# Lower the steelhead limit?



## thousandcasts

Whenever certain debates come up, involving the fisheries, it seems that there's anglers who toss out the idea of a lowered steelhead limit. It makes me wonder how many anglers actually favor that. So, how about a hypothetical, non-scientific poll to see what most people really think about that? 

This is for no other reason than for "****'s and giggles" so to speak. No agenda behind it, no pushing for anything, just seeing where people stand since it seems to get mentioned alot. Keep in mind, hypothetically, this would include the limit on the big lake as well...not just in the rivers.


----------



## Mitch

A two fish limit sounds more reasonable to me. Don't get me wrong, a one fish limit sounds great but take into consideration the guys that pay for a license and only fish a handful of days a season. It's easy for many of us to scream for a one fish limit because we're fishing 2-3+ days a week at times. Lower the limit to two fish and you still reduce the harvest by 33.3% and the weekend warrior who drove 300 miles can still take home a nice stringer.

Mitch


----------



## thousandcasts

Mitch said:


> A two fish limit sounds more reasonable to me. Don't get me wrong, a one fish limit sounds great but take into consideration the guys that pay for a license and only fish a handful of days a season. It's easy for many of us to scream for a one fish limit because we're fishing 2-3+ days a week at times. Lower the limit to two fish and you still reduce the harvest by 33.3% and the weekend warrior who drove 300 miles can still take home a nice stringer.
> 
> Mitch


Well, even though I've stated in another thread that I favor a one fish limit across the board, I actually voted for reducing it to two fish in my own poll. For the exact same reasons you stated above. If it were ever presented, I would LOVE to see the limit reduced, but even by my own thought patterns I realistically think dropping it to one is a bit extreme.


----------



## STEELnICE

Would a one fish limit mean that I would have to pack up and call it a day once I've roped a single fish? Because unless I could legally continue to catch and release after that I would not be in favor of a lower limit.


----------



## thousandcasts

STEELnICE said:


> Would a one fish limit mean that I would have to pack up and call it a day once I've roped a single fish? Because unless I could legally continue to catch and release after that I would not be in favor of a lower limit.


Good question and it depends on ones interpretation of the law. Even now, let's say you rope up three fish and you keep fishing. Depending on one's perception of the law, then technically, you're in violation as soon as another fish is in the net--regardless of whether you fully intend to release that fish.

Now, in APPLICATION of the law, I have NEVER known a CO or even heard of one, ticketing anyone for such a thing. Having three or one on a stringer doesn't mean you have to stop fishing. It means you stop "roping." I mean, if you're on a no kill stream, you can fish all day as long as you don't kill one, right?


----------



## Flyfisher

How about "steelhead tags" as is done in some western states/provinces? I am not advocating the idea, just throwing it out there. Everyone has to buy at least one and have it on their person if they are fishing a river containing steelhead. If you want to kill more fish, you pay as you go with a maximum set at three per day?

As far as the poll, I'd vote for NO KILL as I personally don't like to eat river salmon/steelhead, nor do I like to bother hauling them around on a stringer or clean them at the end of the day. I enjoy the fight more than the meal. That being said, I am in NO position to force my personal opinion on anyone else like some well known national coldwater species organizations and (in)famous river guides. The science says its OK to take the fish, as the vast majority are planted for that very reason. I do believe its important for individuals to be able to make their own decision to kill or release their fish, but feel it would improve the quality of our fisheries if the allowable kill was reduced by a fish or two.


----------



## thousandcasts

Flyfisher said:


> How about "steelhead tags" as is done in some western states/provinces? I am not advocating the idea, just throwing it out there. Everyone has to buy at least one and have it on their person if they are fishing a river containing steelhead. If you want to kill more fish, you pay as you go with a maximum set at three per day?
> 
> As far as the poll, I'd vote for NO KILL as I personally don't like to eat river salmon/steelhead, nor do I like to bother hauling them around on a stringer or clean them at the end of the day. I enjoy the fight more than the meal. That being said, I am in NO position to force my personal opinion on anyone else like some well known national coldwater species organizations and (in)famous river guides. The science says its OK to take the fish, as the vast majority are planted for that very reason. I do believe its important for individuals to be able to make their own decision to kill or release their fish, but feel it would improve the quality of our fisheries if the allowable kill was reduced by a fish or two.


Well, then you're making it more complicated than what it needs to be. Instead of saying, yeah...lower the limit across the board. You're throwing out the idea of having to worry about tags and what not...and I'd be the first one to say that's not a good idea. An all species license is all the tag that's needed, however, lowering the amount of steelhead harvested even if it's by just dropping the limit to two fish not only increases the number of fish available to be caught recreationally, but also increases the number of fish that might spawn successfully. In that regard, it's win/win.


----------



## Flyfisher

thousandcasts said:


> Well, then you're making it more complicated than what it needs to be. Instead of saying, yeah...lower the limit across the board. You're throwing out the idea of having to worry about tags and what not...and I'd be the first one to say that's not a good idea. An all species license is all the tag that's needed, however, lowering the amount of steelhead harvested even if it's by just dropping the limit to two fish not only increases the number of fish available to be caught recreationally, but also increases the number of fish that might spawn successfully. In that regard, it's win/win.


As I said, not advocating the idea, just throwing it out there as a way other states have dealt with limited resources.

I am in full agreeance on your suggestion of lowering limits.


----------



## quest32a

I am not for a statewide lowering of the limit. Needs to be watershed by watershed. Whats good on the Joe is not good on the Lil Man or Platte. Hell, make the limit on the Joe 5 for all I care. Let it be a meat river. Tons of fish still go through the ladder every year.


----------



## Flyfisher

quest32a said:


> I am not for a statewide lowering of the limit. Needs to be watershed by watershed. Whats good on the Joe is not good on the Lil Man or Platte. Hell, make the limit on the Joe 5 for all I care. Let it be a meat river. Tons of fish still go through the ladder every year.


That's an interesting approach to managing a fishery. As long as tons of fish go through the ladder its OK? I wonder what the Idaho fisheries biologists on the Snake River would say if Washington and Oregon decided to increase salmon and steelhead harvest below Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River?

I guess you could say the same for the Grand below 6th Street as there have been times in the past when the ladder is full of fish ascending the main river. Alas, not all these fish go into the main tributaries but also visit the many cold running, gravel bottomed creeks that are closed until the end of April. Creeks where they spawn unmolested and where the water is cool enough all summer to act as a nursery stream until the smolts out-migrate the following spring/summer.

While I agree that possession limits shouldn't necessarily be universal, I failed to see the logic behind keeping the limit at three (or increasing it to five) just because a lot of steelhead ascend the ladder at Berrien?


----------



## thousandcasts

quest32a said:


> I am not for a statewide lowering of the limit. Needs to be watershed by watershed. Whats good on the Joe is not good on the Lil Man or Platte. Hell, make the limit on the Joe 5 for all I care. Let it be a meat river. Tons of fish still go through the ladder every year.


At least you can recognize that the Joe is a completely different animal due to the fact of all the plants it receives. When looking at the steelhead fishery as whole, you have to throw that river right out the window. I mean, no one in their right mind should fish that river and then use it as barometer to judge how the rest of the state's steelhead fishery is. 

It's just ridiculous to hear blanket statements made comparing the "big rivers" like the Joe and Muskegon, for example. If you add it all up, the plant numbers on the Joe are probably in the 150K range, but the Mo is 55K. So honestly, you can't realistically even compare "big rivers," if you're using the Joe as your main barometer. Yes, I know you recognize that, Quest, I'm just making a general observation.


----------



## thousandcasts

OK, I see that several people have voted to keep it at three. 

Outside of the typical propaganda of, "well the DNR sets the limits based on blah,blah,blah,blah,etc,etc" does anyone have a personal viewpoint why a three fish limit is near and dear to their heart?


----------



## Silver Panner

Good topic and great discussion. Even thought I would probably be grouped into the weekend warrior class, 95% of the time I dont keep any fish while fishing the rivers. However, if I was to go out on the big lake then I think I would want to get the most bang for the buck and keep it at 3. I would assume that most charter captins (and river guides for that matter) would want to keep it 3 as well. As a consumer it brings the cost per fish down and you get to enjoy your time on the water a little bit longer.

SP


----------



## thousandcasts

Silver Panner said:


> Good topic and great discussion. Even thought I would probably be grouped into the weekend warrior class, 95% of the time I dont keep any fish while fishing the rivers. However, if I was to go out on the big lake then I think I would want to get the most bang for the buck and keep it at 3. I would assume that most charter captins (and river guides for that matter) would want to keep it 3 as well. As a consumer it brings the cost per fish down and you get to enjoy your time on the water a little bit longer.
> 
> SP


That's a valid point and I respect your thoughts. For the sake of debate, is a limit of three steelhead needed out on the big lake though, when the limit on salmon has been raised to five? Rather, for bang for the buck, isn't five salmon more bang than trying to box three steelhead? Specifically talking about the big lake since that was your initial measuring stick.


----------



## Oldgrandman

> * 5 fish, with no more than 3 fish 15 inches or larger, and no more than 1 Atlantic salmon.



Above is the rule for rainbows/steelhead on the Grand and many other rivers. You can keep a couple small skippers and 3 bigger fish so it is actually a 5 fish limit now.
I say 3 is plenty, as it is rare to get < than a 15 inch steelhead but it certainly does happen.
I rarely keep any these days, but like this weekend when I want to fill my smoker and a buddy is asking for one too, I am not getting even the second or third fish, hooked em but they did not cooperate with me... :rant:​


----------



## Silver Panner

True. I was thinking more so on Lake Huron where Salmon are fewer and farther between. However, your point could also be made by substituting Lakers for Salmon.

The two fish idea seems to work, however I think if you could keep fishing after your limit your going to get a bunch of yahoo's claiming the "fish swallowed the hook and was going to die anyway." Again you could say this goes on now, but I think most fishermen are, for lack of a better term, "used" to the current reg's and are comfortable with them. If, and I could be wrong, we currently don&#8217;t have a declining population then is there a reason to mess with the limits?


----------



## REG

If you believe the majority of steelhead harvest takes place on the big lake, then, wouldn't one think that in order to see any *significant* change in the number of steelies that hits the streams, you are going to have to see a lakewide agreement on the limit? For fun, even if MI changed their limit to two fish, how much positive difference would be seen in steelhead river returns if WI, IL and IN kept their limits at 5 steelies?

In WI, where they have some real problems with their steelhead returns, their DNR did a modeling project to predict what it would take to see any appreciable change in their returns. The results? It would take dropping the limit from 5 steelhead to 1 steelhead to see a significant positive change in their steelhead returns. And this modeling project was done before they dropped their stocking levels from 500,000 real (not hatchery chicken rainboids) steelhead yearlings to less than 300,000 RS yearlings. The irony in this situation is that their Lake Michigan Advisory Committee representatives, which is largely made up of big lake boat fishing representatives, even made overtures to consider dropping the steelhead limit "somewhat". After this modeling report came to the table...........all considerations were dropped.

Realistically, a good lake chinook fishery and high gas prices probably does more for positive steelhead returns than a reduction in limits.


----------



## thousandcasts

REG said:


> Are polls like these the stream steelheader's equivalent to slamming the ham?
> 
> If you believe the majority of steelhead harvest takes place on the big lake, then, wouldn't one think that in order to see any *significant* change in the number of steelies that hits the streams, you are going to have to see a lakewide agreement on the limit? For fun, even if MI changed their limit to two fish, how much positive difference would be seen in steelhead river returns if WI, IL and IN kept their limits at 5 steelies?
> 
> In WI, where they have some real problems with their steelhead returns, their DNR did a modeling project to predict what it would take to see any appreciable change in their returns. The results? It would take dropping the limit from 5 steelhead to 1 steelhead to see a significant positive change in their steelhead returns. And this modeling project was done before they dropped their stocking levels from 500,000 real (not hatchery chicken rainboids) steelhead yearlings to less than 300,000 RS yearlings. The irony in this situation is that their Lake Michigan Advisory Committee representatives, which is largely made up of big lake boat fishing representatives, even made overtures to consider dropping the steelhead limit "somewhat". After this modeling report came to the table...........all considerations were dropped.
> 
> Realistically, a good lake chinook fishery and high gas prices probably does more for positive steelhead returns than a reduction in limits.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I gotta get back to the Playboy. It's more realistic and alot more gratifying in the end. :yikes:


Good points. First, I would think that swinging a spey is more the stream steelheaders equivalent of slamming the ham-- for the simple reason that for every "real fish" you do bang, there's a whole lot more instances of just wasted hand motions.  

Secondly, I definitely agree that when more guys are targeting the kings, less steelhead are getting boxed up. I loathe that five king limit, absolutely think it's ridiculous, but...I guess if guys are more focused on getting their five kings, then they're less inclined to do the past practice of, "well, we got our three kings, let's go finish this off with the steelhead" thing, and that does have a positve effect on the river returns.


----------



## wolvron

I voted for a 2 fish limit. the reason why is if I catch a fish, and it's questionable if it will live or not then I stringer it. Usually when I go fishing it's for the day. with the 1 fish limit my day would be over, and I would be stuck with the honey do list.


----------



## quest32a

Flyfisher said:


> That's an interesting approach to managing a fishery. As long as tons of fish go through the ladder its OK? I wonder what the Idaho fisheries biologists on the Snake River would say if Washington and Oregon decided to increase salmon and steelhead harvest below Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River?
> 
> I guess you could say the same for the Grand below 6th Street as there have been times in the past when the ladder is full of fish ascending the main river. Alas, not all these fish go into the main tributaries but also visit the many cold running, gravel bottomed creeks that are closed until the end of April. Creeks where they spawn unmolested and where the water is cool enough all summer to act as a nursery stream until the smolts out-migrate the following spring/summer.
> 
> While I agree that possession limits shouldn't necessarily be universal, I failed to see the logic behind keeping the limit at three (or increasing it to five) just because a lot of steelhead ascend the ladder at Berrien?


Yeah but the Joe is pretty much an artificial fishery. Yes there are some wild fish, but a lot of the fish have clips. The Columbia river is a wee bit different. 

Why let all those skamania go to waste? If they aren't caught and harvested during the summer a lot of them do die. A 1 fish limit on skamania in the mainstream of the Joe would be worthless. 

I know the basis of this thread is winter fish, but we do have to take into account Skamania on the Joe. They run the river in the heat of the summer, and if released, die. So if you make the limit one, most ethical sportsman could go down there, catch a fish on the 1st cast and be done for the day. Not a very good management of the fishery, same with the pier.


----------



## Steelheadfred

> Good post, with valid points. However, from a personal viewpoint, I think you underestimate the amount of natural reproduction that takes place in the Grand River system as a whole. Obviously, the mainstream is nill, but there are a plethora of coldwater creeks and what not where steelhead are able to spawn unmolested and because of them being cool enough, they contribute a large amount of wild fish. Even in years when the DNR is clipping the RP of hatchery fish, it is not uncommon to catch a significant amount of fish in the Grand that have no clips and no signs of fin dent or other physical indicators that they came from the hatchery. I'm not a biologist, but based on personal observation, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to find out that the Grand system puts out a far higher amount of wild fish than say, the Muskegon to the north.


Thousandcasts for head of the michigan steelhead program....

I could not agree more the Grand's tribs crank out significant natural reproduction....


----------



## TSS Caddis

thousandcasts said:


> Whenever certain debates come up, involving the fisheries, it seems that there's anglers who toss out the idea of a lowered steelhead limit. It makes me wonder how many anglers actually favor that. So, how about a hypothetical, non-scientific poll to see what most people really think about that?
> 
> This is for no other reason than for "****'s and giggles" so to speak. No agenda behind it, no pushing for anything, just seeing where people stand since it seems to get mentioned alot. Keep in mind, hypothetically, this would include the limit on the big lake as well...not just in the rivers.


How about 1 kept fish but you are allowed to milk and release 2 additional hens?


----------



## TSS Caddis

thousandcasts said:


> Using simple math, if 100 guys hit the river in a month and each keeps their limit of three once, that's 300 fish harvested. Reduce that to two fish and now there's an extra 100 fish still in the systems to provide more angling opportunities.


This is the same slippery slope that many of us argued against with Sputnik.

IMO, following this logic would dictate no kill as being even better.


----------



## thousandcasts

TSS Caddis said:


> This is the same slippery slope that many of us argued against with Sputnik.
> 
> IMO, following this logic would dictate no kill as being even better.


Notice that wasn't an option in the poll?


----------



## KWB

thousandcasts said:


> Notice that wasn't an option in the poll?


You should have included it just to show how little interest there is in a total catch & release fishery...


----------



## salmo'dog

Two fish limit would be better, and even a 1 fish limit on some tributaries. I haven't completely read all the posts in this topic, but if all hatchery fish can be identified by clippings / tags, then why not make it a mandatory law that all "wild" fish must be released?

Another element to consider would be to close certain spawning grounds in some of the tributaries for a specific amount of time so the fish can spawn "stress free", even though upper stretches of some tribs do not open up until the last Saturday in April. 
It would be hard to calculate / predict the best time for "closure" due to wheather / water levels, and class of fish for the year. 

Catch and Release would help, but would still stress some fish out to where they may not be able to spawn, wouldn't it ?

These statements made by me are far from being "concrete", just throwing my opinion out there.


----------



## Spanky

I'm not sure that all fish without fin clips are wild fish. I believe there were a few years that due to budget problems, that the clipping program may have been halted or suspended?


Jay, any input on that?

he may be hunting now that I think about it.


----------



## KWB

Spanky said:


> I'm not sure that all fish without fin clips are wild fish. I believe there were a few years that due to budget problems, that the clipping program may have been halted or suspended?
> 
> 
> Jay, any input on that?
> 
> he may be hunting now that I think about it.


It was indeed suspended, I am 100% on that, but not sure how many years, 1 or 2...


----------



## thousandcasts

Spanky said:


> I'm not sure that all fish without fin clips are wild fish. I believe there were a few years that due to budget problems, that the clipping program may have been halted or suspended?
> 
> 
> Jay, any input on that?
> 
> he may be hunting now that I think about it.


'08, no clips. Then they found that extra money late last year and they were able to clip this past spring's '09 plant. No money again, so no clippings for the '10 plant. 

That comes from a DNR biologist I talk to when I have certain questions.

Even if fish aren't clipped, there's still things that'll indicate it was a hatchery fish or not. Bent dorsal fins, tail's bent up a bit, nose is pushed in some. Basically all things that happen when they're bunched up in the hatchery race ways and what not. You're absolutely right--An absence of clips does not mean it's a wild fish by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## bombcast

I happen to love killing steelhead. Some days I just bleed them, but other days I chase them around on shore with a rusty screwdriver, pin them down and stab them in the eyeballs. 

But never more than 3 times a day.

Just kidding, of course. I do kill a fair number of fish though - 3-4 hens a year for eggs and usually at least a couple skamanias a year for the grill/smoker, and a fair number on the big lake. 

Going back to my earlier response about smaller rivers, I happen to like the White. A lot. I know it, it's a fun stream to fish, and certain stretches are some of the most varied and challenging to fish (ethically) in West Michigan.

Tell me that reducing it to a 1 fish limit wouldn't help the overall fishery and angler satisfaction. The number of fish stringered by a relative few on that river in proportion to the total return is staggering. And disgusting.


----------



## TSS Caddis

thousandcasts said:


> Notice that wasn't an option in the poll?


So you're for 100 more fish or 200 more fish, but not 300 more fish? Loaded question.


----------



## thousandcasts

TSS Caddis said:


> So you're for 100 more fish or 200 more fish, but not 300 more fish? Loaded question.


I don't think it's a loaded question. I mean, there's no way I'd go as far as to say that no kill should be an option. However, if given the hypothetical choice, would I support a limit reduction of some kind? Yep...and unscientifically, 2/3 of the people voting seem to feel that way as well. Does it mean anything? Nope. Do I think there's anything wrong with roping up fish? nope. 

I thought you gave up steelhead fishing--shouldn't you be more worried about duck limits or what not?


----------



## beaker

I voted for the one fish option, mostly because like Bombcast I fish the White alot. It is a river that cannot handle the type of abuse it gets. I voted before I had the opportunity to read the whole thread. There are alot of great points made. I really like the idea of managing each river system on its own. Keeping 3 on the White or PM will do so much more damage to the system than keeping 3 on the Joe or the MO.


----------



## thousandcasts

beaker said:


> I voted for the one fish option, mostly because like Bombcast I fish the White alot. It is a river that cannot handle the type of abuse it gets. I voted before I had the opportunity to read the whole thread. There are alot of great points made. I really like the idea of managing each river system on its own. Keeping 3 on the White or PM will do so much more damage to the system than keeping 3 on the Joe or the MO.


While I think you make some great points, there's some variables to consider when trying to manage each watershed on it's own merits:

1) We'll be lucky if we don't see some access sites closed down completely due to a lack of money. Our biologists simply don't have the time or resources to start doing studies on each individual river system as to determine what's an appropriate limit or not. 

2) While it seems easy to do so, you simply cannot compare one large river like the Joe to another large river like the Mo. Both are large rivers, yes, but the plant numbers simply do not match up to make a level comparison. Between Indiana and Michigan, the Joe gets (guesstimating) upwards of 100,000 + steelhead planted, whereas the Mo gets 55K to 60K. 

3) Any limit reduction on one river over another is still going to be a moot point IF the limit on the big lake remains at three across the board. That is your wild card. Reducing the steelhead harvest out there puts more fish in your system. 

Absolutely, a three fish limit is going to have more of an impact on the White than it is the Joe. However, going to one fish on the White is small potatoes if three are still getting boxed up five miles out of Whitehall during the summer or what not. Sure, the simple math dictates you'll see more fish remain in the system from a lower limit, but you could get a bigger impact if the big lake harvest was reduced as well, IMO. 

For simplicity purposes, it would have to be an across the board reduction. There's really no way around that.


----------



## Shoeman

thousandcasts said:


> While I think you make some great points, there's some variables to consider when trying to manage each watershed on it's own merits:
> 
> 1) We'll be lucky if we don't see some access sites closed down completely due to a lack of money. Our biologists simply don't have the time or resources to start doing studies on each individual river system as to determine what's an appropriate limit or not.


Then why try to bother them with additional work and confusing the public even more with a trout guide the size of the bible? It's bad enough now!

Basically the same outcome as gear restrictions.... Less fish on stringers and keep the meat fishermen away. Special Interest????

:lol: Wow that shoe fits on either foot. How'd they do that? :evilsmile


----------



## Jay Anglin

I vote 1 fish for tribs of "X" cfs and under average...probably 500 and then maybe 2 for the main stems of larger rivers.


----------



## KWB

One thing you guys need to put into perspective is just how many Skamania smolts never make it to Lake Michigan compared to Winter steelhead stocked in the Joe or any other rivers.

In order for them to imprint properly, they have to be released in South Bend, thus they have to travel back downstream through a whole bunch of dams. A HUGE majority of them die from this.

Then you have to add in when they are planted, on warmer Summers, thousands of them get stuck at creek mouths as they can no longer travel downstream in the heat of the main river. Massive amounts of these freshly stocked fish die by guys catching one after the other while trying to "fish" for adult skam's trapped there as well as everything you put in the water, the little guys try to inhale. Plus while they are stuck at the creek mouths they are easy prey for a wide variety of predators.

Plus recent studies show Skamania strain steelhead have a smaller survival rate than Little Manistee strain fish.

More reasons why they shouldn't be getting stocked here.

When you take all of these things into consideration, the Joes returns are not that outstanding compared to the amount of steelhead stocked.


----------



## thousandcasts

Shoeman said:


> Then why try to bother them with additional work and confusing the public even more with a trout guide the size of the bible? It's bad enough now!
> 
> Basically the same outcome as gear restrictions.... Less fish on stringers and keep the meat fishermen away. Special Interest????
> 
> :lol: Wow that shoe fits on either foot. How'd they do that? :evilsmile


I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing one fishery to maximize returns across the board. In that case, bait, fly, hardware, plug, ect, would all benefit, theoretically. 

Now, if raising the limit on salmon to five is giving more anglers bang for the buck, then what's wrong with an across the board reduction in steelhead harvest that may accomplish a better return? 

Regardless of whether you fish flies or I fish bait, what makes a trip more enjoyable? Is it the number of fish you killed or is it the number of fish you had a chance to hook? I'll stringer up some here and there, but my enjoyment comes from the number of fish I hook...not even so much land, and most certainly not how many I can kill. 

In a hypothetical discussion such as this, there is no distinguishing bait v. fly or any manner of technique needing to be discussed. That is completely irrelevant. 

How is it considered "special interest" when roughly 70% of the poll group favors a reduction of some kind? I kept seeing references made to a reduced steelhead limit and thought it'd make for a good discussion. In that respect, I was right--this is a good discussion. We could discuss whether or not Mars would make for a great place to colonize and probably have a damn good debate about it--doesn't mean it's something we'll realistically see our lifetimes, ya know?


----------



## toto

I would have to opt to lower it to two. Now to get the charter captains riled up. I think the steelhead limit should be set to 1 per person. Think about it, if all the charter boats can keep 3 per person, and have 4 people on board, thats 12 fish per charter, now if they have 2 charters per day, they could conceivably then box 24 fish per day. I know thats probably more rare than usual, but thats just too much, imo.

One other point, just how would you determine fairly which watersheds can keep 3 and which ones are catch and release, or something in between. Yes I know the DNR sets these limits, but for the common joe, I'm sure we all have our favorite places. Some of you know where I like it the most, and I won't kill one there, unless it gets hurt somehow, but thats just me. I can never look down my nose at someone who does keep their limit there, its their right. Two rivers that come to mind that need more protection than others, Platte, and Little Man. Both these rivers are indicator streams, and not planted, therefore, these rivers need a bit more protection for what its worth.


----------



## Flyfisher

bombcast said:


> Tell me that reducing it to a 1 fish limit wouldn't help the overall fishery and angler satisfaction. The number of fish stringered by a relative few on that river in proportion to the total return is staggering. And disgusting.


May not help as those same guys will still kill everything they catch and fillet it right on the bank of the river, leaving the offals for the raccoons. Seen this more than once, 9 or 10 steelhead carcasses thrown in the water along the bank.

I do agree on the smaller tribs getting some sort of additional protection in lowered limits. The fish will trickle into the larger tribs all winter while some small rivers get a push before the onset of winter then nothing until the spring thaw, especially tribs that are above obstacles like fish ladders. I can think of some banner days on smaller waters in the fall and early winter. Word gets out and limits taken. Weeks after, the fish are gone and that trib is effectively shut down until spring. 

One can almost compare it to some of the trout waters in our southern states that are stocked on a monthly basis as the limits are generous and the fish just get cleaned out until the next hatchery truck dumps another load of cookie cutter, pasty looking, liver-pellet fed rainbows. I would like to believe that most of us fish because we enjoy the experience, and arent counting on killing fish for the dinner table. In the end, between gas money, bait, tackle, etc its probably cheaper to buy fish at Meijers than going fishing. So, while I dont subscribe to the zero-kill philospophy, I also look at states like NY where they have trimmed limits and are seeing improved catches. Basically, more fish in the water equates to more chances to hook those fish. Kill three fish and thats three that will never be caught again.

A reduced limit may also satisfy the special interest groups that focus on making trout/steelhead waters no kill. Its a compromise and win-win for everyone involved or interested in trying to improve our fisheries. No-Kill is NOT a win-win scenario.


----------



## tightlined

Sorry to 'hijack' a thread here that seems to be going between a few people, but I had a question about a comment I have seen throughout this thread. I guess first off, long story short, I would be for lowering it to 2 fish. But, as said here, if the Big Lake limits remain as is, it could all be here-say. However, having fished the big lake quite often, it is a rare occasion that these fish are in any shape to be released. Yes, sometimes they are, but usually they are toast before they hit the box. So, would lowering the limit in the river and keeping it the same in the big lake be useful and productive? My gut says no, but I am not an expert.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Steelheadfred said:


> Now I am sure Splitshot and others will come on here and say there is no science to prove a lower limit will improve the fishery but when you look to Ontario and WI that is simply not true in theyre studies. Also considering I believe a 40% return spawning rate on Lake MI tribs and a close to 80% on Lake Superior tribs you can see how a run could increase dramatically and even the possibility of having to stock less fish in some rivers would become an option.


The argument is not that there wouldn't be a increase in fish per se but what is the relevancy and reason for needing the increase. So we can catch more fish? So you want the person who wants to eat his catch of 3 to reduce to 2 so you may catch what? 1 more fish over the 7 you already caught 2% of the time you fish? Thats if the reduction in the limit even equates to a increase in the fish caught by you.


----------



## thousandcasts

tightlined said:


> Sorry to 'hijack' a thread here that seems to be going between a few people, but I had a question about a comment I have seen throughout this thread. I guess first off, long story short, I would be for lowering it to 2 fish. But, as said here, if the Big Lake limits remain as is, it could all be here-say. However, having fished the big lake quite often, it is a rare occasion that these fish are in any shape to be released. Yes, sometimes they are, but usually they are toast before they hit the box. So, would lowering the limit in the river and keeping it the same in the big lake be useful and productive? My gut says no, but I am not an expert.


Exactly. It makes little sense to lower a river limit and leave the lake limit at three. Yeah it adds some to that river, but you still have the same amount getting boxed up in the lake. 

It used to be, get your three kings and then go get the two steelhead or what not to close out the five fish big lake limit. I spent years fishing out there, so I know it's possible to target steelhead specifically off any port. Basically put double orange crush on the rods, speed up and keep everything in the top 30' until you find a pod of them around. Granted, less guys are targeting them with the 5 king limit now, but what the hell, drop the limit to two fish across the board, lake and river, and let's see what happens over all. 

Would the big lake guys complain that much about it, if it were dropped to two? Since they got their five kings, I'll bet they probably wouldn't make too much of a stink about it. Of course, I'm in a decent mood today, so I know I'm going out on a limb by giving them the benefit of the doubt!  :lol:


----------



## thousandcasts

Ranger Ray said:


> The argument is not that there wouldn't be a increase in fish per se but what is the relevancy and reason for needing the increase. So we can catch more fish? So you want the person who wants to eat his catch of 3 to reduce to 2 so you may catch what? 1 more fish over the 7 you already caught 2% of the time you fish? Thats if the reduction in the limit even equates to a increase in the fish caught by you.


I absolutely respect your position 100%, but I think it comes down to a matter of perception. Are steelhead a sportfish per se or are they a meat fish? I'm led to believe that the perception is that they're a sportfish. I love king fishing and think there isn't another fish in this state that compares to them, but the reality of it is they're viewed more as a meat fish more than a sport fish. 

I could argue why...why...why is there a season closure on walleye? To me, that's ridiculous. When those things are upriver in the spring, it gives guys a chance to rope some up that normally wouldn't get that chance. To me, that's more of a meat fish than say, a steelhead. Six of one, half dozen of the other, I suppose...yet walleye are planted in far greater numbers and yet there's some protection to limit the harvest of them. Apples, oranges, yes--but some parallel could be drawn there.


----------



## The_Don

I say raise it to 5 and put kings back to 3. Theres no salmon over here to speak of.


----------



## tightlined

thousandcasts said:


> Would the big lake guys complain that much about it, if it were dropped to two? Since they got their five kings, I'll bet they probably wouldn't make too much of a stink about it. Of course, I'm in a decent mood today, so I know I'm going out on a limb by giving them the benefit of the doubt!  :lol:


I would agree that the big lake guys, especially the charter captains, would not put up too much of a stink about it. Higher limits mean they are out there longer burning more gas and eating away at the profit. Lower limits mean the opposite. 

My vote is to lower them across the board. I would go to two fish rather then one for a simple reason. Say you hook, land, and bonk a steelhead first thing in the morning. Even if it is carefully roped up, that fish is either dead or not doing well by lunch. Occassionally, a steelhead is gutted by a hook or three and won't make it if released. And I don't personally like to release dead fish. So, two fish limit for the incidental killing. This theory applies to river and lake.


----------



## Flyfisher

The_Don said:


> I say raise it to 5 and put kings back to 3. Theres no salmon over here to speak of.


There's no salmon because there are no alewives in Lake Huron, the primary food source for salmon. I heard the mudchicken/greaser/pooper fishing is awesome because they eat gobies, which are still in abundance. 

Steelhead are also less picky like the lakers. They will eat bugs on the surface, minnows, shiners, shad, etc.


----------



## REG

Steelheadfred said:


> This ignores the significant natural reproduction that Lake MI tribs on our side have. They have done a fantastic job managing the Brule for a wild fishery but that is a Superior Trib. The Tribs in WI running into the western lake mich shore do not have the natural reproduction our rivers do.



If you are saying that the 5 steelhead limit maintained by the other states ignores naturally reproduced steelhead of MI, then you are absolutely correct. 

WI LM drainage rivers, in fact, do not support any significant natural reproduction of steelhead whatsoever.

I would not think IL or IN fishing effort affects MI steelhead much, but I would believe that the WI offshore fishery efforts are a different story given the migration of lake steelhead to the more northern part of the lake.


----------



## Ranger Ray

thousandcasts said:


> I absolutely respect your position 100%, but I think it comes down to a matter of perception. Are steelhead a sportfish per se or are they a meat fish? I'm led to believe that the perception is that they're a sportfish. I love king fishing and think there isn't another fish in this state that compares to them, but the reality of it is they're viewed more as a meat fish more than a sport fish.
> 
> I could argue why...why...why is there a season closure on walleye? To me, that's ridiculous. When those things are upriver in the spring, it gives guys a chance to rope some up that normally wouldn't get that chance. To me, that's more of a meat fish than say, a steelhead. Six of one, half dozen of the other, I suppose...yet walleye are planted in far greater numbers and yet there's some protection to limit the harvest of them. Apples, oranges, yes--but some parallel could be drawn there.


Thanks for respecting my position. Its how we should all respond when looking to change regulations that will effect our sport and fellow sportsmen that may not exactly think like us.

For the record I keep maybe 3 steelhead a year. So personally a lower limit would not effect me. But I do defend those that like to eat them.

I look at this from a total different angle than most. Social regulation is the biggest danger to our sports. Our right to forage and catch our food is a right that has stood the test of time. If we keep moving our limits for social and personal moral issues to the point we ourselves take this right away from ourselves, there will be hell to pay in the end. I am not against regulation that is needed to keep our fisheries healthy. But be careful that in our quest for more, more, that we are not left with none, none and none. Look at Sweden today that is imposing a one fish limit with no catch and release fishing, period. You catch one, you are done. After all its better to only keep one fish than two, and better to only hurt one fish than hundreds. We change our sport to nothing more than enjoyment and recreation, we will face a flood of anti whoop butt as never seen before. And it will be our own fault.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Flyfisher said:


> Steelhead are also less picky like the lakers. They will eat bugs on the surface, minnows, shiners, shad, etc.


It still effects steelhead. The average size of 3 year olds crashed to a twenty year low in 2000 and had barely increased as of 2004 (last recorded year of study, if I remember right). The food base is cyclic and steelhead are not immune.


----------



## bombcast

Jay Anglin said:


> I vote 1 fish for tribs of "X" cfs and under average...probably 500 and then maybe 2 for the main stems of larger rivers.


Look what the cat dragged in.


----------



## jimbo

that's a good thought about keeping everything on an even keel to help protect our right to fish. i guess someday fishing could end up as bad as trapping & hunting. so reading this thread has changed my mind. i'v sometimes thought a 2 fish limit might add more fish to the rivers & lengthen the runs (without proof). i personally only keep a couple fish a yr, & then only if i'm reasonally close to the truck. (wader)
also, would it be right to lower the limit of the GL on someone who just
just spent 30Gs setting up a new boat


----------



## thousandcasts

jimbo said:


> that's a good thought about keeping everything on an even keel to help protect our right to fish. i guess someday fishing could end up as bad as trapping & hunting. so reading this thread has changed my mind. i'v sometimes thought a 2 fish limit might add more fish to the rivers & lengthen the runs (without proof). i personally only keep a couple fish a yr, & then only if i'm reasonally close to the truck. (wader)
> also, would it be right to lower the limit of the GL on someone who just
> just spent 30Gs setting up a new boat


So, a three fish limit protects our right to fish and it's not fair to reduce a limit because some guy just spent 30G's to set up a boat? 

Just clarifying if that's what your position is, Jimbo--nothing wrong with whatever opinion you might have.


----------



## earl

Ranger Ray said:


> Thanks for respecting my position. Its how we should all respond when looking to change regulations that will effect our sport and fellow sportsmen that may not exactly think like us.
> 
> For the record I keep maybe 3 steelhead a year. So personally a lower limit would not effect me. But I do defend those that like to eat them.
> 
> I look at this from a total different angle than most. Social regulation is the biggest danger to our sports. Our right to forage and catch our food is a right that has stood the test of time. If we keep moving our limits for social and personal moral issues to the point we ourselves take this right away from ourselves, there will be hell to pay in the end. I am not against regulation that is needed to keep our fisheries healthy. But be careful that in our quest for more, more, that we are not left with none, none and none. Look at Sweden today that is imposing a one fish limit with no catch and release fishing, period. You catch one, you are done. After all its better to only keep one fish than two, and better to only hurt one fish than hundreds. We change our sport to nothing more than enjoyment and recreation, we will face a flood of anti whoop butt as never seen before. And it will be our own fault.


I keep a fair amount of what I catch. A large portion of what I don't keep gets given away to folks out on the pier that ask for it. I do have days that I dump a number back in. The social threat to our sport described by Ray is real. I know that I've been questioned by PETA types on why I torture these creatures.

I can't see how the state would want to start making the limits per watershed or other similar complex arrangement (rule simplification has been a deliberate effort).

I think the steelhead fishery has been great for the last several years. Can't see a reason to mess with the limit.


----------



## thousandcasts

> i'v sometimes thought a 2 fish limit might add more fish to the rivers & lengthen the runs (without proof).


Great point in there "without proof." Yep, this is nothing but a discussion and anything discussed is mere speculation or theory. However, I can think of far worse scenario's where "without proof" has been applied.

Recent example--VHS is coming, VHS is coming. OK, that's something to be concerned about, absolutely. Thousands of salmon are swimming from Lake Huron to Lake Michigan and vice versa and they're dumping millions of eggs all over the entire watershed. Sooooo, what is the solution we're given--what absolute stroke of genius does the DNR come up with to combat this? 

Don't throw eggs in the water. 

So, I ask you...is a few guys on a sportsman site discussing something hypothetical like a limit reduction on steelhead any more ridiculous than some things that have already been implemented "without proof?"


----------



## thousandcasts

earl said:


> I keep a fair amount of what I catch. A large portion of what I don't keep gets given away to folks out on the pier that ask for it. I do have days that I dump a number back in. The social threat to our sport described by Ray is real. I know that I've been questioned by PETA types on why I torture these creatures.
> 
> I can't see how the state would want to start making the limits per watershed or other similar complex arrangement (rule simplification has been a deliberate effort).
> 
> I think the steelhead fishery has been great for the last several years. Can't see a reason to mess with the limit.


I'm laughing my a** off right now, but not at your post. You pointing out the PETA types made me think of this past summer when a few of us were bonking skams off the pier and...well, gotta bleed 'em out, right? Fishermen discreetly trying to cut a gill + tourists standing around...yeah, here come the PETA types questions. Only, anyone who knows me can figure out that my answers weren't exactly...


----------



## Ranger Ray

earl said:


> I keep a fair amount of what I catch. A large portion of what I don't keep gets given away to folks out on the pier that ask for it. I do have days that I dump a number back in. The social threat to our sport described by Ray is real. I know that I've been questioned by PETA types on why I torture these creatures.
> 
> I can't see how the state would want to start making the limits per watershed or other similar complex arrangement (rule simplification has been a deliberate effort).
> 
> I think the steelhead fishery has been great for the last several years. Can't see a reason to mess with the limit.


I have lost more rights pertaining to hunting and fishing because of my brethren within them than PETA has pulled off. I fear loss of rights more from over regulation and special interest within my sport than PETA.


----------



## bombcast

Ranger Ray said:


> I have lost more rights pertaining to hunting and fishing because of my brethren within them than PETA has pulled off. I fear loss of rights more from over regulation and special interest within my sport than PETA.


excellent point, and perhaps the single point that trumps all.


----------



## thousandcasts

Ranger Ray said:


> I have lost more rights pertaining to hunting and fishing because of my brethren within them than PETA has pulled off. I fear loss of rights more from over regulation and special interest within my sport than PETA.


From my end, this a discussion and nothing more. Honestly, I've seen this "idea" brought up in other threads and the only reason I started this thread was for some good discussion and to see who thinks what. Lord knows these forums have needed some good, civil discussion lately. 

Hell, I'm known to stringer some up. Just because I practice more catch and release right now (other than one or two smaller fish for the grill) doesn't mean jack, so to speak. Come April, when I hit the river with my rod and a box of ziplocs cuz those fish are swimming around with my yearly bait supply in their guts, then if you DON'T see a stringer hanging off the side of the boat, then you know I'm having a bad day. Yeah, I hate to state the obvious, but I can honestly say that I while I release alot of fish at this time of year, I don't consider that as an option when a loosie makes it into the net later on, ya know? :lol:

Granted, I'm not on a ropin' tear at that time of year and being ridiculous about it, but...the ratio of Hutch killed fish does rise for a little bit there. Point being, I'm the last one that's gonna look down on someone who ropes up fish here and there.

I'll even go so far as to confess that I hate...flat out HATE fishing in the spring. So, when people see me out on the water at that time of year, it's not cuz I'm out there to have a "good time."


----------



## Flyfisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Social regulation is the biggest danger to our sports. Our right to forage and catch our food is a right that has stood the test of time. If we keep moving our limits for social and personal moral issues to the point we ourselves take this right away from ourselves, there will be hell to pay in the end. I am not against regulation that is needed to keep our fisheries healthy. But be careful that in our quest for more, more, that we are not left with none, none and none. Look at Sweden today that is imposing a one fish limit with no catch and release fishing, period. You catch one, you are done. After all its better to only keep one fish than two, and better to only hurt one fish than hundreds. We change our sport to nothing more than enjoyment and recreation, we will face a flood of anti whoop butt as never seen before. And it will be our own fault.


Ray, while I can appreciate what you are saying in regards to what has happened in parts of Europe, I have a difficult time believing your speculation that it could happen here in Michigan. Now I don't know how big a hold the PETA types have in Europe, but its safe to say that here in the US, PETA is damn near considered a terrorist group for their extreme actions. And to the average "Joe", they are considered a nuisance and wackos. Do you truly believe, deep in your heart, that we would ever resort to the draconian regulations that are present in one of the most liberal countries in Europe? I am fairly confident that it won't happen in my lifetime. Social issues aside as they relate to fishing, European public waters are truly at a premium, so perhaps the "one fish and your done" regs are to share the waters with your fellow socialist :evil: 

Granted, we are talking a lot about "what if and maybe" in the hypothetical scenario involving reduced limits. The DNR did it to the extreme on the flies-only/no kill stretch of the PM, and before the same folks that pushed that through try to do the same to the other 80 some miles of river still available for special regs, I personally would like to see a compromise between the guys that fish bait/lures and the likes of TU, SJRVFF, and God knows who else that wants to take away my spawn sacks. I consider TU and other flyfishing related special interest groups a significantly greater threat than some PETA wacko tying themselves to a pine tree. It was already proven during the VHS hype that the DNR brass has been infiltrated by "fly-fishing only" types when chumming was banned, in that one individual stated it was an "unethical practice" that "spreads VHS". There was no science, nothing proving chumming spread VHS, just had his ear bent by a flyfishing guide that he has fished with.

So, why not compromise now rather than waiting for influential special interest groups that will continue to push for even more stringent regs? And I am not saying all the rivers, just the ones that support some degree of natural reproduction, mostly smaller rivers with limited runs of fish, that way we can at least provide some sort of scientific justification for reduced limits. That being understood, perhaps stockings on could be reduced on certain waters and funds diverted to improve water quality, habitat, etc.

_edit: Ray, I just read what you said about losing rights, and that's why I feel a compromise would be a good step. While we may disagree on the compromise itself, perhaps you can see where I am coming from?_


----------



## thousandcasts

> It was already proven during the VHS hype that the DNR brass has been infiltrated by "fly-fishing only" types when chumming was banned, in that one individual stated it was an "unethical practice" that "spreads VHS". There was no science, nothing proving chumming spread VHS, just had his ear bent by a flyfishing guide that he has fished with.


Like I said, thousands of salmon dumping millions of eggs into the watershed and the brilliant deduction was: don't throw eggs in the water. It's just kinda funny that you had one Clyde going public screaming, "ban chumming...it's unethical" at the top of his lungs and then suddenly--that was the answer to stopping the VHS spread. Holy *&^% that is amazing, isn't it? 

Let's not over look the little detail where that same DNR brass's job is to over see the Lake Michigan fishery. And when he was interviewed by someone we both know and the question was asked about how the alewife/herring meat rigs used out on the big lake would effect spreading VHS--_he didn't even know that the big lake guys were doing that!!! _

Just sayin' Carry on...


----------



## Ranger Ray

Fly fisher said:


> Ray, while I can appreciate what you are saying in regards to what has happened in parts of Europe, I have a difficult time believing your speculation that it could happen here in Michigan. Now I don't know how big a hold the PETA types have in Europe, but its safe to say that here in the US, PETA is damn near considered a terrorist group for their extreme actions. And to the average "Joe", they are considered a nuisance and wackos. Do you truly believe, deep in your heart, that we would ever resort to the draconian regulations that are present in one of the most liberal countries in Europe? I am fairly confident that it won't happen in my lifetime. Social issues aside as they relate to fishing, European public waters are truly at a premium, so perhaps the "one fish and your done" regs are to share the waters with your fellow socialist :evil:
> 
> Granted, we are talking a lot about "what if and maybe" in the hypothetical scenario involving reduced limits. The DR did it to the extreme on the flies-only/no kill stretch of the PM, and before the same folks that pushed that through try to do the same to the other 80 some miles of river still available for special regs, I personally would like to see a compromise between the guys that fish bait/lures and the likes of TU, SCRUFF, and God knows who else that wants to take away my spawn sacks. I consider TU and other fly fishing related special interest groups a significantly greater threat than some PETA wacko tying themselves to a pine tree. It was already pr oven during the VHS hype that the DR brass has been infiltrated by "fly-fishing only" types when chumming was banned, in that one individual stated it was an "unethical practice" that "spreads VHS". There was no science, nothing proving chumming spread VHS, just had his ear bent by a fly fishing guide that he has fished with.
> 
> So, why not compromise now rather than waiting for influential special interest groups that will continue to push for even more stringent regs? And I am not saying all the rivers, just the ones that support some degree of natural reproduction, mostly smaller rivers with limited runs of fish, that way we can at least provide some sort of scientific justification for reduced limits. That being understood, perhaps stockings on could be reduced on certain waters and funds diverted to improve water quality, habitat, etc.


I understand what you are saying and don't really differ much in thought. We all need to get along. Its why I think social regulation is a curse to our sport. If our DNR base decisions on scientific management, it eliminates most controversy with us sportsmen. But when they start setting policy based on special interest and social groups, the war is on. I know we all think that the DNR is slow to react, but better slow and based on fact than knee jerk based on feelings. Another matter is the politics and special interest that has infected our DNR. But thats another thread. Can you say chum? :lol:


----------



## Shoeman

But, what about the casual angler who travels north (or west) twice a year and wants to bring home the "bacon"? Is it still worth his efforts and expense for 1 or 2 fish? No, just like the guy that drags his boat to Manistee for a weekend, gets blown off for one day and has to limit his catch so the "locals" can keep their 1 or 2 on a daily basis?

I say BS

Steelhead are not as scarce as a 20" brown. Each high-water event has a chance of bringing a good run of fish. It's always been like that. After a few days they get fished out or move into lumber once the water clears. Reducing the limit may create more hook-ups during the leaner times, but in essence the amount of fish in the system is still finite. It may just take an extra day or 2 clean them out. Limiting the catch to 1 (or 2) will hardly make a difference in the long run. 

Still special interest for the ones that live nearby and hit it frequently. 

Small tribs with natural reproduction are another story. Most of them are already protected and perhaps that should be expanded for the good of the strain

I keep hearing it's about the experience, True, but that may be only in some circles. Some guys fish to keep fish, just like the ones that fill their freezer with perch, walleyes and panfish. 1 fish won't cut it.


----------



## born2fish

I am going to disagree with with most people that appear to be posting on the discussion.  But when it comes to the Grand River system and maybe all large systems in Lake Michigan there are too many steelhead. This is evidenced by the fact that instead of being able to catch fish averaging in the 8-10 pound range (a la 1998), every fish now is a cookie cutter 5 pounds. Today an 8-10 pound steel is a real trophy at GR. I would even venture a guess that the size might be a little smaller when I see the spawn guys releasing 20 inch fish this time of year since those fish won't ever touch my plugs.

I know the decrease in size is a function of a lake wide food base decrease but instead of decreasing the number of predatory steelhead socking rates have remained steady and we are discussing on this forum how to increase steelhead numbers. Fine if 3-4 pound fish is the goal increase stocking/survival.

I am not for want of more fish at 6th street in the fall. This time of year it is routine to have 3-5 hook ups in a couple of hours of fishing. The problem is the small size of the fish. As a plug user, my action is a lot slower that the spawn guys and my catch rates per hook up has gone way down in the last 4 years. I have no doubt it is because of the smaller mouths. I would gladly trade 25% of my hook up action for a 25% increase in the size of the fish. However, and this is the kicker, I routinly see the good spawn fishers landing 5+ SMALL fish this time of year. From the discussion here, I guess that is a bad day? Would 10+ fish every time out be acceptable if they were all 3 pounds? Let me just tell all of you that were not around in the late 1990s, as far as fishing for sport goes catch a couple 10 pound fish in a trip and getting at least 1 over 15 pounds in a season kicks the crap out catching five pounders every trip. 

I've stated it earlier in this thread, keeping three fish at 7.5 to 9 pounds of fillets (3-5 to 6 pound fish at a generous 50% meat) in a trip is not excessive. It may seem like alot to the guy that fishes the river twice a week, but not to the one who is only getting out twice a year after a multi-hour drive.

I don't know what the hope of lowering the limit would be. Is it simply to increase the number of fish caught and released per trip by the C&R only crowd? Or is it more "natural" spawning? Is is higher survival in the river and post spawing adult returns to the big lake in the hope they will run the river agian in the next year?

I am absolutely against anything that will put more predatory mouths in the big lake. Because if the size of fish needs to increase not decrease.


----------



## thousandcasts

> But when it comes to the Grand River system and maybe all large systems in Lake Michigan there are too many steelhead.


_Note: Thousandcasts or "Hutch" as most people know him as, was going to post in this thread, however, when he read the above statement he went into severe cardiac arrest. He's currently medicated and resting, but we won't know the long term effects of what that statement did to him for a little while. 

Please keep him in your prayers and when making such statements like that in the future, realize that there is NO such thing as "too many steelhead."_


----------



## Flyfisher

Shoeman said:


> But, what about the casual angler who travels north (or west) twice a year and wants to bring home the "bacon"? Is it still worth his efforts and expense for 1 or 2 fish?


You're making the assumption that people go fishing for food, and not sport. As I mentioned earlier, fish fillets are a lot cheaper at Meijers than a trip to Tippy Dam. At any rate, I think that a lot of us are talking the smaller tributaries as opposed to the big systems like the Grand, Mo, or Manistee...at least that would be my suggestion.

born2fish-As far as the fish getting smaller, I agree with you but that's a salmon problem in my opinion as salmon far outnumber steelhead and do not have as varied a diet. As a piece of the pie, steelhead consume a small portion of the biomass when compared to salmon. Am I choosing steelhead over salmon, yes! Steelhead have been in Lake Michigan since the late 1800's, salmon were introduced in the late 1960's to stop alewives from overpopulating, dying, and washing up on our swimming beaches. The alewife "problem" of the 1960's is more than under control now. Unfortunately, the salmon seem to be much better at naturally reproducing than steelhead, undoubtably because they spawn in the fall and the parr outmigrate in the late spring before the warm, low water of a Michigan summer. Additionally, even with cuts in planting, salmon are still stocked at numbers far exceeding those of steelhead. Given a choice, from a river fishing point of view, steelhead provide up to 8 months of solid fishing while salmon provide a month or so of a frenzied circus. So, in my opinion, there are not too many steelhead in the Grand, just too many salmon in Lake Michigan


----------



## Shoeman

Flyfisher said:


> You're making the assumption that people go fishing for food, and not sport. As I mentioned earlier, fish fillets are a lot cheaper at Meijers than a trip to Tippy Dam. At any rate, I think that a lot of us are talking the smaller tributaries as opposed to the big systems like the Grand, Mo, or Manistee...at least that would be my suggestion.


Not really an assumption, just an observation

Take the perch angler running to the Weather Bouy. 50 gallons of fuel, 30 in bait and now reduce the limit to 15 perch. Impossible to justify in any form

I'm getting very tired of "professional sportsmen" dictating (or suggesting) what should be done about limits and or proper ettiquette.

It's that type that ruined deer hunting, trout fishing, ect...

In one sentence it's suggested that science and the bio's should set limits, then all of sudden passion should. 

If it's that critical, close all the tribs


----------



## KWB

Shoeman said:


> Not really an assumption, just an observation
> 
> Take the perch angler running to the Weather Bouy. 50 gallons of fuel, 30 in bait and now reduce the limit to 15 perch. Impossible to justify in any form
> 
> I'm getting very tired of "professional sportsmen" dictating (or suggesting) what should be done about limits and or proper ettiquette.
> 
> It's that type that ruined deer hunting, trout fishing, ect...
> 
> In one sentence it's suggested that science and the bio's should set limits, then all of sudden passion should.
> 
> If it's that critical, close all the tribs


Have to agree with you Shoe...


----------



## thousandcasts

KWB said:


> Have to agree with you Shoe...


I don't, but that's his position and I certainly respect it.


----------



## Flyfisher

Shoeman said:


> In one sentence it's suggested that science and the bio's should set limits, then all of sudden passion should.
> 
> If it's that critical, close all the tribs


Or we could find compromise, still have a quality fishery, and yet allow enough escapement to allow natural reproduction in areas where its documented.

For these "professional sportsmen" you speak of, its generally all (flies only/no kill) or nothing and unfortunately they have a lot more influence on the powers that be in Lansing than a bunch of guys debating limits here on M-S. Heck, we can't come to some sort of agreement or compromise here with a dozen or so guys discussing this. I can assure you that 40 or 50 guys at a TU chapter meeting have NO problem agreeing that they want "River X" and "River Y" to be "flies only/no kill".

Let's think about it, where's the science behind the 3 fish limit? Or was that just some arbitrary number based on stocking levels and creel clerk surveys?


----------



## KWB

thousandcasts said:


> I don't, but that's his position and I certainly respect it.


Hutch, how many people do you actually see keeping a limit of 3 steelhead on average in any given year?


----------



## KWB

Flyfisher said:


> Let's think about it, where's the science behind the 3 fish limit? Or was that just some arbitrary number based on stocking levels and creel clerk surveys?


That would be interesting information to know...


----------



## Shoeman

Years ago I would have agreed with you (TC)

Back then I was out there every weekend. I logged 220-some steelhead one year. All but probably a dozen (for more spawn) were put back. I had the luxury to fish them from the time they came in until I got tired of catching them. Now it's maybe 3 times a year??? I'm gonna keep some fish for the smoker, fish boil and sandwiches. (More than likely 3 if they cooperate) I'm still killing less than you guys

To compare my stance of yesteryear would not be fair to the casual fishermen, just like you guys trying to instill your beliefs. The poll may give that indication, but in reality it's only a subset of the angler community


----------



## KWB

Shoeman said:


> Years ago I would have agreed with you (TC)
> 
> Back then I was out there every weekend. I logged 220-some steelhead one year. All but probably a dozen (for more spawn) were put back. I had the luxury to fish them from the time they came in until I got tired of catching them. Now it's maybe 3 times a year??? I'm gonna keep some fish for the smoker, fish boil and sandwiches. (More than likely 3 if they cooperate) I'm still killing less than you guys
> 
> To compare my stance of yesteryear would not be fair to the casual fishermen, just like you guys trying to instill your beliefs. The poll may give that indication, but in reality it's only a subset of the angler community


That's where my reasoning comes from, I HATE keeping fish, not really because I hate killing them, I just hate messing with them. Panfish are certainly an exception to this, but anyway, the only time I keep steelhead is if for some reason I don't think the fish will make it, then I give it to a nearby angler or my neighbor.

My Grandpa loves to smoke fish so I keep 3 fish two times a year for him, if the limit was 1 fish, it would make that process a major pain in the ass as I would have to keep 1 fish 6 trips in order to hook up my Grandpa.

Yeah, my reasoning may be centered around making my life easier, but I honestly don't see a reason to change the limit, maybe on Lake Superior Tribs, but certainly not on any Lake Michigan Tribs. At one time I thought this would be a good idea, but after really paying attention to how many people I seen kepping fish compared to people releasing everything they catch, my opinion changed...


----------



## Shoeman

There's probably more steelhead released now than at any time in the past

I think a few lean years with late runs may have some wondering if steelhead are in decline. They might be... I don't get out enough to make that assumption. I'll worry about it when it's in the rule book (science) As for now, I won't single-handedly stop the run....LOL


----------



## Flyfisher

KWB said:


> That's where my reasoning comes from, I HATE keeping fish, not really because I hate killing them, I just hate messing with them.


I'm the same way, and can't think of the last time I killed a steelhead in a river. I just like to go out, wade smaller waters and (hopefully) hook fish. And go ahead and quote me on this but part of my desire for decreased limits on smaller waters is selfish. I want to fish all winter and know that "if" the fall run shows up (which it hasn't really on my home river), its usually cleaned out pretty good by the time the shelf ice starts to form. 

I have seen groups of guys stringing up limits in parts of that stream when the fish are cooperating. 3 or 4 college-aged kids, bobbers, jigs, waxies, and spawn and 8-10 fish on a stringer, both weekend mornings for a month straight until they only have one fish on the stringer and whine about how bad the fishing is...DOH! Not my place to tell anyone that they can't keep their limit or try to explain that River X will only get so many fish, and once they are dead thay can't be caught again. Anyway, do the math and that's a lot of fish coming out of a relatively small river by just a few guys.


----------



## tightlined

I don't mean to stir the pot and possibly redirect the thread at all, but as far as size limits go, the fish I have caught this year so far seem to be bigger then the past 3-4 years. Maybe it is pure dumb luck or luck of the draw, but they do seem to be bigger. Granted, I've only been at this game about 10 years and didn't get to experience the 'Hay Days' of the previous decades, but so far this year I am impressed with size.


----------



## jimbo

thousandcasts said:


> So, a three fish limit protects our right to fish and it's not fair to reduce a limit because some guy just spent 30G's to set up a boat?


just trying to say GL fishing pumps alot of $$$ into the state. so let's just keep that in mind too. He may budget more on green J-plugs in 1 yr than i do with all may fly fishing stuff. limiting it to 1 fish, may stop him from spending or fishing altogether. why not factor this on?

The other part was compairing what PEDA could do to fishing & what they tried to do to trapping in the 70's. such as trying to ban leg hold traps,when they wanted all trapping banned. 
or trying to ban assault guns when they really went all guns & hunting outlawed. 
want my to 'splain this with politics?


----------



## REG

Flyfisher said:


> Let's think about it, where's the science behind the 3 fish limit? Or was that just some arbitrary number based on stocking levels and creel clerk surveys?



*Bingo!*


----------



## Flyfisher

REG said:


> *Bingo!*


Do I win a prize?

New York has a one fish limit on the Salmon River...seems to work for them there.


----------



## thousandcasts

Shoeman said:


> There's probably more steelhead released now than at any time in the past


I can personally verify that a few just got caught and released while you guys were still on this thread. Sometimes having a couple different launches within 30 minutes doesn't suck.


----------



## The_Don

Flyfisher said:


> Do I win a prize?
> 
> New York has a one fish limit on the Salmon River...seems to work for them there.


Good on New York 3 works for me here


----------



## Spanky

I just realized today that this polled is skewed and slanted towards the authors agenda.There are 2 choices to lower the limit, and 1 choice to keep it the same, there are no choices to increase it, or change the limit as the fishery dictates. So when he says 60 % would like to decrease the limit, its because he was so inclined to create the poll the way he did. Politicians and media do it every day.

In another post he admitts that the fact that trollers have an opportunity to catch 5 salmon and many don't bother"targeting steelhead", yet claims that there needs to be more steelhead planted , and less kept. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure if less steelhead are targeted in the lake, than more should already be returning in the next few seasons due to less of them being part of the trollers catch.

Any changes that are implimented will takes years to see a difference, and I'm not a biologist, but I would seriously doubt you would see a change in catch rates, but with more fish staying in the system eating the available forage, I would be amazed if the following year classes of steelhead were not increasingly smaller.

Some steelhead spawn many times, others once or twice. The true monsters or trophies are fish who have only spawned once or twice. Spawning takes alot out of the fish and the growth suffers from the strain of the spawning.This can be seen in scale samples. I am of the mindset that bigger,healthier fish are much better for the fisheries/species, than a bunch of smaller over spawning runts.

I tend to let more fish go than ever. I just don't use them as much as I used to. I don't fish as much as I used to either, but I won't lobby to change the rules to suite my personal activity. I listen to my constituants and vote or lobby accordingly. 
The author of this thread would have you believe that all MSSFA members are meat hunters and trollers, and he couldn't farther from the truth. Our chapters operate many different river events, workshops , seminars and River clean-ups.Of the chapters I belong to ,most of the captains on the big lake also like to river fish, many have boats for each type of fishing. The majority of the GR chapter is river anglers, Ausable,Benzie, Holland,White river and Southwest chapters are all largely river anglers too.

I realize this was a "hypethetical question" thread, but if you ask the questions, you have to also listen to the answers, even if they are not the ones you want to hear.


----------



## Jim..47

I think we ought to leave setting limits to the DNR and spend more time fishing. If anyone is for a lower limit then they can just quit after catching a fish, and by the way throw it back so I can catch it  as I have yet to catch my first one 

guess limits won't affect me much :lol:


----------



## Flyfisher

Jim..47 said:


> I think we ought to leave setting limits to the DNR and spend more time fishing. If anyone is for a lower limit then they can just quit after catching a fish, and by the way throw it back so I can catch it  as I have yet to catch my first one
> 
> guess limits won't affect me much :lol:


Good luck getting your first one, Jim.


----------



## Fishbone

Spanky said:


> I just realized today that this polled is skewed and slanted towards the authors agenda.


Hypothetically, I believe you to be correct. :lol:

I wasn't given the option to vote for higher limits.


----------



## Jay Anglin

I had a guy in the boat today from New Jersey. He fishes the Salmon in New York all the time and brought the subject of limits up. He said that since the 1 fish limit was enacted on the Salmon the fishing has improved markedly and that everybody he knows and talks with loves the change. One old timer guide told him that the fishing is ten times better than it used to be. Interestingly, New York also adopted this limit to Lake Ontario according to him and that the charter guys were bent because with high fuel prices they were forced to go offshore further for salmon instead of staying tight for the steelhead which they could limit out on and call it a day.


----------



## thousandcasts

Spanky said:


> I just realized today that this polled is skewed and slanted towards the authors agenda.There are 2 choices to lower the limit, and 1 choice to keep it the same, there are no choices to increase it, or change the limit as the fishery dictates. So when he says 60 % would like to decrease the limit, its because he was so inclined to create the poll the way he did. Politicians and media do it every day.
> 
> In another post he admitts that the fact that trollers have an opportunity to catch 5 salmon and many don't bother"targeting steelhead", yet claims that there needs to be more steelhead planted , and less kept. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure if less steelhead are targeted in the lake, than more should already be returning in the next few seasons due to less of them being part of the trollers catch.
> 
> Any changes that are implimented will takes years to see a difference, and I'm not a biologist, but I would seriously doubt you would see a change in catch rates, but with more fish staying in the system eating the available forage, I would be amazed if the following year classes of steelhead were not increasingly smaller.
> 
> Some steelhead spawn many times, others once or twice. The true monsters or trophies are fish who have only spawned once or twice. Spawning takes alot out of the fish and the growth suffers from the strain of the spawning.This can be seen in scale samples. I am of the mindset that bigger,healthier fish are much better for the fisheries/species, than a bunch of smaller over spawning runts.
> 
> I tend to let more fish go than ever. I just don't use them as much as I used to. I don't fish as much as I used to either, but I won't lobby to change the rules to suite my personal activity. I listen to my constituants and vote or lobby accordingly.
> The author of this thread would have you believe that all MSSFA members are meat hunters and trollers, and he couldn't farther from the truth. Our chapters operate many different river events, workshops , seminars and River clean-ups.Of the chapters I belong to ,most of the captains on the big lake also like to river fish, many have boats for each type of fishing. The majority of the GR chapter is river anglers, Ausable,Benzie, Holland,White river and Southwest chapters are all largely river anglers too.
> 
> I realize this was a "hypethetical question" thread, but if you ask the questions, you have to also listen to the answers, even if they are not the ones you want to hear.


The author thinks it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you're reading waaaaaaay more into this than even I am. 

Seriously, whatever meds they've got you on to make you better, which I hope they do by the way, if you think myself or some stupid poll is a threat, then that's one serious side effect. Of course the poll was slanted...no kill wasn't included, there's your slant. If I was pushing some agenda, do you honestly think I'd be as civil or respectful as I have been to others opinions? C'mon man. I'm listening to and giving opinions, not answers. There are no answers in this thread. 2+2 has an "answer," anything here is mere speculation and opinion. 

However, here's an excercise that'll help ease your mind. Contact any of the biologists that you and I might both talk to and ask them if I've ever said a single word about any sort of lower steelhead limit. Go on...I'll wait. 

As for the whole MSSFA thing, I have my opinion, but I'm not going there. I'm actually making an effort to be a bit more civil in these fisheries discussions. You have a different perception than I do from what I see on the "outside." Trust me, I know I'm not going to be on their Christmas Card list this year and I'm not losing one wink of sleep worrying about if ten pissed off MSSFA members are going to jump me at a launch or something. Hell, all I have to do is say, "catch and release," and four of them will drop dead from a heart attack, another four will panic and run off to make sure that no one stole their coolers and that leaves it a manageable two on one situation. During salmon season I'd call that a normal morning.  

Under normal circumstances, I woudn't have to explain that the above was actually a joke. However, since you seem to read more into things than you should, I thought I'd better point that out...the joke part.


----------



## KWB

You guys are not taking into consideration that the New York Tribs. get 10 times more pressure than any of our rivers could ever dream of. With that kind of pressure, yeah a 1 fish limit may help, but you can't compare it to here really.

You also can't compare the two big lake fisheries as when it comes to Michigan ports on Lake Michigan, virtually none of the boats are targeting steelhead. Even when the Skam's would be near shore, we would at the most start the morning with one or two of them and would always troll our way deeper into the Salmon. The other charter boats did the same exact thing except Kneidlinger, but he would troll the pier heads even when the water was 80, as you go North it's just more of the same, clients want the biggest fish possible, that means targeting Kings. 

I strongly disagree with anyone that says the charter boats leaving a Michigan port on Lake Michigan have much of an effect on steelhead returns what so ever...


----------



## Fishbone

> I had a guy in the boat today from New Jersey. He fishes the Salmon in New York all the time and brought the subject of limits up. He said that since the 1 fish limit was enacted on the Salmon the fishing has improved markedly and that everybody he knows and talks with loves the change. One old timer guide told him that the fishing is ten times better than it used to be. Interestingly, New York also adopted this limit to Lake Ontario according to him and that the charter guys were bent because with high fuel prices they were forced to go offshore further for salmon instead of staying tight for the steelhead which they could limit out on and call it a day.


I am not exactly sure as to why I find your recent response to be extremely amusing at the height of this hypothetical thread. 

:lol:


----------



## Bulletproof

The old Seelbach studies from the mid 80's and early 90's had some interesting numbers. In 85', the in-stream vs. in-lake harvests where heavily skewed towards the former much more so than the latter, something like 72%. In 93' the in-lake harvests started gaining ground, something around 60% of the harvest. I'd like to think that these numbers still obviously support a higher 'in-lake' harvest in a fairly linear fashion. If that's the case, there will need to be a comprehensive limit for all of Lake MI waters and tributaries. I like the sound of 2. 

I'd also strongly support *specific *regulations tailored to rivers where a substantial part of the return is verifiable wild fish. These rivers need protection and you'd be hard pressed to find any biologist worth his salt to say otherwise. There are many documented/empirical success stories of protecting said rivers through conservative limits and habitat conservation. In no particular order, several come to mind--Nottawasaga, Bighead, Brule and a handful of rivers on the northern side of Superior.


----------



## REG

Flyfisher said:


> Do I win a prize?
> 
> .


Yes, the next steelhead you catch!


----------



## DFJISH

Jim..47 said:


> I think we ought to leave setting limits to the DNR and spend more time fishing. If anyone is for a lower limit then they can just quit after catching a fish, and by the way throw it back so I can catch it  as I have yet to catch my first one
> 
> guess limits won't affect me much :lol:


I agree. The guys who want a lower limit can self-impose it on themselves. Doesn't the DNR still stock steelhead? If they do, suggesting a lower limit for the purpose of increasing the population is a moot point.


----------



## Fishbone

DFJISH said:


> Jim..47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we ought to leave setting limits to the DNR and spend more time fishing. If anyone is for a lower limit then they can just quit after catching a fish, and by the way throw it back so I can catch it  as I have yet to catch my first one
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The guys who want a lower limit can self-impose it on themselves. Doesn't the DNR still stock steelhead? If they do, suggesting a lower limit for the purpose of increasing the population is a moot point.
Click to expand...



Well said.


----------



## REG

However, just for debate's sake, the DNR also stocks muskie. Is there a higher limit on stocked lake muskies vs lakes with natural reproduction of muskies? Same with walleye stocking and we still have a closed season.


----------



## MERGANZER

Stocking any fish in a body of water where they will not naturally reproduce is a waste of tax payers dollars anyhow but thats for anothe discussion. 

Now enters Steelheadfred. Take it away Fred!

Ganzer


----------



## rwenglish1

thousandcasts said:


> Whenever certain debates come up, involving the fisheries, it seems that there's anglers who toss out the idea of a lowered steelhead limit. It makes me wonder how many anglers actually favor that. So, how about a hypothetical, non-scientific poll to see what most people really think about that?
> 
> This is for no other reason than for "****'s and giggles" so to speak. No agenda behind it, no pushing for anything, just seeing where people stand since it seems to get mentioned alot. Keep in mind, hypothetically, this would include the limit on the big lake as well...not just in the rivers.


 
This is just my opinion from observations of listening to them, that with the 5 fish limit, they would catch it two or three times a day. So as far as limits go, the honest get screwed, the mutiple times a day fisherman will always catch all the fish they want. Then when the fish population feels the strain, they call for a lowwer limit, then keep taking all the fish they want. rw


----------



## rwenglish1

thousandcasts said:


> OK, I see that several people have voted to keep it at three.
> 
> Outside of the typical propaganda of, "well the DNR sets the limits based on blah,blah,blah,blah,etc,etc" does anyone have a personal viewpoint why a three fish limit is near and dear to their heart?


Out of the last four days I have fished, I have only caught two and I kept them. I don't honestly see how I will ever catch three steelhead a day for every day I fish. Those first four days were the first four days of my life that I have ever fished for steelhead. It pisses me off, when someone who has fished, goose hunted, duck hunted, bear hunted, bobcat hunted all their lives and took more than they should have, because it WAS THERE, Now times are getting more lean and they don't care to kill and eat like they use too. But they REALLY WANT TO HAVE THE FIGHT, they are calling for lowwer bag limits so they will still have more fish to fight, more deer to see etc. 

I say leave it along, and if you don't want to keep or kill them then don't. It's the same with the people who think we should pay more taxes, if they WANT TOO go ahead, nothing is stopping them, but don't tell me I need to pay more, or catch less.


----------



## TSS Caddis

thousandcasts said:


> I thought you gave up steelhead fishing--shouldn't you be more worried about duck limits or what not?


Steelhead fishing is too easy. I mean at the point your hitting 40 in two days, I've lost all respect for them:lol:


----------



## Spanky

thousandcasts said:


> The author thinks it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you're reading waaaaaaay more into this than even I am.
> 
> Seriously, whatever meds they've got you on to make you better, which I hope they do by the way, if you think myself or some stupid poll is a threat, then that's one serious side effect. Of course the poll was slanted...no kill wasn't included, there's your slant. If I was pushing some agenda, do you honestly think I'd be as civil or respectful as I have been to others opinions? C'mon man. I'm listening to and giving opinions, not answers. There are no answers in this thread. 2+2 has an "answer," anything here is mere speculation and opinion.
> 
> However, here's an excercise that'll help ease your mind. Contact any of the biologists that you and I might both talk to and ask them if I've ever said a single word about any sort of lower steelhead limit. Go on...I'll wait.
> 
> As for the whole MSSFA thing, I have my opinion, but I'm not going there. I'm actually making an effort to be a bit more civil in these fisheries discussions. You have a different perception than I do from what I see on the "outside." Trust me, I know I'm not going to be on their Christmas Card list this year and I'm not losing one wink of sleep worrying about if ten pissed off MSSFA members are going to jump me at a launch or something. Hell, all I have to do is say, "catch and release," and four of them will drop dead from a heart attack, another four will panic and run off to make sure that no one stole their coolers and that leaves it a manageable two on one situation. During salmon season I'd call that a normal morning.
> 
> Under normal circumstances, I woudn't have to explain that the above was actually a joke. However, since you seem to read more into things than you should, I thought I'd better point that out...the joke part.


Not really sure how to take what you said above, I think the whole post may be a joke, but to make a personal comment about a person dying of Cancer and their meds, and excuse it as a joke, goes far to show ones true character. Why do you even post that stuff Steve?

Then you speak about the michigan steelheaders like they are bandits and social outcasts, and the fact that you "are on the outside" or I have the inside track or something. are you feeling neglected? have you been blackballed by some chapter or something?

then you ask for any "feel good reasons" to have 3 fish other than the DNR propaganda of blah, blah, blah. What? You seem to take opinions in a favorable way when they apeal to you, but when they go against your mindset, then you make some kind of half- as sed comment or even a whole paragraph of them( as in the above quote) and then dismiss it as a joke when you are done, but the statements have been made.


Instead of stirring the pot all the time and creating the image that you are so passionate about the steelhead fisheries of lake michigan tribs, try to look at the big picture. Not just what Hutch would want, but what the majority of taxpaying/license holders would like to have. There are so many small pieces of the big picture. If the fisheries department just went by all the speculation or wants of the loudest anglers, how diverse of a fishery would you think we would have.The three fish rule has been in effect for as long as I can remember. Steelhead catch rates have gone up and down through all those years .There are no plans to change it.The DNR has been in the fish rearing/planting business for over 100 years. The financial belt is as tight as it has ever been right now. I think they are doing a good job with what they have.

You seem to have an axe to grind with the fisheries department for whatever reason. I really don't care about that, its unfortunate for you.You also seem inclined to believe that I am some kind of puppet for them or the MSSFA. Thats your problem not mine. I am doing the things I think are right for the fishery, for my constituents and stakeholders that I represent.I believe the things I do( all volunteer without any pay) make a difference for MANY fishermen and their children and grandchildren. When I post links about fisheries issues, meetings,problems, no one calls me on the phone and says to publish a bulliten. I do it when I recieve the info,if I think the folks here or at other sites would like to have it available on my own free will.
You may say that I am reading more into this thread than needs to be, and thats your opinion, but if I was on your bandwagon about this issue, you would say that I was spot on and had good ideas.

I'm sure you dismiss most of what I said by saying" you were joking", and thats fine. I am done defending my stance( and alot of others who are not members of this site) on this issue. I am also going to remain involved with the fishery folks for as long as my health will allow. I will say that since my diagnosis I have come to the conclusion that I shouldn't waste a single minute of my days. I don't think I have wasted my time with this thread. I think I have made myself very clear.Our fishing heritage is very important to me, I doubt that any time invested in preserving it are wasted. the time spent stirring the"hypothetical pot" are nothing more than fodder for arguments. Add to that the disrespect for good people and organizations, then the thread just heads into the basement. I'm not sure what else can be said about this issue. I'm sure TC you will find something.


----------

