# *Social* vs *Conservation* regs



## kzoofisher

I think we can all admit that social norms are a part of fishing regulations. You can't use a spear for many species, the number of lines is limited, "game" fish a treated very differently than "rough" fish, etc. Some of the social rules also have conservation or safety reasons behind them, for example dynamite is both indiscriminate and dangerous, but others like spearing aren't. Given that social considerations are already taken into account my question is this: What level of social benefit or pressure is your cut off point for allowing social considerations over conservation?

I'll use the Pere Marquette as my example since it seems to be a focal point of discussion here.

If the residents of Lake County had a referendum and a majority wanted GR water extended or reduced I would give their opinion a ton of weight.

If it could be shown that the tourist numbers and dollars spent would be tripled by restricting the M-37 to Gleason's stretch to 1 ounce jigs with #28 hooks only, I would support it. 

Other economic benefits might result from the creation of regulations that encourage more big fish, this has worked with musky, pike and walleye, and I would probably support that in specific areas but not as a blanket regulation.

My point here is that I think there can be a time and a place for specialized regs and we should all think about what our own tolerances for them are.


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> I think we can all admit that social norms are a part of fishing regulations. You can't use a spear for many species, the number of lines is limited, "game" fish a treated very differently than "rough" fish, etc. Some of the social rules also have conservation or safety reasons behind them, for example dynamite is both indiscriminate and dangerous, but others like spearing aren't. Given that social considerations are already taken into account my question is this: What level of social benefit or pressure is your cut off point for allowing social considerations over conservation?
> 
> I'll use the Pere Marquette as my example since it seems to be a focal point of discussion here.
> 
> If the residents of Lake County had a referendum and a majority wanted GR water extended or reduced I would give their opinion a ton of weight.
> 
> If it could be shown that the tourist numbers and dollars spent would be tripled by restricting the M-37 to Gleason's stretch to 1 ounce jigs with #28 hooks only, I would support it.
> 
> Other economic benefits might result from the creation of regulations that encourage more big fish, this has worked with musky, pike and walleye, and I would probably support that in specific areas but not as a blanket regulation.
> 
> My point here is that I think there can be a time and a place for specialized regs and we should all think about what our own tolerances for them are.


KzooFisher - welcome to the fray, very well thought out first post, kudos!

I'll bite on your thoughts above, some I can agree with, others not as much. Here are my thoughts:

Fishing regulations are for both man and fish, and as such I think the only place for social regulations is when they are rooted in biological science. Let me explain. 

If you polled everyone in Lake county, and the majority were in favor of dynamite and gill nets, I would not support that, even if the majority wants it because those methods are too "effective" and indiscriminate and would harm the trout population. Likewise, if the majority (say 60%)were for dry fly only on every other Saturday regulations, but it was shown that dry fly only on every other Saturday regulations did nothing or even a small amount for the trout population biologically, I would also not support it, because it comes at too great of an expense to the other 40% of anglers that did not support it, with very little or no scientific benefit to the trout population.

New fish and game laws pick winners and losers, and the economic argument is a prime example of that. On the one hand, we may attract more revenue in Baldwin. You'll also run the bait shop out of business, and cause the well positioned fly shops to boom. You'll also likely cause local sales of fishing licenses to drop, and only replace a fraction of them with out of staters. Is this really the business that our DNR should be in? I'd rather have them doing good research and managing our fish and game populations in accordance with that research than pick economic winners and losers with our fish and game laws. 

I've heard many people say, "these rules don't do anything to harm the fish." Of course they don't, but they do harm the fisherman, so lets remember that it's a two way street.

Don


----------



## DANN09

I've heard many people say, "these rules don't do anything to harm the fish." Of course they don't, but they do harm the fisherman, so lets remember that it's a two way street.

Thanks Don

These rules also discriminate against a group of people and in these times you can not or should not be able to do that. I buy a fishing lic. not a fly fishing lic. or a bait fishing lic. 
I expect the DNR to opperate for betterment of the fish not the fisherman.


----------



## doogie mac

This is really a good topic,very much related to others on this site. Im pondering still...


----------



## toto

I have pondered this for a few days now, thinking of how, or if I should attempt an answer.

Here it goes. When it comes to fishing, hunting, trapping, or any other wildlife issues, it should only be predicated on biological science, period. The social science issues are far too easy to accommidate a certain class of society, and when you think of it, social science is nothing more than a phrase to say "discrimination" or seperating those that have, from those that don't. 

Stop and think about it, is the new gear reg thing something for the poor, or is it for the class of society that is considered more upscale, or at least middle class, and up? Do these regs help those that are less fortunate, or does it make us less fortunate as we don't have access to these waters now, unless of course we follow these new regs?

It would seem to me that these are our waters, public waters. To define public, we need to understand just who is considered the public, and thats you, me, and whoever else read this drivle. WE are the public, and WE do have rights to our waters. I could go on those rights, but I'll just leave it at that for now.

What I'm trying to say is, social science has no place in anything to do with public rights, and that even goes beyond our outdoor pursuits. We are all created equal, and equals is how we should be treated. To me, this is no different than the 60's when there was such a divide between the races, and this is no difference. 

As for using spears for pike spearing, or whatever, that has been an accepted practice forever, and its a way of life for some, I see no issue with that, in fact, that is one of those things the DNR should regulate, and I have no problem with those regs. Its when we make regs that "lock out" certain segments of society that I have a problem with.

Hope this all makes sense. BTW, George are you home yet?


----------



## Splitshot

Well said Bill but I think it is time to explain further.



kzoofisher said:


> Given that social considerations are already taken into account my question is this: What level of social benefit or pressure is your cut off point for allowing social considerations over conservation?
> 
> I'll use the Pere Marquette as my example since it seems to be a focal point of discussion here.
> 
> If the residents of Lake County had a referendum and a majority wanted GR water extended or reduced I would give their opinion a ton of weight.


Kzoo,

To answer your question, None! But you are correct in that social and ethical considerations are interwoven into our fishing and hunting rule book and that is not likely to change. Take hunting deer with dogs for example. In Michigan it is against the law because most Michigan hunters dont think it is fair chase and our DNR agrees. In some southern states using dogs is the norm and they would have a difficult time managing their deer herd without dogs because of the thickness of vegetation in their deer country.
Of course some hunters in those states dont think using dogs is fair either but in those situations it is up to their wildlife officials and the sporting community to determine what is fair to them in their management.
We had a terrible time defeating the snagging rules and as a result we have generations of people who only know how to catch salmon and steelhead by snagging and it seems impossible to stop completely. Snagging was a social rule and it was finally defeated for moral and ethical reasons.

As far as social rules go it is difficult for many to compare some social rules with discriminatory social rules or confuse legal social rules with illegal social rules like your dynamite comparison so lets just stick to the legal and economic rules.

First I think I should explain something most fishermen and women do not understand. All flowing waters in this country are owned by the public free forever as outlined in the Public Trust Doctrine. In Michigan these waters are held in trust by the state of Michigan and while the state can make rules to protect the resource they are not allowed to make rules that restrict recreation.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that the public rights to flowing water are supreme. Riparian rights and water laws are complex but clearly once you start to understand what has already been settled your attitude might change. In Michigan for example only three rivers are deemed not navigable and they only got that distinction through years of fighting in the courts. I still think the public can fish these waters, but I havent spent much time on the non navigable rivers because I am more concerned about educating the public about their access rights to all the other waters in our state.

So what does that mean? One of the most important aspects of the Public Trust Doctrine upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States that until the status of a stream or river has been adjudicated not navigable it is deemed navigable. That is very important to understand because otherwise someone could make a subjective determination like: that stream couldnt float a log so it must be a non navigable water way. Sorry that is wrong. 

I know that some COs are writing tickets for recreational trespass because they dont understand the law, but that is going to change if we can help it. You can find a lot more about the Public Trust on our web-site which is listed under my signature at the bottom of this post.

I must tell you that when I first started reading about the Public Trust, I didnt believe it so if you dont, I wont be surprised. After months of research thanks much to my friend Toto (Bill L.) I am convinced that what I am writing here is true and accurate. Last month I called the DNR and asked what my right are on streams and rivers and I got an e-mail from Shirley Smith, with a PDF titled: Subject: FW: A PDF of "A Guide to Public Rights on Michigan Waters"

Mr. Ray Danders:
You had contacted the Michigan Fisheries Division last month about Michigan Waters. I recently came across some information I thought you might find interesting or useful. Attached is a PDF of "A Guide to Public Rights on Michigan Waters". Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Shirley Smith-Management Assistant to Kelley Smith-Fisheries Division-Department of Natural Resources-Office: 517-373-3375- Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

When I read it I found that it to be exactly what I have been reading and also what Dan Summerfield published in his book; Forever Free: Your Right To Fish Michigan's Inland Lakes and Streams which cuts through a lot of the legal ease. You can purchase it for only $2.99 on Amazon. You do need a Kindle or something like it to download it on, but it might be the best 3 bucks you ever spend.

For years people like me that own land adjacent to water have been misinformed about our riparian rights. I always thought I could keep the public off my property and I can, but the land up to the ordinary high water mark where I live I never owned. It has always been owned by the state held in trust for the public. The recent ruling by the courts that allows us to walk the beaches of the Great Lakes is based on the Public Trust Doctrine and why you ask? Because it is owned by the state held in trust for the public.

S.F. Edwards 1989
Under the public trust doctrine, the state, as "trustee" of the public's rights, has an affirmative duty to manage trust resources consistent with such public purposes and to avoid the impairment of such public uses. In addition, the state must protect public values in trust resources, including use as well as non-use values. Thus as Huffman (1986) has summarized, "[t]he doctrine's central idea is that the state is limited in its
disposition and management of particular resources; that the state holds those resources in trust for the public and must dispose of or manage those resources consistent with that trust."

As one scholar puts it, Joseph Saxs article, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention,

Three conceptual principles justify the Public Trust Doctrine. First, certain interests are so intrinsically important to every citizen that their free vailability tends to mark the society as one of citizens rather than of serfs. Thus no small subset of individuals should ever be allowed to
control these interests. Second, certain interests are so particularly the gifts of natures bounty that they ought to be reserved for the whole of the populace. Finally, certain uses have a peculiarly public nature that makes their adaptation to private use inappropriate.

So while we use social input in our rules, gear restrictions are much different because they restrict the rights of fishermen to use whatever legal method of fishing they prefer. It allows one group to enjoy a quality fishing experience at the expense of another group. No kill, flies only, artificial lures only according to the biologist have no noticeable impact on the fishery which means there is no justification that they protect the resource. The DNR has publically stated that they are social rules and are not based on biology.

The effect of these rules on all river, especially the PM force people who want ot keep fish or those who chose to use bait to fish someplace else. Many of the fishermen who used to fish the flies only waters and keep salmon for example now fish at Sulak and Sulak has been very crowded as a result. So while one group is experiencing a quality fishing experience the majority of fishermen are crowded into smaller and smaller areas. Many people have stopped fishing the PM as a result of these rules.

The most offensive reason for gear restrictions are because of possible economic benefits to some local businesses. The mandate of the DNR is to manage our fish and wildlife for the greatest benefit for general public since it is our license fees and taxes that support that management. Living in Lake County should not give a persons vote any more weight than someone who lives in downtown Detroit. If you start managing the PM for a few businesses in Baldwin, should we then manage the Little Manistee based on business interests in Irons or the Au Sable for business interests in Gaylord and Grayling.

I have the same rights to fish the Kalamazoo river or the St. Joe river as you have on the Little Manistee and I live and own land on the Little Manistee. Many people who own land adjacent to rivers everywhere often believe they have special rights and privileges, but they dont. If some groups spend time improving the habitat and restoring stream banks a few times does not justify giving them special rules for life. I understand the politics and the pressures, the DNR received, but there is no justification in purpose or law.

Things will not change overnight, but our goal is to support the publics rights to our lakes, rivers and publically owned lands through education and other actions. This isnt the first time the public has been pushed down river because of special rules. In 1905 some wealthy land owners on the Au Sable lobbied politicians to make rules they said protected the fishery. This was before we had a conservation department. These wealthy landowners instituted the first flies only section in the United States on 10 miles of the North Branch of the Au Sable. In Circa 1921 Michigan established a professional fish and wildlife staff and under the Public Trust Doctrine in 1928 the DNR repealed the flies only rule because there was no scientific data to support the contention that the rule did anything to protect the fishery.

It was imposed as a tactic to keep the local fishermen off the river and support a private fishery for the wealthy land owners, lodge owners and their wealthy clients and it worked. I wouldnt be surprised if some of the people involved today are descendants of the group that pushed for a legislative solution some 30 years later the fact is the law in the end will not stand scrutiny, and will be vacated sometime in the future because according to the Public Trust Doctrine, the state legislature did not have the authority to make this law in the first place.

It is not unusual for politicians to pass laws that are in conflict with our Constitution or trample on our rights a citizens, and sometimes they are not challenged for many years so no surprise. In the end, you may be willing to give up your rights by supporting gear restrictions, but many of us dont feel that way. We think one inch of our public waters is to much because like we have seen, the principle of give an inch, take a mile has prevailed and those favoring gear restrictions have publically stated that this is not the end, but just the beginning.

Our hope is that people like you who might not think it is a big deal will change their minds an see what is really happening and join us in protecting what are our rights and the rights of those in the future.

By the way we do have tolerance for special regulations that improve the fishing in our lakes and rivers, and are fair to everyone, but not ones that discriminate against other citizens. I know some dont consider these rules discriminatory because everyone can fish as long as they use flies so I will repeat the definition again.

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards members of another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.


----------



## broncbuster2

Thanks Ray:
I just sent a copy of this to Mary...

Jerry


----------



## Ranger Ray

Well stated Ray.


----------



## Ranger Ray

From the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956



Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 said:


> Section 7(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 742f; 70 Stat. 1122)* requires* the Secretary of the Interior to: *1) develop measures for "maximum sustainable production of fish";* 2) make economic studies of the industry and recommend measures to insure stability of the domestic fisheries; 3) *undertake promotional and information activities to stimulate consumption of fishery products;* 4) take steps "required for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of the fisheries resources," and take steps "required for the development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources" through research, acquisition of land and water or interests therein, development of existing facilities, and other means. (Note: subsection 5 was amended and combined into subsection 4 by P.L. 95-616, November 8, 1978.)


----------



## Whit1

toto said:


> I have pondered this for a few days now, thinking of how, or if I should attempt an answer.
> 
> Here it goes. When it comes to fishing, hunting, trapping, or any other wildlife issues, it should only be predicated on biological science, period. The social science issues are far too easy to accommidate a certain class of society, and when you think of it, social science is nothing more than a phrase to say "discrimination" or seperating those that have, from those that don't.
> 
> Stop and think about it, is the new gear reg thing something for the poor, or is it for the class of society that is considered more upscale, or at least middle class, and up? Do these regs help those that are less fortunate, or does it make us less fortunate as we don't have access to these waters now, unless of course we follow these new regs?
> 
> It would seem to me that these are our waters, public waters. To define public, we need to understand just who is considered the public, and thats you, me, and whoever else read this drivle. WE are the public, and WE do have rights to our waters. I could go on those rights, but I'll just leave it at that for now.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is, social science has no place in anything to do with public rights, and that even goes beyond our outdoor pursuits. We are all created equal, and equals is how we should be treated. To me, this is no different than the 60's when there was such a divide between the races, and this is no difference.
> 
> As for using spears for pike spearing, or whatever, that has been an accepted practice forever, and its a way of life for some, I see no issue with that, in fact, that is one of those things the DNR should regulate, and I have no problem with those regs. Its when we make regs that "lock out" certain segments of society that I have a problem with.
> 
> Hope this all makes sense. BTW, George are you home yet?


 
Good and effective points Bill and also yours Ray/SS. The average angler is, quite frankly, being screwed by those who would put restrictions on our fishing rights based on purely social concepts. The same thing is seen in hunting (crossbow inclusion which is a battle that, so far, has been won. There are those who believe in, lobby for, and defend the application on certain methods of fishing and hunting. Despite their protestations to the contrary they are doing so for purely selfish reasons.

Bill, both George and I left FL on Wed. and are back home. Yes, there is still snow on the ground and the lakes are still ice covered.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I was told by a good source, the DNR is mandated to include social factors in management. One thing for sure, I am learning a awful lot studying all this. :lol: In the federal laws, I keep seeing "maximum yield, maximum sustainable production of fish and activities to stimulate consumption of fishery products." I see nowhere that its about trophy size fish or maximum size. Its management for consumption, not sport.

Another thing I am observing in these federal mandates is "social" points more toward commercial vs sport and tribal, not gear. Is it a possibility that "social" in Michigans special regulations are being misapplied? Notice in the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, that "social factors are again mentioned in reference to the determination of optimum yield." Optimum yield, wow. Cant say I have seen any of our special regulations address this and in fact are doing just the opposite. In other words, I see nowhere in the federal laws that state, manage creel limits for bigger fish. 

Remember, the special regulations that have been put in place to this date, have been politically motivated with no regards to the federal mandates. Its been selfish motives pushed politically. Well it appears by federal regulation, this politically motivated management is against the feds own mandate. Interesting. 



Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act said:


> Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
> Social values are mentioned in the first section of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) where it provides that management plans shall "take into account the social and economic needs of the States," (l0) and further that "Many coastal areas are dependent upon fishing and related activities.'' (11) *Social factors are again mentioned in reference to the determination of "optimum yield."* (12) A further discussion of relevant social factors is found in the Code of Federal Regulations (13) guidelines for interpreting the MFCMA national standards. (14) *Examples of social factors mentioned in these guidelines include: recreational fishing*,* avoiding gear conflicts* and resulting disputes, preserving a way of life for fishermen and their families, and local community dependence on a fishery. (15)


----------



## jigworm

Great information. It's these types of discussions that make this site worth joining. Thanks......


----------



## broncbuster2

Thanks RR I sent both of those to Mary.


----------



## kzoofisher

As much a I wish it weren't, politics is a part of rules making in a state agency, but with reasonable people like those on this forum making reasonable arguments I feel confident that a happy conclusion can be reached. Ironic that the basis for the increase in GR water is an agreement made some years ago when a powerful politician ramrodded a rule change for his grand kids. Things done that way usually have unintended consequences.


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> As much a I wish it weren't, politics is a part of rules making in a state agency, but with reasonable people like those on this forum making reasonable arguments I feel confident that a happy conclusion can be reached. Ironic that the basis for the increase in GR water is an agreement made some years ago when a powerful politician ramrodded a rule change for his grand kids. Things done that way usually have unintended consequences.


Hey Kzoofisher -
Do you care to elaborate on the "powerful politician" part? I'm listening...
Don


----------



## TrekJeff

MSY and OSY, Max/Optimum, two separate animals. Optimum yield is reached prior to Maximum, is a lower number and would provide for more of a chance for a trophy fishery. Max is as it reads, "how much can we take and still have a sustainable population" Those two terms are often thrown around with out knowing what the terms are actually defining.


----------



## Ranger Ray

> From the Act (16 U.S.C. 1802, MSA § 3):
> 
> 104-297
> 
> (33) The term "optimum", with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish which&#8212;
> 
> (A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems;
> 
> (B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and
> 
> (C) *in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery.
> *
> (34) *The terms "overfishing" and &#8220;overfished" mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.*


No reason to throw them around without understanding. As we can see here the feds actual definition as it relates to their thinking. Reading their definition, Optimum is only a temporary management tool used to get back to Maximum yield, as in temporary. 

In all federal laws, there seems to be a lack of managing for "trophy fish." It is clear by all federal regulations, fisheries are managed for yield. Seeing how the states are only relegated to the management for the feds under these federal mandates, and with only the right to manage scientifically for the health of the fisheries, they are bound by the federal regulations.


----------



## kzoofisher

First, sorry it takes me so long to respond but I dont spend a lot of time here and prefer to wait until I have some time before I post.

Dan, the way I heard the story back in 2001 was that the rule change allowing kids under 12 to use bait and keep fish in all the waters of the state was pushed through to satisfy a committee chair who would then allow other legislation to reach the floor. As a compromise the total mileage of gear restricted waters was raised to 212, though the actual stretches were left open to debate. No additional waters were added to the list until this year after several groups complained loudly about the unused mileage that had been allocated. I wasnt in on the negotiations so I can only report what I heard at the time and add that DNR staff that I talked to back then refused to comment.

Ray, Im not sure that federal mandates supporting the preferential treatment of commercial fishing over sport fishing for the last sixty years are what we want to encourage in Michigan. The feds have routinely sided with groups who can show hard dollar figures in support of their activities and in Michigan my guess is that would be the outfitters and guides over your average sportsman. Maximum yield means maximum harvest, and thanks to the consumption advisories that number is pretty low, unless you consider the economic affect of paying customers. Lately, the feds and state govts. alike have started to change their tunes about what maximum yield means; maximun sustainable yields (without stocking) are catching on around the country. An Entirely Synthetic Fish by Anders Halverson is a fascinating history of fish culture in the U.S. and the well meaning mistakes made by all sorts of groups, not the least of which is Trout Unlimited.

Several people have mentioned that the DNR shows no difference in total population mortality between various types of fishing but I think that is a bit of a strawman. The mortality of young of the year and very early year classes remains pretty constant no matter what sort of fishing techniques are employed, but how many of us are interested in fish under 5 and where are those legal to keep anyway. The trick in managing a fishery is to have the maximun number of fish anglers want to catch and the DNR is a little more divided on how to achieve that than some would have us believe. It is my belief that the best way to optimize fisheries is to improve habitat and spread out the exploitation.

"Michigan Department of Natural Resources	2009-72 Status of the Fishery Resource Report	
Growth in length of fishes is typically fastest early in life, and then decreases over time as fish reach maximum size. Bluegill growth in Hart's Lake was slower than the state average during early age classes, but better than the state average at later ages (until they reached their maximum age). Age and length- frequency analysis indicate that there is a high proportion of older and larger bluegills in the population. These characteristics are typical for unexploited populations, which indicate that Hart's Lake supports a unique bluegill resource. Unexploited fish stocks are characterized by a high proportion of old fish, slow individual growth rates, and low rates of total annual mortality (Clady et al. 1975). The presence of old fish and a skewed size structure towards larger sized panfish in Hart's Lake is reflective of low exploitation. When unexploited populations are opened to fishing, length and age frequency distributions typically shift toward smaller and younger fish, mean age declines, and total mortality increases as a result of increases in fishing mortality. Exploitation is not expected to affect the abundance or number of panfish harvested because the abundance of adult fish is not expected to be reduced in numbers to an extent that reproduction is affected. Exploitation may affect the number of quality fish available to anglers because harvest mortality on large sized panfish could result in smaller and younger panfish that grow slower and mature at an earlier age. The long-term effects of harvest on the current population structure are a function of new rates of mortality, growth, and reproduction. An excessive rate of harvest may change the balance and fishing may steadily reduce a population to a level at which angling for quality sized fish is no longer possible."

Another strawman is the active bait fishing compared to passive fishing. A C.O. is going to have a heck of a time distinguishing between the guy with a spawn bag on the bottom, the guy very slowly rolling the same spawn bag and the guy who stopped for a minute to eat an apple. Enforcement would be impossible. You either allow all forms of bait fishing or none at all. You could of course allow only the use of circle hooks, but that strikes me as being a gear restriction.

This is awfully long and my hanks to anyone who read all the way to the bottom.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Interesting thoughts there kzoofisher.


> Ray, I&#8217;m not sure that federal mandates supporting the preferential treatment of commercial fishing over sport fishing for the last sixty years are what we want to encourage in Michigan. The feds have routinely sided with groups who can show hard dollar figures in support of their activities and in Michigan my guess is that would be the outfitters and guides over your average sportsman. Maximum yield means maximum harvest, and thanks to the consumption advisories that number is pretty low, unless you consider the economic affect of paying customers. Lately, the feds and state govts. alike have started to change their tunes about what maximum yield means; maximun sustainable yields (without stocking) are catching on around the country. &#8220;An Entirely Synthetic Fish&#8221; by Anders Halverson is a fascinating history of fish culture in the U.S. and the well meaning mistakes made by all sorts of groups, not the least of which is Trout Unlimited.


I posted the federal mandates to point out the ideology behind the sport and the laws. It is not about how big a fish I can catch, or how many times I can catch it, its about consumption. So much so the secretary of the interior has a mandate to push fish consumption by law. Its yours and mine right to gather those fish for food. Can there be issues of depleting a system, or damaging a resource? You bet. Its why the states can manage the federal governments water. The states should be in the best position to do so. The management must be scientific and the state has the burden of proof when questioned. The change must be done equitable amongst the various groups, with avoidance of gear restriction conflicts. Its the law, written and recorded. One can argue that the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act does not include Michigan. However, Michigan has been included in the EEZ recently which is governed by the Magnuson. Of course the Magnuson is not exclusive as it has to be in conjunction with and not a violation of other laws, like the Public Trust Doctrine. Even if the state isnt under the Magnuson, it certainly points to the Feds state of thinking on fish management. I doubt their management plan is totally different on the inland waters than the open seas. At least I see no case for this to be true.



> I think that is a bit of a strawman


Lets be clear on these flies only and special regulations. The only strawmen is anything other than the fact they were passed politically and pushed by a small group socially. No science, no fish are in peril reasoning, just political. Our own DNR has stated this in newspapers. The only strawmen are the ones now being introduced, to justify that which has been done politically, that should have been and mandated by law to be done scientifically.


----------



## fishinDon

Kzoofisher,
Thanks for your post and taking the time to put it all out there. 

One thing I would have to say is that I don't think comparing blue gills in an unexploited lake to trout on many of our most popular streams and rivers is really an apples to apples comparison. Even in gear restricted C/R only waters there are almost no brook trout over age 2 and almost no brown trout over age 4 (and very, very few 4 year olds). 

Why is this? A couple reasons....One, because trout naturally don't live very long. Even in the completely unexploited stretches (closed to fishing) of the hunt creek research area they do not turn up many 3yr + brook trout. You can't stockpile trout in streams.

This is why the research never turns up much evidence that the gear restrictions & C/R helped (or barely helped) - the bigger/older fish die off at 2or 4 yrs naturally, Gear Restrictions, C/R, fishing closures, or not... 

Last point, I 100% agree with your premise that the best way to grow big fish is to do habitat work and spread out the pressure. This brings me to point number two for why we don't find huge numbers of big fish in Gear Restricted C/R stretches.

Gear Restricted C/R fishing still has an exploitation component to it, it's just typically unobserved and unknown. Couple that with the fact that Gear Restrictions also attract attention (guides) and pressure and you likely get similar exploitation rates to some of our less pressured gems. Assuming similar catch rates, 3-4% mortality over 1000 angler hours has the same effect as 30-40% mortality over 100 angler hours. 

Thanks again, I look forward to your next post.
Don


----------



## fishinDon

james d said:


> Call me an elite runner or elite chemist (I'm neither) and I'll take it as a complement. Call me an elitist flyfisherman or tell me my views are elitist and I'm pretty sure I'm being called and arrogant jerk.
> 
> Toto said I/we wanted gear restricted waters because I/we want to catch lots of big fish so we can brag about them. That's not the case.
> 
> Finally Toto commented on his rights and the use of his tax dollars and how they relate to gear restrictions. He makes a fair point even if I disagree with it. My response was insulting and I'm sorry.
> 
> Have a good opener and a fine season.
> 
> Jim


Hey Jim,

This issue certainly can stir the fire inside people, which is why I think we should avoid it like the plague. Gear Restrictions divide sportsmen. Period.

It takes a big man to apologize (especially to a person they don't even know over the internet). I appreciate the way you have engaged in this debate.

Thanks! And good luck to you tomorrow as well...
Don


----------



## Splitshot

james d said:


> Call me an elite runner or elite chemist (I'm neither) and I'll take it as a complement. Call me an elitist flyfisherman or tell me my views are elitist and I'm pretty sure I'm being called and arrogant jerk.
> 
> Toto said I/we wanted gear restricted waters because I/we want to catch lots of big fish so we can brag about them. That's not the case.
> 
> Finally Toto commented on his rights and the use of his tax dollars and how they relate to gear restrictions. He makes a fair point even if I disagree with it. My response was insulting and I'm sorry.
> 
> Have a good opener and a fine season.
> 
> Jim


James,

Right on about your motives and bragging. Only you know if that is true and Ill take your word that isnt why you fish. I posted the elite definition not to insult you, but to defend the use of the word. While I still think the statement about your Nirvana was arrogant, it doesnt make you an arrogant jerk and I apologize if you took it that way.

Some how we have to get past this petty stuff if we are ever going to work together toward making our fishery the best it can be. My main point was that as a citizen the state has an obligation to hold all the waters in trust for all citizens. Gear restrictions restrict how I can legally fish and by imposing that rule restricts me from my rights. If someone tells me that he or she should have special privileges not available to me because there will be more or bigger trout or because there will be less litter, it is not good enough.

Those who feel otherwise are probably elitist. You have painted a terrible stereotype of bait fishermen to justify these special rules that is just not true especially the pejorative about being slobs. Last night my son called and asked if I wanted to fish with him below Tippy a place I have loved and hated for over 55 years. Instead of parking and walking down the steps on the South side, I parked a half mile downstream and walked the trail up to the dam.

It was a little crowded, but everyone I talked to was friendly probably because I was friendly. We quit at 10 AM and I only caught a couple of small brown trout and hooked one steelhead while my son hooked 4 steelhead and a couple of brown trout. On my way back I decided to count all the trash I saw along the half mile walk back to my car.

I picked up everything I saw but there was only one blue worm container, three small clear plastic containers, two empty cigarette packs and a half of a rope stringer. As I drove out I passed a couple of dozen campsites that were full of people last fall during the salmon run and they were all clean except for a one gallon Coleman fuel can. 

Maybe some guys from Trout Unlimited come down there every day and clean it up, but not today because I cleaned it up something I do on a regular basis and so do many of my worm dunking friends. By the way I was limping all the way back because I slipped on a frost covered wooden walkway and twisted my new knee. I laid there for 20 minutes, but I was lucky and nothing was broken. Do you feel sorry for me. Lol

The point is you dont have to be a fly fisherman to care deeply about our resources. Most of us dont have to advertise it every time we do something good, we just do it. We are speaking out about it in our new organization because we understand how the PR works, but like I said, we would do it anyway. Anyway I believe there was very little trash around because the good sportsmen and women make an effort to clean up after the pigs who leave it there. Pigs no matter how they choose to fish.

If we would close some rivers to all humans, there might be more and bigger trout and less litter, but it would make no sense. I wont even argue that more trout released by bait fishermen die, but it is meaningless in the overall scheme of things. Some fish released by fly fishermen die as well, and likewise it does nothing to degrade the fishery. If you dont want any trout to die, stop fishing. 

I guess the point I am trying to make is we are all fishermen and all sportsmen as long as we follow the rules. I dont care if you think you are a better steward because you fly fish and release all the fish you catch, I only mind when you try to use it as an excuse to exclude me from fishing and try to deny the fact that as a citizen I dont have as much right to fish as you or any other citizen..


----------



## TSS Caddis

flytiedan said:


> I think litter comes from both sides.


Yep, and it is illegal to litter, case closed. Fishing regs are not and should not be thought of as a way to fight litter. 

Sort of like saying to stop speeding on the highway, only cars with a top speed of the speed limit may be used on the highway.


----------



## trout

Ray,
The red link you posted does not work.


----------



## Ranger Ray

trout said:


> Ray,
> The red link you posted does not work.


http://glfsa.org/


----------



## Splitshot

Hey Kirk, how you doing. I knew you would find this sooner or later lol. I fixed my link. Thanks Ray!


----------



## simopj

186.5 miles out of over 12,000. Quit your whining nobody is keeping you from fishing these waters you can fish them just like the rest of us, just leave the Hills Brothers can at home. Class warfare, give me a break there are plenty of road crossings you can go get your trout dinner from. And as far as your RIGHTS are concerned, recreational use of public lands for hunting and fishing is a privilege not a right let's not forget that. As far as TU and other conservation organizations are concerned their efforts benefit all of us so send them your 25 bucks and let them do their jobs, which is to advocate for cold water conservation, and if they ask for couple of miles of flys only water in return so be it. Spare me the science referencing because we all know that both sides can make the numbers look good for their argument. 186.5 miles out of over 12,000 miles of cold water trout streams. I pay my taxes and buy my license and should be represented as much as anyone else on this forum. As far as I can tell 186.5 miles represents about .01 percent of all Michigan trout streams which is about the same percentage as pro-gear restriction fellas on this forum. Seems fair to me. There is plenty of quality water out there go find it and quit your whining. Or pick up a fly rod and challenge yourself.


----------



## Ranger Ray

simopj said:


> 186.5 miles out of over 12,000. Quit your whining nobody is keeping you from fishing these waters you can fish them just like the rest of us, just leave the Hills Brothers can at home. Class warfare, give me a break there are plenty of road crossings you can go get your trout dinner from. And as far as your RIGHTS are concerned, recreational use of public lands for hunting and fishing is a privilege not a right let's not forget that. As far as TU and other conservation organizations are concerned their efforts benefit all of us so send them your 25 bucks and let them do their jobs, which is to advocate for cold water conservation, and if they ask for couple of miles of flys only water in return so be it. Spare me the science referencing because we all know that both sides can make the numbers look good for their argument. 186.5 miles out of over 12,000 miles of cold water trout streams. I pay my taxes and buy my license and should be represented as much as anyone else on this forum. As far as I can tell 186.5 miles represents about .01 percent of all Michigan trout streams which is about the same percentage as pro-gear restriction fellas on this forum. Seems fair to me. There is plenty of quality water out there go find it and quit your whining. Or pick up a fly rod and challenge yourself.


That 186 miles represents about 21% of the class A trout waters. You are represented on 100% of the water, I am represented on 100% - 186 miles. Gee, and to think I pay my taxes also. Funny how that works. Oh, and fishing is a right.


----------



## simopj

Well there is the problem, you think your entitled to OUR resources, were as I know that I enjoy the privilege of fishing OUR rivers and streams. Freedom of speech is a right, fishing is not. You have to buy a license to fish and that license can be revoked. And as far as the restrictions are concerned nobody is kicking you of the river. You have just as much access as the rest of us.


----------



## MERGANZER

Buy a flyrod

Ganzer


----------



## Ranger Ray

simopj said:


> Well there is the problem, you think your entitled to OUR resources, were as I know that I enjoy the privilege of fishing OUR rivers and streams. Freedom of speech is a right, fishing is not. You have to buy a license to fish and that license can be revoked. And as far as the restrictions are concerned nobody is kicking you of the river. You have just as much access as the rest of us.


Yes, yes, we can play the utopian "privilege" vs "right" argument all day. I also can think its a privilege, but also know its my right. How? By reading the public trust doctrine. Call the FBI and threaten a government official and tell me how your "right" works. Nothing is exacting in our world, so lets not pretend they are. Yes, I can pick up a fly rod to get my 100%. Why? You don't have to pick up a bait rod. Matter of fact the fly rod fishermen was just given privileges to fish rivers all year long, where bait fishermen can't. Tomorrow it will be 500 miles, then 1000. I say it stops now. I believe the federal law is on my side. I guess we will see.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TSS Caddis

simopj said:


> Well there is the problem, you think your entitled to OUR resources, were as I know that I enjoy the privilege of fishing OUR rivers and streams. Freedom of speech is a right, fishing is not. You have to buy a license to fish and that license can be revoked. And as far as the restrictions are concerned nobody is kicking you of the river. You have just as much access as the rest of us.


If MDOT, took part of your route to work and made it bicycle only, would you start biking to work so you could use that road? Take a different route to work? Complain that your tax dollars paid for that road and you should be able to drive your car on it? Would you say it is only 10 miles or road out of 100,000 miles? Would you be thankful because bicycle riders do not litter like car drivers?

I'd wager you'd bitch that it is absurd, yet it is no different.


----------



## simopj

Bit of a stretch there caddis. Apples and Oranges comparison. You fellas keep invoking the Public Trust Doctrine and I think you are a little misguided in doing so especially with a conservative supreme court in place. The Public Trust Doctrine has evolved over time to recognize and protect resources that are seen as necessary to the public, and at this point in time the argument can and has been made that hunting and fishing rights are not necessary, except those rights that apply to commerce. Therefore again we are back to the difference between Rights and Privilege, and as far as the courts are concerned hunting and fishing for recreational purposes are a privilege and the Public Trust Doctrine is not applicable. Now I am sure someone will try and make a case for this and it may move up through the courts, very slowly, and it may even get to the supreme court but if I were you I wouldn't put all my faith in the Public Trust Doctrine to overturn what you see as an infringement on your rights, I mean privilege. And anyway by the time it does make it there you all will be up in arms about the fact that you cant shoot lead anymore or something like that.


----------



## fishinDon

simopj said:


> 186.5 miles out of over 12,000. Quit your whining nobody is keeping you from fishing these waters you can fish them just like the rest of us, just leave the Hills Brothers can at home. Class warfare, give me a break there are plenty of road crossings you can go get your trout dinner from. And as far as your RIGHTS are concerned, recreational use of public lands for hunting and fishing is a privilege not a right let's not forget that. As far as TU and other conservation organizations are concerned their efforts benefit all of us so send them your 25 bucks and let them do their jobs, which is to advocate for cold water conservation, and if they ask for couple of miles of flys only water in return so be it. Spare me the science referencing because we all know that both sides can make the numbers look good for their argument. 186.5 miles out of over 12,000 miles of cold water trout streams. I pay my taxes and buy my license and should be represented as much as anyone else on this forum. As far as I can tell 186.5 miles represents about .01 percent of all Michigan trout streams which is about the same percentage as pro-gear restriction fellas on this forum. Seems fair to me. There is plenty of quality water out there go find it and quit your whining. Or pick up a fly rod and challenge yourself.


I had originally typed up a long response to your inflamatory post arguing your points. Now that my cooler head has prevailed, I've deleted it as I know I won't be convincing you that I'm right and you're not.

Instead, I'll simply say this: I 100% disagree with your point of view. 

Gear Restrictions divide our sporting community, turn nice guys into jerks, and should be removed simply to avoid the infighting if for no other reason. Social rules pick winners and loosers. There's no way around that.

Don


----------



## TC-fisherman

fishinDon said:


> I had originally typed up a long response to your inflamatory post arguing your points. Now that my cooler head has prevailed, I've deleted it as I know I won't be convincing you that I'm right and you're not.
> 
> Gear Restrictions divide our sporting community, turn nice guys into jerks, and should be removed simply to avoid the infighting if for no other reason. Social rules pick winners and loosers. There's no way around that.
> Don


Whats divides our sporting community is when a group doesn't like rules that promote a fishery so they attack people as "elitists" or "special interests". Rules you don't like are "social rules"? Sorry but our existing fishing rules are based on producing an acceptable social outcome. It's just that your desired social outcome is different from others.

simopj posted nothing different than what you post time and time again, just from another viewpoint and a little less varnished.

The "sporting community" isn't some monolithic group. Regulating a fishery just to keep the lowest common denominator happy is no answer.


----------



## REG

simopj said:


> 186.5 miles out of over 12,000. Quit your whining nobody is keeping you from fishing these waters you can fish them just like the rest of us, just leave the Hills Brothers can at home.
> 
> It was quite interesting a while ago when a question was asked whether there would be support for a "dry flies only" section, that the vast majority of fly anglers were opposed to it. Hmmm, leave your streamer and nymph box at home? Never!:lol:
> Class warfare, give me a break there are plenty of road crossings you can go get your trout dinner from.
> 
> Your response here just underscores that type of attitude.
> And as far as your RIGHTS are concerned, recreational use of public lands for hunting and fishing is a privilege not a right let's not forget that.
> 
> As far as TU and other conservation organizations are concerned their efforts benefit all of us so send them your 25 bucks and let them do their jobs, which is to advocate for cold water conservation, and if they ask for couple of miles of flys only water in return so be it.
> 
> Not when they work toward unfairly aceing me out of water I have fished for years.
> 
> Spare me the science referencing because we all know that both sides can make the numbers look good for their argument.
> 
> I am sure you do not want to discuss this point as we have established that, by itself, gear regs have not been demonstrated to yield any significant benefit to trout populations.
> 
> 186.5 miles out of over 12,000 miles of cold water trout streams.
> 
> As stated before, around 18%-20% of blue ribbon trout water.
> 
> I pay my taxes and buy my license and should be represented as much as anyone else on this forum.
> 
> Yes you do and you are welcome to it, just as we are. Interesting, though you are telling us to keep quiet. Funny how that works, eh?
> 
> As far as I can tell 186.5 miles represents about .01 percent of all Michigan trout streams which is about the same percentage as pro-gear restriction fellas on this forum. Seems fair to me.
> 
> Nice spin. Hey, how come no gear reg water for the South Branch of the PM?
> 
> There is plenty of quality water out there go find it and quit your whining. Or pick up a fly rod and challenge yourself.


After fly fishing for 25 years, the antipathy created by this has the opposite effect. If you think fishing with a fly rod is challenging........take that Hills Brothers can, wrap some mono on it and have at it. You can even throw a spinner on it.


----------



## fishinDon

TC-fisherman said:


> Whats divides our sporting community is when a group doesn't like rules that promote a fishery so they attack people as "elitists" or "special interests". Rules you don't like are "social rules"? Sorry but our existing fishing rules are based on producing an acceptable social outcome. It's just that your desired social outcome is different from others.
> 
> simopj posted nothing different than what you post time and time again, just from another viewpoint and a little less varnished.
> 
> The "sporting community" isn't some monolithic group. Regulating a fishery just to keep the lowest common denominator happy is no answer.


LCD? I just had a flash back to grade school 

You're putting words in my mouth (again) that I never said (Elitist, etc). I'm sure you know by now that I'm not into name calling. This member of the LCD has already touched the hot stove with you once TC, I don't need to learn that lesson again.

Thanks,
Don


----------



## REG

TC-fisherman said:


> It's just that your desired social outcome is different from others.
> 
> .


Yes, that is correct. After all, we (those using bait) are just "slobs". We believe that regulations should not be based on prejudice and discrimination over choice of angling methods. Other than that, there was no other valid basis for gear restrictions.


----------



## Splitshot

simopj said:


> And as far as your RIGHTS are concerned, recreational use of public lands for hunting and fishing is a privilege not a right let's not forget that.


Sorry simopj but fishing is a right under the Public Trust Doctrine and is settled law and until the Supreme Court decides differently it is the law of the land.




simopj said:


> As far as TU and other conservation organizations are concerned their efforts benefit all of us so send them your 25 bucks and let them do their jobs, which is to advocate for cold water conservation, and if they ask for couple of miles of flys only water in return so be it.


Are you speaking for Trout Unlimited? If you ask Bryan Bourroughs the MI executive director the only goal of TU is altruistic. Michigan Trout Unlimited is a conservation organization whose mission is to conserve, protect, and restore Michigan's watersheds which support wild trout and salmon. Mr. Bourroughs not only doesnt think TU isnt a fly fishing organization, but he questions wether or not it is even a fishing organization. 

There are some people who think like you that TU officially says one thing, but like you seem to be saying secretly works for special privileges for fly fishermen. If they did, that would make them hypocrites, wouldnt it?




simopj said:


> Seems fair to me.


Of course it seems fair to you because you have the best of the best just for others of your ilk. TSS Caddis made an excellent comparison but to some people who see special privileges as okay, what else can they say. Anyone can rationalize anything but that doesnt make it right or true.




simopj said:


> There is plenty of quality water out there go find it and quit your whining. Or pick up a fly rod and challenge yourself.


I have been fly fishing for about 50 years, and as I have said many times fly fishing is easier than bait fishing. The real challenge to fly fishing is finding rising fish, after that it is pretty easy to catch them. As far as finding quality water, I have already found it.

The best water on the PM is the 7.5 miles from M37 to Gleasons Landing. Forty years ago I got pushed off that water because some fly fishermen decided bait and lure fishermen just didnt deserve to fish it so they got a law passed giving them special rights. Like many others, I didnt cry but moved down stream. I spent a lot of time learning the not as good water below Gleasons Landing. Now you cavalierly tell me to get over it and just move downstream again.

It is clearly discrimination as bait fishing is a legal method of fishing and the gear restrictions do nothing to protect the resource according to the DNR fish biologist who are responsible for protecting our fisheries. That makes it a social rule pushed by special interest for their exclusive benefit.

Under settled law the state of Michigan cannot make laws if they restrict recreation, especially our right to fish. The law is clear and we dont have to go through the courts to enforce our rights we only need higher authority to review the law and force the state to do the right thing and that process has already started.




simopj said:


> Therefore again we are back to the difference between Rights and Privilege, and as far as the courts are concerned hunting and fishing for recreational purposes are a privilege and the Public Trust Doctrine is not applicable.


This statement shows how completely uninformed you are and perhaps you should do a little research before making those kind of statements.

By the way keep posting, it kind of picks us up a little during slow periods.


----------



## kzoofisher

I'm sorry this thread has degenerated so badly. Both sides on this issue have studies and *science* to back up their claims, enough of each that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. The unreasonable, and I'm guessing both sides have an equal percentage of unreasonable followers, will refuse to see that the the other guys have any valid points at all. It was my hope with the questions that I posed four pages back that reasonable readers would consider their own positions and which of the other guys positions held some validity. That is the way that you keep the fishing community working together for the good of the whole state, by recognizing that most people have the good of the resource in mind. I'm sure Don can provide plenty of examples from the Cold Water Commission meetings where proposals were changed and compromises reached based on science and the limits of enforcement. A couple I can think of are the end point at Rainbow Rapids, which was reportedly done for clarity on the Pere Marquette water and the reduced size limit and extended possession season for rainbows below Mio on the Au Sable. This second one is significant because it did not change the gear regs while increasing the season for catch and keep anglers. 

I hope that as these discussions continue more posters will step up to voice their opinions and state their cases without insulting others.


----------



## REG

Still waiting to see a study that supports the effectiveness of gear regulations as a stand alone intervention in improving brown/brook/steelhead populations. Now I have heard many gear reg advocates claim studies "prove" it, but never has a single one been produced.


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> I'm sorry this thread has degenerated so badly. Both sides on this issue have studies and *science* to back up their claims, enough of each that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. The unreasonable, and I'm guessing both sides have an equal percentage of unreasonable followers, will refuse to see that the the other guys have any valid points at all. It was my hope with the questions that I posed four pages back that reasonable readers would consider their own positions and which of the other guys positions held some validity. That is the way that you keep the fishing community working together for the good of the whole state, by recognizing that most people have the good of the resource in mind. I'm sure Don can provide plenty of examples from the Cold Water Commission meetings where proposals were changed and compromises reached based on science and the limits of enforcement. A couple I can think of are the end point at Rainbow Rapids, which was reportedly done for clarity on the Pere Marquette water and the reduced size limit and extended possession season for rainbows below Mio on the Au Sable. This second one is significant because it did not change the gear regs while increasing the season for catch and keep anglers.
> 
> I hope that as these discussions continue more posters will step up to voice their opinions and state their cases without insulting others.


KzooFisher - thanks for chiming in again. You're right that both sides of the issue can make their case without insulting the other. Without getting everyone to the table, speaking in a calm, rational manner, nothing gets done. Almost every law ever passed was a compromise, for one reason or another. 

The DNR inviting us "Anglers at Large" to the coldwater committee is the first step in that direction. We're still not quite balanced, but we're getting better...

A compromise that still gets us quality fishing, has been, and still remains to be my goal. We can make quality fishing, even trophy fishing, or destination fishing without gear restrictions. In fact, we already have it - which is why, to name only one example, the lower PM is full of fly fishermen during the hex hatch. There's no gear regs there, but there are big brown trout to be caught. 

We CAN include ALL of the trout fishermen and still have great, even excellent fishing. Gear Restrictions are perception, they are not reality. Reality is properly adjusted size limits and bag limits. Reality is habitat improvement. Reality is education.

Reality is knowing that I've been out fishing twice already this year and simply put, I'm just not a big threat to the trout population! :lol:

Lastly, the good news is that most of the guys I've spoken with so far on the committee are open to having a healthy conversation, so I think we are well on our way to figuring this out.

Good luck everyone, we will get there...
Don


----------



## toto

These last few posts are embilmatic of the problem. Using emotions to argue a legal point will never work. There are two very important documents that one should read, besides the Public Trust Doctrine,and those are the Northwest Ordinance, and the following Compiled Law in Michigan. You may find it interesting as no science has ever been shown to prove the fisheries in question are in trouble.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(k5....aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-324-41103

Before you ask, the point to the above link is this, IF the DNR/NRC can show proof that the fishery is in trouble, then I think you'd find, even us, getting behind the issue. The problem is they can't, and therefore according to their own constitution, they are breaking the law. Simple fact.


----------



## Grass Shrimp

Toto, That has been my biggest problem with this whole issue. I said that same thing a long time ago. First show us that we have a problem and then we can work to fix it. It seems the D.N.R. decided to do things backwards!


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> I'm sorry this thread has degenerated so badly. Both sides on this issue have studies and *science* to back up their claims, enough of each that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. The unreasonable, and I'm guessing both sides have an equal percentage of unreasonable followers, will refuse to see that the the other guys have any valid points at all. It was my hope with the questions that I posed four pages back that reasonable readers would consider their own positions and which of the other guys positions held some validity. That is the way that you keep the fishing community working together for the good of the whole state, by recognizing that most people have the good of the resource in mind. I'm sure Don can provide plenty of examples from the Cold Water Commission meetings where proposals were changed and compromises reached based on science and the limits of enforcement. A couple I can think of are the end point at Rainbow Rapids, which was reportedly done for clarity on the Pere Marquette water and the reduced size limit and extended possession season for rainbows below Mio on the Au Sable. This second one is significant because it did not change the gear regs while increasing the season for catch and keep anglers.
> 
> I hope that as these discussions continue more posters will step up to voice their opinions and state their cases without insulting others.


I fail to see where this thread has "degenerated badly."

Don, if you can provide these "plenty of examples from the Cold Water Commission meetings where proposals were changed and compromises reached based on science and the limits of enforcement", I am all ears. You sand bagging on us?


----------



## fishinDon

Ranger Ray said:


> I fail to see where this thread has "degenerated badly."
> 
> Don, if you can provide these "plenty of examples from the Cold Water Commission meetings where proposals were changed and compromises reached based on science and the limits of enforcement", I am all ears. You sand bagging on us?


Hey Ray,
I see what you are getting at here, but I do thing that KzooFisher has a somewhat valid point. We all know that the social considerations creep into the decisions, but there are also some cases where the DNR does base their decisions on the science. An example of this would be the removal of the Type 2 water on all of the Upper Black river this year. There was a 5 year research study that was just completed that showed that the Type 2 water didn't work, so they removed the regulation and replaced it with Type 1. Likewise, the Type 3 water on the Muskegon was removed a few years back for the same reason, as well as the Type 2 water on the E. Branch of the Fox. In fact a good percentage of the Type 2 water all around the state has disapppeard since 2000 based on the fact that the science often shows that its not working. In some of these cases those decisions to remove the Type 2 or 3 water were extremely unpopular, especially with the cold water committee. 

If there's one thing I've learned through getting involved in all of this it's that the DNR has a very difficult job. They will never make everyone happy, all they can do is try their best to make as many happy as possible. My goal on the Coldwater Committee is to do as much as possible to push for sound science based decisions. I think that it's difficult to argue with this is the absolute best way to manage the fishery, based on science, for both the fish and the fisherman and is the quickest way to getting the most people happy.

I'm brand new to the committee, so I'm learning on the job. I'll keep you all informed as to how I see the decisions being made and why. BTW, the DNR has an open meetings policy, so anyone can attend. The next coldwater regs meeting is slated for June 21. On the agenda are Brook Trout limits in the UP, Steelhead Limits and FO-245 (otherwise known as the chumming ban). If you have an opinion on any of those things it would be wise to let the DNR know ahead of time. 

As always I'll keep all of our GLFSA members informed before and after the meeting so even if you can't go for yourself, you'll hopefully have at least some idea what is happening while it's happening.

Don


----------



## Ranger Ray

No, I don't think you do understand where I am coming from. Mr. Dexter stated, "When we make a change by science, we just do it, no public input." No one said science is not part of the DNR's decision making. Then again, that really wasn't the context of what was being said. If the DNR makes regulation changes by science, that leaves the cold water committee trying to decipher the social. The context of KzooFisher statement was "plenty of examples from the Cold Water Commission meetings where proposals were changed and compromises reached based on science and the limits of enforcement." Don't show examples of the DNR managing by science, show me info backing up the Cold Water Committee doing such. An example would be showing me these scientific compromises that the committee used for these last regulations. 

These last regulations where politically motivated. The DNR admitted such. The committee was basically used to politically (think also social) to form it. No offense to anyone on the committee but as long as it exists, social regulation will keep coming like a bad dream. I will use your own words to prove my point. "I'm brand new to the committee, so I'm learning on the job. I'll keep you all informed as to how I see the decisions being made and why." We already know the DNR makes their changes based on science, without input from anybody. That means that the committee's "decisions being made" are going to be social. I have dealt with committee's and humans all my life, nothing worse than a bunch of people that sit around thinking they have to change something, for nothing more than the fact they are there. I see a bunch of feel good philosophical ideas coming down the road to a river near me, for no other reason than some people put in a room, thinking they have to discuss something, and that something will form another social regulation. A committee never understands, when its working, no need for change. The committee should focus on environmental and habitat not social regulation. Leave the regulation to science.


----------



## simopj

RR, if you think that you can regulate anything that relates to the general public only on scientific evidence without taking into account the social aspect your nuts. It wouldn't matter if someone gave you indisputable evidence that gear restrictions did improve the fishery anyway. Your argument then would be that the new regulations infringe on your so called rights. You just don't like change when it comes to things you feel entitled to.


----------



## toto

sim, its pretty obvious you are nervous about losing all your gear restricted waters, which is a possibility.

Based on your logic, since having a drivers license is considered a privledge, than if you buy a Ferrari, you should be able to drive 100+ mph, instead of 70, because you have a ferrari. Sounds silly doesn't it? This is exactly what we are saying, the law states, not only federally, but in Michigan as well, that these changes are not allowed unless its for scientific reasons, or put another way, for conservation reasons. Someone on here said that there are more fish in the holy waters of the Ausable, in their mind, due to gear restrictions, based on that, there is now no reason to have gear restrictions on the Ausable as it now has plenty of fish. Seems as though that statement is counter intuitive to what the Michigan Constitution has to say about it.


----------



## Ranger Ray

"Improve the fishery" is not a mandate for special regulations. Some here are trying to make the case, "it is", therefore it demands a response. I am a reasoned person, show me a reasoned argument and I will change my mind. So far you have yet to show that argument. I can improve all our streams by keeping all humans off. Of course this is just stupid, and would infringe on yours and my rights. The DNR is mandated to manage the fisheries for all. So far they have done a excellent job. My fishing has been excellent, 98% of which has not been in the special regulated waters I might add. I see no reason to restrict me or bait from any water based on the statement "Improve the fishery." Show me its necessary, try to resolve it equitably between all fishermen, and we will be in agreement. I will even let you fish ahead of me.


----------



## REG

simopj said:


> It wouldn't matter if someone gave you indisputable evidence that gear restrictions did improve the fishery anyway.


But that's the point, no one has. In fact, the only "evidence" I have seen was found on my own. However, we are not managing a cutthroat trout fishery.


----------



## Boozer

james d said:


> I've posted a few times on this issue because I care about it. I've tried to be respectful. You might consider the same courtesy. The name calling (elites) stinks. The concept that I want to catch more and better fish for bragging rights and photos is wrong...I want to catch more and bigger fish because it makes for a better day's fishing. The reason I like gear restricted water is because so much of it is so good. No one can tell me that if bait fisherman were allowed on the holy waters or mason tract that there wouldn't be a ton more trash (for TU chapters and the Anglers to come clean up every spring along with the canoe crap) and the fishing would be worse (not necessarily due to style of fishing but certainly due to increased pressure on an already heavily used resource). Do all bait fisherman litter? No. Do some? I've (and you've) been on streams that look like a detroit highway after a snowmelt. Got news for you...Those elitist flyfisherman don't throw their crap in the stream. Those guys who fish with a gob of crawlers from a bridge in the middle of the night while they pound a 12 pack do. You konw why those elites treat the water so well? It's because we have an incredible appreciation for the resource. Yeah...It's our own little nirvana. The state doesn't keep it that way...we do. Further, I'd back off your concerns about the abuse of your tax dollars. I've parked at access points near grayling where every other car has out of state plates (and out of state licenses). Those folks are fly fisherman and wouldn't be there if it weren't for the quality of fishing. Seems to me that 90% of people who constantly squawk about their "rights" have no problem claiming them and taking advantage of them, but do very little in terms of being responsible for their impact (although I am glad your new organization intends to do river work. If all this makes me an elitist then so be it. I'm done here.


What! You can't be serious! Ever seen the flies only section of the PM in the Fall or Spring? WAY more trash than down river where there is no regulations...

If you are sick of being called an elitist, then stop being one, get educated and learn the FACTS!


----------



## toto

sim, I realize you are a little confused as to rights vs privledges, but maybe the following link will help you to understand:

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/lawful-arrest/3-7-What-is-a-right-vs-a-privilege.html

Now that you've read that, consider for a moment that the Public Trust Doctrine is derived from Justinian Law (Roman Empire) that states simply the free flowing waters are public, thats a short version of it, but I'm sure you get my point. If you do the due diligence, which some of us have already, you would find the Public Trust Doctrine, and the Northwest Ordinance, do in fact protect us from these takings.

You could also argue the 9th amendment to U.S. Constitution has this covered as well. You have to remember that no one, yet everyone owns the fish, and wildlife, and in fact, can be argued more easily that no one does, until such time as that animal has been captured, or hunted, at which point the person doing such, is the rightful owner. 

When you speak of rights, such as we are here, these are God given rights, and cannot be taken away, whether you believe in God or not, isn't the point, but rather it is suppossed that the courts in the beginning of our country, certainly did. It only becomes a privledge when you buy your license, as you now are agreeing to abide by the laws covered by this license. Once you sign your signature to the license, that constitutes a contract between you and the state, Michigan in this case. There is no such thing as a one way contract, and it can only become enforcable once it is signed by both parties. 

So, in summary, using the argument that this fishing isn't a right, in the scheme of things, is erroneaus.


----------



## simopj

I'm out, this will be my last post on this thread, and maybe the site for that matter. If you guys think its your God given right to fish however you want, where ever you want, when ever you want. Go for it. Keep up the good fight for the lower class rights or what ever you think your representing. All I know is last year, when it mattered, those of us that wanted to seek change in how our rivers are managed mobilized, wrote letters, attended meetings, and had our voices heard. If they hold more meetings in the next year or five years from now we'll be there doing it all over again. If you guys think its unfair bring it, but considering how these things go I think you have an up hill battle. The regs are there now and my "elitist" friends and I aim to keep them that way. On a side note I think all of your analogies about drivers licenses and speed limits or what ever are about as stupid a comparison as I have ever heard. The Public trust doctrine will not apply in your arguments. And there is a distinct separation of church and state in our great nation, so don't rely on what you think god did or did not entitle you to. If you cared enough this discussion would not be taking place, so look in the mirror and realize you are partially to blame because you didn't show up when it mattered. Nobody blind sided you everyone had a chance, you just lost.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts
good luck and better fishing
Simon


----------



## toto

Wow, just wow. Separation of church and state? You do realize this was intended that the government didn't take sides in one religion over another? Hey, I only used that anology to try to depict something you could perhaps understand, in a different framework.

No, we didn't get blindsided per se, but it seemed odd to me that the ballot box was stuffed, long before we got involved. Our organization is what this country is all about, the fact we can remake the laws, based on public opinion, or rather that laws as the pertain. If you say the Public Trust Doctrine doesn't hold water, you obviously haven't done your homework, or perhaps you have, and you understand just where this could go, either way, its obvious you are one of those who believe you should have rights that others aren't allowed to have.

I also find your last post as something I expected. I don't know you, but I would guess you are having a hard to rectifying within yourself our argument. Thats okay, its hard to realize that whats going on isn't right, and you want what you want, but that doesn't make it right. The simple fact is, there are laws on the books that cannot be changed, unless of course you want to change the constitution. There are at least 3 amendments that are involved in all this, 5th, 9th, and the 14th. All three of these are directly involved in this matter, not only that, but as I mentioned previously, the Northwest Ordinance is also very much directly on point. If you don't think so, ask yourself why Judge Noel Fox used the NO in his decision on the Indian Treaty Rights. You will prolbably say, yeah but thats the Indians rights, well it is relevant here, as the simple use of this doctrine in a federal courts, says that it is still in vogue today. I don't know what to tell ya, but if you don't want to understand the laws of this country, and state, than its too bad, really it is. These waters are not for your exclusive use, I, you, and all the others on here pay taxes, we are all owners of these waters. Sorry you lost your cool, but I expected the same.


----------



## Boozer

simopj said:


> I'm out, this will be my last post on this thread, and maybe the site for that matter. If you guys think its your God given right to fish however you want, where ever you want, when ever you want. Go for it. Keep up the good fight for the lower class rights or what ever you think your representing. All I know is last year, when it mattered, those of us that wanted to seek change in how our rivers are managed mobilized, wrote letters, attended meetings, and had our voices heard. If they hold more meetings in the next year or five years from now we'll be there doing it all over again. If you guys think its unfair bring it, but considering how these things go I think you have an up hill battle. The regs are there now and my "elitist" friends and I aim to keep them that way. On a side note I think all of your analogies about drivers licenses and speed limits or what ever are about as stupid a comparison as I have ever heard. The Public trust doctrine will not apply in your arguments. And there is a distinct separation of church and state in our great nation, so don't rely on what you think god did or did not entitle you to. If you cared enough this discussion would not be taking place, so look in the mirror and realize you are partially to blame because you didn't show up when it mattered. Nobody blind sided you everyone had a chance, you just lost.
> 
> I'm sorry if the truth hurts
> good luck and better fishing
> Simon


Good luck Simon! :evilsmile


----------



## REG

> I'm out, this will be my last post on this thread, and maybe the site for that matter. If you guys think its your God given right to fish however you want, where ever you want, when ever you want. Go for it.


Nice spin, especially since bait fishing is considered a "sporting" method. As such, no evidence was produced to the contrary. So good of you to take water away from us.



> Keep up the good fight for the lower class rights or what ever you think your representing


Thank you for verifying it's all about some perceived class struggle all along.



> All I know is last year, when it mattered, those of us that wanted to seek change in how our rivers are managed mobilized, wrote letters, attended meetings, and had our voices heard. If they hold more meetings in the next year or five years from now we'll be there doing it all over again


I guess we should have a rod raffle too next time? Kind of interesting that except for the Grayling meeting, it doesn't appear you had much of a majority at the meetings. 



> If you guys think its unfair bring it, but considering how these things go I think you have an up hill battle. The regs are there now and my "elitist" friends and I aim to keep them that way





> On a side note I think all of your analogies about drivers licenses and speed limits or what ever are about as stupid a comparison as I have ever heard.


I'll let your comments speak for themselves



> The Public trust doctrine will not apply in your arguments.


I sincerely hope one day to see that put to the test. 



> And there is a distinct separation of church and state in our great nation, so don't rely on what you think god did or did not entitle you to.


 Far Out!





> [Nobody blind sided you everyone had a chance, you just lost/QUOTE].
> Hmmm, what happened with the PM regs after the June meeting? Wonder where the additional gear restricted water came from?
> The funny thing about this is that you don't even have a clue how much you have lost, but congrats on thinking you won something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [I'm sorry if the truth hurts/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let that get in the way of your rant, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## REG

> I'm out, this will be my last post on this thread, and maybe the site for that matter. If you guys think its your God given right to fish however you want, where ever you want, when ever you want. Go for it.


Nice spin, especially since bait fishing is considered a "sporting" method. As such, no evidence was produced to the contrary. So good of you to take water away from us.



> Keep up the good fight for the lower class rights or what ever you think your representing


Thank you for verifying it's all about some perceived class struggle all along.



> All I know is last year, when it mattered, those of us that wanted to seek change in how our rivers are managed mobilized, wrote letters, attended meetings, and had our voices heard. If they hold more meetings in the next year or five years from now we'll be there doing it all over again


Now that's scary? I thought that was the DNR's job. Kind of interesting that except for the Grayling meeting, it doesn't appear you had much of a majority at the meetings. 



> On a side note I think all of your analogies about drivers licenses and speed limits or what ever are about as stupid a comparison as I have ever heard.


I'll let your comments speak for themselves



> The Public trust doctrine will not apply in your arguments.


I sincerely hope one day to see that put to the test. 



> And there is a distinct separation of church and state in our great nation, so don't rely on what you think god did or did not entitle you to.


 Far Out!





> Nobody blind sided you everyone had a chance, you just lost


Hmmm, what happened with the PM regs after the June meeting? Wonder where the additional gear restricted water came from? What you should note is that, at the 11th hour, the DNR included some input from us guys who "lost". I am really curious to know just what you think you've won?
The funny thing about this is that you don't even have a clue how much you have lost, but congrats on thinking you won something. 



> I'm sorry if the truth hurts


Don't let that get in the way of your rant, though.


----------



## Boozer

Great thoughts Reg, sure they went right over his head though...


----------



## toto

Good job reg, wish I would have thought about doing that way. Look, this is just typical of someone who has lost the debate. Get mad, threaten this or that, whatever, I think we all know he knows he lost. Go ahead and take your ball home.


----------



## Splitshot

Kzoofisher,

When I first saw your first post, I said here is a guy looking for reasons to justify gear restrictions. I think we have been very polite and where I come from if someone asks a question like you did in your first post and someone answers your inquiry the polite thing to do is respond to their answers, not ignore them and go off on some other tangent. If you keep dodging the other persons comments you should expect some to get a little terse.. 

Since there was no science used to defend gear restrictions, to then say that both sides have studies and science to back up their point of view for example is totally incorrect and is evidence you dont care about science. All our DNR fish biologist agree with us. In all of the research done by our DNR leading up to the decisions for more gear restrictions the biologist have supported our position that gear restrictions have little if any impact on the fishery.

Your statement that you want the fishing community to work together for the good of all fishermen is also disingenuous. If you did, you would be arguing for what is fair for everyone like we support. It is not us who are dividing the fishing community, but those supporting special rules for their own benefit because they somehow feel justified in special rules for themselves.

Making the statement that;


kzoofisher said:


> Cold Water Commission meetings where proposals were changed and compromises reached based on science and the limits of enforcement


 shows your ignorance of what actually happened. There was no science used and the committee worked in secrecy for well over a year before one bait guy got involved. Personally I tried to get on the committee in June of 2010 but was denied mainly because I would have argued against what the politicians wanted. If you know someone has a different point of view, and will raise questions that some dont want to answer one way to stop the questions is to discredit the person. Call him a kook or a trouble maker or whatever it takes.

Don, I think Rays remark was sarcastic and as we all know the gear restriction decisions were not made using science but were politically motivated. In fact the science was ignored and the compromise was a last minute attempt to appease the objections of some fishermen who stood against displacing more bait fishermen from our best waters. We also know that the DNR would base most of their decisions on science first and then accommodate social issues if possible if politics were not involved. 

We shouldnt be making wildlife decisions based on compromise just like Jim Dexter stated. If there are biological reasons we wont ask anyone, we will just do it because that is our job.


When you posted;


kzoofisher said:


> I'm sorry this thread has degenerated so badly.


 I predicted this would happen because it always seems to happen when one side has no facts to justify their position and are looking for an excuse to back out of the discussion. It has only degenerated because you and a few others cant support gear restrictions. 

Since you made the statement in your first post;


kzoofisher said:


> . Given that social considerations are already taken into account my question is this: What level of social benefit or pressure is your cut off point for allowing social considerations over conservation?
> 
> I'll use the Pere Marquette as my example since it seems to be a focal point of discussion here.
> 
> If the residents of Lake County had a referendum and a majority wanted GR water extended or reduced I would give their opinion a ton of weight.


I live in Lake County so why should what I say carry more weight than someone who lives in Kalamazoo for example. We all have the same vested interest in all waters. Kzoo, Instead of trying to run from the discussion why dont you answer our claim that gear restrictions are discriminatory? What do you say about the Public Trust Doctrine? What do you say about the DNR not following what their own rules tell them they must do? How do you answer the fact that some of us were pushed downstream after spending many years learning where the trout live and how to catch them? What no compassion for us just because you and people like you want the exclusive use of our best water. 

I know that some think we dont deserve to fish these pristine waters because we litter, drink beer, are slobs, kill trout etc.. but we dont think you deserve any special privileges just like we dont think we deserve any special rights.

We dont believe that keeping a river at its peak carrying capacity justifies restricting our participation. We think the DNR is obligated to look out for all the citizens and stand up against political injustice. We dont think our public resources should be managed for economic reasons but instead for what is best for all citizens. We wont just get over it and pick up a fly rod because as fishermen we want to use the best legal technique when we go fishing because we fish to catch fish. If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it, but next time you ask a question, be prepared answer the honest replies to your questions or dont ask any questions.

Simon, I feel cheated that you are running away without answering my post. But before you run, understand that we know it is more difficult to change the rules once they are made, and we know this might take a long time, but we will keep working until the state of Michigan does the right thing. As I attended all three meetings, I can say that overall there were more people against the gear restrictions than for them in spite of the well organized efforts of the guides and fly fishing community. The DNR ignored the two thousand signatures submitted by Kings and Eds Sport shops in Baldwin in their little counting diversion but you believe what you will.

And finally you can live in denial about the Public Trust Doctrine and keep saying it doesnt matter, but I fear you are in for a real let down. It is very apparent you have not read the document and if you did, you would see that it protects your rights as well as ours. Im sorry it doesnt protect your special rights, but in the end, that is what this is all about. 

On a parting note to you and Kzoo and James If I had to guess, there are a lot of guys who support these special privileges who are reading some of your posts and are secretly praying that you just please go away so maybe you are doing the right thing. In any event we appreciate the fact that you tried.


----------



## doogie mac

simopj said:


> I'm out, this will be my last post on this thread, and maybe the site for that matter. If you guys think its your God given right to fish however you want, where ever you want, when ever you want. Go for it. Keep up the good fight for the lower class rights or what ever you think your representing. All I know is last year, when it mattered, those of us that wanted to seek change in how our rivers are managed mobilized, wrote letters, attended meetings, and had our voices heard. If they hold more meetings in the next year or five years from now we'll be there doing it all over again. If you guys think its unfair bring it, but considering how these things go I think you have an up hill battle. The regs are there now and my "elitist" friends and I aim to keep them that way. On a side note I think all of your analogies about drivers licenses and speed limits or what ever are about as stupid a comparison as I have ever heard. The Public trust doctrine will not apply in your arguments. And there is a distinct separation of church and state in our great nation, so don't rely on what you think god did or did not entitle you to. If you cared enough this discussion would not be taking place, so look in the mirror and realize you are partially to blame because you didn't show up when it mattered. Nobody blind sided you everyone had a chance, you just lost.
> 
> I'm sorry if the truth hurts
> good luck and better fishing
> Simon


Wow! Even if I did support gear regs,I sure as hell wouldnt want you as my spokesman!:rant:


----------



## fishinDon

> Don, I think Ray&#8217;s remark was sarcastic and as we all know the gear restriction decisions were not made using science but were politically motivated. In fact the science was ignored and the compromise was a last minute attempt to appease the objections of some fishermen who stood against displacing more bait fishermen from our best waters. We also know that the DNR would base most of their decisions on science first and then accommodate social issues if possible if politics were not involved.


RD - 

RR and I talked over email just a bit ago, no worries there. Looks like he's still up for fishing, so I assume we are good.  See you at the clean up tomorrow!

There's no disputing that the gear restrictions were political in nature. I wish they would go away. FishmanMark is right, gear restrictions are trout fishing's Antler Point Restrictions.

Don


----------



## kzoofisher

Splitshot, 
Actually everyone has been polite to me, its the name calling by others that made me say that the thread had degenerated. I stated my question quite specifically in the first post :

What level of social benefit or pressure is your cut off point for allowing social considerations over conservation?


Some people answered directly and some got off the beaten path a little but all the responses were essentially that at no point would they consider social factors in setting conservation regulations. Science is clearly the only factor that most people here will take in to account and that is fair enough.

I finished my post with:

My point here is that I think there can be a time and a place for specialized regs and we should all think about what our own tolerances for them are.


No effort to hide my feelings. I gave some reasons why I thought specialized regs were ok in some cases and invited others to consider what they thought and post it. Quite a few of you did and it would seem that slot limits are pretty popular when the social aspect of *trophy* or big fish is being considered. Im glad to know that and hope that the people who said so will see that their own views are a little more nuanced than just *science*. 

As to my later comment about compromises made after the public meetings were held and the science taken in to account I can only give you a concrete example for Mio because that was the only stretch that I took a personal interest in. The original proposals from the flyfishing groups was for the size limits on rainbows and brooks to remain the same, no-kill on browns and the possession season to run concurrent with the state wide season. The reports I got from later meetings said it was shown that the survival rate for rainbows was negligible and that no-kill on browns would hurt the local economy so everyone agreed to lower the size on rainbows and brooks and allow one brown over 18. Significantly the season on rainbows was expanded to year round so that anglers wishing to keep fish would have an extended opportunity in the fall. In my book that is a perfect example of different groups negotiating a reasonable compromise. Its seems that the folks over on the PM couldnt be reasonable and that resulted in a lot of hard feelings.

I have apologized earlier for not responding more quickly but I just dont have the time to give full responses very often and I worry that brief one off responses are to easily mis-understood.


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> Splitshot,
> Quite a few of you did and it would seem that slot limits are pretty popular when the social aspect of *trophy* or big fish is being considered. Im glad to know that and hope that the people who said so will see that their own views are a little more nuanced than just *science*.


Interesting point you make here. Maybe everyone doesn't want to catch big brown trout. I do. Even though I never eat them, I prefer catching them, mainly because it's a heck of a lot of fun!  

Maybe some people prefer small ones cause they'd rather eat those. That's actually how I select my harvest, I take a couple small ones home to eat and release the big ones. I guess, in a way, I'd be bummed if there were litterally no eater size fish, but I don't see this becoming a problem...

I am a fan of slot limits because I see them as a compromise between those that would like to see most, if not all, fish released and those that want to harvest fish as part of their experience. I also believe, but don't have any science yet to prove it, that fish will grow more rapidly in an area where a decent portion of the smaller trout are removed. Of course, in 2011 we may have a hard time getting people to remove enough small ones to make any noticable difference.

To tell the truth, we could probably put every river in either Type 1 or Type 4 category and not notice any difference to the population. With most creel studies showing roughly 90% of all trout released anyway, I don't think you'd be able to tell.

I wish there were a way to get two identical stretches of river (same habitat, weather, etc) and put Type 4 on one, and flies only, C/R on the other and take the Pepsi challenge. If you were on highly productive waters with our typical 50%+ natural mortality, I'd be willing to bet that the electroshocker wouldn't be able to tell me which was Pepsi and which was Coke... 

Don


----------



## Splitshot

kzoofisher said:


> What level of social benefit or pressure is your cut off point for allowing social considerations over conservation?


When a biologist makes a scientific determination it will always have social implications. That means you cannot take social issues out of the decision making process. What you want is social reasoning used first and then try to justify it with science. Any time our biologist determine a course of action must be taken to protect resources, they are bound to do it in such a way that protects the rights of all citizens. 

Gear restriction rules were made to benefit a small minority at the expense of the majority of fishermen. They were not based on any biological data to protect any fishery as the DNR fish biologist stated in their studies of all rivers that were considered for gear restrictions. The DNR has no mandate to manage our rivers for trophy fish or our public lands for trophy deer. Their job is to do what is best for the fish and wildlife populations only as it pertains to protecting the resources. They also have an obligation to consider all citizens not just trophy hunters and fishermen and is what they say in their mission statement.


The more I look at these issues, the more I am convinced that these so called reasonable compromises are very flawed. The Mio restriction issue that you mentioned is just one. I&#8217;m sure the biologist agreed that taking more rainbows out of that section would result in more food for other trout that do better in the warmer water than the rainbows but the idea of keeping one brown over 18" is a feel good non scientific idea. It does nothing to protect the fishery and does very little if anything to increase the odds of catching a 18" or bigger brown trout.


Having said that, a large part of the problem lies with people like you and me, at least me. I think of myself as a good fisherman and very knowledgeable about trout, their environment and the ecosystem they live in, but I am not a fish biologist who works in the field every day who is trained as a scientist and while I am entitled to my opinions I do not think my interpretation of what I think is scientific should carry the same weight as a working DNR fish biologist.

When we ask our scientist to make fishery or wildlife decisions based on social and economic considerations, that is a different story. It is totally unfair to put them in that position and is why the Resource Stewards within MUCC exist. Unfortunately when it comes to fly fishing philosophy they too succumb to emotional and moral considerations.


The Public Trust Doctrine that you have not addressed in your posts is clear and states that each state has a deep obligation to hold in trust for all citizens all the waters in our state free forever and rights that are specifically defined are fishing and navigation. The PTD allows the state to manage resources to protect them but does not allow the state to make rules if they limit recreation.

Gear restrictions clearly restrict recreation and I think a strong case can be made that trophy regulations restrict recreation as well. 

The problem is when politics get involved, and fish biologist start thinking they are social engineers and keep pushing the boundaries beyond their original charter at some point someone is going to push back. That is where we come in. If you can find the mission statement of the DNR you will see that they are charged with managing a fishery that benefits all parties. That does not include taking the rights away from some citizens to satisfy the desires of other citizens like making rules that might produce more trophy trout.


This brings me back to well informed fishermen making demands for what we want. We have more than 600,000 fishermen, women and children who purchase a Michigan trout license. I think it was Dr. Kelly Smith who provided some numbers justifying their decision. I can&#8217;t remember exactly but as I recall it was around 650 or so letters and e-mails in support of the restrictions and perhaps around 200 fishermen who showed up at the meetings expressing various views.

So we justify denying opportunity of a majority of fishermen from some of our best waters in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine because approximately 0.0012 of fishermen decide they just want it that way.

We have hundreds of organizations on lakes that have public accesses that want to deny public use because they feel only they can protect these pristine waters. We have many groups fighting to keep hunters and trappers off public lands and the Federal Government closing off thousands of access roads which deny the public access to those environments because they can. All those and many other actions crowd us all into smaller and smaller areas degrading our outdoor opportunities because they have learned to lobby some bureaucrat who almost always rely on the ignorance and apathy of busy outdoor people who have no idea what is happening to them.


I get so tired reading that with gear regulations there will be less litter, a more quality fishing experience and more and bigger trout. We have some of the best fishing in the country and there are plenty of trophy trout in most of our trout rivers and streams. Instead of trying to convert our rivers into fish ponds, learn how to fish and explore a little and you will find them


----------

