Brief preliminary results update on the year-round opened Lower Saginaw River
walleye season. (Dr. Jeff Jolley Southern Lake Huron Unit Manager, Dr. David
Fielder Fishery Research Biologist and Doug Schultz, Lake Huron Basin
Coordinator.
Jeff’s Summary: Much more work is needed to compile the data on how successful the early spring
walleye opener in the Saginaw Bay River was, but I will provide a brief preliminary overview. Last
year there were a lot of unfishable days with muddy water. This year was not perfect but there were
many more fishable days. I attended some of the festivals and various anglers did well while others
caught few. The fishery generated increased interest, but it was not the bonanza that some people
thought it might be. It does not appear that the early opener will have much impact on the walleye
population. Apparently, there were no significant law enforcement issues.
Dave’s comment: We will have the creel data compiled and the age structure of the fish caught
before the next meeting.
Comment: An angler spent a lot of time fishing for yellow perch this spring and it was very bad.
Comment: The creel clerks have a challenging job collecting data, answering a lot of questions from
the anglers and often listen to criticisms that are directed at the DNR. Persons with questions about
the creel design and assignments are encouraged to bring their questions directly to the Unit
Supervisor.
Question: There are about 10 million adult walleyes in the Bay at an average weight of 3.5 pounds
that equals around 35 million pounds. The recreational fishery takes about 300,000 walleyes annually
which equals nearly a million pounds, which is only about 3% of the population. Do you know what
percentage of the population can be taken without harming the resource? Dave’s Response: the
question is basically asking what is the ‘exploitation rate’ of the walleye population. We have elected
to craft the new management plan based on other parameters including the statistical catch at age
model, spawning stock biomass, mortality rate and others. These are more informative and more
directly related to sustainability than the exploitation rate. Sometimes these parameters conflict and
indicate cautionary signals. I have seen successful exploitation rates in some populations as high as
50% but usually 35% is considered high. There still is a lot of uncertainty in Saginaw Bay so I cannot
say with certainty what the safe exploitation rate is. I refer anyone interested in these types of
biological questions to review the plan where these topics are discussed.
Walleye extended season overview.
Moderators: capt.dan, Chamookman
-
capt.dan
- Posts: 3848
- Joined: June 18th, 2003, 10:12 am
- Location: Hampton Township. /MODERATOR
- Contact:
Walleye extended season overview.
Not everyone will agree with, understand you, like you, appreciate your character, personality or politics. Not even a few benefiting from your knowledge and/or generosity. But stay true to your beliefs and convictions.
-
capt.dan
- Posts: 3848
- Joined: June 18th, 2003, 10:12 am
- Location: Hampton Township. /MODERATOR
- Contact:
The commercials have decimated the White fish stocks. So, what's next? Thats my position in a nut shell.
Status of Michigan House Bills 5108 and 5553 that deal with the potential
expansion of state licensed commercial fishers into all state water with the
possibly of harvesting some recreational species (Randy Claramunt DNR
Fisheries Chief).
Randy Claramunt: Randy began by reminding everyone that the Advisors role is to provide
recommendations to the Fisheries Division and if the Chair or the Advisors want input from the other
participants that is welcomed.
The revision of the commercial fishing statue is a difficult issue that has been going on for several
decades. “I carefully crafted what I wanted to say about this issue so I will be reading a statement.”,
said Randy,
A new commercial fishing statue is necessary and long overdue. Two house bills have been
introduced in the legislature so the DNR and staff will further refrain from commercial fishing
policy discussions with the general public. Instead, the DNR will engage directly with the
legislators when and where appropriate.
Page 2 of 16
Most of the current statute language dates to 1929 with no reviews, amendments or updates
since 1970 – the statute is archaic and contains antiquated language. License fees have not
been modified since 1968. Current license fees are inadequate to fund the program’s
administration or enforcement. Fines and penalties have not changed since 1929. Current
fines and penalties are ineffective as meaningful deterrents against future violations. Annual
administration of the commercial fish program is almost fully subsidized from recreational
angler license fees.
What positive things could come from a revised statute? A clear and modern set of regulations
that are easier to understand. A simplified fee structure, with the first increase in more than 50
years. A modern statute that meets the needs of the resource, industry and recreational public
including clarification of the DNR’s regulatory authorities regarding commercial fishing, as well
as updated penalties, fines and resource restitutions that are appropriate. An increase in the
DNR’s ability to monitor, research, track and enforce commercial and wholesale fisheries.
Increased efficiency in the submission and movement of commercial catch/wholesale data.
What are some other issues with the current statute? Over the decades conflicting levels of
commercial fishing regulation emerged. Local prosecutors are less willing to prosecute
commercial fish violations: existing fines/penalties do not justify the time and funds necessary
to prosecute, and confusing and contradicting commercial fishing laws result in difficult
prosecutions when attempted.
What is currently proposed?
There are currently two competing efforts in the Michigan State Legislature to rewrite Part 473 of PA
451 of 1994 which contains the commercial fishing statute. Here is information on each of the bills
including a high-level summary of what each contains.
House Bill 5553 – The DNR has not taken an official position on this bill yet.
o Sponsors: Reps. O’Neal, Whitsett, Neeley, Young and Brenda Carter
o Under this bill, the statute would contain stable regulations: fees, fines, licensing requirements,
list of accessible species, etc.
o Under this bill, The Director would be allowed to use Administrative Rules and Fisheries
Orders for regulations that require more management flexibility: seasons, size limits, depth
restrictions, reporting timeframes, etc.
o A new flat fee structure for fishing and wholesale licensing as well as updated fines and
penalties for commercial violations.
o Establishes required restitution to the State in cases of commercial poaching.
o Defines a list of commercial fish species.
Page 3 of 16
o Specifically prohibits the commercial harvest of “game fish” including: walleye, lake trout,
yellow perch, bass, etc.
o Requires that fishers provide GPS net locations for their nets and that the DNR posts those
locations on its website.
o Requires the DNR to monitor and study bycatch in commercial nets.
o Establishes a 10-day lifting standard that requires fishers to lift and clear their nets of fish once
every 10 days.
o Establishes the Department of Natural Resources absolute authority to collect and handle fish
for scientific investigation and culture including the contracting with third parties when internal
capacity is lacking.
House Bill 5108 - The DNR has taken an official position in opposition to this bill.
o Sponsors: Morgan, Alexander, Martin, Hoskins, Martus, Cavitt, Markkanen, Wegela, Bierlein,
Johnsen, Roth Borton, Kunse, Brabec, Coffia, Rheingans, Neyer, Byrnes, Snyder, Prestin Puri,
Hoadley, Jaime Green, Steele, Schmaltz, St. Germaine, Hood, Brixie, Aiyash, and Whitsett.
o This bill would significantly improve the profitability of the State-Licensed Great Lake
Commercial Fishery which has been reeling in recent years from the decline in lake whitefish
stocks which is currently their main commercial species by volume and value.
o Reopens lake trout and walleye to commercial harvest (Closed since the 1960s) as well as
expanding yellow perch commercial harvest across all regions of the Great Lakes. This bill
also adds smallmouth bass and sunfish (Bluegill, pumpkinseed, etc.) as commercial species
for the first time since 1928.
o Requires that the DNR annually establish a “Total Allowable Catch” for walleye, lake trout,
yellow perch and other listed sport species throughout the Michigan Waters of the Great Lakes
and requires that 25% of the annual harvest of these species be allocated to the commercial
fishery.
o Establishes a 30-day lifting standard that requires fishers to lift and clear their nets of fish at
least once every 30 days.
o A new flat fee structure for fishing and wholesale licensing as well as updated fines and
penalties for commercial violations. Revenue would be generated through additional fees
assessed on the commercial harvest of walleye and lake trout.
o This bill updates fines and penalties for commercial fishing violations.
Page 4 of 16
o Establishes a defined set of commercial terms so all parties are operating a known and agreed
upon set of definitions.
o The bill prohibits the DNR from using Fisheries Orders to manage commercial fishing and
severely limits the department’s use of Administrative Rules.
o Establishes the Department of Natural Resources absolute authority to collect and handle fish
for scientific investigation and culture including the contracting with third parties when internal
capacity is lacking.
Advisor Comments on the bills.
Question: What is the status of the bills? Randy’s Response: Both bills are sponsored by
Democrats and no hearing has been held. To pass, it would be better for the Democrats to come
together and have a compromised bill.
Several Questions: Can the DNR have input into the bills and why was a compromise not worked
out? Randy’s Response: I tried intensely meeting with the legislators to coordinate a compromised
bill before 5108 was introduced but now it is in the legislative process and must be addressed there. If
the Committee Advisors, however, recommended to Michigan’s law makers and the DNR that
stakeholders from both sides get together and work on a comprise that would have some weight.
Randy then indicated that similar support would ideally need to be obtained from Advisory
Committees from Lakes Michigan, Superior and Erie.
Question: Could the Advisors vote to just support House Bill 5553? Randy response: Yes, the
Committee has the option of supporting any option.
Question: What are some of the aspects that the bill should encompass? Randy response: The bill
should be doable, be adequately funded, protect the fishery for all users, and be enforceable.
Comment: The final bill should protect not only the recreational and commercial fisheries but also the
people that do not fish but eat fish.
Question: There is much concern about the allocation of walleye and yellow perch in Saginaw Bay.
How does the DNR view this issue? Randy’s Response: That is a policy issue, and I cannot respond
at this time. All policy items need to be addressed with the legislative process.
Comment: There appears to be some room to allow a limited commercial harvest of walleye.
Question: Why can’t the DNR issue a fishery order to regulate a commercial fishery walleye quota in
Saginaw Bay? Randy’s Response: Fishery orders in the past have been challenged and without a
new statute, I am reluctant to move forward trying to manage with orders. This is not a viable option
because of likely lawsuits.
Participant Comments on the bills.
Comment: According to the data there is a huge amount of walleye in the Bay so commercially
harvesting a limited share should not be a biological issue
Status of Michigan House Bills 5108 and 5553 that deal with the potential
expansion of state licensed commercial fishers into all state water with the
possibly of harvesting some recreational species (Randy Claramunt DNR
Fisheries Chief).
Randy Claramunt: Randy began by reminding everyone that the Advisors role is to provide
recommendations to the Fisheries Division and if the Chair or the Advisors want input from the other
participants that is welcomed.
The revision of the commercial fishing statue is a difficult issue that has been going on for several
decades. “I carefully crafted what I wanted to say about this issue so I will be reading a statement.”,
said Randy,
A new commercial fishing statue is necessary and long overdue. Two house bills have been
introduced in the legislature so the DNR and staff will further refrain from commercial fishing
policy discussions with the general public. Instead, the DNR will engage directly with the
legislators when and where appropriate.
Page 2 of 16
Most of the current statute language dates to 1929 with no reviews, amendments or updates
since 1970 – the statute is archaic and contains antiquated language. License fees have not
been modified since 1968. Current license fees are inadequate to fund the program’s
administration or enforcement. Fines and penalties have not changed since 1929. Current
fines and penalties are ineffective as meaningful deterrents against future violations. Annual
administration of the commercial fish program is almost fully subsidized from recreational
angler license fees.
What positive things could come from a revised statute? A clear and modern set of regulations
that are easier to understand. A simplified fee structure, with the first increase in more than 50
years. A modern statute that meets the needs of the resource, industry and recreational public
including clarification of the DNR’s regulatory authorities regarding commercial fishing, as well
as updated penalties, fines and resource restitutions that are appropriate. An increase in the
DNR’s ability to monitor, research, track and enforce commercial and wholesale fisheries.
Increased efficiency in the submission and movement of commercial catch/wholesale data.
What are some other issues with the current statute? Over the decades conflicting levels of
commercial fishing regulation emerged. Local prosecutors are less willing to prosecute
commercial fish violations: existing fines/penalties do not justify the time and funds necessary
to prosecute, and confusing and contradicting commercial fishing laws result in difficult
prosecutions when attempted.
What is currently proposed?
There are currently two competing efforts in the Michigan State Legislature to rewrite Part 473 of PA
451 of 1994 which contains the commercial fishing statute. Here is information on each of the bills
including a high-level summary of what each contains.
House Bill 5553 – The DNR has not taken an official position on this bill yet.
o Sponsors: Reps. O’Neal, Whitsett, Neeley, Young and Brenda Carter
o Under this bill, the statute would contain stable regulations: fees, fines, licensing requirements,
list of accessible species, etc.
o Under this bill, The Director would be allowed to use Administrative Rules and Fisheries
Orders for regulations that require more management flexibility: seasons, size limits, depth
restrictions, reporting timeframes, etc.
o A new flat fee structure for fishing and wholesale licensing as well as updated fines and
penalties for commercial violations.
o Establishes required restitution to the State in cases of commercial poaching.
o Defines a list of commercial fish species.
Page 3 of 16
o Specifically prohibits the commercial harvest of “game fish” including: walleye, lake trout,
yellow perch, bass, etc.
o Requires that fishers provide GPS net locations for their nets and that the DNR posts those
locations on its website.
o Requires the DNR to monitor and study bycatch in commercial nets.
o Establishes a 10-day lifting standard that requires fishers to lift and clear their nets of fish once
every 10 days.
o Establishes the Department of Natural Resources absolute authority to collect and handle fish
for scientific investigation and culture including the contracting with third parties when internal
capacity is lacking.
House Bill 5108 - The DNR has taken an official position in opposition to this bill.
o Sponsors: Morgan, Alexander, Martin, Hoskins, Martus, Cavitt, Markkanen, Wegela, Bierlein,
Johnsen, Roth Borton, Kunse, Brabec, Coffia, Rheingans, Neyer, Byrnes, Snyder, Prestin Puri,
Hoadley, Jaime Green, Steele, Schmaltz, St. Germaine, Hood, Brixie, Aiyash, and Whitsett.
o This bill would significantly improve the profitability of the State-Licensed Great Lake
Commercial Fishery which has been reeling in recent years from the decline in lake whitefish
stocks which is currently their main commercial species by volume and value.
o Reopens lake trout and walleye to commercial harvest (Closed since the 1960s) as well as
expanding yellow perch commercial harvest across all regions of the Great Lakes. This bill
also adds smallmouth bass and sunfish (Bluegill, pumpkinseed, etc.) as commercial species
for the first time since 1928.
o Requires that the DNR annually establish a “Total Allowable Catch” for walleye, lake trout,
yellow perch and other listed sport species throughout the Michigan Waters of the Great Lakes
and requires that 25% of the annual harvest of these species be allocated to the commercial
fishery.
o Establishes a 30-day lifting standard that requires fishers to lift and clear their nets of fish at
least once every 30 days.
o A new flat fee structure for fishing and wholesale licensing as well as updated fines and
penalties for commercial violations. Revenue would be generated through additional fees
assessed on the commercial harvest of walleye and lake trout.
o This bill updates fines and penalties for commercial fishing violations.
Page 4 of 16
o Establishes a defined set of commercial terms so all parties are operating a known and agreed
upon set of definitions.
o The bill prohibits the DNR from using Fisheries Orders to manage commercial fishing and
severely limits the department’s use of Administrative Rules.
o Establishes the Department of Natural Resources absolute authority to collect and handle fish
for scientific investigation and culture including the contracting with third parties when internal
capacity is lacking.
Advisor Comments on the bills.
Question: What is the status of the bills? Randy’s Response: Both bills are sponsored by
Democrats and no hearing has been held. To pass, it would be better for the Democrats to come
together and have a compromised bill.
Several Questions: Can the DNR have input into the bills and why was a compromise not worked
out? Randy’s Response: I tried intensely meeting with the legislators to coordinate a compromised
bill before 5108 was introduced but now it is in the legislative process and must be addressed there. If
the Committee Advisors, however, recommended to Michigan’s law makers and the DNR that
stakeholders from both sides get together and work on a comprise that would have some weight.
Randy then indicated that similar support would ideally need to be obtained from Advisory
Committees from Lakes Michigan, Superior and Erie.
Question: Could the Advisors vote to just support House Bill 5553? Randy response: Yes, the
Committee has the option of supporting any option.
Question: What are some of the aspects that the bill should encompass? Randy response: The bill
should be doable, be adequately funded, protect the fishery for all users, and be enforceable.
Comment: The final bill should protect not only the recreational and commercial fisheries but also the
people that do not fish but eat fish.
Question: There is much concern about the allocation of walleye and yellow perch in Saginaw Bay.
How does the DNR view this issue? Randy’s Response: That is a policy issue, and I cannot respond
at this time. All policy items need to be addressed with the legislative process.
Comment: There appears to be some room to allow a limited commercial harvest of walleye.
Question: Why can’t the DNR issue a fishery order to regulate a commercial fishery walleye quota in
Saginaw Bay? Randy’s Response: Fishery orders in the past have been challenged and without a
new statute, I am reluctant to move forward trying to manage with orders. This is not a viable option
because of likely lawsuits.
Participant Comments on the bills.
Comment: According to the data there is a huge amount of walleye in the Bay so commercially
harvesting a limited share should not be a biological issue
Not everyone will agree with, understand you, like you, appreciate your character, personality or politics. Not even a few benefiting from your knowledge and/or generosity. But stay true to your beliefs and convictions.