10 fish limit on Brook Trout?

Discussion in 'Gear Restrictions and Trout Fishing Regs' started by PunyTrout, Jun 6, 2017.

  1. I am for it.

    12 vote(s)
    36.4%
  2. I am against it.

    21 vote(s)
    63.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    2,035
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I mentioned in the Catch & Release thread that I practice catch and release about 99 percent of the time for trout. With the exception being mortally wounded fish and harvesting fish for my elderly Father.

    I noticed a slight shift in my perception on a recent trip to the Pigeon River Country and the UP that I thought I would share. The majority of places that I fish are small, sterile little streams that are not stocked and consequently the trout tend to be small, sub-legal fish. They are wild, unspoiled environments. Their beauty is unsurpassed in my eyes (Both the Trout and their Habitat). I really enjoy fishing them and I do so with a Catch & Release mentality that allows me to enjoy the fishing and the fish rather than just the catching.

    Well, on my last trip to the UP, I caught a really nice Brookie that measured just over 8 inches. It had inhaled my spinner and all three barbs were embedded deep in the gullet. I had a difficult time removing the hook even with the aid of hemostats. I could literally see the life force leave this fish. It’s brilliant colors fading away and disappearing. And I thought to myself, this ones getting harvested for my Daddio…

    [​IMG]

    Well, what is one puny-little 8 inch fish? It’s hardly a meal. I might as well try and get another for him. And this is where my perception changed that I mentioned earlier. Now my fishing became focused on catching. And not only catching, but catching Brookies legally-sized.

    Up until that point I was excited every time a 5 or 6 inch fish came darting out of the woodwork to attack my spinner. Now I was disappointed that they weren't bigger fish that I could add to my harvest of trout… Harvesting that one fish had kind of ruined my enjoyment of fishing and taking the time to appreciate the beauty of my surroundings and those brilliantly colored little 5 to 6 inch gems.

    I did end up taking one more 8 inch Brookie that day for a grand total of two fish for my Dad. But I’ll tell you what, I really wanted to harvest enough to make a meal for my family and even conspired with my fishing buddy to take a limit if possible. It didn’t happen.

    Which leads me to bring up the topic I would like to discuss.

    The Natural Resources Commission is rumored to be putting pressure on the DNR to implement a 10 fish limit for Brook Trout on all Type 1 streams in the UP starting in 2018.

    To me, this seems a reckless management policy for wild, non-stocked watersheds.

    How many of the five commissioners have in the past or present, actually fish for Brook Trout?

    I have fished two of the Research Areas with a 10 fish limit and struggled between my buddy and I to catch a legally sized Brook Trout, let alone 10 of them. Or 20 between the two of us. These are rivers that the DNR stocks annually.

    What about the thousands of Type 1 streams that they don’t stock? I think even to most prolific anglers would agree that they could catch 10 or more Brookies in a day but, would they all be the legally-sized 7 inches? Or, most likely 5-6 inches?

    This is where perception comes into play. If an angler catches a 5 to 6 inch Brook Trout and looks at it as a meal, it’s not much. But the angler that catches that fish and in his minds eye multiplies that by 10, will think he is ready for a feast… In other words, Anglers will start treating Brook Trout like smelt.

    How many will actually take the time to measure the fish they catch to know for certain they are greater than the legal 7 inches? Or, will taking (10) 5 to 6 inch fish to make a meal become justified?

    The Brook Trout is Michigan’s State Fish. The UP and the Northern Lower Peninsula are home to the last environments to have native-wild Brook Trout living and I think these fish are worth protecting.

    Yes, I think harvesting Brook Trout should be enjoyed by any angler who pursues them. But do we really need to take 10 per day, per angler?

    So, I would like to open a discussion on the proposed 10 fish limit on Brook Trout in the UP on all Type 1 streams.

    Do you think it is a wise decision? Or a foolish one?

    Should a 10 fish limit be implemented on all Type 1 streams and rivers in the Upper Peninsula? Or, just rivers that are stocked annually by the DNR?

    What do you think?

    Let’s try and keep the name calling to a minimum. What I mean is, just because an angler focuses on the beauty of trout and their surroundings doesn’t make them a Prima Donna. And conversely, just because an angler likes to eat fish doesn’t make them a Dirtbag or a Bait-flinger etc.

    Let’s keep it civil and constructive.


    Sorry about the redundancy. This thread will be added to several of the Michigan Trout Streams forums and sub-forums to get a better understanding of viewpoints from areas across the region.
     
    itchn2fish and Sprytle like this.
  2. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    2,035
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I mentioned in the Catch & Release thread that I practice catch and release about 99 percent of the time for trout. With the exception being mortally wounded fish and harvesting fish for my elderly Father.

    I noticed a slight shift in my perception on a recent trip to the Pigeon River Country and the UP that I thought I would share. The majority of places that I fish are small, sterile little streams that are not stocked and consequently the trout tend to be small, sub-legal fish. They are wild, unspoiled environments. Their beauty is unsurpassed in my eyes (Both the Trout and their Habitat). I really enjoy fishing them and I do so with a Catch & Release mentality that allows me to enjoy the fishing and the fish rather than just the catching.

    Well, on my last trip to the UP, I caught a really nice Brookie that measured just over 8 inches. It had inhaled my spinner and all three barbs were embedded deep in the gullet. I had a difficult time removing the hook even with the aid of hemostats. I could literally see the life force leave this fish. It’s brilliant colors fading away and disappearing. And I thought to myself, this ones getting harvested for my Daddio…

    [​IMG]


    Well, what is one puny-little 8 inch fish? It’s hardly a meal. I might as well try and get another for him. And this is where my perception changed that I mentioned earlier. Now my fishing became focused on catching. And not only catching, but catching Brookies legally-sized.

    Up until that point I was excited every time a 5 or 6 inch fish came darting out of the woodwork to attack my spinner. Now I was disappointed that they weren't bigger fish that I could add to my harvest of trout… Harvesting that one fish had kind of ruined my enjoyment of fishing and taking the time to appreciate the beauty of my surroundings and those brilliantly colored little 5 to 6 inch gems.

    I did end up taking one more 8 inch Brookie that day for a grand total of two fish for my Dad. But I’ll tell you what, I really wanted to harvest enough to make a meal for my family and even conspired with my fishing buddy to take a limit if possible. It didn’t happen.

    Which leads me to bring up the topic I would like to discuss.

    The Natural Resources Commission is rumored to be putting pressure on the DNR to implement a 10 fish limit for Brook Trout on all Type 1 streams in the UP starting in 2018.

    To me, this seems a reckless management policy for wild, non-stocked watersheds.

    How many of the five commissioners have in the past or present, actually fish for Brook Trout?

    I have fished two of the Research Areas with a 10 fish limit and struggled between my buddy and I to catch a legally sized Brook Trout, let alone 10 of them. Or 20 between the two of us. These are rivers that the DNR stocks annually.

    What about the thousands of Type 1 streams that they don’t stock? I think even to most prolific anglers would agree that they could catch 10 or more Brookies in a day but, would they all be the legally-sized 7 inches? Or, most likely 5-6 inches?

    This is where perception comes into play. If an angler catches a 5 to 6 inch Brook Trout and looks at it as a meal, it’s not much. But the angler that catches that fish and in his minds eye multiplies that by 10, will think he is ready for a feast… In other words, Anglers will start treating Brook Trout like smelt.

    How many will actually take the time to measure the fish they catch to know for certain they are greater than the legal 7 inches? Or, will taking (10) 5 to 6 inch fish to make a meal become justified?

    The Brook Trout is Michigan’s State Fish. The UP and the Northern Lower Peninsula are home to the last environments to have native-wild Brook Trout living and I think these fish are worth protecting.

    Yes, I think harvesting Brook Trout should be enjoyed by any angler who pursues them. But do we really need to take 10 per day, per angler?

    So, I would like to open a discussion on the proposed 10 fish limit on Brook Trout in the UP on all Type 1 streams.

    Do you think it is a wise decision? Or a foolish one?

    Should a 10 fish limit be implemented on all Type 1 streams and rivers in the Upper Peninsula? Or, just rivers that are stocked annually by the DNR?

    What do you think?

    Let’s try and keep the name calling to a minimum. What I mean is, just because an angler focuses on the beauty of trout and their surroundings doesn’t make them a Prima Donna. And conversely, just because an angler likes to eat fish doesn’t make them a Dirtbag or a Bait-flinger etc.

    Let’s keep it civil and constructive.


    Sorry about the redundancy. This thread will be added to several of the Michigan Trout Streams forums and sub-forums to get a better understanding of viewpoints from areas across the region.
     
    itchn2fish likes this.

  3. Rasputin

    Rasputin Premium Member

    Messages:
    3,224
    Likes Received:
    1,323
    Location:
    Twin Lake
    Maybe the streams are full of 5"-6" fish because there isn't enough food for them all to grow, so eliminating some of the competition might actually increase the average size? I don't know, just a question.
     
    itchn2fish, 357Maximum and PunyTrout like this.
  4. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    2,035
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I mentioned in the Catch & Release thread that I practice catch and release about 99 percent of the time for trout. With the exception being mortally wounded fish and harvesting fish for my elderly Father.

    I noticed a slight shift in my perception on a recent trip to the Pigeon River Country and the UP that I thought I would share. The majority of places that I fish are small, sterile little streams that are not stocked and consequently the trout tend to be small, sub-legal fish. They are wild, unspoiled environments. Their beauty is unsurpassed in my eyes (Both the Trout and their Habitat). I really enjoy fishing them and I do so with a Catch & Release mentality that allows me to enjoy the fishing and the fish rather than just the catching.

    Well, on my last trip to the UP, I caught a really nice Brookie that measured just over 8 inches. It had inhaled my spinner and all three barbs were embedded deep in the gullet. I had a difficult time removing the hook even with the aid of hemostats. I could literally see the life force leave this fish. It’s brilliant colors fading away and disappearing. And I thought to myself, this ones getting harvested for my Daddio…


    [​IMG]


    Well, what is one puny-little 8 inch fish? It’s hardly a meal. I might as well try and get another for him. And this is where my perception changed that I mentioned earlier. Now my fishing became focused on catching. And not only catching, but catching Brookies legally-sized.

    Up until that point I was excited every time a 5 or 6 inch fish came darting out of the woodwork to attack my spinner. Now I was disappointed that they weren't bigger fish that I could add to my harvest of trout… Harvesting that one fish had kind of ruined my enjoyment of fishing and taking the time to appreciate the beauty of my surroundings and those brilliantly colored little 5 to 6 inch gems.

    I did end up taking one more 8 inch Brookie that day for a grand total of two fish for my Dad. But I’ll tell you what, I really wanted to harvest enough to make a meal for my family and even conspired with my fishing buddy to take a limit if possible. It didn’t happen.

    Which leads me to bring up the topic I would like to discuss.

    The Natural Resources Commission is rumored to be putting pressure on the DNR to implement a 10 fish limit for Brook Trout on all Type 1 streams in the UP starting in 2018.

    To me, this seems a reckless management policy for wild, non-stocked watersheds.

    How many of the five commissioners have in the past or present, actually fish for Brook Trout?

    I have fished two of the Research Areas with a 10 fish limit and struggled between my buddy and I to catch a legally sized Brook Trout, let alone 10 of them. Or 20 between the two of us. These are rivers that the DNR stocks annually.

    What about the thousands of Type 1 streams that they don’t stock? I think even to most prolific anglers would agree that they could catch 10 or more Brookies in a day but, would they all be the legally-sized 7 inches? Or, most likely 5-6 inches?

    This is where perception comes into play. If an angler catches a 5 to 6 inch Brook Trout and looks at it as a meal, it’s not much. But the angler that catches that fish and in his minds eye multiplies that by 10, will think he is ready for a feast… In other words, Anglers will start treating Brook Trout like smelt.

    How many will actually take the time to measure the fish they catch to know for certain they are greater than the legal 7 inches? Or, will taking (10) 5 to 6 inch fish to make a meal become justified?

    The Brook Trout is Michigan’s State Fish. The UP and the Northern Lower Peninsula are home to the last environments to have native-wild Brook Trout living and I think these fish are worth protecting.

    Yes, I think harvesting Brook Trout should be enjoyed by any angler who pursues them. But do we really need to take 10 per day, per angler?

    So, I would like to open a discussion on the proposed 10 fish limit on Brook Trout in the UP on all Type 1 streams.

    Do you think it is a wise decision? Or a foolish one?

    Should a 10 fish limit be implemented on all Type 1 streams and rivers in the Upper Peninsula? Or, just rivers that are stocked annually by the DNR?

    What do you think?

    Let’s try and keep the name calling to a minimum. What I mean is, just because an angler focuses on the beauty of trout and their surroundings doesn’t make them a Prima Donna. And conversely, just because an angler likes to eat fish doesn’t make them a Dirtbag or a Bait-flinger etc.

    Let’s keep it civil and constructive.


    Sorry about the redundancy. This thread will be added to several of the Michigan Trout Streams forums and sub-forums to get a better understanding of viewpoints from areas across the region.
     
    cruiseplanner1 and zzcop302 like this.
  5. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    2,035
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I mentioned in the Catch & Release thread that I practice catch and release about 99 percent of the time for trout. With the exception being mortally wounded fish and harvesting fish for my elderly Father.

    I noticed a slight shift in my perception on a recent trip to the Pigeon River Country and the UP that I thought I would share. The majority of places that I fish are small, sterile little streams that are not stocked and consequently the trout tend to be small, sub-legal fish. They are wild, unspoiled environments. Their beauty is unsurpassed in my eyes (Both the Trout and their Habitat). I really enjoy fishing them and I do so with a Catch & Release mentality that allows me to enjoy the fishing and the fish rather than just the catching.

    Well, on my last trip to the UP, I caught a really nice Brookie that measured just over 8 inches. It had inhaled my spinner and all three barbs were embedded deep in the gullet. I had a difficult time removing the hook even with the aid of hemostats. I could literally see the life force leave this fish. It’s brilliant colors fading away and disappearing. And I thought to myself, this ones getting harvested for my Daddio…


    [​IMG]


    Well, what is one puny-little 8 inch fish? It’s hardly a meal. I might as well try and get another for him. And this is where my perception changed that I mentioned earlier. Now my fishing became focused on catching. And not only catching, but catching Brookies legally-sized.

    Up until that point I was excited every time a 5 or 6 inch fish came darting out of the woodwork to attack my spinner. Now I was disappointed that they weren't bigger fish that I could add to my harvest of trout… Harvesting that one fish had kind of ruined my enjoyment of fishing and taking the time to appreciate the beauty of my surroundings and those brilliantly colored little 5 to 6 inch gems.

    I did end up taking one more 8 inch Brookie that day for a grand total of two fish for my Dad. But I’ll tell you what, I really wanted to harvest enough to make a meal for my family and even conspired with my fishing buddy to take a limit if possible. It didn’t happen.

    Which leads me to bring up the topic I would like to discuss.

    The Natural Resources Commission is rumored to be putting pressure on the DNR to implement a 10 fish limit for Brook Trout on all Type 1 streams in the UP starting in 2018.

    To me, this seems a reckless management policy for wild, non-stocked watersheds.

    How many of the five commissioners have in the past or present, actually fish for Brook Trout?

    I have fished two of the Research Areas with a 10 fish limit and struggled between my buddy and I to catch a legally sized Brook Trout, let alone 10 of them. Or 20 between the two of us. These are rivers that the DNR stocks annually.

    What about the thousands of Type 1 streams that they don’t stock? I think even to most prolific anglers would agree that they could catch 10 or more Brookies in a day but, would they all be the legally-sized 7 inches? Or, most likely 5-6 inches?

    This is where perception comes into play. If an angler catches a 5 to 6 inch Brook Trout and looks at it as a meal, it’s not much. But the angler that catches that fish and in his minds eye multiplies that by 10, will think he is ready for a feast… In other words, Anglers will start treating Brook Trout like smelt.

    How many will actually take the time to measure the fish they catch to know for certain they are greater than the legal 7 inches? Or, will taking (10) 5 to 6 inch fish to make a meal become justified?

    The Brook Trout is Michigan’s State Fish. The UP and the Northern Lower Peninsula are home to the last environments to have native-wild Brook Trout living and I think these fish are worth protecting.

    Yes, I think harvesting Brook Trout should be enjoyed by any angler who pursues them. But do we really need to take 10 per day, per angler?

    So, I would like to open a discussion on the proposed 10 fish limit on Brook Trout in the UP on all Type 1 streams.

    Do you think it is a wise decision? Or a foolish one?

    Should a 10 fish limit be implemented on all Type 1 streams and rivers in the Upper Peninsula? Or, just rivers that are stocked annually by the DNR?

    What do you think?

    Let’s try and keep the name calling to a minimum. What I mean is, just because an angler focuses on the beauty of trout and their surroundings doesn’t make them a Prima Donna. And conversely, just because an angler likes to eat fish doesn’t make them a Dirtbag or a Bait-flinger etc.

    Let’s keep it civil and constructive.


    Sorry about the redundancy. This thread will be added to several of the Michigan Trout Streams forums and sub-forums to get a better understanding of viewpoints from areas across the region.

    I didn't put the poll in all of the threads but If you would like to vote, you can do so here. https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/10-fish-limit-on-brook-trout.591808/
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  6. DecoySlayer

    DecoySlayer

    Messages:
    15,910
    Likes Received:
    15,673
    Location:
    Monroe
    I don't know enough about the issue to vote. If there are too many in those streams, take some out.
     
    itchn2fish, 357Maximum and PunyTrout like this.
  7. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    2,035
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Certainly a valid question.

    What is the point of diminishing returns though? Where or what is that threshold?
     
    itchn2fish likes this.
  8. mf2

    mf2

    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    283
    Some of the places that are best for brook trout are the ones that few people go to. So 10 fish limit probably will have little impact. Wild and unspoiled typically means swarms of bugs, an hour of hiking through absolute hell brush and undergrowth and swamps, and the reward is a nice little stream that no one else is crazy enough to walk to. And to think, you do all that for a little fish maybe up-to 15 inches long, its crazy. There is one spot I won't go back to, walking through this area is what I imagine walking through a mine field must be like. I wouldn't make boat accessible rivers 10 fish limits, that might have an impact but the stretches that are difficult to get to I don't see a problem.
     
    itchn2fish, 357Maximum and PunyTrout like this.
  9. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,209
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    I'm not sure how I feel on this, but my feelings are: If the DNR has done a population survey of the fish in said streams, and they feel 10 is adequate, than make it 10, if not make it 5, or whatever number the DNR feels should be an adequate catch and keep limit that is not over taxing a resource. This is the way to properly use conservation methods IMHO.
     
    itchn2fish, 357Maximum and PunyTrout like this.
  10. zzcop302

    zzcop302

    Messages:
    6,208
    Likes Received:
    15,575
    Location:
    Trenary Michigan
    Good post.
    I think your perception and questions you ask are very valid and legitimate.
    I would like to think that anyone who considers themselves an angler would have the same concerns in protecting while still enjoying such a great natural resource and in such a beautiful environment as the Brook Trout..... and all fish right down to a carp.
    Personally, I enjoy catching and eating fish. Of course I follow the state guidelines on size and limit on whatever species I happen to be catching.
    That doesn't mean because the law states that I can keep 25 Bluegill that I will try to take the full 25. I try to practice my own form of conservation within the existing law while still enjoying the resource.
    I think my answer to your post would be in agreement in a well researched study into increasing the limit ......but my knee jerk reaction based on my own limited Brook Trout fishing is that I don't think it's a good idea at all.
    I'm no biologist or fisheries expert but from my limited skill at Brook Trout fishing, especially on smaller streams , it's my opinion from the size and number of fish I catch that a 10 fish limit of 7" fish would be very hard on the Trout population of most small streams.
    I'm no purist and I am not one to differentiate between methods of fishing whether it be fly fishing or floating a night crawler .
    The joy I believe is in the fishing itself and whatever method that brings the angler the most fun.
    But no one is going to have fun if the fish are depleted..... right?
    I would think any sensible person would agree with that.
    I'm sure there are some waterways that may be able to support a 10 fish limit but I doubt that the majority of small streams, creeks, and rivers could support such a limit and still continue to provide good fishing.
    Again, let me say that enjoying the fishing and an occasional mess of fish to eat is within the terms of "sustainable resource" is reasonable and logical ..... but to arbitrarily jump to a 10 fish limit seems to be a reckless and unsound proposal.
    I appreciate your interest , thoughts and approach in posting your questions.
    I'm also curious to hear what other members thoughts are on your post.
    Good fishing everyone!
     
  11. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    2,035
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
  12. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    2,035
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    itchn2fish likes this.
  13. Forest Meister

    Forest Meister

    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Location:
    EUP
    I had a sit down with a fisheries biologist. Owing to the high natural mortality rate of brookies in most streams he felt it would make little if any difference if the limit were increased. I have heard some folks claim, without any science I might add, that 10 fish will all but wipe out the species. We had a 10 fish limit for scores of years and there were still lots of fish around when the limit was lowered to 5.

    If adding the opportunity to catch and keep five more fish is not going to harm the overall population I for one am all for it. Oh yes, I asked the biologist if lowering the limit from 10 down to 5 several years back had any basis in biology. He said no. FM
     
  14. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,241
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    The DNR did a five year study on a number of streams with the experimental 10 fish limit. This is from the minutes of the September 28, 2016 Cold Water Committee meeting (emphasis mine).


    Phil provided an update on this study, showing summary results that had been presented earlier in the month to the Natural Resources Commission. Data from 2012 to 2016 for electrofishing, creel, postcard, and internet surveys were compiled and a couple of questions that had been raised at the NRC meeting were clarified.
    Contrary to predictions going into the study, it was found that the ten-brook trout bag regulation had potential to negatively affect abundance and size structure of local brook trout populations and the opportunity for higher harvests did not result in increased angler activity. The audience commended Fisheries Division on their forthrightness in conducting the study and sharing findings. Dexter provided additional info on how study results will be incorporated into further discussion of this topic at the December NRC meeting.

    There were several members of the GLFSA at this meeting and they have been strangely quiet about the issue, only once saying that this could be a problem. At the meeting this spring Dexter brought up that the NRC was pushing for the ten fish limit despite it having been shown to hurt abundance and size structure. I do not remember any member of the GLFSA in attendance arguing that we should cleave to science and keep the limit at five. I have not seen any threads or posts here from members of the GLFSA in opposition to this "social management". Very strange considering that the science showed it would be harmful fish.

    How many times have we heard how reasonable and fact based the GLFSA is? They would go along with gear restrictions if the science showed it helped. They would be all for lower limits if the science showed it made a difference. And now when the science shows it? Crickets.
     
    PunyTrout likes this.
  15. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    2,035
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Thank you to everyone so far who has contributed their opinions and votes.

    Even the idiots that I don't agree with. :);) I value your opinions and contribution to this discussion.

    Please stay on topic. This is about your support or non-support of a 10 fish limit on Brook Trout in the UP.

    Let's keep specific names of organizations out of it. If you want to decry DU, TU, GLFSA, HSUS, The NRA or CIA or any other Org. Start a different thread. Pretty please with sugar on top.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
    itchn2fish likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.