Click the image to view the award.
April 14, 2017
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2nd draft of the Management Plan for Inland Trout in Michigan. After submitting our comments to the first draft of this document we were confident that the second version would be an improvement. We provided comments that reflected the concerns of our membership and made recommendations intended to make the document acceptable to a majority of inland trout anglers.
Upon reading the first few pages of the draft plan we were encouraged that the authors had removed the wording regarding flies only regulations that we found most inappropriate. Unfortunately, as we proceeded through the document we discovered only superficial changes had been made throughout the rest of the plan and most of our recommendations were ignored. Under the heading of Gear Restricted Regulations, none of the statements backed by discredited studies or the use of cherry-picked data were corrected. Additionally the authors have added statements that reflect negatively on the use of Gear Restricted Regulations. The original draft included a statement correctly pointing out that Gear Restricted reaches were some of the most heavily used by anglers. In the second draft, this statement was removed, all that remained was a statement intended to present these regulations in a negative way. It is our expectation that the final version of this trout plan document will remove all reference to data that is not fully presented, documented or explained including method confidence level. If these actions are not taken we will continue to oppose the implementation of this document.
The remainder of our comments will list the sections of the draft with which we have concerns. We will also provide supporting documentation where appropriate for these proposed modifications to the document. Unlike the way this process was handled during the first comment period it would be most helpful if the authors would respond to this correspondence and share their reasons for not utilizing our suggestions. This will facilitate a discussion that will hopefully lead to a finished document that we can support.
lines 56-137: The Anglers of the AuSable support this section with the following
suggestions. This goal includes proposed specific actions. It is not clear who is
responsible for carrying out these actions. If responsibility is assigned it will
provide accountability and proper oversight of the implementation of these
lines 135-39: We agree that there are great demands placed upon the
Research Section staff, but there are also significant demands placed upon the
regional Management Biologists and staff as well. These biologists and staff
should also be provided adequate time and resources to do what is required of
lines 142-207: We support this section as written.
lines 210-251: We support this section with the following suggestion. Under
Issue 3, lines 227-8 the authors recommend working to install more wader wash
stations. We have been actively involved in the invasive species efforts of the
Fisheries Division and the DEQ. Since the discovery of New Zealand Mud
Snails in the AuSable River we have expressed our concerns to both agencies
regarding the use of the wader wash stations. There is currently no protocol for
controlling the spread of NZMS that is applicable with the wader wash stations.
With that in mind we are no longer maintaining the wader wash stations that we
have installed at fly shops on the AuSable river. The concern is that mud snails
could actually be spread by the improper use of the wader wash stations instead
of the intended result. We suggest that for now this statement be removed or
corrected to state that when a suitable protocol is developed the wader wash
stations will again be promoted.
lines 254-290: We support this section with the following changes.
line 263: The second sentence stating that Gear Restricted rules are
controversial is not required to promote the message of this issue. All
recommendations for new regulations or changes to existing regulations are
vetted through the Fisheries Division Management Team, the Trout Committee,
the CWRSC. There is also opportunity for public comment before the
regulations are proposed to the NRC for approval. We request that this statement
line 274: This issue begins speaking of the use of C&R regulations in
the off season to provide additional angling opportunity. The final sentence then
refers to using type 4 regulations which are not C&R. We suggest removing the
last sentence or re-writing the entire section to reflect the desired objective.
Issue 6, line 287: The sentence states that statewide regulations were last
reviewed in 2008-9. Coldwater regulations were reviewed in 2009-10 and
implemented in 2011. It was agreed at the time of the approval of the current
suite of regulations by the CWRSC that they would be left in place at least five
years. It is now time to consider this review.
lines 292-325: We support this section with the following comment. It is critical
that DNR personnel are also open to opinions that are different than theirs. It is
also possible for agency personnel to inject bias into their communications.
Biology of Trout,
lines 764-82: This section contains 16 lines of data that
repeat the same information. One study should be enough to demonstrate the
percentages of hooking mortality in trout. The Shetter and Allison data seems
representative and should suffice to document the data. The section on “actively
fished bait” is not germane to this discussion unless you are proposing it as a
regulation type. This information adds nothing to the document and serves to
reinforce the perception that the authors are promoting that method of angling.
lines 783-7: The document states that the use of barbless hooks have
been promoted to reduce hooking mortality, but Schill and Scarpella, (97)
review of many studies indicated that barbless hooks did not reduce hooking
mortality for fly-or lure caught trout. They also concluded there was no
biological reason for imposing hook restrictions on fly or lure anglers.
First, with hooking mortality percentages near zero for fly or lure caught fish how
much improvement in hooking mortality percentages could be expected to occur
by any changes to the type of terminal tackle used in a reach that requires the use
of artificial lures or flies? Changing regulations from those that allow the use of
bait to the Gear Restricted variety is the only proven method to reduce hooking
Secondly, most fly anglers today voluntarily use barbless hooks to facilitate
releasing fish. Requiring the use of barbless hooks in fly fishing only reaches will
not be a significant imposition on anyone. We believe that the use of single hooks
and barbless hooks on artificials only reaches merits some further study and is
a good issue for discussion for the CWRSC.
In conclusion, after reviewing Schill and Scarpella and other studies, Robert
Arlinghaus in his 2007 publication stated; ”nonetheless, the majority of the data
available support the notion that the use of barbless hooks is beneficial for
discards and can only benefit fish. Sub-lethal injuries physiological disturbances
(due to longer handling times) are more extensive with barbed hooks (Cooke et al
2001) and for those reasons barbless hooks can be an effective conservation and
management tool”. With this in mind the primary reason to use barbless hooks is
to minimize damage to fish that are released, often many times during their
lifetime. It is our position that this restriction should be considered for all
artificials or flies only regulation reaches that experience heavy fishing pressure.
Gear Restricted Regulations
The Draft Document states; Gear-Restricted (especially flies-only ) regulations on
these high-quality reaches are among the most contentious of Michigan’s trout
stream regulations for two primary reasons. First, field studies in Michigan have
not clearly demonstrated that these regulations produce the desired biological
effects, namely increased trout recruitment and catch (via reduced hooking
mortality) and increased density of sub-legal sized trout (Shetter and Alexander
1962; Latta, 1973). We have two comments on this paragraph.
First, a significant increase in fish populations due to reduced hooking mortality
is not likely in streams that have been overwhelmingly utilized by fly anglers who
have voluntarily released fish for many years. This is one of the concerns that
we as anglers have had with requirements of FO 213. Secondly, as demonstrated
above, with significant changes to angler behavior, how it is possible to believe
we can rely on studies that are 55 and 44 years old respectively to provide an
accurate biological assessment of these fisheries. The authors state that it is
difficult to demonstrate that Gear Restricted regulations have produced their
desired effect. If this is true it must also be true that it will be difficult to show
that these regulations are not providing their desired results. On line 632 of the
original draft of this document it is stated that “gear restricted streams currently
attract tremendous fishing pressure to the point that anglers are voicing concerns”.
With this in mind, there must be something drawing these crowds of anglers to
these special places again and again. It is curious that this statement disappeared
from the current draft of the plan. We will have to guess that it did not fit well
into the image of gear restricted reaches that the authors are trying to portray.
lines 1034-36: The reference to a study by Poppoff and Neuman was added to
the second draft. This information is not incorporated in the regulation suite that
was approved for 2011. It also was not discussed with the regulation committee
at that time. This may be a good subject for the CWRSC to discuss but it only
adds to confusion here. This statement should be clarified or removed from the
lines 1037-53: In summarizing his 1973 study on flies-only regulations in
Michigan and Wisconsin, Latta notes, “the most obvious change with imposition
flies-only regulation, was a dramatic decrease in fishing pressure. It appears that
at the present time the flies-only regulation is operating in a sociological manner
to create a limited entry fishery”. It appears that Latta had not observed the recent
“tremendous fishing pressure” that the author observed in the above paragraph.
(and removed the reference from this draft) As far as a limited entry fishery it
should be noted that both The International Federation of Fly Fishers and Trout
Unlimited and their affiliate chapters provide fly fishing instruction, often at no
charge, to anyone who wants to learn the sport. This training also provides
outreach to women and youth who might be uncomfortable in traditional settings.
The world has changed dramatically since 1973 and the world of fly fishing is no
exception. Observations around the country are contrary to those found in
Latta, including the statement from the previous draft of this document referenced
above. Michigan has conducted no research to this matter, but it is common
knowledge that the flies-only reaches of the AuSable, Manistee, and Pere-
Marquette rivers are among the very highest fished in the state, and are vital to the
economic support of the surrounding communities. Any reference to the Latta
study should be removed from the document unless peer reviewed current studies
are produced to corroborate his claims.
On page 23, line 1043: the authors list the percentage of anglers that fish with
particular methods as determined in the 2015 Inland Trout Angler Survey. Fly-
Fishing accounted for 48% of the respondents. Still, the next sentence utilizes
data from a study by Knoche that posed hypothetical fishing situations to
determine angler preferences. The authors correctly quote Mr. Knoche in stating
that according to his hypothetical survey questions the average angler is
substantially and negatively impacted by restrictive regulations. The authors
neglect to report Mr. Knoche’s final statement in this section that says that from
an equity standpoint we should be looking at creating more fly fishing or even
no-kill regulation reaches. According to Knoche 22.5% of inland trout anglers
favor fly angling regulations, and at this time .6% of our trout fishing waters have
fly-fishing regulations. If Mr. Knoche’s advice and the conclusions from Dr.
Zorn’s Michigan 2015 Inland Trout Survey are to be followed, fisheries managers
should be searching at ways to increase Gear Restricted regulation usage not scale
There are large sections of the plan for which we have not provided specific comments. The majority of these sections we support and approve of the way they are addressed in the plan. Others sections we do not have the expertise to adequately comment in such a short timeframe. Our current comments on this draft plan are limited to items we feel need to be corrected or eliminated from the plan. Previous correspondence has assured us that there will be ample time to provide additional comments to the authors before the plan is finalized.
We are confident that the current Draft Plan can be further modified to better serve all stakeholders. This version of the Draft Plan is definitely a step in the right direction. We would like to thank everyone involved in this project for their efforts to revise the previous version of the Draft Plan. We look forward to working together to produce a final version of the Inland Trout Management Plan that reflects our constituents views.
Anglers of The AuSable
Habitat Committee Chair, and CWRSC representative
April 29, 2017, 4:30 – 10 pm (Dinner at 6 pm)
Otsego Club, Gaylord, MI
If you’re going to have a banquet on the Opening Day of Trout Season, it better be good. The Anglers of the Au Sable’s banquet
only happens every five years. Live and silent auctions, raffles, camaraderie, and a cause. This isn’t just for looks, this is to raise
money to protect the river from a discharge permit for a fish farm. Fly fishers know how important this fight is, which is why the
donations have been pouring in from guides, fly shops, sales representatives, and even the companies themselves. We’ve hardly
had to ask to receive what we think is a still accumulating line-up of goods and services.
• Guide trips from noted Michigan guides including Eric Grajewski, Jeff Hubbard, Jon
Ray, Kevin Feenstra and many others…
• Rare and collectible fly rods from Bob Summers, Sweetgrass Fly Rods, and Keystone
• Top end items from Sage, R.L. Winston, Simms, Bauer, Hatch and many others…
• Collectibles from Tom Morgan, Dennis Potter, Ogden Pleissner, Kent Lund and more…
• Excursions to Brookhaven Pond, a two-day midnight mousin’ adventure, a cast-andblast
• Original signed copies of Seasons on the Au Sable, by Rusty Gates…
• And a whole bunch more…
Tickets are $100/person. Tables are $1000. Tickets include choice of five entrees and two bar tickets.
To secure your tickets, CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE TICKETS ONLINE or contact Josh Greenberg: Josh@GatesLodge.com or 989-348-8462. This event
will sell out so please don’t delay.
Please note: We are holding a block of rooms at the OCR Blue Spruce Lodge for April 29th with departure
the 30th. Cutoff date for these rooms is March 15, 2017. Individual rooms @ $99 plus tax can be
reserved by calling the resort’s main reservation line 989-732-5181.
U.S. Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Flint, announced introduction of legislation intended to prevent development of for-profit fish farms in the Great Lakes and connecting rivers. It may not be in time to help with our fight against the fish factory the state is allowing to pollute the Au Sable, but it’s a good step to prevent further pollution by fish farms in critical waters. Anglers President Tom Baird endorsed the effort on our behalf.
Anglers of the Au Sable plans to challenge a recommendation by a state administrative law judge issued Feb. 1 requiring some alterations to a Department of Environmental Quality permit issued to a fish farm in Grayling, but still allowing pollution of the Au Sable River.
“While the judge did call for additional monitoring of the river, and he mandated some minor improvements at the Grayling Fish Hatchery, his ruling still allows fish feces, excess food and escaped farm trout to continue polluting this pristine cold water resource,” said Tom Baird, president of Anglers of the Au Sable, an organization formed to protect the river. “The fish farm will still use the river as its sewer, and that should be unacceptable to all who use and live on this outstanding waterway. We will ask DEQ Director Heidi Grether to reject this permit completely and restore common sense to this situation.”
Read the entire AotA press release HERE.
Have you seen these bills? A little scary? We think so to.
Michigan Public Land Management At Risk – Calls and Letters Are Needed NOW! Stop Michigan Senate bills 39 & 40
These bills represent the most significant legislative intervention in public land management in the State’s history. These provisions include:
- The potential forced opening of our few remaining special management areas to motorized vehicles
- Increased timber harvest to levels which may be in conflict with publicly-adopted sustainable forest management plans
- Calls for the elimination of some habitat management activities which benefit both game and non-game wildlife species
- Transfers authority for strategic public land decisions in most areas of northern Michigan to a small number of local officials
- Requires accelerated and preferential sales of public land to adjacent private landowners, including lands which are NOT designated as surplus
- Reduced application fees for the private acquisition of public land or easements to levels which are well below the DNR’s cost of application review and administration
- Prohibits the DNR from rejecting even flawed real estate appraisals involving the State sale of public lands
- Prohibits public land management activities which are intended to preserve biological diversity
- Requires the development of new strategic land plans to facilitate these policies in spite of the fact that the DNR’s 2013 plan has never been legislatively approved or even formally considered
These proposed requirements collectively represent a significant diversion of DNR field staff time and resources away from the management of our forests, fisheries and wildlife. Don’t take our word for these provisions, here’s the bill analysis from the Senate Fiscal agency.
Please call or write Governor Rick Snyder (517-373-3400), State House Natural Resource Committee members and your District House Representative and voice your opposition to Senate Bills 39 & 40. (see links below); also, please call the DNR Administrative offices (517-284-6367) and ask them to oppose SB-39 & 40.
Gov. Snyder Contact link: http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869–,00.html
House Rep. Contact Link: http://house.michigan.gov/mhrpublic/frmRepList.aspx
Coalition to Stop MI Senate Bills 39 & 40
Thank you to all that wrote to the MDNR regarding the New Zealand Mudsnail issue. If you did you likely received the following email from them in response.
If you have already read Mr. Dexter’s email and would like to see Pres. Baird’s response please scroll down.
November 14, 2016
James Dexter, Fisheries Chief
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
525 West Allegan
Lansing, MI 48933
Re: New Zealand Mudsnail Response – Au Sable River
Dear Chief Dexter:
I am writing in response to your recent email communication regarding New Zealand mudsnails in the Au Sable River. I write to offer several clarifications to the DNR and the other quality of life agencies. The Anglers of the Au Sable will go the extra mile to educate anglers and others about invasive species, wader washing and the importance of other measures. But in this case, we believe that the QOL group’s handling if the Grayling fish farm, especially the snail issue, has been woefully inadequate.
You used the term “hollow and disingenuous” to describe our expressions of concern and our calls for a strong and speedy response to the discovery of NZMS just downstream from the fish farm. Respectfully, we submit that the most hollow and disingenuous statement in this entire affair is to continue to claim that the state is vigorously protecting the Au Sable River. To review: 1) the DNR made this entire project possible when it illegally waived its right to enforce statutory use restrictions on the hatchery and allowed an industrial fish farm, 2) the DEQ issued a pollution discharge permit allowing the river to be used as the farm’s private sewer, 3) the DNR has openly acknowledged that low-tech aquaculture facilities like the Grayling fish farm are a prime threat for the spread of NZMS, but 4) when notified of discovery of the NZMS in the river, refused to inspect the fish farm and instead blamed anglers as the probable cause of the infestation.
In early June, a scientist we retain discovered NZMS in the East Branch of the Au Sable. He determined that the snails were directly below the fish farm – and only below the fish farm – not upstream, and not further downstream. Anyone can see that a possible source of the infestation was the fish farm. This was reported to DNR and DEQ immediately.
Standard operating procedure in such cases is to do an immediate survey to assess the source and extent of the infestation, and to determine if emergency measures can be deployed. We asked that you inspect the fish farm. You said the owner wouldn’t let you! We asked that you have the Attorney General obtain a warrant. To our dismay, you refused to do so, saying you wanted to “work with” the owner to find a “mutually agreeable third party” to survey the fish farm. In the end, that never happened, either. Months went by. The snails spread upstream and further downstream from the fish farm. It is now probably impossible to determine if the fish farm was the source of the snails, and it is impossible to treat the river to eradicate them. Four months later there was an inspection and, no surprise, NZMS were found in the facility.
Regarding your eagerness to blame wading anglers for the snails, we note the snails were only found directly below the fish farm. There is very little public access there. Very few, if any, anglers fish there. Have you considered how infinitesimally small the probability is that any angler 1) came to the Au Sable from another watershed, 2) which was already infested with NZMS, 3) which were on the angler’s waders, and 4) chose this inaccessible and deserted stretch of the East Branch as their best fishing location?
Worst, after all your protestations of concern for the waters of our state, you have concocted a scheme where the fish farm will be allowed to transport potentially infected fish for stocking in other waters The NZMS is asexual. It only takes one snail, in one fish, to start a new population. You say this protocol creates a “low likelihood” that the farm trout will forage on snails before shipment. We have been made aware of studies that show even recently fed fish may forage and ingest snails, and that using fresh water for transport might not work. Thus, there is a “definite likelihood” that fish will be shipped after ingesting snails.
Anglers of the Au Sable has built wader wash stations and distributed them to local shops. We have sent educational material to our members and posted it on the Internet. In cooperation with MGFCTU, we worked with our communications firm and biologists to draft, print and post signs warning of the dangers. Similar handouts were placed in local stores, too. This was all done in less than a week. In the meantime, has the DNR contacted local businesses, organizations and governmental agencies to warn of the problem and enlist their participation in educating the public?
We will always vigilantly protect the Au Sable River system. That is the reason we exist. We prefer, as always, to do so in full partnership with the DNR and other state agencies. We will also call it like we see it, back up our conclusions with science, and unfortunately and too often, fight tooth and nail against state agency decisions and actions which put the river at risk. This is one of those times. The DNR and other state agencies simply didn’t do the job on this one. You permitted an ill-conceived project in the finest trout stream east of the Mississippi, and then you dawdled in the face of a real threat. You only entered the fish farm when the owner “invited” you to do so. What kind of vigilance is that? The state can claim that it will “do all it can” to preserve the Au Sable as a “natural resources jewel,” but its actions in this instance are to the contrary.
Thomas A Baird, President
Anglers of the Au Sable
The Mud Snail, the State of Michigan, and the Au Sable Fish Farm…a timeline.
June 6, 2016. Dr. Mark Luttenton discovered mud snails directly below (and at that time ONLY directly below) the hatchery during a routine water quality inspection. AotA notifies DNR and DEQ immediately. AotA and TU groups post NZMS info signs at access points to educate anglers and boaters on how not to spread the snails.
DNR releases State of Michigan’s Status and Strategy for New Zealand Mudsnail Management WHICH STATES: “Managing potential pathways of introduction for the New Zealand mudsnail is essential in preventing dispersal into new waterways. Pathway specific management plans include close visual inspection and the treatment of fish hatcheries and aquaculture operations.” They did not inspect the hatchery.
July 29, 2016. Nearly two months later the DNR sent Anglers their first response essentially blaming anglers for the spread of the mud snails. Also noted in this response is the hatchery operator’s refusal of admittance to state agencies to do testing of the facility for NZMS.
In late August, DNR fisheries biologists write in a draft trout management plan: “Improperly operated fish hatcheries have the potential to harm coldwater streams and their aquatic communities in a number of ways….Stocking of hatchery fish can serve as a vector for aquatic invasive species such as the New Zealand mud snail, unless appropriate measures are taken to prevent their spread… Many of the hatchery threats identified above are exacerbated in poorly designed flow-through systems” (like the Grayling hatchery). Still no inspection. The plan in place to prevent spread to other waterways in the state via stocking is questionable and likely to fail according to experts.
Sept 6, 2016. AotA sends letter to Governor Snyder asking for Snyder to order state agencies to do the required testing at the hatchery.
Sept 14, 2016. Gongwer publishes article with this opening paragraph: “The Department of Natural Resources agrees that the Grayling Fish Hatchery could be a source of invasive snails and has been working with the owners to prevent further transport, officials said late Tuesday.”
Sept 28, 2016. DNR director Keith Creagh sent a letter to AotA stating: “We are making arrangements to inspect the hatchery. We are planning to have representatives of all three QOL agencies onsite to verify that appropriate measures are being implemented to reduce the risk of NZMS movement and to test for the presence of snails inside the hatchery.”
Oct. 4, 2016. DNR press release stating they have inspected the hatchery. See below:
Anglers of the Au Sable
Via email at email@example.com
The Honorable Rick Snyder
Governor of the State of Michigan
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, MI 48909
Sept. 6, 2016
Dear Gov. Snyder,
I am writing to ask that you order state agencies to immediately investigate whether the Grayling Fish Hatchery, recently licensed as a fish farm by state agencies, is responsible for the introduction of an invasive species, the New Zealand Mud Snail, into the Au Sable River system.
Anglers of the Au Sable is a conservation and sporting group focused on preserving and enhancing the Au Sable River. We have long been a guardian of the Au Sable. We take very seriously our responsibility of protecting this world-renown fishery, and have worked with – and sometimes against – state agencies over the last 30 years to ensure that it will continue to be a special place in our state for those who enjoy nature, solitude, recreation – and fishing for its wild trout.
We are now engaged in litigation over use of the Grayling Fish Hatchery as a commercial fish farm under the management of Harriett Hills-Grayling. We are contesting the permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality to allow it to operate as a flow through facility with minimal pollution abatement as it moves from 20,000 pounds of fish production annually to a possible 300,000 pounds. That legal battle is now before an administrative law judge, and will be moving to the director of the DEQ for a final decision later this year or early in 2017.
In the meantime, we have discovered that a new invasive species has been found in the river in recent months. A well-known aquatic biologist under retainer by Anglers first found the New Zealand Mud Snail directly downriver from the hatchery in the East Branch of Au Sable. The Department of Natural Resources agrees that this fast-spreading species has now been found in other locations.
Our experts advise that the hatchery may have been the source of the invasive New Zealand Mud Snail now in the river – and may spread the snail into other waters as the hatchery operator distributes fish around the state.
We have asked officials the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Natural Resources to inspect the hatchery and its fish. To date, they have told us they have no plans to do so. We find this completely baffling, and totally irresponsible. It’s as if they don’t want to know what is going on in this hatchery.
We believe the agencies are potentially creating a scenario that may threaten more of our state’s cold water resources due to the risk of spreading disease vectors throughout the state. Fish diseases are often first discovered in fish farms suggesting they may be the entry points for many diseases.
One of our major concerns is that the New Zealand mud snail may not be the only invasive species associated with this recent discovery. Other organisms commonly associated with the New Zealand mud snail may now be in the Au Sable River system.
The Harrietta Hills-Grayling fish factory has been getting special state treatment for some time. Permission to operate the factory was granted by the DNR despite statutory and deed restrictions limiting use of the property to public recreation and museum purposes. The DEQ issued a pollution discharge permit which falls far short of protecting the river from pollution, algae growth, escapement and disease. Your own Water Strategy has noted the negative impact of flow-through hatcheries on waterways, and indicated a strong preference for recirculating water systems. And we know you have expressed strong concerns about invasive species.
We ask you to immediately order the appropriate state agencies to take action to gain entry into the fish farm, test the fish, examine the facility, and determine if it is contaminated. If so, we recommend that the fish not be transported to other locations.
Thank you for any action you can take on this important issue. We know of your commitment to the state’s natural resources, and hope you will move forward to protect the Au Sable River, one of the crown jewels of Michigan.
Keith Creagh, Director, Department of Natural Resources
Jamie Clover Adams, Director, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Heidi Grether, Director, Department of Environmental Quality
Jim Dexter, Chief, DNR Fisheries Division
James Averill, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development State Veterinarian
P.S. We would love to get you on the river for a chance to float the river and catch one of its many trout – and then to release it back into the water for others to enjoy. We are certain that a day on this outstanding waterway will help you understand why so many of us are so committed to its protection and enhancement. Just let me know!
“Anglers of the Au Sable contracted GVSU to conduct this study on the Mainstream and North Branch of the Au Sable during the Summer and Fall of 2014. 17 brook trout were tracked in an effort to better understand their use of habitat in the Au Sable system and to better inform ongoing habitat improvement projects. This study would not have been possible without the generous funding that Anglers of the Au Sable received from our partners in conservation: Mason Griffith Founders Chapter TU, Headwaters Chapter TU, Challenge Chapter TU, Michigan Fly Fishing Club, International Federation of Fly Fishers, and Patagonia Incorporated. Thank you all so much for your support!”
Click the link below to read the full report.