| Industry
News & Events |
Section
Coordinator: Ron
Dubsky |
Article was Reprinted from Mlive by Elizabeth Shaw | The Flint Journal
Wednesday May 07, 2008, 7:34 PM |
Proposed changes in salmon, rod limits reel in mixed responses
Michigan Steelheaders members are weighing in on new fishing regulations proposed by the state Department of Natural Resources -- but so far, opinions are mixed on whether changes in rod and salmon limits would help, hurt or make no difference to the Great Lakes fishery.
 The first proposal would increase the daily bag limit for chinook and coho salmon from three to five fish per day. The second change would increase from two to three lines the number of rods a recreational angler can have in the water at one time on both inland and Great Lakes waters.Chinook limits originally were lowered from five to three in 1989, after a bacterial kidney disease severely reduced the population during the late 1980s.
In 2002, Lake Huron anglers saw the best chinook harvest in nearly two decades. But it was a warning sign of too many hungry fish and not enough baitfish forage. By 2005, catch rates had crashed and the remaining salmon were extremely undersized. Similar changes are being noted in the other Great Lakes, as well.
Fisheries experts say natural mortality has a far greater effect on Great Lakes fish populations than bag limits. Harvest restrictions are more about creating a level playing field among anglers than a way to control wild fish populations.
The new higher limit would be consistent with those of other Great Lakes states and provinces, and further would simplify regulations by including rivers and streams.
"A higher daily bag limit for these two species could result in a limited number of additional fish being harvested, but only when populations are high and catch rates are high," DNR Lake Michigan Basic Coordinator Jim Dexter said in a news release.
That's not likely on lakes Superior, Huron and Erie, where the salmon populations still are very low.
"Raising the salmon limit to five per person will not affect the fishermen I know that much because we very seldom catch our limit," said Robert Hillier of Goodrich.
Still, Greg Gumbrecht, tournament chairman of the Michigan Steelheaders' Flint-area chapter, hopes the new limit will have a positive effect. "We have too many salmon and not enough baitfish in the Great Lakes. Increasing the salmon limit would help set the ratio straight," he said.
Gumbrecht said charter captains might not like a higher limit because they'd have to spend more time on the water and burn more gasoline to fill clients' limits. But he said it might help offset the $500 to $1,000 per weekend that recreational anglers typically spend traveling from Genesee County to Lake Michigan.
"If a resident weekend angler goes through the expense and time to haul a boat over to Lake Michigan, he should be able to keep an extra two fish, providing it doesn't offset the balance of the fishery," Gumbrecht said.
Many applauded the idea of putting Michigan's regulations in line with its Great Lakes neighbors.
"I view the Great Lakes as a very large fish tank with several states and Canada trying to manage it. Individual actions by one state or country will have minimal effect on a single body of water," said Grant Fry of Oakland County.
"It's a very difficult job and the effect of climate change and invasive species are causing changes which require all parties to act in unison. I believe the organizations responsible for these regulations in each state should better work with each other and let the science manage the resources."
On the rod limit proposal, many said they wouldn't take advantage of an increase.
"I've never thought more rods produced more fish. Myself, I find it harder to troll with a lot of rods out. I can make tighter turns with fewer rods and not end up with a tangled mess," said Flint Steelheader Ron Paruszkiewicz. "I cannot see a big change in the fish count from this change. Lake Huron has very few salmon, and you could fish all day with 10 rods and not get five fish."
"When you are trolling for salmon, you can use three rods per person, but when you are trolling for walleyes or surf-casting for salmon, you can only use two," Fry said.
"A three-rod limit would benefit only the charter boat operators, and I have no prejudice against them," said Al Campbell of Oscoda. "However, as a fly fisher, I can control a maximum of one rod at a time. When I fish from shore or through the ice, I can jig only a maximum of two rods at a time. So the three-rod rule has little impact on my style of fishing."
Campbell said he's more interested in increasing efforts to control the cormorant population. Like many anglers, Campbell believes the migratory birds are responsible at least partly for eating up the food supply and young sport fish.
"I feel that removing all of the cormorants from all Michigan waters is the most effective way to improve and protect the salmon and steelhead fisheries, as opposed to just fiddling around with size limits and catch limits," Campbell said.
The DNR will seek input on the proposals until June 13.
"We should try this new limit for a couple of years and see what happens," Campbell said. "But only if the DNR will pledge in advance on their mothers' eyes to actually study the effects of this new rule until a complete analysis is in hand and, further, is published by them for public review and input." |
| |
| Fighting Great Lakes invaders at sea - Reprinted from DETROIT FREE PRESS by STAFF WRITER TINA LAM |
 Ships must flush tanks with saltwater
A new rule for oceangoing vessels entering the Great Lakes could help block the introduction of new invaders like those that have already caused a biological and economic plague for the states and provinces that share the lakes.
Under the rule, the ships, called salties, will have to swish saltwater through their ballast tanks and pump it back into the ocean 200 nautical miles offshore. Biologists believe the saltwater will kill most freshwater animals and plants living in the tanks.
Critters like zebra and quagga mussels native to the Black Sea and dumped in the Great Lakes from ballast are responsible for an estimated $5 billion a year in damage.
The mussels cover municipal water intake pipes and have spawned a type of botulism that has led to massive bird die-offs on Lake Michigan. Communities spend millions to clean the mussels from their pipes. The mussels also have changed the ecosystem of waters like Lake St. Clair, making them much clearer by filtering out the plankton they eat.
Other ballast invaders have been tied to fish viruses such as viral hemorrhagic septicemia, which has led to large fish die-offs. Fish accidentally planted in the Great Lakes have outcompeted existing species for food and hurt fishing-related tourism.
Scientists say 70% of the invaders that have arrived in the Great Lakes since 1959, when the St. Lawrence Seaway opened the lakes to international ship traffic, have come from the salties' ballast water.
The rule takes effect in late March, when ship traffic resumes.
The rule, proposed by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp., part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, will require more inspections of ships' tanks. Violators could be fined up to $36,625 per incident.
"Ballast water is the most important way these species get into the lakes, and this new rule will be very helpful," said Hugh McIsaac, a researcher at the University of Windsor. McIsaac said a study he and others did last year showed that flushing tanks with saltwater killed 95% to 99% of foreign organisms in the tanks.
"This is a step we wish they had taken some time ago," said Bob McCann, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Ships carry ballast for stability. If they enter the lakes filled with cargo to unload at ports, their ballast tanks are empty. If they come without cargo, their tanks are full.
Those carrying ballast have been required since 1993 to refill their ballast tanks with salty water in the deep ocean, ensuring that organisms that might linger in their tanks would be killed.
But up to 90% of the ships entering the lakes don't have ballast in their tanks and have not been required to flush their tanks. Even though the tanks aren't full, they have leftover sediment and small amounts of water in which organisms can live.
When they unload their payloads and open ballast tanks in port to take on water, the organisms can escape into the Great Lakes and create havoc.
"That loophole has been a significant issue," said Ken DeBeaussaert, director of the DEQ's Office of the Great Lakes.
The same rule has been required in Canada since 2006, said Terry Johnson Jr., administrator of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. Johnson said the shipping industry has agreed to the rule, which was published in the Federal Register Dec. 31.
Since the federal government failed to act, Michigan adopted its own law a year ago requiring ships to get permits proving they'd sterilized their tanks before dumping water in Michigan ports.
"We knew it wouldn't solve the problem, but we decided we had to start somewhere," McCann said. All eight Great Lakes governors sent a letter last July to Congress, urging federal action. Environmental groups pledged lawsuits or a moratorium on salties entering the lakes.
But nearly everyone said the saltwater flushing won't stop all invasive species.
Johnson said it's an interim measure until Congress acts on pending legislation, which would require more high-tech methods to sterilize tanks than saltwater.
The shipping industry has lobbied against the legislation, saying it's too costly.
"I'm glad they've done this, but we still need a comprehensive solution that will close the door on invasives once and for all," said McCann.
Contact TINA LAM at 313-222-6421 or tlam@freepress.com.
|
