CONSERVATION LINES Mark Brantmeyer, Michigan B.A.S.S Federation Conservation Director Archived Articles, Click Here

---

Commentary from Michigan Outdoor News, September 16, 2005


FISHERIES DIVISION BREAKS FROM CONSERVATIVE TRADITION

By Ron Spitler, Conservation Director, Michigan BASS Federation
Michigan DNR Fisheries Biologist, Retired

Much to the surprise of Michigan Bass Federation, other organized bass groups and the outdoors media, on August 24, Fisheries Division recommended the season option for which we had hoped. Pending approval by the DNR Director and Commission, in 2006 sport anglers can look forward to a catch-and-immediate-release-bass season beginning the last Saturday of April (pike and walleye opener) for inland waters in the Lower Peninsula, with the traditional possession season opener of the Saturday before Memorial Day left intact. In the UP the catch-and-immediate-release period will open May 15, and possession season starts June 15. In addition, since pike and walleye are open to year around angling in the Great Lakes and connecting waters, catch and immediate release bass fishing will be open as well.

Why were we surprised? Unless you are from another planet, you know that Michigan DNR Fisheries is as conservative as they get. I spent 32 years as a Fisheries Biologist in that agency and speak from experience. It’s not bad to be conservative - look at all the successful programs and arguably fantastic fishing Michigan offers because of carefully managed waters and regulations. The Fisheries Division says that any liberalization carries with it risk of losing fishing quality, and that is true. However, in this case they finally realized that the angling public is ready for liberalization. Research and analytical models support the catch-and-release changes.

This did not come easily. When the Fisheries Committee did its year-long research and literature review, much of the data used was from out-of-state, and dated. Too little Michigan research was available to help. The conservative attitude was apparent in their recommended season options because the only ones it deemed viable carried a delay in possession season to June 15. Bass anglers found that unacceptable, and ultimately, so did the general angler, according to the results of a mail-out questionnaire.

The many public meetings were often heated, primarily because bass anglers were unhappy with what they thought were unfair restrictions to a sport of which they were the primary stewards. Statewide and nationwide, because of our influence, all anglers release an average of 60-80% of the bass they catch. So how could the Fisheries Division say that the springtime mortality of caught-and-immediately-released bass will be so high as to force a change in the possession season when most anglers continue to release the majority of bass caught anytime? Biologists defended their position, stating that they wanted to maintain the high quality of bass fishing that the 14 inch size limit created. We argued that the catch and release ethic we spawned had just as much to do with the fishing quality, so what’s the problem?

Finally, with the mail-out questionnaire of 10,000 providing valuable insight into public opinion, plus newer research data that we encouraged them to review, the Fisheries Division met again and conferred, finally determining that it could go with the recommendations. The division made a commitment to us to try this for five years; we need to make it work, and we can help them with their research. In five years we may see even more liberalization, when research shows lack of harm to the resource from catch-and-release fishing. Conversely, should data indicate harm, we’ll be the first to support rethinking regulations. The Fisheries Division certainly deserves our compliments and thanks for loosening that crust of conservatism they wear. Be glad they act responsibly in matters of fisheries management.

As a casual angler, you can help make this program a success. If you wish to
try the new season next spring, forget live bait. Bass tend to swallow worms and minnows, and the mortality rate is unacceptably high. Instead use artificial lures. It’s fun, effective, and much less damaging to the fish. Wet your hand before grabbing the fish to remove the lure. This helps protect the slime layer. Get the bass back into the water quickly. Measure and photograph your trophy quickly, release it, then enjoy your Master Angler Certificate and photograph later.

In this era of reduced budgets, personnel and equipment, is it any wonder that government agencies lose track of the public’s needs and opinions? Gone are the days of biologists accepting invitations to attend meetings of fishing, hunting and conservation groups. Opinion surveys are expensive and rarely done. Research, surveys and creel census work are severely reduced. Our priceless natural resources deserve more attention and protection than they are getting. If we gave DNR one-eighth of one percent of the sales tax collected as it’s budget, the agency could do much more. Missouri and Arkansas have done this. Why don’t we? Ask your legislator to do something about it.

MAY 2005

A REPORT FROM THE DNR/COOLWATER REGULATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING, MARCH 29, 2005

Michigan BASS was represented by Federation President Dennis Beltz, Conservation Director Ron Spitler, and “Assistant Director” Dan Kimmel. Among the three of us we held authority to represent all the bass fishing organizations we had been working with throughout the issue of Bass Regulations, literally thousands of bass anglers.

The meeting was poorly attended by other organizations, perhaps only four of us in total, while the usual host of DNR personnel attended. Fortunately Law Division was well represented this time. No media was present, nor did MUCC attend.

To our collective relief, this meeting was quite amenable, open, and not at all confrontational. We passed out copies of our updated report, UPDATES REGARDING THE SALBRC REPORT PLUS A FEW PERTINENT COMMENTS, MARCH 29, 2005, and copies of the RECREATION BUREAU TOURNAMENT PERMIT INFORMATION (summary of 612 DNR permitted bass tournaments in 2004).

The meeting agenda included first an update of the budget concerns. DNR will be seriously in the red by the middle of 2006, even with current license increases. They are looking for ways to salvage programs and personnel-an area where I sense an opportunity for our help. Comments once again reflected Missouri’s tax base portion that helps them avoid any such problem. Can we find a way to get that on the Michigan ballot?

Another item was plans to expand the state’s quality fishing waters, offering new opportunity, through special regulations, for quality angling opportunities-whatever that may be in various areas. We will review and comment on their proposed document.

Surprisingly, they announced that last fall the division biologists made a serious effort to resolve the drop-shotting regulations conflict that is unique to Michigan, and restricts one of the most effective bass fishing techniques in the country. With our encouragement and Law Division support (?) we may be able to eliminate the majority of the problem for bassers, while still affording protection to salmon in the fall and winter.

Now to the issue at hand: bass regulations. They reviewed the anticipated schedule; completion of the mail survey shortly and analysis of results, review with the commission and Coolwater Committee (this July for us), and anticipated introduction and passage of the bill over the winter of ‘05.

Next they summarized the results of the August Public Hearings on Bass Regulation:
 251 people attended 26 meetings (none at two of the meetings)
 62% of attendees said they participated in bass events over the past two years,
 79% stated they release 90-100% of the bass they catch,
 35% fished exclusively for bass.

Regarding the various scenarios offered in the questionnaire (completed by 40% tournaments anglers and 29% non-tournament anglers), “status quo” seemed to be favored by many, as 73% of the attendees labeled it acceptable (although many of those feared the other options would take away too much tournament season in exchange for “legal” CIR). The other three options (spring CIR with delay to 3rd week in June for possession) showed 59% rejecting scenarios 4 and 5, and 64% not liking scenario 6. Our unofficial scenario 8 garnered 21% support as a write-in, including support from some non-tournament anglers. Had scenario 8 been included by DNR originally, it likely would have had much higher support.

Some discussion occurred regarding the “general angler” and what his/her response would be to the mail questionnaire. In all likely-hood, when given several options, the average citizen will pick “status quo” just because it is the comfortable thing to do. If this is happens, perhaps we will need to encourage Fisheries Division to expand spring CIR in other ways. At any rate, we will have more work to do.

We emphasized the importance of updating DNR’s report, incorporating and discussing the newer information we had provided them last fall, plus apparently newer C&R tournament data coming from Arizona and New Hampshire. They agreed to do so.

Respectfully submitted,
Ron Spitler
March 31, 2005

This is my opinion, perhaps shared by most of the 17,000 Michigan BASS/ESPN Outdoors members and 3000 or so tournament bass anglers, but nonetheless, only mine. I have fished avidly since I was quite young. I served as a fisheries biologist with MI DNR Fisheries Division, mostly in SE Michigan, for over 31 years before retiring in 1997. I have fished bass competitively since 1975. I have been Conservation Director for the MI BASS Federation since 1998. I believe I know what I am talking about. Fisheries Division is to be applauded for deciding to go forward with the idea of liberalizing bass fishing regulations, but the process they followed has been a major disappointment to me. Why is that?

The Fisheries Committee that wrote the 53 page document, resulting the proposals, did so in total secrecy. I was asked by Fisheries Division to contribute a "White Paper" for the Bass Federation. I consulted with my board, wrote the paper, and submitted it to DNR in August of 2003. DNR’s report was released publicly months later with no mention or reference to our contribution. Why did they ask for it prior to completing their own report? Was it so they could build a stronger case for what they wanted?

The formal report, " Black Bass Fishing Seasons in Michigan: Background, Research, Review, and Recommendations" includes seven suggested scenarios for regulation changes. It relies heavily on conjecture and supposition with little data on which to justify the conclusions. Before releasing it Fisheries Division eliminated three scenarios from the public review process. Their process began with a meeting with the "Coolwater Regulations Steering Committee" on June 3. I am on that committee representing the BASS Federation. Eleven other organizations, including MUCC, UM, MSU and other fishing groups are represented as well. Only nine representatives from the organizations attended, but there were twelve DNR personnel. It was clearly stated in the report that bass populations around Michigan are adequately protected, even expanding, under current regulations, yet the three new scenarios offered all included postponing bass possession season for over three weeks as a trade-off for liberalization. We discussed the report, had lots of questions and suggestions, but were told our charge was to either approve or disprove the report going forward to public discussion, period. We approved it for public discussion.

Public meetings to discuss the proposals began in August. The DNR News Release did not include a name and address, nor a phone number for written or telephoned comments. Most of the 24 meetings were poorly attended ( from none to 50 citizens, averaging perhaps fewer than 10 per meeting). The majority of attendees were bass tournament anglers.

Of the scenarios listed in the report, only one comes close to the "ideal" option many anglers envision, myself included. Fisheries Division removed it from the list for public consideration. That is Scenario 2: Catch-and-immediate-Release (CIR) from January 1 until the Saturday preceding Memorial Day, then possession through December 31. In reality no one fishes for bass until the ice melts in the spring, usually around the end of March in southern Michigan, later further north. Of the four options "offered", one leaves everything as it is now; the other three suggest various changes early in the year. All include CIR from the third Saturday in April until the third Saturday in June when possession season would begin. It is clear that DNR wants a trade-off for a spring CIR by shortening the possession season. Why? Because they think CIR mortality of bass in the spring will harm the bass population unless possession season is shortened to make up for it. There are areas of disagreement between bass anglers and biologists, and I’ll focus on those.

Biologists "feel" that spring CIR of bass, especially on beds, will do such harm to populations that the possession season must be delayed over three weeks to compensate. The data used to conclude this did not come from Michigan, since they have not done any studies of tournaments or other CIR efforts. Rather, they researched data from Ontario, Texas and other areas, selecting data that supported their fear of population harm. As for fishing bass over beds, some anglers do, others don’t. It is an issue much like shooting does or bucks during the deer season. The big difference is, a bass, male or female, caught-and-released, has a very high chance of survival. Yes, beds abandoned for a time by a CIR bass will suffer some loss of eggs or fry from the nest, and all can be lost from that individual nest if the fish is carried away in a livewell or harvested. However, Mother Nature provides compensation, such as: an extended spawning period—up to a month or more in most waters; which helps avoid losses from severe weather changes; spawning at various depths—largemouths typically from 1-8 feet, smallmouths at depths to 20 feet. In weedy lakes or "colored" water, how many beds can be seen on any given day, especially if it’s cloudy, breezy or raining?; and there are many more beds-- with thousands of potential offspring on each bed – than a given water body can support. When one nest fails, other nests likely have increased survival rates because food and cover that would have been available for the offspring of the failed nest are now available for other juvenile bass. Nation-wide, even where there is no closed season on bass, spring storms and availability of nursery cover are the only known threat to bass recruitment on an annual basis. No study anywhere supports the claim that fishing over beds—even during year-around possession seasons—harms bass populations.

DNR picked data from several studies to support their contention that CIR would be harmful without delaying possession season, especially where tournaments were concerned. Some of the data came from the 1980’s, much was prior to1995. In 2002 BASS/ESPN Outdoors, our Bass Federation’s parent organization, published "Keeping Bass Alive" authored by several of the foremost experts on bass handling techniques, especially in boat livewells and at tournaments weigh-ins. Survival rates at tournaments had been getting better for years, but with this new guide, bassers nationwide learned how to assure even higher survival rates. BASS/ESPN has two highly regarded biologists on staff, heading up our Conservation Department. They have helped a great deal in getting the newest information to use in our discussions with DNR. I recently presented MI. Fisheries Division with citations from five recent studies, all substantiating our claims that mortality rates from CIR, especially in the spring, is very low. Supporting that is a study of 2,072 tournaments in Texas. Biologists there revealed that immediate catch-and-release produced only 1.1% mortality, while tournament losses averaged only 4% overall at weigh-ins. Fisheries Division used a much higher average mortality in their report (23-28% in summer tournaments), hence the delayed possession season.

Michigan’s bass populations are protected by the size limit, and have never been better. The 14 inch size limit assures that each male bass has up to three years of spawning protection before reaching "keeper" size. Female bass have at least two years, thus assuring a good population of the species. The regulation was supported by bass anglers because we wanted to protect them while increasing the quality of the fishery (larger bass to catch). In reality, then, we have had a CIR season for bass under 14 inches for over 10 years. With the advent of professional bass tournaments in 1968, the excitement and glamour of bass fishing/competition spawned a tremendous increase in bass angling. DNR admits that, if not for an increase in new bass anglers over the past 10 years, fishing license sales would have decreased substantionally. Because of the influence of bass pros and the media, catch-and-release fishing of bass is practiced by 70-90% of all anglers in Michigan.( higher in the Lower Peninsula, lower in the U.P.). The current bass regulations are based on a model predicting angler harvest of 50% of the legal-sized bass that were caught, plus a 10% anticipated mortality of those that were released. That suggests that about 60% of all caught legal-sized bass are harvested or killed. In my opinion those numbers are more than twice today’s numbers. Case in point: A DNR Lake St. Clair creel census in 2002 indicated an angler catch of 148,000 smallmouth bass, and a harvest of only 12,000. That is a harvest of only 8% of the caught fish, not 50%. Assuming a 10% loss (too high) of the 136,000 caught-and-released bass adds another 13,600 fish for a total angler-caused mortality of only 17%, not 60% as predicted. In 1970 the majority of those 148,000 fish would have been harvested. It is a certainty that the population of 14-inch and larger bass in Lake St. Clair is much higher than 148,000 fish. Angler mortality is negligible. Michigan’s bass anglers can claim as much credit as DNR for the great bass populations because we inspired the widespread catch-and-release ethic.

Tournament bass anglers account for less than .2% of Michigan’s licensed anglers (perhaps 3000), and .6% of "anglers who fish for bass." A competitive bass angler will spend nearly 10 times more money than any other angler. If we are harming bass populations in Michigan lakes, where is the proof? To the contrary we can cite many examples of "fantastic" recent competitions such as the BASS Federation’s first two tournaments of 2004: On June 6 and 7, there were 60 and 53 boats respectively, with a two angler team on each, and we fished Burt and Mullett Lakes(connected by a stream), near the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula. Size limit was the state’s 14 inches, but we limited ourselves(as most event organizers do) to five bass per boat. Conditions were ideal on the 5^th; calm and sunny, and smallmouth bass were bedding everywhere (typical in June in the north), visible in up to 12 feet of water. There were 53 five fish limits with the winning weight of five bass totaling 26.28 lbs. Twenty-nine boats had 20 pounds (4 lb. average) or more, and 22 boats weighed in from 15 to 19.9 lbs. I observed no dead bass at the weigh-in, or in the water at the release point, nor did the marina owner where we launched know of a single reported dead bass a week after the tournament. The 6^th was "average" with windy, rainy weather. Still, 27 out of 53 boats had 5-fish limits, and four boats brought in 20 lbs or more. The two days garnered 22 Master Angler Bass; 20 over 5 lbs. and two over 6 lbs. Bass tournaments have been held on those lakes for over 20 years, many times over spawning fish, but it doesn’t look to me that we’ve hurt the population one bit. In fact it seems to get better every year.

For any new "option" to be considered by Fisheries Division in this process it must fit three criteria: 1) must be biologically sound; 2) cannot have been already rejected by DNR; 3) and cannot reduce the quality of bass fishing in Michigan. Michigan Bass Federation and all other bass organizations have offered "Scenario 8" which accepts the 3^rd Saturday in April CIR opener, but retains the traditional possession season, with the Memorial Weekend start. It is unfair for Fisheries Division to include criteria # 2 above. If this is to be a democratic process they must include the option that the majority of us support. If you agree with me, contact the Director of the DNR and let her know how you feel, since the public comment period is deemed over by Fisheries Division. Write to: Rebecca Humphries, Director, Michigan DNR, P.O. Box 30690, Lansing, MI 48909-8190.