# Any news on the releasing of fish on the Little Man.



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

Spawn Tosser said:


> I would say 10-15 inch slot limit and that would be fine. We do only keep pictures of the big ones, and eat the smaller to medium size fish.
> 
> DryFly, you used to stop in to my shop by the airport in GR and buy stainless hardware for your boats I think, probably about 8 or 9 years ago? Glad to see your still building them!


I applaud your conservation efforts.
I do remember purchasing fasteners from you. If I reacll, your company started dealing exclusively with Steel Case and I had to go to your competition. 

Good fishing and create some more memories with your camera. Who knows, you may catch that big one again when he gets a little bigger!


----------



## Spawn Tosser (Apr 9, 2008)

DryFly said:


> I applaud your conservation efforts.
> I do remember purchasing fasteners from you. If I reacll, your company started dealing exclusively with Steel Case and I had to go to your competition.
> 
> Good fishing and create some more memories with your camera. Who knows, you may catch that big one again when he gets a little bigger!


Yea, that was us. Brilliant business decision that was.


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

Splitshot,
I finally had an opportunity to read all of your post. You are assuming that you know the guys at the Indian Club, but I'm not sure you really do.
I felt it necessary to come to their defense as I would do for you, if the situation came up.
I personally know almost every member and have worked, fished and socialized with them on many occasions over the last few years. I do not know of any other group that works as hard or donates more personal time and money towards restoring and protecting the river. They are a truly ethical, conservation minded group. 
They own a part of the river and pay a lot of property taxes, I believe this gives them the right to post it against trespassing, especially when they have many members and family members who already fish the river. 
They do not condemn anyone for keeping a fish every now and then. Individuals have kept some for a meal and some are mounted on the wall. You probably will not see anyone from the club post or brag on this web site about how many fish they catch or what size. To them it is a personal gratification, they need nothing more. Could this be why you think they do not know how to fish? 
I asked some of the older members about them pushing the DNR to make the restrictions you mention and they do not recall any such action. They did tell me about a land swap and since the property they acquired was once open to the public, they would still allow it. This was not an agreement, and legally if it was, they could not close it off.
There are some very talented fly fishermen and I asked them if they fish other methods. Some do on certain occasions but I was told by many that at one time they fished with spinners and crawlers. I was told as time went on and they were catching many fish, they decided to make it a little more of a challenge and fly fish year around, not only the Hex hatch. To target a fish in a hole or run with a dry fly or streamer, usually resulted in less fish but more satisfaction. I guess I can relate to this. 

You are correct about the DNR using scientific date to set regulations. Remember daily limit and possession go hand in hand. Someone who is a very good fisherman and fishes many days, some consecutively could cause this limit regulation to hurt the fishery. An individual who kills a daily limit probably will not eat all of those fish the next day. Therefore if he goes out the next day and again kills his limit, then he is in violation of the possession rule.
If the DNR took this practice into account for all fisher people, then I'm certain that they would have to make changes to protect the fishery. 

Giving the fish away will side step the possession issue, but again is not good for the fishery. It is not fair for people to accept and consume fish that are given to them on a regular basis and not help support the sport by purchasing a fishing license.

So much for that.
When are you moving up to your place on the river permanently?




Splitshot said:


> Since I know the DNR does not survey individual fishermen on the stretch in question the information probably came from the Indian Club whose members only fly fish.
> 
> I have been fishing that section of river since the fifties and can tell you this has always been big fish water. Even before this survey I was catching trout over 25" on a regular basis. About 4 or 5 years ago I kept a brown that was 27" to have mounted, and one of the members of the club questioned me as to why I kept it. He didnt think I should have taken this big fish out of the system.
> 
> ...


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Dave,

I find it very interesting that you would have a conversation about what I said about the Indian Club with some of its members and then defend them without first talking to me before posting their intemperatation. 

I am very careful not to say things unless Im not pretty sure they are accurate. I have many sources including some who were involved first hand in some recent rule changes and decisions made about the land swap many years ago. All I can say, is it was a hell of a deal for the club. They gave up some marginal trout water that had easy access because of the adjacent public road for some of the best water on the river where access is very limited but that just shows how resourceful they are.

Many people who live around there predicted that they would find a way to stop the public from using their roads and were not at all surprised when it happened. You said; They own a part of the river and pay a lot of property taxes, you believe this gives them the right to post it against trespassing, especially when they have many members and family members who already fish the river.

Dave, I agree they have the right to post against trespassing but I also feel it necessary to correct part of your statement about owning part of the river. Neither you nor I nor the Indian Club own the river but perhaps this misunderstanding about ownership of the land adjacent to the river is why you were complaining about legal fishermen in an earlier post keeping some of the bigger brown trout and maybe you should re-read the part of my post where they took over the river starting at the end of my cast. I noticed you didnt try to defend that action, perhaps again because you didnt think they needed defending because like them you think owning the land near the river gives you special rights to the river. Why else would an ethical club member enter the water and start fishing immediately in front of another fisherman?

However I agree with you about most of the members being ethical and conservation minded and spending a lot of money for its upkeep. It certainly wouldnt be fair to group them all in with the guys who ended my fishing day. Most of my encounters on that stretch of river with members have been very pleasant and cordial although they have been far and few between.

Maybe the 24" rule was not a formal one, but perhaps an understanding between members, but I have heard it from several members and others who have been allowed to fish from club property for many years. but really what difference does that make. None really. I agree with you that my remark about their fishing skills was out of line so I take that one back as it was very subjective.

I think your statement about giving fish away as being somehow unethical or as you put it sidestepping the possession rule is truly a lapse in judgement on your part. It is the same attitude we often see coming from people who think killing trout is not what fishermen should be doing. By taking that position in your view anyone who shares a fish dinner with friends and family is morally flawed and then you compound it by saying that by giving fish away is somehow not good for the fishery. 

The answer to your other question is we should be moved in permanently by the 1st of June.


----------



## duxdog (Apr 13, 2008)

I remember the days of the 5 fish limit. I remember dragging 5 fish down the river every time I fished:sad:. And everyone that was with me also. Maybe it was an ego thing I don't know. I am not all that convinced the DNR knows what is best for the fishery or the hunting in this state for that matter. I think it should be NO KILL on all female steelhead and Salmon. and a two fish limit. How many more do you need anyway? It is sad to see guys dragging 3 hens down the bank. If we still kept fish, we would take several hundred at least a year out of the system. I think there were 5 males kept all season.


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

I certainly would not and did not go behind your back on this issue.
You stated things that I thought were not accurate and when the opportunity arose, I asked some of the members about it. I did not mention your name. You posted what you thought and I responded with what they told me. 
If I would have talked to you first would you have changed what you said? 
I certainly do not want to offend anyone but both sides of this issue should be on the table and now they are.

You are right they did get a hell of a deal, that is why they went for it. The deal was the deal and did not allow for the property to be open for public use.
No one owns the river and it is there for all to use. It becomes an issue when people trespass across private land to get into the river. 

It sounds like you ran into a jerk while fishing the river that runs through the club property. No excuse for this but I would guess that he was fed up with the trespassing that goes on. Not many people will walk up the river to fish,
they go across land. This should not be a problem with the increased patrolling that is going on. I witnessed members being very cordial to fishermen who are fly fishing in the river. I have also seen trespassers and those fishing with spinners and bait in this flys only section get hassled.


A fish dinner with friends and family, who do not buy licenses should not be a problem, but giving fish away on a regular basis so one can go out the next day and again keep their limit again (because they have none in possession), is just not right. It is the fees from licensed fisher people that support our sport. 
Too many times I have seen guys with their limit in coolers or on stringers and when they are done fishing, ask if anyone wants some fish. Especially with Steelhead and Browns. In my opinion, if they did not want the fish in the first place, why did they kill them?
Maybe they have an need for the attention or recognition that they can catch fish. 

To each his own, unless the law says differently, but some of us have differing opinions.



Splitshot said:


> Dave,
> I find it very interesting that you would have a conversation about what I said about the Indian Club with some of its members and then defend them without first talking to me before posting their intemperatation.
> 
> I am very careful not to say things unless Im not pretty sure they are accurate. I have many sources including some who were involved first hand in some recent rule changes and decisions made about the land swap many years ago. All I can say, is it was a hell of a deal for the club. They gave up some marginal trout water that had easy access because of the adjacent public road for some of the best water on the river where access is very limited but that just shows how resourceful they are.
> ...


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Like I said Dave, I find it interesting that you take what club members say at face value, and question what I said and then ask the question;


DryFly said:


> If I would have talked to you first would you have changed what you said?


 I get it Dave. You seem to hint that I am the trespasser, that I engage in illegal methods and complain that I have a need for attention or recognition because I can catch fish. It is more than innuendo to me. On one of your first posts in this thread you say you seldom fish parts of the river not within walking distance of your place, but when it suits your purposes, you know many of the club members as you fish with them often. 

Actually if members of the Indian Club took issue with what I said, dont you think they should have said something. I dont understand why you feel compelled to defend them when the only information you have is what they tell you. Perhaps you enjoy hanging out with the club guys and you think attacking the guy who would have the audacity keep a trophy trout from their river will put you in good stead with them. Do you honestly think a bunch of lawyers, doctors or whatever need you to defend them.

When I was 15, I rode my bike ten miles from Dublin to Indian Bridge. I almost always fished upstream, but that day I decided to fish downstream because someone said a friend had caught a decent trout down there. As I waded about 40 yards from the club headquarters on top of the hill, someone unloaded a high powered rifle into the river directly in front of me. They werent shooting at me, but the message was clear. Perhaps next time your over there you can ask them if they think that might have happened? Perhaps you might even get one of them to admit to it or even admit it might have happened. 

Apparently things just happen on Indian Club property. Their new property is the best section of the Little Manistee and perhaps the best section of river in the state. It is a section of river I fished often as a kid since the sixties not just the last 12 years. Im sure the DNR just decided to trade that section of river for a marginal section of river just because it sounded like a good idea to them. 

Trout fishing for the general public opens the last Saturday in April to September 30 for all trout streams in the state except for the Little Manistee River from Spencers Bridge down stream where the season closed October 31. For some reason the DNR felt that it was good science to close all the other sections of rivers and streams in the state September 30 but allow the season to stay open on Indian Club property until the end of October.

Having decided that October 31 wasnt long enough the DNR arbitrary without any influence from club members decided October 31 wasnt long enough so they extended the season again until December 31 just a couple of years ago. No doubt because the DNR felt there was not enough pressure on the winter steelhead on Indian Club property. 

Your stated opinion earlier in this thread Dave is steelhead should not be kept in this river since it is the main source of steelhead for the rest of the rivers in the state. Im sure the members of the Indian Club were just as surprised as the rest of us when the season was lengenthed on in spring and fall and of course had no hand in lobbying for these rule changes.

In the last few years the DNR and again without any influence from the Indian Club members decided to change the status of this section to trophy waters and reduce the limit to 2 fish instead of 5. According to my sources, this section of the Little Manistee holds twice as many fish as the next best section of any river in the state. You know like it holds so many fish, that the DNR felt limits should be reduced even more.

So arguably the best public section of any river in our state is traded to a club made up of well to do members for some of the most marginal trout water. Instead of being open to all legal methods of fishing it is now only open to fly fishermen who represent 2% of the fishermen and women. On top of that the seasons have been changed and the regulations have been changed that seem to reflect the philosophy that most fly fishermen, agree with including you.

Not only do I feel cheated by the system, but so should every other fisherman in this state who will never have the opportunity to hook into a trophy brown trout in this section unless they do it with flies and that is not likely because as you have stated it is very difficult to access. 

Next time you over at the club having a martini, why dont you ask club members if you can review their log and see when the last 24" brown trout was caught. Most members should remember that the last time it happened, as 2 browns 24" or better were caught that day.

No there is no written record of the land deal because I spent a half day going through the DNR records a few years ago trying to piece together what really happened. As far as I know there is no written record of the deal to allow the public access on foot as part of the deal, but my question is why would the club even allowed the public to have access if there wasnt some deal?

The people who made the deal are no longer with the Department, and even though I dont have non refutable evidence, just try and convince anyone that club members had no influence in any of the decisions I just discussed and see how many people think it could have happened without smoke and mirrors.

Like you said, they did get a hell of a deal but please tell me how did the rest of the citizens of our state benefit? What part of this deal was good for them? 

Even with my bum knee I would have no problem avoiding the increased patrols you mentioned, but I dont have to trespass. I own 4 of your float boats remember and it is only a 10 minute drive from my house to Spencers Bridge and I doubt that even with their influence the club can get the DNR to change the designation of that section of river from navigable to non navigable. I think that any reasonable person who reads this little story, about the special treatment might come to the same conclusions I have no matter how hard you try to defend them.

As far as your other implication, your bias is really shows Dave.


DryFly said:


> In my opinion, if they did not want the fish in the first place, why did they kill them? Maybe they have an need for the attention or recognition that they can catch fish.


Your meaning is clear and you are entitled to your opinion. I just wonder why you never asked me not to post the pictures I took of you. 

Over the years here I have posted an average of 200+ pictures a year on this web-site and any one who post pictures knows it takes extra time and effort that goes beyond lugging a camera around and taking the time to take the picture in the first place. I think almost all do it because they want to share their success, story or adventure, not because of their need for recognition. Even before your post I have decided not to post as many pictures as I have in past years because I am fed up with dealing with the envy, jealously and criticism. I just wonder if you think I am seeking attention when I post a picture of a coopers hawk, a white deer or a porcupine or is it just posting pictures of fish you have a problem with? I apologize for having a picture of me holding a nice brown trout but I removed it today just for you. 

As far as the club members, why dont you direct them to this thread and if they take issue with anything I wrote they can ask me about it. They can do it through e-mail or send me a PM or just come over to the house. I am one of their closest neighbors.


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

This started out as a debate about keeping some or all fish taken in the Little Manistee River.

Then it changed to condemning a private group of property owners about their philosophy on fishing and the claim that they pressured the DNR to change the rules for them.

My intention is not to make this personal but to debate the principals of limiting one's catch.

The club does not care about you or how many fish you catch. They do not want me to defend them and probably would rather me not say a thing.

I happen to have fished with you many times and also with them. Because of this I become aware of fishing habits on each side of the issue. 

I do not lie or make up stories so you must let your concience be your guide.

I do not like and did not like you to post pictures of me catching fish on web sites. It is not important to me. If you recall the many times we fished together, I would be fighting a nice fish around the bend from you and you would come running with the camera and say "why did you let it go? You did not let me get a picture.

Why get your shorts in a bind over fishing regulations? You are a good all around fisherman and can catch your limit when ever you want. You also have all types of fishing equipment, so if it is open to be open to all methods or flys only, have at it and enjoy the day.


----------



## Tooters (Jul 7, 2007)

need a group hug.


----------



## Fish Eye (Mar 30, 2007)

Tooters said:


> need a group hug.


 
Actually, I was going to suggest a duel with break action six shooters lol. At least we'd get rid of some "meat heads". 

I did kill a nice eating size lake brown last weekend-6 pounder. Stream trout I release nice and gently. Just go catch a nice bucket of perch, maybe a walleye or two instead of killing a stream brown. Call me crazy. I'd just as soon be able to catch some Trout before global warming turns MI into MS.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

The original topic of this thread involved the releasing of fish/steelheads from the DNR egg taking wier on the Little Manistee. It was not, as it has morphed into (and I helped that morphing) into a catch and release of trout.

It has then moved onto other topics which are far removed from the author's purpose.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Whit, you would probably agree that the egg-taking operations on the Little river are long over and that the steelhead are indeed passing the weir un-hindered as I type this. By the way, for the record, I was on the river last week and the run is pretty much over for this year from what I saw.


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

Last weekend a few fish were being caught on the upper stretches of the river and some were fresh but you are correct, it is pretty much over. The fish that came up after they were "handled" at the weir, were quite spooky and did not want to take much of anything.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

DryFly said:


> The fish that came up after they were "handled" at the weir, were quite spooky and did not want to take much of anything.


Dave, I'd like to relate that in human terms, but I'd have to edit my own post............:lol:


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Whit1 said:


> Dave, I'd like to relate that in human terms, but I'd have to edit my own post............:lol:


Well hey, if I were a male steelhead that got milked without having to pay for the cost of dating or what not, I'd be doing circles around that wier. Get released (pun intended), swim back downstream, back up the ladder and right back into the ponds again. Repeat as often as possible. That's what I'd do anyway...


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

thousandcasts said:


> Well hey, if I were a male steelhead that got milked without having to pay for the cost of dating or what not, I'd be doing circles around that wier. Get released (pun intended), swim back downstream, back up the ladder and right back into the ponds again. Repeat as often as possible. That's what I'd do anyway...


Oh my gosh!!! :yikes: Edit! Edit! Edit!.......:tsk: :Modified_.........:lol: :lol:


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

Good idea!
Problem is at my age, I could probably be good if I went through the weir once a day. You Younger guys could make the trip more often 



thousandcasts said:


> Well hey, if I were a male steelhead that got milked without having to pay for the cost of dating or what not, I'd be doing circles around that wier. Get released (pun intended), swim back downstream, back up the ladder and right back into the ponds again. Repeat as often as possible. That's what I'd do anyway...


----------



## DryFly (Jun 4, 2001)

Fish Eye said:


> Actually, I was going to suggest a duel with break action six shooters lol. At least we'd get rid of some "meat heads".
> 
> Splitshot and I are very opinionated people with very different ideas.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

The debate is interesting, at the very least, and somewhat informative for people not as familiar with the river. It is great that you were able to do this without resorting to name calling and slander. Pms might have been a better way to go about this - or a phone call; but I have enjoyed some additional opinionated insight into the Little River. Everyone obviously agrees that it is a river to be treasured.


----------



## Wellston (Dec 28, 2000)

Whit1 said:


> The original topic of this thread involved the releasing of fish/steelheads from the DNR egg taking wier on the Little Manistee. It was not, as it has morphed into (and I helped that morphing) into a catch and release of trout.
> 
> It has then moved onto other topics which are far removed from the author's purpose.


Oh come on Whit!!! Let the "Old Guys" have some fun.   
Jim


----------

