Explanation
Based on a number of facts and data, I believe we
know what we need to make a change like this to our Michigan bass season and
have good expectations of the results based on existing and expected levels
of fishing and bass populations. I strongly believe the main factors in this
issue are more social than biological and that a substantial number of bass
anglers now feel a completely closed bass season is not necessary to protect
most bass populations in Michigan. This belief is supported by the large numbers
of bass anglers who already participate in spring bass fishing as MDNR
surveys have demonstrated. I have polled the MBCF member clubs for support of
this proposed change. So far, 43 clubs have voted to support such a change as
written above with no clubs voting against.
There are national and state data, and accepted
practices to support this proposal. A compilation of some of this support
follows:
1. Very few states, of the 49 with freshwater bass, now have a
statewide bass closure. Only 6 states have a statewide or near statewide
closed bass season where you technically can’t legally fish for bass at all.
They are Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, New York and Vermont.
Wisconsin, Maine, and Vermont have extensive legal catch-and-release or reduced
creel seasons. New York has a later opener, but early May openers for
catch-and-release on Lake Erie and the Finger Lakes. The other 42 states
allow some type of legal bass fishing year-round statewide with a few
exceptions on individual lakes and rivers/streams for various reasons.
a.
The trend lately has been to liberalize bass seasons and/or allow
legal catch-and-release angling. Several Northern states have recently
lengthened their bass seasons by adding early catch-and-release or reduced
creel seasons. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the major ones. I’ve talked to
biologists from many of these states and get told pretty much the same thing:
bass anglers want to fish and the available studies nationwide do not support
the need for a closed bass season on the majority of the waters in our
country.
b.
There are as many variations on how exactly the liberalized seasons
are setup as there are states with them, but in talking to the state
biologists, the common thread appears to be a combination of what many anglers
seemed to want and what the biologists were willing to try, not necessarily
what is supported by decades of available studies. If enough anglers want the
additional fishing, the biologists have tended to acquiesce to those demands.
2. The bulk of the existing studies and
science does not support the need for a closed bass season on the majority of
good bass waters. In state after state, local, district and state level
fisheries biologists repeated this when I asked why they don’t have a closed
bass season. You all read and review a lot of the same studies. I can see
this for myself when I review the actual studies too. I have a pretty good
collection of them in my possession. In Michigan, some of the waters that
some biologists feel need more protection are the Northern smallmouth lakes,
which have had little or no spawn protection under our present season for 30
years since the bass spawn after the Memorial weekend opener almost every
single year when they can be legally fished for and harvested. Despite this,
I can personally vouch that many of these lakes have even improved in the
past 15 years despite more intelligent fishing pressure. Apparently, things
like habitat changes, and water quality and clarity changes have
overwhelmingly more to do with bass population success than angling pressure
along with the propensity for the majority of dedicated bass anglers to
release most of their catch.
3. It is well known that a large number of
bass anglers fishing Michigan waters do not honor our present bass season.
They purposely practice catch-and-release spring bass fishing around the
state. Our own catch-and-release study (91-6) demonstrates the probable
extent of this practice and that it has been occurring significantly since at
least the late 1980s. Inadvertent catches of spring bass have occurred for as
long other species could be legally fished for on the same waters during the
spring. Bass anglers are more knowledgeable and get around a lot more now
than they used to. Despite this significant spring bass pressure, our bass
fishing in Michigan has generally improved during that entire time including
some dramatically better smallmouth fishing on many waters that seems to
coincide with improving water clarity more than anything else.
a. This past spring, I fished Hardy Dam in April. The smallmouth
fishing was very good. We caught a lot of bass and a good number of quality
bass. This was well before the spawn. The lake had large numbers of bass
anglers there that day. I’m told that is normal every weekend there in the
spring. Hardy has been open to legal spring catch-and-release bass fishing
for 15 years. It’s pretty hard to convince intelligent bass anglers that they
shouldn’t be fishing for spring bass and spawning bass, especially smallmouths,
when they can see for themselves that despite all the dire warnings from
conservative biologists not only has the fishing – it has actually gotten
better on many lakes. We are seeing some of the best smallmouth fishing ever
the past 10 years.
4. Bass are the number one sought fish in
the nation and the number one sport fish in Michigan after panfish according
to 2001 US Fish & Wildlife angler survey statistics despite all the
varieties of fishing we have available to us. The largest fishing organization
in the world is the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (BASS). The large number
of bass clubs and the increasing participation in bass tournaments
demonstrate the great popularity of bass fishing. No one should be surprised
that there is a great deal of interest in increased bass fishing
opportunities. Michigan’s short bass season forces these anglers to decide to
disregard the regulations and target bass in the spring illegally or cram
that much more effort into our short summer when lakes are most crowded. Or
to leave Michigan to fish in surrounding states that do not have a closed
bass season, taking their dollars out of Michigan to states that don’t
necessarily have the vast fishing resources we do.
a. Frequent bass anglers are big spenders. MBCF studies have
shown the direct impact of a state tournament runs $75,000 to well over
$100,000 to the local economy. Even though we would not be able to have large
tournaments during a catch-and-release season, the dollars are staggering
that would be kept and/or gained for the Michigan economy. It is estimated
that nationally, 60% of freshwater dollars are spent on bass fishing. A
recent Minnesota DNR study showed that the average angler spent over $1,000
per year on fishing. But the less than 1,000 MN BASS Federation members
accounted for 4 to 6 times that average each per year. Dedicated bass anglers
pump a lot of money into the economy.
5. I’ve said for years that our resource
management involves too much social management. I understand why and how this
happens, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t other choices that are more
preferable and attainable. I received permission from the Minnesota DNR to
quote some of the information from their website which supports what so many
biologists told me when I asked them why they don’t have a closed bass
season. I’m required to fully cite the specific sources for each quote, and
provide a caveat that rules and management techniques may change and people
should consult the Minnesota DNR Website at (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/index.html)
or call the Information Center at (888) MINNDNR for the most up-to-date
information.
6. From
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/bass/management.html on bass
management: Largemouth, Habitat Protection
“Largemouth are adaptable and
prolific. They live and successfully spawn in a variety of conditions. Being
very prolific, only a few bass are required to populate a large body of
water. Consequently, stocking plays a very small role in largemouth
management. It is usually limited to circumstances where largemouth are being
introduced to newly filled basins, winter kill lakes or chemically
"rehabilitated" waters.”
What is important in managing the
largemouth is the protection of its habitat. Specifically, the largemouth
needs the following if it is to flourish:
Spawning areas with a firm bottom of
sand, mud or gravel;
Beds of rooted aquatic weeds or other
heavy cover, such as logs, to provide protection for fry and fingerlings, and
cover and ambush sites for adults.
Adequate dissolved oxygen, particularly
during the winter.”
“Smallmouth Bass Management, Habitat
As with the largemouth, the best
smallmouth management is the protection of its habitat.”
a.
The smallmouth part continues to detail problems with acid rain on
some lakes and the common problem for many states of pollution of rivers and
streams that are adversely affecting smallmouth populations in those types of
waters – rivers and streams. The point is that this is an issue with soil
erosion, extreme water level fluctuations, poor sewage treatment, non-point
source pollution, wetlands degradation, farm runoff and livestock effects,
not fishing. Fishing is an easier regulation target and sometimes more
conservative regulations are used in an effort to try to make up for the real
problems.
b.
An interesting topic is to ask a selection of fisheries biologist
from Northern and Southern states about how successful using bass fishing
regulations to compensate for Mother Nature and Man’s affect on the
environment are over time. I can’t think of almost any really good
improvements in a fishery, other than very small ones, that have come
directly as the result of fishing regulations that limit bass fishing in the
last 20 years. All of the notable ones I can think of have resulted from
natural and/or manmade habitat changes on the lake like major dredging;
better aquatic plant management; major water level changes; and water quality
improvements like the Clean Water Act and possibly the effect of zebra
mussels and other exotics also.
c.
Catch-and-release fishing’s popularity has probably had a positive
impact on the quality of some bass fisheries, but cycles in the fish
populations still occur that can’t be tied to any change in fishing pressure
or fisheries regulations. This alone demonstrates to me and many other
anglers that in many healthy fisheries, whether we fish or not, major changes
in the bass population will occur based on the environment and natural
conditions over time. If the habitat and water quality are taken care of, the
fisheries will generally be good to excellent most years under common angler
practices.
d.
For bass, unless the number of anglers dramatically increases and
catch-and-release’s popularity drastically sinks, most good fisheries will
continue to be good most years – largemouth AND smallmouth. All indications
are that bass angler numbers will not dramatically increase in Michigan and
catch-and-release is still gaining in popularity. I believe no one should
‘manage’ fisheries for what might happen in the future.
7. From
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/bass/biology.html on bass biology:
Largemouth
“After spawning, the female moves off
into deep water and does not feed for a couple of weeks. The male guards the
nest until the eggs hatch and mature into a swarm of black fry. During this
time, the male strikes savagely at intruding fish (or lures) but does not
eat. It may even carry intruders and objects from the nest but then ejects
them. When the fry reach an inch in length, they leave the nest. Then the
male resumes feeding and in fact may eat any young bass he encounters.
Largely because of the male's
fastidiousness in building and guarding the nest, many fry survive, and a few
adult bass can quickly populate new waters. In fact, researchers have
found no correlation between the number of spawning bass and the subsequent
number of young-of-the-year fish. The success of the spawn depends entirely
on good spawning areas and stable weather. A severe cold front, for
example, may cause the male to desert the nest. Then the eggs or fry can be
eaten by other fish.”
a. Some people say that fishing pressure is similar to the
effects of the environment, but fishing pressure will rarely affect every
bedding bass in larger lakes – also supported by studies. Only a few studies
have shown a large percentage of the bass caught over a short time period.
These have pretty much all been dones on smaller inland lakes and/or
infertile far North lakes with low bass densities. On most US waters bass
spawn over an extended time period and varied depths. Regardless, no
study has shown even if a high percentage of the bass where caught an actual
demonstrable drop in the adult bass population occurred because of this
fishing (again for largemouth or smallmouth) – while weather and adverse natural
conditions can affect a large percentage of bedding bass. That is a
key difference in deciding whether or not regulating fishing during the bass
spawn (or ANY other period some consider bass to be extra vulnerable in) is
truly necessary in the end or at least to what degree it is regulated.
8. Also, from
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/bass/biology.html on bass biology:
Smallmouth
“In the spring bass disperse to their
spawning areas in gravelly shallows of lakes or large, gentle eddies in streams.
The male builds the nest. The female lays 2,000 to 10,000 eggs and then heads
for deep water. The male remains on the nest two weeks or more, guarding eggs
and fry.
As with the largemouth, research on
smallmouth has shown no relationship between the number of spawning fish and
the success of the spawn. The strength of the year class depends solely on
water conditions - in particular, the absence of a sudden cold snap or muddy
floodwaters that can kill eggs and fry.”
a.
And again, from a Northern state with a closed season, repeating
other Northern and Southern states are saying – the success of the yearly
spawn does not rely on the absence of fishing pressure, but weather
and water conditions. There is no research that has shown a direct
link between spawning and recruitment. There is no research that has
shown that fishing during the spawn harms the overall bass population over
time. In studies from Florida and Ontario, despite intense pressure on
spawning largemouth and smallmouth respectively, enough fry were observed
later in the same areas to demonstrate some bass were successful anyway in
spawning.
b.
There are studies looking at largemouth genetic effects possibly due
to bed-fishing, but I haven’t seen a general widespread acceptance that this
is a significant concern to bass populations. I will continue to look at this
information because I do care.
9. Despite this, anglers will sometimes
pressure their fisheries people to protect bass spawns (social management)
because of all the baggage we carry, especially in the North, that deals with
the supposed need to protect the bass spawn (we can’t shoot does either) –
mostly old reasons, but now even a new excuse. Example is the push suddenly
in Ohio to close Lake Erie in May and June to instant release fishing only
because of gobies even though the ongoing study on smallmouth bass spawning
is only in its second year and biologists at the Sandusky Research Unit told
me it would be 4 to 5 years before they would have any meaningful results to
consider on impacts to the numbers of keeper bass in the population. Yet,
because of all the talk about gobies, some anglers are ready to act now
‘before it’s too late’ even though gobies have been here for years, in Ohio
there has been no closed season at all and the bass fishing is some of the
best in the world. There is no evidence, nor a marked decrease in fishing
success to support this stance, yet the change is rammed through based on
preliminary data that doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know:
“catching an individual bass may be bad for it!” No kidding? But how does
that relate to the bass population, I would ask? The answer would of course
be, “we don’t know yet” because they haven’t finished the only study even
being done in a scientifically meaningful manner.
a.
A good example of an intelligent response to anglers requests that
aren’t scientifically supported is this from the Massachusetts fisheries from
an article in The Standard Times, SouthCoast TODAY, New Bedford, MA article
11-11-01, Biologists say thanks, but no thanks to
bass conservation effort – reported that MassWildlife fisheries biologists
opposed a measure by a group to create a statewide 30-day catch-and-release
season during the bass spawn. “It would be unnecessary because after 10 years
of intensive bass surveys, the majority of our bass waters are in great
shape.” Wonderful that they had the studies, but they could just as
easily say that there are no indications from any real data that the
fisheries are in any trouble because of it and that the history of existing
studies for most US waters don’t support a need for this type of protection.
b.
I don’t believe any of us should be too quick to give away fishing
rights without real good reasons. There are too many people who would like to
take away our rights altogether. Being a tournament angler, it could be just
an attempt to limit one way I enjoy fishing for bass. There are other ways to
manage tournaments. I am also very concerned that these kinds of restrictions
contribute to the drop in the number of persons who choose to fish, which is
bad for all of us. Why should I spend all the money I do on fishing if my
ability to do so keeps getting reduced?
10. Which brings me to one of the topics of the
moment: Mark Ridgway. Suddenly, people are using his name a lot. He’s one of
the latest reasons a few biologists and anglers are using to say we need to
have a closed season in Northern states especially for smallmouth bass. I
talked to Mark Ridgway for a while about his studies to find out first hand
what he has accomplished.
a.
First off, he seems like a reasonable person who cares about the
resource. He flat out told me he is trying to show that there is a direct
connection between the spawn and recruitment despite admitting that most biologists
and anglers don’t believe that. Mark told me that he does not want a bunch of
angry anglers or, especially, other fisheries biologists calling him, so he
asked I don’t quote him publicly. I will try to honor that by referring to
what I have read from his studies and other sources about them. So, since his
studies are being referred to often as proof we need closed seasons during
the spawn – at least for smallmouths, let’s look at what he has proved so
for? He’s proved that individual smallmouth bass beds may be harmed if the
bass is caught by an angler. Okay. So if the years of pre-existing data
are right and, as has been accepted my most biologists for decades, there is
no scientific correlation between the number of spawning bass and bass
recruitment, then he hasn’t changed what we already know, which is that the
harming of individual bass beds is not a concern for the overall population
of most waters.
b.
He’s also shown that we generally can’t say seasons do too much for
bass populations because the openers are usually fixed while the spawn is a
variable occurrence. Again, many biologists I’ve talked to stated this as
another reason they don’t feel a closed bass season is necessary.
c.
It’s one thing to want to show something and another thing entirely
to actually show it. I’m completely in favor of good research, but a proposal
isn’t an outcome. I’ve seen proposals for studies often cited as reasons we
need this or that.
d.
Interesting to me most about Ridgway’s studies is that people in
conservative management areas are using his spawning studies often and
claiming conclusions the studies have not reached, but none of these same
people are referring to his studies on bass tournaments that are favorable to
those anglers even though they won’t hesitate to mention tournaments as an
‘extra concern when held during the spawn’ again, despite no studies actually
showing a real impact on the bass population. It’s just assumed, I guess,
based on proposals.
11. Another common reason I’m given by a few
biologists on why we need a closed bass season in Michigan is our Northern
location and colder climate with its shorter growing season. One biologist
recently told me I didn’t understand because we only have 150 days above the
frost line. Of course, I understand some of our bass don’t grow as fast as
some Southern bass, but this is again an oversimplification of the overall
topic, isn’t it?
a.
Since Lake St. Clair smallmouths are a focal point for so much of
this issue, I like to use that as an example for comparison. I’ve asked three
different present and past MDNR fisheries biologists how long it takes to get
a keeper smallmouth on Lake St. Clair and the answer was consistently as
short as three years to as long as five, but generally four years. How do you
think that compares to Southern smallmouth ranges like Tennessee, Kentucky
and Northern Alabama? Well, it’s pretty much the same according to biologists
I talked to from various regions of those states. That tells me that growth
rates in bass are the result of several factors, not just average length of
growing season AND that St. Clair has excellent growth rates comparable to
some Southern waters. The MDNR Fisheries Research Report (FRR) No. 1944 found
that “Anchor Bay smallmouth grow at a faster rate
than a North American average compiled from many populations.”
b.
Factors such as the type of lake, habitat and available forage are
also very important to bass growth and we happen to have many waters with
good to excellent growth rates despite a shorter growing season. My response
therefore to someone who tells me that we have to have a closed bass season
because we have a shorter growing season is that if growth rates on some of
our waters are comparable to Southern waters, why can’t those waters have
seasons similar to the Southern seasons? I realize there are other factors
such as biomass and I’m not trying to completely oversimplify this topic the
other way, just point out that their arguments have obvious weaknesses.
12. After Ridgway’s studies, and possibly cited
more often as to why we can’t change the bass season, particularly on Lake
St. Clair, is the goby issue. As mentioned above ‘the gobies will eat all the
bass eggs while the bass is being caught’ they say Some of the obvious
weaknesses this claim has are that gobies have been in Lake St. Clair since
at least 1990 and yet the smallmouth bass fishing the past five years has
been the best I’ve ever seen on St. Clair by far in numbers and size despite
moderate to heavy spring bass fishing going on that entire time on St. Clair.
In fact, the MDNR’s own bass recruitment estimates show 1998 has a
particularly strong year class even though that was one of the heaviest
spring fishing pressure years. Apparently, a long period of stable warm
weather is more important to spawning success. Much has been made about
showing how a bed can be raided by gobies when the male bass is removed, yet
this ignores completely the accepted majority belief that there is no
correlation between the number of spawning bass and recruitment because of
the bass’ prolific spawning productivity and studies that show anglers can
rarely catch all spawning bass except on small or low density lakes.
a.
It ignores obvious references in multiple states’ publications and
studies that weather and water conditions will dictate the success of the
spawn, not fishing.
b.
It also ignores the most obvious issue, that gobies have not been
shown by anyone to have that large an affect on bass populations even after
five to thirteen years in the Great Lakes; That bass populations have
increased in many areas over that time.
c.
Despite gobies presence and all the spring bass fishing (incidental
catches or purposeful), one biologist told me we have had some of largest
year classes ever in general over the past 10 years in the Great Lakes
region. There is only one structured study actually looking at the
interaction between gobies and spawn fishing for Great Lakes smallmouths at
all as part of a larger look at reproductive issues of Western Lake Erie
smallmouths comparing them to Lake Opeongo (Canada shield lake) smallmouth,
and it is still in its initial stages.
d.
As I mentioned, I talked to Ohio Fisheries biologists at the Sandusky
Bay Research Unit about the study and was told it would be 4 to 5 years before
they would actually know if the bass population could be shown to be effected
by fishing spawning bass with gobies present in large numbers. And that the
only way they will really be able to attempt this is to do extensive creel
surveys of anglers down the road since young of year (YOY) smallmouths are
extremely difficult to study on Lake Erie.
e.
Of course, I can tell you that Ohio Lake Erie smallmouth fishing is
very, very good. The gobies have been there for a long time in conjunction
with Ohio’s year-round catch-and-kill season on bass with steady spring bass
tournament pressure. The winning weights and catch-rates in those tournaments
throughout this entire time have been consistently near the best in the
nation, and in the spring anglers can only fish Ohio waters of Lake Erie.
Large tournament circuits have set national catch records fishing Lake Erie
out of Ohio.
f.
Ohio biologists believe Western Lake Erie gobies have really become
abundant since 1998. They are concerned enough to actually look at the issue
with a structured study in case it turns out to be a long-term problem. I can
respect that. When I asked two different Ohio Fisheries biologists why they
don’t have a closed bass season, the answer was similar to many others, “We do not like to tell people they can’t fish” and
“there are no studies to show this is necessary. We
argue that most states with seasons have seasons for social reasons, not
biological.”
13. Another topic that has been used for why we
need to be much more concerned for smallmouths, when pressed, is information
in our own spring study MDNR FTR 91-6, that simply says, “Smallmouth bass
should be of greater concern than largemouth bass.” (pg. 11) Why? Because
despite catch rates for bass of all sizes being “higher
during the normal season than during the early season in three out of five
comparisons… for smallmouth bass, which were more abundant on Muskegon Lake
than any other study lake, catch rates were slightly higher during the
early season; this suggests that they may be slightly more
vulnerable than largemouth bass during the spring.” (pg 8) An awful
lot has been made out of this small part of the study. Is the difference
significant statistically? Is the difference enough to make a negative impact
on the smallmouth population of Muskegon Lake? Neither of these questions is
addressed in the study.
a. For smallmouths greater than 12 inches in length on Muskegon,
the early season catch rate was .31 bass per angler hour while the regular
season catch rate was .25 so we’re talking about a difference of .06! Doesn’t
sound too significant to me. There was a greater difference for the
undersized bass less than 12 inches of .48 to .15, but that still works out
to only 2.64 more undersized bass per an 8 hour day - 1.2 summer dinks verses
3.84 spring dinks total; and 2 keepers verses 2.48 keepers. Hardly seems like
the end of smallmouth fishing as we know it.
14. Another point about Lake St. Clair - since
it is a hot bed of debate - in an official 1987 MDNR study, one of the main
findings was that there was no scientific support for Lake St. Clair needing
any more spawn protection than any other water in Michigan; There was no
support for Lake St. Clair needing a later opening bass season date. If a
lake can be shown to need special management through scientifically valid
means, anglers should support that. Recent data released on estimated young
of year numbers of bass, estimated numbers of catchable bass and estimated
numbers of bass actually creeled clearly show a very healthy lake, with
consistently successful spawns and a very low creel rate. This is the text
from MDNR FRR# 1944: “The most effective means of
increasing yield, at least short-term, would involve changing the (St. Clair
Detroit River system) bass season, which does not open until the third
Saturday in June, 4 weeks later than anywhere else in Michigan. The late
season opening unquestionable deletes the most effective period of bass
exploitation. There is no scientific basis for deciding that Lake St. Clair
bass need more spawning season protection than populations anywhere else in
Michigan. Returning Lake St. Clair to the regular May 15 opener would be
beneficial by making regulations uniform statewide. However, the present bass
season opening is close to the season opener for Ontario waters of Lake St.
Clair.”
a. The next paragraph states the MDNR researchers however
recommend no change in the regulations at that time “because
of a general lack of public sentiment to alter their management.” In
other words, if they think most anglers don’t want the change they won’t do
it. I believe the sentiment has shifted fairly strong the other way since
that time and Michigan studies support this by showing a large number of
anglers in favor of increased legal catch-and-release opportunities (FTR
2001-2, FTR 89-2, FTR 91-6 to name a few).
15. A recent, new explanation as to why our own
specific study, 91-6, is not really valid for allowing spring
catch-and-release bass fishing (let alone all the other studies in Michigan
and other places, I guess) is that riverine/reservoirs were chosen because
they would have spawning that bass anglers supposedly can’t get to.
Recruitment would come from far upstream or over dams.
a. First of all, that ignores all the studies that say this isn’t
a factor anyway. It ignores the persistence of many of the over 400,000
Michigan bass anglers AND a big one – I was intimately involved in picking
the lakes. We had a number of regular inland lakes on the original list of
test lakes. Unfortunately, mainly from lake association members who are
organized and vocal on many regular inland lakes, we were hammered so hard at
public meetings we had around these lakes individually, that they were all
removed from the test to minimize controversy. The lakes left on the test
were those were little or no local opposition was shown from locals who just
don’t want more of anyone on ‘their’ lakes. I’m confident, since I’ve talked
to them, that the well-respected Michigan research biologists who performed
these studies, do not believe they are invalid.
|
