# Trout Stream Regulations



## PunyTrout

toto said:


> In other words, private property owners cannot be enriched using public funds, capeesh?


That was my interpretation as well.

That is essentially what I said in my response to Trout King here:



PunyTrout said:


> I was under the impression that if the DNR has ever planted a stream or, said stream is connected to stocked water then it is open to access as long as accessed from a public right of way and the angler remains in the stream bed.


Perhaps you should direct your response to @Trout King instead. However, there have been_ *special circumstances *_that I have come across in my angling travels that have made me realize that there are people and places that enjoy privilege (private law) where there are private property owners who benefit from State stocking programs that are essentially inaccessible to the public. Again, _true story.
_
PM me if you would like a few examples if this subject interests you. Most of these examples would be unmentionable in this forum.


----------



## toto

Oh I wasn't trying to be a jerk, just putting things a different way I guess. And BTW, this opinion is the same opinion shared to me by a DNR personnel who I would think would know. It doesn't surprise me that there are those that get their way, I wonder though if it were pushed by the public if it could be changed, just a thought.


----------



## PunyTrout

@toto sent me a PM and I provided a clear example of private property owners being enriched using public funds without providing reasonable access to the public. He is free to do whatever he wants with the information I provided him.

As I advised Trout King, sometimes you need to pick your battles. That particular example I will leave for someone else to fight. There are plenty of other places to fish IMO.


----------



## Trout King

PunyTrout said:


> @toto sent me a PM and I provided a clear example of private property owners being enriched using public funds without providing reasonable access to the public. He is free to do whatever he wants with the information I provided him.
> 
> As I advised Trout King, sometimes you need to pick your battles. That particular example I will leave for someone else to fight. There are plenty of other places to fish IMO.


PT, 
I think you have known me long enough to know that I am smart enough to pick my battles. The ones I have picked (very rare in 20+ years of serious trout fishing) I have won. Couple CO's and a county sheriff deputy have always found nothing wrong with my approach. Unfortunately, it seems on some of these streams that as soon as the fish are planted the riparian owners like to stamp up posted signs and turn down anglers asking permission. I know of at least 3 streams in this county that it happens. All I am saying is that if the state plants fish, the stream should be deemed navigable and open to public fishing. 

For those who have done their research are usually prepared with a good case if issues escalate with landowners.


----------



## PunyTrout

Trout King said:


> All I am saying is that if the state plants fish, the stream should be deemed navigable and open to public fishing.


I agree 100%.


----------



## chromer101

Can someone explain why small trout streams are closed during the winter? I can understand closing in the fall and spring to protect spawning but winter doesn't make sense to me. Heck I see far more problems with C&R in the dog days of summer.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

Type 3 & 4 are open, though with C&R caveats for Brookies and Browns this time of year. Also some "Gear Restricted" sections are open specifically for C&R; sometimes the "Gear" only has to be "lures" and aren't necessarily Flies Only.


----------



## chromer101

I am aware, but this is directed at type 1 & 2. Such as the Pine.


----------



## kzoofisher

chromer101 said:


> Can someone explain why small trout streams are closed during the winter? I can understand closing in the fall and spring to protect spawning but winter doesn't make sense to me. Heck I see far more problems with C&R in the dog days of summer.


Burroughs of TU raised this issue at a Coldwater meeting. His point was that closing is based on tradition, we don’t have any science to back it up and it does decrease opportunity.

Reasons to keep things the way they are were brought up by others. Doing studies will of course cost money and budgets are tight. Anything other than making type 1 open all year will complicate the regs. It puts one more thing on Enforcement’s plate. That’s it in a nutshell, there was more discussion.


----------



## PunyTrout

chromer101 said:


> Can someone explain why small trout streams are closed during the winter?





kzoofisher said:


> Anything other than making type 1 open all year will complicate the regs. *It puts one more thing on Enforcement’s plate.* *That’s it in a nutshell*


My answer was going to be more verbose, so I'll just stick with the bold text above for a succinct reply...


----------



## chromer101

Well what made me bring this up is one of my out of state buddies was fishing over Christmas break. He just couldn't figure out why he had the Pine all to himself. This wasn't the only time I've heard people fish type 1 or 2 streams illegally. Which then leads into how many people accidentally fish those rivers AND why the heck are they closed in the first place. Thank you for the replies. Sad that science isn't just used for the decision making... though I have to agree stricter littering laws would be great overall. That concerns me far more than much other things.


----------



## Trout King

PunyTrout said:


> My answer was going to be more verbose, so I'll just stick with the bold text above for a succinct reply...


"Sound Science"


----------



## PunyTrout

Trout King said:


> "Sound Science"


How come you're rolling your eyes at the idea that law enforcement/bag limits would be difficult to manage for conservation officers during October - January? They have enough on their plates during the hunting season as it is. 

*I'd be all for being able to fish Type 1 streams year-round.* 

But the current regs make that a tall order for COs to worry about the guys with pitch forks ginking fish in every little stream just so they can score some Brown Trout spawn in order to fish bait off the piers for Steelhead. (That's actually does happen, sadly.)

As Kzoo pointed out, _tradition and enforcement_ are the main reasons and I think he made the point succinctly.


----------



## ongo

chromer101 said:


> Well what made me bring this up is one of my out of state buddies was fishing over Christmas break. He just couldn't figure out why he had the Pine all to himself. This wasn't the only time I've heard people fish type 1 or 2 streams illegally. Which then leads into how many people accidentally fish those rivers AND why the heck are they closed in the first place. Thank you for the replies. Sad that science isn't just used for the decision making... though I have to agree stricter littering laws would be great overall. That concerns me far more than much other things.


Maybe your out of state buddy is as color blind as I am. I was going to post that the Pine changes from yellow to orange just upstream from the Wexford & Lake co. line which would mean from that point upstream it would be open all year for trout fishing. But I wisely checked with my better half,whose not color blind. She informed me that color is GREEN not orange. Huh! LOL! Go figure. So yah, it's closed as those of you not color blind already knew.


----------



## Trout King

PunyTrout said:


> How come you're rolling your eyes at the idea that law enforcement/bag limits would be difficult to manage for conservation officers during October - January? They have enough on their plates during the hunting season as it is.
> 
> *I'd be all for being able to fish Type 1 streams year-round.*
> 
> But the current regs make that a tall order for COs to worry about the guys with pitch forks ginking fish in every little stream just so they can score some Brown Trout spawn in order to fish bait off the piers for Steelhead. (That's actually does happen, sadly.)
> 
> As Kzoo pointed out, _tradition and enforcement_ are the main reasons and I think he made the point succinctly.


 How many guys really would even fish trout during winter? I really don't think the workload of CO's would change that much if season were open in winter. During the open seasons as is, they have to deal with turkey hunters, all of the other fisherman fishing other species, atv's, boating, small game hunting etc, the list goes on and on...
It would be a safe bet that more people are outside partaking in recreational activities in spring and summer as it is. 

If violators want to violate, they are going to. I could take a over limit of trout almost every time I fished if I really wanted to. I have literally never been checked by CO while trout fishing in Michigan (other than when a grumpy landowner thought I was trespassing) and I have been trout fishing since I was knee high to a grasshopper. 

Tradition and enforcement don't fall under the "sound science" category, obviously.


----------



## kzoofisher

Here’s the blurb from the minutes of that meeting. 
_Comment: Maybe we need to consider year round trout angling. Why are things closed in the winter if we are not protecting anything other than during fall months (September and October)?

Closure in fall makes enforcement of trout regulations simpler, enabling conservation officers to
concentrate on hunting issues.
_
There are more questions than you might think about how extending the season would work. What kind of study would need to be done to justify a rule change and at what cost isn’t my area of expertise. The places that are open year round now are all no kill on browns and brooks so they aren’t at all helpful if you want to extrapolate extending type 1. How many people would use the season if it closed on 10/1 and reopened on 12/1 or whatever the dates might be? Think about how many people quit steelheading in the winter. How many are going to make the effort for 10” fish? A few, sure. Enough to justify the cost of investigating the feasibility of making the change? Maybe so and I’d like to see it happen but I can see the counter arguments. 

What would it take to make it happen? TU seems interested so that’s a start. Getting MUCC or another group to support the idea would be a good next step.


----------



## Ranger Ray

40 years of fishing the Pine, and I have never had a CO check me. Come to think of it, I have never seen a CO. Heck past opener, I rarely see a fishermen. Trout stream violators are such low hanging fruit, compared to the walleye and bass brigade, the CO's probably spend little time patrolling for them. Of course the salmon run on a few streams gets a little attention, along with a few dams.


----------



## PunyTrout

Ranger Ray said:


> Trout stream violators are such low hanging fruit, compared to the walleye and bass brigade, the CO's probably spend little time patrolling for them. Of course the salmon run on a few streams gets a little attention, along with a few dams.


I'm not sure what your point is Ray. Are you suggesting that violations on trout streams don't happen? That trout stream violations are insignificant? Or happen so infrequently that law enforcement shouldn't care? Or revenues from ticketing violators wouldn't justify the cost of enforcement? Or if all Type 1 streams should be open year-round because no one would violate the bag limits if they were open year-round? Or _what_ exactly?


----------



## PunyTrout

You asked the question in the OP: 



Ranger Ray said:


> If you had a say, what one issue when it comes to trout stream waters, would you like to see addressed by our DNR?


Yet, we are on page 3 and you have yet to offer an opinion to the question that _you asked_ in the first place. This thread seems to me like _wind-up_ or a softball being pitched to your GLFSA buddies or a questionnaire one of the newly appointed members of the Coldwater Committee might bring up in a meeting based on your often repeated mantra from a bygone thread; _cronyism... _

Let's hear it; _If *you* had a say, what one issue when it comes to trout stream waters, would *you* like to see addressed by our DNR?_


----------



## wadin' forever

Barbless hook requirement for all flies only waters wouldn't break my heart. More tiny, down to gullet hooked trout and stressed larger trout living through releases, no downsides in my experience or readings on this.


----------



## Ranger Ray

PunyTrout said:


> Wow toto! Bravo!...
> 
> Did you start writing that response on November 14th when Ray started this thread or just ad lib your response tonight?
> 
> Were you and Ray just sitting around at deer camp dreaming of a big buck for the following day and having a few drinks and then conspired to start this_ trolling_ thread together? Be honest.
> 
> I’m glad I was wrong in my inclinations to think this thread was a soft ball being pitched to the GLFSA. I’m also glad you bided your time before letting loose the tirade you planned for us. That was _quite_ spectacular!
> 
> BTW, _When exactly_ did you guys decide to remove your GLFSA signatures here on Michigan-Sportsman? Was it _before or after_ you were appointed to the Cold Water Committee? You must have forgot to include Splitshot in the memorandum to get rid of those GLFSA sigs. At least he still proudly flies that GLFSA banner in his signature line even after being appointed as well.
> 
> _Bartender! Get us a round of Cronyism for me and my boys here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Committee Member: Are you now, or have you ever been?... :shhh:_


A conspiracy! I hear voices! Voices! I haven't talked to Toto in a year. You're such a good detective. Maybe, just maybe, you bringing the GLFSA into this discussion, brought Toto in. Just sayin..., Dick Tracey. Appears the Doo was Woody's last night.


----------



## Steve

Closing before this gets more personal.


----------

