bed fishing article - Bassmaster

[djkimmel]

Some anglers might find the bed fishing article in the latest Feb 2003 Bassmaster magazine interesting and even informative.

If you don't get Bassmaster, I'll probably post some excerpts on my site sometime this weekend.

Anyone who does read it, what do you think?

[Shoes]

A little behind the times, so I just read the article, and am offering my .02 worth. While it appears that at least one biologist in California professes to have data that disputes any contentions that bed fishing is detrimental to the fishery, I remain skeptical.

#1 - I think it is important to know what studies were done, where they were done, and by whom. Were all factors considered? i,e. size of the lake, suitable spawning areas, spawning conditions ( oxygen supply, PH, temperature, other conditions like run-off from a cedar swamp, etc.), cold and spring fed lakes vs warmer more stagnant bodies, presence of predators, etc, etc, and so on. Of course a large California reservoir is considerably different from a shallow weedy lake in Michigan. While smallmouths have been know to spwn as deep as 20' in Michigan, the absence of suitable spawing areas in deeper water might make them more suseptable if forced to spawn in the shallows. As we have often seen, a study is only valid until the next one proves it wrong.

#2 - Who is interpreting the data? He seems to think he can make an argument that fishing in California has gotten better as a result of tournament and bed fishing. Of course there could be many other reasons related to environmental conditions as well changing behavior of fishermen. The point is, there may be data that he is overlooking that might suggest otherwise to another biologist or statistician. After all, not all professionals agree.

#3 - He admits that there are exceptions, usually related due to environmental conditions. What are the exceptions? Short growing season? Lack of suitable spawning areas? Lack of structure? Small lake size? Heavy fishing pressure?

I'm not trying to shoot holes in his argument, just raising questions that come to mind as I read the article. He does cover a lot of bases and probably has professional credibility, but frankly without knowing more details of the data, I have to remain skeptical and trust the judgements of our own state biologists.

Finally, I do believe there is a risk of widespread negative public perception, especially if PETA portrays poor helpless fish as being taken away from their beds and baby fish by an army of bearded, cigarette smoking bass fishermen. Even if that hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't count it out.

[djkimmel]

Shoes,
These biologists all review the same studies all the time. When you read a study, you will see footnotes to other studies referenced. It is quite common for studies to use information from studies from other states. Many of these studies are reported on through the American Fisheries Society which all of these biologists belong to. They are also often reviewed and reported on at annual fisheries symposiums attended by biologists and others from across the country.

I have read a many of the same studies that these biologists refer to and then talked to some of the biologists who were involved in the studies. The California biologist was just stating what is commonly known and accepted by a majority of fisheries biologists across the US (why most states don't have a closed season). He is talking about studies done over decades including recently (including in Michigan) that have consistently shown repeatable results. All these studies state clearly what they may and may not show. You don’t have to be a fisheries biologist to read and interpret these parts.

The California biologist knows that he has a majority opinion on his side. There are always disagreements over particulars, but he is in the majority nationwide and he knows it. I’ve talked to some of the biologists who are in the minority and some of them have admitted they know they are trying to prove things that the majority of biologists and bass anglers don’t believe in. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t prove anything.

I don’t think the California biologist was saying tournaments and bedfishing made California bass angling better, he was just stating that the fishing is better despite decades of this fishing so you could say that, but what he is really saying is as you, yourself pointed out, that other factors are more important and have a greater impact on bass by far than whether or not bass are protected from fishing during the spawn. Same thing I’ve been saying because I’ve read many of the same studies and talked to many biologists about these studies.

There are always exceptions, but general anglers in many states have been vocal about complicated rules. They want simpler rules. Between that and the fact that many states are too understaffed to support more complex regulations, seasons tend to be made broader to cover most lakes at the expense possibly of a few lakes that need different management.

Not all Michigan biologists even think a closed bass season is really necessary, especially if you ask them for their interpretation of the science instead of just their personal opinion. Not all Northern states have a closed bass season. Many Northern seasons are based more on social factors than studies or biology (including Michigan). You can find this out for yourself.

I will continue to post information that I find out about on this topic, although I will now do more detailed reports on my own website and mention that so anglers who want to can choose to go read it or not. I’m working on finishing a detailed report on our own Michigan Catch-and-Release bass season right now.

As far as PETA goes, they want to end fishing, period. They will use methods to work on that goal regardless of how and when we fish for bass. I’m not going to curtail my fishing just because PETA might do something or not. PETA has occasionally targeted tournaments for various fish. I’m not going to stop fishing tournaments just because of that. PETA asked the Governor of Arkansas to make bass fishing illegal in Arkansas. He laughed at them. He, of course, didn’t make bass fishing illegal.

They are out there and I’m aware of it. Frankly, I have no idea why you mention a stereotype of “an army of bearded, cigarette smoking bass fishermen”? That stereotype does NOT fit the majority of bass anglers – definitely not the majority of bass anglers I know.

[Shoes]

djkemmil,
The title of the thread "Anyone who does read it, what do you think?" Asking for an opinion, right? Perhaps mine went a little far, but lets look at some of the aspects you mentioned.

The article doesn't state that the drawers of studies mentioned by the California biologist were published by AFS, and I for one won't make that assumption. As one who spent countless hours reviewing AFS publications as part of a research project for Dr. Rholoffs (MSU) in the late 60's, I can tell you that the references typically are of one or two aspects of another study. Nothing wrong with that. It precludes the need for every study to duplicate aspects that have already been verified. A reference, however, doesn't necessarily lend credence to a particular study.

"These biologists all review the same studies all the time."
I infer from this statement that there is generally consensus or agreement prior to publication. Not so. Although there is a review process prior to publication, most biologists read them after the fact. Furthermore, a review doesn't mean local biologists would agree with the findings, or that they are relevant to their jurisdictions.

While some of the studies may have been reviewed and discussed at symposiums, I venture to say many were not.

"The California biologist was just stating what is commonly known and accepted by a majority of fisheries biologists across the US" Really? I'm always leary of these types of statements. This looks suspiciously like one of those that falls into the category of "trust me." I don't know what survey was conducted or other source of this information, but since neither it nor your personal conversations with them were mentioned in the article, I didn't and won't comment further.

"All these studies state clearly what they may and may not show. You don’t have to be a fisheries biologist to read and interpret these parts." Maybe, maybe not. Hypothetically, would a lay fisherman detect that the information that is clearly stated was gathered only from lakes that are over 100 acres in size? Or detect differences in water chemistry? Or available spawning areas? Would he know enough to realize that fishing pressure was not included in the study? My point is, one may read something and come to a conclusion not knowing there are missing data. As I'm sure you know, there are more elements than you and I can list here that must be factored into such interpretations before reaching a valid conclusion. I question whether most non-biologists would do that.

"I don’t think the California biologist was saying tournaments and bedfishing made California bass angling better,....." The following is an excerpt from the article.

"So if fishing is better, then I could make the other argument that maybe tournaments and bed fishing are making fishing better."

My comment was based on a literal translation of the words that were printed in the article. Of course in the context of his other comments, one could reach a translation similar to yours. I learned long ago, however, that unless your inside someones head, its not good practice to try to read between the lines.

I don't understand the comments indicating that a C & R would simplify regulations. Unles I'm missing something, you have to know the dates, regardless of whether you can keep a fish or must release it. You want complication, try understanding our trout regs.

"Frankly, I have no idea why you mention a stereotype of “an army of bearded, cigarette smoking bass fishermen”? That stereotype does NOT fit the majority of bass anglers – definitely not the majority of bass anglers I know."

I'm a bass fisherman and I like to fish tournaments. I don't have a beard and I don't smoke. Perhaps I assumed too much in thinking it was obvious that my portrayal was as a devils advocate. PETA distorts the facts and portrays hunters and fishermen in the worst light as a means of playing on emotions and swaying public sentiment in order to affect regulations. I made that comment in regard to a part of the article in which Randy Blaukat, the pro from Missouri, asserts "Bed fishing is terrible public relations for our sport, especially in how the nonfishing public and some of the animal rights groups view our sport."

I feel this has been a long-winded response and there is a desparate need to stop. We can go merrily along our own paths, hopefully with the same goal in mind....that our kids and their kids can enjoy what we are able to enjoy.

[jpollman]

Oh my God !!!

Here we go AGAIN !:(

[Shoes]

Budster,

Whats the problem? Simply do what you do at the MnGs.... ignore us.:D :D

[jpollman]

No big problem Shoes,

but there was another L E N G T H Y thread on this very same subject a while ago. I really tried to read the whole thing but there's not enough caffiene around to keep me awake for it. :)

I just can't imagine that there's ANYTHING to be said that wasn't said several times on the other thread. If you feel like discussing it further, go right ahead. It doesn't bother me one bit.

I just know that I'll let the little buggers "do their business" in peace and wait for the opener. :)

Have at it !

[Shoes]

I haven't seen the other thread, so I guess I got a little bit engaged in this one. All in good spirit, though. Anyhow, as far as them "...doing their business in peace." Amen. :D ;)

[jpollman]

Shoes,
If you want to check it out here's that thread.

Up for a little "light reading" ? ;)

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26299

[djkimmel]

Shoes,
Yes, I was asking for opinions and hoping for more opportunities to discuss this topic.

First to clarify something, most fisheries biologists I’ve talked to do more than review the AFS articles. They review the complete study when necessary or they at least read studies that covered a selection of relevant studies in detail. Whenever I go into too much detail on this site, I seem to make some guys unhappy, so I try to figure out ways to explain things in a way that accomplishes something while still possibly getting the point across, although I’m not trying to make everyone happy. That’s not possible.

I personally have read a lot of these studies – the actual study documents – not the summaries. I have also talked at length with the biologists performing the studies and other biologists for help in interpreting them. I feel there are plenty of studies relevant to Michigan including Michigan studies. I have a number of biologists who agree or at least will say that scientifically, we don’t have scientific support for the closed season in Michigan.

I am often confident in saying what I thought a biologist meant because I’ve asked that biologist personally. I haven’t talked to every biologist, but I’ve talked to many of the relevant ones. When I have permission to quote them (or at least wasn’t told I couldn’t), I do. When they ask me not to, I have to take a different approach. Often they will tell me things in candor that I am not allowed to repeat publicly, which is problematic since it’s often really what most anglers should hear, but I don’t want to have them never talk to me again either, so I do the best I can with what I can use. It’s interesting though, since some people are always telling me what I meant or what I’m really doing.

I understand your reluctance to follow the “trust me” line. I’ve had some problems with that on this site in particular from a few guys. Maybe it’s unrealistic for me to take that approach although a fair number of guys do trust me. I don’t force people to have to believe what I believe. I do try very hard to convince people though. I hope people can make that distinction.

I’ve noticed a variety of strong reactions though that weren’t productive for anyone. I also made a few mistakes in responding to things that may not have been worth responding to. I started out by asking why people thought we had a closed bass season, because I can best provide information if I know what information is necessary since there’s a lot of information out there and I don’t want to keep writing books that aren’t needed. I was accused of ‘baiting’ people, which was not my intention. I was fairly new to the site and wanted to know who thought what.

I’ve spoke in front of public groups off and on for over 20 years and it helps to know your audience. That was my intent. I realized after I started that there are some people on this particular site that for various reasons tend to overreact to certain approaches. I tried to admit my approach may not have been the best for this site, but I do tend to hope for the best usually. Things I wrote were twisted and turned many ways. As you point out, that’s not a good thing to do usually. I took it in stride, although I could have done better, but I’m only human too.

I know that most anglers have never read a study and many have not spent much time with fisheries biologists in detailed discussions of specific topics. I have and what I’d like to do is share as much of this information as possible with as many anglers as possible which is why I post on several sites and my own website. I think it’s important for anglers to be knowledgeable for many reasons. What I’m working on now is separating the science more clearly from my own opinions and interpretations.

Some people will accept that I’m knowledgeable about the subjects (I am NOT saying I know everything) and some will not, but at least they will have the other information from more ‘acceptable’ sources that they don’t normally see and that’s a positive thing. I’m building those on my website and then people who choose can go read them. People who don’t want to, don’t have to.

You point out something about why I do try to explain things. It’s common for studies to have a lot of questions. It’s common for people to read some confusion from many studies, especially if you haven’t spent much time reading them before and talking to biologists. I’m trying to explain that as best I can. There are so many variables involved that you almost have to read the entire study if you are someone who can not accept anyone else’s interpretation. Then you can pick out what the study might show and what the study can clearly be said to show. That’s the best most studies do.

I don’t want there to be anymore ‘lay’ anglers. Yes, some anglers just don’t want to know and that is their choice, but that won’t stop me from trying. I have total confidence that so much in our lives, especially in natural resources, is managed for social and biased reasons that we are often missing out on truly good management that maximizes the resource and our enjoyment of it. I want to help other anglers go beyond believing what they’ve been told by other anglers who don’t know either, or from reading biased sources of partial and/or misinformation. We see this all the time. PETA is a great example as you point out. Rather than worry that anglers won’t do this, I’m trying to help them have a choice to know more and be able to make educated decisions.

I will repeat important things. One is that I care as much as anyone about my future fishing. If I didn’t I wouldn’t have spent 10 volunteer years as the Michigan BASS Chapter Federation environmental director and I wouldn’t use so much of my time writing, reading and talking about studies. I wouldn’t spend my own time getting up in front of groups stating my opinions, popular or not. I wouldn’t go to all the meetings I go to. I wouldn’t talk to all the public officials I have. I would just fish more and hope it all stays the way it is. I do what I do though because I care so much and I wouldn’t support anything that I believed would ruin my and other peoples’ ‘legacy.’

An example of something I want to improve with more knowledge, is the acceptance of more relevant regulations. Again, you point out a good example. The MDNR believes that trout anglers are a little more accepting of more complex regulations for trout. Trout can benefit from more ‘personalized’ regulations, so the MDNR puts out more complex regulations. Many anglers aren’t made happy by this, but apparently not enough to put the kibosh on the whole thing. A good part of what our MDNR does is basically based on ‘popularity’ polls.

I’m glad to hear you are a bass fisherman and like tournaments. I also realize the point you were trying to make. I am sensitive to things about tournament anglers. I don’t care how animal rights groups view us. They want us gone period and there is no middle ground. My approach to them is to watch them and anytime I can, educate the general public on what these groups are really about and stand for. I will respond to misinformation from them as I will anyone else. I will not give up things just because untruthful persons could use it against me. My goal is to help educate the public too on what we do and why we do it and what reality is verses the baloney PETA and PISCES and other groups put out.

I just take a different approach than not doing something because people who don’t understand might look at it negatively. I think anglers as a whole have done a pitiful job of PR and I will do what I can as just one person to make up for that. Otherwise, if it follow that tack, I’d be against spearing any fish, deer hunting, bear hunting (actually anything were things are ‘brutally killed’), any ‘spawn’ fishing, and catch-and-release - since it’s cruel (according to a German Judge anyway) to catch a fish just for personal entertainment - one you intend to let go anyway.

I’m not saying there might not be a line to draw, but I’m just not willing to draw it solely based on fear from ignorance of the ‘masses.’ Who decides where the line is drawn? I sure don’t want it to be them. I’m also aware that tournament anglers in particular need to do a massively better job of PR, especially in Michigan. My approach is to work on that.

It sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on many things and I’m glad to hear that. I hope to see more of that from more anglers. I’d much rather share information and discuss the issues than argue. I don’t consider debate the same as arguing either. I don’t have a problem with thorough posts either. You don’t have to make a long response if you don’t want to.

[Shoes]

djkimmel,

Only one comment. While I don't agree with everything you have posted, and perhaps I might suggest you "tweek" your approach....I do believe you care.

John,

Thanks for the other thread's location. I checked it out, and I'm now cured.:) :)

[djkimmel]

It would be helpful to know what you mean by 'tweek' since I'm constantly dealing with many different kinds of anglers with many different opinions on a number of forums.