Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

What do you favor for salmon and trout limits?

  • Keep the regs the way they are now

    Votes: 37 38.9%
  • Increase the limit to five salmon or trout of any species

    Votes: 37 38.9%
  • Make it illegal to continue fishing if limits (3 fish) of one species have been caught

    Votes: 16 16.8%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 5 5.3%
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I could go eithor way on this issue.

A further explanation of the third choice would be to keep the currents regulations the same, but make it illegal to keep fishing once everyone of board has caught 3 of one species of trout or salmon. This would stop people form continuing to fish after they have limited out on one species and helf save the resource from people throwing back fish that would have a low survival rate. It has been proven that salmon have a very low survival rate when caught and released.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
Trophy Specialist said:
It has been proven that salmon have a very low survival rate when caught and released.
I'm curious about this subject. Can you share where this has been "proven"? It may affect my vote.

Butch
 

·
Woods and Water Rat
Joined
·
20,637 Posts
Voted to keep the same. But raising it wouldn't bother me one bit either. I assuming your talking open water not rivers.
Choice #3 was ahead when I voted, I disagree with that 100% myself. Be interestiong to see how this vote pans out.
 
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Butch said:
I'm curious about this subject. Can you share where this has been "proven"? It may affect my vote.

Butch
Well maybe "proven" was too strong of a word. I did read where researchers did a study on king salmon where they caught them with hook and line and then put a transmitter in them and the vast majority just died. That study may have put more stress on the fish than normal catch and release. I do know though that when there are big salmon tournaments that allow culling and the fish are biting good, you'll see much more dead fish floating aroud and washing up on the beaches. I don't allow any catch and release on salmon on my boat unless the fish is so small a net is not required and the fish does not show any signs of injury.
 
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Oldgrandman said:
Voted to keep the same. But raising it wouldn't bother me one bit either. I assuming your talking open water not rivers.
Choice #3 was ahead when I voted, I disagree with that 100% myself. Be interestiong to see how this vote pans out.
I just looked at some data from two studies: one showed a catch and release mortality rate on chinook of 22.1% and the other showed a 25% mortality rate.

There have been many studies done on coho catch and release mortality which is very high at from 42 to 69 percent depending on the study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,247 Posts
Mike,

Are you aware of any study that shows how many salmon or what percentage die in the rivers and go un-utilized?
 
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Splitshot said:
Mike,

Are you aware of any study that shows how many salmon or what percentage die in the rivers and go un-utilized?
All of the adult king and coho salmon that enter rivers will die there. I have never seen a specific study that shows what you are asking though, but my guess would be most of them die and are not utilized. However if they spawn then they have served a benificial purpose whether they are utilized or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
Trophy Specialist said:
I just looked at some data from two studies: one showed a catch and release mortality rate on chinook of 22.1% and the other showed a 25% mortality rate.

There have been many studies done on coho catch and release mortality which is very high at from 42 to 69 percent depending on the study.

Thanks. Can you post a link(s)?

Butch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,247 Posts
Sorry Mike, I asked the question wrong. first I know all the adults die. I meant if they plant 500,000 how many of those come back to our rivers and out of those how many go un-utilized? I don't want to complicate the issue with spawning and natural productions statistics.
 
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Splitshot said:
Sorry Mike, I asked the question wrong. first I know all the adults die. I meant if they plant 500,000 how many of those come back to our rivers and out of those how many go un-utilized? I don't want to complicate the issue with spawning and natural productions statistics.
I am not aware of any such studies, and it would be nearly impossible to do so because of non-human caused mortality factors.
 
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Splitshot said:
Sorry Mike, I asked the question wrong. first I know all the adults die. I meant if they plant 500,000 how many of those come back to our rivers and out of those how many go un-utilized? I don't want to complicate the issue with spawning and natural productions statistics.
They do have stats on how many of them have come back to the rivers in the past. Forinstance, the Swan River has a wier on it right at the mouth and no salmon are allowed past the weir. There is no natural reproduction in that river eithor. It would be a simple mater there of subtracting the number of fish taken at the wier from the total number planted in the Swan. Determining the number of those planted salmon that were "utilized" though would be impossible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
on lake huron right now if we had a 3 fish only limit....most days 45 minutes and we would be done with amount of lakers out there...i know no one really likes them but the mortality rate is high even a lip hooked fish bleads like a stuck pig...the only law id like to see changed is leaving lakers open all year,,,,the ones caught through the ice die any way...and there seems to be quite a few peir fisherman who want them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,907 Posts
I think 3 fish and you are done. But, you can go back out the same day and catch 3 more, but you can't have more than 3 of one specie at a time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
579 Posts
I would not mind seeing an increase for the salmon to 5 fish, but a reduction to 1 for steelhead and browns. Lakers I really do not care what the limit is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Splitshot said:
Sorry Mike, I asked the question wrong. first I know all the adults die. I meant if they plant 500,000 how many of those come back to our rivers and out of those how many go un-utilized? I don't want to complicate the issue with spawning and natural productions statistics.
The following is based on wier counts and plantings on the Little Manistee.

Data based on Little Manistee Wier Counts and Plantings from the DNR
Wier Count Yr. Chinook Wier Count Plant Yr Qty Plante %Return
2000 13,029 1998 701945 1.86%
2001 18,279 1,999 491393 3.72%
2002 19,385 2000 317845 6.10%
2003 14,419 2,001 493684 2.92%
2004 15,618 2,002 491525 3.18%
2005 11,075 2,003 591313 1.87%
2006 12,772 2,004 495499 2.58%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
Several years ago, when everyone was working on changing the law to allow us to use 3 rods, there was a trade off with the DNR. I will lay odd's that the trade off was if they allowed 3 rods, then there was to be no change to the limits (several groups were working getting both rod count and limits changed concurrently, didnt happen). So do not believe there is much chance of the limits changing at this time or in the near future as the people who agreed to trade off, are still in places of responsibility at the DNR.

Double check with Kelley Smith Michigan DNR Fisheries, but I believe I am correct in this statement.

Ozzman :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
Tech Rally,

The numbers you posted mean nothing! You assumed that all the fish returned in a given year are from a plant 3 years prior. It's not a direct proportion to what was stocked a few years back Mature salmon returning to any given river or weir are of many age fish ranging from 1 to 5 years old. Thus the importance for fisheries biologists to be able age fish.

Example would be Mature Chinook Salmon returning to the Little Manistee River (or any river) this fall will consist of fish from the
2006 year class (stocked or wild) as mature age 1 males (True Jacks),
2005 year class age 2 both males and females typically this will be the 2nd largest prortion, 2004 year class age 3 again both males and females this will be the largest protion of the run,
2003 year class age 4 which usually make upp the smallest portion of the returning adults and maybe 2002 year class age 5 which do oocur in Lkae Michigan but are very rare. Aslo rare would be a 2007 year class (hatchery) fish returning in the fall at age 0 (called mini-jacks). A few of these are seen from time to time they are 8-9" long and sexually mature males!

The Year to year year class strength can vary do to many things. But most on the mortality occurs in the first few months of the salmon life be a wild fish or a hatchery fish shortly after stock out. Also, older salmon do not always mean bigger fish, these salmon are all individuals and grow at different rates. Some of the oldest fish are always the oldest fish. And many of the faster growing fish returns at an youger age.

I hope this clears p a few things.

Also I hope that a few of you drop the fisherman lingo of catching "4 year olds" cause I bet 90% or more of those fish you are calling 4 year olds are not!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
TrapperJohn said:
Tech Rally,

The numbers you posted mean nothing!
With all due respect trapper, you can take those numbers as nothing if you choose, however the numbers are what they are. As you pointed out, salmon will return at different ages, a very few at 1 yr, some at 2yrs, most at 3yrs, a few at 4 yrs and very, very few at 5+ years. This mix of returns, while it will vary from year to year, will generally be consistent from year to year. I would certainly like to know the age of all the returns however that info is not available so just like the DNR I used the best data available. You also failed to point out other normal variations that would affect the return numbers such as salmon planted elsewhere in the state running up the Little Manistee "in error".

A key point in all the sciences is understanding the uncertainty principle, which is, the only thing that you can be 100% certain of, is that you can not be 100% certain about ANYTHING. Knowing this, you will realise that the data is what it is. It will not be 100% pure and you will never get 100% pure data no matter what precautions you may take. For example, let's assume that at the Manistee wier the DNR saved and studied all fin clipped salmon heads. Those salmon heads that were not saved because there was no evidence of fin clips, were they truely naturally reproduced fish, or were they mearly fish that when through the clipping process however failed to be properly clipped? Were those unclipped fish, naturally reproduced in a different stream and ran the Little manistee in error or did they run up the little Manistee after the wier was removed in November? You can not know and control every variable in any study, however it does not make the data obtained as meanless. Without any data, you and the DNR are just guessing. Personally, I would rather the DNR use the best data available. If you would rather they just guess, why don't you write them and request that.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top