My Comments on: An In-depth look at:
“91-6 MDNR Fisheries Technical Report, Aug 15, 1991

Results of Early Season, Catch-and-Release Bass Fishing at Six Lakes

(Posted 02/15/2004)

Part 2 – My Comments on the MDNR Study – by Dan Kimmel             [To Part 1 – MDNR Study]

My Comments on: 91-6 MDNR Fisheries Technical Report, Aug 15, 1991 Results of Early Season, Catch-and-Release Bass Fishing at Six Lakes (Posted 02/15/2004)First off, the heart of the matter is that Michigan bass anglers have an incomplete study/opportunity out there that needs to be carried through to fruition. I’ve talked to one of the study biologist researchers about this. He agreed the study results, and based on his knowledge of available research data, that Michigan couldn’t show scientific support for a closed bass season.

Does that mean we shouldn’t have a closed bass season in Michigan? Not necessarily. There are always local exceptions and considerations, and things can change. I hope, with my unique perspective on the issue having been intimately involved in getting the test season going as the Michigan B.A.S.S. Chapter Federation Environmental Director during that time, that I can help explain and clarify some things.

An important thing to consider about Michigan’s great fishing is our excess of Great Lakes water and numerous, productive inland lakes. This is not common throughout the country. Many states were limited mainly to stream and river fishing until all the great reservoirs were built. I don’t believe anyone should forget how much bass in Michigan have going for them as far as excellent water and habitat before they make up their minds about the ‘cause’ of our good bass fishing if you might be one of those who have made a conclusion that our fishing is because we have a closed season.

The most obvious goal for those of us who want more legal bass fishing in Michigan is that we should at least add more lakes that appear to be prime candidates according to the study suggestions (see #2 under study recommendations) to the existing catch and release season. We need a larger test base so a few lakes don’t get too much pressure from the large number of anglers who want to fish for bass legally in the spring. To date, it hasn’t been a major issue because so many anglers are bass fishing in the spring on the same lakes they’ve historically fished. This could change if a legal backlash occurs with increased enforcement caused by controversy.

Many anglers are not convinced the season is necessary so they don’t follow the regulation. I’m referring to the reality of the issue, not whether or not it is ethical. They will continue to fish. I don’t want to see them all forced on to only 6 lakes.

We originally intended to see if the lakes were obviously affected by spring bass fishing. If they weren’t, we intended to add lakes and extend the study until we could show whether we needed a closed bass season or not. Some reasons no additional test lakes were added in the early 1990s are because of the chaos within the MDNR at that time (Engler split the DNR up after promising he wouldn’t), and because organized bass anglers did not stay on top as well as we should have.

I believe it’s very telling that the research biologists felt they had enough data for the initial survey goals of the study to be met early. I believe this demonstrates and supports a lot of what I’ve already posted with the other biologist interviews and study excerpts – that bass seasons are not the commonly accepted means of managing bass. As we’ve seen, when people are against something, they will think of many ways to stall change including the common argument of “Well, we don’t have any Michigan data (not true either) – that data from other states doesn’t apply to our ‘unique’ situation!”

So, in part the study was performed so we could say, “See, we even have our own Michigan data.” Of course, since the study has backed up what most of the rest of the country already knows, now people will and are trying to discredit our own study so they think that puts us back to the original argument again. All I can say about that is, it must be tough for some researchers to do the work and have people say it still doesn’t matter.

This doesn’t just apply to anglers, but also other biologists. The latest excuse I’ve heard from MDNR biologists is that our own specific study, 91-6, is not really valid for allowing spring catch-and-release bass fishing is that riverine/reservoirs were chosen because they would have spawning that bass anglers supposedly can’t get too. Recruitment would come from upstream or ‘over dams.’

First of all, that ignores all the studies that say the number of spawning bass does not affect bass recruitment anyway. It ignores the persistence of many of the over 400,000 Michigan bass anglers AND a big one – I was intimately involved in picking the lakes. We had a number of regular inland lakes on the original list of test lakes. Unfortunately, mainly from lake association members who are organized and vocal on many regular inland lakes, we were hammered so hard at public meetings we had around these lakes individually, that they were all removed from the test to minimize controversy.

The lakes left on the test were those were little or no local opposition was shown from locals who just don’t want more of anyone on ‘their’ lakes. I’m confident, since I’ve talked to them, that the well-respected Michigan research biologists who performed these studies, do not believe they are invalid. I guess fisheries biologists are no different than some anglers – when they don’t like the results of a study, they just try to discredit the demonstrated results. Interesting aside to this – the Pennsylvania fisheries biologists followed our catch-and-release study in designing their own new catch-and-release season several years ago. Bob Lorantas from Pennsylvania Bureau of Fisheries told me this and stated that he believes Jim Schneider is an exemplary fisheries biologist.

I’ve said before, I do NOT want to extend the catch and keep season. It’s just not necessary since so many bass anglers already release most of their bass catch all year. Studies have shown, and many biologists agree, that this factor alone probably does more for quality bass fishing than anything other than years of consecutive favorable weather, clean water and good habitat. The majority of bass anglers, and especially avid bass anglers, just want to have more opportunity to catch bass. They don’t need to have more opportunity to kill them. They have more than enough opportunity during the present season to catch and eat a bass if they desire to.

I’m confident that the best evidence of all that my desired change won’t harm Michigan bass is that it’s not really a change. Most frequent bass anglers and almost half of the other anglers are already fishing preseason bass, and have been for years. Remember – the angler surveys supporting this in our study were done in the late 80s, early 90s – over ten years ago. If this type of pressure were going to do in our bass, we would know by now after more than 15 years of large numbers of bass anglers practicing preseason bass fishing. (If you see a quote below with a name and date in parentheses, that is a reference to another study performed by the named biologist(s) and reported in that particular year.)

What are All the Other States Doing Right Now:

Very few states, of the 49 with freshwater bass, now have a statewide bass closure.

  • Only 6 states have a statewide or near statewide closed bass season where you technically can’t legally fish for bass at all.
    • They are Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, New York and Vermont.
    • Wisconsin, Maine, and Vermont have extensive legal spring catch-and-release or reduced creel seasons.
    • New York has a later opener, but early May openers for catch-and-release on Lake Erie and the Finger Lakes.
  • The other 43 states allow some type of legal bass fishing year-round statewide with a few exceptions on individual lakes and rivers/streams for various reasons such as Ohio’s recent change to catch-and-release only for Lake Erie for two months in the spring, and Illinois’ similar change for most rivers and streams only. You can still legally bass fish all year in both states.
  • The trend spring bass management in Northern states lately has been to liberalize or change them by adding spring catch-and-release seasons.
    • Several Northern states have recently lengthened their bass seasons by adding early catch-and-release or reduced creel seasons.
    • Pennsylvania recently created a statewide catch-and-release season (3 years ago). You can now legally fish for bass all year in Pennsylvania. This was after extensive meetings with bass anglers and bass groups. The Pennsylvania equivalent of the DNR has a large annual meeting on bass every year now with anglers – a great opportunity for both sides.
    • Wisconsin recently moved their catch-and-release opener back into early May.
  • I’ve talked to biologists from most of these states and get told pretty much the same thing: bass anglers want to fish and the available studies nationwide do not support the need for a closed bass season on the majority of U.S. waters.

What Should We Do and Why:

At minimum, to continue scientifically looking at this issue of great importance to 100s of thousands of Michigan anglers (in my poll of Michigan B.A.S.S. Chapter Federation bass clubs, 43 have so far voted to support my suggested early bass season proposal; the great majority unanimously – no clubs have voted against it), we could add a number of different lakes to 6 existing lakes. This could be used to complete the study and to demonstrate to some people that need that further assurance, that Michigan bass can provide a longer, legal bass fishing opportunity, especially under catch-and-immediate-release regulations. I personally would prefer to go statewide. I’ll explain why below.

  • Many Michigan Anglers Still Prefer Less Complex Regulations: It appears that a great many Michigan anglers want simple regulations, not more complex. Simple means everything similar, not a bunch of complicated exceptions. This is a common challenge for fish and wildlife managers. A statewide change would be less confusing, and easier to manage and enforce.
  • A solid majority of Michigan bass anglers already release most of their bass: This is supported by actual studies done in Michigan several times including a fairly recent unpublished 1996 survey by Jim Schneider where 70% of anglers reported they usually released 70% of their legal bass.
  • Michigan has few infertile lakes that receive heavy bass fishing pressure: We have few shield lakes in Michigan. The infertile lakes we do have are mostly far north. These lakes have generally had no spawn protection for decades under our present, long-standing season since their entire bass spawn usually occurs after opening day.
  • Despite No Spawn Protection Under Present Season: Many of our Northern fisheries have stayed good and even improved in some cases despite having no spawn-fishing protection for decades under our present season. This should be good evidence that having a closed season is not a main ingredient to a good bass fishery. Study 91-6 reports that Michigan has allowed some harvest during the entire spawn statewide for over 30 years now.
  • Despite 15 or more years of widespread spring bass fishing on many Southern Michigan inland lakes and the Great Lakes, our bass fishing is as good or better than ever. On the Great Lakes in particular, we’ve had some of the largest bass year classes ever throughout the 1990s while this spawn-fishing pressure was highest. Gobies have been in our more heavily fished Great Lakes throughout much of that same period, yet we still had excellent annual bass recruitment and very healthy bass populations. Answer this question: 15 years ago, how many tournaments where won with limits of smallmouths over 20 pounds? How many are won that way now?
  • Only One Great Lakes Goby Study Being Done: There’s only one study being done, in Ohio on Lake Erie, right now and none previous, on how gobies might affect smallmouth bedding success with the inclusion of spawn-fishing. Ohio Fisheries biologists involved in the study told me last year that it would be 4 to 5 years before any meaningful results of effects on bass populations can be provided. It’s important to know that by far the most critical factor to affect the number of successful spawning beds in Lake Erie is wind, which man does not control. Up to 70% of the beds can be lost to wind damage. But this has been the case for years on Lake Erie, and Ohio has not had a closed bass season. Yet the smallmouth fishing there is some of the best in the world. No one really knows how many successful beds it takes to perpetuate the bass population on Lake Erie. What anyone can see is that despite gobies, spawn-fishing/no closed season, weather, charter boats and the other factors, Lake Erie has world-class smallmouth fishing. The fishing dramatically improved when we cleaned and cleared up the water even though all these other factors came along or increased.
  • Studies Show No Direct Correlation Between Number of Beds and Bass Recruitment: Studies across the country have consistently shown there is no direct correlation between the numbers of successful beds verses the success of bass recruitment (number of young added to the population). Studies show bass are very prolific spawners and usually produce an overabundance of young. Many studies have shown that good recruitment occurs most often when stable spring weather allows an early spawn, followed by a good stretch of warm, stable weather leading into good fall conditions. These conditions usually produce the best bass recruitment whether spring bass fishing was occurring or not.
  • Even Michigan Studies Show No Direct Correlation Between Spawning Numbers and Recruitment: Studies in our own state support what the majority of biologists nationwide believe, and what I’ve been sharing with you for some time, “Generally, there is no close relationship between the number of adult bass and the number of fingerling recruits they produce (Latta 1974, 1975). Only six adults per acre can produce excessive numbers of fingerlings (Schrouder et al. 1989; Mraz 1964).” The majority of the biologists I’ve interviewed have told me that the number of successful beds is not directly correlated to the annual recruitment of surviving bass in a lake or river. As our own study says, “Environmental variation can cause wide fluctuation in survival of young.” Environmental conditions are the overriding factors when it comes to how many bass survive until the next season to add to the bass population. These factors include weather issues such as wind, warm or cold temperatures, the actual start and length of warm weather during the spring through summer, and thing like water levels, especially in streams. Most of these things are not in our control and easily overwhelm the management methods that are in our control.
  • Fall Is When the Real Bass Recruitment Bottleneck Occurs: In some states, the major effort to help bass recruitment isn’t even aimed at the spring. It is aimed at assessing fall conditions since those states’ biologists will tell you in no uncertain terms that the bass recruitment bottleneck occurs in the fall, not in the spring. You can have a great spawn and still end up with terrible recruitment if conditions in late summer and fall are poor. Weather and water conditions are the issue, not fishing pressure.
  • Smallmouth Spawn Studies Often Done on Infertile Canadian Lakes: Most smallmouth bass studies that have claimed some possible concern (be absolutely clear, they have NOT shown harm to the overall population, just the potential for harm to individual beds) about fishing pressure during times of ‘higher vulnerability’ (spawn, wintering) that are most often referred to publicly have been performed on far Northern lakes, especially in Ontario. These lakes are not the same as most Michigan lakes. They are cold, infertile waters, such as shield lakes, that generally hold low densities of bass (bass per acre). The bass in some of these lakes have even been shown to lay less egg mass (fecundity) than bass in non-shield lakes (most Michigan lakes are non-shield lakes). They have a shorter growing season taking many years to reach spawning maturity; spawn less; lay less egg mass; are more likely to have weather conditions harm the spawn along with the potential for less forage to choose from.
  • Bass Usually Produce an Abundance of New Bass: It’s very rare for largemouth bass to not produce an overabundance of fingerlings in a system, partly because of their prolific nature and partly because of the habitats they choose to live in. There are some differences in smallmouths. Smallmouths are also prolific spawners that usually produce an abundance of new bass, but they are more likely to spawn in open areas that are affected by weather. It isn’t uncommon to see smallmouth bass populations have weak year classes once in a while (doesn’t necessarily mean no recruitment occurred – just that it was so small that it doesn’t readily show up in population census in meaningful numbers).
    • In a marginal lake, you may see a missing year class every 3 to 6 years. In a really good lake (like St. Clair), you may see a missing year class every 10 years or so. In almost every single case I can ever remember studying, the problem was Mother Nature, not fishing. In most cases, the area suffered an extended cold spring, and/or an early fall. Either most smallies just didn’t spawn (not all smallies spawn every year – sometimes as few as 30% of the adult population spawn each year) because of a cold patch during the proper time of year or fingerlings produced where not able to grow large enough to survive the winter successfully because they were hatched late or had unfavorable conditions.
    • Another example could be a spring with lots of strong winds such as happens on Erie. This is not an uncommon occurrence in nature to have low and high points in any population. What happens a lot with smallies is a huge boom year class after a weak or ‘missing’ year class because they have great conditions a year or two later, and less competition for 1 to 3 years. On non-shield lakes, I’ve never seen a significant study that shows fishing, not weather, was the actual cause of a poor year class. I have never seen an example of excellent weather and habitat conditions, but still a poor year class due to bed-fishing pressure alone on a good bass lake.
    • There are marginal lakes (infertile cold northern lakes, lakes with little or poor habitat, and tiny waters with easy access from many anglers so they’re less able to quickly recover) where this can conceivably happen, but it rarely does. Lake St. Clair has none of these characteristics, yet it is often used as an example of a lake that could be harmed by fishing pressure alone. Yes, it gets a lot of bass fishing effort, but it also happens to be a massive lake with fishable waters from shore-to-shore, unlike many other lakes.
    • Lately, the concern has been the gobies, which have been in St. Clair since 1990. Gobies are a nuisance, but neither I nor anyone else yet knows how they really affect bass on a large scale. The Ohio study will help. Some of our MDNR has stated they don’t believe bass are eating lots of gobies, but I believe that some of the growth and apparent feeding changes in some St. Clair smallies is related to the abundance throughout the lake of gobies. I’ve had quite a few spit up in my livewells. It’s hard to say whether the gobies are getting the better of smallies eating eggs from nests or the smallies are getting the better deal by eating gobies. All I know for sure is the smallmouth fishing on St. Clair is much better now than 13 years ago when gobies first showed up.
  • Bass Spawn Over Long Periods: Not all bass spawn at the same time. Female bass may lay eggs in several beds. Some bass spawn close to where they live most of the time. Other bass travel quite a distance to spawn. In 2002 on St. Clair as an example of the smallmouth bass spawning behaviors, there were bedding bass in bays in mid-April when we had the short hot spell. Spawners were thin after that while we had the extended cold spell through May, mainly scattered on flats. Then, at the beginning of June right through the end of the month, there were bass on beds all over the lake. Lot’s of concentrations, but also many beds scattered over large, deeper flats.
  • Many Bass Spawn Deeper Than Many Anglers Realize: Many smallmouths are spawning deeper than 7 feet. Some as deep as 11 feet on St. Clair. These have been viewed with underwater cameras. I have personally viewed beds on other Michigan lakes in over 12 feet of water in the spring. Another thing I’ve seen a number of times in different Michigan lakes is bass spawning in water temperatures much colder than they are supposed to –  as cold as the low to mid 50s.
  • Lake St. Clair Bass Have Exceptional Growth Rates: Interestingly enough, I’ve compared Lake St. Clair’s bass growth rate to lakes as far south as Pickwick by talking to biologists. Lake St. Clair bass have an exceptional growth rate that equals or even passes that of bass in lakes hundreds of miles south. Growth rates on all game fish in St. Clair are generally much higher than the rest of the state. Growth rates on other Michigan lakes vary quite a bit, but are good on most lakes you’d consider healthy bass lakes. To say we need more protection for St. Clair because it’s so far north compared to, say Dale Hollow, is to totally disregard accepted comparisons such as growth rate. How much does it really matter that bass on St. Clair have 150 days of growth (or whatever it really is) and bass on Dale Hollow have 200, if bass on St. Clair reach spawning maturity as fast or faster due to forage, habitat and water quality?
  • Actual Data Indicates We Won’t See a Drastic Increase in Spring Pressure: Other popular spring fisheries for other species will continue to draw spring anglers in Michigan. Since a large majority of frequent bass anglers already fish for bass in the spring and the study showed 44% of other anglers also already fished for bass in the spring, there isn’t much room for a dramatic increase in bass fishing pressure. Some anglers will be concerned that we’ll get a big influx of out-of-state anglers. We will get some, but many of the surrounding states already have open bass fishing that is popular with their anglers. When the Indiana DNR started getting complaints that too many out-of-state anglers where coming to their bass lakes in the spring, they performed access site license plate counts and found that a consistent majority, even on the border lakes, were still Indiana residents. Like many things, actual data shows it’s mostly perception.
  • “Generally, anglers are unable to catch every bass, or even enough bass to harm recruitment” (Bennett 1972). Now that I have an underwater camera, I can easily see how many bass I’m not catching at times. Seriously, there are studies on anglers’ ability to catch bass.
    • One study involved a thorough survey of a new lake before and after bass anglers were allowed to fish it. Several years into the lake’s life, the fishing seemed to have tapered off. Some anglers complained they weren’t catching as many bass as they used to, so the bass numbers must be down. A thorough bass survey actually showed numbers and quality of bass were slightly better than during the lakes first few boom years. The bass population was very healthy. The bass were apparently just harder to catch. There are other studies on this topic.
    • There are a few cases were a high percentage of the bass population is caught by anglers, but this usually involves small lakes with abnormally high pressure. Even then, if catch-and-release is common, the bass often do well as an MDNR study on Wakeley Lake showed. Wakeley is used as an example of a lake where a really high percentage of all bass are caught by anglers. I think it’s important to note that Wakeley is a small shallow lake. A lake this small would be much easier to adversely impact by anglers than a huge, highly productive lake like St. Clair. To get a similar amount of pressure on St. Clair as on Wakeley Lake, there would need to be 50,000 to 110,000 anglers per day bass fishing on St. Clair. Bass pressure isn’t anywhere near that high on St. Clair.
    • It’s interesting that some people would make claims about how many bass are in St. Clair and how many are caught when most anglers haven’t seen any real information on this. The St. Clair census will help, but right now, what someone claims about the big lake is usually based on his or her opinion of the bass season in general. Wakeley is highly controlled and small enough to allow pretty accurate measurements of many variables.
      • From Fisheries Technical Report 2001-2 – Evaluation of Catch-and-Release Regulations at Wakeley Lake, 1987-97 by James C. Schneider – “Wakeley Lake has been managed with catch-and-release regulations for all species of fish, walk-in access, and other special rules since it passed from private to public ownership.” Wakeley is only 168 acres with a maximum depth of 9 feet. It’s near Grayling. Because of all the publicity about Wakeley when it was being transferred from long years of private ownership to public, and its small size, it receives heavy fishing pressure despite its short season and convenient location. The lake’s bass are caught often and apparently don’t become a whole lot tougher to catch as it’s short season progresses.
      • Worth noting is that the catch rate and density of bass increased in the lake after ten years of catch-and-release. Even better, proportions of bass greater than 15 inches improved from 11-24% in 1986-87 when the state took over the lake to 51-60% in 1990-97. The proportion of large bass caught by anglers improved too. The estimated number of bass over 15 inches was 8 times higher in 1997 than before the lake went public. Initially, the bass grew faster than the State average until 1990. “By 1997, largemouth bass growth had declined to 0.9 inches below the state average.”
      • Not much was said on this issue other than a few individual bass appeared to have not grown much over these years. Overall, the report was very favorable to maintaining good, quality bass fishing with catch-and-release regulations. It is worth adding that greater than 89% of anglers surveyed at this lake were in favor of more catch-and-release lakes.
  • Our Lakes May be Less Productive than Southern Lakes; Does it Matter?: Some concern has been raised because our lakes may be less productive than southern lakes. I think the real questions are to consider whether or not the lakes are supporting the number of fish they can support; and whether or not the number of bass present can adequately maintain those numbers despite average conditions and fishing pressure.
    • It’s well known that lakes have a limited carrying capacity of biomass per acre. We also have 15 years of legal spring catch and release angling on 6 test lakes to look at. While no additional surveys have been performed on them since 1992, I can personally support that these lakes are still providing similar or even better angling for bass.
    • Kent Lake smallmouths are now much more prevalent than they were when the study started, which would seem to support what I’ve been saying all along, that changes in the factors that most affect bass – clean water, spawning and good living habitat, and forage will almost always override fishing effects.
    • Unusual events that could cause insufficient spawners are not angling-related, but Mother Nature and man’s overall affects on the environment. We can’t control all of these, but I surely won’t hold back fishing opportunity because we might have another ice age. That’s kind of like saying I should hold my breath from now on because I might inhale something dangerous. I’d rather do what we do in so many similar cases – be educated about the realistic level of risk and take a reasonable compromise approach, which is exactly why I’m only proposing legal catch-and-immediate-release of bass during the spring, instead of opening the bass to year-round fishing.
  • What is the Best Option Under Present Circumstances?: Since we can’t realistically afford lake-by-lake management, we have to consider managing the resources in a manner that takes into consideration our best compromise for reasonable management while allowing maximum resource availability.
    • We have so many lakes, no one has a real handle on the productivity and population in very many. There is some information on estimating general averages, but we’ve all seen the fishing get much better or worse on lakes before, so we know there are fluctuations too although we may have different ideas on why. We just don’t have the manpower and budget to keep tabs on 11,000 lakes and all the rivers and the Great Lakes too with that level of detail. Anglers are usually the first to know when a lake is really booming or might be in trouble.
    • The MDNR has used special regulations to manage for special cases. When justified, I don’t think anyone should have major problems with that. To attempt to manage the whole state for a worse case scenario or lowest denominator though is simply a disservice to the 400,000+ bass anglers in Michigan. When someone tries to tell me we need our season the way it is to protect the less fertile northern Michigan lakes, I have to wonder if they’ve ever actually been on a northern bass lake. How can anyone say our present season protects the bass spawn on these lakes when the shallower Northern lakes are usually just beginning to show a heavy spawn during opening weekend – which is taken advantage of heavily on a few lakes (check out Skegemog or Tomahawk Flooding on Memorial weekend sometime). The deeper lakes haven’t started the spawn yet. Their entire spawn is susceptible to legal catch and kill fishing.
    • If the bass in our state really needed spawning protection of a totally closed season, wouldn’t we see devastated fisheries at least on the most vulnerable Northern bass lakes that haven’t had any spawn protection for over 3 decades?
    • In almost every cool spring we’ve had such as the past two years, our bass season opened while huge numbers of bass were shallow and spawning throughout much of the state. All anyone can really say is that our present season limits the spawn-fishing on some southern lakes each year.
    • So how much protection really occurs? Even in #2 of the study counter arguments, the main culprit of weak year classes is singled out as the weather, not fishing. Of course, we can’t control the weather, but we can control fishing. Within this document, I cover the accepted methods of controlling bass fishing. A closed season is not a commonly accepted method in the majority of the country. If our present season has provided almost no protection for Northern Michigan bass for 30 years and limited protection for Southern Michigan bass for those same 30 years, how much of our good bass fishery can be truly attributed to season protection, especially if so many anglers have NOT supported the season for over 15 years anyway AND if obvious improvements in bass fishing quality and quantity have happened in the past 15 years despite no change in the actual season during that time? I don’t think that is too difficult a question to honestly answer.
  • Catch-and-Release Popularity Major Part of Good Bass Fishing: Another obvious counter to ‘counter arguments’ is the well-known success of catch-and-release bass fishing to maintaining acceptable bass angling. It’s been known for some time that a high percentage of bass anglers release the majority of their bass. Many biologists have recognized this as a major factor for maintaining quality bass fishing. I believe as bass anglers become more adept at catching more bass, they also become better informed of their impacts on bass which is one reason so many now release the majority of their bass.
    • We have creel and size limits, which are nationally accepted common management tools to allow bass to reach maturity to spawn one or two seasons before they can be legally kept. One well-respected Michigan research biologist told me that we have already done the one, most likely change to truly help Michigan bass, and that was changing to the 14″ size limit statewide. He said there wasn’t really anything else we could do that could be measured and proved to positively improve numbers of larger bass. He said the MDNR had never been able to show in a study that state bass regulations directly lead to more, larger bass.
    • For years, the MDNR told me the reason they didn’t do much for bass was because bass take care of themselves. This is an acknowledgement of bass biology. Only now are some MDNR employees saying increased bass fishing interest and effort are causing them to look more closely at our bass. This is a little odd to me for a couple reasons: 1) We anglers are causing this new emphasis on bass (I’ve said many times some of our regulations are social – what anglers think should be done, not necessarily what needs to be done), and 2) I don’t see a dramatic increase in bass fishing pressure in the past few seasons – bass fishing has been extremely popular including lots of tournament interest for over ten years. I’m not seeing a sudden, large increase. This is not just my opinion. Hard numbers from the 2001 Fish & Wildlife angler survey for Michigan supports it. There is no large increase between the 1996 numbers and 2001 numbers of bass anglers. We are getting more out-of-state bass anglers, but overall bass numbers are about the same.
  • Certain smaller and/or unproductive lakes are at greater risk to a catch-and-release spring season, especially if they have excessive stunted panfish populations. I do not believe a lake as large and as productive as St. Clair falls into these categories. What numbers we do have on the size of the bass population verses the numbers of anglers targeting them show an insignificant percentage of the estimated catch-able population actually being kept. You just have to compare average tournament results from year to year AND to other good bass lakes to see that St. Clair has gotten better. We have all the other Great Lakes and plenty of inland waters that are not smaller unproductive waters.
  • It’s amazing to me that a fairly substantial report like this really comes down to one line for some anglers; that so much is being made of this one line. It’s the last one in the conclusions that says simply “Smallmouth bass should be of greater concern than largemouth bass.”
    • It’s been painfully obvious to me that some are interpreting and/or using that simple sentence however they have predetermined they need it. Not one angler has told me another study they’ve read to support their interpretation, nor have they talked to biologists about it outside of a very small number of guys who’ve spoke to the St. Clair station biologists.
    • Where does this sentence actually come from in the study? That sentence actually comes from two straightforward areas. One is the table on catch rates where a slightly higher catch rate for smallmouths was recorded in just two instances on the 6 test lakes. The second is this text related to the tables, “However, there was some evidence that smallmouth bass catch rates were slightly higher in spring than during the normal season… Consequently, lakes containing marginal populations of smallmouth bass should be managed cautiously.”
    • Slightly higher? In a couple instances? Does that sound like a major concern? Does St. Clair, for example, have ‘marginal populations of smallmouth bass?’ Can anyone honestly answer yes to that question? How can anyone read that information and not understand why I have not shown much concern when persons try to say this one sentence means we should be exceptionally careful with St. Clair or any other good bass lake? St. Clair has some of the best growth rates in the state, comparable to many southern lakes, and one of the best smallmouth fisheries anywhere, period! If I were picking a great test lake for both kinds of bass, I couldn’t think of a better choice than St. Clair. I believe St. Clair has already proved a spring catch-and-release bass fishery will work on much of Michigan’s healthy bass lakes.

Way back in 1992, the Michigan catch-and-release season researchers recommended that the early bass season could be continued at the study lakes with periodic surveys. It also stated this ‘concept’ could be extended to other selected southern Michigan lakes. The types of lakes were restated basically meaning good bass lakes, which we have an abundance of in Michigan.

I do think we have enough evidence and existing science to support a wider catch-and-release season in Michigan. There is no good existing data supporting our closed bass season. I’m proposing a much more reasonable alternative that has been shown to support continued, good bass fishing. The last thing I want to go through again is individual lake-by-lake selection and meeting processes. Lake associations don’t generally care about whether spring bass angling is good or bad, they often just don’t want any more people on ‘their’ lake.

As far as some people trying to make this a tournament issue, we cannot legally hold regular tournaments in a catch-and-immediate release season. Larger tournaments usually require a cash payback to exist and we won’t see cash paybacks in tournament where bass can’t be kept to bring to a public weigh in.

The 91-6 study ends by saying the “Fisheries Division policy on bass seasons should be reevaluated.” I think it’s telling they mention, “Both biological and sociological factors should be considered.” So often, it ends up coming down to what a lot of people think, and not what is really good for the resource and/or what could be enjoyed by anglers. None of us should be quick to give up fishing opportunity we could be enjoying. This is more important to all of us, and the future of fishing and hunting, than you might realize. For example, this text from the November 2003 BASS TIMES article interview with Jim Martin, new conservation director of Pure Fishing and former fisheries chief of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife:

“BASS TIMES: What do you view as the biggest challenge in uniting and/or balancing state fisheries management objectives with the needs of recreational anglers?

Martin: Overzealous regulations indoctrinated by young fisheries biologists working up the ranks of their respective agencies are becoming an alarming trend. These budding professionals mean well but don’t realize they are also restricting our opportunities to fish and hunt. The net result is loss of license sales and ultimately their mechanism for funding conservation. Some of these young biologists are oblivious to the fact that anglers are their eyes and ears in the field and are willing partners with them to improve habitat and preserve fish populations if given the chance.”

Martin goes on to finish his answer:

“BASS members need to develop friendships with these young professionals, many of whom were never exposed to fishing as youths. Only by partnering effectively with them will they be able to understand the social, economic and conservation benefits of recreational fishing.”

I have a similar concern that in Michigan, our regulations are based on over-conservative management, partly out of fear of a backlash from an unknowledgeable fishing public that doesn’t understand real cause and effect in fish populations. I fear the results are similar – less hunters and anglers and a continuation of, if not negative, definitely an unfriendly and untrusting relationship between the MDNR and a large number of outdoors persons.

I don’t totally blame public bodies like the MDNR for being concerned about what a lot of people think. I personally would much rather just be informed and make decisions based on knowing the available information. I’ve always supported sharing information with friends and fellow anglers who are interested. I realize not everyone has the time or desire to read a bunch of studies or call a bunch of biologists. All I would ask is before you make up your mind on an issue that affects many others you consider if you have real information from impartial sources available to make an informed decision. The study is fairly impartial. It can and will be argued that my comments aren’t, but please consider that I have read dozens of complete studies and spent hours talking to the researchers who’ve performed them.

bass line

Anything I have posted or stated has been backed by study data and/or fisheries biologists and researchers – I’ve either posted the reference here or I have the study and/or notes in my possession to back them up. Of course, even the biologists don’t all agree with each other, but how hard is it really to figure out the majority position just by looking at the rest of the nation’s bass management? Don’t be too quick to give up the fishing opportunity you could be enjoying without looking at the issue like a researcher would; like someone who loves the sport enough to make informed decisions. Thanks.

We have several options to consider working on.

  1. We could pick a specific list of lakes to try to add to a lengthened and expanded catch-and-release test season. This will be time-consuming and probably require lake-by-lake public meetings as before. The local opposition at some lakes will be very vocal. I’m not sure how far the MDNR can go with calling something a test though legally. They probably couldn’t get away with a whole state or region-wide ‘test’ under their current authority, but I will look into it. I would not be opposed to a 5 or 10-year sunset clause.
  2. We can try to get a statewide bass season change, which right now would have to go through the legislature for approval – technically the MDNR can’t extend fishing seasons. That would take time and very careful effort by some of us to make sure amendments/changes weren’t made that cause us more problems. I don’t know how that would go for sure. It would help to have the MDNR behind us as much as possible. I don’t know how realistic that is either at the moment without possibly agreeing to some unnecessary compromises – part of why I backed off of the issue for a few months – because of the ‘secrecy’ the MDNR was trying to keep on the issue so far. I still prefer this choice if no other better alternative can be found though.
  3. Lastly, some experts feel that we could amend the wildlife proposal passed a few years ago into law that gave most scientific management powers including seasons to the MDNR. We could just add fish (aquatic wildlife?) to the definitions of wildlife to have the law give the powers over all fish season changes to the MDNR. Then we would just have to work through the MDNR to get a change without directly involving all the various state senators and representatives and their various and widely opinioned constituents in a legislative process. I don’t know if this would work or be realistic yet. I need to talk to more persons with outdoor legislative expertise before I’ll know for sure, but this could be the route to go since a very good majority of Michigan citizens previously supported turning scientific management of wildlife over the to MDNR.