# Petition against Gear Restrictions



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Despite Whit's best effort to squash this petition, we're up to 68 signatures! 

I'd really like to have 100+ sigs, so again, please spread the word. I'll be referencing in my letters that there are at least 100 people out there who share my viewpoint (even though I am sure there are many, many more).

While I realize that Whit is correct in saying that an online petition does not carry as much weight as a personal letter or attending the resource commission meetings, I also feel strongly that there's no possible way we can hurt our cause by collecting a lot of signatures and presenting them to the commission and the director. Worst case, it does nothing, and you're out 30 seconds of your time. Best case, they count every signature against the restrictions, and it's well worth your time and then some.

I've already written and called all of our key fisheries biologists, and I'll be sending my letters to each and every commissioner, as well as the director (According to Jim Dexter, who I spoke with the other day, the director - Ms. Humphries - has final say on the fisheries side of the house, the commission mearly makes a reccomendation to her).

Please take 30 seconds and sign.
Thanks,
Don


----------



## Randle (Nov 6, 2000)

Let me know if I am missing something here...The original study by the fisheries division states....

 The Pere Marquette River from Gleasons Landing to Reek Road (31.3 miles 
Type 4): We recommend that Type 4 regulations be retained.

If the DNR is recomending that current regulations be retained why , and by who was this initiated? Or is changing the regs for this stretch just one of many suggetions by individuals at one of the NRC meetings? I am 100% against changing the current system but I have yet to see any official recomendation that this is in the works. Can someone fill me in? The DNR website states the public is invited to comment during meetings in June. Are they still entertaining comments? Its difficult to find anything other than a mailing address for the NRC commisioners. If they truly are looking for input from the public I would think they would be more accessible to contact. It is unbelieveable that this would even be considered without strong support from the fisheris division and apparently they want to keep things like they are. Both my kids were introduced to trout fishing in that section for the sole reason that we could use live bait there. Taking that away would be unforgivable to future generations of trout fishermen.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

fishinDon said:


> Despite Whit's best effort to squash this petition, we're up to 68 signatures!


Don, if you think you've seen my "best effort" you are sadly mistaken. All I'd have to do as a moderator is to delete this thread and others that follow. Would I do that? Certainly not. I have no interest in squashing this thing.

All I'm trying to do is to show you the futility of your efforts to sway the powers that be with an online petition. Can such a petition do harm? It certainly can. It can give those who partake of it the snug feeling that they've done something; that they've done their part. For effective results nothing could be further from the truth and therein lies the "harm" of online petitions.

I've tried to help you out, but apparently my efforts are for nought.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

I've got to agree with Whit here. From the posts he has put on here and the PM I got from him I can only see that he is trying to help. It appears to me that he wants more people to speak up and to have their voice heard. But, in regards to what he just posted, simply being a signature on a petition doesn't show "the powers that be" how many people are truly passionate about this.

Don, you mentioned that taking 30 seconds out of your day will put you on the petition. That 30 seconds is exactly the amount of time that "the powers that be" will believe this petition is worth to those who don't write a letter or attend a meeting to voice their concerns. It is too bad that this is the way it is, but it is the truth.

I can only relate this to the conversation I had with one of our fisheries biologist after the public meeting I attended. During this meeting there was no oppostion to to Paint Creek proposal. Literally none. But there were 40 to 50 people who showed up to support it. All of these people were members of the four local TU groups. (don't kill the TU groups, this is only an example) If the heads of these four groups would have shown up with nothing but signatures it wouldn't have had anywhere near the affect as 40 or 50 guys there in support.

We need to urge those in opposition to write letters and attend meetings. Follow Whit's recommendations, he is guiding us in the right direction.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Whit is right for sure, but I will say this, are voice needs to be heard in as many ways possible. We can't just sit idly by and watch as our resources are legislated away from us.

I wish dearly that I could attend some of those meetings, but that just isn't possible; unless there is one in early November when I'm up there. If there is, I'll attend and give my voice from an outsider.

Just remember this one simple truth, its your resource, its up to you to protect it, or let it vanish, and which way do you want things to go. Its up to you, its up to all of us.


----------



## Kevin49098 (Oct 31, 2009)

My girlfriend has seen me checking out posts on gear restrictions and asked me what they were about. I told her they were about making some rivers fly fishing only on some rivers. She asked me "Why would only fly fishing be allowed on some rivers, and what's the difference?". I didn't know what to say other than it has something to do with fish mortality but no definitive evidence has been shown that it helps the fish population from what I have read or seen. She said "If there is no studies that confirm it is bad for the fishery why make it flies only?". I am new to fishing for anything other than pan fish so I also am a bit confused myself. Then she asked me "What is the difference between flies and the lures we use?". I told here flies are single hook lures, then she she said " Mepps makes single hook lures to meet regs in Alaska don't they, why don't they just make single hooks a rule?" I didn't know what to say except...." I don't know...."
Then when I told her it would be illegal for her to put a worm on a hook and certain areas.........
She was DONE with the conversation and said, "That is just stupid!!!!"


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yep, your GF is a voice of reason right there.


----------



## Sportsman In The Wild (Aug 18, 2009)

I signed the petition and sent a letter. I think the petition is good, but a letter is better!! 
Thanks Don!!


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Sportsman In The Wild said:


> I signed the petition and sent a letter. I think the petition is good, but a letter is better!!
> Thanks Don!!


I wholeheartedly agree! Please sign the petition, but if signing the petition is the end of your road, I'd rather you skipped the petition and sent a letter (or 12) or went to the meetings! 

Whit, I do see your point, that people may quit trying once they sign the petition, feeling like they did their part. I am obviously not encouraging people to quit, instead I'm encouraging them to do everything in their power - sign the petition, send letters, make calls, show up at the meetings. Any action is good action in my mind. 

Don

P.S. we're up to 72 Signatures.


----------



## bonefishbill (Nov 1, 2009)

fishinDon said:


> I started an online petition this morning against further gear restrictions on Michigan Streams and Rivers.
> 
> Check it out, if you're in favor, please sign. Since I believe that a big part of this is a numbers game, I intend to reference the petition (if I get a good turn out) in my letters to the NRC Commissioners and the Director.
> 
> ...


Is proven to keep th most fish in the stream--and keep out streams litter free.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

bonefishbill said:


> Is proven to keep th most fish in the stream--and keep out streams litter free.


Who proved this? All the studies I have read state the flies only do not have a significant impact on how many fish are in a certain stream.

The "worm container" issue is another thing that is always brought up. Come fish the upper Boardman where I fish and you will find no worm containers or trash. Also you will not find a bunch of empites. I can't say the same for the Holy Waters. The last time I fished there I hauled out about a dozen and my bag was full.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

I somewhat have to change my tune. After fishing some restricted waters (no bait) down in Arkansas it does have an impact and the fish are somewhat larger. That being said, I highly doubt it's an issue here in Michigan where planting sub-legals seems to be the norm. About the only benefit is the "open season" on many of the newly designated waters. For years I have anticipated about a cast & blast in the Mio area. 

Seems self-centered, I know. I won't jump on the bandwagon for the benefit of a weekend or 2 for my own satisfaction.
These kinds of regs are still socially motivated and won't get my thumb's up until we start getting some plants of "keeper" fish

For some reason our DNR seems to think that we REALLY have the potential for a prime fishery.....LMAO!!!!!!

Take away those scummy salmon and the steelhead.......


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Ralf, one thing I would like to ask, does the White River in Arkansas have a slot limit? I know the rivers in Tennessee do have slot limits, starting pretty much this, for example: On the Caney Fork, you can keep rainbows and brookies, up to 5 per day under 14", fish between 14 and 20 have to be returned. The browns, are not keepable unless they are over 24 inches, in all three cases, you are only allowed to keep one fish over the slot, and only one brown over 24. 

The reason behind my question is this, IF there is a slot limit, wouldn't that, in time, create bigger fish? Just wondering what your thoughts are that.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

bonefishbill said:


> Is proven to keep th most fish in the stream--and keep out streams litter free.


PROVE IT for michigan streams.

There is not one bit of evidence that is the case in any Michigan stream. There is is tons of overall studies to back up the fact that fly only and Catch and Release has any impact positive or negative on any michigan stream. 
I suggest you educate yourself before making such comments. There is a thread about gear restrictions within this forum that has documented studies. 

There are some streams and rivers were this is true. Most of them are in very sterile enviros. I fish all types of waters the only thing that makes a great fishery and adds fish to the body of water is the right type of Habitat for that species. 

The comment you made is a falsehood being perpetuated by groups like TU for the state of Mi. Educate yourself by the studies done by the Fishery Biologist.

Ralf,
What is the creel census numbers down there. I fished trout in mid Kentucky in a stream that was capable of carryover. However once the hatchery truck dump the fish in it was amazing to see the numbers of people fishing it. The road followed the edge of the stream for many miles and the entire thing looked much like tippy dam when the Salmon or steelhead are in heavy. Nearly every fish is harvested. People would give me a dirty look as I would release these fish. 
I called and talked to the bioligist for the stream when down there. A answer to one of my questions was this stream was one of 3 good streams in the northern to middle Kentucky. Carryover was possible the only issue is so many people enjoy catching these easy fish that they are overharvested to have any numbers carryover. As for natural reproduction due to some ph balance natural reproduction is extremely low thus the reason for a put and take fishery. He said most streams other than native streams are managed as such.
I found that working in our more southern states C&R or selective harvest is far behind us. They are more into catch and Eat! for most species of fish. 
Exactly where did you go. Arkansas?


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

We were on the White, Steve

No slots, but they recently changed the regs on browns. Minimum size 24", one a day from 18" (I believe). We're talking big, cold water though. The special regs water is only a small portion and meat anglers simply go somewhere else. I don't even think it's the best water (structure wise), it's simply a few sections of C&R/no bait that harbor bigger fish. The entire river gets plenty of pressure, but there's tons of fish and gets planted several times a month with "keepers".

Here's the average size bow. Right around the 14" mark










Only a small portion of anglers flyfish. Most drift with powerbait or throw hardware. 

You guys know where I stand when it comes to slots in Michigan. Implementing slots and reducing limits would create a better fishery, than dictating what one uses on the end of the line


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

> Yep, your GF is a voice of reason right there.


I'll hold my vote until I see a picture.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

I think we need to accept the fact that what we have in michigan for trout fishing is about what are waters can grow and support. We don't have any large tailwater fishery that can keep temps low enough to get the quickest and longest life out of trout like some of the southern and western tailwater fisheries. Take a look at the PM it is a free flowing river that has a great natural recruitment of browns within the system. Water temps vary from the near freezing point to the 70's at times. That is a huge swing in temps and can stress fish in a negative way. while these southern bottom draw fisheries there is little change in water temps and they are perfect to grow big fish. Less stress on them means bigger fish. 

Planting larger fish in our put in take fisheries like the Mo does make more sense than having 80 to 90 percent die before they reach a harvestable size. The big problem I am hearing for this is Cost are state is broke like most of the people in it. 

Like I have said for the past 10years Habitat improvement is the only way to increase numbers of fish. As for size of fish from what I have been gathering in info. I just don't think we can do much to improve it due to are climate in this state. To think we will be able to grow those 20lb stream browns like they do down south I highly doubt. There maybe a fish that breaks the rules from time to time but they will be very rare. In 2004 I hooked and fought just such a brown. I doubt I will ever hook another brown of that caliber in this state. I see myself breaking the 30" mark someday. But a fish of the size I lost on June 1 of 2004 was one that I will never stumble across again.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Mondrella, you are right on point. There isn't much sense in planting a stream with fish, if they won't survive. Habitat improvement is the one thing that needs to be done, but we still have the cost issue. Who is going to pay for it? Take the Betsie river for a good example, this river isn't very conducive to good trout fishing, as the water is just too warm, due mostly to the Grass Lake Flooding. This river could improve by the removal of this dam, in conjunction with tree planting to help shade the water, and therefore cool it down. This has been discussed on here before, but again how to get it done? The other problem that seems to arise is the environmentalist then get involved, as they always see things as a detriment on the water quality, and to some extent, we need to be careful with that.

We somehow need to work hand in hand with the environmentalist, as well as the NRC and others to improve the situation. What seems to divide us all, is the attitude that if isn't my opinion, it won't work etc. That is one of the reasons I'm against gear restrictions, its an attitude more than anything else. Once real, biological science is put into the equation, there is no need for these restrictions, and the DNR has done the studies to prove it.

To me, this whole issue is somewhat emblematic of our country as a whole, and I'm not advocating socialism here, but it needs to be something for everyone, without the issue of "not in my backyard". We need to find ways to secure federal grant monies to help with stream restoration, just as they did on other streams (AuSable?). There has to be a way to make more people happy. What is missed in all this is this: If we keep having more and more gear restrictions on the best of our waters, than where do people go to fish with bait? If one of the ideas is to lessen the amount of people fishing in certain areas, doesn't that mean that other areas will now be overcrowed? Its one of those unintended consequences things I quess.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I cannot get behind gear restrictions for one simple reason, its discriminatory plain and simple, and no other rationale needs to be presented to me.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

toto said:


> Mondrella, you are right on point. There isn't much sense in planting a stream with fish, if they won't survive. Habitat improvement is the one thing that needs to be done, but we still have the cost issue. Who is going to pay for it? Take the Betsie river for a good example, this river isn't very conducive to good trout fishing, as the water is just too warm, due mostly to the Grass Lake Flooding. This river could improve by the removal of this dam, in conjunction with tree planting to help shade the water, and therefore cool it down. This has been discussed on here before, but again how to get it done? The other problem that seems to arise is the environmentalist then get involved, as they always see things as a detriment on the water quality, and to some extent, we need to be careful with that.
> 
> We somehow need to work hand in hand with the environmentalist, as well as the NRC and others to improve the situation. What seems to divide us all, is the attitude that if isn't my opinion, it won't work etc. That is one of the reasons I'm against gear restrictions, its an attitude more than anything else. Once real, biological science is put into the equation, there is no need for these restrictions, and the DNR has done the studies to prove it.
> 
> ...


I think the best ways to improve Habitat over the long term will be to let mother nature do it. think of how many people with a house on the river remove trees so they can see the water. Same thing with agricultural use. trying to use every bit of land available. The thing to do is make a buffer zone along the river. Rivers naturally over time change thier channel and that can't be a bad thing. The removal of trees and such to make a river floatable for mass numbers of canoes has removed more habitat than we could ever imagine.

As for dams and thier removal I have mixed feelings on that issue. We have created totally different ecosystems. Some of these have given habitat to other species to thrive and many of them have been in existence for so long that removal will have negative impacts on other species is it worth it?


----------



## Jimmy2 (Jun 29, 2008)

Thanks for the information Whit. I have my letters ready and will go out in the morning. I'm sending a letter to all the commissioners on the list. It can't hurt. Is there anyone in the Fisheries division that should be contacted as well? I went on the DNR website and had a hard time finding physical addresses to the director and others who may be making this decision. Where and when are the next round of meetings? Thanks again for the info, Whit. I appreciate it!!!

Dan


----------

