I'm sure you have see that Duke posted the revised management plan for comment: <url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … um.php?f=1">[Permission to view this media is denied]
When you respond, don't hesitate to ask WHY Michigan is the only state or province that allows spearing. I would even encourage you to ask them to defend their position to allow muskellunge spearing here in Michigan.
I already sent out an email and adressed spearing but wasn't overly agressive on the subject. Perhaps another email from a different adress is in order. [smilie=brows.gif]
Will, in your opinion what are the odds that we come out of this with dramitically changed regulations in regards to spearing? Any chance of an all out ban? What kind of public support would it have to have during this comment period? I have tried to get my steelhead/trout fishing buddies to at least send emails but they have little interest in the matter so my requests are often in vain.
The management plan and any regulations proposals aer completely different animals. The management plan isn't intended to address regulations at all, though they are mentioned in the plan it is only from a historical management perspective.
That said, the management plan does address usergroups and spearing. This would be the correct document to have them defend their position, if they can.
The amount of support isn't really important. As the fisheries chief would say "it's not a popularity contest". The quality of the comments are important.
I think this is well done, this time around. There were some issues that aren't included that I wish would have been included but this thing has to get done and can't wait around for every little thing.
"Mayhem" said:
So I take it then they are waiting to see what the final approved management plan is before considering any regulation changes? If that is the case are we still hoping regulation changes can be implemented for the 2012 season or will it likely be longer?
No, the regulations are being worked on while this is in the comment period. This could get bogged down and it wouldn't have an impact on regulations at all.
We're (coolwater regs committee) supposed to be reviewing a set of regulations in early March. If we can all agree on an option and/or a variation of an option or maybe a few options there will either be an online comment period and/or public meetings.
This all needs to be wrapped in a nice package with a bow on it by early fall so it can be in a bill and approved for 2012.
For all muskellunge populations, achieving maximum size potential requires low exploitation. Theoretically, an instantaneous natural mortality rate of 0.22 (Brenden et al. 2007) with no exploitation or fishing mortality would result in annual survival of 80.3%. For muskellunge, a good recruitment level of 0.4 age-0 fish per acre would be reduced to only 0.07
fish per acre by age-8 (average size 42 inches) if only natural mortality occurred. Adding in instantaneous fishing mortality at 0.18 (Brenden et al. 2007) would lower the number at age 8 to 0.03 fish per acre. So in a population with 15 age-groups and fishing, the combined abundance of
age-8 and older fish would be 0.10 fish per acre. Therefore, the age and size distribution of a muskellunge population is very sensitive to even low levels of exploitation. As another example of this fragile nature, removing all fishing or hooking mortality from a normally exploited
population would increase the abundance of large muskellunge by only about 2 fish per 10 acres, and this would take 15 years to occur completely and at least 8 years to even be noticeable in the
population.
Is this basically saying that in order for muskies to grow to their full potential that there can only be .10 fish per acre? Is this really accurate??
Provide fisheries biologists with a simple regulatory framework for managing muskellunge to provide fishing opportunities for memorably-large fish, while addressing the diverse interests of various muskellunge fishing interest groups. Until more detailed information characterizing the muskellunge populations and muskellunge anglers of Michigan becomes
available, the current statewide regulation (Table 2) should be maintained.
I don't like the sounds of this… And it's even repeated at the end under the Summary and Prioritized Actions. (p.24)
I'm reading a lot how they say there is not enough information from anglers. Is this a fault of ours? Maybe we would be better off submitting all of our fish that are over 42" for the Master Angler program.
Jim they are just using this as an example of how small and fragile wild muskie populations are even without any fishing induced exploitation. Basically an example of how very low natural recruitment coupled with natural mortality self regulates muskie populations at a very low density. Even with all harvest eliminated the populations would increase very slightly and take several years to make a noticeable impact. The point is even a healthy population can't afford many fish being killed by anglers/spear chuckers.
Growth potential is more dependent on habitat and available forage base than density. However lower densities often do mean less pressure on forage and thus can produce larger fish but only if those fish can live the 15 + years required to achieve super jumbo status without being harvested.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
[i]I don't like the sounds of this… And it's even repeated at the end under the Summary and Prioritized Actions. (p.24)
.
I agree, the status quo cannot be acceptable and that paragraph is alarming. Not enough information to consider a regulation change? What exactly are they looking for? The results from the antrim chain study were pretty damming of the current regulations and that was a major study as far as fisheries studies are concerned.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
Well, sheesh. I wish you didn't have to go to college to understand half of this stuff. 🙄 I only have a highschool diploma.
Haha, I am a scientist by trade and sadly have to wade through journals written like that on a daily basis. Personally I think many doctors make their data sound as complicated as possible so its harder for someone to pick out their mistakes.
"Mayhem" said:
[quote="Jim tenHaaf"][i]I don't like the sounds of this… And it's even repeated at the end under the Summary and Prioritized Actions. (p.24)
.
I agree, the status quo cannot be acceptable and that paragraph is alarming. Not enough information to consider a regulation change? What exactly are they looking for? The results from the antrim chain study were pretty damming of the current regulations and that was a major study as far as fisheries studies are concerned.
this is especially true for the antrim chain…at least they have info to warrant change there, so why not get it started. They also stated that they want to have regulations that are based on specific situations, and leave them open to change based on studies (ie the antrim study!!!) so lets do it already!
I'm certainly please about the mention of GLS in the drowned-river lakes of West Michigan, however, I still have to put personal bias aside if it is more important to stock limited available fish elsewhere after the brood lakes are covered. The GLS muskie program will always be painfully slow progress as long as the GLS program is so constricted by our limited fish culture facility. Once the muskie plan is finished and approved we need to find large funding sources to expand more muskie ponds and forage sources. We may be raising carp fry this spring to improve food conversion. All that being reality I can still have hope for local GLS muskie, but a bit further in the future.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
Provide fisheries biologists with a simple regulatory framework for managing muskellunge to provide fishing opportunities for memorably-large fish, while addressing the diverse interests of various muskellunge fishing interest groups. Until more detailed information characterizing the muskellunge populations and muskellunge anglers of Michigan becomes
available, the current statewide regulation (Table 2) should be maintained.I don't like the sounds of this… And it's even repeated at the end under the Summary and Prioritized Actions. (p.24)
I'm reading a lot how they say there is not enough information from anglers. Is this a fault of ours? Maybe we would be better off submitting all of our fish that are over 42" for the Master Angler program.
Don't be too "doom and gloom" about that statement. Personally, I see it as a direct response to Mike Holmes conastantly pushing for a 30-36" size limit. It is blatantly obvious to those who drafted this plan that we are in need of revisions to the regulations.
I wish they would have had separate growth charts for males and females. The average size as it is makes it look like there is 2 years of spawning before the fish reach minimum size.. but, with the females growing faster, above average size, its more than possible to have a female 42" that's in its first spawning season… of anyone has a source for this type of info, let me know and I'd be glad to attach it to my list.
"vano397" said:
I wish they would have had separate growth charts for males and females. The average size as it is makes it look like there is 2 years of spawning before the fish reach minimum size.. but, with the females growing faster, above average size, its more than possible to have a female 42" that's in its first spawning season… of anyone has a source for this type of info, let me know and I'd be glad to attach it to my list.
The biologists that will use this document understand the sampling and that the growth chart used represents all fish sampled. Males may exceed females 2:1 or more. The problem is, the public will see this and get the wrong idea.
This is a quote from our regulations proposal:
Muskellunge mature at older ages compared to other freshwater fishes. Females typically do not reproduce until they are six to eight years old. The DNRE has stated that, based on our current regulations most of our staff suggested that our recommendations are for 4-5 years of spawning (K. Smith. DNRE, personal communication). The DNRE recommendation coupled with the average age at maturation indicates that female muskellunge should not be harvested until they reach at least 10 years old. In Thornapple Lake the annual broodstock collection has shown that the average age of 42” female muskellunge is 7.75 years. Ten year old female muskellunge in Thornapple Lake average 45” in length. Similarly 66% of Lake St Clair female muskellunge are 42” at 6-7 years of age and the average length at 10-12 years was 47.8”. On one of our natural waters in northern Michigan, the Antrim Chain, female muskellunge have an average length at 6 years old of 42” and an average length at 10-12 years of 52.5”. This is illustrates that the current MSL is not protective enough to meet the DNRE recommendations. The current MSL of 42” allows a female muskellunge to reach maturity for approximately one attempt to reproduce. The MMA requests a DNRE review of the 42” MSL and suggests altering the MSL to a minimum of 46”.
Where did the info come from??? I just think if they draft a managment proposal like this it should be accurate, and not misleading to the public. basically during the comment period, if the public isn't fully informed, they won't make enough comments about exploitation of immature females to make them do anything about it. I just want to point that out to them in my somments is all. I suppose you could deduce this from reading their info that gives all the facts needed, just scattered thoughout the proposal so badly it wouldn't give the average joe the idea.
"vano397" said:
Where did the info come from???
What info specifically?
"vano397" said:
I just think if they draft a managment proposal like this it should be accurate, and not misleading to the public.
It is accurate data and how growth rates are usually presented in papers of this type. I'm not saying it's good, just that it's basically industry standard.
Keep in mind that Joe Public isn't going to look at this and make comments, the average person would quit reading after the first page. Comments are going to come from the users of the resource.
326
11