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