# Draft of 5 year plan released along with survey results



## broncbuster2

you mean you get to LUNCH with Splitshot?

Man I am behind the times...


----------



## Ranger Ray

He only goes when I buy. :lol:


----------



## broncbuster2

Thats Good....
You can buy when we get a new "date".....LOL


----------



## kzoofisher

> Who claimed "sound science"? Just giving a "social science" observation. Weren't you the guy promoting "social science"? There sure wasn't any so called sound science that required the special regulated waters. Why all of a sudden it is required of me?


 How soon they forget. You are the one who harps on "science only" and disregards what you call "social science"; whatever that is because I have yet to see you give an actual example of social science or how it has been misused. I think your definition of social science is about as accurate as Vizzini's definition of inconceivable. The DNR uses social considerations to establish regulations in Fisheries and also in Wildlife where Proposal G applies. Your partners in the GLFSA have all admitted that that social considerations are always a part of regulations, you should face up to it, too. The "social science" horse died so long ago you are now beating bleached out bones. Everyone else has moved on, you should, too.



> The money is taken out of the local economy of the two towns I spoke of. *Yes someone else gains, but the facts are, the two lose.* Ask BBT if it matters where the money is spent? Baldwin Wesco? Lake County Chamber? Red Moose Lodge? It includes a band of merry men that have fished the PM every year together for 32 years. *Just my business expenditure in gas between Scottville and Baldwin is $3200.00 a year. Well at least it was. That's not even including the money spent on dinners and lunches with Slitshot as I pass through on business that now goes elsewhere.*


That isn't exactly a fact. If the studies on the economic affects of the new regs show an overall increase in business than the regs have been a win for Lake County and also for wherever else you have taken your custom. We'll know a lot more after these things are discussed for the 2016 season.

I'm not at all sure what you mean in the second bold face section. Did you have business that took you from Scottville to Baldwin on a regular basis or did your business cause you to pass through that area? In order to be so precise about the expenditure in the two towns and for travel between the two towns you must have gassed up as you entered town each time and then gassed up again as you left the other town, otherwise you are counting gas you bought in Reed City as money spent in Baldwin. Using the arbitrary number of $3.20/ gallon, each year you would have stopped to fill up on 500 trips between the two towns at 10 mpg, 800 trips at 20 mpg and 1203 trips at 30 mpg. Are you certain your number is accounting for just the 25 miles between Scottville and Baldwin?



> Couldn't those violating been also misinformed?


 They could have been misinformed. They were still violating. If you don't read the rules you better stick to flies only and no kill between the last Saturday in April and the end of September. It's hard, but not impossible, to violate doing that.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> How soon they forget. You are the one who harps on "science only" and disregards what you call "social science"; whatever that is because I have yet to see you give an actual example of social science or how it has been misused. I think your definition of social science is about as accurate as Vizzini's definition of inconceivable. The DNR uses social considerations to establish regulations in Fisheries and also in Wildlife where Proposal G applies. Your partners in the GLFSA have all admitted that that social considerations are always a part of regulations, you should face up to it, too. The "social science" horse died so long ago you are now beating bleached out bones. Everyone else has moved on, you should, too.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't exactly a fact. If the studies on the economic affects of the new regs show an overall increase in business than the regs have been a win for Lake County and also for wherever else you have taken your custom. We'll know a lot more after these things are discussed for the 2016 season.
> 
> I'm not at all sure what you mean in the second bold face section. Did you have business that took you from Scottville to Baldwin on a regular basis or did your business cause you to pass through that area? In order to be so precise about the expenditure in the two towns and for travel between the two towns you must have gassed up as you entered town each time and then gassed up again as you left the other town, otherwise you are counting gas you bought in Reed City as money spent in Baldwin. Using the arbitrary number of $3.20/ gallon, each year you would have stopped to fill up on 500 trips between the two towns at 10 mpg, 800 trips at 20 mpg and 1203 trips at 30 mpg. Are you certain your number is accounting for just the 25 miles between Scottville and Baldwin?
> 
> They could have been misinformed. They were still violating. If you don't read the rules you better stick to flies only and no kill between the last Saturday in April and the end of September. It's hard, but not impossible, to violate doing that.


I have stated, social considerations are taken into account. Maximum recreation being one of them. 

The studies on the economic impact of the new regs? Yeah right. If they do the math like they did on the special regs and throw out 2800 replies because they duplicate 50 some, I bet it will show the Baldwin area has rivaled Las Vegas in growth since the new regs.  Who is doing the economic study? TU? :lol:

My trips are from Muskegon to TC, detective Kazoo.


----------



## kzoofisher

> I have stated, social considerations are taken into account. Maximum recreation being one of them.


 So what are the social science complaints about?



> My trips are from Muskegon to TC, detective Kazoo.


 But you count those expenses as being between Scottville and Baldwin?!


> _Just my business expenditure in gas between Scottville and Baldwin is $3200.00 a year._


 Sorry, this knocks 12% off your calculation with only checking one figure. I hope the IRS never audits you. And how do you go through both Scottville and Baldwin traveling from Muskegon to Traverse City? Kenny Tarmac must do your routes for you. :lol:


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> But you count those expenses as being between Scottville and Baldwin?! Sorry, this knocks 12% off your calculation with only checking one figure. I hope the IRS never audits you. And how do you go through both Scottville and Baldwin traveling from Muskegon to Traverse City? Kenny Tarmac must do your routes for you. :lol:


I used to gas up in Baldwin or Scottville when I needed gas and that's almost every return trip. Now I just usually do it at the corner of 55 and 37 or Ludington Meijer. Ah, 31 and 37. Do you think you know more about my trips and expenditures than I? I now know were that mentality of telling people how they should fish comes from. :lol:


----------



## kzoofisher

Oh boy, "$3200 between Scottville and Baldwin" has morphed into "I stopped there when I needed gas, which was pretty darn often I tell 'ya". I don't know squat about your business but I can tell when someone is spouting BS and your stories reek of it. You claim to have boycotted the area, forget you said that and admit you still fish it; claim that the money you spent to get there can't be credited to the fishing but the money you spend to get to TC can be debited from the fishing; say social doesn't enter into it, admit that social does enter into it and generally change your story every time you are called out on something you have said. All in just this thread. If your difficulty with accuracy (to put it mildly) and your tolerance for violating game laws you disagree with are representative of the anti-gear restriction crowd then I am very comfortable telling when and how to fish. No way and never.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Oh boy, "$3200 between Scottville and Baldwin" has morphed into "I stopped there when I needed gas, which was pretty darn often I tell 'ya". I don't know squat about your business but I can tell when someone is spouting BS and your stories reek of it. You claim to have boycotted the area, forget you said that and admit you still fish it; claim that the money you spent to get there can't be credited to the fishing but the money you spend to get to TC can be debited from the fishing; say social doesn't enter into it, admit that social does enter into it and generally change your story every time you are called out on something you have said. All in just this thread. If your difficulty with accuracy (to put it mildly) and your tolerance for violating game laws you disagree with are representative of the anti-gear restriction crowd then I am very comfortable telling when and how to fish. No way and never.


Yeah my stories are BS. Only you know the truth. Only you know what gear people should should fish with. Only you know whats right. Only you, only you, only you. I see a pattern here. You have proved nothing wrong, only accusations, as usual. Anybody can go back and read history of what I said. Funny, the only one claiming I am changing my story is you. Maybe you can quickly run out and get a few more of your TU buddies to quick post they agree with you, then you can claim the will of the people have spoken, therefore you must be right and it must be true.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Last time I drove thru Baldwin it did seem a little more run down than usual, I couldn't quite put my finger on the cause of it all. Now I know. RR stopped filling up his truck every other week when he drove thru town. 

I hope someone lets the chamber know about this.


----------



## mcfish

TC-fisherman said:


> Last time I drove thru Baldwin it did seem a little more run down than usual, I couldn't quite put my finger on the cause of it all. Now I know. RR stopped filling up his truck every other week when he drove thru town.
> 
> I hope someone lets the chamber know about this.


It does explain a lot doesn't it? 

Who knew that crawler sales were so very important to Baldwins economy? Oh, and Eagle Claw pre rigged snells. Can't forget those big ticket items. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## METTLEFISH

Why the state advocates using an arcaic method of angling is beyond me. Perhaps they should also regulate the methods in which the angler travels to the river by. If it's about preserving days of old, then by all means one should get there by Horse back.... wait, they should walk because Horses arrived about four thousand years ago. But then they wouldn't be traveling to the P.M. to fish Trout because they have only been there about 100 years + or - . Why were they put there?... to be caught by everyone, not a select group. Why anyone wants to catch them with a cable that deadens the experience I don't know. I use flies.... however not on a cable.....


----------



## riverman

TC-fisherman said:


> Last time I drove thru Baldwin it did seem a little more run down than usual, I couldn't quite put my finger on the cause of it all. Now I know. RR stopped filling up his truck every other week when he drove thru town.
> 
> I hope someone lets the chamber know about this.


Baldwin and Scottville lost most of my business too, and my brother"s also. That entire area has always had a dismal economy and they try hard to keep it that way.


----------



## mcfish

METTLEFISH said:


> Why the state advocates using an arcaic method of angling is beyond me.


You must hate the wilderness areas like Craig lake and Sylvania. Imagine having to walk and use a paddle! 

No crawlers or motors? How dare they take away those freedoms!!!! 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## TC-fisherman

riverman said:


> Baldwin and Scottville lost most of my business too, and my brother"s also. That entire area has always had a dismal economy and they try hard to keep it that way.


I wonder if WESCO will be able to survive?


----------



## METTLEFISH

mcfish said:


> You must hate the wilderness areas like Craig lake and Sylvania. Imagine having to walk and use a paddle!
> 
> No crawlers or motors? How dare they take away those freedoms!!!!
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Well I grew up on a lake that didn't allow motors. I rowed thousands of miles as a kid, and I also do as an Adult. (I have two non motorized drift boats) I love the quiet and no stench of an outboard. It also provides great excersise. It is MY choice to do that though. I do not go around seeking out others to join forces with and then try to force my tactics on others.


----------



## diztortion

riverman said:


> Baldwin and Scottville lost most of my business too, and my brother"s also. That entire area has always had a dismal economy and they try hard to keep it that way.


Lost my business also. Granted I don't spend much time or money in the area, I refuse to give them any business.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## REG

Has ever so much energy went into something that has ever done so very little in helping fish populations as with the last round of gear regulations? Perhaps instituting a no lifting a trout out of the water in catch and release areas would save more fish than gear regs. 

Can you imagine if all this energy, or at least half of it, went into something agreeably positive, such as habitat restoration?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Anyone want to wager which bait has more sales dollars in Lake County; worms or artificial flies? :lol: That worm your dishin generates good money for the Westgates. Last I checked they didn't have to go to Alaska to make a living either.


----------



## kzoofisher

REG said:


> Has ever so much energy went into something that has ever done so very little in helping fish populations as with the last round of gear regulations? Perhaps instituting a no lifting a trout out of the water in catch and release areas would save more fish than gear regs.
> 
> Can you imagine if all this energy, or at least half of it, went into something agreeably positive, such as habitat restoration?


I think you vastly over estimate the energy spent on gear regulations around the state. This place is full of chatter, "sound and fury, signifying nothing", but there are plenty of groups working on worthwhile projects elsewhere. I think the Coldwater Committee even got tired of the constant rhetoric that symbolized action but did nothing so they have shelved the subject for a few years. If you look though, you will find plenty of groups doing things like: habitat work, temperature studies, erosion surveys, season long clean ups, telemetry studies, get kids involved days, working with canoe liveries to reduce trash, partnering with the DNR and Forest Service in campgrounds and on horse trails, working with veterans etc. These things are happening all over the state and on dozens of rivers. There are plenty of groups that actually DO something, if you contact one I'm sure they'll give you a chance to spend your energy constructively. I get a whole lot done besides posting here and I'll bet a lot of other posters do too, it ain't that hard to find work.


----------



## REG

kzoofisher said:


> I think you vastly over estimate the energy spent on gear regulations around the state. This place is full of chatter, "sound and fury, signifying nothing", but there are plenty of groups working on worthwhile projects elsewhere. I think the Coldwater Committee even got tired of the constant rhetoric that symbolized action but did nothing so they have shelved the subject for a few years. If you look though, you will find plenty of groups doing things like: habitat work, temperature studies, erosion surveys, season long clean ups, telemetry studies, get kids involved days, working with canoe liveries to reduce trash, partnering with the DNR and Forest Service in campgrounds and on horse trails, working with veterans etc. These things are happening all over the state and on dozens of rivers. There are plenty of groups that actually DO something, if you contact one I'm sure they'll give you a chance to spend your energy constructively. I get a whole lot done besides posting here and I'll bet a lot of other posters do too, it ain't that hard to find work.


I for one appreciate your sweat equity that you told us you put in toward habitat restoration, along with anyone else that has done this. And I thank you for the offer, but I already have worked with a few groups that do alot of what you describe and continue to do it. And, they don't even dictate how other people are supposed to fish, imagine that. And as far as vastly over estimating, then how much is time worth when one organization rep declared at a NRC meeting that their biologist and ED spent over 40 hours of work drafting a document in support of gear regs?

But, that deflects from the central issue of how much do the gear regs actually benefit trout populations within the state?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Interesting that others posted they have also gone elsewhere. We know others have also. These people will not be polled in surveys because they have already left. The poll gatherers will go ask those that are still there if they plan on increasing their time in the area and it will be heralded as a boon for the area. Maybe its time they take the surveys before they initiate a change, those leaving because of it will still be there. :idea:


----------



## kzoofisher

REG said:


> I for one appreciate your sweat equity that you told us you put in toward habitat restoration, along with anyone else that has done this. And I thank you for the offer, but I already have worked with a few groups that do alot of what you describe and continue to do it. And, they don't even dictate how other people are supposed to fish, imagine that. And as far as vastly over estimating, then how much is time worth when one organization rep declared at a NRC meeting that their biologist and ED spent over 40 hours of work drafting a document in support of gear regs?
> 
> But, that deflects from the central issue of how much do the gear regs actually benefit trout populations within the state?


Thank you for your kind words. I didn't specify any group(s) because I wasn't advocating for any specific group(s) and I also have done work for those who take no position on any fishing or hunting regulations. It doesn't surprise me a bit that an organization spent 40 hours drafting a document to present to the NRC. It would be unprofessional and insulting to bring in something that was quickly thrown together. There is a time to for an advocacy group to focus on these issues, when they are coming up for review. Now the focus is on stream projects and research and legislative issues that may arise, not regulations that are in place for a few more years. I have no doubt that that is why the Coldwater Committee has stopped hearing discussion on the issue also; so that it can focus on more pressing matters. I think the fact that we here have such an inclination to discuss it says more about our distance from power rather than demonstrating any proximity to it.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> I think the fact that we here have such an inclination to discuss it says more about our distance from power rather than demonstrating any proximity to it.


Ah, the philosophical, where the difference between appearance and reality gets confused.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Interesting that others posted they have also gone elsewhere. We know others have also. These people will not be polled in surveys because they have already left. The poll gatherers will go ask those that are still there if they plan on increasing their time in the area and it will be heralded as a boon for the area. Maybe its time they take the surveys before they initiate a change, those leaving because of it will still be there. :idea:


I wouldn't worry too much about the accuracy of the polling, the DNR has expanded its efforts to include many more participants as evidenced by the survey for this new strategic plan which received over 10,000 responses. One of the conclusions drawn was that the public supports regulations that create different opportunities and we see that in this part of the proposed plan:



> Strategy 3: Implement fishing regulations expressly designed to create special or unique fishing opportunities.


That is certainly bad news for those who want "one size fits all" simplicity and I think also good news for the artificials only crowd. The trend towards "special" fisheries was also seen in the recent regulation changes for pike and musky which focused on less consumption and more trophies where possible. The focus of trout regulations may be on a different "specialness" than trophies, but making fisheries "special" is clearly an established goal.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Ah, the *philosophical*, where the difference between appearance and reality gets confused.


Congratulations, you have another word to look up.


----------



## METTLEFISH

What I really like is that I do not have to use fly casting gear there. The only thing they can regulate is what's tied to the end of your line.


----------



## Ranger Ray

"Regulation that creates different opportunities"? I would take that to not to mean the loss of opportunity. Me thinks some are taking liberty with what exactly "different opportunity" means. Kind of like "diverse" fishing opportunities. Some want to promote that as meaning special miles of river for fly's only. When in reality the "diverse" already exists with everyone fishing the same water. Buzz words like "unique, diverse, and different opportunity" are all great in the philosophical world, but all has to be done within the realm of the law. Reallocating opportunity from one group to create anothers "unique" is discriminatory. Especially when equal opportunity already exists.

"Duke Law Review
The central principle of the public trust doctrine has been summarized as follows:
When a state holds a resource which is available for the free use of the general public, a court will look with considerable skepticism upon any governmental conduct which is calculated either to reallocate that resource to more restricted uses or to subject public uses to the self-interest of private parties."

I doubt those that pay equal share would be looked at any differently then the defined "free use."


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Congratulations, you have another word to look up.


Only in your mind.


----------



## mcfish

METTLEFISH said:


> What I really like is that I do not have to use fly casting gear there. The only thing they can regulate is what's tied to the end of your line.


Absolutely. Heck, a fly on spinning gear can be very effective. 

In my teens I hadn't picked up fly casting or using a bait caster yet and used a spinning set up exclusively. I used them for everything from musky cranks to a tiny fly. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> "Regulation that creates different opportunities"? I would take that to not to mean the loss of opportunity. Me thinks some are taking liberty with what exactly "different opportunity" means. Kind of like "diverse" fishing opportunities. Some want to promote that as meaning special miles of river for fly's only. When in reality the "diverse" already exists with everyone fishing the same water. Buzz words like "unique, diverse, and different opportunity" are all great in the philosophical world, but all has to be done within the realm of the law. Reallocating opportunity from one group to create anothers "unique" is discriminatory. Especially when equal opportunity already exists.
> 
> "Duke Law Review
> The central principle of the public trust doctrine has been summarized as follows:
> When a state holds a resource which is available for the free use of the general public, a court will look with considerable skepticism upon any governmental conduct which is calculated either to reallocate that resource to more restricted uses or to subject public uses to the self-interest of private parties."
> 
> I doubt those that pay equal share would be looked at any differently then the defined "free use."


Your interpretation of the PTD continues to be overly broad and completely out of step with its use for a century or more. Regulating terminal tackle and methods of take are not violations of the PTD and never have been. We have been down this road quite a few times before. No one is restricted from fishing gear restricted water, they are only restricted in their methods which the DNR can do and has done since game laws were first established in Michigan. Have you ever asked the DNR about your interpretation of the PTD and if so what was their response? If it was that your interpretation would not allow them to regulate methods of take like bow, spear and dip netting it would be because that is the obvious conclusion. Those methods do not receive widespread support of the public for taking "game" fish, is that why you refuse to acknowledge that your crusade would allow them? The GR waters of Michigan are all open to the public, some with more access per mile than most streams, they are open for longer seasons which allows for greater use, they do not subject public uses to the self-interest of private parties, they do not create a loss of opportunity for bait fisherman anymore than they do with other types of fishing that are currently restricted and they do not violate the PTD. The words "free use" in your quote do not mean without charge or restriction, they mean equally available to all the people and that is what GR water is - water open to the public for fishing. Are the number of boats restricted? Yes, but not the number of waders. Is parking restricted? Yes and you might have to walk quite a ways if the lots are full and the roadsides are snow covered. If these things make the water unattractive to you that is your choice.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Yes I asked. The DNR who manage by the PTD (the have stated such) hadn't read the PTD and had no idea of what it said. I have asked Natural Resource attorneys though that are well versed in it. Your analogy's are simple ones in a complex of legalities. If it was that simple, the DNR wouldn't have had to game the system so bad to get gear restrictions passed. How do we know this? The DNR told us. But maybe you know more about how and what they did then them.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Yes I asked. The DNR who manage by the PTD (the have stated such) hadn't read the PTD and had no idea of what it said. I have asked Natural Resource attorneys though that are well versed in it. Your analogy's are simple ones in a complex of legalities. If it was that simple, the DNR wouldn't have had to game the system so bad to get gear restrictions passed. How do we know this? The DNR told us. But maybe you know more about how and what they did then them.


Very lawyerly response. Let me rephrase. Have you or any of your fellow members in the GLFSA contacted the DNR about this, received a response and posted that response or the gist of that response on a message board? If you don't recall try asking toto, he has a very good memory for these things.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## METTLEFISH

I wonder if the approach of them only being able to plant these waters from a hatchery that exclusively produces fish for said waters is a viable defense against it. Is it legal for them to use funds from the general fund for exclusive rights?


----------



## broncbuster2

Some people need to pull their head out of their BUTT


----------



## toto

So kzoo, what would you think if someone started to do a investigation into the illegitimacy of the TU, and their non profit status?? What if it were determined that TU has gone beyond the scope of their proclaimed non profit mission statement. I just wonder what TU would do then?? 

Look the bottom is, and you know it Kzoo is that TU has gone Way Way beyond the scope of their stated mission. On one hand TU says they aren't a fly fishing organization, but on the other hand they'll fight tooth and nail for fly fishing only regulations, and to the point of scewing data to suit their needs. Since when does an originaztion, any group of people have the right to dictate what "Public" waters are for their particular pursuits, at the "takings" from others. This isn't about fly fishing, this is about greed plain and simple.

Let me ask a question Kzoo, this may sound stupid but I would bet you are a democrat, although not a declared and sworn democrat, but one none the less. Know how I can tell, you want what you want, but when it comes to something that parallels what you want, you can't stand it. For example, I would bet you probably believe in taxing the rich because they can afford it, while on the other hand you want all these waters to yourself, all under some false pretense of protecting the fish, not the resource mind you, but the fish. 

If TU were being honest, they proclaim to be a cold water restoration group, while all along they have been using their greed and our money to take our rights to fish these waters, unless of course its with their ideal method. What I trully fail to understand is if you have these waters as your nirvana, and all the fish get larger and larger, where is the great inner peace you profess when you catch a fish of larger than normal size? Do you feel a little shallow in putting in on some braggin board?? I would, it would sorta be like fishing in a trout pond and than posting what you caught to show how great you are, just doesn't seem right to me.

I'll tell ya one thing, the only reason the NRC has put this on the silent mode is due to the fact that these rules are suppossed to be revisited again after the original 5 year period, so no wonder you haven't heard anything, it has nothing to do with us being silent, as I can promise you this, your hearing may not be so good, but we are making some noise.

BTW, I read recently that the Governor is trying to raise hunting and fishing license fees. Makes some sense, up to a point. To hire more CO's with this money is a great idea, Michigan could use some more CO's. But, where I get concerned is when it is stated that the additional monies will also be used for cold water restoration projects. So who selects where these projects will be? Wanna guess? I would bet my life on the fact it would heavily influence by TU. My problem with that, well let me see, so first of all TU fights long and hard to get more and more water for their purposes, then they now have the license fees increasing and the money will be used for habitat restoration, so therefore, now TU takes our license dollars, and is now going to use them to fix waters that the average person won't ever fish, why because they don't want to fly fish. I'm telling you what, the more and more I read about the crap that is going on with the "PUBLIC" waters, the more it makes me sick. The one good thing though, it has at least given me something to sink my teeth into once I retire. 

Since I didn't address the PTD, and since my name was brought up, I will also address that. As for the PTD, it does discuss the public rights to use these waters, and in fact is now if vogue on hunting and trapping rights as well. Where you may not have an understanding is when you combine it with the Northwest Ordinance, you know, one of the 4 organic laws of the United States? In that little nuisance of a law, you will find in Article 4 that the waters from Mississippi, to the St. Lawrence and waters entering the same shall be free of impost or duty, free to use for bathing, commerce, fishing, or any other accepted use for the public. Fishing has always been an accepted practice for public waters, and it has been said about article 4 that all rules and regulations are to be made for conservation purposes only. What I am saying is, you cannot sit here and ever tell me that a group of people have the right to govern a particular water body that is owned by the public, and that is exactly what it happening here. These waters are being managed by what groups such as TU, and their off shoots want, not what is necessarily good for the public, or as stated in the PTD's and the N.O. the "general public", which is everyone. That as much as anything is what has a lot of us riled up, it isn't right, it isn't fair, and I see this the same way as a lot of liberals do the rich people getting more and more, while the lower people just struggle along, as if taxing them more will make any difference. See what I mean. This whole issue isn't entirely about fishing, its as much about a entitlement as anything.


----------



## kzoofisher

> So kzoo, what would you think if someone started to do a investigation into the illegitimacy of the TU, and their non profit status?? What if it were determined that TU has gone beyond the scope of their proclaimed non profit mission statement. I just wonder what TU would do then??


 If any of what you say is true than I think someone should go after them. Is this a purely hypothetical question and you could have just as easily used the GLFSA as an example or do you have some basis for this? I'm not a member of TU and haven't been for 20 years or so which you already knew because I have told you so repeatedly, what goes on in their inner workings is a mystery to me.



> Look the bottom is, and you know it Kzoo is that TU has gone Way Way beyond the scope of their stated mission. On one hand TU says they aren't a fly fishing organization, but on the other hand they'll fight tooth and nail for fly fishing only regulations, and to the point of scewing data to suit their needs. Since when does an originaztion, any group of people have the right to dictate what "Public" waters are for their particular pursuits, at the "takings" from others. This isn't about fly fishing, this is about greed plain and simple.


 This entire paragraph is beneath you. We have had the discussion about the data before and I have shown you biologists not affiliated with TU or anyone else so far as I know, who disagree with the DNR's biologists. Reasonable people can disagree on the data. Painting the data as entirely one sided is inaccurate and not worthy of you. Your characterization of GR supporters as greedy is also a shameful fall into the tactics of those who have only insults instead of arguments. It is on the same level as saying that bait fisherman are fish hogs who don't care about the resource and would just as soon violate as go home empty handed. Neither one is true and both views are hurtful to any dialogue.



> Let me ask a question Kzoo, this may sound stupid but I would bet you are a democrat.....


 Another step down from your usual thoughtful posting, this time into a silly aside that has nothing to do with the argument but serves as a distraction. I will say this much, I believe everyone should and does pay taxes, the income rate should be paid on whatever is the source of 50.00001% of your earnings unless you are over 62 and those earnings are derived from money that was tax deferred during your working life, entitlements like social security and medicare need to be drastically cut for the generation that failed to pay for them (mine) instead of us living large and handing the bill to our kids and grandkids. If that means that you and I don't get the retirement we hoped for, well at least we'll get the one we earned.



> What I trully fail to understand is if you have these waters as your nirvana, and all the fish get larger and larger, where is the great inner peace you profess when you catch a fish of larger than normal size? Do you feel a little shallow in putting in on some braggin board?? I would, it would sorta be like fishing in a trout pond and than posting what you caught to show how great you are, just doesn't seem right to me.


 I have no idea what you are talking about, this in no way describes my thoughts or actions and you have completely made up the things you are attributing to me. Stop it. It is the lazy man's way of trying to gain points.



> I'll tell ya one thing, the only reason the NRC has put this on the silent mode is due to the fact that these rules are suppossed to be revisited again after the original 5 year period, so no wonder you haven't heard anything, it has nothing to do with us being silent, as I can promise you this, your hearing may not be so good, but we are making some noise.


 Yes, that's what I said in my post on the subject. The people who make the decisions on this and also the people who are busy actually helping the resource have tabled the matter.



> BTW, I read recently that the Governor is trying to raise hunting and fishing license fees.......


 The DNR is hurting for money so they have turned to conservation groups for help. If you don't like it blame the people who are always against any fee increases and who supported the slashing of the DNR's budget over the last 15 years. It's the world we live in now.



> Since I didn't address the PTD, and since my name was brought up, I will also address that. As for the PTD, it does discuss the public rights to use these waters, and in fact is now if vogue on hunting and trapping rights as well......


 I brought your name up because I believed you to be scrupulously honest. I know that this is your position and you know that the DNR's position is that the PTD and other associated laws do not preclude them from making the regulations that they have made. In fact, Tammy Newcomb made that argument at a Coldwater Committee meeting last year. I will say as I always do that your position also makes the prohibition on spearing and bowfishing for trout illegal because there is simply no biological basis for banning them. Your position would completely hamstring the DNR by forcing them to prove a biological need before any regulations are passed. The predictable result would be that regulations would change only after a resource has collapsed and the need is immediate and obvious.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Idea #1. Cold water restoration.. I'm all for it. Remove the Dam's, stop run off diversion into the waterways (it's legal for the State and Counties to do so) REMOVE ALL NON-NATIVE SPECIES and plant Brook Trout and Grayling ONLY.

Idea #2. Plant exotic species such as Salmon and Trout for the people that purchase licenses & Eq. and pay for the costs of doing so to fish for them in the waters in which they were planted. 

Idea #3. Plant exotic species such as Salmon and Trout for the people that purchase licenses and Eq. and pay for the costs of doing so to fish for them in the waters in which they were planted, except make certain waters off limits to those that pay for them and create an artificial "trophy'' area for those that can't catch ''trophies" in an area that the rest of the people do.

I could deal with #3 provided the people fishing said trophy area paid for the additonal costs fo doing so. And that any trophy caught in such an area came with a disclosure tag stating where it was caught.


----------



## toto

Stating that spearing or shooting trout with a bow and arrow are deflections, just as saying you don't need a 30 round clip for deer hunting is a deflection by the anti gun people. 

I have heard not one person have a pro stance on that above scenario. What we are basically talking about here is a takings issue, not a takings issue that is in the truest sense of the word, but how could anyone condone the idea of taking water from one person who doesn't fly fish, for whatever reason. Using bait has been a time honored tradition for nearly as long as fly fishing. 

We've gone all around the debate and inside out. You can't see the fact that those that have the power re: money taking from those that don't, and thats essentially what we are talking about here. We also know that there are those from the fly community who have stated they won't stop at the newest present mileage of waters, they want even more.

As for using biological science, no we wouldn't have to wait for an area to be ruined before making conservation decisions, it would be fairly apparant before it ever collapsed totally. At that point, it would have to be determined whether or not those waters are trully a good candidate for trout anyways. Some waters are just too warm to handle trout properly and to fight that battle is a wast of time and expenses. As for cold water habitat improvement, I'm all for it, but at the same time if we are to increase license fees for these improvements, I wouldn't want to see my money going to self certered interests, I'm sure you can agree with that.

As for stocking trout in these gear regulated waters, I say absolutely not. If these groups want to set up their own hatcheries have at it, but just like the above scenario, to use my license dollars to pay for stocking fish in exclusive waters, no way. These are public dollars and should be used as such, for all waters that are entirely open to the public. I know you will say, "but the gear restricted waters are open to the public" , yes and no. Yes, if we want to change our tactics of how we enjoy the sport of fishing, we can go there and fish, for those of us who prefer other methods, it isn't open to the public. 

These are waters that are owned by ALL citizens of Michigan, and need to be inclusive to all citizens, and there can be no argument there.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoo said:


> Your interpretation of the PTD continues to be overly broad and completely out of step with its use for a century or more. Regulating terminal tackle and methods of take are not violations of the PTD and never have been. We have been down this road quite a few times before. No one is restricted from fishing gear restricted water, they are only restricted in their methods which the DNR can do and has done since game laws were first established in Michigan.


Well you seem to know a lot of the PTD. 

What requirements, criteria and procedures must the DNR follow to be able to restrict methods?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Business trip to TC. 

Hello Scottville, I am needing gas.









Goodbye Admiral, Goodbye Wesco. No money fo youz.










Hello Manistee! You get $72.00 courtesy, Scottville.










Hello Club 37, you get $28.50 courtesy Baldwin.










Hello Baldwin, so sad, you get no gas money or food money. Maybe Kzoo come spend some soon. Bye bye.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Thanks for the FACTS Ray!.....


----------



## flytiedan

Wow.... didnt read all that before i posted.. 

Dear michigan sportsman..
Wheres the show your fellow fisherman some respect rule... or keep the kids quiet rule.... i skip over most threads and seldom post because of it. I have been attacked by people merely by stating a possibility of breaking laws due to ignorance.... i see it more and more. if youve got arguments about you said this n that then both post previous quotes just trying to "prove" something.... is it possible to block individuals from individual threads? I read up until the argument then your thread completely lost its purpose..... 
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## METTLEFISH

Well... with "climate change" there should be more water in the Atmosphere and that will lead to more rainfall and that will lead to higher lake levels....to off set the water usage!...


----------



## flytiedan

For sure! This thread should be renamed ray vs kzoo. Very misleading and complete wast................ exactly

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## METTLEFISH

Your right... it is very mis - leading to remove water from open public use and restrict it to those that only want to use THEIR method of Angling. 

Kzoo, you have not answered my question.... do you think G.R.'s have created more Angling opportunties for the public to fish or less?...


----------



## fishinlk

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by fishinlk
> It doesn't stopy ANYONE from angling. Just stops them from thowing bait.....
> 
> Im not here to get into some long winded debate but thought id address this.
> 
> You are stopping people, specifically kids. The days of a kid and his buddies riding their bikes down to the river and digging some worms or other creatures out from under logs and being able to fish are vanishing fast. Personally i think its absurd that grown adults are putting themselves before our next generation of fisherman/fisherwoman. Now im sure you can say they can throw spinners or ride their bike into the pm lodge and get equipped to fish that water but thats just BS in my eyes. How long until that kid loses his panther martin he saved all week to get? How many kids have to the patience and attention span to learn fly fishing? How many kids/parents have the money in Lake county to get them into the sport of fly fishing? All those answers are the same and thats what pisses me off. Take shots at the adults all you want but its pretty low to bring the kids into it.


 If it wouldn't be an enforcement nightmare with their elders I'd be good with allowing kids to use bait to get them on any stretch of river.


----------



## swampswede

With 17 being the age that a license is required, why not allow those younger than 17 this option? I like the idea. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## METTLEFISH

I agree that kids should not have to fall victim to the games some Adults play. Other than seasons, size and quota's, kids should be allowed to fish as they want, regardless of where that may be.


----------



## METTLEFISH

fishinlk, I for one welcome your opinion. I hope that type of Descrimination never makes it to your state.

P.S. The anticipation of KZOO's retort is killin me!.....


----------



## RUSTY 54

I have been following these threads and have just kept my opinions to my self. I was originally sympathetic to the anti-gear reg sentiment. After following these threads and the opinions of the main spokesmen, I say "put gear restrictions on all of it". I wouldn't want to be next to you in a river anyway. Broncbuster's last post was rude and detrimental to any kind of civil discussion. To the rest of you anti-gear reg guys... if you want to sway opinion to your cause, find someone else to represent you.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ray,
If you go back to post 105 you will see where I wrote "places you exaggerate or mistate "facts", always in your favor." Look carefully at that word _exaggerate_ and see if it appears in the definition of BS that you posted. After that you can go back and revise your thinking about me ever calling you a liar. Once again you have read in the meaning you wanted to read while ignoring the words that were actually used. Another blow to your credibility.

Back to the exaggerations that you dismissed because at least they weren't lies.


> Just my business expenditure in gas between Scottville and Baldwin is $3200.00 a year.


 Very impressive! Once the more accurate story is known it is less impressive. You travel between Muskegon and TC regularly and it wasn't unusual for you to gas up in either Scottville or Baldwin. You didn't do it on every trip but you did it a lot. 

You quote me


> You have no credible evidence to the contrary, because there can't be any, but you continue to imply its BS


 This is about your repeated questioning of my association(s) with any non-profits or special interest groups. You then go on to say that I am not living up to my own standards of proof; make a claim and provide some evidence for it. You asked the question and I answered it. If someone has been lying to you about who I am feel free to tell me who is saying it and who they think I am. How many times are you going to ask without providing some sort of contrary theory? Seems to me that by repeating a question after it has been answered implies that you think I am lying. If you have some evidence of that produce it, if not then you are coming dangerously close to lying. Oh yeah, you asked it again yesterday. You really do need to work on your memory if you want people to believe your stories about what you were told several years ago. Going back to August, just 6 months ago, you asked in the _Brookie Limit thread_ post #9


> By the way, what sportsman group(s), organization(s) are you associated with, or working for? Steelheaders and GLFSA here. Figure we might as well have full disclosure. Don't leave any out now.


 I answered in #17


> I will answer this even though it has absolutely nothing with any points that I made and is clearly just an attempt to change the subject. I am a member of the Au Sable Big Water Preservation Association. This group has no dues and only asks that members work 20 hours a year on projects that will help maintain and restore the river from Parmalee Bridge to Alcona Pond. They are a registered non-profit that accepts tax deductible donations and have an occasional raffle. I have bought some raffle tickets but have otherwise never given them a dime. As a non-profit I imagine that their books are open upon request. They have three web sites. You may notice that the catch & release site specifically states that keeping fish is not objectionable. I would be surprised if their bank account has more than a few thousand dollars in it and even more surprised if most of that money isn't already allocated to projects. The projects I have worked on have mostly been organized and funded by Huron Pines and the other groups that I guess I "associate with" at these events have been TU chapters, the Michigan Trailriders Association, the Boy Scouts and some local church that showed up once. I am not a member, employee, consultant or anything else of any other group.
> Since you are promoting full disclosure I have to ask about GLFSA. In this thread you have suggested that not all peoples opinions are equal based on their use of a resource and Don has suggested creating regulatory and therefore monetary hurdles for access to our state agencies. These ideas would appear to be the opposite of what the GLFSA says it stands for so I ask...*Who exactly funds the GLFSA and its website(s)? Is the GLFSA a non-profit? Are you incorporated in any way?*


 Why don't you try answering my questions instead of asking this again for the 4th or 5th time? 


> Um, the gas I spent in another town cannot be credited to the town I fish in, if I didn't buy it there.


 Sure it can. The money spent to get you to your fishing spot is money that is credited to that activity. That's why the DNR asks how many miles you travel a year for outdoor activities, they are gauging total expenditures. If I buy a j-plug at D&R Sports it sure isn't for fishing around here and would get credited to the big lake fishery.


> I have stated social considerations are part of management. So you keep repeating a falsehood. I argue different points in different contexts, cant help you dont grasp it.


 This was in response to me saying that you keep changing you stories to meet current needs. No falsehood from me here. I would say that you don't argue different points in different contexts, you change your tune when the old one no longer fits you needs. An exception would be the _no social considerations_ meme. You held on to that one until logic beat it out of you.


> We asked the DNR (Kelly Smith) what mandate they managed the fisheries by; he sent us the public trust (thus they stated).


 Ooh, super impressive, why don't you post a copy of the Public Trust Doctrine that he sent you so we can all understand it better.


> Would they know the implications of it? Doubtful. Most attorneys dont.


 This may be, though a simpler explanation is that most attorneys do understand it and that is why the regulations we have all around the country have not been sued out of existence.


> I can make the accusations because they are true. The evidence is eyewitnesses, the most common form of evidence in law. There are those that visit this site that are eyewitnesses to what I have said, and could either call me a liar or state that I am right. I dont tell them what to do, nor do they tell me what to say.


 But they don't show up to confirm your story. When was the open meetings act violated? By whom? As for the existence of your missing petition, I remember someone coming here and saying it had existed. He didn't say how many signatures were on it, whether or not names and addresses were recorded or how many times the same person signed it. The fact we know is that a petition with 478 names was turned in from the PM and included in the presentation to the CC.



> Really? I admitted the DNR didnt make the statement? First show us this thread. I did say it was further in the same thread, a whole 13 posts





> Thats funny, why would have Gunderson made the statement in the coldwater committee, that they disqualified them because of duplication detective Kazoo?


 Was this a prepared response to a previous question or an off the cuff response to the question of the moment? Makes quite a difference. Since the event was not witnessed by you and hearsay isn't worth a darn I suppose we should wait for splitshot and Fishin Don and Thousandcasts to confirm the tale.


> Do you think that the DNR is dumb enough to lie? I have said the outcome was gamed. I dont have to accuse anyone, its their statement. They havent lied about the 2000 votes; they said they didn't count them because of fear of duplicating the emails. What dont you understand about this? So no lies, but yes, they disenfranchised 2000 people for as not to duplicate the 50+ against regs in the email. My God man, listen for once. If you disenfranchise 2000 people for 50+, kind of goes against the claim will of the people. Your introduction of This is despite the clear and obvious fact that the DNR did include a petition from the area in it's power point presentation to the CC has nothing to do with the censoring on the 2000. Another Kzoo strawman to try and imply I mislead. I see a pattern here developing.


 The trouble with your argument is that we have to believe that the 2000 name petition was something the DNR could use. They had no problem with the 478 names, more than they had in any petition for GR, so the simplest explanation for this is that the "other" petition actually had something wrong with it. No grand conspiracy of DNR employees, just a bad piece of work from someone who wasn't familiar with how these things are done. Simple.


> Never stated Gunderson feared for his job, hence my response to ask why you ask that question. Wasn't a "claim" but a question. #30 was not even in the context of what I had introduced the name Gunderson for. Again an attempt to mix context of posts to come to Kzoos prescribed agenda, seems to be a pattern developing here. The DNR employee that made the statement to me, was not Gunderson, I will tell you that much. But the statement was made (eyewitness, imagine that), and it was in the context of how the regulations were being politically pushed through.


 If it wasn't Gunderman (you ought to learn his name if you want to seem more knowledgeable) who was it? Another one of your unnamed sources? Gunderman was the only DNR employee you had been talking about and you made no attempt to say it was anyone else you were talking about now. I can't go out and confirm it on my own if you won't give up the name.


> Ah, bait fishing is repugnant. Wonder how the court would respond to a moral stand on bait under the public trust? Wonder how the legislature would respond? Is the DNR now managing for moral mandates? Whose moral codes? Very Interesting. Might go to your question of why the DNR would disenfranchise 2000 votes against regulations


 Once again you demonstrate how reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Hook. And. Line. That includes fly fishing brainiac, but since you seem to be unable to read anything without running it through your tin hat filter you missed that. I am making a comparison between the restrictions on spearing, which are socially acceptable, and banning of hook and line fishing which isn't socially acceptable. It's all part of the society we live in. Try reading what people write, not what you want to read. I see a pattern developing here. You go on tho repeat the "kzoofisher thinks bait fishing is repugnant" hooey quite a few times. I assume you'll be admitting this is wrong in your next post.


> Oh excuse me for not properly wording the first sentence.


 Funny how often when you word something poorly it is in a way that makes your point stronger. I'll be sure to point out the next time you have a poorly worded sentence that makes your point weaker.


----------



## kzoofisher

Mettlefish,
I don't believe that GR restricts peoples opportunity to fish any more than the other prohibitions we have on legal fishing methods and probably less. Considering that no one is fighting for those other methods I think this whole argument is a bit hypocritical.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Ray,
> If you go back to post 105 you will see where I wrote "places you exaggerate or mistate "facts", always in your favor." Look carefully at that word _exaggerate_ and see if it appears in the definition of BS that you posted. After that you can go back and revise your thinking about me ever calling you a liar. Once again you have read in the meaning you wanted to read while ignoring the words that were actually used. Another blow to your credibility.
> 
> Back to the exaggerations that you dismissed because at least they weren't lies. Very impressive! Once the more accurate story is known it is less impressive. You travel between Muskegon and TC regularly and it wasn't unusual for you to gas up in either Scottville or Baldwin. You didn't do it on every trip but you did it a lot.
> 
> You quote me This is about your repeated questioning of my association(s) with any non-profits or special interest groups. You then go on to say that I am not living up to my own standards of proof; make a claim and provide some evidence for it. You asked the question and I answered it. If someone has been lying to you about who I am feel free to tell me who is saying it and who they think I am. How many times are you going to ask without providing some sort of contrary theory? Seems to me that by repeating a question after it has been answered implies that you think I am lying. If you have some evidence of that produce it, if not then you are coming dangerously close to lying. Oh yeah, you asked it again yesterday. You really do need to work on your memory if you want people to believe your stories about what you were told several years ago. Going back to August, just 6 months ago, you asked in the _Brookie Limit thread_ post #9 I answered in #17 Why don't you try answering my questions instead of asking this again for the 4th or 5th time?
> Sure it can. The money spent to get you to your fishing spot is money that is credited to that activity. That's why the DNR asks how many miles you travel a year for outdoor activities, they are gauging total expenditures. If I buy a j-plug at D&R Sports it sure isn't for fishing around here and would get credited to the big lake fishery.
> This was in response to me saying that you keep changing you stories to meet current needs. No falsehood from me here. I would say that you don't argue different points in different contexts, you change your tune when the old one no longer fits you needs. An exception would be the _no social considerations_ meme. You held on to that one until logic beat it out of you.
> Ooh, super impressive, why don't you post a copy of the Public Trust Doctrine that he sent you so we can all understand it better.
> This may be, though a simpler explanation is that most attorneys do understand it and that is why the regulations we have all around the country have not been sued out of existence.
> But they don't show up to confirm your story. When was the open meetings act violated? By whom? As for the existence of your missing petition, I remember someone coming here and saying it had existed. He didn't say how many signatures were on it, whether or not names and addresses were recorded or how many times the same person signed it. The fact we know is that a petition with 478 names was turned in from the PM and included in the presentation to the CC.
> 
> Was this a prepared response to a previous question or an off the cuff response to the question of the moment? Makes quite a difference. Since the event was not witnessed by you and hearsay isn't worth a darn I suppose we should wait for splitshot and Fishin Don and Thousandcasts to confirm the tale.
> The trouble with your argument is that we have to believe that the 2000 name petition was something the DNR could use. They had no problem with the 478 names, more than they had in any petition for GR, so the simplest explanation for this is that the "other" petition actually had something wrong with it. No grand conspiracy of DNR employees, just a bad piece of work from someone who wasn't familiar with how these things are done. Simple.
> If it wasn't Gunderman (you ought to learn his name if you want to seem more knowledgeable) who was it? Another one of your unnamed sources? Gunderman was the only DNR employee you had been talking about and you made no attempt to say it was anyone else you were talking about now. I can't go out and confirm it on my own if you won't give up the name.
> Once again you demonstrate how reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Hook. And. Line. That includes fly fishing brainiac, but since you seem to be unable to read anything without running it through your tin hat filter you missed that. I am making a comparison between the restrictions on spearing, which are socially acceptable, and banning of hook and line fishing which isn't socially acceptable. It's all part of the society we live in. Try reading what people write, not what you want to read. I see a pattern developing here. You go on tho repeat the "kzoofisher thinks bait fishing is repugnant" hooey quite a few times. I assume you'll be admitting this is wrong in your next post.
> Funny how often when you word something poorly it is in a way that makes your point stronger. I'll be sure to point out the next time you have a poorly worded sentence that makes your point weaker.


Your cheap shots are getting old.


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> Mettlefish,
> I don't believe that GR restricts peoples opportunity to fish any more than the other prohibitions we have on legal fishing methods and probably less. Considering that no one is fighting for those other methods I think this whole argument is a bit hypocritical.


 
Really!... it couldn't it be that no one feels descriminated against by those other regulations could it.... Enlighten me please, what other regulations on fishing methods are you talking about?..


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Ray,
> If you go back to post 105 you will see where I wrote "places you exaggerate or mistate "facts", always in your favor." Look carefully at that word _exaggerate_ and see if it appears in the definition of BS that you posted. After that you can go back and revise your thinking about me ever calling you a liar. Once again you have read in the meaning you wanted to read while ignoring the words that were actually used. Another blow to your credibility.





> Originally Posted by kzoo
> Oh boy, "$3200 between Scottville and Baldwin" has morphed into "I stopped there when I needed gas, which was pretty darn often I tell 'ya". I don't know squat about your business but I can tell when someone is spouting BS and your stories reek of it. You claim to have boycotted the area, forget you said that and admit you still fish it; claim that the money you spent to get there can't be credited to the fishing but the money you spend to get to TC can be debited from the fishing; say social doesn't enter into it, admit that social does enter into it and generally change your story every time you are called out on something you have said. All in just this thread. If your difficulty with accuracy (to put it mildly) and your tolerance for violating game laws you disagree with are representative of the anti-gear restriction crowd then I am very comfortable telling when and how to fish. No way and never.


The above are implying exaggerations? The fact that in some posts you may have called me a exaggerator, does not dismiss the implying me a liar in others. Another deflection you are so adept it.





kzoofisher said:


> You quote me This is about your repeated questioning of my association(s) with any non-profits or special interest groups. You then go on to say that I am not living up to my own standards of proof; make a claim and provide some evidence for it. You asked the question and I answered it. If someone has been lying to you about who I am feel free to tell me who is saying it and who they think I am. How many times are you going to ask without providing some sort of contrary theory? Seems to me that by repeating a question after it has been answered implies that you think I am lying. If you have some evidence of that produce it, if not then you are coming dangerously close to lying. Oh yeah, you asked it again yesterday. You really do need to work on your memory if you want people to believe your stories about what you were told several years ago. Going back to August, just 6 months ago, you asked in the _Brookie Limit thread_ post #9 I answered in #17 Why don't you try answering my questions instead of asking this again for the 4th or 5th time?


I see nothing in 17 where you said what you do for a living. You claimed you told me. We know who you are associated with, its no longer the questions as you are trying to claim,its in what capacity your association is. But you already know that. Another deflection by kzoo. So I will ask again:

Do you work for a special interest or nonprofit?

What position?

Which one?




kzoofisher said:


> Sure it can. The money spent to get you to your fishing spot is money that is credited to that activity. That's why the DNR asks how many miles you travel a year for outdoor activities, they are gauging total expenditures. If I buy a j-plug at D&R Sports it sure isn't for fishing around here and would get credited to the big lake fishery.
> This was in response to me saying that you keep changing you stories to meet current needs. No falsehood from me here. I would say that you don't argue different points in different contexts, you change your tune when the old one no longer fits you needs. An exception would be the _no social considerations_ meme. You held on to that one until logic beat it out of you.


I was obviously talking Baldwin and Scottville. Any change in story to talking money expended on the sports as a whole is yours. Again a deflection. 


kzoofisher said:


> Ooh, super impressive, why don't you post a copy of the Public Trust Doctrine that he sent you so we can all understand it better.
> This may be, though a simpler explanation is that most attorneys do understand it and that is why the regulations we have all around the country have not been sued out of existence.


Maybe you should look at the cases active today for this very thing. Like usual a strawman argument. You seem found of these.



kzoofisher said:


> But they don't show up to confirm your story. When was the open meetings act violated? By whom? As for the existence of your missing petition, I remember someone coming here and saying it had existed. He didn't say how many signatures were on it, whether or not names and addresses were recorded or how many times the same person signed it. The fact we know is that a petition with 478 names was turned in from the PM and included in the presentation to the CC..


The facts I know, I have presented. The DNR has admitted they had them. Sorry you weren't there. 



kzoofisher said:


> Was this a prepared response to a previous question or an off the cuff response to the question of the moment? Makes quite a difference. Since the event was not witnessed by you and hearsay isn't worth a darn I suppose we should wait for splitshot and Fishin Don and Thousandcasts to confirm the tale.


You mean an eyewitness? Probably.



kzoofisher said:


> The trouble with your argument is that we have to believe that the 2000 name petition was something the DNR could use. They had no problem with the 478 names, more than they had in any petition for GR, so the simplest explanation for this is that the "other" petition actually had something wrong with it. No grand conspiracy of DNR employees, just a bad piece of work from someone who wasn't familiar with how these things are done. Simple..


No the trouble would be that 2000 peoples votes were thrown out as not to duplicate emails. 50+ some. DNR's words. So now you want to make the argument there was something wrong with them. Oh except the DNR has already gave us the reason. What would Kzoo say, oh yeah, you ought to understand the argument if you want to seem knowledgeable.


kzoofisher said:


> If it wasn't Gunderman (you ought to learn his name if you want to seem more knowledgeable) who was it? Another one of your unnamed sources? Gunderman was the only DNR employee you had been talking about and you made no attempt to say it was anyone else you were talking about now. I can't go out and confirm it on my own if you won't give up the name.


Well I guess you won't be going out and confirming it. 


kzoofisher said:


> Once again you demonstrate how reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Hook. And. Line. That includes fly fishing brainiac, but since you seem to be unable to read anything without running it through your tin hat filter you missed that. I am making a comparison between the restrictions on spearing, which are socially acceptable, and banning of hook and line fishing which isn't socially acceptable. It's all part of the society we live in. Try reading what people write, not what you want to read. I see a pattern developing here. You go on tho repeat the "kzoofisher thinks bait fishing is repugnant" hooey quite a few times. I assume you'll be admitting this is wrong in your next post.
> Funny how often when you word something poorly it is in a way that makes your point stronger. I'll be sure to point out the next time you have a poorly worded sentence that makes your point weaker.


Wow, what a diatribe. 

Still waiting for you to show me where you told me what you do for a living? Please no paragraph of obfuscation this time.

Waiting for you to back up


kzoo said:


> Further in the thread you admit that the DNR did not make a "statement", but of course the misinformation was already out there to mislead anyone reading the thread.


I will take the fact you haven't provided proof, you have "exaggerated", again.


----------



## fishinlk

> Quite frankly mr fishinlk;
> We don't give a flyin fart how you feel in OHIO...you don't really have a say in any of this ...only an unwanted opinion
> you should just stay in OHIO and let michigan people worry about the fishing reg's...If you want to come here to fish you do it as a guest, you really have no say.



A little testy are we mr broncbuster? Are you one of the "elders that couldn't be trusted" that would make it difficult to enforce rules in place to provide opportunities to children??? Too selfish in your own desires to follow the regs????

Actually while I'm no longer a resident my opinion DOES matter. Rember how many of the* jobs *in MI are linked to *tourism*??? So yes, plenty of people do care what* I *think. While my trips overall tend to be on the "cheap" compared to some. I probably spend more time and money "up north" than a large number of the residents of the state. and care a heck of lot more about the resources up there than a lot those that use them regularly and take them for granted. I lived there long enough to understand that one very well.....


Thank you for the kind words Mettlefish.


----------



## kzoofisher

> The above are implying exaggerations? The fact that in some posts you may have called me a exaggerator, does not dismiss the implying me a liar in others. Another deflection you are so adept it.


 Those are examples of your lack of credibility. You talk a good game but when the rubber meets the road you flip flop more than John Kerry sleeping on a bed of nails.



> Do you work for a special interest or nonprofit?
> 
> What position?
> 
> Which one?


 The answers are no, none obviously, I am a member of the ASBWPA as previously stated. Turns out that the post where I said what I do for a living was addressed to toto, but as you like to say that is a minor thing and doesn't alter the main point. The _Michigan DNR Fishing Survey_ thread post #28


> No, I'm not. Do a search of my posts and you'll find the one where I explained who I'm affiliated with to Ranger Ray or the one where I explained it to you a few months ago. You seemed to think then that I was secretly employed by some special interest group. The truth is that I am an HVAC mechanic at a relatively small contractor, with a high school diploma and a talent for setting my ego aside when I am looking for answers. That last part is very important in trouble shooting industrial equipment, by the way.


 and #80 in this thread was addressed to you


> Well, you have been asked a number of questions in this post and in the rest of this thread which you have either avoided or had your answers blown up. I'm sure you expect to do much better when you are dealing with professionals in the field rather than an a/c repair guy.


 You've got a memory like a steel trap. In case you are wondering about the specific "work" I did for ASBWPA last year: I helped man a table at a fishing show, did some cleanups, worked on erosion control, handed out fliers and helped organize the big clean up at the end of the year. ASBWPA has no paid employees so helping to organize things is part of the gig. Do you have a point with this because you just won't let it go.



> I was obviously talking Baldwin and Scottville. Any change in story to talking money expended on the sports as a whole is yours


 Wiggle, wiggle, dance, dance. You said back in #118 that the gas bought in another town can't be credited to the two you mentioned and I pointed out that total expenditures are credited to the _resource_. Lots of people are able to gas up at home, drive to the PM and drive home again without refueling. That doesn't mean that the trip has no economic effect, it means that the economic power of that resource is much wider spread.



> Maybe you should look at the cases active today for this very thing. Like usual a strawman argument. You seem found of these.


 You said Kelly Smith sent you the public trust, I was just giving you a chance to produce one thing to back up a claim you made. You did mean he sent a copy of the PTD to you right? I wouldn't want to waste a lot of time on this if you meant something else. Naturally, if you don't have it anymore we'll just have to take your word for what it is worth. By the way, I wasn't making a straw man argument. You sure are fond of using words you don't understand.

straw man
noun
a person compared to a straw image; a sham.
 a sham argument set up to be defeated.



> No the trouble would be that 2000 peoples votes were thrown out as not to duplicate emails. 50+ some. DNR's words.


 I frankly don't believe there was a 2000 name petition, I don't believe that Mr. Gunderman gave the excuse you claim in a CC meeting. You have yet to produce any paperwork for this petition and the only back up you have gotten is from an anonymous poster here. When one or more members of the CC come here and confirm your story I'll begin to believe it. Since you have claimed to have a variety of verifiable sources for things like court cases and documents from Kelly Smith but refuse to produce any of them, I won't take your word for anything. It isn't really possible to have a discussion with someone whose main arguments always involve, "I know a secret and wow is it amazing." Like this.


> Well I guess you won't be going out and confirming it.


 You asked me back in #98 to confirm your stories for you


> Call up one of the anglers at large from the cold water committee and ask them if they had any meetings outside the committee to compromise their position. Call Dexter on the petitions.


 but when I'm willing to do that you won't produce a name. Funny that.



> Wow, what a diatribe.


 I guess this means you're not going to admit that you were plainly wrong about the "repugnant baitfishing" crack.


> If I misinterpreted something or misspeak, and someone points it out, I will admit it.


 Should you add "unless it hurts my argument" to the end of that?



> Originally Posted by kzoo
> Further in the thread you admit that the DNR did not make a "statement", but of course the misinformation was already out there to mislead anyone reading the thread.


 Well I did once but my typing was poor so you missed it. Post #40 in that thread you change


> DNR made a statement


 to


> why would have Gunderson (sic) made the statement in the coldwater committee


 As I said at the time, a statement made by the DNR would have been easily verified with a press release or email. Instead we get you remembering a story you heard from someone about something that was supposedly said in a meeting. No context for it, no date for the meeting, no corroboration. All I'm asking is you back up your claims with something besides, "This is the way I heard it happened".


----------



## Boardman Brookies

This thread is getting too hard to handle with all these quotes. Maybe you guys should just stick to PMs. Is anything being accomplished?


----------



## toto

FISHLK, just for the record, I believe your views to be relevant as well as anyone elses. If you buy a fishing license in Michigan your opinion matters.

This whole is obviously devivsive and we can argue it til the cows come home, the bottom line is, the PTD was designed for the express purpose of not allowing those that have, to take from those that don't. To refresh your memories, the PTD was set up to allow the commoner to fish as well as though high ranking (read connected) individuals to fish the same waters. When you then connect the Northwest Ordinance with the PTD, you will find that this "organic law" was designed as a form of equal protection for waterways that were and are public waters, paid for by you and me. When you start to make certain waters eligible for only the preceived elite, then you against the grain of the PTD, and the NO.

The state is directed to manage all the fish and wildlife in this state, and their job is to maintain the species for future generations. When you think about that logically, we are talking about the populations of species, and not the how to fish them. The how is immaterial. The only criteria is the conservation of the species whether it be fish, deer, elk, or any other wild animal. Fly fishing does nothing to protect the fish species, although I'm sure you will argue that point. The problem is unless biological science is used, you can't know that. Worrying about business climates in certain areas is not nor should it be the direct worry of the DNR. Yes, I'm sure it is thought about, how could you not, especially if we are talking about a stocking program, but to just indiscriminately create gear regulations with no biologically sensible reason to do so, is in direct violation of the PTD.

I'm just at a loss for words as to how to make that understandable, but maybe it isn't me or my words, maybe it's a simple fact that those on the side of wanting gear regs have an agenda that is, well, quite frankly, greedy. One thing that needs to happen right now, and if for some reason it turns out we are wrong, no stocking should be allowed in these gear restricted areas, regardless of what type of fish we are talking about, whether it be rainbows, browns, brookies, salmon, or steelhead. It is pubic funds that pay for these fish and if these waters are basically shut out to the "commoner" than the commoners money should not be used for such programs.

This is the last attempt to show what the problem is, in words, that may or may not make sense. After this, it will come down to seeing what we can do in other ways. Don't rip on RR too much, after all, and I'm not bragging, but it was me who originally felt the PTD was being violated here.


----------



## broncbuster2

Really!!!!!!!


----------



## TC-fisherman

toto said:


> It is pubic funds that pay for these fish and if these waters are basically shut out to the "commoner" than the commoners money should not be used for such programs.
> .


Didn't ranger ray state he was fishing those waters shut out to the "commoner". How did he manage that? 

I read the guide book. Can't find any passages restricting any type of people. Can u point them out to me?


----------



## diztortion

Boardman Brookies said:


> This thread is getting too hard to handle with all these quotes. Maybe you guys should just stick to PMs. Is anything being accomplished?


Same for me.. unsubscribed.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> T
> Turns out that the post where I said what I do for a living was addressed to toto, but as you like to say that is a minor thing and doesn't alter the main point.


*CORRECT!*

Except by your standards it means:



Kzoo said:


> 1. You've got a memory like a steel trap
> 
> 2. You really do need to work on your memory if you want people to believe your stories about what you were told several years ago
> 
> 3. It makes me wonder how well you remember the things people say to you face to face.
> 
> 4. I can't believe anyone doubts the accuracy of your memory
> 
> 5. Difficulty with accuracy
> 
> 6. Inaccurate statements


Get the point? Wait! Don't answer that.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Kzoo,
I am waiting for an answer on the other regulations that prevent Anglers from fishing, what are they and where do they occur?.....


----------



## kzoofisher

Ray, 
Pathetic effort. Is that as far as you read in my post or did you decide to just ignore the reference to post #80 in this thread where I mention my trade to you specifically? I forgot who a specific post was addressed to but remembered the content of the post and clarified when I quoted myself and I included the more specific quote. I could have just gone with post #80 but that would have been less than full disclosure about the subject so I used both. Hardly misleading and certainly not dishonest. You claim to be willing to admit your "small" errors, haven't seen it yet. Until you retract your statements about me finding bait fishing repugnant, statements you made repeatedly after I pointed out your error, and until you produce some shred of evidence that isn't created by you to back up your claims I'm done with you in this thread. The public trust that Kelly Smith sent you seems like an easy place to start and would be a help to any one not familiar with the doctrine.


----------



## kzoofisher

METTLEFISH said:


> Kzoo,
> I am waiting for an answer on the other regulations that prevent Anglers from fishing, what are they and where do they occur?.....


It has been mentioned several times in this thread and discussed quite a bit in others. I see no biological reason for the restrictions on spearing and bow fishing. As far as I can tell the statewide ban on these activities for salmonids is purely social. The discrimination is so deeply ingrained that most people don't even think about it. I'll bet there are some bow fisherman who would love to stick a salmon but they never get the chance. If you want to have a long discussion about this why don't you start a new thread so we can avoid confusion in this one. I'll be happy to discuss it with you there.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Pathetic effort.


I see it went over your head.


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> It has been mentioned several times in this thread and discussed quite a bit in others. I see no biological reason for the restrictions on spearing and bow fishing. As far as I can tell the statewide ban on these activities for salmonids is purely social. The discrimination is so deeply ingrained that most people don't even think about it. I'll bet there are some bow fisherman who would love to stick a salmon but they never get the chance. If you want to have a long discussion about this why don't you start a new thread so we can avoid confusion in this one. I'll be happy to discuss it with you there.


Your understanding of the English language suffers. 

http://www.google.com/search?q=angl...ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spear


As you can see, you are confused with the term "Angling" Please don't play games with the real topic @ hand. No one here except you cunfuses those methods of take with Angling. So again please show me where and how people are prevented from ANGLING outside the parameters that all Sportsman - Anglers follow.

Perhaps you could show me an area where Long Bow shooters area allowed to SHOOT fish and Compound Bow shooters aren't allowed to SHOOT fish in our waters.


----------



## riverman

Will a mod please shoot this horse of a thread?


----------



## METTLEFISH

riverman said:


> Will a mod please shoot this horse of a thread?


...... Great input....


----------



## quest32a

riverman said:


> Will a mod please shoot this horse of a thread?


I don't think there is a single mod that wants to take care of this forum. Myself included. I will close this one though. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------

