Little Bay de Noc Fishing Reports

Yes, unfortunately we knew it was coming.  We (area anglers, Bay de Noc
Great Lakes Sportfishermen, and area businesses) have been lobbying to keep the slot limit on the Bay, however the ones that make the decisions seem to feel that it (the rule) is not necessary.  The DNR can spew whatever numbers they want at us, but there's more to life than just numbers!  They totally disregarded our attempts to keep the slot, they totally disregarded the "social" aspect of having the slot, and are certainly losing a lot of credibility within the angling community.  By their own numbers (if you believe their numbers), the slot did not have any negative or positive effect on the fishery, so like they say, "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it".  It was a nice rule I thought that showed we like to protect our fish, and in the back of anglers' minds they always knew they had a great shot at a trophy walleye, a great marketing tool for the area.  We still have a great fishery, and we still have lots of big fish, I just hope anglers keep in mind that you'll have a lot fewer 30 inchers in the future if you keep all the 26's, 27's, and 28's.  The "one over 23" rule just seemed to make sense!   

Very sorry about the "mess" in the beginning of my post.  I do not know why this happened. 

I read about the loss of the slot limit in a magazine about a week ago. But I thought I would let myself "cool down" before posting anything. I agree that there may not be any "biological reason" for keeping the slot limit. But at the same time, I have never heard the DNR say that the slot limit does any "biological" harm either. To me, if the DNR has no scientific evidence of harm done by the slot limit, and the people they work for want it kept, IT SHOULD BE KEPT! Furthermore with our biologist's pending retirement, I think he should have done what judges sometimes do, excuse himself from the issue. It should have been left up to whomever replaces him as he will be the one to deal with these issues in the future. Both of our former biologists George Madison and Jerry Peterson, used to get out of the office and stop in to the baitshops and the like to get a feel for what was going on and discuss the fishery. To my knowledge, this no longer happens. Personally, I think the DNR should be sued for "breach of contract" with the people they are supposed to serve. The illegal gill netting certainly should have been a consideration before doing away with the slot limit. I think more time should have been taken to fully see what kind of impact (or lack of impact) it has had on the fishery. I know Jerry Peterson originally agreed with dropping the slot limit, but he changed his opinion after the illegal netting came to light. According to what the DNR has said in the local paper, they feel that as many as 72,000 pounds of walleye were taken over a 5 year period. If that's the case, and you use a 5 pound average size (since I was told the netters used large mesh nets and only caught big fish) it would equal 14,400 fish. Keep that figure in mind. Troy Zorn is currently doing a survey of the fish populations on the bays  http://thecountypress.mihomepaper.com/news/2009-11-11/Sports/DNR_research_targets_better_understanding_of_fishe.html . Using his numbers, that means the netters pretty much wiped out the same number of fish that spawn in the Cedar and Escanaba Rivers. Mr. Zorn stated that the the Cedar River run was 8500 fish in 2005, with the Escanaba River run at 8400 fish in 2008. He also states the Rapid River had a good run in 2009. Perhaps he has not seen what a good run in the Rapid River looks like because the 2009 run was pathetic! Especially when compared to runs seen in 2005 and earlier. But...if a person has not observed a big run, they have nothing for comparison, so I do not hold this against Mr. Zorn. The DNR always looks to their data to back up their position. But it's all in how you present that data. Here is an example of what I mean--You are 50 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. But did you know only 10% of smokers get lung cancer? In previous posts the DNR has stated they estimate the population of walleye in Little Bay de Noc to be 450,000 . I have heard that this estimate was based on an unproven model. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Still, it's upsetting to think the DNR would drop the slot limit until some time had passed to see exactly what effect (if any) the netters may have had. Like I said, I have never heard the DNR say that the slot limit has a negative effect on the fishery, so why not take a wait and see attitude. In other words, "play it safe". Especially since a 28-30 inch fish is about 16-18 years old if I remember correctly. I had a 30 inch fish aged some years ago and I may not remember it perfectly, but I think it was 17 years old. Dropping the slot limit has made me lose a lot of respect for the way things are done in the DNR. Essentially, no accountability. I think some major changes need to be made like having the Natural Resources Commision be elected by the people in their respective districts. Not political appointees. Their sole job should be to represent the people in their district. Which obviously doesn't happen now! In all the charters my brother has done, he has never had a client complain about having to release a fish over 23 inches. In fact, many have said they wished they had the same regulations on their home waters. I'm sure most folks would love to abolish as many regulations as possible (me included) in this over regulated world we live in. But here you had a regulation that a clear majority felt good about and I think to some extent took pride in. With the state that this country is in right now, what's wrong with that???

-- Edited by catman on Friday 27th of November 2009 11:52:34 PM

Thanks for that. It at least gives me a starting point. I love how they say "The Commission conducts monthly, public meetings in locations throughout Michigan" For next years meetings, one will be held in the "UPPER PENINSULA," all the 11 others will be held in Lansing.

With all due respect Mr. Herman, I have to disagree with some of your comments.  As far as anglers "whining about the regulation being too long and complicated".  I have had several hundred clients in the boat with me and we have had thousands of guests stay with us at our resort, and I personally have not had one person "complain" or "whine" about the regulation.  It was a pretty clear cut regulation and easy to enforce. 

As far as the issue appearing in several newspapers throughout the state of Michigan...you're right... I did not see it in any newspapers...BECAUSE I DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO ANY NEWSPAPERS FROM DOWNSTATE THAT MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THE PROPOSED CHANGE.  I never saw it in any local newspapers in our area.  I might have missed it, so that's my fault I guess. 

As far as it being "sour grapes"...that's totally wrong.  I'm p'd off...that's what it is.  Not because it didn't go my way...but because it didn't go the way that over 90% of the people wanted it to go. 

The DNR can spew whatever numbers they want at us and make things the way they want.  If you want to show that the fish are home-bodies, just tag small 15 to 20 inch males that feed like crazy after spawning and you'll get lots of tag returns from fish that stay close to the spawning grounds for several weeks after the spawn.  If you want to "attempt" to show that the fish are smarter than we are...just tag larger adult females the have a tendency to leave the bay after spawning (it's been proven through radio tracking studies). 

The DNR is definitely losing credibility and respect...when our club received a letter from the Fisheries division of the DNR this past spring that stated, "There are no plans to do any damage assessment on the walleye population due to illegal commercial fishing"...that pretty much summed it up right there.  You would think that would have been the first thing the state would have and should have wanted to do!  You should see people's jaws drop when we tell them that little tidbit of information we received from DNR Fisheries Division.   

With regards to Mr. Jerry Peterson...in his own defense, he did not know the extent of the illegal netting operation when he voiced his original opinion regarding the slot limit.  He now supports keeping the slot limit based on what was uncovered this past winter.  Several other individuals have been apprehended since that first incident, so it's not a problem that will just go away.


Here's something everybody should read...you can either laugh at it or you can get mad about it, but either way it sure shows what CAN happen to a body of water when the "DATA" is incorrect!!!



  

Lansing - There will be changes in the walleye regulations on CheboyganCounty's MullettLake beginning next year. But not because Native American tribal members are taking more fish than in the past. Changes are being made because the walleye population in the 17,360-acre lake is not as big as it was estimated to be.

"Fishing changes would have been made for next year, we just had to speed things up a little,"_DNR Fisheries Division Chief Kelley Smith told the Natural Resources Commission's Policy Committee on Wildlife and Fisheries at its meeting earlier this month in Lansing.

According to the DNR, when the consent decree with five Native American tribes in Michigan was being negotiated in 2007, biologists had to estimate the walleye population in every lake in the ceded territory of the 1836 Treaty of Washington. Since it was physically impossible to survey every lake, biologists used a model that had been used in Wisconsin to estimate the population of many lakes, including Mullett. They came up with an estimate of three adult walleyes per acre, or about 49,000 walleyes in the lake.

Last year, biologists were able to physically survey the lake, and the number of walleyes was substantially lower than the previous estimate. Biologists now estimate there are 2,648 spawning walleyes, which gives them a realistic range of between 2,001 and 3,577 adult (15 inches or longer) walleyes.

Biologists realized the harvest based on 49,000 fish would have to be reduced to preserve the population.

During negotiations for the decree, state and tribal officials agreed that the safe harvest level (number of fish that can be taken each year without hurting the population) for any lake in the ceded territory would not exceed 50 percent of the population. Then they agreed to take a more conservative approach and back that number down to 35 percent. That 35 percent harvest is then split between the tribes and state-licensed anglers.

The split can be made in two ways - either a threshold-level procedure or an allocation-based procedure. Under the threshold-level, state-licensed anglers get 25 percent of the allowable safe harvest and tribes get 10 percent (5 percent on lakes under 1,000 acres). Under the allocation-based procedure, which the tribes can ask for at any time, state-licensed anglers get 17.5 percent of the allowable safe harvest and tribal members get 17.5 percent.

MullettLake has been managed under a threshold-level procedure. But when biologists announced that there were just 2,648 adult walleyes in the lake and that the allowable catch would have to be drastically reduced, the tribes asked for the allocation-based procedure. That would allow them to harvest 463 fish a year (17.5 percent)_instead of 265 (10 percent).

The tribes have since backed off of that request and are willing to work with the state to address the low walleye numbers in MullettLake.

"The tribes agreed to withdraw their allocation request," Smith told the commission. "We're trying to work through this for the best possible results for all the parties involved."

With the walleye population in Mullett now estimated at 2,648, state-licensed and tribal members would be able to take no more than 926 walleyes. Under the threshold-level procedure, that would allow tribal members to harvest 265 walleyes and state-licensed anglers to take 661 fish.

"A change has been coming, no matter what," Smith said. "So far this year (since April 1), 836 walleyes have already been harvested," and the ice fishing season hasn't started. Fishing seasons run April 1-March 31.

Smith said he is working with the tribes to develop new regulations for the lake that will be in effect beginning next year.

"We're looking at possibly lowering the (bag) limit, a shorter season, a higher minimum size, or some combination of all of them," Smith said. He added that there will be intense monitoring of the lake for the next five years.


Wow...there sure is a big difference between 49,000 fish and 3,000 fish!!! 

"A handful of common sense is worth a bushel of learning"
proverbs

Thanks for this great country and the opportunity to agree to disagree!!!