.

I have a bass boat. I hear all the time from other anglers who 'know' I'm bass fishing illegally in the spring, but my belief is that until COs and other anglers become mind-readers, they can't possibly know whether I meant to catch the bass or not, so it should only be illegal if I KEEP the bass.

A regulation should be reasonably enforceable to have the desired effect and should NOT be easily abused and cause prejudice among other anglers. That's my opinion and why I'm trying to make it only illegal if you KEEP the bass.


----------



## Huntin Horseman (Nov 2, 2002)

I voted C&R because like right now I would like to go try and catch a few bass to practice before opener.I don't know wh yit isn't that way alreadt,Shane


----------



## tubejig (Jan 21, 2002)

Can anybody say Quality Bass Management.LOL.


----------



## fishing addict (Mar 15, 2003)

I,would like to see a catch&release season,for smallmouths.Largemouths don't do much before the open anyway.We miss some of the best smallmouth fishing in March,April,&May,the way it is now.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Largemouth fishing is awesome in Northern climates from ice out on too.

It will be much easier getting approval of a catch-and-release season for spring largemouths than it will be for spring smallies based on available study data, accepted practices and angler opinions.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

?


> TBone, I don't get your point. Is it your assumption that only guys who join the Federation fish for bass?


I haven't read all your post Dan, too tired of long winded loads of . . .



> 65 to 70% are in SE Michigan just like the population itself


Do you guys even listen to yourselves? If I have to spell it out, it's about fishing pressure. Lots of good smallmouth lakes in the north, low population densities = light angling pressure. On top of it, the hard core numbers of guys that tournament fish would be represented by the federation numbers. I think that's a fair statement. I would think that a season is more important in the south to control fishing pressure. In the Nn.orth, the season is not much of a factor at all in controlling pressure, because it doesn't exist in the same manner is in the sourthern regions. I hope that I am clear now.

Not to mention the availablity of more species that receive the bulk of the angling effort ie. salmon and trout. Should we look up the number of guides for salmon and trout vs bass guides both in northern regions vs southern especially se Michigan? I am sure that would not be indicative of the species of choice in the regions though.

I replied here because you brought the question up earlier in the thread. If it was off topic, leave it out of this thread completely, don't post and not expect an answer.

Thanks camera guy for the english lesson. Jeesh. BTW, can I start sending all my posts/reports both here and at work to you for editorial comments


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

TBone, you still fail to see the simple point that the season exists to supposedly protect spawning bass from angling pressure of ANY kind throughout the state. Yet the spawn in many southern fisheries and almost all of the northern fisheries takes place after the season opens. 

Why have the current season at all? It doesn't protect anything. Plus the fact that there is no evidence to demonstrate that CATCH AND RELEASE fishing for pre-spawn or spawning bass has an effect on the bass population whatsoever should lead one to conclude that it would be rational to institute a catch and release season for bass statewide.


----------



## outdoorzman1 (Apr 14, 2003)

Even thought I admidately don't agree with some of the replys to this topic I must say even the ones I do not agree with have opened my eyes to a somewhat different point of view. I think this thread along with all the replys goes to show the numerous different views and opinions on bass and bass fishing. I think this really lets us all see different points of view that may one day go into a decision of a different bass season. 

I may not agree with some of your guys replys but I respect all your thoughts on this subject they really have shown me all sides to such an issue.


----------



## Jim S. (May 5, 2002)

What is the purpose of fishery biologists and DNR personnel across the country (and Canada) initiating creel limits and length limits?

To protect the fishery from overharvest? NO, that can't be it because ALL the fish "I" catch are released alive and I guarantee 100% survival of the fish "I" release. And ALL the fish "I" catch are over 12" anyway.

What is the purpose of fishery biologists and DNR personnel across the country (and Canada) instituting closed seasons for gamefish?

To protect the fish from weather, egg-eating amphibians, natural and man-made toxins, or Heaven forbid, ANGLING PRESSURE? NO, that can't be it. Bass NEVER spawn before opening day anywhere, not one of 'em. Oh and don't you know, prespawn fishing is the MOST difficult time for any angler to hook (and of course immediately release guaranteeing 100% survival) a bass, especially a trophy female bass. There's nothing but 12" keepers until the opener anyway so what's the harm in that?

You know, the public has it all wrong. So do DNR personnel and anyone else that manages fisheries here in the U.S. All these laws and regulations that have been in place have done absolutely NOTHING to improve (bass) fishing here in the U.S. All they have done is prevent me from fishing for bass when I want to fish for bass.

You know what? I've had it with your dumb, unfounded, unscientific laws and regulations. What do you know about bass biology and behavior. I'm gonna go fish for bass before the season opener and you just try and stop me. My friends have been doing it for years and they have never been busted. And the bass fishing is awesome. Don't even think about trying to convince me that your stupid regulations has anything to do with it.

And who do you think you are, a mind-reader? It's not my fault the smallmouth outnumber the other gamefish 50-1 here along the mile roads of LSC. I'm fishing for (enter species) with this (enter lure choice). I can't help it that I've caught and released a dozen 4 pounders today.

Just open up fishing so that we Americans can fish whenever and wherever we want. It's our God-given right. I'm not damaging the fishery, it's the other guys. Leave me alone, the bass and I are doing just fine

Jim S. - proponent of PROTECTING our fisheries from anglers breaking the law, be it poaching or targeting and catching fish out of season.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Tbone says: I haven't read all your post Dan, too tired of long winded loads of . . .

Like I said, when all else fails, be rude and insulting. Theres a difference between disagreeing with someone, and being rude. I can disagree with people and still be friendly. I can debate a topic with them and then go about my business without thinking they are a big jerk because they dont agree with my opinions.

I dont know why some of you are still reading any of this. Youve already made up your minds. Im not going to change it. Save yourself some time and frustration. If you dont like what I post, stop reading it. Im posting for the anglers who are actually interested in reading what other anglers think about this topic.

Sure, I would like to change some minds. I know I wont change some of your minds. Youve picked your side and arent going to budge. Thats your business. I dont have a ton of free time either to keep debating the same few points over and over. Ive backed my statements and opinions with study data and fisheries biologists interviews. Anglers will accept them and believe them, or not.

Ive picked my side too, but someone may post something that makes me rethink it. So far, all most opposed have done is try to use what Ive posted back against me. Ive been studying this topic 20 years. I read the studies completely and investigate them with the researchers. I talk to a large number and variety of professionals on both sides of the issue. I listen to their opinions and beliefs.

I dont necessarily always go with the majority, but when the majority is overwhelming as on this topic, I feel pretty confident that Ive made a good decision. Until someone comes on here and posts something new that acceptably alters the decades of available data, I dont feel I need to consider changing my view.

I have no problem answering questions. I also have no problem explaining or debating specific points. I will continue to point out when anyone tries to make a point that I dont believe is supported by the majority of research and professional opinion. (I have also invited several biologists who are reading this stuff too to point out here, or by email if they dont want to do it publicly, if they believe I have made an error.) I will post information to support what I say. I will debate anyone, anytime and I will be prepared with facts, figures and biologists who agree with what I say. I personally think the person who can show real numbers and support for a side in a debate is more likely to win than someone whos best response is something like long winded loads of . . . 

This topic can be discussed in a respectful manner where we all behave as adults and dont belittle or attack anyone. Its been done before. A few of you have spent some of your time just trying to personally discredit me and take cheap shots. What does that really gain? Besides, when Im posting multiple fisheries biologists saying the same thing I am, arent you trying to discredit them too? After saying you respect, admire and trust those professionals?

Im human too. Sometimes I want to react back in the same manner, but I am trying to not do that. I know it doesnt gain me anything and Im not here to argue with people. Im here to participate in topics related to fishing including getting more bass fishing opportunity for Michigan bass anglers.

My approach involves thorough explanations that have been poked at by a few of you as long-winded. So be it. I am who I am. If you are able to get good points across in a much shorter post, congratulations. Youre a talented person and I mean that seriously. I do realize a few people in the past where just making constructive criticism. I can take that and appreciate it for how it was meant. Thanks. I will do what I can. Im doing the best I can with the time I have available.

Something to clarify on the actual issue. There are many more hardcore bass anglers than what is just in the federation. I know of quite a few since I fish other circuits and have friends in even more circuits that attract many bass tournament anglers that arent federation members.

Tournament anglers are not all that make up the ranks of frequent bass anglers. There are many more anglers who prefer to target bass that dont fish tournaments. Bass is the number one gamefish in the US. If you had read the 1996 FWS stats I posted for Michigan a while back, youd see that bass were just below panfish in this state, about the same as walleye, and more than trout and salmon combined. I just receive the 2001 stats in paper form, and there are now more bass anglers by a good margin than walleye anglers in Michigan.

Theyve changed their categories since 1996 so now if combine all the new Great Lakes and inland salmon and trout anglers, they number more than bass anglers. I plan on posting these updated numbers in a different thread soon for those interested.

Bass fishing is big business, even in Michigan. Many bass anglers want to fish for bass as much as possible. They put a lot of money and effort into their sport. I dont blame them one bit for questioning why Michigan needs a closed bass season if most of the other states dont. I think its a fair request to have it explained why we would need a season if all those other states dont. If good rationale cant be shown (it is not proof that we need a closed season just because we have a closed season), then we should have more bass fishing opportunity.

Even on this site, the vote is near 50/50. You are right if you guess its much higher on other sites and with other groups. I believe I posted that so far 100% of the federation clubs that have voted support lengthening the Michigan bass season as Ive proposed. A pretty good case can be made that they arent the selfish, uncaring anglers a few anglers make them out to be. A pretty good case can be made, that because they are so dedicated and interested in bass fishing, that they have spent the time to understand bass biology and management better, and they just know that the available research and most of the country supports a change in our small exception of a bass season.

Cameraguy made perfect sense when he said we have shown that our present bass season only protects part of the southern bass spawn and none of the northern bass spawn. Its pretty easy to see that an argument that we need a closed season to protect the spawn is not much of an argument when the present season doesnt do much for that anyway. Since that is the main claim by a few here that we need to protect the spawn, how can you reconcile that with the obvious that most of our spawn is not protected by the present season and that you also havent provided any scientific support that this protection is even needed, whereas I have provided study data, what the majority of the other states are doing and actual biologists who say the research shows this protection isnt needed.

It simply comes down to this: If all these other states, studies and biologists (all in the majority) are right, this whole debate is needless because if we dont really need the protection, the only argument left is with people who dont like any change and/or who dont want to see bass anglers in Michigan get to fish more for various reasons.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Jim S, your post has errors in it that have already been covered. Our own Michigan study showed catch rates were lower in almost every case in the spring catch-and-release than they were during the open season. Apparently, it is a difficult time for the majority of the anglers. This is real study data from a Michigan study.

No one has said bass dont spawn before opening day. It isnt hard to comprehend though that if the lakes (according again to our Michigan study) that need to most protection are the northern smallmouth lakes, and they do have the great majority (in many cases all) of their spawn after opening day, that our closed season isnt doing anything for those lakes. It must be something else. I fish a lot of these northern smallmouth lakes. Im well acquainted with their spawn.

We arent discussing ALL the regulations here are we? Were only covering whether or not the State of Michigan needs a completely closed bass season. You kind of make my point in a convoluted way too. The majority of the states dont have a closed season, so by your reasoning, the majority of the bass public and biologists dont believe a closed season is necessary to protect bass populations. Theyre using some of the other regulations you mentioned that are not part of this topic  we arent trying to change any of those. We agree with most of them. Thanks.

I cant speak for others, but I have not condoned or encouraged illegal fishing. Ive just stated that its a fact it is occurring by a large number of anglers, so it has to be considered as to how it has and is affecting bass in Michigan. According to the study of the legal catch-and-release bass season, this fishing has not hurt those lakes, and thanks to the study estimates, it isnt hard, as I posted earlier to estimate that a large number of anglers have been doing this on many other Michigan lakes since at least 1988, yet we dont see any obvious, negative affects because of it.

Just talking about something doesnt mean I favor, promote or approve of it. Talking about it or not talking about it doesnt change that its happening. Since the preseason bass fishing is a reality, its hard to make a case that our season is protecting bass as much as some claim. Regulations only work if most anglers follow them. Saying that doesnt make it right or mean I condone it. It is occurring and it does have an affect. Im just recognizing that.

I understand why many anglers choose to ignore this one regulation. Ive decided since the majority U.S. opinion (anglers and fisheries biologists) on the bass season issue is that it isnt needed for bass management, I will work towards a change so the issue of legality is resolved. Your opinion is that all laws should be followed in all cases. I hope everyone who feels that way is able to practice what he or she preaches.

I want what you want - to have anglers following regulations, but I also believe that any regulation that comes down to a judgment call (attempt to take) by another human, is a poor regulation subject to abuse and prejudice. I prefer to have regulations that are fairly enforceable and have a real purpose behind them. My approach is to change the regulation. The legality issue is moot then. Then, Michigan bass anglers will enjoy opportunity similar to most of America.


----------



## outdoorzman1 (Apr 14, 2003)

SWAMP MONSTER,

I have finally located where I found that information I used in a reply to this subject about the grand river. You asked where I got the information I used as an example in my reply. Again this was only used for an example in my reply, whether or not it is true not sure. Just copy and paste this link and it will take you right to the reports. Just wanted to show you this so you could see where I got that from.

http://www.wmi.org/bassfish/asp_reports/interactive/doc.html?id=80496


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

Jim S.,
Who is advocating fishing out of season? In your emotional tirade you seem to think someone is, who is it?

Throughout this whole thread you have not posted even one single piece of research to support your position. Is that why you are getting steamed?...That you have nothing to back up your mindset?...Just your belief in the infallibility of the DNR? In an earlier thread you said that mistakes were the reason that heart surgeons have to pay high malpractice insurance rates. Surgeons make mistakes, but the DNR doesn't? Hmmm. 

Also, since it is legal, I think that I will catch and keep my five fish limit everytime I go out after the bass season opens (and if you don't think that I am capable of catching a limit almost everytime out on LSC, think again). I get out an average of four days a week. You do the math, but, I am assuming since that is legal, that you are okay with that. It's really the legality of the situation that you are concerned about, right? Rationality be damned, the law is the law.

I'm sure you never go over the speed limit in your vehicle either. Many studies have shown that speeding drivers are dangerous. Knowing how much you care about anglers fishing out of season, which is breaking the law after all, I'm sure that you aren't willing to break the law and put people in danger by speeding. Rolling through stop signs, changing lanes without signaling, speeding up through a yellow light, you wouldn't do any of those things because they endanger people, which is obviously far worse than someone catching and releasing a fish...and it would be breaking the law. 

Also, do you think that regulations should be passed even if they are unenforcable? Or do you think that it's too much to ask that an objective standard be used when creating rules, regs, and laws? Lake St. Clair is open all year long for walleye and pike (I guess nobody cares about "protecting" these fish). How on earth can CO's determine whether someone is fishing for pike or muskie (the season doesn't open until the first Saturday in June)? The answer is THEY CAN'T if anglers immediately release fish. The regulation is unenforcable, therefore irrational and useless. Science is not always the determining factor in creating angling regulations. Public acceptance plays an important role. The MI DNR is a useful agency, but to assume that the current seasons are based solely on science and to deem the DNR infallible is an extremely naive assumption about the workings of a large bureaucracy. 

Many are us are advocating an early catch and release season. That's all. Besides, why have unforceable regs on the books?


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Outdoorzman, Thanks for the link. I'm familiar with that sight. I'm assuming that the tournament that was mentioned was probably a BFL tournament that was held up stream. I'm not to familiar with those stretches honestly. With the length of that river and the habitat changes that take place along the different stretches I could easily believe that some stretches are better than others.
Anyway, thanks for the link.


----------



## Jim S. (May 5, 2002)

I admit that I am slowly becoming tired of trying to get my point across. We are simply attempting to convince the other side to agree with, and practice, what we are preaching. I disagree that I will never be swayed from my opinion as I have an open mind, as I am sure most of us also have.

Up until now I have taken the word of many anglers posting on this and the LSC.net page that there is, and has been for a long time, lots of anglers fishing for bass along the mile roads and other locations on LSC (as well as other closed systems). I have never seen it for myself. But I believe the majority of anglers who publicly state that they have and are catching bass pre-opener. 

As I said before, I have NEVER even launched my boat on LSC before the bass opener, primarily because one, I would be very upset by seeing for myself the smallies (and LM, though I agree based on studies, that SMB need more "care") being lifted over the gunnels. And two, to be honest, I admit that I myself would, just like driving too fast, be tempted to "when in Rome, do as the Romans" and fish "unintentionally" for bass. 

What I would like is for all anglers, but especially the serious bass anglers, to stop fishing for bass on particularly LSC (we all agree that it is one of the best smallie waters in the state) until the opener. IMO, it doesn't matter if you're C&R, the law on the books says it is illegal to target (keep or C&R) bass before the respective opener. There is evidence for protecting spawning fish in the journals as well as evidence that C&R during the spawn has minimal effect on bass recruitment. But, none of these studies on bass recruitment have been done on LSC, at least one since the zebra mussel/round and bluntnose goby/exotic species "accidental" infiltrations into the Great Lakes systems. 

It is obvious you guys (djkimmel and CameraGuy) believe C&R pre, during, and after the spawn absolutely does not, and will not adversely affect smallie recruitment. I am stating that I believe it might/will. My argument is that right now, the law in Michigan states that it is illegal to target bass on inland water until Memorial Day/3rd weekend in June. 

And as I said before, I am overboard passionate about our country's natural resources, particularly freshwater fish. That's why I am on an "emotional tirade" as Camera Guy writes. I am all for enjoying what God has given us. But I am also fanatical about making sure my (and all other) children will enjoy what I have had the privilege to enjoy.

Camera Guy, yes, it's all about the "legality" (your word not mine) of the situation. A law is a law. If you are a citizen (or even here in the US "illegally" IMO) of this country it is your responsibility to obey each and every law of the particular state you are residing/fishing in. If you don't agree with the laws of that state, you are free to move to another state which suits your taste. But, I absolutely do not agree that just because someone disagrees with a law that it is O.K. for that person to not obey that law, no matter how stupid or unenforcable that law is.

Just as there are lots of drivers on Michigan freeways going over 70 MPH, whether intentional or unintentional, it means they are breaking the law. It is up to the state patrol to catch them/us in the act. 

Camera Guy, let's say you and I work for the same public entity, say Wolverine University, in the same department, say HR. Let's theoretically say there are 1 million Michiganians employed within our department. What if say 1000 (a very small number % wise) HR employees (with you and I NOT being one of them) have been dipping into the HR funds and slowly getting very rich, for sure much wealthier than you and I. Their argument for doing so is that no one will notice, no one will be able to bust them, there's too many people for the authorities to keep track of their crime. How would you feel about what they are doing? Would you turn the other cheek and let them go about their business hoping (or not) that they would soon be caught? Would you join them, saying too bad for the rest of you, it's your loss? Now, I'm not saying you would do any of the above. What I am asking is, is it fair to the the other 999,000 HR employees who could potentially lose their jobs because of what a small percentage are doing with the HR funds? 

As has been proposed before by others, open up a dozen or so other inland lakes for early season SM and LM bass fishing. Why in the world would you want to mess with such a now-great bass factory like LSC and the other Great Lakes? It's a crap shoot, a roll of the dice. For anyone to state that there will or won't be adverse=negative ramifications from opening up LSC (or other similar lakes i.e. Charlevoix) is just a guess right now. If anyone can predict the future of bass fishing in Michigan please stand up because I will pay you for information. We have great bass fishing in Michigan. There are options to fish for bass before Memorial day. Some exist in other states. To open up every body of water in Michigan to C&R seems extreme to me. Can you guarantee that no bass will be harvested by non-avid bass anglers?

Jim


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

That sums it up nicely for me Jim.

I love how there is a cry for proof that a closed season is necessary but nothing offered for proof that we don't need a closed season except the opinions stated second hand by an advocate for the elimination of the season. Before you get upset Dan, I have no doubt that you can find Biologists that agree with you in Michigan. Heck we can only get 4 out of 5 dentists to agree about chewing sugarless gum.    Everyone has their own opinion, doesn't make one better than another.

From your arguments, seems like you are willing to concede that pulling a bass from a bed will lead to predation by Gobies and a sterile nest if the bass even returns to it after it is released. You contend that the individual bass nest isn't necessary for recruitment. Since we can't catch every fish on every nest, why not just make it an early catch and keep season? By your logic, it's the same. Right??? 

It's just a political issue isn't it? Looking at the poll numbers, you might be able to convince enough anglers to go along with that. You certainly can't convince them that a catch and keep season is ok. Even though scientifically speaking is there a difference in your opinion? Someday down the road I am sure that you will pick up that cause as well.


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

Jim S., 
You seem reluctant to answer a question posed directly to you. I'll ask it again. Do you think somebody here is advocating breaking the law? If so, whom? If not, then why continue lecturing about obeying the law? 

We are trying to change the regulation, but according to you if we don't like the regs we can just move. Well, whether you like it or not, we have every right to attempt to change the law. And when our side presents it's case we have solid information to support our viewpoint. You have emotional rhetoric. You lose the debate. We'll see what happens in the next few years. 

As for the rest of your post...who cares what you feel? Once again you disregard the facts and rational thought and make decisions based on emotion. You post no facts and have none to support your position. You say you have an open mind, but it couldn't be closed any tighter. You have your beliefs and you're sticking to them. Why else keep prattling on about obeying the law. 

You would rather see me catch and keep hundreds of bass rather than allow me to catch and release bass a couple of months early. Fine, but don't say that you are concerned about the future of the fishery when talking about an early C&R season. Obviously, all you are concerned about is whether one obeys the law, no matter how irrational the law is. 

Could explain how to fish for pike on LSC without catching any other fish? Do you have sections of the lake that strictly hold pike or walleye? Maybe I could drag a little sign behind a Rat-L-Trap that says, "No bass or muskie allowed." Oh no, I see, if I catch a fish that's out of season, do you think that I just have to get off the water. Where does it say that in the regs? Please explain to me how anybody is supposed to differentiate between pike fishing and muskie fishing when casting lures? Is it okay for me to use a 3/4oz Rat-L-Trap? What about the 1 1/4 oz? What about spoons? A 1oz brass Red Eye is a decent size spoon that will catch just about anything in LSC. Am I not supposed to use that when fishing for pike. Where does the law say that? 

Sometimes there are laws that are make no sense and are unforceable. We should work to change them and some of us are doing that.


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

And another thing...
No one is saying they absolutely know what will happen if an early C&R season is instituted. But we have six lakes that were opened as a test and have faired very well. There is also much evidence to support an early C&R seaon. The only way to know is to try it.


----------



## jeremy L (Sep 19, 2002)

It seems to me that all this could be sumed up in a few sentences:

There is no way of knowing if a open season all year round would work and there is no way of knowing that a open season year round wouldn't work. 

That sum it up pretty good?


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> _Originally posted by CameraGuy _
> *And another thing...
> No one is saying they absolutely know what will happen if an early C&R season is instituted. But we have six lakes that were opened as a test and have faired very well. There is also much evidence to support an early C&R seaon. The only way to know is to try it. *


*"No one is saying they absolutely know what will happen if an early C&R season is instituted. "* 

Exactly my point. Is it worth the risk?

*"But we have six lakes that were opened as a test and have faired very well. " * 

None of which have Gobies in them.

*" There is also much evidence to support an early C&R seaon. " * 

And just as many showing the harm to Smallmouth from fishing them during the spawn.


*" The only way to know is to try it. "* 

You might be willing to take that risk with our fisheries, but I am not.


----------



## Jim S. (May 5, 2002)

O.K. Camera Guy, I'll answer your question directly...do I think someone is advocating breaking the law? Yes. Whom? Well, I'll simply quote an earlier post from someone (djkimmel) whose opinions, as I have stated before but I guess for you I'll write it again, I do listen to and respect. 

"Our own Michigan study showed 70 to 80% of avid bass anglers and 44% of regular anglers already target bass before opening day and have been since at least the late 1980s."

But I am not saying djkimmel is advocating breaking the law. Those anglers who say they are already targeting bass pre-opener sure are strong advocates though.

If I am reading the statement correctly, it reads there was a study done in Michigan which showed that 70 to 80% of avid bass anglers already target bass before opening day. Am I missing something? I believe what Mr. Kimmel wrote. Should I have reason not to believe him? 

Perhaps those 70 to 80% of avid bass anglers (maybe you can provide me with an estimate of what 70 to 80% of avid bass anglers translates to in numbers) could gain a little more credibility, at least in my eyes, if they would stop fishing before the opener. Besides, the study says nothing about every angler, avid bass or regular angler, immediately releasing each and every fish. To the best of my knowledge from what I've read, nowhere is there 100% C&R among all bass anglers, let alone average anglers. So who's to say that there will be 100% compliance with early season C&R once lakes are opened up to C&R. There surely won't be any more CO's out there patrolling the lakes ticketing anglers for keeping big, trophy bass preseason.

BTW, the last sentence should read "unenforceable", not "unforceable". 

This is getting away from the subject (bass fishing). I agree that there are laws that make no sense but each of us has our own opinion as to what laws do or don't make sense. However I don't exactly agree that because a law is unenforceable it should be repealed/changed. What exactly is your definition of an unenforceable law? Lots of people get away with breaking the law every day. Does that mean those laws should be repealed/changed?


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

If we are to be called "SPORTMEN" we should follow the laws, enabling the COs to focus on catching the real law breakers.

If you want to target out of season fish place a POACHER flag up on your boat please.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

That really gets to the heart of the matter Trout. True sportsman respect the laws that are on the book, whether they agree or not. You don't need mind reading DNR officers. All you have to do is know what's in your own heart and mind. If you are a sportsman, you comply with the letter and intent of the law. If not, you look for loopholes. I wish everyone could meet that standard, but obviously, they can't.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Jeremey L and others, Ive posted study data, DNR website info and fisheries biologist support that we do have much better than no idea about what will happen. Plus, some people keep ignoring the obvious that Ive stated: if our own studies in Michigan have shown the early catch-and-release to have not harmed the 6 test lakes in 15 years, and also that a large percentage of bass anglers were already in the habit of spring bass fishing back in 1988 through 1992 and it is now 2003, we should have seen the impact of this. In the next few days, I will be posting quite a bit of that study on my site and you could choose to read the arguments for or against that our own MDNR published.

(Note: If I post that we have 50,000 motor vehicle accident deaths every year, I am just stating a known statistic, not condoning death by motor vehicle accident. When I post that spring bass fishing is occurring, Im just citing a known factor that should be considered. If it wasnt happening, it wouldnt need to be considered. But it is happening so it must be taken into consideration. Anyone who wants to campaign against anglers not obeying the law has every right to do so, but that is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is a poll on anglers in favor or against a CHANGE in our bass season.)

I posted the percentages of anglers (regular anglers and frequent bass anglers) who admitted in our own Michigan study that they fish for bass on purpose before season opens and multiplied those percentages by the number of bass anglers the US FWS says we have in Michigan. That provides at least an estimate of several hundred thousand anglers spring bass fishing. This is just one reason I believe we know quite a bit about what will happen - because it has already happened. One of the years when I personally watched rafts of boats of ALL kinds (more non-bass boats than bass boats  I counted) catching pre-season smallmouths along miles of the Mile Roads on St. Clair weekend after weekend  1998  St. Clair smallies still managed to produce a huge bass year class in recruitment. Check out the St. Clair compilation document Mike Thomas mentioned in a recent post and see for yourself. The variations in the measured annual recruitment do not match the spring fishing pressure. Maybe something else is involved.

I have never said a year-round season wouldnt work. I have said a year-round season isnt necessary when anglers can already keep bass during the present season if they want, and 70 to 80% release most of their bass anyway. Why would I ask for more than is necessary to provide more of the type of bass fishing most anglers practice  catch-and-release. I personally dont desire anything more than that either. I rarely keep and kill fish. If I do, its walleye, perch, crappie or other panfish.

When I fish tournaments, I do everything I can to keep my bass alive and release them to be caught again. These kinds of bass tournaments could not be held in Michigan during a catch-and-release season since we would not be to hold bass at all in livewells. It makes no sense to work towards a catch and keep season all year when I dont believe in fighting battles I wouldnt win, especially if I dont personally want or need that.

If I were to want to lengthen the bass tournament season, which I know is the real problem a few people have with my proposal, I would just work to allow possession exceptions to permitted tournaments that follow certain guidelines. This has been done in several states, even in at least one northern state, but I know full well, I have a snowballs chance in Hades of getting that kind of proposal approved in this state. I dont take on hopeless tasks. If for some reason, a major attitude adjustment occurred where I thought I could accomplish that, I might, but does anyone here really expect that to ever happen in Michigan? I dont.

Tournament exceptions will not happen in Michigan, probably in my lifetime, but I do believe I can get some kind of catch-and-immediate-release season approved since our own Michigan study showed a high percentage of anglers and frequent bass anglers in favor of such a regulation (they surveyed all anglers, not just anglers who were there to bass fish, and 82% were in favor of the season). This website is by far the lowest percentage in favor of any forum or group Ive discussed this with  and it is still close to 50/50 in the vote. The only groups I expect to be more against a change are lake associations since they often dont want anyone on their lakes.

Everyone is allowed to disagree, but I have posted study data and opinions from experts to support what I post. I dont believe anyone else has done that. Its one thing to mention that you are aware of this study or that study. Its another to actually post the information with verifiable sources. Should anyone be surprised that I dont put too much stock in people mentioning things they never actually post in a verifiable manner? I have done that. When I asked anyone to post their own study references and biologists they have spoken to in a verifiable way, it did not happen. I dont know if everyone noticed that or not. It still hasnt happened.

You could call the MDNR and order copies of the studies and see for yourselves. You could call the states I have and ask for the biologists to speak to them yourself. Thats what I did and continue to do. I have spoke to many more who asked not to be quoted and Ive honored that. I add their information to what Ive learned, but I realize that leaves any reference I make coming from that knowledge more open to question. I cant help that. Some people will believe me. Some wont, but the verifiable stuff could be followed up on by anyone.

Until you have done it, maybe, just maybe, you are voicing opinions that are wrong. Ive talked to many experts (read fisheries biologists) in Michigan and elsewhere. Ive read the studies. No one else has yet to demonstrate they have done anything else other than read what has been posted on forums. Who has better odds at knowing what they are talking about? Maybe Im totally wrong in my opinions but that then means so are 40-some other states (including some northern ones) and many fisheries biologists in all those states.

I have not said our biologists are wrong or dont know what they are doing. I have said clearly that many regulations have more to do with what anglers or other groups such as tourism boards think, and less with biology. Maybe, some of our biologists just dont want to be hollered at in public meetings or later by anglers who have never read a study or discussed the issue with the biologists? Maybe they have other issues and dont want to debate them publicly?

Tbone, this is as clear as I can be. I can find biologists all day who support my opinions because the majority of the biologists agree. Just look at how the majority of the states manage their bass. If over 40 have no closed season, that only leaves about 7 to 9 states with a closed season (Alaska  poor Eskimos  have no bass  I havent finished reviewing every state for 2003 changes yet). 80% having no closed season means Im going to have a pretty easy time finding supportive biologists. I dont know what the percentage is in Michigan alone. What I have been told by a regional biologist, is that enough of them are in favor of allowing more bass fishing that they have already had at least two meetings on the subject including one where Ohio, Indiana and Ontario fisheries people were guests. Thats two more meetings than have been held in a long time in Michigan on bass.

BTW, Im not upset. I am disappointed that tempers seem to flare too often on this issue (on most issues in Michigan involving outdoor regulation change). Although everyone has a right to an opinion, and no ones opinion is more valuable than anothers to that person and the people who agree with it. The difference is not in saying someone cant have an opinion or the opinion is stupid, but that the available research, evidence and practices do make some opinions more likely to be correct than others.

trout, I cant see the POACHER flag idea catching on, but it might be a good suggestion for the please follow all the fishing laws thread that someone might want to start. I think you have to keep the fish to be a poacher too, but Im not sure. Maybe someone can post the definition in the new thread.

cameraguy kind of has a good point too. Maybe it makes more sense to put energy first into pressuring people to follow laws that save lives. I dont feel too bad personally that all those people each morning and night on my drive home seem to think its my problem that they want to go 80 on the highway while I drive 70. Sure would be a relief to me to not get the finger or flashing lights or honking horns from all those lawbreakers. Itd be a lot safer for those of us who do follow the law.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

Let me ask again. I am not talking about battles that you don't want to fight.

In your opinion, based on the scientific facts that you have, is there a reason not to have a catch n keep season? Is there a difference between catch n keep vs catch n release and long term recruitment?


----------



## Can't Touch This (Dec 31, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jeremy L _
> *It seems to me that all this could be sumed up in a few sentences:
> 
> There is no way of knowing if a open season all year round would work and there is no way of knowing that a open season year round wouldn't work.
> ...


 YES!!!! But, i don't think anyone will give up!!!!LOL Guys, JL is kinda right. I think it's obvious if you put a regular open season all year, it would have an effect, but C&R is another question. And, in the begginnning, what does it matter that the south have bigger bass????? It's only because the warm climate, and MICHIGAN has a better, healthier population of bass, of course ALOT more BIG smallies than anywhere, but, the largie population is great, you won't be likely to get a ten pounder like you would in the south, but, in a day, i think cathcing more bass, in the 3-6 pound range is more likely. And, in certain lakes, i have caught, and seen, and had on MANY above 7 pounds. I think the season how it is is OBVIOUSLY working great, why risk changing it????


----------



## Jim S. (May 5, 2002)

Kevin,

Can I get an AMEN, brother!!!


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

I'm sorry but come on, special permission for tournament anglers to put Bass in their livewells during the season closed to the rest of us non tournament peons? What on earth makes tournament fishers so special that they get their own regulations? What makes this group of enlightened, dedicated anglers WANT to pull a Bass off the beds and drop it in a livewell? It must go hand in hand with the dedication that "Avid" Bass anglers have that according to your facts,makes the majority of them scofflaws.
I used to consider myself an "Avid" Bass angler. I would never admit that if it includes me in that bunch of lowlife lawbreakers. Might even have to sell all my St. Croix Avids.......LOL


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

Well said Esox!

I thought B.A.S.S. was started to insure the future of the Bass fishing in America, and it vowed to be consevation oriented?
Now that has changed? I doubt the people at head quarters would agree to that.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

Tbone, to answer your question, according to the available research, there is no scientific support for a closed season in much of Michigan. This was confirmed for me by a Michigan research biologist. Lakes that might (not proved, just recommended as a consideration) need the protection of a season are infertile lakes and/or lakes that only support marginal bass populations.

There are other situations where a conservative approach makes sense to consider uch as small inland lakes with a large population of stunted panfish. All this is covered in our Michigan catch-and-release study. The only other studies Ive seen or where brought up by fisheries biologists I have talked to involve looking more closely at small stream smallmouths. So far, like the study the Tennessee biologist sent me, they show the population health is determined more by water levels than by fishing as long as over-harvest is avoided.

St. Clair does not fit any of these and there is no evidence of gobies being a long-term danger to smallmouths on a lake that size. Just check out the annual recruitment charts in the document Mike Thomas posted. They have been in St. Clair for years (1990) along with the spring fishing. We should know by now.

Check out the creel numbers on smallies too in that study. Very small for a lake that size. Compare the population estimates compared to walleyes and then the harvest compared to walleyes.

Regardless, to your question, the belief accepted by most biologists I have talked to is that there is no scientific support for the need of a closed bass season. There arent a bunch of studies showing that longterm recruitment of bass is harmed by spring bass fishing. If you or anyone else can find them, post them. It will be news to a lot of people.

It doesnt matter to me, or change what I would like to see in Michigan. I dont need a year-round open bass season. I dont normally work for what I dont need. When I represented the Michigan BASS Federation, I represented the overall wishes of an organization. Now, I represent myself although I am cooperating with the federation rep.

If you or anyone else wants to pursue a year-round season, go ahead. I wouldnt fight it hard. I would say I was personally against it simply because its not necessary to make that change to allow more bass fishing. Most bass anglers let most of their bass go.


Can't Touch This, youre making the assumption that the season actually does something for bass in Michigan. Guys keep saying, its obvious the season must be doing something, but the available research does not support that. Saying something is obvious doesnt make it obvious. Proof makes it obvious. The only obvious thing is that a statement that makes it sound like one factor such as a season is why we have great bass fishing is ignoring all the other factors involved in bass biology and management, and having the habitat and water quality healthy bass need.

Esox, you like to say negative things about tournament guys, dont you? You havent read any studies on tournaments and bass Id bet. Id be happy to debate tournament issues with you later, but they are not related to this issue since regular tournaments could not be held.

Im sure you doubt it, but studies on tournament affects on bass are very favorable including one by Ridgway in Ontario that no one seems to be talking about for some reason. They talk about his other studies, but not that one. Hmmm? I realize anything I post on tournaments, you will deny anyway, but others might like to read it. Cant do it now. It belongs on a different thread at a later date.

Tournaments have been given exceptions in states I think are enlightened (actually, theyre just fair and theyve read the studies on tournaments). One state DNR even openly promotes tournaments officially on their website. Not everyone thinks of us as poorly as you do.

trout, B.A.S.S. supports bass research and has for decades. They are one of the few fishing organizations that have local, state and national environmental directors who actually do attend meetings and speak on behalf of anglers, and who actually write letters to government bodies on important issues. Our Michigan environmental director is recently retired MDNR fisheries biologist Ron Spitler. I think he knows a few things about bass biology and management.

B.A.S.S. main efforts have always been the promotion of catch-and-release bass fishing and working for clean water. B.A.S.S. doesnt keep too much track of closed bass seasons since they arent very common and B.A.S.S. is well aware of the research. The B.A.S.S. National Environmental Director is the retired fisheries biologist and chief of fisheries for New York. I think he knows a thing or two about northern bass management too. I think bass fishing is better now than when I was a youngster. More anglers than ever have better knowledge about real bass biology and management information.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Anglers anxious for bass season
(Bob Gwizdz)

KEEGO HARBOR -- Opening day of bass season is still several weeks away, but anglers itching to get started have an option -- six lakes across the Lower Peninsula are open for preseason catch-and-release bass fishing. 

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/state...ndard.xsl?/base/sports-0/1051652418185020.xml


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

Just wondering, you keep saying that you are for scientific management, but that's not really true either. * As you read* the available studies, there is no need for any closed season period. There is no difference if you immediately release a bass in a catch and release season or if you keep the bass. 

Studies have shown that it will take at least a few minutes for bass to return to their nest, if they do at all. By that time the nest will be preyed upon by bluegills, gobies, etc also shown in studies. Your contention is that is irrelevant for the health of the general population. 

I just wanted to make sure that everyone that thinks that they are in support of a catch n release season realize that there is no real difference between a catch n release season and a catch n keep season.

Some might say that removing the individual bass will affect the population but that's not true either. As you have stated several times, most release their fish anyway. Even those fish that have been released will have a higher mortality rate then at other times of the year. Those fish are very vulnerable trying to protect their beds. The added stress of being caught multiple times (or even once really) will lead to increased mortality for this fish at a time when they are under natural stress. Might as well harvest some of those fish that aren't going to survive anyway.

People think of catch n release as being benign, but it will take a toll nearly as large as a catch n keep season.

T


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> _Originally posted by djkimmel _
> *.
> Esox, you like to say negative things about tournament guys, dont you? You havent read any studies on tournaments and bass Id bet. Id be happy to debate tournament issues with you later, but they are not related to this issue since regular tournaments could not be held.
> 
> *


What did I say negative about tournament fishermen? I simply asked why tournament fishermen should have special regulations just for them.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

And here are is a source of some references for my statements above. 

The following is excerpted from a research proposal by Geoff Steinhart titled "Reproductive trade-offs and decision making in smallmouth bass"



> In addition to total nest failures, a smallmouth bass nest is more susceptible to predators when the guarding male is removed when caught by an angler (Kieffer et al. 1995; Philipp et al. 1997). Therefore, I will quantify the number of offspring lost to predators when the guarding male smallmouth bass is removed. I will use an underwater video camera to observe nest predators as they enter unguarded nests. The videos will be analyzed for predator entry and feeding rates. Providing parental care is energetically costly and, therefore, involves a tradeoff between current reproduction and future fitness (Stearns 1992). For male smallmouth bass, parental care reduces energy reserves (Gillolly and Baylis 1999; Mackereth et al. 1999), and could reduce future survival. Hinch and Collins (1991) estimated that defending a nest raised metabolic costs by 60% in male smallmouth bass. However, parental care by smallmouth bass, specifically nest defense, is essential for nest success (Neves 1975; Ridgway 1988).


And a list of the references. I am sure that you have most of the studies cited:

Kieffer, J. D., M. R. Kubacki, F. J. S. Phelan, D. P. Phillip, and B. L. Tufts. 1995. Effects of catch-and-release angling on nesting male smallmouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 70-76.

Stearns, S. C. 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, New York.

Gillooly, J. F. and J. R. Baylis. 1999. Reproductive success and the energetic cost of parental care in male smallmouth bass. Journal of Fish Biology 54: 573-584.

Mackereth, R. W., D. L. G. Noakes and M. S. Ridgway. 1999. Size-based variation in somatic energy reserves and parental care expenditure by male smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu. Environmental Biology of Fishes 56: 263-275.

Neves, R. J. 1975. Factors affecting fry production of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) in South Branch Lake, Maine. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103: 83-87.

Hinch, S. G., and N. C. Collins. 1991. Importance of diurnal and nocturnal nest defense in the energy budget of male smallmouth bass: insights from direct video observation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 657-663.


This all being said, this is your crusade, not mine. Don't expect me to call all the biologists that you have spoken to just to verify what you report, and to find my own expert witnesses. There is enough info out there in mainstream press and the internet that throws enough uncertainity into your conclusions for me. I encourage everyone to check out the science of smallmouth article in In-fisherman. That's not a report in the public sector, and I am sure that there are copyright issues if it was quoted here.

This has become a pointless discussion. Nothing has been discussed that hasn't been discussed at least 3 times in this thread and the one that preceded it. 

I can assure you, my distaste for those that are on the mile roads fishing for smallies this morning is not limited to the guys in bass boats.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

BTW, You mentioned 1998 as proof that angling pressure isn't a problem, because you recall alot of boats fishing that year and it was a good year class.

A quick check shows that it is the second warmest May in Michigan in the last 62 years. I don't dispute that weather isn't the biggest factor involved in smallmouth spawn success. Do you think that having an average temperature 7 degrees above that 62 year average had something to do with both observations? Increased fishing pressure and spawn success? Did you miss that one based on personal bias, or chose to ignore it?

Weather is the biggest factor. Just doesn't mean that angling pressure isn't a factor. We can't control the weather. I don't want to be a one or two year class fishery dependent on the weather being able to support the fishing pressure.

Just goes to show how people can draw their own conclusion based on facts.

Anyone who doesn't think that pressure will go up if the season is opened is nuts.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> _Originally posted by TBone _
> *
> Anyone who doesn't think that pressure will go up if the season is opened is nuts. *


A portion of the argument presented has been that the majority of fishermen already ignore the law, and thus far have not had a negative impact on the fishery. I don't know where they found the people they polled. The vast majority of fishermen I know obey the law as it is written. Of course if it were LEGAL to fish for Bass all year those that would feel inclined to would do so. And that would bring a lot more pressure in addition to the polled scofflaws.


----------



## tubejig (Jan 21, 2002)

This looks a lot like the buckshot versus slugs thread.


----------



## TBone (Apr 7, 2001)

Another thing



> I have said a year-round season isnt necessary when anglers can already keep bass during the present season if they want


Do you know how transparent that is? If I remember right, anglers can already catch n release and hold tournaments if they chose in the present season if they want as well. No need to create an extended season for that either. A little friendly advice, if you are trying to convince sportsmen in general about your proposal, I wouldn't give that argument a lot of air play. Not all those meat fisherman fell off the turnip truck yesterday.


----------



## CameraGuy (Apr 22, 2003)

"...and the land of the FREE and the home of the brave." 

What kind of mentality does it take to support the preventing of people from participating in a demonstrably harmless outdoor recreational activity? There is no evidence that catching and releasing a few fish is going to harm anything yet there are still people who wish to curtail it. There are even people who say they don't fish for bass who are opposed to the early season. Why do you think that way? And don't tell me it's about destroying the future of the fishery or someone's legacy...blah, blah, blah. There is a mountain of evidence to say that is not going to happen. Those who stand by their belief that the fishery will be hurt are doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even so, why not try an early C&R season? What are you afraid of? Do you really think that fisheries will be damaged beyond repair? Really? Can you find even one biologist that would support that view? Or...are you just afraid of being proved wrong?

It's funny, I don't hunt, but I support those who enjoy it. I would help fight those who would attempt to restrict it. I supported the dove season. I support people enjoying the outdoors. So, I get a little P.O.'d when someone else stops me from enjoying what I like to do, especially when it's other outdoorsman who can't prove that what I'm doing is harmful. We should be working together to create more opportunities in the outdoors, not working to restrict them.


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

I guess those in favor and thos opposed should contact the NRC or DNR.
This thread is only serving to re-enforce the differences we have.

All wildlife is best managed by what serves the wildlife best, then what best allows us to harvest it.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

A research proposal is not a result. It is a proposal. NOTHING is proved in a proposal. All the proposal posted says is that he intends to study the number of offspring lost to predators when a guarding male smallmouth bass is removed. What does that say about anything other than he is going to count how many eggs/fry are left from ONE bed at a time after a male smallmouth bass is removed? Its not a result. Just something someone wants to look at to see what happens.

I could propose to study how many M&Ms there are in a large candy bag by color, but that doesnt prove that people actually like one color better than the other. They are two things that arent necessarily related and would require quite a bit more information and a completely different focus to prove which color was the most popular.



> Originally posted by Tbone: And here are is a source of some references for my statements above.
> 
> The following is excerpted from a research proposal by Geoff Steinhart titled "Reproductive trade-offs and decision making in smallmouth bass"
> 
> In addition to total nest failures, a smallmouth bass nest is more susceptible to predators when the guarding male is removed when caught by an angler (Kieffer et al. 1995; Philipp et al. 1997). Therefore, I will quantify the number of offspring lost to predators when the guarding male smallmouth bass is removed. I will use an underwater video camera to observe nest predators as they enter unguarded nests. The videos will be analyzed for predator entry and feeding rates. Providing parental care is energetically costly and, therefore, involves a tradeoff between current reproduction and future fitness (Stearns 1992). For male smallmouth bass, parental care reduces energy reserves (Gillolly and Baylis 1999; Mackereth et al. 1999), and could reduce future survival. Hinch and Collins (1991) estimated that defending a nest raised metabolic costs by 60% in male smallmouth bass. However, parental care by smallmouth bass, specifically nest defense, is essential for nest success (Neves 1975; Ridgway 1988).


If this is all anyone reads, theyve learned almost nothing, just a couple comments on the individual smallmouths life. They definitely havent learned an answer to the issue this poll is about. This doesnt even say what this study accomplished, only what small part of the smallmouths life the study will cover.

I have already posted that there is no dispute that individual beds may be harmed. Anyone who fishes a lot can see that.

I have clearly said (and even posted support you could see easily enough from the Minnesota DNR) that the accepted belief among the majority of the experts is that there is generally NO relationship between the number of bass spawning and what is the final desired result of good recruitment.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has actually read any of the studies Tbone referred to. Please post where any of these reporst say that bass recruitment and the bass population were harmed by having males removed from the bed. I already know no one will be able to. Ive actually talked to some of these researchers.



> Originally posted by Tbone: As you read the available studies, there is no need for any closed season period.


That is true according the majority opinion and research of the professionals. Anyone would know that if they read the studies and talk to biologists who performed them and manage most of the bass populations in most of the states.



> Originally posted by Tbone: Studies have shown that it will take at least a few minutes for bass to return to their nest, if they do at all. By that time the nest will be preyed upon by bluegills, gobies, etc also shown in studies. Your contention is that is irrelevant for the health of the general population.


This is not my contention. This is the contention of most states, a majority of fisheries biologists and the research. I just happen to believe this majority.



> Originally posted by Tbone: People think of catch n release as being benign, but it will take a toll nearly as large as a catch n keep season.


People also think we need a closed bass season. That belief has no more support in research than this unbelievable statement about a catch-and-release bass season taking a toll nearly as large as a catch n keep season. The majority of bass caught and immediately released survive. There are actual studies even in Michigan that prove this. Especially if lures (3 to 4% mortality in the Michigan study) are used verses live bait, although mortality from live bait wasnt real high either. All bass kept and eaten (or wasted as some are) during the catch n keep season have a 100% mortality.

Even if you take the live bait release survival rate, you have less mortality than the number of bass kept during our open season. Besides, whats important is what percentage of the population is being kept. If you look at the number of bass kept last year on St. Clair verses the population, you will see that it is a low percentage. Even if you assume catch-and-release doubled the number, it is not significant compared to the population of bass.

It is easy to pull a listing off the Internet of study summaries and titles. Its another thing to actually have the papers and reports, and have read them. The next thing is to explain how ANY of them showed a significant negative effect on bass recruitment or a bass population. Nothing is gained by posting lists of studies if they havent actually been read and understood.

If anyone actually read them, they will already know that some of this just proves what I have said all along, that some individual beds are harmed by fishing during the spawn, but you will not find something that says bass recruitment and bass populations where harmed.



> Originally posted by Tbone: This all being said, this is your crusade, not mine. Don't expect me to call all the biologists that you have spoken to just to verify what you report, and to find my own expert witnesses. There is enough info out there in mainstream press and the internet that throws enough uncertainity into your conclusions for me. I encourage everyone to check out the science of smallmouth article in In-fisherman. That's not a report in the public sector, and I am sure that there are copyright issues if it was quoted here.


I believe if you feel the way you do and it is important to you, you should be prepared to delve into the issue as I have. The level of uncertainty people believe they get from what little general information is easily available without reading the studies and talking with numerous biologists will be related to whatever side of the issue theyve already decided to be on.



> Originally posted by Tbone: BTW, You mentioned 1998 as proof that angling pressure isn't a problem, because you recall alot of boats fishing that year and it was a good year class.
> 
> A quick check shows that it is the second warmest May in Michigan in the last 62 years. I don't dispute that weather isn't the biggest factor involved in smallmouth spawn success. Do you think that having an average temperature 7 degrees above that 62 year average had something to do with both observations? Increased fishing pressure and spawn success? Did you miss that one based on personal bias, or chose to ignore it?
> 
> ...


If youve read what Ive posted, then you know I have said all along that weather is the number one factor in the success to most bass spawns. Youre supporting what Ive posted. Thanks. I never said angling pressure wasnt a factor either, just that it is a minor factor that most states and research dont consider significant enough to have a closed season during the spring. Ive stated clearly where extra consideration may actually need to be given too. You say Weather is the biggest factor and We cant control the weather which is pretty much direct quotes of earlier posts Ive made.

If you are trying to make the point that since we cant control weather, we should control fishing pressure with a season  well, Ive discussed this too. There are generally acceptable and necessary means, and generally unaccepted and unnecessary means. That is what this is all about. Its what its been all about all along.

As to your last statement about the pressure going up and people being nuts  Ive said all along that pressure will go up. Ive said what our own Michigan study predicts it will be and why. Ive also said that our own Michigan study has said the percentage is not significant and most likely wont be. So basically, youre saying the Michigan research biologists who wrote this study are nuts.

I think in the end, when this issue goes to public meeting or through other processes, enough good data will have gotten out through different formats that we will get additional bass fishing that the majority of anglers will support - 82% of those surveyed during the test catch-and-release season study (all anglers) were in favor.


----------



## djkimmel (Aug 22, 2002)

ESOX, Ive posted right from the Michigan catch-and-release study the percentages - 44% of all anglers and 69% of frequent bass anglers said they were already fishing spring bass. If the researchers know what they are doing, a large number of anglers are and have been fishing for spring bass for a long time. There are 499,000 bass anglers in Michigan. I dont expect to many people know a significant number of these. Im fortunate to have frequent contact with a large number of frequent bass anglers through our federation network and all the tournaments I fish. I met and talked with many bass anglers last summer about this issue.

If you think about it and admit that maybe the researchers knew what they were doing, quite a few anglers are and have been fishing spring bass for a long time, which means your last statement about a lot more pressure is also probably incorrect (as the study also points out).

BTW, Im willing to bet many members of this board drive over posted speed limits often. People just feel that you are following the spirit of the law, or that you are following the law to the degree that is necessary or accepted by most people or some similar logic, Ill bet. Sound familiar?

People should follow laws, but every day tons of people bend and break laws. I see it every day with my own eyes. I dont consider that some guys may be catching and releasing bass out of season a major crime. Probably one reason it hasnt been enforced stiffly before. If you or others always drive the speed limit and follow ALL other laws and regulations to the T, I apologize as you are a rarity and maybe you can throw stones without being a hypocrite as some people are. As you and others say, the law is the law. Whether you agree with a law or not, you must follow it. You cant pick and choose laws under the rules some of you say others have to live by. Anyone who doesnt practice what they preach is a hypocrite.

I happen to believe people should spend more time cleaning up their own act. Its the only act they really have control over and really know what their intent is. Doesnt mean I condone or encourage lawbreaking. I just understand why it is occurring and what it has meant to our bass fishing so far.


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

> This has become a pointless discussion. Nothing has been discussed that hasn't been discussed at least 3 times in this thread and the one that preceded it.


I agree.
Let's take a deep breath and step back from this for awhile.
It is starting to head south.
The poll pretty much sums up the question asked.
I'll close it for the time being.


----------

