|
|
Menu |
|
||||||
|
Largemouth Bass |
Michigan
Bass Season
Scenario 8
|
Smallmouth Bass |
|
||||||
|
|
If
you agree with this alternate scenario endorsed by the Michigan BASS Chapter Federation
and the Michigan Bass Anglers coalition, please MENTION it in your statements
or writing to the MDNR. Justifications are below the
Scenario. An Alternative Proposal to the Michigan Black Bass Fishing Season As recommended by the anglers of Michigan Scenario 8:
Closed Jan 1 through the last Saturday in April (LP) or May 15 (UP);
Catch-and-Release from the last Saturday in April (LP) or May 15 (UP) until
the Saturday preceding Memorial Day; possession from the Saturday preceding
Memorial Day through December 31.
Catch-and-Release regulations from April 1st until the
Friday preceding Memorial Day shall remain in effect on Holloway Reservoir,
Hardy Pond, Muskegon Lake, Cass Lake, Pontiac Lake and Kent Lake. Based on the lack of any
conclusive scientific evidence regarding impacts on recruitment to bass
populations from fishing prior to and during the spawn, or evidence that
expanded legal or illegal bass fishing in Michigan over the past decade has
harmed the bass population, Michigan bass anglers can only support changes to
fishing regulations that provide additional angling opportunities through a
Catch-and-Release bass season beginning the last Saturday in April, while
maintaining the current bass possession season. Any other alternative regulation is unacceptable. This scenario: A.
Provides additional bass angling opportunities to the people of
Michigan. B.
Maintains the present opening day, which has been used for 33 years
and so would continue fishing traditions around this historical event. C.
Would reduce illegal fishing pressure and simplify enforcement
efforts by the DNR. D.
Preserves a state-wide, uniform closed bass season during walleye,
muskellunge and northern pike spawning periods and so would discourage human
disruption of these species by bass anglers during this time. E.
Would result in positive economic benefits to local businesses during
the spring. The bass anglers of Michigan believe that this scenario is a better alternative than those proposed by DNR Fisheries Division. The four scenarios currently recommended by DNR are unjustly conservative, and are based exclusively on assumptions that individual fish spawning success is the key factor in bass recruitment (number of bass surviving to 1 year of age). Research has demonstrated that the number of nesting bass is not a predictor of the number fry that will survive to the next year. Weather and available habitat play the most important role on bass recruitment success, not anglers. Click
here for
the MS Word version you can print and handout. |
|
|||||||
|
|
JUSTIFICATION FOR MI BASS FEDERATION PROPOSAL Prepared in response to the
Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass Regulations Committee (SALBRC) Report of April
2004 Current
Assessment of MI Bass Populations The
SALBRC report, as well as other recent DNR reports, contains information that
indicates the bass populations around the state are adequately protected,
even expanding, under the current regulations. This is particularly true since implementing the 14-inch
minimum length limit. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that expanded legal or illegal bass fishing in Michigan over the past 15
years has harmed the bass populations.
Spawning bass have never been fully protected by closure in Michigan,
especially with other seasons (northern pike, walleye and panfish) open
during the entire bass spawning season.
However, the bass populations remain strong. The
SALBRC report relies heavily on conjecture and supposition with little data
on which to justify the conclusions.
The model used in the report incorporates biologists’ assumptions,
rather than data, which renders the model invalid for developing long-term
predictions on population impacts.
Further suspicion about the usefulness of the model lies in the fact
that it was a model developed for trout fisheries. A more recent, widely accepted model called Fisheries Analyses
and Simulation Tools (FAST) is considered a much more effective model for
bass populations. There are three fundamental components of population modeling that require solid estimates in order to render the model effective. They are angler exploitation, total annual mortality and growth rates. No such estimates were available for the SALBRC model. Growth rates vary significantly by water body. Using a “statewide average” does not result in good predictions on most individual populations. Catch curve analysis to determine total annual mortality is critical to a good model. Total annual mortality is further partitioned into the percentages that die from natural causes and those that are removed by angler exploitation. Only a good estimate of angler exploitation will allow predictions to be made regarding population changes if the degree of angler exploitation were to be altered by harvest restrictions/open seasons. It is clear form the SALBREC report that no such data supported estimates of angler exploitation exist for most of the MI bass waters. The SALBRC report focuses heavily
on the consequences of disturbing an individual bass nest. The studies cited to substantiate the
claims also focused only on individual nest success, not the population as a
whole. Clearly, if you remove a
guarding male from a nest, predation will likely be high and survival low for
the eggs or fry of that nest. However,
what does that mean for the population?
Generally, it is accepted that carrying capacity will dictate the
number of spawned individuals ultimately recruiting to the fishery. When one nest fails, other nests likely
have increased survival rates because food and cover that would have been
available for the offspring of the failed nest are now available for other
juvenile bass. Protecting the maximum
number of nesting bass does not necessarily result in a maximum number of
recruits to the fishery the following year.
Studies have shown that environmental factors, such as weather, water
levels and productivity, can have profound effects on bass year-class
strength. Validity
of Closed Seasons No evidence currently exists that substantiates the theory that closed seasons provide any significant benefits to bass populations. There also exists no data to support the claim that bass recruitment is harmed by year-round possession seasons, or from fishing over beds. Again, the SALBRC report attempts to support such theories with cited studies that focused on individual nest survival, not population level effects. Without sufficient data to
indicate otherwise, the issue of closed seasons during the spawn is purely
social, not biological. Tournament/Economic
Impacts The
SALBRC report admits that tournament anglers make up less than 0.1% of
licensed anglers, yet makes repeated claims that bass tournaments may harm bass populations. Significant delayed mortality during
tournaments is certainly a cause for concern in Southern states, where the
percentage of tournament anglers is around 15-20%. However, even if significant tournament delayed mortality is
occurring, there is no justification for concern if only 0.1% of the anglers
are participating in these events. There
is no question that poorly run tournaments can result in significant delayed
mortality. However, studies have
shown that with good fish handling and weigh-in procedures, as outlined in
“Keeping Bass Alive”, bass mortality can be reduced to insignificant
levels. Requiring good tournament
handling of the catch would eliminate any concern for population level
effects of delayed mortality during tournaments. The
vast majority of tournament anglers practice catch and release, even when a
possession season is open.
Conversely, many states have found that opportunistic, non-specialized
anglers generally account for most of the bass harvest. In an era of reduced budgets and staff, it
is illogical that the Michigan DNR Fisheries Division chooses to take a stand
that would prohibit significant increases in license sales and tourism
dollars to “protect” a resource that it cannot prove needs protection, all
because of its concern with 0.1% of the anglers. With the exception of number three, each of the scenarios outlined in the SALBRC report include reducing the possession season by 3-4 weeks. Recreation Division (which handles the tournament permitting process for DNR boat ramps) was not consulted on this plan. Without provisions for CDR events in the CIR season, larger clubs and organizations would be forced to compete for the 1/3 fewer weekend tournament days, effectively putting more pressure on the access areas during the busiest season. An important example of the
economic benefits of spring bass angling that was overlooked by the Michigan
Fisheries Division can be found in “Changes in the smallmouth bass fishery of
New York’s portion of Lake Erie with initiation of a spring black bass
season,” American Fisheries Society Symposium 31, pp. 603-614. In 1994, the State of New York added a
bass season from the 3rd Saturday in May to the 3rd
Saturday in June (traditional opener), with one fish over 15 inches
possession limit per angler. Most of
the bass anglers released their catch, and tournaments were held. As much as 70% of the harvested numbers of
bass were taken by anglers other than bass anglers, yet the overall harvest
of bass during those spring seasons was 1000 per year. Still, the annual harvest of bass remained
the same, while spring angling activity increased by 26%. Most importantly, angler hours increased
from 21,200 before the spring season, to 201,288 with the new season. Season long activity increased as well
with no documented harm to the population.
The 10-fold increase in angling hours undoubtedly provided significant
additional financial benefits to the local economy and increased license
sales to the agency. Conclusions We believe the MI DNR should take a more
progressive, rather than conservative, approach to black bass management in
order to meet the needs of MI anglers.
There are no data to indicate that such an approach would result in
harm to the state wide bass population.
However, if the tournament data, in conjunction with routine
population sampling, provided by our proposed regulation change indicated
detrimental changes to the bass populations of MI, bass anglers, including
the tournament component, will be the first to support the more conservative
regulation proposals present in the SALBRC report. However, there has yet been sufficient evidence in MI or the
scientific literature that suggests our alternative proposed regulation would
be deleterious to bass populations. |
|
|||||||
|
Return to Top | Home | My Confidence Products
Page1 | My General Info | Articles |
|
My Tournament Resume
| Bass Tips | Fishing Reports | Tournaments | News Releases |
|
Fishing Pictures | Building Bass Boats | Bass Biology & Management | Bass Fishing Forums | Site Map |
|
©2005 Dan
Kimmel All Rights Reserved |