Justification for 10 broke limit?

Discussion in 'Gear Restrictions and Trout Fishing Regs' started by kzoofisher, Jun 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,240
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    Trying to keep the other thread focused on what the OP wanted.

    As posted elsewhere, the latest study by the DNR showed harm to the experimental streams and therefore potential to harm other streams should the limit be raised. The study also showed no increase in angler participation.


    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.

    Fisheries Division has recommended against the increase and the majority of the public has opposed it, but the appointed members of the NRC have chosen to move forward with options for raising it.

    Reactions from members here have varied from silence to lukewarm statements that "if the science shows it's bad I guess I would oppose it". Several posters have offered opinions without knowing about the study had been done (there was no press release) and I hope now that they have seen it we can stop wondering if brookies are overpopulated.

    Ok, so what's my gripe if you care? I'm sure many of you don't but you've already made the popcorn. Here it is. One of the primary arguments against GR water, maybe the primary argument, is that science doesn't show that they are needed. We have heard of conversations with and even seen some quotes from biologists who guessed that because of the high mortality of trout current fishing pressure made no difference. Other biologists who disagreed were also quoted and their bona fides and motivations were called into question. This especially applied to brook trout which have the highest natural mortality. Many times it has been said that if the science showed it was needed there would be no argument. It has been said that the next round of regulation negotiations would be a tough fight for the GR guys because scientific management and the PTD would be brought in and GR didn't have a leg to stand on. Well, now we have the latest study that shows even a small increase in harvest on brookies in the UP had a negative effect. Where are the pro science guys? Where is the outrage that science is being ignored for something that has been shown to do harm and have no social benefit? There has been only silence or milquetoast hedging. Certainly no apologies offered for questioning the integrity of biologists who drew different, and now obviously correct, conclusions from the data.

    What does that pre-eminent science based group, GLFSA, have to say about it? They had at least three members in attendance at the meeting where the results of this study were presented.* They had at least one at the meeting where it was explained that the NRC intended to move ahead anyway. Why haven't they responded? Where are the cries for science based management? I'll leave it to them to explain themselves but it is starting to look like they were never that interested in conservation or rights and greatly interested in being able to take as many fish as they could by whatever means struck their fancy.

    *I know this because of the attendance list and because they posted here that they attended. I am not part of the Deep State with spies everywhere.
     
  2. -Axiom-

    -Axiom-

    Messages:
    1,877
    Likes Received:
    715
    Location:
    Traverse City
    There were several decades in which the possession limit was 10 trout, the majority of streams were fine.

    Why can't this time period be used rather than waste money on further studies?
     
    Quig7557 likes this.

  3. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    The outrage isn't there as the science showed that it could be detrimental to fish populations. Where the problem comes in isn't the science, it's the attitude of the NRC. They have become a group of people who are doing what they want, not what they were appointed to do. I fail to understand how the NRC can keep making decisions when the science is showing it one way or the other. Let's review one of their recent decisions, they banned chumming, why because the science showed it was harmful. Now they want to disregard science and go against what the DNR says is happening? What's that all about? Frankly, I can think of 3 members of the NRC board who should recuse themselves from any fly fishing, or even perhaps any trout related issues. The reason is, 3 of them have stated in their biographies they are "avid" fly fishermen. Kzoo, you are a smart guy, put aside your flies only mentality for one minute and think of the whole picture, do you honestly think the NRC is making sound decisions based on that scenario alone? I think not.

    Furthermore, I have no idea why it is you are against things like the PTD, it's the law, and it's supposed to protect all of us when it comes to water related issues, but you just want to turn your nose up at it, why?

    It amazes me that you are concerned about the fact that the DNR can sell land, to the highest bidder and are worried about access should they do so. Your reasoning is sound, to a point, but where you lost me was talking about "elites" doing some sort of land grab, that's the only way I can put this right now, and you'd be justified in doing so. Where I get mixed signals from you is that you don't see the problem with the "elites" and flies only fishing. If you just stop and think for one minute, you might be able to see the justification in what we are about, unless of course you are one of those that believe in "do as I say, not as I do". You cannot have rules and regulations that are arbitrary in nature, and you sure can't have rules and regulations made up that you want to see, and not what the science says it should be.
     
  4. PunyTrout

    PunyTrout

    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    2,033
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    This is from the other thread but it is certainly a sentiment I would like to state here as well.

    Much of this discussion has revolved around Scientific and Non-Science (not nonsense) arguments. That is a fine and well but these camps often oppose one another vehemently and only serve to polarize us as anglers.

    The NRC has a mandate to use science based decisions and pass them to the DNR as I understand it.

    Well allow me to offer my 2 cents. This proposal has nothing to do with science at all. It has do with Money. Specifically tourism dollars being spent in the Upper Peninsula.

    Who can blame them? It’s a beautiful place. The unfortunate reality is that all along US 2 you are more likely to see a closed down business or abandoned house or a For Sale sign than you are likely to see a Whitetail Deer.

    The UP could certainly benefit from some extra dollars being spent there by Down-Staters. But a 10 fish limit on Brook trout in a bid to increase tourism is going about it the wrong way.

    Let’s quit hoodwinking ourselves here discussing the science stuff. This proposed rule change is about money, pure and simple.
     
  5. 357Maximum

    357Maximum

    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    7,635
    Location:
    elsewhere

    NAILED IT, If I could like just one post 10 times that would be the post.
     
  6. Quig7557

    Quig7557

    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    West michigan
    How detrimental to the fish was it? Is that information available?
     
  7. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,240
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    You missed the point completely. This is just like the chumming issue, the DNR makes a recommendation based on the best information available to them and the NRC goes the other way. The difference here at MSF is that chumming had multiple threads that went on for pages and pages full of outrage at the decline of Western Civilization, and comments on this issue have largely been, meh. Of course, the two episodes differ in one respect: chumming or not chumming would only affect fisherman and not the resource, the 10 fish limit is detrimental to the resource. Again, the difference in attitude towards the subject speaks volumes about your true motivations. With chumming you were outraged that people would be barred from using and effective method to catch fish, with the 10 fish limit you don't seem to mind harm to the resource so long as people get to keep more fish.

    I'm not against the PTD. I have always maintained that your interpretation of it was wrong and that all the regulations in Michigan meet the requirements of it. You have held it and *science* up like talismans to ward off the things you don't like and now *science* has turned against you and will support PTD arguments for maintaining GR. I think that's funny.

    Your last paragraph misses the primary argument in support of GR and lower limits again, like for the thousandth time. Don't feel too bad, most people miss it too because to acknowledge it requires that they abandon their purely political arguments which they think are scientific. I have said countless times that there are reasonable disagreements to be had when it comes to fisheries management and to the interpretation of studies. My interpretations always tend towards being more conservation minded. Others tend to being more consumption minded. Now we have a study, a very specific study that was focused just on an increased bag limit, and it bears out that that fishing pressure can make a pretty big difference. Keeper size fish in the 10 fish streams -58%, keeper size fish in the 5 fish streams +47%. That's pretty significant.

    You say this while downplaying the latest study from the DNR and brushing off the same behavior by the NRC that you have screamed about in the past. Shameless. At least your comrades have the decency to stay in hiding and hope that the next time they act all outraged most people won't remember their hypocrisy on this issue.
     
  8. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,240
    Likes Received:
    1,317
  9. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    It is you who missed my point. What I'm saying is if the studies show the resource can't handle 10 fish limit, then don't do it. That is why we were quiet as that's what the science showed. I wasn't at the last CRSC meeting so I'm not sure what happened. Forgetting the PTD for a minute I would rather look at the northwest ordinance. The simple reality is you are trying to play both ends. On one hand you don't want a 10 fish limit, nor should you because the science shows the problems. But when it comes to flies only you don't want to give that up even though the science shows the fish populations are fine, plus the fact studies have shown that fishing with bait, actively, is nearly the same mortality rates. You need to quit calling names and have a legitimate discussion. I refuse to fall into the trap of the liberal mentality and blame everyone else for your faults.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017
    357Maximum likes this.
  10. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    Also as for chumming, the science did show problems under certain circumstances and IF that's true they did the right thing. Where I had a big problem was when the anti side said some guide was using 500 gallons of eggs per season, that statement was just a lie and no one questioned them on it. The bottom line is the commission has become nothing more than a self serving entity and should be abolished.
     
    357Maximum likes this.
  11. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,240
    Likes Received:
    1,317
    toto, you have gone on and on about the NRC not using science countless times. Just in this thread you said that three members should recuse themselves anytime they might think differently than you. But how impassioned was your response to them ignoring the science and allowing increased harvest? "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." You act like the information is news to you but you were at the meeting in September where this was presented. You may have forgotten the presentation, I notice that information contrary to your agenda seldom sticks in your memory. Post #8 https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/september-crsc-minutes.578986/

    You'll also notice that the same paragraph I pasted in post #1 here is in that other thread. And that the significance of it was ignored although one poster did try to deflect away from it by asking about a totally unrelated issue.

    Forgetting the facts, discrediting studies, discrediting our own DNR, deflecting and distracting from contradictory evidence, all par for the course with the agenda driven posters who are more concerned with harvest than with conservation.
     
  12. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    Well genius I was at that meeting in September and I remember the report very well. At the time we were all surprised at the results and felt that 10 may not be appropriate, that is why we never said anything. Now you are saying the commission is considering going against the data which they should not do. Furthermore there was only one person who questioned the results and that was one of your fly buddies. Here is a perfect example of liberal mind think, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger, do yourself a favor and don't even try that with me, pal. I find it funny that you are for the elitist mentality of flies only but all worried about the elite mentality when it comes to the state selling property. We aren't about raping a resource as you seem to want to portray, we are about fairness plain and simple. You, on the other hand, are basically PETA light. Since when did fish become higher on evolutionary scale? You guys just crack me up, you cast yourselves as holier than though when in fact you play right into the hands of the animal rights crowd. Maybe you should follow the lead of Cass Sunstein and just go ahead and marry one of your little fishs
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017
    357Maximum likes this.
  13. Lumberman

    Lumberman Premium Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Likes Received:
    1,715
    Location:
    GR
    I agree this science argument is rampant in many quarrels among sportsman.

    That point that people miss is the science is the means to achieve a goal. The DNR/RNC sets a goal and then use science to achieve it. Hence why you both are exactly right.

    If the goal is to increase fly fishing participation and reduce fish mortality than absolutely the science says gear restrictions and CR are the answer.

    If your goal is to increase angler activity and opportunity at harvesting brook trout then 10 fish limit is correct.

    If we always just do what's best for the resource based on science then PETA would simple argue all angling is bad for trout population and we would have to ban it immediately.
     
  14. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    As a further aside, just where did I EVER say a 10 fish limit is fine? I can say with certainty I never said that, remember I was at the meeting where the info was presented. What I didn't know, again is that the commission still wants to go with it. What's odd about this dust up is, we happen to agree it's just in your blind rage against us, you refuse to see it. I think it should obvious to all that you are the trying get it the way you want, not me. As for the chummin thing if I said it once I said a thousand times, I don't chum, but that wasn't the point, but apparently you didn't grasp that either. I'll try this one more time, in plain English for you; if the science doesn't agree we shouldn't do it. In this case the science shows a 10 fish limit is too hard on the resource, then don't do it. If the commission pushes for It, your problem is with them not me.
     
    357Maximum likes this.
  15. Ranger Ray

    Ranger Ray Smells like, Victory! Premium Member

    Messages:
    22,584
    Likes Received:
    9,413
    Location:
    Muskegon, MI
    What happens when man, at the beginning of trout season, starts to remove fish? The population decreases as people keep them through the season until the season closes. Happens on 1 fish limit streams, to 10 fish limit streams. The statement "it was found that the ten-brook trout bag regulation had potential to negatively affect abundance" is in fact an absolute in every stream whether under a 5 fish limit or 10. If one looks at the graphs, we gained fish under a 10 fish limit on some streams? How can this be? It's, it's a miracle! The fact of the matter, the reason we gained fish in a stream we removed fish through the year and increased the limit on, is because fish move in and out of areas. It's why you gained fish in a negatively decreasing fishery. It is why we get, "it was found that the ten-brook trout bag regulation had potential to negatively affect abundance". Not "the 10 fish limit is absolutely harming the streams." Why? Because the science does not lead us there. Matter of fact, it is quite unclear. Note Kzoo in another thread needed to change "had potential" to "it harms the fishery." Because in the preservation mindset, any reduction, any "if," processes as "absolutely". I think it is good we are doing the study. Lets keep it going and see exactly where it leads. Maybe we need to go to no kill on some streams, maybe we could go to 20 on some.

    How many fish are supposed to be in a stream? There would be a lot more if we didn't fish. But lets not be so ridiculous. The fact of the matter is, there are special interests that would be just fine with keeping no fish. Some groups constantly push for reduced limits on the PM, even when the biologists using existing science say there is no need for reduced limits or gear restrictions. These same groups now demand science on this 10 fish limit. It is pure befuddlement, of which some of these groups are experts. We could go on for ever about how they proclaimed to have science, promised to show us, but never could produce it. Who do you believe? Get involved, you will quickly see where we are going. Tunnel vision rules these groups and those connected to them. Restrictions are the rule of the day, C&R is an obsession. I will give you an example. I noticed in one of the cold water minutes, there was discussion that gear restrictions on steelhead rivers under the restricted areas are getting crowded. They proclaimed the need for more gear restricted areas to relieve the crowding. The fact is, the non restricted areas are also extremely crowded, and need more area to expand also. So who gets the expansion? Funny how that works, and shows the mindset of some of these groups. It is always about the restricted areas and increasing them.

    We have several people on this forum that fished the 10 before the 5 limit. How did the fish ever survive the 10 limit? Their experiences are interesting. What science took us to 5? There was none, only feelings and emotions. When you mange by man, not science, you manage by emotions. You don't keep fish because they are "beautiful." Where does that end? Science is in fact the way to go. In science there are lots of variables, like getting an increase of fish on rivers we just went from 5 to 10 limit on. One has to analyze and figure if "has potential" needs a reaction or not. Some will run around like monkeys proclaiming groups that don't drop to their knees and worship the fish when there is "potential to negatively affect" are therefore against the science. These people are befuddlers and obfuscaters. They try to prove the fault of the people, not the truth in the science presented. Sad people and days we live in. There is risk in everything we do. What is acceptable, and why we are changing the rules is the question. I have had more restrictions implemented on me by my fellow sportsmen than PETA or HSUS. Matter of fact, I think my fellow sportsmen have been responsible for 100%. That is concerning, especially when much of it has been based on emotion. It is science we should manage by, but the science should always be in a state of analysis. This 10 fish limit is not going to destroy any river system. Lets keep studying for awhile instead of the usual emotional reaction of restriction, and thus not completing the study.

    There is no law that states "manage game by emotions," but there is one by "sound science." There is always a human element in scientific game decisions. What the law tells me, is there better be some scientific need, especially when it comes to a "restriction." This is evidenced by the very reason we voted prop G in. To stop human emotions from managing game.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2017
    nyal, FREEPOP, REG and 4 others like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.