Michigan Angler Stats - US FWS

[djkimmel]

US Fish & Wildlife is in the process of posting the 2001 angling census by state. Michigan is not on the web site yet (www.fws.gov), but some of the results are out. That’s how our environmental director for the Michigan BASS Chapter Federation was able to post some of the results showing bass number 2 in Michigan behind panfish. I plan on getting a copy of the 2001 Michigan census as soon as it’s posted. The national 2001 is out. For now, here’s some of the results from the 1996 census (they do it about every 5 years since 1955):

1.8 million state residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older fished in Michigan.
1.5 million anglers (80%) were state residents and 368 thousand anglers (20%) were nonresidents.
Anglers fished a total of 28.7 million days in Michigan—an average of 16 days per angler.
State residents fished 26.6 million days, 93 percent of all fishing days within Michigan,
while nonresidents fished 2.1 million days—7 percent of all fishing days in the state.
Michigan residents spent 96 percent of their total fishing days, fishing in their resident state.

In-State Fishing Expenditures - residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older
Total $1.5 billion
Trip-related $583 million
Equipment $821 million
-Fishing $230 million
-Auxiliary and special $591 million
Other $102 million

The following are stats by type of fish. Anglers could answer more than one fish they were specifically targeting. ‘…’ means the sample was too small to report reliably.
Number of Anglers by Type of Fish (excluding Great Lakes) in thousands:
Fish Total Residents Non-Residents
Total all 1,311 1,081 230
Panfish 846 746 99
Black bass 494 398 96
Walleye/sauger 298 246 51
Other 228 179 49
Trout 204 171 ...
Anything 140 117 ...
Crappie 136 126 ...
White bass 90 84 ...

Days of Fishing – excluding Great Lakes in thousands
Fish Total Residents Non-Residents
Total all 19,456 18,080 1,376
Panfish 11,355 10,848 507
Black bass 6,244 5,598 646
Walleye/sauger 3,803 3,597 206
Other 2,091 1,777 315
Anything 1,413 1,264 ...
Crappie 1,179 1,161 ...
Trout 1,102 992 ...
White bass 881 855 ...

Number of Great Lakes Anglers by Type of Fish in thousands
Fish Total Residents Non-Residents
Total all 674 518 156
Walleye/sauger 294 251 ...
Perch 291 253 ...
Salmon 197 151 45
Other 134 109 ...
Steelhead 109 96 ...
Anything 108 ... ...
Black bass 82 ... ...
Lake trout 78 ... ...

Days of Fishing – Great Lakes in thousands
Fish Total Residents Non-Residents
Total all 6,084 5,703 381
Walleye/sauger 2,712 2,608 ...
Perch 2,531 2,460 ...
Salmon 1,190 1,068 123
Steelhead 1,108 1,074 ...
Other 529 487 ...
Anything 478 ... ...
Lake trout 404 ... ...
Black bass 265 ... ...

Number of Anglers by Type of Fish – TOTAL in thousands:
Fish Total Residents Non-Residents
Total all 1,985 1,599 386
Panfish 846 746 99
Walleye/sauger 592 497 51
Black bass 576 398 96
Other 496 397 49
Trout/SH/LT 391 267 ...
Perch 291 253 ...
Anything 248 117 ...
Salmon 197 151 45
Crappie 136 126 ...
White bass 90 84 ...

Days of Fishing – TOTAL in thousands
Fish Total Residents Non-Residents
Total all 25,540 23,783 1,757
Panfish 11,355 10,848 507
Walleye/sauger 6,515 6,205 206
Black bass 6,509 5,598 646
Other 2,620 2,264 315
Trout/SH/LT 2,614 2,066 ...
Perch 2,531 2,460 ...
Anything 1,891 1,264 ...
Salmon 1,190 1,068 123
Crappie 1,179 1,161 ...
White bass 881 855 ...

[jaid]

Awesome stats! Being a numbers guy I love seeing stuff like this for debates! I also found an interesting number showing that michigan leads the nation in number of registered boats(1,003,947). And:

The average boat sold is 18-to-20 feet in length, and the boat, motor and trailer retails for $11,000-$30,000. An entry-level 16-foot boat, motor and trailer can be bought for fewer than $8,000. Sixty-eight percent of boat buyers pay fewer than $10,000 for a rig.

Interesting for sure, keep us updated, im very interested in seeing the 2001 numbers!

You ready for another debate, SALMONATOR? :D

[SALMONATOR]

You'd better bet your ***** I am jaid. Seems to me that the number of salmon/steelhead/trout/laker fishermen #'s (combined) fell right in the average overall. Some higher, some lower in the over-all categories listed (and I noticed muskie weren't even listed)

When you consider the fact that most trout and salmon guys probably spend twice as much per day, year, fish, etc., (and they logged pretty good #'s for days fished) than other species , as an average of course, I'd still say there right up there in dollars speant, wich is another thing I didn't see in this post, other than some verry general #'s In the begining.

Looks like when you add it up only the walleye fishery tops the trout/salmon #'s in most categories, and getting back to the MONEY thing, I'm still betting that trout/salmon win out. Bigger boats on average, more expensive tackle on average, higher travell expences on average (gas food and lodging, as most of the best walleye and other warm water species fishing is close to most of the human population in the state and the exact opposite for the trout and salmon fisheries) probably more money spent in guides and charters, and a trout/salmon stamp to boot.

As far as the money is concerned, as I said, the only fishery that can compare to the salmon trout fishery is the walleye, and maybe perch fisheries (the others you'd have to total up to get into the ballpark), and you must admit they are doing great without the big dollar funding, so where's the arguement? I'd be interested to see some more spacific $ amounts.

If you really want to discuss the panfish thing, probably 90% of all of those people the other fisheries #'s consist of spend a few days a year picking off gills. the number of fisherman who tatget them spacifficaly is probably insignificant, and as far as the money spent goes, when was the last time you had to replace your blue gill rod, or took a trip to the UP with the fella's to catch a bucket o' slabs? I don't think they add a verry significant %age of the anuall fishing income in Michigan even though most every fisherman does it. They may be one of the only true true "naturall resorces"we have left, as they sre so abundant on there own (and they're damn tastey). Most of the angling dollars, however, are spent with something else in mind, and then, the bucket of gills comes in when the pike or trout or whatever are slow.

As we've discused in other posts, There is deffinately value to our warm watter fisheries, and the thing about the muskies in St. clair could deffinately use a few bucks and some serious looking into, but I stand firmly to my arguement that the salmon and steelhead and every other kind of trout we have here in our state bring in probably more money (and I mean alot more money) per angler than any other fishery in Michigan. The other ones that the numbers show that DO compare, are doin just fine, and I hope that continues. When and if it dosen't, I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon and re-allocate the funding.

Hope I didn't P*$$ you off again jaid. Were still going fishing this year right?

[jaid]

Haha, yea! Course you didnt piss me off, I have no problems at all with a fellow angler that has a passion for this sport, and for the preservation of any aspect of it. I just wish youd see the light and start fishing for something challenging! :D (j/k)

From here on out, im referring to 'salmon and trout' as s/t. Im lazy, sue me. :cool:

First of all, the numbers posted are from `96, hence the lack of muskies probably. That said, we need to sit tight until the `01 numbers come out, but then its on!

Just remember, when the time comes, my arguement was and remains, that bass, pike, and musky, need more funds than they get(which are currently pathetically low), because bass, pike, and musky, make up a significant enough portion of the market to warrant such funds.

So far, the numbers show that not only do they make up a significant enough portion, but they make up a significant majority!

Also, I like the info I ran across about boats. over a million boats in michigan are registered. 68% of them cost less than 10 grand. Id say its safe to say of those 68%, not very many of them are salmon boats, as ive never seen a chriscraft for $10k. Any way you slice it, thats a lot of boats for non s/t. More than enough to warrant a little help with the fish diseases and pollution issues. Not to mention making our boat launches a little nicer. The next time I am at Bankson, im taking pictures of the landing for you. What once was the launch (the cement slabs), is now the driveway leading down into the parking lot (which sits at least 8' lower than the top of the launch). There is no dock. There is no 'launch'. There is one street light. Its pitiful.

As far as panfish go, while I dont really want to bring them into this, they make up a good chunk of money that isnt being spent on s/t. The live bait market is enormous. And while I dont think that the majority of pan fisherman spend more than $500 a year on total costs, they make up for total money in numbers. Sure, one s/t angler spending $10k in a year is impressive. But how about 10k panfisherman spending $500. Its more money, that should be spent keeping the panfish, bass, pike, musky, etc lakes clean. Spent improving the launch sites. Spent maintaining and improving the warm water fisheries. The other reason I feel that panfish are important in this issue, is that because as a prey species for all other species we are discussing, they would probably show first signs of any potentially catastrophic problems in a fishery. If all the bluegill go belly up, its probably safe to say that the predator fish will also. Without forage species, we wouldnt be able to sustain the more commonly targeted 'sportfish'.

I wanna touch on the st clair muskies too. To first qualify my statement, st clair muskies need some funds and some help also (especially with the recent disease popping up). But in the grand scheme of things, its one of the few lakes where musky are taking off like crazy. I think that the money to improve musky fishing, for now(aside from getting to the bottom of the health issues) would be better spent building a future for other lakes. All of the lakes that I fish are small. The biggest lake I fish, is 1800 acres. The average size of the puddles we are on, is 300acres. These lakes will never be able to sustain a population with any amount of uneducated fishing pressure. One fisherman could easily deplete the entire musky population in a lake this size in one season if he was being extremely careless. That said, I think we need to get some musky going strong on some of the other big lakes in michigan. Even the middle sized 2000+ acre lakes. I think gull lake would make a fine musky lake, especially with all the rainbows they dump into each year. Good forage base! Plus lots of deep water, lots of weed flats.

As far as s/t anglers bringing in more money per angler, of course I agree with that. I never realized that was even being debated! When you consider that there are less anglers, with more expensive equipment, of course the averages will be higher. Im just saying that in the grand scheme of things, bass/pike/musky anglers spend a heck of a lot of money also, and we want something to show for it. And we arent asking for filtration systems and fancy liners on our lakes. We want things like, less trash on the bottom of the lakes, better launches, a little help with stocking, etc etc. Its pretty sad when the dnr sells off the musky michigan produces to pay for s/t yet wont drop a dime to stock musky here in michigan!

This thread has the potential to be a doozy! If I get outa hand or offend ya salmonator(or anyone else for that matter), just smack me in the mouth and straighten me out. As I said to start, I certainly am not opposed to others having a love for fishing and trying to protect their species of choice, even if you are almost as stubborn as I am about it! And I know that the real fish like muskies can be intimidating, so I can understand why you would shy away from them to fish for the cute little s/t. :p

[Steely-Head]

Neat stats, thanks for posting.

[djkimmel]

Muskies and pike are included in Other.

The Michigan report did not have dollars by type of fish. It had average esttimated annual dollars per angler. It was split by freshwater, inland and freshwater, Great Lakes.

Great Lakes anglers spent about $260 more on average total per year. That includes all type of anglers on the Great Lakes (including those Bass and 'Other' anglers).

Still, inland anglers spent $172 million more that year than Great Lakes anglers.

[SALMONATOR]

IT'S ON!!

Okay, my man, lets break up the bass from the pike & muskie for starters. No need to "lump" things up again. I agree that the pike/muskie fishery could be improved, especially in St. Clair these days. we already have one of the better fisheries in the country established there and it would be a damn shame to see it go down with the recent turn of events. As far as the smaller lakes are concerned, I just don't know enough to respond.

as for the boat issue, if 68% of them are 10-16'ers wouldn't you agree that the 32% of BIG lake boats cost a lot more to mantain, harbor, opporate, let alone buy. As I've said in the past, I'm a fly-fisherman and I have no idea what the typical Lake Michigan set-up is worth, but I know enough to say that 10-30k may spring for the hardware/software on it, but it aint gonna' buy good ole average Joe a bid'ness out there, or a hobby.

As far as the panfish go,.....$500/year?........on panfish?.........we're talking about gills and sunfish and crappies right? I don't know if I've speant $500 on those fish in my life. A dozen crawlers cost maybe a $1.50-2.00 these days. at 2-3 fish/worm thats.......not too much. Drop in the buckett.

Now as bait-fish I see them as being more valueble. But I still don't see an arguement. Gills are like rabbits, or cock-roaches as far as reproduction goes, and most of the lakes and ponds have too many of them vs. not enough.

Now, as far as my "cute little salmon and trout" go......Dude, with a trebble and a wire leader, how many fish have you lost. I know you haven't had a ton on the line, but.......try to pull in a 15-30lb fish in a river who's body is shaped to really use the current on a 6-10lb tippet. You are luckey to bring in 5-10% of the boys you hook up with. Challenging you say? There are plenty of guys out there who use lighter lines than that, due to clear river conditions. Challenging you ask? Bet your *****!!

I'd like to suggest that we hook a nice mature male king up with a big musky by the stringer, and throw them in a river. By the end of the day, when that salmon's draggin' a dead muskie around with him the loser of the bet would have to release him. But...that would be cruel, and it is niether here nor there. I think one thing and you, another. We ARE still going fishing right? I hope so, cause I can't wait to hear you cryin' about how your arm hurts and there ain't even a fish on the stringer yet.

Bring it.

[jaid]

Okey, we can break up pike/musky and bass. Lake St Clair is one of the best musky lakes around, no arguements there. Its also one of the best smallmouth bass lakes around. Lake St Clair is a phenomenal fishery, that is doing quite well. I dont see Lake St Clair going down anytime soon, it has become very popular, and with its success as a fishery, there are a lot of people behind keeping it going.

There are thousands of inland lakes that could use a little help. Be it with bass, or pike/musky.

Back to the boat issue, 68% cost less than $10k, yes. Of the remaining 32%, id say more than 75% of them fall in the $10-50k range, primarily high end bass boats, four winns, mastercrafts, etc etc. You wont touch a charter setup for under $50k(and probably not for under $100k, im not sure what a cheap salmon boat goes for). Im not arguing that salmon boats dont cost as much as top of the line bass or pike/musky boats, its not even close. Salmon boats cost more than several bass boats. What I am arguing, is that based on sheer volume, more money is spent annually on bass and pike/musky rigs than is spent on salmon rigs.

Ok, perhaps 500 a year is steep for pan fisherman. I know every time I have gone, I have used cheap tackle for the most part, and a few dozen crawlers. So, assuming the average pan fisherman gets out 10 times a year, and buys 2 dozen crawlers at $2/dozen, and has a rod, a reel, line, and standard tackle (hooks, sinkers, bobbers), its probably more like 75/year. Then you have to take into account those with boats, which are probably a significant portion of the tons of pan fisherman. Probably 50% or so. Once that is added into the average (even a 20 year old 12' aluminum boat costs a couple hundred bucks), numbers go up. Add into the average costs for parking your truck/trailer at some launches. When all is said and done, I agree that per angler there isnt a lot of money spent. But in the grand scheme of things, there are tons of these anglers out there.

While I agree gills are very prolific, and very hardy, I still think they make a good species to watch for problems. For that reason alone, they warrant enough attention to at least maintain population counts.

As for the cute little salmon and trout, i was just trying to get a rise out of ya :D I know there is a lot of technique that goes into catching the little buggers. Generally speaking, musky hookup to landing ratios arent spectacular. Certainly not like bass. Id love to try light tackle musky fishing, unfortunately, its life threatening to the fish. These guys dont have much as far as stamina goes, and they go all out during the fights. Pike are pretty similar in that regard also. Bass on the other hand, ive caught my share of 4 and 5 lb'rs on 4lb mono and a 5' UL uglysitck. Its a blast! I absolutely love fishing with light tackle, its just not a good technique to employ with musky, cant risk it.

As for the musky salmon tug of war, the first 2 minutes or so will go to the musky I think. After that, you are right, itll get dragged around until it dies. Musky just dont have the stamina, they dont need it. They sit stealthily until something goes by, and then burst from 0 to 30mph in one or two swipes of tail to inhale whatever it was.

Yea Im still down with going fishing! I know ive pulled in 20lb kings on lake michigan that were 500ft+ out on some pretty heavy lead core without too much problems. So I welcome you to introduce me to some fish that wear me out before the day is over. If I am crying from being tired of hauling in fish, inside I assure you I will be smiling ear to ear!

I still want to see your reaction to a musky cruising at your lure from 20ft away, at 30mph, leaving a 10ft long 'V' across the surface, then grabbing your lure, and coming out of the water with it!

One last thing, the `96 numbers say there was 1.5billion spent. I know last year the total spent was pretty close to 4billion. It will be interesting to see where all the money is going these days, cant wait to see the 2001 numbers.

[SALMONATOR]

jaid,

I was thinking a bit more about the boat thing, and I recall you saying that there were over a million boats registered in Michgan, and then we got into the 68% vs. 32% thing and I began to realise that we have no idea of the percentage of these boats that are even used for sport fishing of any kind. What about all the sail-boats, duck-boats, ski-boats, paddle-boats, canoes, etc. we have registered out there? It's impossiple to determine anything of the amounts speant on either fishery from the verry general information we've been argueing over. Upon even more thinking about it I began to envision the thousands of driftboats (most all of them well under 10k) that I see floating our trout and salmon rivers spring-fall. And then I remembered my brother-in-law's salmon boat that he takes out on Lake Michigan. last summer it was up for sale in his front yard for about the amount he had into it (down riggers and all). if I remember correctly, it was just under 7k, so there is a good chunk of our less expensive watercrafts out there that fall into the trout/salmon pool too.
As far as the inland pike and muskie thing, I pretty much agree with you. I recall the pike reg.'s getting stricter on Lake Ovid in Sleepy Hollow state park, across the street from my moms house, in the last year or two. I guess the numbers just wern't going the direction we would all like to see them going. Any help to make the pike/muskie fishery better in any of our lakes would be welcome as far as I'm concerned. Bass on the other hand, I dont know. I just know of too many places where I can go (almost every lake or pond I've ever fished) and catch them all day long on most days. I also think as Ive stated inone of our other debates, that in lake where the are having a problem sustaining a healthy bass population, they might first look into the spawning habbits of that lake/region vs. the open season date.
I also agree that it will be interesting to see the 2001 numbers. Appearantly there are alot more of us fishing these days. In my own experience I know that the fly-fishing scene has really exploded over the last ten years. In fact too much for my own liking. Alot of my old favorite fishin' holes are now everybody elses favorite holes too. I'm not by any means saying that fly fishing Is responsable for a 2-2.5 billion dollar jump in the fishing dollars rolling in to the state, But from what I've seen in the years since the '96 report It has contributed to it, and we all know what most of the fly rod guys are catching. A little but of everything, to be sure, but mostley trout and salmon.
Last point. I think most people would agree that cleaner lakes would make for a better quality of life for for life in general, from fish to plants to people. One obvious starting point is in our tributaries. there are alot of rivers out there that could be alot cleaner to, and they are feeding our lakes. It doesn't stop with the unsightly trash and litter that washes up on our shores, or lines the bottom of some of our lakes. There are chemicals and bacterias to consider also. I wouldn't dream of eating a fish from the Clinton River that runs only a mile or so from my house, but what's really scary is that it flows directly in to Lake St. Clair. Thankfully the Clinton is at least heading in the right direction, as it's much cleaner now, I'm told, than it was twenty years ago. Anyway, bottom line: cleaner rivers=cleaner lakes.
Oh, one more thing. Can't wait 'Till fishin' season. I'm sure my first musky will be verry exciting. BUT, I've got to say ('bout that salmon and muskie thing), that muskie would have his hands damn full even durring the first two minutes, dude.