Do you agree with the 5 fish limit for the rivers?

Yes. Catching trout with spinners is a snap. Catching them with a worm is a snap. Catching them with a rapalla is a snap.

Catching them on a fly is more difficult.

Look, call the DNR if you want facts. They put the regs in place, I just abide by them. They have statistics for the past 60 years, perhaps you can shuffle through their archives. But I suspect no amount of evidence will change your mind about regs so I'm done with this conversation.

The bottom line is that there are restrictions on many Michigan rives. They have been there for decades. They will continue to be there for decades. The DNR stocks streams and they put regulations in place for a reason. You have two choices, abide by the regs, or break the regs. Whinning about them will not change them.

 

Whooo Hoooooo! You can sure tell it's winter time here in Michigan... I'll have to keep checking back on this one. Anybody want to talk about the so called lamprey barrier while we're at it!??!

Try not to get too worked up guys, I've tried it for years and for the most part, it just doesn't help much of anything.

Tight lines and happy holidays,
Steve

 

I was one of the 300 to write the DNR, and I'm suprised only 300ish replied to their bag limit quandery.
I told them to keep it the same, my point being, alot folks go out in the morning, get 3 fish go in for lunch, night fishing comes, they take a few more. I know it doesn't happen every where, but I know it happens enough, (not just salmon by any means).
This might not have alot of relavence to this thread but, The place we used to go rocked, and would produce plenty of fish. There were always other campers and day trippers comming in and out, but Judging by the lic. plates and the relitive quickness in which it all happened, the super spot must have shown up in an out of state forum, because in 2 years it became a complete madhouse. It was'nt so much(even though it was) the extra 100 drunk, shark pole toting, dudes, shooting guns off at 3 in the morning, working shifts to lock up holes and runs, trashing the place. It was the fact that they are there for a 2-3 weeks straight, and they keep every thing they catch. most came in 5th wheels and had generators, smokers and refridgeration, and it became a meat factory. The fish basiclly ran the guantlet, they were hunted rather than fished for, and alot get taken out there. in the past People always kept fish there, but there were always fish to take. This is not the case there anymore. There aren't even "enough fish" for their group anymore, but it doesn't stop them. The fish reproduce less, less fish return, right?
So if we almost double the limit, will there be less fish to fight because of all those fish kept? Who will spawn?
Now I know in the MI trout guide, there are many rivers that are closed to fishing when the salmon are going into them, and that uninterrupted natural reprodution has to, and will occur in many of them.
As I evolved through my slamoniod journey, it became clearly evident that a fresh fish(lake or river) that bites and fights to live, is WAY better than lining some poor fish off of gravel that only fights to get back to the gravel. Especially when the meat is involved. So why take more rotten fish out of the rivers? For every one that naturally dies, alot of nutrients are put back into the river system.

It wish they would have kept the limit in rivers at 3 a day and made the big lakes a 5 fish limit. IMO if they lived their lives in the lake with out being harvested, give them a chance to make more.
With all the economic crap going on, you'd think the DNR wouldn't want to spend money on replacing fish that could possibly replenish themselves. I don't know the numbers, but big lake fishing has got to draw more money than the river fishing, though I could be wrong.
But will upping the limit draw anymore people to this "sport" than already do it? Or just make the ones that do it happier? Will more be better? I guess we'll know soon enough.
Such is Life
PETE

 

Well said.

 

About that weir; if we ran it in august, sept and october the river would be alot better off!

 

Oh Mike, I can't stop laughing. Happy Holidays.

 

I don't think there is any "whining" going on. Sorry that you aren't able to further support your position on flies versus artificial lures (single hook, of course) with actual scientific evidence. The only "evidence" you did supply was in regards to the use of treble hooks, which I agree with. I am also familiar with mortality of bait versus lures and also agree. I have no problem with "no kill" sections on rivers that support natural reproduction. Bottom line is that the DNR cannot not justify its current "flies only" regulations from a biological/scientific standpoint, PERIOD! All this leads back to "Toto's" earlier statement that "flies only" sections are simply in place due to social pressure from various groups, such as flyfishing guides, FFF, and Trout Unlimited.

By the way, I only use dry flies on a flyrod for stream trout so I am never in a position to break the law

edit: Yes Steve, sorry about your lamprey weir problems. Its probably pretty easy to support declining steelhead numbers from as a result of the weir being in place. One has to wonder why there are so many dropback steelhead still in the system, above the weir, well into the June hex hatch? Think maybe that the spent fish don't want to descend the river, the same way that upriver bound fish don't want to ascend it? Maybe they should just build a lowhead dam that the lampreys CAN"T get over but the steelhead can?

 

The declining steelhead runs maybe due in a larger part due to the fact that they no longer plant the PM.

 

Flyfisher, both our arguments are baseless. I claim the regs for flies only are in place to lower fishing pressure and angler/fish competition. You claim they are they to uphold some elitist agenda. Neither of our claims are supported by evidence. I personally think that the DNR has been trying to get many MI streams back to their prime before loggers, pollution, and over exploitation killed off many of the natural species and natural reproduction. I have a cottage on the Ausable and every authority figure I've talked to has said that the Ausable is a fraction of what is should be and that they are continually attempting to bring it back to a sustainable, viable level once again. Many also claim that may not be possible with any sort of fishing pressure. I personally trust the DNR as they have ichthyology backgrounds and understand the variables that control the river better than I do. Personally, I think the DNR would have no fish zones if they could, but they have to walk a fine line between giving the public recreation and protecting said resources. They have an impossible job because they are trying to appease everyone, and that ironically will not please all. They have a small budget (getting smaller too), they have a short staff (getting shorter too), they have every economic variable working against them and yet they do as best they can. Do they make mistakes? Yes, they probably have made many. But the fact that they are out there doing something in my opinion is MUCH better than doing absolutely nothing. This is why I trust the DNR.

 

I agree, the fact the DNR is doing something, is better than doing nothing. However, if you think the flies only regs are for the protection of a species, you are badly mistaken. But it doesn't matter, it is what it is, and it won't change. Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, I don't have a problem with flies only per se, but I do have a problem with it from the standpoint of segregation, hopefully you understand what I'm saying. Anyways, we've gotton off track from the original post, and back to that, I still would rather see a 3 fish limit than 5. I really find it hard to figure out why the salmon don't get the respect that steelhead do, I quess it's just one of those things that there is no answer to.

Further more, if you think everything the DNR does is science based, I'll point out a little issue that came up a few years ago, I'll affectionatly call it the "Worm Bill". This was a bill that was pushed by the legislature of the state, and had absolutely no scientific basis for it, it was only a bill drawn up for the sake of one persons wants. Can't remember if it went through or not, but it was absolutely stupid, and the DNR thought so too. That is why, if you study enough, you find an old Administrative Procedures Act, that stated, in short, that the legislature had nothing to do with the DNR when it came to wildlife decisions. The logic was how could a legislator have any knowledge to compare with a biologist when it comes to these things? Therefore, when that was drawn up it was understood, and against the law for the legislature to decide wildlife issues. IMO, it should still be the same way.

 

The 5 salmon bag limit has been a discussion point within the ranks of the MDNR and its associated advisory groups for about 4-5 yrs now.It is primarily a regulation change that was designed for the big lake anglers, peir anglers.With Indiana having the 5 salmon rule already, the southern lake anglers were pushing for their share too. In that region, there is not as many chances at the Brown trout, Lake trout, and steelhead as there is from mid lake and to the north.For years the DNR said that they would keep it 3-2-5. In the same time frame, the public had asked for an easier to understand regulation handbook/package.Budget issues rendered the handbook to go to a 2 yr publication to save 50K per year.During this time, the baitfish decline in Lk. Mich and Huron,along with budget issues brought about further cuts of salmon plants, with more concentration on net pen ports and ports where returns were highest. I believe all of these factors came into play for this decision.Like I said earlier(and I will check on it after the holidays) I don't think the 5 salmon rule is gonna be for most if any rivers, alot of them have a 3 fish rule.

More salmon out of the "lake" would help the baifish decline, and help promote a comeback of alewives.

The catch rate for chinook has been through the roof for the past 5 yrs or more in most Lk Mich ports.If there was a time to experiment to see if it made a difference, now would be a good time.

Although I do agree with Queequeg that the DNR have their hands full and a thankless job, and it is best to let them do their job to manage our fishery, his thought process on the "flies only" area described above was because of any scientific study or data, is untrue. It WAS because of special interest pressure.In this day and age, it would never had happened, but back in the times of this designation, it was all about who ya knew, and some good ole boy favoritism.I have spoken with a few" higher profile" individuals,who have admitted it as such.The sources will remain unknown, so don't ask, but I believe it and so do many others. As Toto said, it is segregation, favoritism, and discrimination. Now you tell me that $400,000 of DNR moneys will go into a system that is closed to the majority of anglers in Michigan. That is indeed troubling, and needs to be looked into as soon as the holidays are over as well.

 

It is no wonder that someone who would pick their pseudonym from literature and from one of the greatest fishing stories ever told would think he would have all the answers regarding fishing.

Sorry man but you live in a fairy land where people believe that emotions are facts. There is no doubt that fly only regulations were established because of pressure by a select few and Steve Sendek or any other fish biologist will tell you that flies only rules were not set based on hard science, but political science.

You have made a lot of statements, but let’s start with this fallacy.

The fact is that there are over a hundred private organizations that are doing the work to bring our rivers and streams back to pre logging conditions. Of course the DNR and many other organizations are part of the process and provide a great deal of expertise. They are a partner. Never once did I ever hear any DNR representative propose flies only rules as a method to accomplish that goal.

Many fly fishermen think that fly fishing is somehow supperior and therefore they are superior. Some of them even make statements like this one.

If you understood fishing, you would never make a statement like that. Bait fishing is far more difficult than fly fishing but the inexperienced person thinks fly fishing is more difficult because he just believes it and doesn’t understand fishing.

Consider the “Hex hatch”. Is it more difficult to catch a trout on a nightcrawler fished on the bottom or on an imitation giant may fly? I say if you want a challenge fish nightcrawlers on the bottom when the trout are rising to flies on the surface. One fly fisherman told me that would be stupid, yet he will fish flies on the surface when the trout are feeding on live bait on the bottom.

The only reason bait fishing seems less difficult is because the trout feed much more often on the bottom and on live bait than on the surface. When you see a trout rising and taking flies off the surface you know several things a bait fishermen doesn’t know. First you know the trout is actively feeding, second you know where he is feeding and third if you look closely at the river you can figure out what the trout is feeding on. After that all you need to do most of the time is match what the trout is feeding on, make a half-*****ed cast and bingo, fish on!

The bait fisherman doesn’t know if the fish are feeding and he has to understand stream dynamics to know where the fish are holding and has to make casts that will naturally bring the bait to the fish even though currents on the bottom might be much different than on the surface and don’t forget the snags.

Now if you mean it is a snap to catch little trout, easy fish or planted trout, you may have something there. It is easy with all methods although on a given day one method will work better than others. One of the favorite fly fishing techniques is to cast your fly directly downstream and strip it up stream through a pod of planters and you will hook many.

I know it is more important for some people to catch a trout on a fly than it is to catch a trout and that is fine with me, but me and most of my friends go fishing to catch fish. We sometimes use flies, sometimes live bait and sometimes artificial lures. Our goal is to out smart them and in the end keep a few for dinner. They make wonderful table fare.

Guys who say fly fishing more challenging and then fish for trout in areas where everyone has to release the easy fish so the next sport will have a chance to catch a trout are hypocrites. They claim their method is more superior and then the try to lobby the DNR to make the fishing in certain stretches much easier.

Call your friend Mr. Sendek and ask him if the studies show that “No Kill” areas hurts the trophy brown trout fishing. There will be more fish but they will be smaller. There might be more trophies in the hook and cook sections but the easy ones are the first to be removed leaving the more challenging trophy educated fish left for the real fishermen.

When someone says I catch more fish in the no kill areas than in the kill areas, I say no ****, I only ask, what skill does it take to catch that dumb one over and over and over again.

While were at it, the mortality rate between flies and lures is about the same. It is true that treble hooks damage the fish a little more, they still seem to recover at the same rate as the fly hooked fish. Barb-less hooks penetrate deeper and kill more fish because the hooks penetrate the fishes brain more often.

Ninety-eight percent of all the rainbows and brown trout hatched 7 years ago are dead today because that is their average life span. The sad thing is that if there were a two fish limit some of those fish could be utilized and a great fishery still maintained. Of course for you guys who can’t catch them without everyone releasing all the easy fish, my heart goes out to you!

Finally some stretches are planted because those sections don’t have the habitat and cannot produce enough food and cover to maintain good numbers. On those sections habitat improvements should be considered like on the “Holy Waters” as that is the permanent way to improve the fishery. Gary Sendek will tell you that the reason they are spending $400,000.00 on a restricted stretch of river is because the special interest groups like the Friends of the Au Sable showed more interest in working with the DNR. Was that special interest pressure?

In these economic hard times should we be spending $400,000.00 on a section of river that is already as you have stated one of the best in the state or perhaps should the money be used in an area where all fishermen benefit?

 

Thanks Ray for explaining the politics of our fisheries. Unfortunately, some people know it all and are unwilling to learn the truth.

 

Below is the e-mail that I received after I wrote the DNR about the five fish limit. I'm sure others have seen this and it may have been posted by someone else.
I was in the 30% and also it sounds like The Michigan Charter Boat Association was considered one voice/e-mail.

FROM THE DNR
Thank you for taking time out of your valuable schedule to assist Fisheries Division and the Department of Natural Resources in our request for your opinion of the proposed change to a Statewide fishing regulation to increase the Daily Bag Limit (DBL) for salmon in the Great Lakes. This proposal included increasing the DBL from a maximum of 3 to maximum of 5 fish, in combination with other trout species. Your input is highly valued and we considered each response in our formulation of the final recommendation. We heard from nearly 300 interested citizens and approximately 70% of those responses were in favor of increasing the DBL for salmon to 5 fish per day.

The proposed rule change to allow for up to 5 salmon per day (no more than 3 of the 5 can be brown trout, lake trout or steelhead) was discussed at three monthly meetings of the Natural Resources Commission. The Michigan Charter Boat Association and about 30% of the survey responses were not in favor of increasing the DBL for various reasons. Each comment that we received along with the discussion we had with anglers presented legitimate points of view, regardless of opinion. Because this regulation does not have a major biological impact, we feel that alternate views are important and that the decision should be primarily based on social considerations. On December 10, 2008, the proposal to increase the DBL for salmon in all public waters, in combination with other trout species, was approved and will become effective April 1, 2009. However, this regulation change incorporates a new management tool that provides an objective evaluation that will allow the Department to modify the bag limit for salmon if fishing success and catch rates changes significantly.

Fisheries Division staff spent a considerable amount of time assessing the comments and concerns submitted by you and we used those comments in the development of a suitable proposal to move forward with a regulation change. A proactive approach (attached) was detailed in November that evaluated the catch per effort of Charter anglers (fish caught per hour) for Chinook salmon over a 22 year period, and assessed Charter anglers catching 3 or more Chinook salmon per day. Using our established data from mandatory charter boat reporting for Lake Michigan, baselines were established for catch rates (0.165 fish per hour) and angler success of catching 3 or more salmon per day (13.1%) which represented "breaking points" based on real data where the DBL could be changed.

Currently both of these benchmarks are being exceeded, which means that catch rates and angler success is high. Under this new proactive approach, both of these benchmarks will need to fall below their baseline values to change the regulation (decrease the DBL back to three). If just one of the indicators drop below the baseline, the regulation will remain in place for a 5 fish DBL in combination. Likewise, if the regulations revert back to 3 fish (meaning both falling below baseline levels), it will take both benchmarks to improve beyond their respective baseline values in order for the Department to change the DBL back to 5.

This tool gives the Department the ability to be more proactive, providing opportunity for annual review, and implement regulation changes as needed using this predefined management tool. When fishing is really good and salmon abundance is high, the 5 fish limit would likely be in effect. Conversely, when fishing is really poor and there are perhaps not as many fish, the limit would revert to 3. The Department will have the ability to make this assessment and consider a regulation change each year based on that years fishery data.

 

The 5 fish limit isn't new. It's how it used to be and there were plenty of fish back then too.