Thanks Thanks:  1
Likes Likes:  3
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: U.P. Trout

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    2,545

    Default U.P. Trout

    Looks like the State of MI. is out to destroy trout fishing in the U.P. with their limits.
    Natural Resources Commission to consider higher brook trout possession limits on some UP streams

  2. Thanks Ard thanked for this post
  3. #2

    Default Re: U.P. Trout

    I didn't understand it last year when they did this for a large number of streams. And I certainly don't understand it now. I guess the only good thing is that many of these 10 trout limit streams - especially the ones designated as such last year - are not all that easy to get to and hopefully the people who would actually take 10 trout won't bother with having to work so hard to get at them. That's my hope at any rate.

  4. Likes Ard liked this post
  5. #3

    Default Re: U.P. Trout

    I don't know about the UP but in Wisconsin, the small streams in my area have higher than "normal" because no one fishes them. You can't fly fish them and the are in thick brush and timber. And they are full of stunted brook trout. So these are streams that could stand to have the brook trout populations thinned. And there is no lower size limits because they are so small, you need a bunch of them to make a meal. Our max though is 5 trout with no minimum size.

    These are the streams that are colored green in our regulation book.

    https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/doc...l1718Press.pdf

    I looked at one of the proposed rivers (Presque Isle River (Gogebic County), upstream of U.S. 2 (155 miles)) on Google maps. That is a lot of river, much of which is not easily accessed. There is only one small town, Marenisco at Hwy 64 and Hwy2 along the entire 155 miles. I suppose this section could be hit very hard. But I doubt the trout population in the rest of the river would be threatened because a lot of it would simply not be fished.

    Take a look at the map and see what you think. The area in consideration is Upstream (to the south) of Hwy 2 and south of Marenisco on the map below:

    Google Maps

    Rockriver, being a Yupper, you would have insight as to the population and what they would do. Rather than reacting emotionally, what do you honestly think after looking at the area on the map considering the levels of population and the accessibility to the river?
    Regards,

    Silver



    "Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

  6. Likes Ard, el jefe liked this post
  7. #4

    Default Re: U.P. Trout

    The right question is why do it? It takes 10 of those tiddlers to make a decent snack anyway.

    Is the goal to remove stunted fish so trophies can flourish on waters you cannot reach anyway?

    Th DNR has too much time/resources on its hands.

    ddb

  8. #5

    Default Re: U.P. Trout

    Quote Originally Posted by ddb View Post
    The right question is why do it? It takes 10 of those tiddlers to make a decent snack anyway.

    Is the goal to remove stunted fish so trophies can flourish on waters you cannot reach anyway?

    Th DNR has too much time/resources on its hands.

    ddb
    You are 2 for 2 on logical fallacies.

    1. "The right question is why do it? It takes 10 of those tiddlers to make a decent snack anyway." By assuming that no one will take 10 trout, you are begging the question. 10 is more than 5 so if the fish are small, it is more likely that a "meat" angler will fish if the limit is higher.

    Fallacy: Begging the Question

    2. "Is the goal to remove stunted fish so trophies can flourish on waters you cannot reach anyway?" This is the straw man fallacy in that I never suggested that there would be trophies in waters that cannot be reached. There will be no trophies on waters that cannot be reached. For there to be larger trout from taking more of the stunted fish, the waters must be able to be reached.

    Fallacy: Straw Man
    Regards,

    Silver



    "Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy

  9. #6

    Default Re: U.P. Trout

    Let me fill you guys in on some info if I may. I have been talking in great length about this to some people doing some groundwork on this issue and a few biologists. TU did some research and obviously, this is detrimental to trout streams. We (myself and some other guides/fly fishermen of the U.P.) have voiced our opinions on this subject.

    Please, allow me to elaborate. By killing 10 trout and always the larger fish, you increasingly hurt a stream or river. The larger fish are your breeding fish. They have the best genes. They populate the river by producing the most eggs/fry/young etc. The State of Michigan argued that the watershed had enough numbers to support this. This is completely untrue (obviously) and they offered ZERO evidence to support that. We have surmised that it is just an excuse to sell more fishing licenses.

    My family has been fishing a certain branch of a river system in the U.P. We have been fishing it since the late 1800s. In the last decade or longer, it has only been fished by a handful of people. We practice catch and release ONLY. When this river is fished by worm dunkers etc a little more heavily than normal, it takes 3 or 4 years until the river becomes better in quality AND numbers. I normally find at LEAST one 15" brook trout or better every single trip. My 3 best in the last few years are 17.75" 16.25" and 16" Those are accurate and precise measurements. As many of you know, it's not easy to find those size brook trout in the United States. Our practice of C & R has literally improved the quality and overall health of this river. If you've never caught a monster brookie on the 3 wt on dries... you are missing out.

    Back to the topic. I have been to DNR studies meetings. In the rivers that are heavily pressured where the brook trout size limit is 8 inches, you catch mostly 7-inch fish with larger fish past 8 or 9 inches becoming rare. It's not exactly hard to imagine and come to the same conclusion. The DNR also put out a statement that brook only live and average of a few years. THAT is also completely false. These fish only sexually mature after a few years. These fish can live past 5 years. Obviously, if they are killed then that number would be lower. Myself and others do not understand the reasoning behind the proposal. We are trying very hard to make our voices heard. When the State asked people to voice themselves, an overwhelming majority said they did NOT want the limit increase. The State ignored that and moved on with the proposal anyway. A friend of mine did some questionaires and polls on what they would rather see, decent numbers with some trophy fish or better numbers of smaller fish. I am sure you know how those surveys ended up.

    I am more than certain that all of this is completely accurate. Forgive me as I am extremely tired as to any typos.

    -Jim
    James Pryal
    Into The Wild Fly Fishing

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2018, 01:00 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2018, 07:00 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 11:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-05-2012, 05:00 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-29-2012, 04:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •