Great, OneSided. I'll add you to my list of guys who say they've actually read the studies. Let's see, you're name is number...hmmm, 1 on my list.
Maybe this is counterproductive and I really don't want to just make guys mad, but reading articles in a magazine or reading a few excerpts only that anyone posts isn't the same. I also realize many people don't want to take the time or can't to read the entire 'exciting' document each time. I do realize that some anglers have read some of the studies and maybe even talked to a biologist or two.
I do take the time myself just because fishing is that important to me. What I really think more anglers would gain from reading a handful of different reports is some diversity in their thought and also see how difficult it is to reach simple conclusions that are rock solid about the complex water world. After a while, you will see a lot of language that seems to say 'we think it means this, but based on this, this and this, it could mean something else' or 'be caused by this instead' or 'the individuals beds are impacted, but no apparent change to the overall population could be demonstrated.'
I had one well-respected biologist candidly tell me that in reality with bass in Michigan "DESPITE all the different things biologists have done to the bass over the last 50 years, they are doing okay." Did he mean biologists are unnecessary or bad? Of course not! What he means is what MDNR used to always tell me, bass pretty much take care of themselves. This is simplified of course, but it's true - that if you give bass clean water, good habitat, and forage, they will and have flourished in those cases.
The only real thing we done for bass in Michigan in the last 30 years as far as regulations, is to slowly move up the minimum size limit. There are no studies showing this has resulted in more bigger bass alone because at the same time we've had major environmental improvement and/or water clarity changes in some of these fisheries that have exploded. Despite increased fishing pressure by increasingly more skilled and technologically advanced anglers, and tournaments, a lot of our bass fishing is tremendous - some of it better than ever. This is looking at long-term trends not just last year to this year. You can't look at fish populations that way for many useful things.
Which is why I get impatient when I see people claiming all these concrete conclusions from small parts of studies they've seen, let alone the whole study, or from opinions they've read in a magazine. More often than not, my position is just to point out what a study did NOT or can NOT be said to have shown, which is why I usually dig hard to find the ulterior motive of anyone who makes strong claims about studies. Because there usually is one - like "I just really think it's an attempt to have more tournament."
Not that any studies have shown we will harm entire populations by fishing bedding bass, but because "I don't like tournaments." I respect fisheries biologist who are honest and do their job, which is to protect the resource. I don't respect someone who misrepresents the studies to serve their personal bias.
I feel bad anytime a public 'official' uses the public by doing this and I know if the public had seen all the same facts, the public is smart enough, and enough of them would act, that the real issues could be brought into the open. I have no problem debating with someone who doesn't like fishing bedding bass about whether or not anyone should, but it needs to be clear that it is a debate about personal beliefs, not scientifically supported necessity. Big difference.
I'm not against the MDNR and have been friends with some over the years. I sat in on and compromised my way through many meetings over the years with them, but I had no time of day for someone who was or is against tournaments and would try to say "it's not just that I don't like tournaments, but that they are BADDDD based on studies." I always ask, "which studies would that be?," which is why I get the "well, I know their bad based on my professional opinion" response usually.
Well, this is a country full of opinions. If I want opinion, I have no trouble getting it, but when I talk to an 'official' who's job is steward the resource (along with those participants that care), I don't want their personal opinion, I want their scientific knowledge and interpretation. They can give me their opinion too, but there is a big difference between their opinion and what science says. In the case of a few Northern biologists, their opinions and science are at opposite ends of the issues. That is okay as long as they don't try to twist the science back towards their personal opinions and desires for their ideal of a perfect world. Just be honest and say, "the studies show this, but I'd rather have this."
That's the part that is missing. I probably haven't done a good enough job to explain these things. I also realize that some people won't care how many words I write. A few are against anything I'm for. That's real productive in a democracy. Some are just set in their thinking and I realize that. I won't change their mind and I've probably wasted some of your time, and mine, trying to change their minds futilely. I've actually tried to back off a little since there are others that can get good messages across too and everyone should have a say in their own way.
It's hard when I see something like Gordon Pyzer, who definitely has a thing against fishing spring smallies, suddenly, now that he's retired, going on his personal crusade. He's a perfect example of a scientist claiming science and stretching things to make a broader argument than exists. I talked to another Canadian biologist about him and even that biologist (who was not 'in my corner' but fair) showed disappointment that Gordon was using his credentials to make it appear that actual results exist that back his drastic desires. These results don't exist. He's hoping they will eventually and doesn't want to wait. Of course, if he's wrong (which so far, decades of data suggests he is), then thousands of anglers will lose fishing opportunity (and all that goes with that is lost too) for nothing other than someone's personal ideals.
It's bad enough when anglers do this, but when a 'professional' misrepresents things this way, I truly believe it is unethical and borders on being a crime - if not in the legal sense - at least in the area of trust and decency.
People have said I'm no different myself - that I misrepresent things so I can just catch bass all year, but I'm not trying to TAKE or KEEP AWAY fishing opportunity. I'm trying to provide as much fishing opportunity, for those who want it, as science says the fishery can support. I'm actually being more conservative than the real science says I could be since it's not necessary to go that far.
It is only if a good number of anglers want it to be. Which is why I'm proposing what I am - I believe a good number of Michigan anglers want to be able to legally catch and release bass any time and I believe that studies show this can be allowed on most waters. There are things happening in other States too. It all comes down to what can be handled in regulations that meet the most anglers' preference without harming the resource.
If most of us just wanted to catch a few big bass, than the regulations desired might be different than what I'm proposing, but we have a very diverse group of anglers in Michigan and I think my proposal best meets the broad range of needs based on our fisheries and geographical location.
The MDNR is doing something. It's unfortunate, but they are keeping it 'secret' so far. Unfortunate because they may be doing it so we anglers don't have a lot of time to react to specifics, but also I'm sure it partially has to do with not just fear of those of us wanting a change being unhappy with not enough change, but those who are against screaming that they are changing it at all.
I also believe they expect us to 'give up' something in return, such as a later regular season date. Depending on how this is done, it may or may not impact those of us who enjoy tournaments. I don't believe there is any major justification for 'giving up' anything and I'm fairly confident I already can hear their rationalizations in the back of my head since I know how they think and what is available to use and/or stretch.
I've seen things done this way before - the secret way - and it usually has the opposite effect than what was hoped for, but change is hard for many people regardless of what history shows. It's like the sign I had on my desk during a particularly enjoyable re-org years ago - "Change is Good! You go First!"
I also expect there will be a 'start' date proposed other than January 1, which really doesn't make much sense to me. What is the difference between March 1 or April 1? Or January 1 or February 1? Make it simple. This part of the year, you can legally catch bass as long as you throw back. This part of the year, if you want to harvest some bass, you may. Simple.
I would be only a little surprised if they don't start thinking about this latest stuff about protecting fall smallmouths too. This could really impact tournament anglers in particular. I will tell you, I talked to Minnesota biologists about their action. It's a different situation than ours AND the whole issue started over 1 lake and stream smallies (since that is what most studies on the topic deal with). Somehow, it was expanded to the entire state, all waters despite no apparent actual scientific basis for this broad a change - the Minnesota biologists' words, not mine. There wasn't enough opposition against it, particularly because the major tournament groups in Minnesota don't normally have tournaments that time of year there. If enough Minnesota anglers want it and not too many are against, that's their business. What will they gain from it? Who knows? Will they show this change directly resulted in better bass fishing? Hard to say. A lot will depend on what other factors change or don't change also such as weather and environment.
What we end up with eventually will depend upon how many people want what and how bad. You have to have a goal before you get anywhere, though.
Now, I'm going fishing on St. Clair - a fishery I believe is very healthy and has about as good a population of bass as anyone can realistally expect to have.
