Michigan Proposes to Double Brook Trout Limit in Upper Peninsula

By Howard Meyerson

A proposal to raise the daily limit of brook trout caught on Upper Peninsula streams is expected to be rolled out in early summer, according to state officials. The proposal doubles the limit from five fish per day to 10 fish per day and reverses the 2000 rule that lowered the limit from 10 to five.

“This is a social issue more than biological issue,” said Steve Scott, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources fisheries supervisor for the Newberry and Baraga districts in the Upper Peninsula. “It peaked when gas was four bucks a gallon.”

UP anglers have complained that they were spending a lot on gas and that most U.P. streams had small brook trout running from 7 inches to 9 inches. Raising the limit to 10 made the trip more worthwhile,” according to Scott.

JR Richardson, of Ontonagon, a Natural Resource Commissioner, said he and Commissioner John Madigan, of Munising, have pushed for a while to reverse the 2000 decision that lowered the limit.  Richardson, also the president of the Upper Peninsula Sport Fisherman Association, said anglers have been complaining ever since the bag limit was lowered.

Richardson said he once ran into a couple of guys who were fishing in Ontonagon County. He asked them about their experiences without introducing himself as a state commissioner. The two anglers replied that the brook trout fishing was nice but complained that they could only catch five.

“I told them I had heard that sort of thing before, and that I had fished those rivers as a kid,” Richardson said.  “Everyone says it’s not really a biological issue, so I said: ‘What’s stopping us from doing it (raising the limit.)’”

The upcoming proposal calls for the increasing the limit on Upper Peninsula streams only. State officials say the move will complicate regulations, but acknowledge it will be a minor complication. Fisheries officials have been trying for several years to simplify state fishing regulations. The proposal will go out for public comment in June or July.

The move to reduce the bag limit to 5 fish in 2000 was driven by anglers who thought 5 fish was a reasonable daily limit and that a 10 fish limit could wipe out certain stream populations. It was also thought that lowering the limit could result in larger fish.

But fish biologists say that conclusion doesn’t bear out. Brook trout are most prevalent in Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula waters. They live in smaller, shallow streams that can freeze. They are also more vulnerable to predation than brown trout and are readily preyed upon by birds, mink and otter. And so they rarely live to grow to larger size.

“A three year old brook trout is a really old brook trout,” said Brian Gunderman, a fish biologist with the DNR’s Plainwell office and the chairman of the state’s cold  water resources steering committee, the group that reviews regulations that pertain to trout streams. “Most are one and two-year old fish.”

Scott said some trout anglers do not support the move to raise the limit. They maintain that five fish is enough.

Gunderman said anglers were split in 2000 over the proposal to lower the limit. Upper Peninsula anglers largely opposed while Lower Peninsula anglers largely supported it.

“Lower peninsula anglers generally indicated that five fish was a reasonable bag,” Gunderman said. “Upper Peninsula anglers generally did not share that opinion.”

Scott said U.P. anglers “like the idea of living off the land. It’s something they enjoy and that is the mindset up here.”

State officials say they will be examining the proposal to assess whether it could have an adverse impact on trout populations in Upper Peninsula steams. If that is so, the proposal could be revised or discarded. None, however, are anticipated.

Copyright  © 2012 Howard Meyerson

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Michigan Proposes to Double Brook Trout Limit in Upper Peninsula

  1. David Nyberg says:

    Thanks for sharing this article, Howard. I did want to add that there are many anglers in the U.P. who are vehemently opposed to this proposal. While I’m not a fisheries biologist, after attending the public meeting in Ishpeming last week as well as a Brook Trout Symposium put on by U.P. TU chapters in February, it has been pointed out by other non-DNR fisheries biologists that the DNR’s science on this is not entirely sound, not representative of sensitive natural-reproducing brook trout streams, and derived from very old data.

    The message that this proposal is coming from a majority of U.P. anglers is not accurate at best and disingenuous at worst, in my opinion. Further, the idea that the controversy is based solely on “social” considerations and not science is far from settled…

    Thanks for reporting on the issue – If you’re going to be following this further, give me a hollar if you’d like me to pass on info about fisheries experts who have contradicted the DNR as well as local anglers leading the opposition to this proposal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s