Kevin Lee
02-02-2009, 11:17 PM
Jigrapper
(1) I agree with Kevin....if it isn't broken....leave it alone. Why would anyone want to keep "any" fish over 23 inches (other than for mounting) (2). Your best eaters are the smaller legal sized fish anyway. Leave those large walleye for spawing.........if I am not mistaken there was no walleye planting by the DNR last year because of uncertainty of the VHS virus.
Mike: (1) The argument that “well, it’s not hurting anything” needs some attention. We as anglers and fish managers do not conduct our business to “not hurt” but to help fish populations. This regulation does not help anything and results in wasted time and effort. I would venture to say that most anglers that fish LBDN do not care that other anglers from other regions around Michigan (i.e. Saginaw Bay) look at the “1 over 23” regulation here and want it applied to their waters because Little Bay de Noc has such a great fishery. They have the perception that it is a “helpful” regulation, which it is not. One of our responsibilities as accountable fish managers is to create regulations that are effective and do not encumber anglers. Having the 1 over 23 regulation in LBDN has made it more difficult for other manager’s downstate.
Mike: (2) Lots of people would keep fish over 23 inches. I agree that the best eating fish are the smaller ones, hands down, and I release the larger ones for that very reason. This is not about taste or saving walleyes for spawning. It is about the opportunity for someone to keep more of the larger walleye if they choose to. Just because you and I wouldn’t want to keep them, why would you or anyone be against someone else keeping them if there is no negative biological impact to the walleye population? And you are incorrect about walleye stocking. Yes, we have been restricted in where we stock walleye for the past few years but 93,604 were stocked in LBDN just last year. (select Delta County, then Lake Michigan)
http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/ Enterprise
The 23 in slot limit has allowed bigger fish to survive to trophy potential. Those big walleyes, biologically, don't have any more ability to be reproducers, once they get to be 8-10 lbs., than say a smaller 4 pounder. The biologists truly believe this. (1)However, that trophy walleye means alot to alot of people, which I can understand. So, Herman is sort of right by saying it doesn't make biological sense to have the slot limit to provide for a walleye fishery, just a TROPHY walleye fishery. But, does it make biological sense to plant over a million walleye every other year until the bay has an over abundance of small walleye and just a few over 10 lbs? (2) My humble opinion is that small walleye are most voracious feeders and their sheer numbers in the bay have overrun other species, specifically panfish, simply by predation and competition, biologically speaking. Anyone who knows the history of the bay and its fish populations will agree. Herman also was in favor of extending the spearing season across the state which got pushed through like it was important, and went into effect even before the new regs came out! In my opinion, a large adult pike or musky is rare thing. Not really my opinion, actually, its a biological fact. A speared musky is a dead musky, period. By extending the season to overlap with the movement of pre-spawn pike and muskies to shallow areas where they can be speared will lessen the number of these adult fish, which biologically ARE necessary for effective natural reproduction when considering the species. Herman and the DNR put that population in danger. How is that for "biological"? (3) With the WDNR trying to re-establish the natural Great Lakes spotted musky population to Green Bay this was a foolish move. So, with all due respect to Mike Herman, his biological reasoning is questionable at best.
Mike: (1) If the regulation were changed, you would not notice any fewer “trophy” walleye in your catch. Again, the population of walleye in LBDN is huge (>450,000) and the exploitation rate or rate at which anglers harvest them is very, very low (~3.6%). Results from creel surveys conducted on LBDN from 1988-93 showed that approximately 17% of all fish creeled were over 23 inches in length (season closed March 15). Creel surveys conducted on LBDN from 1999-2003 showed that 14% of all fish creeled were over 23 inches (season closed end of February). These data suggest that removing the possession exception for LBDN will not have any significant negative impact on this walleye population.
(2) Saying that we have stocked over a million walleye every other year is not correct. To get the numbers and sizes of fish we stock in Michigan waters, please visit the website: http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/
(3) I was in favor of extending the spearing season because part of my job is to enhance angling “opportunities” when we can and when there will be no negative impacts to the fish population. Spearing, although I do not participate in this sport, is a legal and ethical method of harvesting fish. I challenge you to review the literature/articles that speak about spearing harvest as it is extremely low, mainly because participation in this sport is low. And I would also challenge you to review the literature on muskie mortality caused by well intentioned “catch and release” anglers. Just because a fish swims away doesn’t mean it will survive. Mortalities caused by musky hook and line anglers is higher than you think. Look it up and become educated.
CaptainKenLee
With all due respect to Mr. Herman, he's in a tough situation. I guess if I were in his shoes and just had to look at the numbers and the "biology" of it all, then I'd probably say we didn't need the "one over 23" law too. But there's more to things than just numbers. Last night I asked him if the population dynamics would change at all if the law was removed and he said no. So...if things won't change much, why change it? Let's leave it alone. (1) As a charter captain, it really doesn't matter much to me, most of my clients just want to catch fish and take some home with them. In fact, I've never had any complaints about having to release fish over 23 inches, most people say they wish they had a rule like that where they live. But...as a business owner it means a lot. We are a unique area, with an awesome fishery, and it's nice to show people that we take care of our fishery. Even if "biologically" speaking the law is not needed, it's nice to be able to promote the area as a trophy fishery. Lots of people come up here because they know they always have a shot at catching a trophy walleye, if we remove the current law, that perception could change with many anglers. (2) In almost every article written about the bay, the author explains the "one over 23 rule" and how "unique" it is. There are a lot of businesses in the area that cater mostly to fishermen. Anglers have to eat, sleep, buy gas, purchase bait, tackle, etc. Why do something that might hurt the local economy? I agree with my brother Kevin (and that doesn't always happen) "if it ain't broke...don't try to fix it". Thanks to Mr. Herman for coming to our meeting.
Mike: Thanks Captain Ken Lee for the thanks for coming to your meeting. I appreciate that.
(1) Changing this regulation is about allowing folks who choose to, to keep more larger walleyes when they catch them. If this regulation were changed, it would not mean that we are not taking care of our fishery. Changing this regulation will not change the “trophy” fishery you now have here in LBDN since the very robust data we have from our research shows that relatively very few of the walleyes harvested in LBDN are over 23 inches long (ie. 2,200 harvested from an estimated population of 88,000 fish over 23 inches). And I would never do anything to hurt the local economy! This is my town too!
(2) The regulation may be “unique” but that is not the reason the population characteristics are they way they are in LBDN. The population looks like it does due to habitat availability, forage abundance, etc.
(1) I agree with Kevin....if it isn't broken....leave it alone. Why would anyone want to keep "any" fish over 23 inches (other than for mounting) (2). Your best eaters are the smaller legal sized fish anyway. Leave those large walleye for spawing.........if I am not mistaken there was no walleye planting by the DNR last year because of uncertainty of the VHS virus.
Mike: (1) The argument that “well, it’s not hurting anything” needs some attention. We as anglers and fish managers do not conduct our business to “not hurt” but to help fish populations. This regulation does not help anything and results in wasted time and effort. I would venture to say that most anglers that fish LBDN do not care that other anglers from other regions around Michigan (i.e. Saginaw Bay) look at the “1 over 23” regulation here and want it applied to their waters because Little Bay de Noc has such a great fishery. They have the perception that it is a “helpful” regulation, which it is not. One of our responsibilities as accountable fish managers is to create regulations that are effective and do not encumber anglers. Having the 1 over 23 regulation in LBDN has made it more difficult for other manager’s downstate.
Mike: (2) Lots of people would keep fish over 23 inches. I agree that the best eating fish are the smaller ones, hands down, and I release the larger ones for that very reason. This is not about taste or saving walleyes for spawning. It is about the opportunity for someone to keep more of the larger walleye if they choose to. Just because you and I wouldn’t want to keep them, why would you or anyone be against someone else keeping them if there is no negative biological impact to the walleye population? And you are incorrect about walleye stocking. Yes, we have been restricted in where we stock walleye for the past few years but 93,604 were stocked in LBDN just last year. (select Delta County, then Lake Michigan)
http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/ Enterprise
The 23 in slot limit has allowed bigger fish to survive to trophy potential. Those big walleyes, biologically, don't have any more ability to be reproducers, once they get to be 8-10 lbs., than say a smaller 4 pounder. The biologists truly believe this. (1)However, that trophy walleye means alot to alot of people, which I can understand. So, Herman is sort of right by saying it doesn't make biological sense to have the slot limit to provide for a walleye fishery, just a TROPHY walleye fishery. But, does it make biological sense to plant over a million walleye every other year until the bay has an over abundance of small walleye and just a few over 10 lbs? (2) My humble opinion is that small walleye are most voracious feeders and their sheer numbers in the bay have overrun other species, specifically panfish, simply by predation and competition, biologically speaking. Anyone who knows the history of the bay and its fish populations will agree. Herman also was in favor of extending the spearing season across the state which got pushed through like it was important, and went into effect even before the new regs came out! In my opinion, a large adult pike or musky is rare thing. Not really my opinion, actually, its a biological fact. A speared musky is a dead musky, period. By extending the season to overlap with the movement of pre-spawn pike and muskies to shallow areas where they can be speared will lessen the number of these adult fish, which biologically ARE necessary for effective natural reproduction when considering the species. Herman and the DNR put that population in danger. How is that for "biological"? (3) With the WDNR trying to re-establish the natural Great Lakes spotted musky population to Green Bay this was a foolish move. So, with all due respect to Mike Herman, his biological reasoning is questionable at best.
Mike: (1) If the regulation were changed, you would not notice any fewer “trophy” walleye in your catch. Again, the population of walleye in LBDN is huge (>450,000) and the exploitation rate or rate at which anglers harvest them is very, very low (~3.6%). Results from creel surveys conducted on LBDN from 1988-93 showed that approximately 17% of all fish creeled were over 23 inches in length (season closed March 15). Creel surveys conducted on LBDN from 1999-2003 showed that 14% of all fish creeled were over 23 inches (season closed end of February). These data suggest that removing the possession exception for LBDN will not have any significant negative impact on this walleye population.
(2) Saying that we have stocked over a million walleye every other year is not correct. To get the numbers and sizes of fish we stock in Michigan waters, please visit the website: http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/
(3) I was in favor of extending the spearing season because part of my job is to enhance angling “opportunities” when we can and when there will be no negative impacts to the fish population. Spearing, although I do not participate in this sport, is a legal and ethical method of harvesting fish. I challenge you to review the literature/articles that speak about spearing harvest as it is extremely low, mainly because participation in this sport is low. And I would also challenge you to review the literature on muskie mortality caused by well intentioned “catch and release” anglers. Just because a fish swims away doesn’t mean it will survive. Mortalities caused by musky hook and line anglers is higher than you think. Look it up and become educated.
CaptainKenLee
With all due respect to Mr. Herman, he's in a tough situation. I guess if I were in his shoes and just had to look at the numbers and the "biology" of it all, then I'd probably say we didn't need the "one over 23" law too. But there's more to things than just numbers. Last night I asked him if the population dynamics would change at all if the law was removed and he said no. So...if things won't change much, why change it? Let's leave it alone. (1) As a charter captain, it really doesn't matter much to me, most of my clients just want to catch fish and take some home with them. In fact, I've never had any complaints about having to release fish over 23 inches, most people say they wish they had a rule like that where they live. But...as a business owner it means a lot. We are a unique area, with an awesome fishery, and it's nice to show people that we take care of our fishery. Even if "biologically" speaking the law is not needed, it's nice to be able to promote the area as a trophy fishery. Lots of people come up here because they know they always have a shot at catching a trophy walleye, if we remove the current law, that perception could change with many anglers. (2) In almost every article written about the bay, the author explains the "one over 23 rule" and how "unique" it is. There are a lot of businesses in the area that cater mostly to fishermen. Anglers have to eat, sleep, buy gas, purchase bait, tackle, etc. Why do something that might hurt the local economy? I agree with my brother Kevin (and that doesn't always happen) "if it ain't broke...don't try to fix it". Thanks to Mr. Herman for coming to our meeting.
Mike: Thanks Captain Ken Lee for the thanks for coming to your meeting. I appreciate that.
(1) Changing this regulation is about allowing folks who choose to, to keep more larger walleyes when they catch them. If this regulation were changed, it would not mean that we are not taking care of our fishery. Changing this regulation will not change the “trophy” fishery you now have here in LBDN since the very robust data we have from our research shows that relatively very few of the walleyes harvested in LBDN are over 23 inches long (ie. 2,200 harvested from an estimated population of 88,000 fish over 23 inches). And I would never do anything to hurt the local economy! This is my town too!
(2) The regulation may be “unique” but that is not the reason the population characteristics are they way they are in LBDN. The population looks like it does due to habitat availability, forage abundance, etc.