# New Regs in the Works...Including Gear Restrictions



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

As some of you guys and gals know there are new gear restrictions for stream trout fishing being considered by the DNR and NRC. They are being pushed VERY hard by at least some by Trout Unlimited and fishing guides. The focus seems to be on the Au Sable R. and much mention is made of the "Holy Waters". However there will be an attempt to move various gear and fish limits to other waters.

The DNR has a Facebook page and I asked about any public meetings. Below is the response I recieved on the page.

For those of you who get fired up about further restrictions on angling practices foisted on the general angling population by a select few this is a topic that needs your attention.

*My Comment on the DNR's Facebook Wall.
*Are there going to be meetings concerning changing regulations on some trout streams that involve restricting of gear to flies only and/or lures only? If so where can a list of these meetings be found.
*

DNR's Response*
In January, the DNR will be posting an electronic mailbox on www.michigan.gov/dnr to gather input from the public on streams that may be good candidates for gear restrictions (flies-only or lures-only). No public meetings are currently scheduled, although some of the DNR field offices may hold meetings to discuss specific sections of streams that are proposed 

The URL:
http://www.facebook.com//midnr?v=fee...d=219367834244


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Maybe this should be placed in other forums as well. 
this isn't that big of a concern I talked with the DNR and its really not a big issue the only real issue id changing the size limits back to previous limits on the PM. Other than that its reallynot a big deal


Ganzer


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

MERGANZER said:


> Maybe this should be placed in other forums as well.
> this isn't that big of a concern I talked with the DNR and its really not a big issue the only real issue id changing the size limits back to previous limits on the PM. Other than that its reallynot a big deal
> 
> 
> Ganzer


Adam, I don't agree with that at all. There has been a very quiet and intense movement going on behind the scenes to get gear and limit regs on other streams. That door has been opened and is getting wider.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

What I fail to understand is why do they feel they have to fix something, which isn't broken.

A couple of problems that I see are these: 1) If you limit the fishable waters that can be fished as they are now, won't that have an affect to lower the amount of people buying a trout stamp? People would just give up after a while, I would think, and 2) wouldn't this neccessitate having more enforcement problems? They don't have enough CO's to go around now and catch obvious problems, let alone a whole bunch of new ones, just sayin......


----------



## DANN09 (May 3, 2000)

Bill this is'nt a logical problem. It's an ego and money deal by a select few.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

toto said:


> What I fail to understand is why do they feel they have to fix something, which isn't broken.


Well it is broken, but that won't fix it.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Help me out a little Ralf, what part is broken. Remember I haven't lived up there in like, well lets just say too long. I quess I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. If you are talking about the DNR in general, I couldn't agree with ya more on that.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

The last couple of years the majority of the plants have been in the 4-6" range. Hardly large enough to reach legal size by September. In turn many vanished for the following year. Seems like a waste


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Okay, so now we are on the same page. Yes it is a waste, but I'm sure the excuse is they can't afford to grow them any larger. Its really silly that Michigans government can't understand the value of the outdoor pursuits they have. I wonder if they even look at the numbers of dollars generated by sportsmen/women in Michigan. It would seem to me to be a self sustaining commodity, but of course, if the state keeps raiding the coffers to help balance their budget, how can they afford to do any more than what they are doing.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

See you mention "self-sustaining". That's the same response I got from the DNR when questioning the size of the plants...LOL

"We are striving for a self-sustained fishery" :lol: Ok, I guess I'll wait another season. Kinda like the Lions 

This whole thing doesn't bother me one bit since all of my trout fishing is done with the longrod. It just seems funny that these changes are presented under the disguise of simplifying the rules by eliminating several "classifications".

So what will be the new categories or criteria. Which stretches are being considered? It's way too quiet out there. No media coverage


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

What I meant by self sustaining, is the dollars generated by the sportspeople to sustain a decent DNR. I wasn't referring to the fishery itself. I agree with you that the size of the planted fish should be larger in an effort to have a better survival rate. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And George, yes it is, and unfortunately thats the way government works any more, its more important how much campaign funds, or money the politicians put in their pockets than any thing else.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

I knew what you meant. Just a play on words 

One would think the angling public would be up in arms over this. Guess not. The crying will start after the fact :help:


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Thats about typical though isn't it. Cry and complain about it, but let someone do the fighting, then when there isn't anyone else, blame the DNR for thier changes. Not being from Michigan any longer, I have 2 problems, 1) who would I contact, and 2) would the listen. But hey, let me know the who, and I'll give it a try.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Whit, I followed your link but didn't see the proposal itself. Can you provide or link or tell us the details? Thanks.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Anyone have more specifics on this? I went to the dnr facebook page, but all i saw was Whit's question and the DNR's "response"?

Any other rivers specifically being mentioned/targeted for reg changes besides au sable?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

fishinDon said:


> Anyone have more specifics on this? I went to the dnr facebook page, but all i saw was Whit's question and the DNR's "response"?
> 
> Any other rivers specifically being mentioned/targeted for reg changes besides au sable?


That response was it so far.


----------



## gunrod (Jan 16, 2001)

Here's your chance to speak up before all the fly fishing organizations put their word in.

contact Jim Dexter 269-685-6851 or Mary Dettloff 517-335-3014


Trout Streams Reclassified into New Restricted Gear Category

The Department of Natural Resources has reclassified trout streams with differing gear restrictions into a single gear restricted
category.

The new category - the major first change in the DNRs stream classification system that was adopted a decade ago - will allow for more flexible fishing regulations on the streams that have been classified as Type 5, 6 and 7 streams in the past. No immediate regulation changes have been proposed for specific streams.

Combining the Type 5, 6 and 7 streams into one category simplifies our regulatory framework and creates flexibility for protecting trout populations while allowing diverse fishing opportunities, explained DNR Fisheries Division Chief Kelley Smith. With this change, were ready to work with trout anglers to review appropriate regulations for specific streams.

State law allows up to 212 miles of gear-restricted streams statewide.

Anglers who wish to comment on appropriate regulations or to nominate additional waters for the Gear Restricted Category can forward their comments online to [email protected] through Feb. 12.

The DNRs Coldwater Regulations Steering Committee will review all comments and make proposals available for public comment before making any regulations changes. DNRE recommendations are expected to be sent to the DNRE director this fall for implementation on April 1, 2011.

The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, accessible use and enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

I spoke to Jim Dexter today out of the Plainwell office. He told me that right now the DNR is fielding suggestions (up to the 12th of Feb) for further gear restrictions on Michigan streams and rivers. 

He also stated that currently the State of Michigan has a law on the books, as of about 8 years ago, to allow up to 212 miles of gear-restricted water. Currently we have about 100 miles of restricted water. He said, most, if not all of the major organized trout groups are pushing to get further restrictions in place. 

Lastly, he said the best thing I could do would be to email [email protected] and voice my opinion. He also mentioned that after the suggestions are in, they will be having local meetings (time and location to be announced via futher press release) to discuss the suggestions. He strongly encouraged me to look for those press releases and go to one of those meetings and speak up. 

No specific rivers were mentioned for further restriction, but I'm sure many will be suggested. Maybe yours. Speak up!

fishinDon


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

It sounds like there are a lot of unknowns. My first question is what are they proposing when they combine the three regs? Artificial only? 12" or 15" browns? Fly's only? I don't have the regulation book in from of me but I wonder if they combined those sections all into fly only would it be to many river miles and would not be legal. 

There is just way to many questions right now, based off their one little statement of combining regs.


----------



## turtlehead (Oct 26, 2004)

It is a little vague, but I was under the impression that they were going to manage the gear restricted category on a river by river basis. I think it stems from the issues they had with the Mio regs on the Au Sable, where they didn't have a category that fit that fishery. It makes sense to me to do it this way.

It will still be confusing when they print the book though.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Let me preface this post by saying that I'm really encouraged to see so much feedback on this issue. Especially considering it's the middle of Jan and most folks aren't thinking trout and rivers yet.  

Here's something I kind of suspected, but just confirmed by looking:

I just browsed through the stream trout rules/reg guide on the MI-DNR web site. Best I can tell by clicking through is that almost all of the gear restricted water in the entire state is concentrated between the Au Sable, Big Manistee, Little Manistee, and the Pere Marquette - and none of it would be considered anything other than prime stretches. Incidentally, all of it is flies only (either 2 fish or no kill - type 5 or 7). The only other gear restrictions I could find were on the Escabana R in the UP. That was the ONLY Type 6 (artifical lures) stream that I could find in the entire state (maybe I missed something). 

If you accept the premise that artificial lure fishing has a similar (low) risk of mortality to artifical flies AND if the goal were to protect the resource and/or to grow trophy fish, shouldn't we see just as much Type 6 water as 5 or 7?

I guess when you look at this as our history lesson, it's fairly easy to see why anglers that are not primaly fly fisherman are a little concened to hear that they are about to propose an additional 100+ miles of gear restrictions. The flies only rivers listed above are arguably the 4 best (and if not the 4 best, they're certainly all in top 10) trout streams in the state. 

How did prime stretches on many of Michigan's most productive trout streams end up with gear restrictions? I agree Butch, the issue is most assuredly a social one and has almost nothing to do with science. 

Since this is a social issue, there is really only one way to make a difference...speak up, voice your opinion, send email to the DNR and attend the meetings once they are scheduled on the proposals.

fishinDon


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

> *How did prime stretches on many of Michigan's most productive trout streams end up with gear restrictions?* I agree Butch, the issue is most assuredly a social one and has almost nothing to do with science.


That's my biggest issue when the "there's less flies only water then non flies only" argument is brought up. There may be less reg water overall, but it's often some of the best water on the whole system. 

Why don't they just look at other streams, see where gear restrictions may help a stretch or two, and try that out for a few years. Instead of adding _more_ regs to rivers that already have them, try branching them out, and trying different rivers.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

Whit1 said:


> We hear this repeated...or words akin to it......."fragile, etc"......in a description of trout streams and gear restrictions. For purpose of discussion I'll define "fragile" as being in danger of losing its fishable population of trout.


This is *NOT* a fair characterization of the issue. The term "fragile" is a red herring in this discussion. More importantly, if you define the standard for trout streams as not "losing it's [their] fishable population of trout", that is a *SOCIAL* preference that you are imposing on me and everyone else. Of course there should be no gear restrictions and generous limits everywhere *IF* our only goal is to keep a river from "losing it's fishable population of trout". But not everyone wants to set the standard so low.

When fishermen kill trout, in general they reduce the local trout population below its natural carrying capacity, and the more they kill, the farther from carrying capacity it gets. (I'm not going to discuss additive mortality vs. compensatory mortality except to say that the evidence shows that fishermen killing trout from a trout stream is not entirely compensatory). And fishermen disproportionately kill trout over the minimum legal size. Those trout have already survived the most hazardous years of a trout's life in "nature", and thus have a better chance of reaching large size if not killed by fishermen. This is "science".

Some fishermen prefer fishing for trout in populations close to their natural carrying capacity, even if the fishermen are subject to additional restrictions on gear and limits to keep that population closer to natural carrying capacity. That is a "social" preference, just like preferring to be able to fish with bait and kill fish, as long as a bare bones number of trout are left behind.

If this all sounds like the "deer hunters", maybe it is, I don't know because I don't keep up on that that stuff. However, in my opinion there are some big differences between deer hunting and trout fishing. In hunting, the "public land vs. private land" or "large parcel vs. small parcel" issues seem to be big, but in Michigan trout fishing these are much less of a factor, as fishermen don't own their own fishing spots and can fish any navigable stream (and I'll bet all new gear-restricted streams will be of "navigable" size with decent public access) so they can fish areas with improved trout populations. 

More important, for most people deer hunting is ultimately about killing but fishing is ultimately about catching. The magic moment of elation discussed endlessly in literature comes when the hunter walks up to his dead dear, but for the fisherman it's when the trout sags in his net, not when he conks it on the head. If I "count coup" on a deer by shooting a spikehorn, I've imposed my social values on the deer herd and (indirectly) on other hunters; if I "count coup" on a 20" trout by catching it, I can still release it and you are free to catch it next year when it's 22", so (unlike deer hunting) I have not imposed my social values on others.

Those few people that fish primarily for food obviously will disagree with all this, and they too should file comments with the MDNR about their own "social" values.

Butch


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

TC-fisherman said:


> Some people might define fragile as susceptible to being impacted by fishing.
> 
> it's not an elitist concept to want regs that promote a fishery above a minimum level of "still some fish left"


The streams that are more than likely......with or without the DNR's published matrix are FAR from being in danger from overfishing. I would challenge a group of anglers, those that really know what they're doing, to catch and keep enough trout from the list of streams that I mention above that would result in a decimation of the trout population........within, of course, the legal limit.




TC-fisherman said:


> I usually don't fish special reg water. Twice I fished the little manistee indian club water. Both times sunny mid day fishing. Both times i walked away shaking my head in disbelief over how incredible the fishing was. It's just my opinion (and everyone in entitled to their own) but if new regs help produce a few more stretches like that I'm all for it.


I first fished that stretch in about 1955. It was always a great trout fishery.......for what I'll refer to as wild trout as opposed to the old "put and take" variety of the old days. The Boardman R., which I have never fished for some odd reason, is a fine trout stream right now. It receives pressure and for the trout angler that might result in fewer "takes", but it's not due to too many fish being harvested. Trout tend to be a somewhat sensitive creature in regard to being disturbed.

As far as "elitist" goes that's not a term I used, but others do and there could possibly be ample evidence to support its use, but that gets into a silly "name calling" game which detracts from the discussion.

I'll ask it again, IF saving trout is the purpose of gear restrictions then why aren't they applied to marginal trout streams? The Betsie? The White...at least below White Cloud, and even the Sable, perhaps even the Big Manistee below Hodenpyle Dam. I think the answer to this question is obvious. The "why" being that a certain group, type, etc. angler, wants the best trout fishing water to themselves.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Butch said:


> This is *NOT* a fair characterization of the issue. The term "fragile" is a red herring in this discussion. More importantly, if you define the standard for trout streams as not "losing it's [their] fishable population of trout", that is a *SOCIAL* preference that you are imposing on me and everyone else. Of course there should be no gear restrictions and generous limits everywhere *IF* our only goal is to keep a river from "losing it's fishable population of trout". But not everyone wants to set the standard so low.


Butch it's not me that's tossing around words like "fragile", etc. in this discussion. It seems, maybe I haven't been reading these discussions correctly for the past several years, that the "fragile" monicur is being applied to trout streams by those in favor of gear restrictions. As far as "social preference" goes that label can also be applied, especially, to those who advocate "flies only".



Butch said:


> When fishermen kill trout, in general they reduce the local trout population below its natural carrying capacity, and the more they kill, the farther from carrying capacity it gets. (I'm not going to discuss additive mortality vs. compensatory mortality except to say that the evidence shows that fishermen killing trout from a trout stream is not entirely compensatory). And fishermen disproportionately kill trout over the minimum legal size. Those trout have already survived the most hazardous years of a trout's life in "nature", and thus have a better chance of reaching large size if not killed by fishermen. This is "science"..


Opps Butch! That's not all "science" that you're talking about. Your claim that catching and keeping trout, even generally speaking, does not automatically reduce the population below its carrying capacity. Could it? Certainly, but with today's regs, including slot limits with which I heartedly agree, can address the issue of "I want more big trout".......this is sounding more and more like the DM Forum isn't it.......without resorting to gear restrictions. 



Butch said:


> Some fishermen prefer fishing for trout in populations close to their natural carrying capacity, even if the fishermen are subject to additional restrictions on gear and limits to keep that population closer to natural carrying capacity. That is a "social" preference, just like preferring to be able to fish with bait and kill fish, as long as a bare bones number of trout are left behind..


There comes that "bear bones" and the like comment. No one is saying that it is a great idea to allow fish to be caught until it gets at or below "bear bones". To my knowledge none of the streams currently having gear restrictions were anywhere near "bare bones". I'll bet you a lunch........the Bungelow?........that the new regs will inlcude top drawer, blue-ribbon trout streams that various studies over the years show a healthy, viable trout population.

I've read the latest report on your home stream. Quite frankly it might make a great candidate for gear restrictions. It's trout population has large stretches with low populations, yet, as you know, it does contain a decent trout numbers with some real soakers. However, there are problems with sand load........and THAT'S the real problem with all of our trout streams.....thus reducing spawning areas, thus limiting trout numbers to below the carrying capacity.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

Whit1 said:


> The Boardman R., which I have never fished for some odd reason, is a fine trout stream right now. It receives pressure and for the trout angler that might result in fewer "takes", but it's not due to too many fish being harvested.
> 
> ***Butch: How do you know it's not due to harvest (and incidental hooking mortality)? When I've fished the Boardman, it seems like the brown trout population is poor, for the quality of the habitat. Other excellent fishermen I know have noticed the same.
> 
> ...


***Butch: As I've said before, it's obvious that the motivation for *some* people is that they want top-notch water for themselves. It's equally obvious to me that some people will leave worm containers behind and harvest as many trout as the law allows without regard to the fishermen that want to fish there tomorrow. I like to think that most of us fall in neither group, and so we should debate the concept on its merits and without the rhetoric.

Butch

p.s. (edit) I apologize for botching the multi-quote feature and inserting some of my comments within the quoted text, so I went back and noted my comments.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Boardman river above the dams in the heaviest fished areas near the campgrounds


> Information on the quality of the macroinvertebrate community indicated good quality rating.
> Habitat quality is good to excellent in this reach, with stable banks, abundant gravel, and cold water temperatures.
> Brown trout.. approximately 4% of them 12 or greater.....Brook trout..no fish greater than 10 in length
> Reproduction in this segment was good and trout growth rates average,but mortality appears high and adult age classes were scarce.


not exactly fine

the little manistee at johnsons bridge has over three times the number of browns per acre and 2- 4 times the lbs per acre of browns in comparison to the boardman at schecks.

Hard to catch fish that aren't there. 

It doesn't take much to clean out a brook trout stream of legal fish and with low brown numbers its pretty easy to take a big dent after a rain or when the bite is on... even for those that don't know what they are doing.


as far as why marginal trout streams like the betsie would make unlikely candiates if the stream cannot naturally support higher numbers due to warmer temps etc no amounty of regs is going to change that.

If more regs allow for more natural trout in a stream i'm all for it.

Over and out


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

Whit, you're aguing with the straw man on most of this.




Whit1 said:


> As far as "social preference" goes that label can also be applied, especially, to those who advocate "flies only".
> 
> ***Butch: I already said this, although I disagree with the term "especially" here.
> 
> ...


Agreed, except to the extent that when I think of "natural carrying capacity", I think of *ALL* of the potential limiting factors to trout population capacity, including issues related to sand bed load like lack of spawning habitat and lack of summer thermal refuges.

Anyway, I'll stop typing for a while...

By the way, I'll have lunch with you at the Bungalow regardless of the MDNR's decisions

Butch


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

TC, the Boardman is a type 3 stream......according to the 2009 Michigan Fishing Guide.....that means it's open for trout fishing, with some downstream exceptions, all year. The upstream portions of the river, colder water, still holds brook trout from the reports I get from anglers who fish it.

Perhaps closing the stream from the end of September to the traditional Last Saturday in April would benefit. This would close the season during the spawning season for browns and brook trout.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Butch said:


> By the way, I'll have lunch with you at the Bungalow regardless of the MDNR's decisions
> 
> Butch


 
A good place to eat Butch. That's where you can give me my spinner kit lessons. I'll spring for your dinner. I still have to get a check out to you.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Whit1 said:


> TC, the Boardman is a type 3 stream......according to the 2009 Michigan Fishing Guide.....that means it's open for trout fishing, with some downstream exceptions, all year. The upstream portions of the river, colder water, still holds brook trout from the reports I get from anglers who fish it.
> 
> Perhaps closing the stream from the end of September to the traditional Last Saturday in April would benefit. This would close the season during the spawning season for browns and brook trout.


the section I referenced is a type 1. Above brown bridge to the forks. cold water, prime habitat, good bugs, heavy fishing pressure and few mature fish. No one is catching decent brooks from that stretch. tribs and other forks yeh, there no.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

TC-fisherman said:


> the section I referenced is a type 1. Above brown bridge to the forks. cold water, prime habitat, good bugs, heavy fishing pressure and few mature fish. No one is catching decent brooks from that stretch. tribs and other forks yeh, there no.


The guide doesn't mention that. Type 1 streams have a size limit of 8" for brooks and browns and 10" for rainbows. The guide has been somewhat in error over the years.

Simple..........increase that size limit to 10" or better yet 12". Type 1 streams are also 5/3 which of course means a limit of 5 trout with no more than three of them being 15" or larger. Put in another slot of no fish over 20".


----------



## turtlehead (Oct 26, 2004)

It's nice to see that this thread is staying civilized.  Conversations like this will help to get regulations that are good for the fish and the fishermen.

I'm with Butch and TC on this. There's a stronger argument for catch and release than there is for flies only but if they are going to use some of the miles for gear restrictions, (I think they will), they should limit it to artificials only. It's much more middle of the road. 

Whit, I think you have a good point about using the gear restrictions to improve some of the more marginal trout waters, but the DNR seems to be focused on keeping the "best water" as good as it can be. I would like to see them take a chance on something like the Betsie like you mentioned and see what happens. I think I will be recommending this when I send my e-mail.

This could be an opportunity to try some different types of regs on different stretches and learn some new things. We need more data on artificials only regs, slot limits, etc. 

Just like in politics, you get small groups of extremists on the far right and left, but I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle. (Leaning one way or the other) And we all want to have our trout fishing as good as it can be. 

Good discussion!


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

I too would like to see the DNR look at marginal streams and see if we can get them up to the quality of a PM or Little. Betsie would be a good choice. I spoke with a guide on the Betsie who claimed that the DNR has been doing some work on that river (years past) and found that it is a mystery. That put browns in big numbers in and nearly all of them ran to the lake. Might have something to do with water temps, but again, some experimentation on that river might prove to worth it in the long run. Seems to me the DNR has basically given up on that and streams like the Betsie. Instead it seems they want to improve the already Blue Ribbon streams in MI.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

It is purely social. I would like to remind those interested in contacting the MDNR also contact their reps and senators. Being a social issue, nothing better than getting politicians to notice the will of the people than numbers. Nothing better than the will of the majority, not the will of a few, to control social issues.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

turtlehead said:


> It's nice to see that this thread is staying civilized.  Conversations like this will help to get regulations that are good for the fish and the fishermen.
> 
> I'm with Butch and TC on this. There's a stronger argument for catch and release than there is for flies only but if they are going to use some of the miles for gear restrictions, (I think they will), they should limit it to artificials only. It's much more middle of the road.
> 
> ...


You said it better than I did.

Butch


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> It is purely social. I would like to remind those interested in contacting the MDNR also contact their reps and senators. Being a social issue, nothing better than getting politicians to notice the will of the people than numbers. Nothing better than the will of the majority, not the will of a few, to control social issues.


True dat.

Butch


----------



## turtlehead (Oct 26, 2004)

Thanks Butch. But it's only after reading these threads and doing a bunch of research that has allowed me to focus my thinking on this. There have been a few times over the course of this thread when I erased a whole manifesto. :lol:


----------



## Paco (Dec 18, 2006)

Good important discussion,Thanks for bringing it up Milt.Nice to see that you and Matt can keep it civil,LOL.



.....Paco


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

I hadn't really thought about this myself, but someone suggested it to me so I'll toss it out there; what does anyone think about allowing bait in special regs water, but requiring the use of circle hooks to reduce incidental hooking mortality?

It seems like this, plus lower limits with slot limits or increased minimum sizes might accomplish the MDNR's goals while still allowing bait fishing in the special regs water. Not sure if it might be an enforcement nightmare though.

Butch


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Butch said:


> I hadn't really thought about this myself, but someone suggested it to me so I'll toss it out there; what does anyone think about allowing bait in special regs water, but requiring the use of circle hooks to reduce incidental hooking mortality?
> 
> It seems like this, plus lower limits with slot limits or increased minimum sizes might accomplish the MDNR's goals while still allowing bait fishing in the special regs water. Not sure if it might be an enforcement nightmare though.
> 
> Butch


That sounds like it could be explored further.

Concerning limits slot limits don't bother me at all. The 5/3 limit basically does that to a certain extent.

One of the problems with gear retricted water is that it limits, obviously, the use of certain fishing methods, thus restricting some anglers in what water they can fish. At the same time those anglers who wish to only use artificial lures and/or flies/nymphs etc. are still able to fish all of the water. Of course things like that happen all the time, but for those who use bait this doesn't sit well in their throat or wherever they store such things.

Butch we do need to do that "meal at the Bungelow" the next you're up here. I'll bring my new kit.


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

What about barbless hooks? Although I don't know that anyone makes them factory direct.


----------



## bigfisherman (Nov 9, 2007)

Below is the body of my email. You can argue effectiveness of certian techniques all you want but long and short of it is a flyrod can be the best tool for the job under lots of conditions. A good flyfisherman can catch orders of magnitubes more and larger fish under lots of circumstances than an average angler using gear or bait. So are we trying to make more people catch less fish or gearing prime sections for certian groups. I know that fly guys would scream if they made the lower PM Plug fishing only no flies allowed or the Tippy to HB bait fishing only. Would these changes make sense yes it would stop allot of lining of bedded fish in the tippy section and give plug fisherman a place to go without having someone jump directly below them where they have been setting up for the past half hour to push the fish to the tailout to get them to strike only to have someon drop below them and start casting just below their plugs. 

I have posted my email I sent below for anyone to copy and send in or change as they see fit.

-As a multispecies multi-technique fisherman I don't think that it is good policy to limit any more water that is currently restricted. This is not a scientific decision but a political one motivated by special interests. I enjoy flyfishing, gear fishing, bait fishing, and just looking at fish. The argument that one technique is too effective over another is laughable. Certain times of year each technique can shine but the largest component in any fishermans success is their own abilities. I think that it should be up the the individual what way they choose to fish. I do not think that we should spend time and resources dividing fisherman up but bringing them together. Special restrictions are geared towards special interests they are not done in the best interest of the fishery. They are done in the best interest of those that are most likely to profit from those restrictions. If you have specific locations that the commission would like to have a certain age structure or size or quantity of fish then manage for that through size limits, slot limits, and management techniques. We as fisherman often divide our selves up into little groups we certainly don't need that to be sanctioned through the DNR Regulations. We need to work together to protect the resources from much larger issues like invasives such as the Asian Carp, etc. 

Certain sections of river have been degraded (in my opinion) due to them being gear restricted sections. This makes them immediately more popular with certain anglers and often increases damaging effects such as bank erosion and litter. Lets not take all of the prime sections of our most famous rivers and restrict them for arbitrary opinions of what is or is not the correct way to fish.


----------



## Alpha Buck (Jan 24, 2006)

You could not have said it better Karl. I could see lowing the limit or making it C/R in some stretches but taking the water away from an angler because of his preferred technique just does not make sense.



bigfisherman said:


> Below is the body of my email. You can argue effectiveness of certian techniques all you want but long and short of it is a flyrod can be the best tool for the job under lots of conditions. A good flyfisherman can catch orders of magnitubes more and larger fish under lots of circumstances than an average angler using gear or bait. So are we trying to make more people catch less fish or gearing prime sections for certian groups. I know that fly guys would scream if they made the lower PM Plug fishing only no flies allowed or the Tippy to HB bait fishing only. Would these changes make sense yes it would stop allot of lining of bedded fish in the tippy section and give plug fisherman a place to go without having someone jump directly below them where they have been setting up for the past half hour to push the fish to the tailout to get them to strike only to have someon drop below them and start casting just below their plugs.
> 
> I have posted my email I sent below for anyone to copy and send in or change as they see fit.
> 
> ...


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Single hooks + Artificial only would be fine by me. What I don't want is still fishing with live bait. That rod needs to be in the hands of the fisherman. Too many idiots kill fish trying to get swallowed hooks out when using the aforementioned method. It would be too hard to enforce and patrol for that method so if you ban live bait it solves the issue. That and I'm never thrilled with live bait being introduced to waters that the bait is not native to or should I say already present in.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Ban live bait! Idiots! My my. Have our fish reached holy status? I guess thats why they call it the "Holy" water. :lol:


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Ranger Ray said:


> Ban live bait! Idiots! My my. Have our fish reached holy status? I guess thats why they call it the "Holy" water. :lol:


There is plenty of data showing that still fishing is the most lethal method. I use to do it and there is no doubt that it's more harmful than any other method Ray. And I also don't think it's always a good thing to introduce species that are non native to waters. If they are introduced, like brown trout, there better be some case studies and some good reasoning. To allow live bait in inland rivers so all methods can be used is not good enough of a reason IMO.

I guess your response to my comments about idiots begs the question....You don't think people that try to get out swallowed hooks and wind up killing the fish are idiots?


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

WILDCATWICK said:


> There is plenty of data showing that still fishing is the most lethal method. I use to do it and there is no doubt that it's more harmful than any other method Ray. And I also don't think it's always a good thing to introduce species that are non native to waters. If they are introduced, like brown trout, there better be some case studies and some good reasoning. To allow live bait in inland rivers so all methods can be used is not good enough of a reason IMO.
> 
> I guess your response to my comments about idiots begs the question....You don't think people that try to get out swallowed hooks and wind up killing the fish are idiots?


I don't need a study to show me that baiting is one of the most lethal methods of fishing, I know it is one. But whats it relevant to? Lets take away live bait for argument sake. Now I can make the claim treble hooks are the most harmful. The claim "more harmful" will always have a relevancy to some form of fishing. Remove one, another will then take its place. So whats it relevant to. The sake of removing a type of fishing *just* for the sake of less kill is ridiculous. Regulation is there to stop the decimation of the Eco system or species. If it has to be adjusted because of one of these issues, live bait is the least of the concern.

I have no problem with types of live bait, because of ecological issues being banned. We already see it on the rusty crayfish etc... But to take the jump to all live bait because of a few that need the regulation is a little like crying wolf.

As far as idiots go, there are some that just don't care, always will be. Many aren't educated on how to care for fish when releasing. I see even fly fishermen handle fish improperly for long periods of time just for a camera shot. Should we ban fly fishing? Cameras? Canada and Norway are starting to experiment with catch and keep just for this reason. You see, better to keep the fish and be done than to release it and keep fishing for enjoyment while possibly causing damage and death to more fish. Interesting that they have come to the conclusion that those that catch, keep and go home may actually be doing less harm than those fishing for fun. Think about it.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

> I don't need a study to show me that baiting is one of the most lethal methods of fishing, I know it is one. But whats it relevant to? Lets take away live bait for argument sake. Now I can make the claim treble hooks are the most harmful. The claim "more harmful" will always have a relevancy to some form of fishing. Remove one, another will then take its place. So whats it relevant to. The sake of removing a type of fishing just for the sake of less kill is reticules. Regulation is there to stop the decimation of the Eco system or species. If it has to be adjusted because of one of these issues, live bait is the least of the concern.


Lines have to be drawn some where. With the logic you put forth snagging would still be a legal method.



> I have no problem with types of live bait, because of ecological issues being banned.


 Very hard to enforce some bait but not others. That's why I suggest elimination on inland waters. Not all waters. Many lakes have gone to it and found great success in eliminating problems all together.



> As far as idiots go, there are some that just don't care, always will be. Many aren't educated on how to care for fish when releasing. I see even fly fishermen handle fish improperly for long periods of time just for a camera shot. Should we ban fly fishing? Cameras? Canada and Norway are starting to experiment with catch and keep just for this reason. You see, better to keep the fish and be done than to release it and keep fishing for enjoyment while possibly causing damage and death to more fish. Fishing is unique as our outdoor sports go. Interesting that they have come to the conclusion that those that catch, keep and go home may actually be doing less harm than those fishing for fun. Think about it.


Completely aware Ray. I keep some too you know. Proper handling is important. I just see too many dead fish from still fishing. Sorry it's just how it is. I'm good with artificial and all other methods but again I'd like to see no trebles on inland rivers. Trout IMO are much more sensitive to handling than warm water species. As a result I think they should be treated a bit different.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

WILDCATWICK said:


> There is plenty of data showing that still fishing is the most lethal method.


Now that's some data that I'd like to see and I'm speaking of fishing for stream trout. In an above post you mentioned that you believe it should be a law that while trout fishing a stream the rod must be held in the hand. I take it that "still fishing" would be sitting near the rod with the rod in a rod holder or otherwise propped up with a forked stick perhaps. The bait is then left sitting on the bottom of the stream in trout holding water and THAT is the most lethal method of catching trout?

If you mean that trout caught that way generally swallow the bait and thus will die if released then that indeed is a very lethal method. However death is not certain especially if there is no attempt to remove the hook, but rather cut the line immediately. Does death occur? Certainly, but it is no guarentee.

In my years of stream trout fishing I've rarely seen knowing anglers fishing this way and I do have a year or two of stream trout fishing that have flowed past my waders. So what you're saying is that a method that is not often used, as compared to the number of trout anglers on a stream, is the reason to ban bait use in streams? Anglers who regularly use still fishing w/rod in a holder as their preferred method of catching trout are no danger of diminishing a stream's trout population. Take the guys on these boards that use bait, as well as other methods, and ask them how much time they spend with a rod in a rod holder? My guess is.......not much!

In any given hole, on a healthy, blue ribbon trout stream(and those are the target streams of gear restriction proponents) there may be a trout or two, and at times more, who will fall for that method, but nearby, in cover where such a method would not be feasible, there are untold numbers of trout who survive very well in their holding cover.

Here's a couple of photos taken a few years ago on a prime, blue ribbon trout stream that is being drooled over by certain advocates of gear restrictions. Tell me how in heavens name an angler using still fishing methods, as described above and which you mention is going to get a rig down into or near that timber?











Here's another one. These natural structures are found in abudance on most large, healthy trout streams. Ray, you might recognize some of these photos, as well as the guy in the DryFly Boat. 











Concerning the use of non-native species used as bait I am assuming that you're referring to minnows. Taking that logic a step further then that would mean the banning of any minnows that are not native to the particular body of water in which they are being used. Hmmm! I going to hazzard to say that plenty of perch, crappie, walleye, and northern pike anglers would beg to differ.

Along those lines of "non-native" species being verboten would night crawlers, wrigglers, live nymphs, crayfish, etc. that are native to the stream be legal? In your desire to seek flies and/or lures only you've opened doors that perhaps be left shut. By the way I'm not aware of a trout stream in MI where nightcrawlers are not native to the land along the stream.

As for your comment about "snagging" that is merely a hyperbolic, emotion raising statement that has no relevancy in this discussion.

By the way I've killed (guarenteed dead) a fair number of small, legal trout, due to deep hooking using spinners as I have using bait.....percentage wise.

Now, if we are REALLY intent on protecting trout populations in streams the REAL culprit would be addressed and that is the sand load dumped into streams from various sources including roadways and people induced sand slides such as shown in the photo below. This particular slide has been in place for years. Forty years ago there was a deep hole at the base of the slide at the bend where the river sweeps to the left. Today that same water is less than two feet deep. The erosion, human induced, continues to send sand downstream covering prime trout spawning areas with sand thus ruining as a bedding area for spawning trout.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

WILDCATWICK said:


> Lines have to be drawn some where. With the logic you put forth snagging would still be a legal method.
> 
> Very hard to enforce some bait but not others. That's why I suggest elimination on inland waters. Not all waters. Many lakes have gone to it and found great success in eliminating problems all together.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, the line. It rarely goes back once moved. One should make sure it is necessary before willfully moving it, as it effects many every time you do. The day you decide it should move no more, may you be lucky enough to have someone left to support you.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

Whit1 said:


> Butch we do need to do that "meal at the Bungelow" the next you're up here. I'll bring my new kit.




Butch


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

Here is the only comment on technique I will be submitting to the DNR... Ban chumming in rivers. It creates unnatural conditions that get fish to bite when they would not otherwise... I am a life long spawn fisherman, but also swing flies these days... Nothing will impact fishing quality for other anglers like chumming a hole that needs rest. Chumming gets fish to hit when they otherwise wouldn't. I have done it myself while growing up and fishing around NW lower and can tell you first hand it works like nothing else and there's a reason it is illegal in nearly every other state with trout/salmon populations. And with VHS protocols in place, it is effectively illegal most places already, but I have yet to see that enforced one single time, yet the eggs are still flying and ofcourse there's still the occasional fool still throwing whole kernal corn for chum... 

And Whit identified the greatest killer of trout, salmon and our entire river systems in general and it is NOT how any of us fish, it is SAND!!! Sand kills more miles of trout water and keeps more fish from being produced than all of us anglers put together and multipled by a huge factor... sand is the enemy and human practices that put sand in our rivers is where we need to focus, not at each other! Look, we all want fish, right!?!? Well, if you want trout and salmon in Michigan, fight SAND, not your fellow angler!

sorry to go off, but let's see the problem for what it is....


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

> If you mean that trout caught that way generally swallow the bait and thus will die if released then that indeed is a very lethal method.


Exactly. I certainly don't promote that and I don't think the state should either. I see that method used heavily in the U.P. in comparison to down here, maybe that's why your not seeing it often. Hard to cover any ground using that method:lol: but many streams in the U.P. it's hard to cover ground. Many just find a good bend and drop that worm in and put the pole on the fork. Does it have an overall effect on the population no but neither did snagging. 

Using bait that is non indigenous is a way to introduce new viruses and parasites to waters that would probably not get them otherwise. Does it happen all the time....heck no. But I don't think the risk of something that could be devastating to a stream is worth it when other methods could be used. That's just me, I'm sure you and others would disagree and that's fine. I just error on the side of caution more the most.

I agree that the number one threat to rivers is sand. We are having a bugger of a time with it in front of our property on the East Branch of the Au Sable. The sand traps are not being emptied and many of the problem areas are not being addressed. We addressed issue on our property but unfortunately the sand keeps coming down from upstream.

I'm all for promoting improving our fisheries and good fishing and handling of our resource.....the fish.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Whit- the pic you posted of the ginormous sand slide - I think I know where that is, along with a whole bunch more of them on the same river. 

How do you propose that you stop sand like that from pouring into the river? Even if you assume that you could keep all the people off that hill with a "don't climb here" sign? That thing must be close to 100 feet high...every time it rains...

Is there some sort of 'sand trap' or something that could be rigged up to prevent from dumping it's load in the stream? I did a little bit of searching, but didn't find anything that looked like it would work for a mountain like that.

fishinDon


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

Sand is no doubt a problem, but it is also naturally occurring. Sand has always been in MI rivers. The AuSable river is literally translated into "with sand." The issue is land management (logging, development, etc) that loosens up the ground and allows the sand to move into rivers that otherwise wouldn't. Natural erosion of banks and steeper slopes is unavoidable. Dams too are a problem as they tend to unnaturally displace sand where it otherwise wouldn't settle or build up.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

*How do you propose that you stop sand like that from pouring into the river? Even if you assume that you could keep all the people off that hill with a "don't climb here" sign? That thing must be close to 100 feet high...every time it rains..."*

The solution, at least for the human activity, would be to create a very large log jam on the bend. This would prevent it's use as a landing area for canoes having ready access to the slide. The problem, as it was explained to me, is that the area is national forest property and the Forest Service, who has control, has stamped the building of such structures as verbotin.

As for the rain caused erosion that certainly happens, but only with very heavy rains due to the soaking nature of the sand.

"*Sand is no doubt a problem, but it is also naturally occurring. Sand has always been in MI rivers. The AuSable river is literally translated into "with sand." The issue is land management (logging, development, etc) that loosens up the ground and allows the sand to move into rivers that otherwise wouldn't. Natural erosion of banks and steeper slopes is unavoidable. Dams too are a problem as they tend to unnaturally displace sand where it otherwise wouldn't settle or build up. 
__________________*"

Roads and bridges are another huge source of sand load dumped into streams as is building and land clearing activities.


*"Is there some sort of 'sand trap' or something that could be rigged up to prevent from dumping it's load in the stream? I did a little bit of searching, but didn't find anything that looked like it would work for a mountain like that."*

Sand traps can be put in place only where equipment can get to the river.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

Queequeg said:


> Sand is no doubt a problem, but it is also naturally occurring. Sand has always been in MI rivers. The AuSable river is literally translated into "with sand." The issue is land management (logging, development, etc) that loosens up the ground and allows the sand to move into rivers that otherwise wouldn't. Natural erosion of banks and steeper slopes is unavoidable. Dams too are a problem as they tend to unnaturally displace sand where it otherwise wouldn't settle or build up.


The vast majority of the sand bedload in Michigan trout streams is a result of historic logging practices that cleared the entire landscape of vegetation and caused insane erosion into river channels and stream valleys. Evidence of historic stream and river beds is not too hard to find if you poke around with adequate length re-rod. It is amazing to find how much cobble is laying 3-6' below most of our stream and river beds. All of the riffle/pool habitat was swallowed up by the hillsides and ridgelines as they eroded into surface run-off and poured directly into the streams with no bankside or hillside vegetation to hold the sand in place. Only riffles with the greatest current remain while most of the orginal substrate is burried in shifting sands. 

We can not just 'fix' it overnight as the bedload of a river takes decades to move downstream, but shutting off continued sources of new sediment and placing instream habitat appropriately to blow out sand and provide cover can make enormous differences in just a few months over short stream stretches.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Benzie Rover said:


> Here is the only comment on technique I will be submitting to the DNR... Ban chumming in rivers. It creates unnatural conditions that get fish to bite when they would not otherwise... I am a life long spawn fisherman, but also swing flies these days... Nothing will impact fishing quality for other anglers like chumming a hole that needs rest. Chumming gets fish to hit when they otherwise wouldn't.


Sorry, just have not seen it be the end all be all. You can definetly pull an extra fish or two out of a hole with it, or on very slow days you can turn a blank in a hole to a 1-2. But for the most part, I'm chumming a hole that just gave up 10 and you know there are more in there, they are just fussy from having 10 earlier fish fought in the hole. It get's the fish lined back up again and settled back down to allow you to pull 10 more out.

I'm sure some guys have gotten blanked in a hole, chummed and then hit double digits. I just have not seen it.

To be frank, we've done just as good on days not chumming as we do when chumming. To me chumming just does not impact the fishery to the extent many would have you believe.

I'm speaking of steelhead. I would agree that chumming trout makes it 10x easier.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

I think people need to think back to what got them involved with fishing in the first place. Chances are, it involved a cane pole and a can of worms. 

People fish for different reasons. Whether it's for peace of mind or food, at the end of the day it involves putting something in the water in hopes that a fish will bite it. 

Along the way, some fall into the trap of thinking that this way is better than that way or this fish is more precious than that fish. This thought process tricks one into thinking that they have some exclusitivity on whatever public water it is they choose to fish. They quickly forget why it is they fish in the first place. 

I can think back to many times where fishing involved many memorable trips up north with my father. I remember one evening where we were camped along the Little Manistee during thanksgiving weekend and him and I were fishing a bit and just enjoying the woods and water around us. We caught a lot of trout--using spawn and we happily threw most of them back. I say most because we did each keep one larger trout for dinner. As it was dark, we cooked our one trout each on a stick over the campfire. Maybe not the tastiest thing in the world, but the memory of it has lasted a lifetime. 

No matter how many people belong to this site, we are in the minority when it comes to the general users of public water. Doesn't matter who fishes bait, who fishes flies, who fishes lures, etc--we're the minority. There are many people out there who buy the same license we do and they might only get out once or twice a year. In many cases those outtings might take place on a river like the Pine where different activities can be incorporated. The Pine, as an example, as ample public access where one can camp, canoe and fish. For many people, this is the highlight of their year--a summer weekend where they can camp, canoe to their hearts content and dunk a worm or two in hopes of catching that one trout or two that they can cook on stick over the campfire. Just because one might desire a special reg there, how is that fair to the general users I just described? Say it's a flies only reg. Why in the world would a casual user want to go out, buy fly gear and what not, so they can adhere to someone's minority desires once or twice a year? They wouldn't--and they shouldn't have to do that. 

Before pushing for any special regs, one should really look inside them and discover why they fish in the first place. No matter how old we get, somethings never die. Somethings simply get banished and forgotten, but they never die. 

No matter who you are and how you choose to fish now, somewhere deep inside of you lies something more pure...somewhere inside of you is that little kid with a cane pole and a can of worms. 

Think about that for just one minute and think about why you fish...would that forgotten soul push for special regs that isolate the general public from enjoying the same waters you do?


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

thousandcasts said:


> I think people need to think back to what got them involved with fishing in the first place. Chances are, it involved a cane pole and a can of worms.
> 
> People fish for different reasons. Whether it's for peace of mind or food, at the end of the day it involves putting something in the water in hopes that a fish will bite it.
> 
> ...


I was expecting the "save the children" post, I just didn't expect TC to be the person that posted it. 

So, we can't try to keep a few portions of a few streams as good as they can be, because the occasional kid wants to roast a trout on a stick? So let 'em roast one. That's an easy fix, even if they can't find a place to catch one on the several hundred other trout stream miles in Michigan, the legislature already considered a youth exemption and probably would pass it in conjunction with the current regulatory changes.

Come on, TC, this issue is mostly about stream trout, not steelheads, and you appear to think browns and brooks are just nuisances anyway (I hope you treat them kindly and don't tear their gills out before you carefully release them). And you like to fish bait, so it's hard for me to take your "save the children" argument seriously. 

Butch


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Butch said:


> I was expecting the "save the children" post, I just didn't expect TC to be the person that posted it.
> 
> So, we can't try to keep a few portions of a few streams as good as they can be, because the occasional kid wants to roast a trout on a stick? So let 'em roast one. That's an easy fix, even if they can't find a place to catch one on the several hundred other trout stream miles in Michigan, the legislature already considered a youth exemption and probably would pass it in conjunction with the current regulatory changes.
> 
> ...


I'm fully aware that this pertains to stream trout since the criteria basically elminates any waters where salmon and steelhead are fished. As for stream trout themselves, my personal opinion of them is moot. I may find them a nuisance when I'm fishing steelhead or what not, but many others do not. Many others can catch them from a stream, never touch a steelhead, and think it was the greatest day ever on the water. So, whatever opinion I might have involving the presence of stream trout in a certain water way or whatever is simply not applicable since I'm not the only user of said waterways. Have I fished for stream trout specifically? You bet. Just because I might choose to chase catfish on a summer day as opposed to chasing stream trout doesn't amount to anything in the grand scheme of things. It's not about me, it's not about you. We have special regs in place already and social designation or not, they serve the purpose that was intended. To me, that's not an issue. What is an issue is adding MORE special regs. It's not a management issue, but rather a social issue that was forced on us by a legislative act. If people want to fish in areas with special regs, they already have that option. Nothing wrong with that, but I do have an issue in adding more when, scientifically, the DNR cannot present any case study that proves more water is needed. 

I shouldn't dignify the trout handling comment with a response, but whether it's a trout or a sucker, I release it as carefully as possible. Anything else is something that I simply won't do when I'm out on the water. I will not arbitrarily kill something just for the sake of killing it. 

You're certainly welcome to have any opinion you want regarding my post. I'm certainly known for strong opinions, even crass, crude opinions. In this case, I chose to not speak from the head, but rather my heart. My heart isn't in favor of more special regs for exactly the reasons I put forth in my previous post. If you have an opposite opinion, you're certainly entitled to that. Even if I fish bait, that's not an issue either. If the situations were reversed and they wanted 200 miles where someone couldn't flyfish, I wouldn't favor that either and my opinion would be the same. Again, it goes back to realizing why one goes fishing in the first place. If I'm standing in one hole fishing with a fly rod and someone else is in another using a worm, there is no difference between us. We're both individuals who bought the same license and are using the same public water for the enjoyment of fishing. No more, no less.


----------



## bigfisherman (Nov 9, 2007)

If you read your arguement carefully it is a good one for banning fishing in those sections all together. If you want a few sections as good as they can be -do not allow the fish to be handled or caught at all leave them be. Is that truely what you mean or do you mean you want a public owned playground that only the "right" kind of people can use. I would take a kid catching and roasting a 20" brown on a stick over twenty adult men enjoying some pictures then can brag to their buddies about any day of the week. If you want special regs how about making the best sections of these streams instead of flies only- kids only. That makes more sense than anything give kids a chance to get hooked on fishing. Instead your stance is they can go fish the crappy water and leave the good water to those of us that know how to properly appreciate it. Give me a break You can find a place to flyfish on the marginal streams that you want to force everyone else to fish. That is not even close to logical. This is purely about taking the best sections of streams and making them not available to the general public. It is dividing fisherman and helping destroy the bond that we all have or should have. The fact that TC posted an emotional non off the wall comment about this shows the value these fisheries pose to everyone. 

Fly fisherman would be livid if they took the Pine and made it bait only. They would call all there other lawyer buddies and sue the state of MI. I love to fly fish but that certianly doesn't mean that I don't want a kid to be able to go down there and have a decent shot a catching a decent fish on a worm or a spinner. I am sorry but that is what this is all about and certian groups are pushing this purely for their own benifit both pleasure and monetary. Their is only one permited guide on the pine that uses gear the others are all fly fisherman who has the power here......

I say if you are going to support limiting opertunities (which I don't) then you must support for every mile of proposed high quality water that you limit to flies only you limit another mile to gear only no use of a weighted line the only method of casting is by casting the wieght of the lure or bait. If you look at it like this fly fisherman are not in favor of it. 

If you are truly worried about the quality of a fishery then that can be controled with limits, no kill sections, etc. 

If you have spent any time at all on the Pine you see that some of the kids that are fishing there don't have the money to fly to montana or patagona. The best shot they are going to get at good trout fishing is by going up north for one weekend a year to trout camp. Then going home and dreaming about it until next year. These are the people that once alienated from fishing do not come back and do not support things like ballot proposals to save fisheries, limit polution, limit developement. 

You act like so what if you take 200 miles and make it flies only. Well if you take the best 200 miles you really cann't expect people to think that this is remotely fair or equatable. 

If you want to talk about mistreatement of fish by far the largest mistreatment of fish trout in MI comes from "flyfisherman". This is a fact. The most die hard dryfly fisherman get a couple spawning steelhead in front of them and they can't wait to rip 2 fly rigs through those fish and act like they are not snagging them. the precious flies only on the PM has more snaggers per mile than any other section of water in the state barring maybe tippy where the most previlent techniques for getting bedded fish is what - flies. So lets not get on the high horse too soon. Those "fly fisherman" are the same ones that fish flies in the summer and look in horror at a eleven year old kid that kept a 20" brown to roast on a stick at least that brown bit that kids hook.......





Butch said:


> I was expecting the "save the children" post, I just didn't expect TC to be the person that posted it.
> 
> So, we can't try to keep a few portions of a few streams as good as they can be, because the occasional kid wants to roast a trout on a stick? So let 'em roast one. That's an easy fix, even if they can't find a place to catch one on the several hundred other trout stream miles in Michigan, the legislature already considered a youth exemption and probably would pass it in conjunction with the current regulatory changes.
> 
> ...


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

I've been tentative about posting on this thread but have to comment on portions the last post.



bigfisherman said:


> This is purely about taking the best sections of streams and *making them not available to the general public.* It is dividing fisherman and helping destroy the bond that we all have or should have.


Whatever else it may be, this is false. Anyone fishing can enjoy these waters with same gear they already possess that would be applicable if it were unregulated open water/s. Yes you would need a fly, something that can be constructed bankside in 30 seconds flat and less costly than a single night crawler.



bigfisherman said:


> I say if you are going to support limiting opertunities (which I don't) then you must support for every mile of proposed high quality water that you limit to flies only you limit another mile to gear only no use of a weighted line* the only method of casting is by casting the wieght of the lure or bait.* If you look at it like this fly fisherman are not in favor of it.


Take a closer look friend. I would say that [bold portion] DEFINES the nature of the Pere Marquettes _'Flies Only'_ Even typing that creates a sick to my stomach feel.. That definition has done more to divide inland sport fishermen than can ever be repaired. Drift fishing is drift fishing, regardless of _appearence_ or intent of rod & reel. 



bigfisherman said:


> If you want to talk about mistreatement of fish by far *the largest mistreatment of fish trout in MI comes from "flyfisherman". This is a fact.* The most die hard dryfly fisherman get a couple spawning steelhead in front of them and they can't wait to rip 2 fly rigs through those fish and act like they are not snagging them. the precious flies only on the PM has more snaggers per mile than any other section of water in the state barring maybe tippy where the most previlent techniques for getting bedded fish is what - flies. So lets not get on the high horse too soon. Those "fly fisherman" are the same ones that fish flies in the summer and look in horror at a eleven year old kid that kept a 20" brown to roast on a stick at least that brown bit that kids hook.......


This is fact? Thats a pretty bold statement! How do validate that, cause you say so? 

This entire last paragraph is bunk, your ********* is shining through the holes.

I guess if you include every guy on every river/s drift fishing fishing a hook [single, Treble, whatever] lightly fixed with yarn, on whatever type rod-n-reel _fly fishing_, then the above statement might have some accuracy.

I'm also not so sure that the guys dragging junk/drifting through spawners, with whatever type rig, _are_ the ones fishing flies in the summer. Actually I'm pretty sure their not. I wont state it as _'fact'_ though.


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

I scoured through this years MI Regs guide when you first placed this post. I was sure there were more and did find three additional class 6 sections.

Years ago there were others. Had I saved the old regulation guides I could accurately put a number on it. I'm not at all sure of any total, just remember a couple local type 6 sections that are gone now. The State has apparently pulled restrictions from them, reverting back into open waters.

Good fishing.. Brian




fishinDon said:


> Here's something I kind of suspected, but just confirmed by looking:
> 
> I just browsed through the stream trout rules/reg guide on the MI-DNR web site. Best I can tell by clicking through is that almost all of the gear restricted water in the entire state is concentrated between the Au Sable, Big Manistee, Little Manistee, and the Pere Marquette - and none of it would be considered anything other than prime stretches. Incidentally, all of it is flies only (either 2 fish or no kill - type 5 or 7). The only other gear restrictions I could find were on the Escabana R in the UP. That was the ONLY Type 6 (artifical lures) stream that I could find in the entire state (maybe I missed something).
> 
> If you accept the premise that artificial lure fishing has a similar (low) risk of mortality to artifical flies AND if the goal were to protect the resource and/or to grow trophy fish, shouldn't we see just as much Type 6 water as 5 or 7?


----------



## bigfisherman (Nov 9, 2007)

shotgunner said:


> I've been tentative about posting on this thread but have to comment on portions the last post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 *- *

The funny thing is we are probally not very far off on these issues.

The question is -what is the point of making someone tie a fly out of pocket lint on the side of the river? What are we trying to acheive with these restrictions? more division between anglers? It makes no sense take the best sections of the best rivers and make it so you have to fish a certian way. 


Answer this are we trying to protect something? 
Why will making changes such as reducing limits, sizes, etc not address the concerns why does it have to go to fly fishing?
Why not address the banning of flies on certain sections?
What is the science behind what we are trying to protect? 
Other Anglers no matter what technique are not the major dangers to the trout population. 
Read my earlier post and review my letter I sent. I tried to keep it civil and now I am answering you on these issues. This proves how damaging this is to fisherman. On the water we would probally share a good laugh and you could net my fish for me......

Oh ya I am a member of TU and have done lots with fly clubs in the past I am not at all against fly fisherman I am against this idea that we all must conform to a select groups ideals.


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

bigfisherman said:


> The funny thing is we are probally not very far off on these issues.


I agree.

As for the bankside fly, you nailed that quick, tuft of snelled yarn. Instant extremely effective egg fly.. You could get fancy & burn 5-7 more seconds with a two color version. Egg flies are very likely, by far, #1 choice of people on those waters.. with any fish pole. 

While picking up crawlers brings back some good memories it would be interesting to see the current stats on that 

Good fishing friend.. B


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

shotgunner said:


> I agree.
> 
> As for the bankside fly, you nailed that quick, tuft of snelled yarn. Instant extremely effective egg fly.. You could get fancy & burn 5-7 more seconds with a two color version. Egg flies are very likely, by far, #1 choice of people on those waters.. with any fish pole.
> 
> ...


Or buy a Lindy Fuzzy Grub. Anything with marabou get you fishing with what ever pole you want and in any water you want.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I've sat back somewhat on this one, but I've voiced my opinion before, so one more time won't be a problem.

In reading all the posts here, there is one common thread, or should I say word, that gets bandied about, and no one seems to use it in its proper perspective. That word is "PUBLIC".

Almost every post here, has mentioned that the ''public" this, or the "public" that, when we need to think just who the "public" is. WE are the "public" and we should have the right to use any resource we wish with in the lawful limits. 

The DNR is a state entity, and the last I knew, any state is only the making of its people, or in other words, the "public". Therefore, since we have now determined that the state is us, the "public" than it should stand to reason that we should have equal access to anything that is owned by the state, or "public". The DNR is suppossed to make rules only based on what is good for the resources, i.e. wildlife, natural resources, and not based on "social science". If you read the Administrative Procedures Act when the DNR was first created you will find that social science was not to be considered in their decisions.

But alas, we move to this generation, and now we have social science, and we have political correctness, etc, and of course lets not forget the elitists that seem to think that if they have more money, they pay more taxes, which gives them more say so to the DNR, or any other government entity; and to deny that, is only kidding yourself.

The streams in question are owned by you, and all the people of the state of Michigan, and it cannot, nor should it ever be divided up into social status classes. The little boy referred to earlier should have the same opportunity to fish the same waters as the guy who has the best of spinning equipment, and he (spin guy) should be able to fish the same waters as the guy with the best in fly equipment. Because we see our way of fishing as the only way, or the best way, it still isn't the only way. 

The last I knew, the Holy Waters of the AuSable is stocked with trout, but only those with fly equipment can fish for them. Well lets take the Betsie River for example, its stocked with steelhead, but I don't see where only lure, or bait guys can fish for them. The point is, we all buy our licenses, and we all have the same rights to the resources. These resources aren't any more mine, than they are yours. 

As I have said before, this whole flies only thing smacks of segregation plain and simple, and to deny that, is to deny that segregation ever existed in the first place, even though that was a little different story, but the anology still holds, this is segregation in its finest form, and frankly, I'm surprised that the state hasn't been sued over it.

In summation, its time to give equal, free, and unencumbered access to all the citizens, or non citizens of the state of Michigan, that have the ability to pay for the license to do so, that frankly is why we buy licenses.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

A lot of good comments here, and I have to admit I don't have time to read them all.

Some thoughts:

I don't support ANY flies-only water. There's no basis that I know of to say that incidental fish mortality is higher for flies than lures. There is plenty of research to show that allowing bait fishing will kill more fish.

Unintentional dead trout are NOT a benefit.

Kids should have lots of places where they can fish however they want and keep trout for lunch.

There are good reasons to have some limited places where trout are allowed to thrive without having to contend with unrestricted gear and possession limits. Kids can enjoy the better fishing there too, if they follow the rules.

Butch


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

toto said:


> I've sat back somewhat on this one, but I've voiced my opinion before, so one more time won't be a problem.
> 
> In reading all the posts here, there is one common thread, or should I say word, that gets bandied about, and no one seems to use it in its proper perspective. That word is "PUBLIC".
> 
> ...


 Nicely said... Acted calm, no smack talking towards anyone, glad to see the last half of page on this thread go in a civil direction. Crazy to think some of us have gotten banned over this.....


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

Trout stocking records concerning the Au Sable River, Crawford County MI, 1995 to present date [15 years]

Welcome to the official Michigan.gov web site. This site uses adaptive technology. Instructions are provided within the Accessibility Policy. 

Fish Stocking Database

Brown Trout: January 1995 - Present Date

Strain Date Number Avg. Length (in.) Operation Fin Clips, Marks, Tags 
County *Crawford* Water *Au Sable River*
*Private Pond*
Species *Brown trout* 
4/22/2005 *Number* 520 *Private Plant (under permit) *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brook Trout: January 1995 - Present date

Strain Date Number Avg. Length (in.) Operation Fin Clips, Marks, Tags 
County *Crawford* Water *Au Sable River*
Location *Private Pond*
Species *Brook trout*
04/22/2005 *Number* 40 *Private Plant (under permit) *

Rainbow Trout have been planted sparingly in 11 of the 15 years searched and average 538 annually over those 11 years. 9 years worth on the 3'rd of July, one year [05] on April 22 [Trout season] and another on May 5 04 

ALL species and plants under private permit [not State funded] With no Browns or Brook Trout placed in the river at all.



toto said:


> *The last I knew, the Holy Waters of the AuSable is stocked with trout, but only those with fly equipment can fish for them.* Well lets take the Betsie River for example, its stocked with steelhead, but I don't see where only lure, or bait guys can fish for them. The point is, we all buy our licenses, and we all have the same rights to the resources. These resources aren't any more mine, than they are yours.


Toto we've been here before  Inaccurate more ways than one.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

To think that social considerations should not be taken into account in the management of our natural resources is short sighted and harmful to the natural resources that have built what is now the number one industry in our state, Tourism.

The impact of social management considerations on fiscal tourism needs to have a seat at the table.

With that said I am not infavor of more special interest regulations being placed on our fisheries which I deem a public resource. But If the regulations result in a bigger better trophy style fisherie that will increase tourism, put more guides on the water, more heads in beds, then so be it. 

How is that for sleeping on both sides of the bed?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

My point shotgunner, wasn't so much as to if they stock the Holy Waters per se, but rather the act of stocking at all, anywhere. Since I am no longer a resident of Michigan, it may be out of place for me to insert my opinion, however, if the any state is using tax dollars, and license fees to increase any wildlife and its habitat, then the people i.e. "public" has the right to utilize those resources. As long as they are using legal fishing methods, again i.e. hooks and line etc, and not dynamite or something, then the public has the right to use that particular resource.

I'm not trying to take a liberal stand on this, but you can not tell people who pay for this resource they can't use it, that makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

toto said:


> My point shotgunner, wasn't so much as to if they stock the Holy Waters per se, but rather the act of stocking at all, anywhere. Since I am no longer a resident of Michigan, it may be out of place for me to insert my opinion, however, if the any state is using tax dollars, and license fees to increase any wildlife and its habitat, then the people i.e. "public" has the right to utilize those resources. As long as they are using legal fishing methods, again i.e. hooks and line etc, and not dynamite or something, then the public has the right to use that particular resource.
> 
> I'm not trying to take a liberal stand on this, but you can not tell people who pay for this resource they can't use it, that makes absolutely no sense.


No one is denied the right to fish those grounds. They can use any pole they want. They are just told they can't use things without feathers on it. There are many lures that are just fine. Now they are told they can't fish in the kid's only sections of rivers that have been long established in Michigan.

The second thing I would like to bring up is the $ comment. Doesn't all licenses including hunting all go into the budget of the DNR. Does additional dollars from getting an all species license versus a regular license only go to inland trout rivers. I doubt it.


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

Actually, publicly owned works can and do regulate who or how public land can be used. Take roads. The tax payer owns roads, but there are restrictions on axle weight/type where some road ARE regulated and certain trucks cannot drive on them (even if they pay taxes). 

Take city parks as another example. The taxpayer owns the park (taxes) but most parks have "gear restrictions" where dogs are not allowed in city parks. 

Granted, these arguments are a little different, but not really. Axle restrictions are designed to protect the roads. Parks are restricted so that dogs don't dump in the grass, etc. This is just another "gear restriction" that has been around for decades. 

In short, the state can and does restrict the use of public works all the time. A river is not a lot different than a road. The taxpayer "owns" it, the state regulates it. 

Not saying it is right, just saying it happens outside of fishing all the time.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Limiting who fishes and with what won't increase the size of the fish or the experience. (aside from looking at those blue bait containers)

Unless regulations include additional size restrictions (slots) and reduce the daily take, it won't make a bit of difference


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Queequeg said:


> Actually, publicly owned works can and do regulate who or how public land can be used. Take roads. The tax payer owns roads, but there are restrictions on axle weight/type where some road ARE regulated and certain trucks cannot drive on them (even if they pay taxes).
> 
> Take city parks as another example. The taxpayer owns the park (taxes) but most parks have "gear restrictions" where dogs are not allowed in city parks.
> 
> ...


Or an even better example would be lakes that don't allow motors or limit the horse power....how dare they!


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

Nice debate..

I have one question that I would like someone to answer.

I fish with spinners, spawn, etc. But in the last few years I have leaned to primarily fly fishing. To me (my personal opinion) it is more relaxing and challenging. 

I belong to and associate with many fly fishing organizations that are well represented throughout the fishing communities. I also attend many of their mettings and fund raising get togethers.

It has been said by many in their posts that these "Fly fishing special interest groups" are pushing or influencing the DNR to create special regs. 

Can anyone show me where you are getting this information? 

With my association with the fly fishing manufactures, retailers, organizations and community, I have never been approached, never been witness to, or have read where we are to unite and push for these regs.

Just a question.....


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

Well,
Since no one has been able to confirm the assumption that there are fly fishing organizations (special interest groups) in the background pushing the DNR to change the rules in their favor, I also contacted the DNR on this issue.

I thanked the DNR biologists and management for their fine work associated with the fishery.

I also thanked them for their decision making process regarding all tackle, bait, no kill, allowing full creel limits, artificial only waters, flys only waters, hook size limits and other restrictions that will help to improve our fishery. 

I prefer to have them make decisions by using their biologists' expert opinions and sound scientific data.

I believe this will be a much better process, rather than having them make changes to the regulations, put in place to protect and enhance the fishery, by opinions or petitions from special interest groups, whether it be worm dunkers or fly guys.

The DNR experts are best suited for making these decisions.

I really do not care what regulation is put in place for lakes or streams, as long as it improves my fishing experience and that of my grandchildren. 

If it means all tackle, bait, flys only, artificials only, creel limits, no kill, slot size, closed sections, hook size, no barbs, single hook, then so be it. 

There will still be many fishing opportunities available to all of us now and in the future. 

We need to step out of our "special interest box" and look at the fishery as a whole.

If you fish only one way and it is not allowed on your section of the river, expand your possibilities and try the other method. Whether it be bait fishing, artificial lures, fly fishing etc.

I have heard it said that fly fishing is a rich man's sport. Come on.....
Look in the catalogs and stores. You can spend a lot of money or very little on equipment for fly fishing or spinning/bait casting. 
It is simply based on the quality of the merchandise you want to purchase. You will get what you pay for.

By broadening ones abilities, you might find that there are more pleasurable opportunities available out there.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

One would assume that since the Michigan Trout Unlimited has a seat at the table with the MDNR, they would have quite a bit of say on this. Just one point to show there are fly fishing people involved in this. I'm not saying TU isn't a good organization, but they most certainly do have an agenda. You can look that up on their website.


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

I've sat in on a few NRC meetings in the past. There are voices from all angles at the table.. It's part of the process. Each gets a brief turn to speak.


----------



## bigfisherman (Nov 9, 2007)

QUOTE=shotgunner;3058300]I've sat in on a few NRC meetings in the past. There are voices from all angles at the table.. It's part of the process. Each gets a brief turn to speak.[/QUOTE]

This is true. And often these meetings have a wider range of opinions than you even see here. 

I belong to TU and have no problem with them representing their opinion as a whole. TU puts more money into trout restoration and presevation than most other orginizations and deserves a seat at the table. Not all people in TU are fly fisherman believe it or not especially the further north you get although the majority are fly fisherman at least some of the time. 





Queequeg said:


> Actually, publicly owned works can and do regulate who or how public land can be used. Take roads. The tax payer owns roads, but there are restrictions on axle weight/type where some road ARE regulated and certain trucks cannot drive on them (even if they pay taxes).
> 
> 
> Granted, these arguments are a little different, but not really. Axle restrictions are designed to protect the roads. Parks are restricted so that dogs don't dump in the grass, etc. This is just another "gear restriction" that has been around for decades.


That being said science should at least lead the regulations. Not pure personal preference. If you want to preserve certian fisheries then do it through slot limits, no kill, and trophy waters. 

To make a comparision to weight limits of commericial vehicles to flies only is not only laughable but not based in reality. As a county highway Engineer I do know a bit about this subject. There have been extensive (extremely expensive) scientific studies through FHWA, AASHTO, as well as every DOT on establishment of weight limits and damage to roadways to based on axle wieght, and a million other factors. The studies lead to load limits on roads and bridges to preserve the life of the structure. The Best roads and bridges can carry the heaviest trucks (ie the best streams can support more harvest, or incidental killing from handling, hooking mortality, etc) the roads/bridges that have less structural strength are limited to lower load limits (ie marginal streams have more restrictive requirements to give those populations a better chance). So you actually proved the misguided way that these gear restrictions are established by doing the opposite. The best most productive sections of the best streams you want to limit to the (in your opinion) lowest empact users and the more marginal streams to support the (in your opinon) higher impact users. If you are truly on the trouts side then you would propose the opposite. 

This type of thinking is akin to making all the heavy trucks travel all the back roads and leave the freeways and main roads for brand new vechilces that have single passenger commuters that live at least 30 miles from home or some other arbitrary method of determining prefence. That way those preferred drivers can have a pleasant commute and not have to look at crappy old cars filled with families or big ugly trucks that block their veiw. This is no different no one is actually prohibited from driving on the freeways all they need to do is buy a brand new car and leave the kids at home....... Ridiculous isn't it.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Bigfisherman, I agree with you that the road comparison that was made by Queequeg was a poor one. But the no motor regs or Horsepower limitations on lakes is a good one. It is a social decision for the most part. It allows lakes to be used in a certain manner to preserve some places differently than others. Call it diversity use amongst our resource if you will. I don't hear to many people complaining about that. 



> That being said science should at least lead the regulations


Many have now stated this. For what it's worth here you all go taken from Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Research Report No.1895, 1981 :



> Also, the effects of gear restrictions, such as fly-fishing-only or artificial-lures-only, were examined under a hypothetical scenario in which it was assumed that they would reduce fishing pressure, as well as hooking mortality. Two statistics were used as the major indices of fishery performance under the various regulations--the number of trophy-size trout (over 406 mm long) caught annually and the total annual harvest (or kill) in numbers of legal-size trout. Results showed that the catch of trophy-size fish was inversely related to the total harvest in numbers. The greatest number of trophy fish was caught under a catch-and-release fishery in which no harvest was permitted. The greatest total harvest in numbers of fish was obtained, but the lowest number of trophy fish was caught in an unrestricted fishery. Hooking mortality did not have a serious impact on total catch of trout until the portion of fish dying after catch and release (h) exceeded 40% and the fishing rate (m) exceeded 0.30. In contrast, the catch of trophy fish was reduced considerably by relatively small increases in hooking mortality. *With respect to gear restrictions, it was found that use of fly-fishing only regulations maximized the number of trophy fish in the population*


----------



## KWB (Mar 1, 2009)

*This was an email sent out by Michigan Trout Unlimited:*

For nearly the last year, Michigan Trout Unlimited and other coldwater fisheries stakeholder groups have been working in cooperation with the MDNR Fisheries Division to improve the current regulations for inland trout and salmon streams. As part of this process, the MDNR is now soliciting public input on sections of streams that would be good candidates for addition into gear-restrictions.

By definition, gear-restricted waters are where only artificial lures and flies are allowed to be used. State law limits the maximum number of river miles that may fall into this designation to approximately 212 miles. Presently only 97 miles of river have been designated with gear restrictions. It is the intent of the MDNR Fisheries Division to undertake a comprehensive review of possible candidates for addition to this category.

Starting on January 7, 2010 an internet email address, [email protected], has been established for the public to provide these nominations directly to Fisheries Division staff. They will be accepting input until February 5, 2010. They are requesting that nominations be as specific as possible and include information such as; the specific section of stream being suggested (use road/bridge or landmark boundaries to identify the section being nominated), brief description of the rationale for why you believe the nomination is justified, and what you think the gear-restricted regulation should entail. Fisheries Order 213 is useful in providing general criteria to be considered for gear-restricted waters, and can be found at http://www.michigantu.org/index.php/...rce-management.

Please take the opportunity to have your thoughts and opinions heard on this topic. Michigan TU will continue to be involved in the review process for those stream sections that become nominated. Thanks for taking the time to participate!





Sincerely,



Dr. Bryan Burroughs
Executive Director


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

DryFly said:


> Nice debate..
> 
> I have one question that I would like someone to answer.
> 
> ...


\


Dave, here's your answer. I asked the question on the DNR's Facebook page which everyone can see. Here's the groups that are on the Coldwater Regulations Steering Committee.

Michigan Resource Stewards
Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman's Association
Michigan River Guides Association
Trout Unlimited
Pere Marquette Watershed Council 
Anglers of the AuSable
Federation of Fly Fishers
AuSable Big Water Preservation Society


----------



## bigfisherman (Nov 9, 2007)

WILDCATWICK said:


> Bigfisherman, I agree with you that the road comparison that was made by Queequeg was a poor one. But the no motor regs or Horsepower limitations on lakes is a good one. It is a social decision for the most part. It allows lakes to be used in a certain manner to preserve some places differently than others. Call it diversity use amongst our resource if you will. I don't hear to many people complaining about that. :


I think it depends on the lake or pond you are refferring to. In many instances those are township ordinance, for reasons that the residents feel the lake or pond is too small for large motorized vessiles and may endanger the rest of the people trying to use the lake such as running over kyakers or canoeres. In instances of state or federal land it is most often made based on scientic findings such as on small lakes or ponds large motor boats water skiing disturb wildlife such as loons and cause them to vacate nesting areas, etc. Not often just an abitrary rulings on the best lakes for water skiing or boating. To throw red herrring out there that have nothing to do with the discussion doesn't really prove anything. 

Quote:
Also, the effects of gear restrictions, such as fly-fishing-only or artificial-lures-only, were examined *under a hypothetical scenario* in which it was *assumed* that they *would reduce fishing pressure*, as well as hooking mortality. *Two statistics* were used as the major indices of fishery performance under the various regulations--the number of trophy-size trout (over 406 mm long) caught annually and the total annual harvest (or kill) in numbers of legal-size trout. Results showed that the *catch of trophy-size fish was inversely related to the total harvest in numbers.* *This isn't earth shattering news.* The *greatest number of trophy fish was caught under a catch-and-release fishery* *Oh you mean restricting harvest would increase the # of large trout wow instead lets restrict gear* in which no harvest was permitted. The greatest total harvest in numbers of fish was obtained, but the lowest number of trophy fish was caught in an unrestricted fishery. *Hooking mortality did not have a serious impact* on total catch of trout until the portion of fish dying after catch and release (h) exceeded 40% and the fishing rate (m) exceeded 0.30. *Where are the studies that show these proposed locations fit this requirement guess what they don't exist you know why because it is not the case......*In contrast, the catch of trophy fish was reduced considerably by relatively small increases in hooking mortality. *With respect to gear restrictions, it was found that use of fly-fishing only regulations maximized the number of trophy fish in the population* -

so based on a hypthetical situation-
Right off they bat you assume that less people will utilize the resource. In my mind that is a problem, you take the best resource away from people.
it is also shown that baitfisherman keep more fish and by eliminating the majority of people that keep fish you can atoumaticly increase your trophy potential. 
If people want true trophy waters take the medocre water make it catch and release and you will have your higest denisty of big fish. the transition trout waters aften produce the largest browns. The locations with the highest population of trophies are locations that most fisherman wouldn't fish because they cann't catch the large numbers of little fish. these locations are actually more fertal for larger fish because there is more shiners etc. Of course I am not going to name these rivers or sections but they are certainly off the radar of your average angler and receive pressure from bait and lure fisherman and almost no fly fisherman. So it certianly isn't about true trophies that these restrictions are after. It is so a select few can catch a slightly higher average size fish.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Bigfisherman, I will disagree with you in regards to designations of lakes. There have been many that are of considerable size that have restrictions on motors. These are not small lakes or ponds. There certainly are other lakes much smaller without the restrictions. These were set aside to give different uses of our resources, much the same as gear restrictions. Its not a red herring. Matter of fact they both probably do reduce the number of users to help utilize that stretch of river or lake different than other waters nearby giving different options to users. 
Here is a study of interest in regards to that:

"James A. Caron Jr.1 and William L. Robinson1
(1) Department of Biology, Northern Michigan University, 49855 Marquette, MI, USA
Abstract: Breeding populations of the common loon (Gavia immer) in Michigan have declined in the past several decades, resulting in classification of this species as threatened under state law. Factors responsible for the decline are unknown, but may include toxic contaminants, mortality in commercial fish nets, and human disturbance of breeding sites. To assess the latter possibility, 960 hours of observation were devoted to observing human-loon interactions on two sets of lakes, one with restricted human use (minimal or no shoreline development and open to canoe use only), and another with unrestricted use (varying amounts of shoreline development and motorboat traffic). Six mated pairs of loons on six restricted use (r-u) lakes were compared to eight loon pairs on seven open-use (o-u) lakes. The number of nests that hatched young per nest started was not significantly different between the two sets of lakes (7 of 13 (0.62) on r-u lakes vs 8 of 17 (0.47) on o-u lakes), despite significantly more human activity on o-u lakes. Chicks hatched per pair of loons were likewise not significantly different (1.1 vs 1.2 on r-u and o-u lakes, respectively). Fledging success was significantly lower on r-u lakes (7 chicks fledged of 11 hatched) than on o-u lakes (13 fledged of 13 hatched). Human activity on o-u lakes was 23 times that on r-u lakes during chick rearing, but time spent by adult loons tending and feeding chicks was not significantly different between the two types of lakes."

I guess if the science was there they would make every lake/pond of a certain size and below restricted on motors, seeing how they are listed as a threatened species.

There are multiple studies by the DNR that shows that having catch and release areas and having flys only sections does offer a scientifically different fishery. Mainly in that it offers a larger trophy base in a particular section of water than if there were no restrictions. 

I would suggest to anyone that wants to know more on some of the science done in Michigan on gear restrictions and on catch and release spend some time on the DNR website and some of the Universities web sites.

I have no problem with our DNR managing our resources so anyone can enjoy different types of experiences in Michigan.


----------



## Butch (Aug 29, 2001)

I think it's great that we can discuss these things without getting too off track and personal. After some thought, I also think that if each of us devoted the amount of effort we expended here into supporting the watershed group for our favorite river, it might improve trout fishing quite a bit, perhaps more than any "special regs".

I don't always agree with my favorite group or its chairman, but we still do our best for the stream.

If you need contact info for watershed groups in NW Michigan, I'll do my best to (at least) point you in the right direction.

Butch


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Butch said:


> I think it's great that we can discuss these things without getting too off track and personal. After some thought, I also think that if each of us devoted the amount of effort we expended here into supporting the watershed group for our favorite river, it might improve trout fishing quite a bit, perhaps more than any "special regs".
> 
> I don't always agree with my favorite group or its chairman, but we still do our best for the stream.
> 
> ...


 
You know young man every now and then you come up with the most rational, sound, effective ideas and that one is an example.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Butch said:


> I think it's great that we can discuss these things without getting too off track and personal. After some thought, I also think that if each of us devoted the amount of effort we expended here into supporting the watershed group for our favorite river, it might improve trout fishing quite a bit, perhaps more than any "special regs".
> 
> I don't always agree with my favorite group or its chairman, but we still do our best for the stream.
> 
> ...


No doubt about that Butch. My passion not only flows on to the computer screen but also flows into the river. I myself am a member of several groups up north and help when I can.

There is no doubt we all love our waters.


----------



## bigfisherman (Nov 9, 2007)

Amen to that. I actually do what I can for the resource trying to improve road crossings and improve grading practice to reduce erosion. My time investment is huge which is unfortunity more than I get to enjoy it and why if I choose to go enjoy it I would like to do it on my terms. Allot of people put allot of time and money into these sections of river or upstream of these sections, and that is what makes those sections as good as they are. The truth be known those that will benifit the most contribute the least on a per use basis by orders of magnitude.


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

This steering committee is made up with a well rounded group of organizations that represents the fishing public. I know most of them quite well. They are also well versed on watershed restoration and preservation. 

I have been on similar steering committies in the past and I'm confident that they will be good at making recommendations that are based on good scientific data and science. 

I'm still not aware of any so called "special interest" groups pushing the DNR into making decisions that will exclude fisher people with other interests. 


Thanks




QUOTE=Whit1;3058581]\


Dave, here's your answer. I asked the question on the DNR's Facebook page which everyone can see. Here's the groups that are on the Coldwater Regulations Steering Committee.

Michigan Resource Stewards
Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman's Association
Michigan River Guides Association
Trout Unlimited
Pere Marquette Watershed Council 
Anglers of the AuSable
Federation of Fly Fishers
AuSable Big Water Preservation Society[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

DryFly said:


> They are also well versed on watershed restoration and preservation.
> 
> I have been on similar steering committies in the past and I'm confident that they will be good at making recommendations that are based on good scientific data and science.


From MDNR 


> Anglers who wish to comment on appropriate regulations or to nominate additional waters for the Gear Restricted Category can forward their comments online through February 12, 2010


I find it interesting that they are asking for one to nominate waters when these special regulations are based on good scientific data. I am sorry, but I am calling BS. Your response sounded good though. :lol:


----------



## bigfisherman (Nov 9, 2007)

DryFly said:


> This steering committee is made up with a well rounded group of organizations that represents the fishing public. I know most of them quite well. They are also well versed on watershed restoration and preservation.
> 
> I have been on similar steering committies in the past and I'm confident that they will be good at making recommendations that are based on good scientific data and science.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

The funny thing is the family tree of these organizations doesn't have very many branches sorry I don't buy it at all. The majority there have the same *opinions* and many of those opinions come from hiring the same guides to row them around the river. I would venture to guess that most of those orginzations memebers are members of those other orginizations and majority have their best interests in mind without question. Wether it is land owners that want less people using there section of river or guides the majority of those orginzations opinions are going to lead to one answer and just because bait dunkers that fish once a year don't have well funded clubs they get left out of the conversation. The views of the public are certianly not represented acurately by those groups I can tell you that. 
If I had a dry erase board it would look like John Madden drew all over it with the way these *Special Interests* groups are interlinked. It might as well be represented by one individual.


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

bigfisherman, are you or have you ever been, a licensed guide? Thanks in advance.


----------



## bigfisherman (Nov 9, 2007)

shotgunner said:


> bigfisherman, are you or have you ever been, a licensed guide? Thanks in advance.


 I am not currently but have been why
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Ranger Ray said:


> From MDNR
> 
> I find it interesting that they are asking for one to nominate waters when these special regulations are based on good scientific data. I am sorry, but I am calling BS. Your response sounded good though. :lol:


So basically it's up for grabs, eh?



> Michigan Resource Stewards
> Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman's Association
> Michigan River Guides Association
> Trout Unlimited
> ...


Wide open to lobbying efforts of the above mentioned groups. I remember how Bowman (TU) stood behind the guides during the Muskegon River debacle.

What's MUCC's stance this time around? I remember when I questioned them in 02 and they told me it doesn't fit their criteria. WHAT? :rant:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Here's an interesting thread found here in MS in 2002. It was posted at the time when an additional 100 miles was added, by legislative act, for special regs, including gear restrictions, to streams. We are now seeing, or will be seeing, the effects of the legislative bill being discussed in the thread.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/fo...highlight=5556


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

Ranger Ray said:


> From MDNR
> 
> I find it interesting that they are asking for one to nominate waters when these special regulations are based on good scientific data. I am sorry, but I am calling BS. Your response sounded good though. :lol:


 I agree totally..... Kinda of hard to keep the social topic out of the conversation when the dnr is asking us for recommendations. Too funny.... Its cool to see this thread go in the right derection. The same thread in the NE section hasnt gone so smoothly.... I'd also like to thank everybody for such an infomative thread. I've just stayed out because of the lack of time i've had to do any research. I've learned more reading this thread than i probably could have myself anyway :lol:. Very good read. Keep it up


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Shoeman said:


> What's MUCC's stance this time around? I remember when I questioned them in 02 and they told me it doesn't fit their criteria. WHAT? :rant:


 
I emailed Amy Spey of MUCC who has always been a reliable source of information concerning the organization's policies and here is her response.



_Hi Milton,

Basically, we have tried to remain neutral to the proposal as an organization and have not given input on any specific streams. I reviewed MUCC's past policy resolutions, which gave us little guidence as to whether we would support or oppose additional gear restrictions. It seems these have been done within our organization on a case by case basis. I'm not sure of MUCC's history when the legislation passed to cap the gear restricted miles, but I didn't see any resolutions on the matter. 

We have responded by basically informing our clubs and members about the opportunity to give input on this to the DNR, and it sounds like some members have done so. 

Thanks
Amy_


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

I wonder if all the feedback that Shoeman and others sent back in 2002 is what stopped them from immediately implementing the additional 112 miles of gear restrictions?

Very interesting to look back 8 years and see what the climate was like...
fishinDon


----------



## J-Lee (Jul 11, 2000)

It looks like the Anglers of The AuSable have put their recommended changes on the website.


----------



## J-Lee (Jul 11, 2000)

Any input on this has to be in on Feb 12, just a heads up.


----------

