Great Lakes Bass Fishing Forum

by Dan Kimmel

So I went to 3 meetings today. I was feeling productive and good after the first two though they started at 7:30am this morning... then I decided to go to the 3rd meeting. The Natural Resources Commission meeting. Then I figured since I'm there I might as well tell them what I'm thinking...

So I write a speech on the spot and it turns out what I was thinking is that they are not going by sound science but running popularity contests and using weak 'science' to justify preconceived notions or the easy way out...

I reminded them that we worked really hard to give them the authority to regulate hunting and fishing with sound science AND we expect them to do it. I gave a couple examples of how they aren't doing it. I didn't watch how they took my speech but I don't think there were lots of smiles...

Maybe I should have stopped after two meetings?? Of course, they have told me they are done with bass, and that if we just stop having weigh ins we can fish all the 'tournaments' we want. I've taken offense that I don't think they should be telling us to fundamentally change how we do things just to make their job easy... I've also taken offense that they said they are done with bass...

Am I wrong in wanting real, honest, sound science? Should I go back next month and say I'm sorry for telling you you aren't doing your job right??

Done with BASS?  The most sought after gamefish in the USA?  Un-Real. 

Do not apologize for being right. Imagine if one of the Southern states told their constituents they were "done with bass". They would be broomed out.

Please remind them that the Biggest fishing store is not..

Crappie Pro Shops
Walleye Pro Shops
Pike Pro Shops
Perch Pro Shops
Bluegill Pro Shops
Trout Pro Shops
Salmon Pro Shops
Musky Pro Shops




Instead it is BASS PRO SHOPS

Great points! Thank you!

Please don't go back and apologize for anything!!!

I think you should ask them:

If they are "Done with Bass", what are they spending their time on?  I can only assume they are more concerned with the Salmon fishery and alewife population?  It's too bad that we, as a state, have to spend money to make money on salmon!  Unlike the non-invasive species we have that naturally reproduce just fine and if LEFT ALONE would continue to thrive for the next several generations, much like have for the previous generations.

I would like to know exactly why they would like us to stop having weigh ins?  What is the EXACT issue with weighing fish and releasing them?  Would they prefer we weigh them and fillet them, like they do with Salmon?

I would like to know how they propose we decide the winner of a tournament, that they said we are welcome to have as many we like, without a weigh in process?

I would also like to know when can we have the dismantling of the NRC put on the ballot so we can try something different until we find something that works?!!!

Some good questions. I won't apologize. I may ask them some of your questions. I think it is completely unacceptable for them to tell us to change how we do things just to make their situation easier.

I'm working on writing up some plans for the next steps. Talked to MUCC about it already. We should be more involved with MUCC too - https://mucc.org - to make sure we have as much influence as possible. I will try to go forward with one or two ideas to push for more bass fishing opportunity.

The things I have to defeat is the NRC thinking they are done with bass, the NRC not wanting to look at bass fishing again soon, the MDNR Fisheries Division thinking more bass tournaments does NOT equal more opportunity because we can already catch-and-release fish (I keep reminding them every spring anglers are running down to Indiana to fish bass tournaments in the spring because they can), the MDNR Fisheries Division saying they will not do another study of our own to prove anything about bass AND saying our bass are so different that we can't go by what other states do (didn't stop the NRC from using 1 single study from ILLINOIS in their dissent though!! ::) ) and of course our enemies who think we will destroy the bass fishing if we can have more bass tournaments in the spring even though the MDNR Fisheries Division admits we already fish 70% of the spawn legally under the EXISTING HARVEST SEASON!

That's 45 years of fishing 70% of the bass spawn under harvest without harming our bass fishery including 100% of the NORTHERN Michigan and UP bass spawn under harvest without harming our bass fishery. Even the MDNR Fisheries Division told me they are sick of people bringing up protecting the spawn. WE DON'T PROTECT THE BASS SPAWN NOW! All we are talking about is bass tournaments during prespawn and some of the Southern Michigan spawn where bass are their most prolific of all.

Dan, I'm going to assume you posted this because you want critical input, not a bunch of cheer leading (That's what face book is for).

I believe, the MDNR believes, that by opening C&R year round for bass, they gave "enough" toward our position. Maybe they feel they gave too much, but cannot retract without reason. You're going to have to assume  they want to observe the effects on the affected fish populations and probably won't get back into this for a 3-5 year period?  For the time being, they are simply saying, "We're done for now".  MDNR is being conservative here.

Just be careful here. Nature is working against us. The example will be LSC, where we've had a boom of Smallies last 10 years. The boom of goby populations gave an new easy nutrient. Weights went up! Weights are staying up.. But just for the very best of the tournament guys. These last 2 years, The summer Smallies have really moved around. Maybe the gobies have been gobbled up ? Maybe at about the same time, we are seeing the effects of less plankton which reduced the populations of  bait fish (thanks to the zebra mussel population). I haven't seen Black Shad balls on the river in years.  This has caused a change in the Smallie habits, with FAR FAR greater effects than the C&R changes. I really think the MDNR needs to study the bait fish population on LSC........

So Unfortunately, it will be WAY too easy for the people in the guided services and other opposing forces to blame any change in the bass habits on the changes  to the Bass laws.  They will bring in their reduced catch rates on their guided services and it will be considered "real data".  Understand here, I'm not looking to convince or be convinced or convicted for my thoughts. Just giving you food for thought on the "resistance to common sense" you received.

I'm also here to thank you for year round fishing. I think it's the best conservation law  change in 20 years -

Yes, the new season is a good start. Just not enough for all my friends who love bass tournaments.

I have to think about the points you brought up all the time. What I need to do is come up with a way to combat them and not have to wait another 5 to 10 years.

I want to be done with this for good before I'm too old. I have two ideas I'm working on and will share as I flesh them out with the appropriate people to share them with. MUCC for sure because we will need their help. Who else and how I share them depends on what seems to be the best strategy to have a shot against the haters and the people who just don't know science if it bit them in the behind while shouting SCIENCE! :D

One thing I know for sure right now is the MDNR is stating they will NOT do our own study to prove we can fish more bass tournaments yet many people are demanding that we have our own study before they will believe what I already know from the wealth of studies in Michigan and outside of Michigan already. So there is the main catch-22 to overcome.

Now that is a shame..... They should conduct a study on northern, mid and lower Michigan lakes, smallie and largie. They have the natural resources, but not the funding nor is there an emergency on this topic. It seems if we had an abundance of either, we would have our study.

Maybe ..... its good we don't have an emergency on our hands. And if they said, "We need a $1 million dollars to fund the study", then we have our field of play set.  ??

Some have said we should pay for our own study but that is hypocritical and ridiculous. Bass anglers have been paying for tons of fisheries work for years and years that directly benefits OTHER types of anglers.

The MDNR says something like 70% of surveyed Michigan anglers now identify primarily as bass anglers. That means we have way more than paid our fair share of the Fisheries Division budget and we deserve our fair share of the resources.

Of course, saying we have to have our own bass study that would take 10 years and cost beau coup bucks to prove what all the other studies and actual experience already show, is ridiculous. It's a crutch for some who fear change and an poor excuse for those who just don't like bass tournament anglers and don't want them getting their fair share of time with the same resource. This is really about fairness to all bass anglers, and fair, equal opportunity to the resource for bass tournament anglers barring proof (that doesn't exist) that they can't have it.

Dan, I know this topic has come up frequently and I really do applaud your efforts to get year round CIR. I've fished tournaments for several years and would agree that our bass fishing seems to be better than ever. However, saying that our DNR doesn't use "sound science" or implying that people who would want to see additional studies are somehow ignorant to your point of view doesn't help to advance your position. I can't recall ever seeing a comment on a fishing or hunting website that has stated how our DNR has done a good job on anything. The MIDNR has to manage our resources with limited funds all while trying to make the many different shareholders in our state happy. I have a hard time faulting the fisheries biologists for wanting to do the right thing for bass management. I found several studies that show negative effects on the impact of fishing for bass during the spawn and I didn't have to look very hard. I remember seeing a video several years ago that showed someone catching a smallie off of her bed, and then showed the fish get released immediately and swim right back to her bed. Then commenting on how fishing for smallies during the spawn has no negative effect because the fish swam right back to her bed. If he would have caught that same fish, put it in the livewell for several hours, drove all over the lake, released it at the weigh-in site, and then showed the fish swimming all the way back to her bed, I would have been more convinced. There's no denying that tournaments cause increased mortality, delayed mortality, and fish displacement. You significantly reduce all of that by catching a fish, weighing or measuring immediately, and releasing it where it was caught. I know our fishing seems to be better than ever, but I for one would rather err on the side of caution and let our fisheries biologists regulate our fisheries. I brought it up last year and remember getting negative comments immediately, but we have the technology and year round CIR season (thanks again Dan) to have tournaments year round for any anglers that choose to participate, however, you would have to have a format similiar to MFL. Kayak tourneys do it, so why couldn't the same be done in bass tourneys? I am probably in the minority of bass fisherman who agree with our MIDNR on this one, but I have to respectfully disagree with statements that our DNR is not using "sound science". And this is from someone who loves fishing for bass and competing in bass tournaments. My point isn't to rile anyone up, but if the end game is to be able to have year round bass tournaments, that opportunity is already here, just not the "typical" tourney we're all accustomed to.

The one problem i have always thought about with CDR is the fact that anglers in a tournament will be putting fish in a live well where other angles fishing can not legally do this.  I see on the water confrontations that will just increase negative impact on tournament fishermen.   Imagine 30 boats at the Mile Roads and 5 keeping fish.    Maybe I am wrong but it seems there could be trouble.   Since Ice Out is around April 15th on inland lakes there is about 6 weeks until tournament fishing starts.

The bigger problem I see is to many tournaments on Michigan waters.The DNR data show there were 2085 registered tournaments last summer.  The inland lakes in the Metro Detroit area are hit pretty hard all summer. 

I'll throw this out there
Maybe add slot limits
Any fish that didn't fit in there would be CIR
That way if there was early tournament it would mean the fish in the slot limit would spawn on there beds

Dan - you can tell them we (west michigan bass) were just contacted by a not-to-be-named-at-this-time local tourism board to discuss options of hosting a large tournament there.

Tourism is one of michigan's top industries, and local communities are realizing the benefit of filling campgrounds, restaurants, hotels and so on lower-volume weekends with BASS fisherman.  This particular request was completely unsolicited.

Our classic has been a great example of this and garnered some great positive local attention. We hope to continue this in spite of the NRC.  Early may is one of the periods these communities are low on tourists and have already expressed the desire for more tournaments. I've had to tell them initially that its a non-starter because there's nothing we can do then at this point.

The biggest issue in my opinion is and continues to be the MDNR's unwillingness to properly address the question.  They show their true colors as a government agency by bowing down to "special interest" (professional guides, lake associations, etc) instead of spending the necessary time and resources to collect the data and make an informed decision.  As Dan has been saying all along, they need to use science and not raw emotion or skewed opinion influenced by those who feel that their opinion matters more because they earn their living showing people where and how to fish, or because they own lakeside property and therefore feel entitled to decide who uses the lake and for what and when.  Even if the MDNR doesn't want to spend money on a study, why not learn by doing?  The only cost involved there is the ink to print up some new regs in the annual fishing guide.  If they allow early tournament fishing for a couple of years, they can easily see the impact it has on the fishery by doing creel surveys and just seeking feedback from anglers.  If it is determined that it is having an adverse effect on the fishery, then revert it back to the old standard.  If things look to be OK, then keep it going.  I know they are already doing creel surveys on a regular basis, because I barely got out fishing this year, but twice had the MDNR do a creel survey at the launch.  The reality is that no matter how good we think we all are as anglers, we are never going to catch all of the fish.  Plus it has been proven that is only takes a couple of bass over several acres to not only maintain the population, but to grow it, which clearly works in our favor.  The worst case scenario with learning through doing is they find out it is having an impact on the fishery, they revert back to the old standard, and those effected lake have a slower couple of years as the population recovers. I just really wish that the MDNR would listen to bass anglers for once and start to take our requests seriously, instead of continuing to give us the proverbial middle finger every time the topic of tournament bass fishing appears on their agenda.  >:(  Nevertheless, thank you Dan for all of your efforts and vigilance on bass fishing related issues.

Quote from: robhj on November 21, 2016, 08:38:43 PM
Dan, I know this topic has come up frequently and I really do applaud your efforts to get year round CIR. I've fished tournaments for several years and would agree that our bass fishing seems to be better than ever. However, saying that our DNR doesn't use "sound science" or implying that people who would want to see additional studies are somehow ignorant to your point of view doesn't help to advance your position. I can't recall ever seeing a comment on a fishing or hunting website that has stated how our DNR has done a good job on anything. The MIDNR has to manage our resources with limited funds all while trying to make the many different shareholders in our state happy. I have a hard time faulting the fisheries biologists for wanting to do the right thing for bass management. I found several studies that show negative effects on the impact of fishing for bass during the spawn and I didn't have to look very hard. I remember seeing a video several years ago that showed someone catching a smallie off of her bed, and then showed the fish get released immediately and swim right back to her bed. Then commenting on how fishing for smallies during the spawn has no negative effect because the fish swam right back to her bed. If he would have caught that same fish, put it in the livewell for several hours, drove all over the lake, released it at the weigh-in site, and then showed the fish swimming all the way back to her bed, I would have been more convinced. There's no denying that tournaments cause increased mortality, delayed mortality, and fish displacement. You significantly reduce all of that by catching a fish, weighing or measuring immediately, and releasing it where it was caught. I know our fishing seems to be better than ever, but I for one would rather err on the side of caution and let our fisheries biologists regulate our fisheries. I brought it up last year and remember getting negative comments immediately, but we have the technology and year round CIR season (thanks again Dan) to have tournaments year round for any anglers that choose to participate, however, you would have to have a format similiar to MFL. Kayak tourneys do it, so why couldn't the same be done in bass tourneys? I am probably in the minority of bass fisherman who agree with our MIDNR on this one, but I have to respectfully disagree with statements that our DNR is not using "sound science". And this is from someone who loves fishing for bass and competing in bass tournaments. My point isn't to rile anyone up, but if the end game is to be able to have year round bass tournaments, that opportunity is already here, just not the "typical" tourney we're all accustomed to.

Gentlemen,

IMO, robhj has the best reply, not only because I agree with it : ) but because I am a fellow life scientist. Let's not get emotions involved because as passionate as bass anglers are (of which I am one), especially tournament bass anglers (of which I am not one), - one has to admit that here in the great state of Michigan, the coldwater fisheries are "king" when it comes to annual dollars generated. I used to spend a week every Summer (usually in August) vacationing in Ludington and I have seen first hand the number of boats that go in and out of that single port on a daily basis, just for that one week I was there. We all know the average salmon boat (charter or private-owned) dwarfs even high-end bass boats as far as net worth invested and gas money needed per outing. Therefore the salmon fishery probably gets more focus and attention from the MDNR and rightly so. I have salmon and steelhead fished in WA state but not in Michigan, thus I have seen the decline of some great salmon fisheries and it seems Lake Michigan's coldwater fishery is in need of some immediate attention. Imagine the loss of annual revenue if there were no salmon/trout fishery?

As much as this may ruffle some feathers, I see no need to make any changes to what the MDNR has recently granted to bass anglers since they/we can CIR (emphasis on the Immediate part, which many don't seem to understand or follow) all year long. Go back and count the number of bass tournaments that were held on LSC alone last season from Father's day weekend until now - bet it's close to 100. If you can 'scientifically' demonstrate that every one of these tournaments had >95% pre-release survival rate (overlooking delayed kill), then I'm sure the MDNR might listen. But to ask MDNR to spend their limited resources on doing a longitudinal multi-lake study on bass survival including delayed mortality, well that's simply unrealistic at best, IMO. Unless you're willing to pay a lot more than what we do for annual licenses.

I don't belong to any organized bass club so I don't have the network to reach out but, in my opinion, the best use of time and effort towards improving overall bass/warmwater fishing would be to target the legal and illegal killing/spraying of aquatic vegetation on inland lakes. Although the majority of lakefront residents probably don't care about the fishing, I would bet that there are enough property owners that do care about the bass/bluegill/pike fishing enough to sign petitions or legislation to make changes in this regard. Bottom line, more weeds mean less jetskis and waterskiers, lol!

I think you guys are missing the point -

The NRC was put on the ballot with the specific purpose of granting the NRC game management / law making rights. It was done so and worded to the voter explaining that the NRC would use "science based management". This was to protect our hunting and fishing rights from being influenced by law makers who want to socialize and politicize game management. For instance - wolf hunting, dove hunting, bear hunting - things that the public would (or did) shoot down even though there's no actual scientific reason behind banning it.

I voted YES on this. I did so, because science based management is what i want. That means if some potential opportunity exists, i expect the NRC to perform the due-dilligence to legitimately qualify the opportunity and assemble that as evidence to either accept or reject it.

Just like in 3rd grade. Find a problem, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis (Experiment), curate and present your results. That's science, that's how you make informed, defensible decisions.

So its very clear what powers we voted to give the NRC and what they are supposed to do with them. In the case of the bass season, we presented the problem: Longer seasons, more opportunity.
They formed a hypothesis - OMG NO WAY THAT'D BE BAD
They skipped the EXPERIMENT part.
They curated opinions from:  TV fisherman, a handful of guides, some lady at a newspaper, and some lake associations, surveys of opinion, public meetings to gather more opinion.
They presented a conclusion of: "OMG NO WAY THAT'D BE BAD"

The presented no defensible proof, performed no studies, and otherwise put forth no other effort other than to find OPINION that already supported their preconceived notions.

I can easily accept NO as answer - i can't accept conjecture as the basis for that answer.  This is not science, this is just unchecked politics and is directly contrary to reason they even exist.

HOW TO FAIL 3rd GRADE SCIENCE FAIR:
Problem: Is Fire Hot or Cold
Hypothesis: FIRE IS COLD
Experiment: Ask a bunch of people if Fire is cold
Conclusion: Some said yes, so FIRE IS COLD

I agree that science based management is what most would want. I merely stated that there is evidence that shows that fishing for bass in northern waters during the spawn may have detrimental effects on the fishery. I also know that public opinion is built into many management decisions. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this, but to state that the decision to not allow CDR was only based on opinion/emotion would not be true. Once again I ask, what would be stopping a bass club from having a tourney in early May with the current guidelines? If we wanted to have a tournament, we would just have to change the format. MLF has done it for years, and BASS did it in a tournament last year. It doesn't have to be done exactly the same way, but it could be accomplished and would be a win-win for fisherman and the bass.

I do agree that people need to stop saying that those opposed to more early season CDR are anti-science.  Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.  I do not see any social arguments being used by those opposed to further changes to the seasons.  The only social reasons for changing regulations come from the side of those in favor of early season CDR.  The NRC is doing a great job of trying to balance the social side of more opportunity (accomplished with immediate release during early season) and those the see science on the side of being cautious.

Most states have limitations on the pre-spawn and spawn in the northern US and all of them base the reasons on science.

I would read a lot of comments with more interest if I didn't know for a fact that a major reason we can't get a longer bass tournament season is simply because some people don't like bass tournaments. It is not science. It is bias and prejudice. I do NOT want my resources managed by popularity contest or especially by bias and prejudice. If I truly believed some of these people, especially biologists truly had scientific reasons for denying us more opportunity I would also listen more and care more but the truth is I've been dealing with this for over 30 years and I'm sick and tired of the bias and prejudice disguised, hidden and pretended as 'science.'

I realize some people may think I'm talking about them but if I didn't mention your name then maybe I wasn't talking about YOU. Afterall, only you know if you really believe there is science that shows we have to be concerned, OR you just don't like bass tournaments fishing your fish more of the year (and I can't read your mind, I can only guess) and believe me for one thing for sure, if you're one of the people who is biased and prejudiced against bass tournaments you ARE my enemy (and not a very nice person).

To the rest of you, one way or another I plan on helping get you April and May bass tournaments that you want because you deserve the SAME opportunity to fish your way as anyone else and I KNOW the science is, and has been on our side. If you believe you have studies that PROVE otherwise you better share the exact study name and authors to PROVE it because I'm calling your bluff, and always will because I know the ONLY 'scientists' that you have to go by are probably Phillip and his buddies in Illinois, and I know what the real bass biology experts say about their long-winded, didn't prove anything, but we should be worried about this or this claims they come out with in their studies. Meanwhile, most everyone else in science laughs at our situation because they know even MICHIGAN studies have supported the lack of need for things like closed seasons and unnecessary limits on the way anglers fish for bass.

Quote from: DeanV on November 23, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
I do agree that people need to stop saying that those opposed to more early season CDR are anti-science.  Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.  I do not see any social arguments being used by those opposed to further changes to the seasons.  The only social reasons for changing regulations come from the side of those in favor of early season CDR.  The NRC is doing a great job of trying to balance the social side of more opportunity (accomplished with immediate release during early season) and those the see science on the side of being cautious.

Most states have limitations on the pre-spawn and spawn in the northern US and all of them base the reasons on science.

This is simply not true and shows how you assume many things without actually studying them or proving them. You're confusing real science with 'social science' what people who don't know what the heck they're talking about scientifically think and believe...

Wisconsin - has a closed bass season but their season opens BEFORE their spawn. They claim the reason they don't open earlier is because not enough bass anglers want it. SOCIAL, not science.

Minnesota - has a closed bass season but their season opens BEFORE AND DURING their spawn. They also have language right on their website that speaks about the lack of scientific necessity for protecting the bass spawn. I quote it often because I consider them a Northern state similar to Michigan and how could it be unnecessary to protect the spawn in Minnesota but 'necessary' in Michigan? Yeah, right... They claim the reason they don't open earlier is because not enough bass anglers want it. They also made their smallmouth bass CIR only after labor day because of one study on wintering river bass that didn't even translate to their other populations but again because not enough anglers claimed they wanted it different - SOCIAL, not science.

Illinois - you can bass fish all year on their lakes. They recently limited their spring bass fishing to catch-and-release on streams thanks to questionable a weak results from Phillip (of course - the poster child for spring bass fishing fear).

Indiana - you can fish ALL year on all their waters including harvest ALL year meaning bass tournaments ALL year. Idiots argue that their bass are completely different than our bass which is utter bs. They actually have the biggest federation, rabid bass tournament following and a tiny fraction of the water we have yet they allow bass tournaments all year AND they have plenty of waters that still produce good catches. Their last 2 studies showed their bass are doing as good or better than ever despite year-round harvest fishing season.

Ohio - you can bass fish all year with the only spawn 'protection' being a 6 week catch and release season on Lake Erie that was caused by anglers demanding the ODNR stop people from keeping spawning bass (SOCIAL) and because the ODNR thought for once there was too much fishing pressure on bass in their part of Lake Erie due to charters and people keeping too many bass, not bass tournaments. Bass tournaments just lost out because of this - a quote directly from an ODNR biologist.

Pennsylvania - allows you to bass fish but says you can't purposefully fish for a bass on a bed during their spring season because they feel some anglers didn't like other angler spawnfishing.

New York - allows you to bass fish during the spawn and even have some big bass bass tournaments on Lake Erie in the spring because they have no science showing that water can't handle it. In fact, their most recent study shows their bass are doing as good or better despite again allowing more and more spring bass fishing. They acknowledge that it is also some anglers not wanting other angler spawnfishing that has kept them from expanding opportunity more.

Maine - allows you to fish half their state during the bass spawn. The other half (Northern) is limited to no fishing because they realized the only way to protect and limit fishing's effect on TROUT was to not allow ANY fishing on those waters.

Vermont - one of the only states that still thinks protecting the bass spawn may be necessary though again, they are mainly going by the reasoning that some anglers don't want other anglers to do it. They also allow spring fishing on Champlain to more closely match New York as their one exception.

New Hampshire - You can bass fish all year though they have a May 15 to June 15 CIR artificial lures and flies only - why because enough anglers said they wanted limits... For much of the year they have no size limit on bass...

Canada Provinces are also among the group who don't allow some spring bass fishing because some anglers don't want other anglers to do it though Ontario added an extra week of spring bass fishing recently to some regions without much fanfare partly because Marc Ridgway and other scientists in his camp are chanfing their tune too about spring bass fishing closures being scientifically necessary. They are finding that climate change is making bass more prolific and able to deal with more fishing opportunity. Ridgway now says that he was wrong about Lake Erie too, that it is actually doing fine scientifically.

It's going to always be easy for anxious, and/or uncooperative DNR's to find enough anglers who are afraid of change and/or don't want change to drown out the smaller number of bass tournament anglers if they want to because we are an unpopular minority in the North. That is not science.

I'm done tip-toeing around this social nonsense and going to force real, sound science to be used or at least they have to admit they are only denying anglers opportunity because of other anglers like they did when they banned chumming on trout streams because some anglers mainly on only 3 rivers didn't like it... The NRC should not be picking sides. They should be going by sound science and letting THAT win each time.

There are ZERO studies that show bass fishing during pre-spawn needs to be limited or closed. As there are no studies that show the bass spawn needs to be closed or even catch-and-release only. The most recent study the MDNR did on Lake St. Clair even states there was no scientific reason Lake St. Clair needed a later opener just that anglers wanted it... Again that's social not science and I'm tired of being limited by what some people think, or like (or don't like).

If you think you have studies you better post them up and I can probably tell you what the study really shows because I'm sure I've read it AND talked to the biologists that did the study...

As far as value of fisheries, the salmon fishery pales in comparison to the value to Michigan of the bass fishery. The bass fishery is much bigger - it's huge. It's ridiculous to try to justify putting more money into the salmon fishery based on its value. If 70% of the anglers who buy licenses are saying they are bass anglers then bass fishing should get 70% of the license revenue to be fair. That's simple for anyone to understand who has half a brain.

As far as the excise and other user fees bass fishing provides a huge chunk of that too. There are more bass anglers fishing in Michigan than any other type except panfish (also not salmon) and bass anglers fish more angler-days by far than any other type of fishing according to the USFWS census. Angler-day average expenses for bass fishing is almost $400 Million dollars. Bass boats have their own category in the census. Salmon boats do not...

Michigan can't afford to lose any natural resources opportunity but to say one deserves more than another without doing a real comparison of real numbers is weak. Michigan definitely can't afford to lose it's bass fishery or take it for granted as they've done for decades (and admit it). One major bass tournament can pump more economic impact into Michigan than a whole lot of salmon fishing and it has been shown that bass fishing is bringing more out of state anglers now than other kinds of fishing too partly due to all of the attention brought in by bass tournaments and bass fishing shows.

An April - May bass tournament season could be worth tens of millions of extra dollars to Michigan's natural resource economy boosting local economies that desperately need a boost at that time of year, and would also bring back most of the anglers who LEAVE Michigan each year to go fish bass tournaments in Indiana. It's ridiculous that with our abundant resources that we are so selfish and stingy with them that we drive people to pile in on Indiana's limited resources that already have plenty of fishing going on on them.

Our waters can handle more opportunity. I know that. Have zero doubt and the only way we can prove it is to use adaptive management to learn by doing. Because our detractors will always be there, and the MDNR won't give bass the attention it deserves by doing our own study. Of course it is ridiculous to do another 10 year study when others have already been done and plenty of surrounding states allow bass fishing all year or through the entire spawn already. They still have bass. Don't they.

Dan, I've stated several times that I applaud your efforts and am grateful for the opportunity that I can fish for bass year round. I just happen to disagree with your assertion that the decision against CDR was only based on opinion/emotion. I also disagree with your statement that "if 70% of the anglers who buy licenses are saying they are bass anglers then bass fishing should get 70% of the license revenue to be fair." Sounds pretty elitist to me, but perhaps you were being sarcastic and I just didn't pick up on that. Our MIDNR should continue to manage our natural resources for the greatest good, for the greatest number, for as long as possible. I know how much work you have done Dan and I respect that, but I also respect that two people can look at the exact same study/studies and have different opinions. From one avid bass angler to another, keep fighting the good fight and thanks again for this website and what you've done for bass fishing in Michigan.

I'm not being sarcastic about anything. Bass and panfish anglers, especially inland anglers, have not gotten their fair share of the resources for many, many years and that needs to stop. The MDNR even admits they have been unfair to inland, warmwater anglers. I'm pretty tired when I hear other anglers say we should pay for our own study. Talk about elitist... and nonsense. We deserve the resources needed to study possible opportunities and requests from anglers. And if they refuse to do the study needed that can't be an excuse to say we can't do anything towards more opportunity.

As far as reading studies, when I read them I guess a main difference between me and other people is I have access to known long-time bass biology experts who are advising me on what the studies mean and don't mean... I'm pretty darn confident that I disagreeessments are right because they are the same assessments of the real bass experts I have access to, some of whom are well known nationally as bass biology experts. That's a pretty key difference.

People can disagree with me all they want on some of these things but their is a big difference between OPINION and KNOWLEDGE. Some of us want REAL sound science to rule, not the opinion of a bunch of anglers and people who are afraid to make tough calls based on real science. I had real recognized bass biology experts testify. The other side had a TV fisherman, an opinion columnist for a newspaper who claimed one study meant something when the study just said something MIGHT happen in the future, and a few fisheries biologists who's specialties are definitely not bass. They have zero peer-reviewed bass papers.

I will paste a portion of what i posted here before on seasonal regulations taken from the websites of the states  and regions most similar to ours:

"IL, WI, PA, MN, NY, VT, NH, Ontario, protect bass during spawn.  Some include protection until late and very end of June.  Smallmouth are protected in particular.  Ontario is included since they have lakes at same latitude as Michigan lakes. Ontario also has a size limit of 13.8" from December 1 through June 30.  They are a prime example of new regulations based on the best science available.

OH has no seasons, just size limits.  They only recently added a size limit period.  Due to small size and low numbers of bass they went to a 12" minimum.

IN, MA, CT has no season.

Maine: No season, 10" minimum, only 1 over 14" with 2 fish limit"

I include catch and immediate release during the spawn as a form of protecting bass.  I only consider allowing catch and keep or catch and delayed release during the spawn as not protecting bass.

I stand by my interpretation of the research that protecting the bass during the spawn from harvest or delayed release is important, especially for SMALLMOUTH bass.  Largemouth bass do not appear to be as sensitive to angling pressure during the spawn.  The research I have read points in this direction.

I base this only on the fact that I have read every major research paper and many minor papers on bass spawning ecology that was conducted prior to 2000 and have purchased and read through related studies from the following books to keep me up to date:

Black Bass: Ecology Conservation and Management
Black Bass Diversity: Multidisciplinary Science for Conservation
Centrarchid Fishes: Diversity, Biology, and  Conservation

I am firmly on the side that the direction you would like to see MI go is not in the best interest of the fishery in the long term.  We do have fantastic resources in MI, but I think they need wise, scientific based management.

I appreciate your passion for MI bass fishing.  We definitely do need good advocates for angling and bass.  I completely agree that bass fishing is a very valuable fishery to the state of MI.  I would think it would exceed the value of the Great Lakes as well.  I firmly  believe that a self-sustaining bass fishery is critically important.  We do not want any regulations changes that would impact the self-sufficiency of bass populations.  I also agree that the state should be able to devote more money to bass studies, habitat improvement, should watch how lakes are treated for weeds, etc.  I would much rather see the state spend money on native populations and habitat restoration.

With all of the good colleges we have in MI with excellent fisheries programs a little grant money (at least, little relative to the large amounts spent on salmonids) should fund some excellent long term studies.  But, it will take long term studies.  There is no way around that if you do not want to use the results of other in-depth studies that were done on lakes similar to our northern smallmouth gems.

Hellooooo, Dan, the guy winning friends and commanding people ? Er, a.... Influencing? I thought it was good to let this conversation roll. The Dude was dead nuts on, a lot of folk were smart and plain - spoken. Now.... Here is the monster piece that holds MI in check: Canada. I've seen the MDNR be at more open to changes inland, but are not moving far off of Canada's bass spawn position. Canada has 2/3 the water and I bet there is huge , even ingrained pressure to have MI match their season.

Now I know the seasons don't quite line up, but the punchline is: if Canada suddenly dropped their closed season, Mi would follow inside a year......

Just a thought and still trying to answer your original post and topic.

I doubt it will work that way. Ontario will only follow Michigan when they believe enough anglers want it. More anglers want it there too then they give credit to. Apparently to they don't get on the messages boards that the anglers are demanding spring bass fishing there too.

The MDNR Fisheries Chief claims our bass are so different WE can't go by what other states do anyways. That didn't stop the NRC from quoting only one study in their decision to block CDR and that was a study from Illinois, which last I checked, is not in Michigan...

There is no movement to match Ontario's bass season on St. Clair. That wouldn't match any science especially considering the last bass study the MDNR did on St. Clair stated the present later opener is not scientific but there because it's what they claim anglers want. Once again not sound science but social limitations on other anglers who want more fishing opportunity.

Dan, the studies out of IL are done with Mark Ridgeway in Canada on similar latitudes with our northern lakes,  similar lake type as well.  And, those are the studies Ontario bases its regulations on.   Mark Ridgeway is not part of the IL group at the IL Natural History survey / Univ. of IL. Phillip and him do work together on projects but completely separate organizations. 

The study that was quoted was not done on similar lakes - it was done by Phillip. It was done on Illinois waters. Most of Phillip's studies are done on Illinois ponds and streams. All not in Michigan last I looked...

The past few years Mark Ridgway and company has changed his tune on spawning bass anyway. You should probably read his latest stuff to find out why. Might help you understand better.

The only people left on the weird side now are Phillip and his buddies trying to prove 'how bad' catch-and-release fishing really is... I guess he wants us to stop fishing. Of course, then we don't really need him doing research, and there wouldn't be money for a lot of them to do research if we quit fishing. Genius...

I would love to find some more Ridgway stuff.  Honestly, his research is the most thorough and ahead of the curve of anyone else.  His lake was similar to Burt, Mullet, etc type of lakes in size, latitude, and trophic state.  I will need to see if I can access stuff published in the last little while that differed from the previous 20 years. His stuff is what Ontario based their regulations on.  It would have been quite a change since everything of his was pointing in the direction of angling being harmful in pre-spawn, even late winter, and spawn for smallies.

Here is the abstract from a 2011 paper from Mr. Ridgway, which the most recent article I could find related to the topic at hand:

We used an individual-based model of dynamics of smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu to examine the effect of angling for nesting males on the abundance of age-0 smallmouth bass. Variation in the daily probability of capture, opening date of angling, and probability of a male successfully returning to guard his brood, as well as a contrast between catch-and-keep versus catch-and-release policies were examined. Male body size and the preference of anglers for fish of different size were varied as a demonstration of the complex interactions between the variability in the reproductive ecology of a fish, angler preference, and a fixed management regulation. We found that the abundance of age-0 smallmouth bass decreased as the daily probability of capturing a nesting male increased in both catch-and-keep and catch-and-release policies. Opening dates during the nesting season, when males were guarding broods, also decreased the abundance of age-0 fish. This decrease was dramatic when the opening date occurred early in the parental care period relative to late in the period. Stress resulting from handling time for catch-and-release can have a significant impact on the abundance of age-0 fish because nesting males may abandon guarding behavior. The simulations indicate that closed fishing seasons during the parental care period, particularly during the early stages of parental care, may be a viable management option in areas where anglers target nesting males.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%281997%29017%3C0568%3APTEOAF%3E2.3.CO%3B2

Again, irrelevant to the above discussion really because the only study used in the NRC action was one from David Phillip done on Illinois bass.

And Ridgway and his other partners in Ontario have changed his tune in recent writings. You are behind the times with even a 2011 paper since he has found out more since then about the changes in bass behavior possibly due to climate warming they surmise.

Maybe that is why Ontario quietly added a whole week to the front end of their bass season in his region without fanfare. Ontario has made it clear to me in talking to them directly that this is being driven mostly by their perception of what bass anglers want not sound science.

They also have not addressed the issue of the need of protecting the bass spawn or not. All on of their most recent comments was is that bass are still spawning around the same time... whatever that is supposed to mean.

You are overwhelmingly in the minority when you claim that many agencies think the bass spawn needs to be protected and I almost think you're joking when you have now started throwing in prespawn and winter season protection. The vast majority of states obviously do NOT think the bass spawn, or prespawn or winter bass need 'protection' beyond size and creel limits, particularly knowing most bass angler already voluntarily release the majority of their bass whether they could keep them or not making even those regulations admittedly minimally effective.

That is all based on the vast body of bass studies from ALL sources (not just the few you like) INCLUDING Michigan bass studies that show these limits are primarily social not scientific.

You should be talking to bass biologists who actually have published bass papers that have been peer reviewed and accepted by the majority of biologists but I suspect you never will because you like Phillip and older Ridgway studies too much. Or course, the epitome of poor decision-making is limiting your sources to only those that already serve your preconceived notions... which is not how some of us want these important decisions made because that is not sound science.

Dan, I hope you are right.  I really hope that we can fish for bass at anytime and as long as we release them they will find way back to the nest site and have successful broods.  I really hope that tournaments or other forms of angling pressure during the spawn cannot have an impact on bass populations in a negative manner.  I hope you are right.

As someone with a degree in this field that devoted much time to this exact area of study, I have come to question the wisdom of your view.  Originally, I would have supported your stance, but my understanding of bass behavior and ecology currently does not let me support that stance anymore.  This is not from reading a one-sided collection of articles, but from readying everything and talking first hand with leading researchers in the field.  Who knows, maybe I will find more information that will allow me to change my mind again.

I have been watching this thread from the beginning and I'd like to add my $0.02.

First off, what I have to say is hearsay as I have no actual studies to quote. That being said, the information came from a few couple well respected individuals in fisheries biology community within Ontario. And they claim that their arguments were based on existing studies. From whom and where these studies are from they did not specify (maybe Dan can quote the study / studies they were referring to?). So take this for what it's worth...

In Ontario there is a split opinion on having an open early C&R season during the spawn (much less open all year for C&R or even C&K). And in a recent discussion I was following, the argument against open C&R was due to 95% of the damage being done while angling next guarding males even if released immediately.

Spawned out females were no issue nor were pre-spawn females. It's once the eggs are laid and hatched that was the concern while the males guarded. The study apparently shows that during even the short time you hook the male, play them to the boat then release back into the water, 95% of the eggs or fry will have already been predated on by gobies, perch pan fish etc.

If the study shows this then so be it. Common sense suggests the likelihood of this anyways. BUT, my argument is that all this study shows is that during that moment, that nest is raided and a good chunk of that pairs spawn is lost for that season. However it does NOT prove that over time this negatively affects the longevity and quality of future year classes.

I argue this point because there is 1 fundamental element in all this that much of the scientific community is ignoring. And that is the factor of NON BASS Anglers who are, and have been legally targeting other fish during the Bass Spawn since before my grandpappy was born.

So the obvious question I ask is (assuming we aren't so naive to believe that Bass are not being inadvertently caught by Non Bass Anglers during that time) why hasn't generations of cumulative Springtime Angling for other species disrupted or negatively affected the Spawn while they were legally angling other species?

I'm not pointing a finger of blame, and this is not a theory, only a hypothesis as I have not done any kind of study to prove this hypothesis. I am simply asking a question that I think to the best of my knowledge hasn't been specifically addressed.

Or rather, maybe the real question that needs to be asked is does Angling of ANY kind provide more of a negative effect on Bass Populations than the Macro stresses on them (Climate change, Musky Predation, Baitfish Populations etc) which we can't control for the most part?

Because here is the thing that bothers me about this. I am much like Dan in that I like to see facts and not assumptions. And if we sit idly by and allow for changes to Bass regulations based on opinions and assumptions rather than science, this will likely open the door for ALL regulations to come under the same type of scrutiny and mismanagement.

Slowly over time we may see an erosion of our rights and privileges due to Political Agendas rather than Proper Science based Management. And that is the beginning of the end my friends.

The last point I want to touch on is this. Let's say worst case scenario and the lobbyists win. And we have many rights and privileges taken from us. This could pose a threat to not only our rights, but to our fish and wildlife as well.

There's also thing called "Under Management" as well. The reality of it is in this day and age our lives as sportsmen and women are now so intertwined into the lives of our Fish and Wildlife, it could be argued that there are several instances where their survival now depends on our management and stewardship. Research the Rondeau Provincial Park Deer Populations if you would like a perfect example of that (No predators + no hunting = over population = decimation of food sources in ecologically sensitive area).

Take away our rights, you remove the funding to research and manage. And this will achieve nothing for or the greenies who are trying to take our rights away because we are in many ways codependent on each other (man & fish/wildlife). It starts small, but it will spread if we allow this kind of management to be the precedent that is set. PROPPER Science based Management should be the only option, ever. Sorry for my long post. Rant over!

I still think the point of this whole thing isn't the research that is (or is not) currently available - its that a decision of no-action was made without officially providing the scientific reason for that outcome.

The NRC DID NOT decree "thou shalt not CDR/Keep bass before the last saturday in may because <insert study(s), references, rationale here>".  They just gathered some opinions and said its a non-issue.

As a state agency, the NRC should at all times be providing us with the maximum amount of opportunity. They are not within their right to withhold resources that belong to every citizen without reason - and that reason can and only should be conservation based and scientifically supported. They should be the ones that expressly justify with good data any restrictions, period.

If the data is not conclusive enough, they must seek to provide it.
If the data is already conclusive, then we the people must accept the restrictions whether they are for or against our personal desires.

The debate on which studies say what or the anecdotal information we have as anglers (or friends of anglers) is important to the discussion, but if its not being considered in an objective way by the decision makers, then what is the real point here?

The non-action of the NRC is not acceptable in this case. There has been plenty of information surfaced to merit reasonable debate on the topic. That debate was effectively silenced because of opinion and politics. Had the NRC provided concrete rationale, that rationale could then be challenged through further and more specific studies. Had the NRC acknowledged that the information available was insufficient - that should also merit further studies on their part to provide the missing pieces. Instead we just got a "shut up and leave us alone already".

we don't need to bicker amongst ourselves over who's study is most pertinent to our waters - we need to objectively say that if no one can agree that any one study provides us with sufficient information, then we should proactively assemble one that does and meets the demands of all stake holders.  That is the only conclusive way to put this issue to bed.

So where is that process in all of this? its just government treating us like children per usual.

Quote from: DeanV on November 30, 2016, 10:03:54 PM
Dan, I hope you are right.  I really hope that we can fish for bass at anytime and as long as we release them they will find way back to the nest site and have successful broods.  I really hope that tournaments or other forms of angling pressure during the spawn cannot have an impact on bass populations in a negative manner.  I hope you are right.

As someone with a degree in this field that devoted much time to this exact area of study, I have come to question the wisdom of your view.  Originally, I would have supported your stance, but my understanding of bass behavior and ecology currently does not let me support that stance anymore.  This is not from reading a one-sided collection of articles, but from readying everything and talking first hand with leading researchers in the field.  Who knows, maybe I will find more information that will allow me to change my mind again.

i didn't want to get into the weeds on this, but you do realize that for at least 75% of the state (if not more) opening weekend is typically on or even just before the spawn of most lakes in michigan? Perhaps not on some of the smaller lakes, but around grand rapids, our memorial weekend tournaments are won on bed fish as are many of the tournaments that go into the first week of june. Push those dates further into the season as you go north.

While i do believe removing a fish from its bed or guarding fry is detrimental in the ways you stated - to that specific fish/nest - its affects on the fishery as a whole should be widely evident since this activity has been occurring for decades now, yet our fisheries are not suffering in that way.

Quote from: DeanV on November 30, 2016, 10:03:54 PM
Dan, I hope you are right.  I really hope that we can fish for bass at anytime and as long as we release them they will find way back to the nest site and have successful broods.  I really hope that tournaments or other forms of angling pressure during the spawn cannot have an impact on bass populations in a negative manner.  I hope you are right.

As someone with a degree in this field that devoted much time to this exact area of study, I have come to question the wisdom of your view.  Originally, I would have supported your stance, but my understanding of bass behavior and ecology currently does not let me support that stance anymore.  This is not from reading a one-sided collection of articles, but from readying everything and talking first hand with leading researchers in the field.  Who knows, maybe I will find more information that will allow me to change my mind again.

Despite your vague claims to expertise and training Spinnerbation and thedude show much better grasp of the common sense alone of the issue, and better understanding of factors that make a real difference on this issue when it comes to sound science.

I still think you are a Phillip/old-Ridgway disciple of the idea Ridgway has failed to prove in almost 30 years what is accepted by most others - that there is no direct correlation between fishing during the spawn (or any other season) and bass recruitment. Add to that Phillip trying to prove that CIR fishing is more damaging then we think and you fit right in with them, and no one else. Small company.

spinnerbation and thedude, you hit some big nails right on the head. People have been inadvertently and purposefully bass fishing the entire prespawn and bass spawn in Michigan for over 40 YEARS with no evidence of any correlation to damaging negative harm to bass populations.

I've seen bass being caught on St. Clair in April and May since the early 1980s at least and am told it goes back longer than that - people catching them as byproducts and people purposefully fishing for them illegally at first and now CIR legal. Decades of experience with no evidence it has correlated to damaging negative harm to the bass populations. The local biologists there tell me they see no evidence at all of the fishing harming the bass populations in all these decades.

The MDNR admits readily now that 70% of the statewide bass spawn has been fished legally during the HARVEST season since 1970. Where is the harm in 46 seasons of bass fishing the majority of the bass spawn under the harvest season especially the 'sensitive' Northern Michigan fisheries...?? It's just not there. That is just one of the reasons the MDNR will not allocate resources to ANOTHER study of this issue.

It's up to us to push the issue through the NRC that we want the opportunity, there is no evidence that we can't have the opportunity and there is plenty of evidence that fishing under the past 40+ years of bass fishing conditions in Michigan on the bass spawn has not harmed the bass population. Adding a small percentage of the spawn and prespawn to CDR fishing will not drastically change this because bass are prolific spawners able to more years than not, recruit enough new bass into the population despite even having harvest as an option during the bass spawn.

It's really nuts when you consider that you can HARVEST pike and walleye ALL YEAR on Lake St. Clair and they are harvest fish - fish that people generally keep more than release - yet bass are numerous in the lake, at a 93% voluntary live release rate and the most restricted gamefish on the lake because of what anglers think not because of the real science available. That is what the last bass study on Lake St. Clair by the MDNR reported.

Sure, plenty of anglers don't care one way or the other, plenty are just in the 'fear of change' category and then there are our enemies who don't want us, for various reasons, to have more opportunity often just because they want the fishing as easy as possible for themselves. We do have support from the organized walleye anglers - they want more bass caught and kept, which of course won't be much of a change considering the 93% voluntary live release rate. But they would rather have us out there catching more bass more often.

I agree with thedude. Tournaments in the inland lakes of Michigan have always been during the spawn. From what I can see, no harm has been done. I live around The Detroit River. And every spring (sometimes as early as March) the walleye get hammered. It is commonplace to see at least 100 to even 200 boats at multiple areas of the river throughout a days trip. You can walk across them LOL. Most boats have at least 4 anglers fishing for and keeping walleye. I know they are fishing during the spawn. I have seen multiple walleye taken over 10 pounds and go straight in the livewell. I personally don't keep any walleye even close to that size during this time of the year and spawn for that matter. It really makes me sick to see this because I know those are the fish that make the Detroit River a world class walleye fishery. Now I'm not sure if the MIDNR stocks the river on a regular basis with walleye. But what I'm getting at is that there doesn't seem to be any concern for the conservation of the walleye at this critical time during their spawn.
I apologize if this has already been discussed. This topic struck a cord with me. Seems hypocritical and bias against a certain group of fish or anglers for that matter.

The difference is that people want to eat those fish, so the DNR sits out in the mouth of the river with shock rigs to collect eggs so that they can restock what anglers take. A good example of the hypocracy in the NRCs inaction. We are free to over harvest walleye and the DNR will artificially replenish them but bass we have to over protect for pretend reasons.

Thanks Jay, thedude, and spinnerbation for your input.

Remember when comparing fishing for bass vs walleye or pike during the spawn is that walleye and pike have no parental care.  That makes a big difference in the impact angling can have on a population.  There are still selective pressures that could come into play with a lot of harvest, but we do not have to deal with the nest site abandonment issues of bass and the artificial selection pressures anglers can cause in those situations.

Personally, I think we can all agree we would rather catch bass that are not stocked than rely on stocked fish.  Makes me think about how trout guys seem to much prefer catching wild trout than stocked ones.  I am not a trout guy, so maybe I am wrong there but the trout guys I know much prefer wild ones.  If we need to resort to stocking bass, something went really wrong somewhere.

I do realize that in a lot of MI the spawn is not protected much, especially in northern MI.  I trust what you guys say for timing of the spawn in  MI.  When I did research, the opener fell right in the middle of the spawning season in the lake near Cadillac where we worked.  It was a small lake, but deep and with relatively little shallow water to help speed up the warming.  I do think it would be wise to protect bass with at least immediate release through the spawn period though even if that means delaying the opener.  Also, remember that the earlier spawners are the most important ones to protect since their offspring have a great chance of surviving through the first winter. So, even if the opener protects the earlier portion of the spawn that is significant.

I personally believe that serious bass anglers including most of the active members here are more effective and efficient anglers than those of previous generations.  There is so much more knowledge available to anglers, better technology, better understanding of how to catch bass that the impact of angling can be more significant than before.

If there was one thing I wish I could accomplish here is that you guys would stop viewing this as a one-sided case of science vs. non-science.  There are good studies on both sides of this issue.  Because of my focus on behavior of spawning bass, I tend to think through the effects of angling from that perspective.  I look at the impact of nest abandonment which guarantees no offspring for that nest, that northern bass do not re spawn if a nest fails, the selective issues that could cause in a population, the very few numbers of smallmouth that actually contribute to a year class in a given lake, etc as enough reason for sound scientific concern.

I realize you would all like to see a very direct link between angling pressure and decreases in the population before you would concede any negative affect of angling.  Things like this are not always that clear cut and black and white because of how many variables can come into play.  We may never agree if angling is enough of a variable to be worth considering.

Hear is one more article, not a journal article but a reprint from In-fisherman from Matt Straw and Gord  Pyzer (who is a retired fisheries guy): http://www.wisconsinsmallmouth.com/Newsletters/0805.pdf

Thank you for those of you that were willing to discuss things in a reasonable and civil tone.  I hope i did not come across as arrogant or condescending in anyway.  If I did, I apologize.  It was not my intention.

I did get into the weeds - which distracts from my point.

The NRCs sole purpose of existence is to be the judge and jury on scientific based management. As you've mentioned there's studies on both sides of the issue that can be interpreted as either for or against extending the seasons.

What we've seen is a total lack of formal process. No defensible data is submitted to the public as the basis for the outcome, therefore that decision (or lack thereof) is inherently baseless - in that it renders us (the people) powerless to challenge it. It's akin to your parents saying "Because I said so" when you wanted ice cream or something. It doesn't matter how factual or logical your argument is at that point since you will just be overruled.

The beautiful thing about science is that it is optimistic, in that negative results are still a success. Thusly, when faced with an issue, a scientist is eager and excited to deduct a conclusion because it is always a win. We are not seeing that from our NRC - when presented with conflicting data, there has been no attempt to clarify or challenge old standards through scientific process.  Continually challenging old standards is the only path to progress.  It's the reason we have lightbulbs instead of candles and unleaded gasoline and heart transplants and solar power and .... you get it i'm sure.

Maybe spawn fishing is keeping us from reaching our true potential of a quality fishery, maybe we can catch and keep all year without any penalty. While i personally believe the latter, i certainly feel that there is ample cause to assert that our current regulations address neither side of this issue and that if progress is to be made for the betterment of our resources - the NRC has to actually do something scientific, not just stick their fingers in their ears and yell "la la la la la la la i don't want to hear anymore la la la" like a bunch of politicians.

The NRC has a job and charter which was granted them by popular vote of the people of this state. They are ignoring the sole reason they even were allowed to exist. Basically, we have just been duped into letting the DNR choose which politics they wish to play.

Quote from: Jay-MadWags on December 01, 2016, 04:48:52 PM
I agree with thedude. Tournaments in the inland lakes of Michigan have always been during the spawn. From what I can see, no harm has been done. I live around The Detroit River. And every spring (sometimes as early as March) the walleye get hammered. It is commonplace to see at least 100 to even 200 boats at multiple areas of the river throughout a days trip. You can walk across them LOL. Most boats have at least 4 anglers fishing for and keeping walleye. I know they are fishing during the spawn. I have seen multiple walleye taken over 10 pounds and go straight in the livewell. I personally don't keep any walleye even close to that size during this time of the year and spawn for that matter. It really makes me sick to see this because I know those are the fish that make the Detroit River a world class walleye fishery. Now I'm not sure if the MIDNR stocks the river on a regular basis with walleye. But what I'm getting at is that there doesn't seem to be any concern for the conservation of the walleye at this critical time during their spawn.
I apologize if this has already been discussed. This topic struck a cord with me. Seems hypocritical and bias against a certain group of fish or anglers for that matter.

Jay,

Those walleyes that run up the DR in Spring are a small percentage of total eyes that spawn in the Erie-DR-LSC-SCR-Huron system. The majority of lower GL walleyes spawn on the Lake Erie reefs and there's plenty of literature to provide stats. The fish that do run into the rivers to spawn are in a relatively concentrated area, i.e. funnel, that makes them "easy pickins" for newbies with a jig rod. You spread those boats out over the LSC mile roads and I'll bet it pretty close to the same amount of pressure during April and May. Harley, Crocker, Selridge, etc are packed with trailers close to the same as at Erie Metro, Wyandotte, Elizabeth Park during Spring.

The thing that shocks me is you stated it sickens you to see big female walleyes go into live wells (not released). Pretty hypocritical IMO that you think it's OK to toss big female smallies into a livewell and hope that they survive upon release after riding around all day. Sure, eating fish leaves no chance for survival but trust me, there's a lot of big bass that die post-release. More than people who aren't fisheries biologists care to admit (or accept). I guarantee that the tournament guys who run their livewells continuously and use release supplements (any serious bass angler knows what Rejuvenade or Catch and Release are and where to get them) during tournaments is a very small fraction, and I'd bet zero in some small club events. No, I don't have hard numbers but I've asked fishing tackle stores how much Rejuvenade they sell and it's hardly any at all over a year. Heck, some don't even carry any such thing.

I studied limnology and ecology at the University of Illinois-Champaign Urbana in the 80's and attended Humboldt State University for grad school in fisheries under Roger Barnhart. So I do know a thing or two about fisheries biology (and I can tell Dean V knows the subject). I've since worked in scientific research at major universities in CA, WA, and MI and published many peer-reviewed, high impact manuscripts and know full well the struggles of PIs trying to obtain funding for research. I lived through the Reagan years when he had James Watt as his Sec of the Interior and watched him cut all funding to the US Fish and Wildlife such that many fish hatcheries were shuttered during their tenure in the mid-to-late 80s. So I take it kinda personal when I read bass anglers criticize fisheries professionals for their decisions when they have no idea what goes into their education, training, and work. Anyone can find articles on fisheries research and even understand most of them. But I will tell you that all this is is a select group of lobbyists (tournament bass anglers) wanting to change bass regulations to suit their desires. Which is to hold catch and keep bass tournaments as they see fit. As Dean said it is not science vs. non-science, as Dan is respectfully lobbying for as a rationale for this change. Plain and simple, the argument is that since catch and keep bass tournaments presently take place during the spawn in the Northern latitudes of MI, why not have them all year long? They have no detrimental effect, right? Yet this is based on what - angler observation?

I've been fishing for almost 50 years for all types of species, mostly bass, and I would bet a Lions championship that any and all serious anglers (amateur and pro) knows the best and only way to ensure survival is immediate release. No boat flipping. No putting in a livewell with reduced O2 levels. Ask musky guys. Ask trout guys. Ask saltwater guys. Never mind how the effect on recruitment rates and how removing bass from beds affects fry survival cuz that falls on deaf ears. All the studies in the US don't matter since they weren't conducted in MI or on LSC, etc. Doesn't apply, right. There were earlier mentions of evolving as a sport. There's MLF and live GoPro bass tournaments. Those are more fun for me, as a spectator (don't know about as a participant) to watch because I think the decision-making strategy changes completely compared to the typical BASS/5 heaviest fish format where culling is involved. In any case, I think the best way to unite the cause is not to make it a science vs. non-science issue because 1) it's not and 2) it divides anglers into a Dem vs Rep mentality further polarizing anglers.

It is science verses non-sense, I mean science... sorry. Okay, not really. There are reasons most states do not protect the spawn at all and allow all types of bass fishing. Biological, scientific reasons. And important economic and fisheries resource management reasons.

Some anglers are protectionist and there PERSONAL philosophy is to protect the spawn. Good for them. But the rest of us shouldn't have to live under their overly and unnecessarily restrictive thinking. The science shows we can bass fish more than we do now and the bass will hold their own.

Even Michigan DNR studies show that bass generally produce and excess of offspring - reason 1 why most states don't restrict their anglers - and that there is no correlation between fishing any time of the year and bass recruitment. There are at least 50 plus years of bass studies in Michigan that don't show anything different than other states have shown.

Fishing is a consumptive sport. Catching a bass is a bad 'outcome' for that individual bass but I'm not going to stop fishing because my license and purchases are the primary thing that also affords the MDNR to ensure they have the regulations in place that maintain our bass populations which is very little because under the present fishing conditions of most anglers releasing most of their bass our bass are doing fine and the creel limit has very little impact because of this CIR mentality.

The size limit may be the only regulation the MDNR EVER made that actually may have made for better bass fishing and this statement comes from an MDNR fisheries researcher who worked on bass studies in Michigan.

Face it. We do some damage but the amount of fishing we have been doing for decades including fishing harvest season in 70% of the state's bass spawn, and with all the modern technology has shown no adverse impact on bass populations from year-to-year and lake-to-lake.

I'm not going to make bass tournament anglers stop or unnecessarily limit their opportunity just because some bass are harmed either. Fishing is consumptive. It is a conservation sport, not a preservation sport. All the bass tournaments over all the decades including 45+ years of holding them during 70% of the state's bass spawn have not shown any harm to Michigan bass populations. I have asked even the most ardent anti-bass tournament leaning MDNR fisheries biologists this question over and over and all they can lean on is 'but what if something happens?' Well, like any other situation we deal with that IF and when it happens but considering it hasn't happened anywhere else because of just fishing what are the odds it happens here?? Not much.

There are no studies showing that allowing more bass tournaments during the rest of the most prolific lower Michigan spawn and prespawn will hurt our bass populations either. The MDNR has said they will not do such a long-term, expensive study either and one of the reasons is because there is plenty of science and real-world evidence already that we can fish the more bass tournaments in the spring without destroying our bass populations. Plenty of other states do it. We've been doing it for 45 years!

The only thing holding us back is angler opinion. Some anglers being more protectionist instead of conservationist in their thinking. That is NOT science. That is opinion and personal preference. And of course some of it just being bias and prejudice against bass tournaments. Some people are only against us fishing more because they don't like us at THEIR boat ramps. That is also NOT science.

It is one of the main reasons I hear people say they don't want more bass tournaments. Bass tournament anglers should have the EXACT same opportunity other anglers have to use the boat ramps. They pay just as much for them as anyone else. Probably more according to some studies about average angler behavior.

I don't care that some people don't like us. Some people dislike just about anything. That is not a reason to deny a group opportunity.

It's great that there is emerging technology and ideas on how to do bass tournaments but there is no science showing we need to adapt en mass to it overnight. It would only be forced on us because of others' personal opinions. preferences and bias not because of any scientifically proven need.

I would much rather have happy anglers out their fishing more often because they can and work on helping them improve their already successful efforts to keep even more bass alive during and after the tournaments than use an unimpactful loss of some bass as a reason to deny them opportunity. If that is the criteria then we should all STOP fishing period because we all kill some bass, harm some bass, impact individual bed success. We are ALL guilty as charged. But we (pretty much only we) also pay for the budget manage the natural resources and everything in them. Without us there is no management at all.

It is grossly unfair - and talk about hypocritical - for one angler to tell another angler you can't fish as much as me because you harm some bass. That is pretty much mostly just human selfishness rearing its ugly head. Also not science. Bass tournament anglers deserve the same opportunity to fish their way as much as anyone else does. They don't deserve less opportunity. There is no science supporting that. Only opinion, personal preference, selfishness and bias. That is science.

Great post above Dan... The Man!  8)

If you have not all read the Phillip, et al 2015 article, you should at least read it.  It should be of great interest to every single bass angler regardless of your view on this topic.  My opinions were based on scientific research years before this article was published to it has not influenced my opinion one way or the other.  It is just a really good read.  This one focuses largemouth bass.  The stuff I have referenced prior focuses on smallmouth bass primarily.

http://fishlab.nres.illinois.edu/Documents/PhilippEtAl_BassBook_2015.pdf

Link to brief talk on subject: https://youtu.be/MrzMq0HmlHY

Yes, fishing for bass is a bad outcome for that individual bass. And once again no correlation to the bass population though. They've been trying to prove that for over 20 years and failing. That is a result. There is no correlation between fishing for bass ANY time of the year and bass recruitment. This study says this might happen or that might happen yet we've been fishing the majority of the bass spawn in Michigan under the harvest season for over 45 years and NONE of this has happened.

The fishing has actually gotten better during this time despite increased angler knowledge and better tools. The 'blame' is attributed by real bass biologist experts mainly to the catch-and-release ethic practiced by the majority of bass anglers.

Quote from: AMSDJS on December 02, 2016, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: Jay-MadWags on December 01, 2016, 04:48:52 PM
I agree with thedude. Tournaments in the inland lakes of Michigan have always been during the spawn. From what I can see, no harm has been done. I live around The Detroit River. And every spring (sometimes as early as March) the walleye get hammered. It is commonplace to see at least 100 to even 200 boats at multiple areas of the river throughout a days trip. You can walk across them LOL. Most boats have at least 4 anglers fishing for and keeping walleye. I know they are fishing during the spawn. I have seen multiple walleye taken over 10 pounds and go straight in the livewell. I personally don't keep any walleye even close to that size during this time of the year and spawn for that matter. It really makes me sick to see this because I know those are the fish that make the Detroit River a world class walleye fishery. Now I'm not sure if the MIDNR stocks the river on a regular basis with walleye. But what I'm getting at is that there doesn't seem to be any concern for the conservation of the walleye at this critical time during their spawn.
I apologize if this has already been discussed. This topic struck a cord with me. Seems hypocritical and bias against a certain group of fish or anglers for that matter.

Jay,

Those walleyes that run up the DR in Spring are a small percentage of total eyes that spawn in the Erie-DR-LSC-SCR-Huron system. The majority of lower GL walleyes spawn on the Lake Erie reefs and there's plenty of literature to provide stats. The fish that do run into the rivers to spawn are in a relatively concentrated area, i.e. funnel, that makes them "easy pickins" for newbies with a jig rod. You spread those boats out over the LSC mile roads and I'll bet it pretty close to the same amount of pressure during April and May. Harley, Crocker, Selridge, etc are packed with trailers close to the same as at Erie Metro, Wyandotte, Elizabeth Park during Spring.

The thing that shocks me is you stated it sickens you to see big female walleyes go into live wells (not released). Pretty hypocritical IMO that you think it's OK to toss big female smallies into a livewell and hope that they survive upon release after riding around all day. Sure, eating fish leaves no chance for survival but trust me, there's a lot of big bass that die post-release. More than people who aren't fisheries biologists care to admit (or accept). I guarantee that the tournament guys who run their livewells continuously and use release supplements (any serious bass angler knows what Rejuvenade or Catch and Release are and where to get them) during tournaments is a very small fraction, and I'd bet zero in some small club events. No, I don't have hard numbers but I've asked fishing tackle stores how much Rejuvenade they sell and it's hardly any at all over a year. Heck, some don't even carry any such thing.

I studied limnology and ecology at the University of Illinois-Champaign Urbana in the 80's and attended Humboldt State University for grad school in fisheries under Roger Barnhart. So I do know a thing or two about fisheries biology (and I can tell Dean V knows the subject). I've since worked in scientific research at major universities in CA, WA, and MI and published many peer-reviewed, high impact manuscripts and know full well the struggles of PIs trying to obtain funding for research. I lived through the Reagan years when he had James Watt as his Sec of the Interior and watched him cut all funding to the US Fish and Wildlife such that many fish hatcheries were shuttered during their tenure in the mid-to-late 80s. So I take it kinda personal when I read bass anglers criticize fisheries professionals for their decisions when they have no idea what goes into their education, training, and work. Anyone can find articles on fisheries research and even understand most of them. But I will tell you that all this is is a select group of lobbyists (tournament bass anglers) wanting to change bass regulations to suit their desires. Which is to hold catch and keep bass tournaments as they see fit. As Dean said it is not science vs. non-science, as Dan is respectfully lobbying for as a rationale for this change. Plain and simple, the argument is that since catch and keep bass tournaments presently take place during the spawn in the Northern latitudes of MI, why not have them all year long? They have no detrimental effect, right? Yet this is based on what - angler observation?

I've been fishing for almost 50 years for all types of species, mostly bass, and I would bet a Lions championship that any and all serious anglers (amateur and pro) knows the best and only way to ensure survival is immediate release. No boat flipping. No putting in a livewell with reduced O2 levels. Ask musky guys. Ask trout guys. Ask saltwater guys. Never mind how the effect on recruitment rates and how removing bass from beds affects fry survival cuz that falls on deaf ears. All the studies in the US don't matter since they weren't conducted in MI or on LSC, etc. Doesn't apply, right. There were earlier mentions of evolving as a sport. There's MLF and live GoPro bass tournaments. Those are more fun for me, as a spectator (don't know about as a participant) to watch because I think the decision-making strategy changes completely compared to the typical BASS/5 heaviest fish format where culling is involved. In any case, I think the best way to unite the cause is not to make it a science vs. non-science issue because 1) it's not and 2) it divides anglers into a Dem vs Rep mentality further polarizing anglers.

So based on this - its safe to assume that the safest time to keep bass in a livewell would be the pre-spawn and late-fall, winter months when the colder water slows metabolism, reduces fish stress and retains more oxygen? Rather than the hottest summer months when water is hot and its much harder to properly care for fish?

So why can't we do it prespawn?

It is easier to keep bass alive in livewells in colder water. WE all know that. BUT these people don't want us to have ANYMORE bass tournament opportunity so they have to come up with excuses that fit the season. That's how this has always been. Second verse, same as the first... over and over for over 30 years now I've been hearing these excuses. Meanwhile our bass keep doing fine despite more fishing...