Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
While the app is a great way to record your catch, far to many people are reluctant or just plain not interested in reporting their catch. The month of March is completely left out by the state. To be honest our man Brian (great guy) can only do so much and can't possibly cover it all. Perhaps a team of trained volunteers would be able to give the state a better idea of what is happening. Definitely would be on board with that.
The census people really only take a sampling of what is going on. Many people come and go and don't get the chance to report their success. This sampling is always better than providing a guess. Census statistics is a representation of what was caught.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
I got emails from Sea Grant encouraging angler contributions to this, so I'm assuming they were all coordinating. Especially since they were using DNR freezers. I think a more useful question is "why didn't more anglers contribute"

But I think we all know the answer to that... it's easy to complain on social media about a problem, and another thing entirely to actively work to help with efforts to manage the fishery




.
I have found by reading through a variety of past fishing related threads that a percentage of anglers, including guide services, refuse to participate or provide incomplete information to census takers or voluntary submissions.
Are professional guide services required to submit a creel census from their clients?
I bet most people that refuse to submit useful catch information fall into the "conspiracy theorist" category.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
Where here have you ever read that?
Search the Saginaw Bay and the cold water forums. At least 3 die hard, never reporters and at least 2 charter boat captains. Walleye and salmon fishers. Just talk with pier fishermen, ditch fishermen and trollers, you will find that most think those census takers are screwing the anglers and the DNR don't care about the anglers and have their own political agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
Ok so name them. It started as 2 now its 4. Big difference between anti dnr and that. I am very anti against the way a lot is done and the lies. Anti about giving Info only have stocks pulled. All charter captains turn in a lig book so doubting what you are saying.
Put some effort into it.....look for yourself, actually look in the mirror. They are out there in plain sight. Hell, there are more than 4.
I think the charter boys have to report monthly, lets get real, it's what they report. Honesty is not the best policy for some.
We beat this horse to death.....your (pikie tid-bit) in denial!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
I just think it’s time to work towards a solution instead of dwelling on old graphs & statistics. If your so awesome why aren’t you trying to help instead of being a pompous brown eye.

You don’t know Jack Didly about the decree talks, once again, speculation for propaganda! Keep up the good work!
He reminds me of the guy that attends all the meetings, acts like the smartest guy in the room, always pushing his agenda with fancy language and gets treated like white noise. I'm betting he got passed over a few times during his aquatics life and left a disgruntled employee. Did you notice that he ALWAYS has the right answers, which includes comments that he's right and every one else is wrong. He should know better that almost all conclusions and direction are politically driven.....he can't handle that.
I'm sure he is an educated, knowledgeable man with vast experience. He would be much more effective if he would just tone down the rhetoric and speak in layman talk. He could turn people on rather than turning people off, he could be a good teacher.

Cork, Apparently you have an inside track to the Consent Decree negotiations. Please fill us in, using words we will understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
John, again, you underscore your overall lack of how fishery biology works, as well as how retrospective analysis provides the insight into what has changed at critical trophic levels within the food web, as well as how those changes magnify as they wrought altered impacts within the upper tiers of the food web in fish. Brown trout are doing poorly on the east side of the basin because their forage base has shifted away from alewife and over to dominance of round goby, which, per energy density assessments are roughly half the caloric content of a like sized alewife or smelt. Their most marked declines coincide directly with the ebb of alewife abundance levels. While managers knew round goby have been increasing, no one has had a fairly accurate depiction of just how abundant they are locally or system wide. Toss-in a nearshore planting program the likely sends these fish into a inshore environment full of lake trout, salmon, cormorants and gulls via inshore plants during daylight hours. Now layer over the top of all this a continual shift from Seeforellen, to Gilchrest, to Wild Rose, to Sturgeon River, to whatever the strain du jour chosen next will be. IF someone else had a viable brown trout management plan for their Lake Michigan waters, I would steal it rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel all the while happily rebuilding the inshore lake trout stocks on the eastern shore. Once a stock or species of fish goes into decline, the other fish guild members move into that diminished niche space. The reason is usually multi-factorial.

Here is a brief summary statement from the MDNR's four year brown trout strain evaluation study they initiated back around 2013:
"Returns of the fish from stocking at the four Lake Michigan ports (Frankfort, Ludington, Cedar River and Menominee) have been disappointing.

In three years weve only seen four fin-clipped fish, explained Wills. With that amount of data we really cant say much of anything other than were not seeing a lot of returns to the creel. I dont think thats much of a surprise; brown trout have not done well in the Great Lakes in recent years. And thats doesnt seem to be a strain thing; its more likely a changing-ecosystem issue." Note the declines in the Wiscosin data as corroboration of his contention.

Gee,did he state it was a changing ecosystem issue that was driving the decline of the inshore brown trout stock in Michigan waters? So, John, since I don't know didly squat, what are those changes that likely are impacting their survival?

Fishery biology actually has very little to do with how to catch fish consistently, or bragging about the catch each time you meet success, It is about identifying trends via retrospective study data analysis, but you already knew that via you possession of a sport fishing license.

What do I know about the CD negotiations? I know a Federal judge ordered both parties last year to have a working draft agreement by December 23, 2021, yet nothing has been produced to date. I know that the Natural Resources Director made a "hand-shaking" trip to the UP not long ago to meet with a group of very wealthy sportsman that belong to a national sporting organization. He expounded at length on how displeased he was with the lack of progress being made by his negotiating team on the new CD.. I know that Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority negotiators went into the talks with the base goals of expanding their proportion of Great Lakes sport fish stocks that they can take via commercial fishing from three sources I trust to be accurate. I know Governor Whitmer assigned one of these individuals to take part in the negotiations due to their experience as a Gov. Snyder appointee to the task force that redrew Michigan's commercial fishing regulations for the Great Lakes. I also know that the tribes are asking for commercial access to walleye stocks within Treaty of 1836 Waters in Lakes Michigan and Huron, voiced repeatedly by Soo and Odawa band fishers I know. I watched a Michigan Outdoors segment where a negotiator for the State was being interviewed on the CD progress over a year ago. Within the body of the interview I listened to him state repeatedly that "everyone was going to have concede a portion of the fishery resource" to achieve a solution as he side-stepped Gretzinger's softball questions. Why he opted to focus on the vast benefits conferred to the fishery via conversion from a gillnet based fishery for lake trout to a trap net fishery was both odd and interesting. I also posted a lake whitefish stock assessment earlier in this thread for Lake Michigan presented by a CORA tribal biologist where he complains at length about the "damage" being done to their fishery participants because of the high catch rates of lake trout in their gear, both gillnet and trap nets, which diminish profits and participation. I already commented on how ODD that was, given that the now-expired Consent Decree required specific plant allotments for Treaty of 1836 waters. What makes this even more interesting is the reality that northern Lake Michigan has the lowest proportion of wild origin lake trout within the basin, significantly below the mid-lake and southern tier. It couldn't be the result of CORA fishers exceeding their catch quotas for a five year interval for lake trout determined va the Sustainable Fishery Model that was designed specifically to set TACs for the sport and commercia fisheries overseen by the 2021 CD agreement.

NOW, that is interesting...
I don't think there is nothing new in your reporting. Just condensing all the rumor would get you that result. What about a tentative agreement?
What rewrite of the commercial netting regulations? I thought the new bill died in McBoom's committee. Whitmer signed a law that took away the DNR's ability to modify existing regulations and gave it to the lawmakers. Feel free to correct me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
John, again, you underscore your overall lack of how fishery biology works, as well as how retrospective analysis provides the insight into what has changed at critical trophic levels within the food web, as well as how those changes magnify as they wrought altered impacts within the upper tiers of the food web in fish. Brown trout are doing poorly on the east side of the basin because their forage base has shifted away from alewife and over to dominance of round goby, which, per energy density assessments are roughly half the caloric content of a like sized alewife or smelt. Their most marked declines coincide directly with the ebb of alewife abundance levels. While managers knew round goby have been increasing, no one has had a fairly accurate depiction of just how abundant they are locally or system wide. Toss-in a nearshore planting program the likely sends these fish into a inshore environment full of lake trout, salmon, cormorants and gulls via inshore plants during daylight hours. Now layer over the top of all this a continual shift from Seeforellen, to Gilchrest, to Wild Rose, to Sturgeon River, to whatever the strain du jour chosen next will be. IF someone else had a viable brown trout management plan for their Lake Michigan waters, I would steal it rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel all the while happily rebuilding the inshore lake trout stocks on the eastern shore. Once a stock or species of fish goes into decline, the other fish guild members move into that diminished niche space. The reason is usually multi-factorial.

Here is a brief summary statement from the MDNR's four year brown trout strain evaluation study they initiated back around 2013:
"Returns of the fish from stocking at the four Lake Michigan ports (Frankfort, Ludington, Cedar River and Menominee) have been disappointing.

In three years weve only seen four fin-clipped fish, explained Wills. With that amount of data we really cant say much of anything other than were not seeing a lot of returns to the creel. I dont think thats much of a surprise; brown trout have not done well in the Great Lakes in recent years. And thats doesnt seem to be a strain thing; its more likely a changing-ecosystem issue." Note the declines in the Wiscosin data as corroboration of his contention.

Gee,did he state it was a changing ecosystem issue that was driving the decline of the inshore brown trout stock in Michigan waters? So, John, since I don't know didly squat, what are those changes that likely are impacting their survival?

Fishery biology actually has very little to do with how to catch fish consistently, or bragging about the catch each time you meet success, It is about identifying trends via retrospective study data analysis, but you already knew that via you possession of a sport fishing license.

What do I know about the CD negotiations? I know a Federal judge ordered both parties last year to have a working draft agreement by December 23, 2021, yet nothing has been produced to date. I know that the Natural Resources Director made a "hand-shaking" trip to the UP not long ago to meet with a group of very wealthy sportsman that belong to a national sporting organization. He expounded at length on how displeased he was with the lack of progress being made by his negotiating team on the new CD.. I know that Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority negotiators went into the talks with the base goals of expanding their proportion of Great Lakes sport fish stocks that they can take via commercial fishing from three sources I trust to be accurate. I know Governor Whitmer assigned one of these individuals to take part in the negotiations due to their experience as a Gov. Snyder appointee to the task force that redrew Michigan's commercial fishing regulations for the Great Lakes. I also know that the tribes are asking for commercial access to walleye stocks within Treaty of 1836 Waters in Lakes Michigan and Huron, voiced repeatedly by Soo and Odawa band fishers I know. I watched a Michigan Outdoors segment where a negotiator for the State was being interviewed on the CD progress over a year ago. Within the body of the interview I listened to him state repeatedly that "everyone was going to have concede a portion of the fishery resource" to achieve a solution as he side-stepped Gretzinger's softball questions. Why he opted to focus on the vast benefits conferred to the fishery via conversion from a gillnet based fishery for lake trout to a trap net fishery was both odd and interesting. I also posted a lake whitefish stock assessment earlier in this thread for Lake Michigan presented by a CORA tribal biologist where he complains at length about the "damage" being done to their fishery participants because of the high catch rates of lake trout in their gear, both gillnet and trap nets, which diminish profits and participation. I already commented on how ODD that was, given that the now-expired Consent Decree required specific plant allotments for Treaty of 1836 waters. What makes this even more interesting is the reality that northern Lake Michigan has the lowest proportion of wild origin lake trout within the basin, significantly below the mid-lake and southern tier. It couldn't be the result of CORA fishers exceeding their catch quotas for a five year interval for lake trout determined va the Sustainable Fishery Model that was designed specifically to set TACs for the sport and commercia fisheries overseen by the 2021 CD agreement.

NOW, that is interesting...
Cork, if you have all the answers, why don't the decision makers listen to you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
Gordon, please feel free to point-out where I stated that this effort was successful. What I did say is that he was drawn from that Snyder appointed group to join the State's negotiating team.

Also,Gordon, feel free to list your accomplishments in protecting the Great Lakes fishery
.
I am one of 4 MSU fishery biologists whose three-year effort to determine plant operation induced mortality of sport and forage fish at the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant was used in the mitigation proceedings between Consumers/ Detroit Edison and the State. When the State/MDNR settled for a one-time payment of $14million and some land for fish passage development deeded over from Consumers land holdings initially, several of us opted to became deeply involved in the effort which resulted in the National Wildlife Federation and the Department of Interior moving to eventually file a lawsuit against the State of Michigan, Consumers Energy, and Detroit Edison for pollution of Great Lakes waters with the dead fish pieces emanating from the Ludington facility. Interestingly, the State of Michigan/DNR changed sides and joined the legal action as a plaintive litigant via a filing seeking payment for fish losses in the State of Michigan court system. NWF/ Dept, of Interior/ MUCC won their legal challenge to the original settlement. Our annual estimate of fish kills at the plant generated a dollar range of 21-23 million worth of sport and forage fish killed annually in 1979. The current barrier net system was part of that restructured settlement as well.

This, too, is the result of the settlement:

I count this as a significant accomplishment, particularly since it is in its second fifty-year term.

I also was able to get the MDNR to eventually act to cease most chinook salmon plants in Lake Huron in 2011, that endpoint only took four years of effort to achieve. It started via a series of conversations with the Lake Huron basin coordinator, who eventually claimed he had no authority to act, forwarding me to Jim Dexter. Several folks in the MDNR were certain that this was inconceivable, including the Lake Huron basin coordinator. Jim and I knew each other via MSU employment. Jim Dexter eventually was forced to act when the estimates generated by the MSU Quantitative Fishery Center, via recovery rates of coded wire tagged fish that documented the size the stock that was emigrating from Lake Huron to feed in Lake Michigan, then returning to spawn along the Canadian shore rivers in Lake Huron. the reason this was significant is that it came immediately on the heels of the Lake Huron alewife stock collapse, as well as documenting and quantifying an additional and never considered additive drain on alewife biomass. I used Dave Borgeson, Jr's own mark and recapture study data to point out that they had Lake Huron tagged salmon being recovered in southern Lake Michigan- not many but it was documented to occur. Even then, the Soo band tribal biologists refused to allow cancellation of the 250,000 chinook mandated to be planted annually at Nunn's Creek via their agreement with the State to provide a put-and-take fishery for Soo and Brimley band fishers. That was Greg Wright's doing.
If that individual appointed to Consent Decree negotiations was the person that had anything to do with those 3 sham bills proposed by the legislature ....good luck in the negotiations. Those were real, non biased proposals.

I played my part in protecting the Great Lakes fishery by purchasing a fishing license for the last 58 consecutive years, even bought trout stamps. Also, picked up the trash along the rivers. Even released those steelhead I accidentally snagged.

I can tell you are agitated about those 250k salmon plants. Can't get your way all the time. Prior agreements always win, especially when it's a Native/State agreement.

I said more than once you are an experienced, well educated individual. You don't do that good of a job trying to pass on your information in a neutral manner. You generally alienate everyone with your rhetoric.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top