# Am I the only one confused about the new hook regulations??



## wintrrun

mrjimspeaks said:


> I thought you were giving the talk?


I would but everyone knows I am allergic to crowds on rivers.


----------



## cowboy48098

wintrrun said:


> You can fish just about anywhere you want with the exceptions of streams that have closures.
> If you have a gripe about not being able to fish single trebles then thank the thousands of people who show up each fall to snag salmon, not to fish for them.


I guess, but trying to keep up with more and more regulations each year is like trying to keep up with the new tax laws.


----------



## FishMichv2

cowboy48098 said:


> I think you should be able to fish anywhere you want. Because in the end it's just a f****** fish.


you must be trolling, or ignorant to why rules are in place, or you are just awful. are you one of those guys who sneaks in and "fishes" at weirs when there are a few thousand fish sitting there? maybe even in the holding pens?

having respect for the game you seek and the laws in place to protect them goes a long way in preserving the things we have.


----------



## cowboy48098

FishMichv2 said:


> you must be trolling, or ignorant to why rules are in place, or you are just awful. are you one of those guys who sneaks in and "fishes" at weirs when there are a few thousand fish sitting there? maybe even in the holding pens?
> 
> having respect for the game you seek and the laws in place to protect them goes a long way in preserving the things we have.


No I'm just awful. Lol


----------



## nhaisha

kzoofisher said:


> Weighted flies and small jigs with plastic or bait floated under bobbers will be fine. The rule is targeting the "tickler" crowd and designed to make life easier for Enforcement. The CO's know exactly how to interpret the rule and fully understand intent. There are a couple of threads from earlier in the year on this and the purpose was explained at the spring Kalamazoo meeting by Jay Wesley and Brian Gunderman. The whole idea was to take back areas like Tippy so that families could enjoy the opportunity and maybe more kids be drawn to the sport. Really nothing to worry about if you don't fish "lures" that are primarily made of lead and don't set the hook ten times on every cast.
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...ns-formerly-fo-202.516226/page-3#post-5209320
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...f-the-5-6-coldwater-committee-meeting.510168/
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/new-hook-size-law.540146/




Weighted flies??? Come on dude you just threw me off again lol they said no weighted hooks.. I think I'm just gonna say F all this and stick to jigging up walleye in the fall


----------



## ausable_steelhead

I can't remember the last time I used a treb for salmon. Casting off the pier, floating bobbers in the river, bouncing bags off bottom...single hooks work. It's amazing how worried guys seem with not being able to use a treble. Put that sharp single on; you'll do just fine.


----------



## dinoday

I don't think the intent was to stop people from fishing legally. 
Weighted hooks is meant to stop "ticklers" and the like.
I supposed they can run around writing tickets for guys using Mepps, Roostertails and practicality anything that isn't a single hook if they really wanted to but until I see it, I don't think they intend to.
I've met a whole lot of CO's and they are reasonable people that know the difference between someone fishing legally and not. 
I don't expect to see them writing tickets for some guy with a size 8 green caddis with 1/64 of lead inside it.

BTW...while driving over to Tippy last weekend, I noticed Andy's Tackle Box with a big sign selling "spinners"...what sort of snagging contraption is this gonna be? I'm certain it isn't gonna be a Mepps :/


----------



## kzoofisher

nhaisha said:


> Weighted flies??? Come on dude you just threw me off again lol they said no weighted hooks.. I think I'm just gonna say F all this and stick to jigging up walleye in the fall


Weighted flies and jigs are commonly accepted lures. The DNR isn't out to get fisherman they are trying to drive away the snaggers. Basically they will be looking for snagging rigs, not putting accepted lures and flies on a scale to see how much they weigh. Amazes me how so many people want a ten page regulation that will describe down to the last detail what is acceptable. You already know and so do they.


----------



## nhaisha

kzoofisher said:


> Weighted flies and jigs are commonly accepted lures. The DNR isn't out to get fisherman they are trying to drive away the snaggers. Basically they will be looking for snagging rigs, not putting accepted lures and flies on a scale to see how much they weigh. Amazes me how so many people want a ten page regulation that will describe down to the last detail what is acceptable. You already know and so do they.


I understand it clearly now... Just don't like gray areas... I'm law abiding and hate to do anything wrong that might risk a ticket... Licenses are expensive enough lol


----------



## FishKilla419

ausable_steelhead said:


> I can't remember the last time I used a treb for salmon. Casting off the pier, floating bobbers in the river, bouncing bags off bottom...single hooks work. It's amazing how worried guys seem with not being able to use a treble. Put that sharp single on; you'll do just fine.


Exactly. I replace trebles with quality singles on my inline spinners, walleye spoons through the ice. And have never had to use trebs with any type of spawn fishing. Not that big of deal really.
I'm not going to be scared to use the same things I've been using either. Jigs under a bobber. 2 or 3/0 mustad buried in a Apple sized glob of greasy chicken wing. Leo's can watch me for 3 minutes and know my intentions.


----------



## Jfish

It sure sounds to me like any weighted hooks (which includes weighted flies) are off limits. 

As we all know most flossers are completely ignorant to the fact that they're flossing and they believe that salmon are eating bugs in the rivers.

Personally I believe that this rule is here to prevent flossers as well. I didn't read all of the minutes of the meetings or the other threads but when we read the rules, if we understand English; weighted flies are off limits.

...woops gotta go, a salmon just ate my stonefly!


----------



## grabbingills87

So i run a wobble glow on the line in front of my treble its not attached to the treble in anyway is that legal?


----------



## nhaisha

grabbingills87 said:


> So i run a wobble glow on the line in front of my treble its not attached to the treble in anyway is that legal?



Which would make your intentions?????


----------



## TriCitySpartan

'nother noobie question. I understand the hook rule now, but I'm stuck on what that actually translates to as far as hook size on the store shelf. If I go into Cabelas and buy some straight hooks, what # would that be to keep it at 1/2 inch? How about treble hooks on lures? I've looked online but I can't really find any good reference points


----------



## FishKilla419

TriCitySpartan said:


> 'nother noobie question. I understand the hook rule now, but I'm stuck on what that actually translates to as far as hook size on the store shelf. If I go into Cabelas and buy some straight hooks, what # would that be to keep it at 1/2 inch? How about treble hooks on lures? I've looked online but I can't really find any good reference points


Gamakatsu octopus 2/0, the old mustad 3/0 I been using and the owner 1/0 are all 1/2" or very very close.


----------



## TriCitySpartan

FishKilla419 said:


> Gamakatsu octopus 2/0, the old mustad 3/0 I been using and the owner 1/0 are all 1/2" or very very close.


You sir, are awesome. Thank you


----------



## Mr Burgundy

I just went to bps and their brand of octopus hooks in 1/0 are exactly 1/2" piont to shank. That's all I ran last week and never had a prob. Also had a Co come up to me and shot the breeze with me, I was chucking guts and all he did was check my license. Fwiw


----------



## beachnut

The new regulations are a bit confusing. Maybe if they had some pictures or drawings in the handbook that showed whats legal and whats not legal would help some folks out. But then if every one knows whats right and wrong, ticket distribution goes down, think about it. I've been fishing the same way for years and never had a problem, single hook no bigger than 1/2 inch, very small cotton pom pom or a styrofoam bead, split shot up above 18-24 inches. They will hit a single egg pattern, just keep throwing it at em and they will get pissed off and slam it eventually.


----------



## kzoofisher

Was talking at work today with some guys who are veteran Ticklers. They were aware of the rule change and anticipating what the local shops have done to get around it. That's why the rules are so complicated, because there is always a segment of society that knows the intent of the rule and wants to figure out a way to violate it while making prosecution as difficult as possible. With any luck the locals won't have found an alternative yet. The other guy in the room, who loves plugging, told them to learn to floss. I couldn't help but laugh.


----------



## wintrrun

TriCitySpartan said:


> 'nother noobie question. I understand the hook rule now, but I'm stuck on what that actually translates to as far as hook size on the store shelf. If I go into Cabelas and buy some straight hooks, what # would that be to keep it at 1/2 inch? How about treble hooks on lures? I've looked online but I can't really find any good reference points


I buy in 50's or 100's when I buy hooks.
Measure them just for ****s, giggles and piece of mind.


----------



## pinhead

Your point is taken and received. This law does not affect me, however it's interpretation and the way it's written does impact others from the posts I've read. My biggest concern is that this was written to describe legal artificial lures. Very clearly this point is made prior to adoption and after the 1st manual printing. A hook used with natural bait is not an artificial lure. To take part of the description about artificial lures and apply them across all terminal tackle requirements is not the regulation. In fact, the way it's written and how it was placed into the mannual appears that was the case. If they wanted to only allow single pointed hooks or only small trebles on artificial lures, then it needed to be put in two areas. 1. In artificial lures indicating hook size requirments on them. And 2. In the trout stream hook regulations. As the half inch single hooks were already there. They needed to state no trebles on these rivers in question. Since this was not defined in the guide in this manner, I am posing the argument that the written description does not match the interpretation. Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, however I am seeing a problem with the statement that there is no treble hooks allowed unless on an artificial lure. 

Trebs on the ticklers were 1/2 inch or more which was allowed in the past as it was called a lure. All other trebs used as the terminal tackle (eggs or spawn) had to be 3/8 or smaller, and that has been that way for many years and still is allowed from some date to another.... 

IMO, if they wanted no trebs on those rivers period except on artificial lures, it was not put in the manual that way.


----------



## Davelobi

Pinhead, I agree with you. This is poorly written. There is punctuation missing. If there was a comma after the words point to shank while still talking about the single hook as in.. "..point to shank(,) or treble hooks measuring 3/8 inch or less from point to shank only when attached to an artificial.." That would separate the single hook discussion and the trebles allowed on artificial lures. Axiom and Adam, we are not all dummies on here. There would not be over a hundred posts on the subject if it was as cut and dry as you say. I do understand it exactly as you say and agree with you. It also does not affect my fishing in the slightest. It is however not written well as we often see. It also should spell out possession vs using more clearly in the regulations. There should not be much room for discretion/interpretation when laws are/can be enforced and fines levied.


----------



## pinhead

I waited for a reply which located this document. I was searching for the exact law enacted. I only found the proposal, which I assume was enacted as written. Not sure but I found it below which clarifies several things. 

Upon reading it, I can say this that this law was not written in the guide or supplement online to address what they intended. 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FO-202-05_181951_7.pdf


----------



## brookie1

Fisheries orders are law when it comes to fishing. There is no other document like the wildlife conservation order for hunting.

Here is a link to all of them:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_63235-237033--,00.html


----------



## Sean065

"Conservation officers would be able to ticket possession of unlawful fishing gear" so looks like you better not have a loose treble or steelhead jig in your possession. This is a little ridiculous. I can see ticketing for use but not possession. What happeneds if you walk out to the mouth of the platte with a bag of spoons, spinners, or rapalas? Technically you cant walk the river bank out to the mouth with that gear.


----------



## Davelobi

How about this thought,
Conservation officers have bad days just like police and the rest of us do. They just dealt with some real low gear folks and are stuck on a long overtime day. You happen along and they lash out at you. Believe me, this happens. I have law enforcement friends and they are as human as you and I. You end up being given a citation while fishing and you feel that you were not in the wrong. Lots of people travel long distances to go fishing. Now you are guilty (and have a fine to pay, at a minimum) until you prove yourself innocent. This means you have to take an unpaid day off work (lose a days pay), spend the time and gas money to return a great distance to the area, possibly hire legal representation ($$) just to defend yourself. If you are successful in your defense the ticket is discarded. You have been through a lot of time, trouble, money.
If the laws were written more clearly, both you and the leo would have known the right or wrong of the original situation. Try getting the state to now compensate you for the wrongful allegation/ticketing. Good luck. Tons more money out the window in additional legal fees if you even bother. The basic hunting and fishing laws should not need trained legal council to decipher them. There is obviously a problem as is evident in the amount of banter on this very discussion. I'm glad it is being discussed. I hope it can remain civil.


----------



## brookie1

The laws shouldn't be there at all. Equipment laws like in this thread are "add-on" laws in attempt to further reduce crime because a certain element doesn't pay attention to current laws. If that sounds a little insane, well it is.The reality of it is that snagging is illegal and that is the only law needed. Additional laws potentially create more criminals for those that don't keep up. Meanwhile snaggers are going to continue snagging regardless.


----------



## kzoofisher

This thread demonstrates the dilemma the DNR has. They are trying to stop illegal activity and created a new rule to make it easier, less time consuming and less expensive to do so. Detractors of the new rule have two arguments against it; one that it is too complicated/difficult to understand and the other that it isn't complicated enough/leaves too much gray area. I don't know how you reconcile those two points of view. Could a maximum jig weight have been included to stop snaggers from tossing a 1oz jig? Yes, but that further complicates the rule by singling out jigs for a rule that already exists. Could a maximum hook size for trebles have been set? Yes, again that increases complication and because of differences between manufacturers a size 4 Mustad may have been legal and a size 4 Owner too big.

I know what the rule is designed for and trust the CO's to implement it fairly. I don't believe that flies and jigs are included as weighted hooks, they fall under the category of artificial lures and may be weighted the same as a plug, spinner or spoon. They are limited to 1oz like everything else. Some of you are over thinking this.


----------



## brookie1

Go back to one "snagging is illegal" law and dump all the equipment laws. Then designate the worst areas as legal for snagging and patrol the rest. That's what I would do.


----------



## Sean065

kzoofisher said:


> This thread demonstrates the dilemma the DNR has. They are trying to stop illegal activity and created a new rule to make it easier, less time consuming and less expensive to do so. Detractors of the new rule have two arguments against it; one that it is too complicated/difficult to understand and the other that it isn't complicated enough/leaves too much gray area. I don't know how you reconcile those two points of view. Could a maximum jig weight have been included to stop snaggers from tossing a 1oz jig? Yes, but that further complicates the rule by singling out jigs for a rule that already exists. Could a maximum hook size for trebles have been set? Yes, again that increases complication and because of differences between manufacturers a size 4 Mustad may have been legal and a size 4 Owner too big.
> 
> I know what the rule is designed for and trust the CO's to implement it fairly. I don't believe that flies and jigs are included as weighted hooks, they fall under the category of artificial lures and may be weighted the same as a plug, spinner or spoon. They are limited to 1oz like everything else. Some of you are over thinking this.


I agree with everything you said except for the part about flies and jigs. Thats the reason they defined artificial lure as plug, spinner, spoon, or body bait. Jigs and weighted flies are left out that definition for a reason.


----------



## kzoofisher

Sean065 said:


> I agree with everything you said except for the part about flies and jigs. Thats the reason they defined artificial lure as plug, spinner, spoon, or body bait. Jigs and weighted flies are left out that definition for a reason.


_Artificial Lure: A manmade lure manufactured to imitate natural bait. Artificial lures include spoons, spinners, *flies *and plugs made of metal, plastic, wood and other non-edible materials. They also include plastic products made to resemble worms, eggs, fish and other aquatic organisms. _

That's an example of the argument over weighted flies being over thinking, they are specifically included as artificial lures. Some people are struggling to find something to complain about and others are being drawn in by the inaccurate information. Jigs are not specifically included but they have always been legal in "artificials only" sections when not fished with live bait. In the new reg sections we're talking about they would be legal with bait too, IMHO.


----------



## METTLEFISH

And so, after many years of failing to address the situation they decided to just get rid of the fish. End problem.


----------



## Sean065

Its written in red. If you are fishing those specific waters during that time frame that is the definition of and artificial lure.


----------



## Sean065

While jigs are not included in either definition, they are weighted hooks. In my opinion they left flies out of that definition on purpose because if it did say flies as you said you could throw a little marabou on a 1/0 weighted hook and call it a fly.


----------



## pinhead

Here is a steelhead jig/fly I use in October, or used to use. (Looks like not allowed until Nov 15 now). 










Thank you Michigan DNR for not doing your job to effectively address the issue. Maybe you will fix the real problem correctly for the next publication.

And thanks to all the snagging crowds. Here is something for you, which the sooner you catch on, the more rewarding the experience will be.


----------



## fishinfever

Sean065 said:


> While jigs are not included in either definition, they are weighted hooks. In my opinion they left flies out of that definition on purpose because if it did say flies as you said you could throw a little marabou on a 1/0 weighted hook and call it a fly.


I think you've got it! I have been reading all of these posts trying to figure out an easy way to represent these new regs and solve the the fly question and that is the only way to explain it. Also, I think it is easier and more clear to describe what is legal rather than try to name every possible attempt at a loop hole (a tickler with feather, marabou on a 1/0 weighted hook, etc.) and call all of them illegal. People who are hell bent to violate will always try to bend the rules or find a loop hole instead of just following the rules and learning how to catch fish.
Tight lines, FF


----------



## kzoofisher

Sean065 said:


> View attachment 190533
> 
> Its written in red. If you are fishing those specific waters during that time frame that is the definition of and artificial lure.


I would call the part in red a typo. It contradicts the long standing definition in black above but mirrors the draft proposal from May 2014. Since the DNR had no regulatory authority for four months they had to print the fishing guide with rules they knew would change and act quickly to post the new regs after the NRC got the authority to make them.Typo's are not a surprise in that situation but if you prefer to believe that the DNR intentionally made fly fishing basically illegal on a number of streams that's your call. I think the fact that no fly fishing organization has made a stink about the rule speaks volumes about the probability of a weighted fly eliciting a ticket.


----------



## kzoofisher

pinhead said:


> Here is a steelhead jig/fly I use in October, or used to use. (Looks like not allowed until Nov 15 now).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Michigan DNR for not doing your job to effectively address the issue. Maybe you will fix the real problem correctly for the next publication.
> 
> And thanks to all the snagging crowds. Here is something for you, which the sooner you catch on, the more rewarding the experience will be.


That is a nice jig but it is by the DNR's definition not a fly. If you were to use that in the flies only water of the PM the chance of a CO writing you a ticket when he sees it is high. Make the head lead eyes that you tie on and you will have a fly and not a feather jig. If you tied that up in 1oz and had a hook gap small enough it might be legal, especially if you managed to float it under a bobber. If you were "jigging" it with 5' sweeps of the rod I suspect you might draw attention


----------



## Sean065

kzoofisher said:


> I would call the part in red a typo. It contradicts the long standing definition in black above but mirrors the draft proposal from May 2014. Since the DNR had no regulatory authority for four months they had to print the fishing guide with rules they knew would change and act quickly to post the new regs after the NRC got the authority to make them.Typo's are not a surprise in that situation but if you prefer to believe that the DNR intentionally made fly fishing basically illegal on a number of streams that's your call. I think the fact that no fly fishing organization has made a stink about the rule speaks volumes about the probability of a weighted fly eliciting a ticket.


How can you think its a typo? Its directly from the eregulations which are more up to date than the fishing digest (most places dont have the updated versions) and it doesn't make fly fishing illegal, you just cant use bead heads. And it doesn't contradict the longstanding rules, it trumps them.


----------



## GVDocHoliday

Nowhere does it say flies are not legal. Single pointed unweighted hooks include flies. What is not legal, is a fly tied out of a treble hook. Such as those big yarn balls.


----------



## pinhead

GVDocHoliday said:


> Nowhere does it say flies are not legal. Single pointed unweighted hooks include flies. What is not legal, is a fly tied out of a treble hook. Such as those big yarn balls.


And since flies can be weighted, this does not exclude them. The point is that weight cannot be attached to be suspended below the hook or from the hook. Using a weighted fly from my interpretation is legal per the way the publicised the additional restriction which was on artificial lures indicated which did not encompass flies in that subsection. (which is why I thought the rabbit zonker jig was legal, but not 100% confident based on the various interpretations)


----------



## JVoutdoors

I fished the Betsie this weekend and was trying to really look at what people were using. It appears that from what I could see everyone I saw was trying to comply; spawn on sml singles, sml unweighted flys, sml stick baits, etc that from 10' away looked to be within the simply def of the new reg. BUT, I did net a salmon for a guy who incidentally snagged it near the tail with a sml unweighted fly with some weight 2" up the line and before he released it, we pulled out the slightly larger than 1/2 single hook with yarn on it and attached to 30lb mono embedded in its back. And by passing judgement on the crowd of people I don't know based on past years... I think the new regs are working. And I saw no COs (that doesn't mean they were not there) but heard they have been very active there. I could tell.


----------



## Jfish

pinhead said:


> And since flies can be weighted, this does not exclude them. The point is that weight cannot be attached to be suspended below the hook or from the hook. Using a weighted fly from my interpretation is legal per the way the publicised the additional restriction which was on artificial lures indicated which did not encompass flies in that subsection. (which is why I thought the rabbit zonker jig was legal, but not 100% confident based on the various interpretations)


When the regulations talk about 'flies' and 'artificial lures' they are referring to flies being legal. Just not a fly tied on a weighted hook.

There's plenty of flies that aren't tied on weighted hooks. Most of the flies that I use for trout are not weighted. I do have some weighted nymphs and by definition that would be illegal.

Otherwise a guy could wrap a 1/2" shank to point hook with lead tape and then wrap a feather around around it.


----------



## eye-sore

They were there....they were watching from woods with binos. I had a talk with two officers who were very friendly.I would agree it's working.


----------



## swampbuck

The thing I can't understand is WHY it should be illegal anyways....those fish are going to die and go to waste, if they are not caught. That is a waste of our resources. Why should one group have the right to determine "ethics" over all, regarding fish that have 0% chance of survival.


----------



## JVoutdoors

swampbuck said:


> The thing I can't understand is WHY it should be illegal anyways....those fish are going to die and go to waste, if they are not caught. That is a waste of our resources. Why should one group have the right to determine "ethics" over all, regarding fish that have 0% chance of survival.


 Deer and ducks are all going to die also from natural causes, so maybe we be able to shoot them at will so they don't just go to waste in 8-9 years also? Not ethics or better than others to me, just a fair chase and let people try to catch them issue. Seen a few steelhead and browns get the same snagger's hook also. But they will die someday anyway I guess...


----------



## Davelobi

swampbuck said:


> The thing I can't understand is WHY it should be illegal anyways....those fish are going to die and go to waste, if they are not caught. That is a waste of our resources. Why should one group have the right to determine "ethics" over all, regarding fish that have 0% chance of survival.


^Brave man swampbuck but it did need to be said. 
I have never kept any fall river fish. They all get returned to spawn or be taken by others that want them. To me they are a resource of entertainment not groceries. I'll eat my summer lake fish and harvest their spawn for fall/winter fishing. I believe there plenty of these fall run salmon that supply sustenance to lots of folks who rely on them for food. I also believe that (despite them not being natural to Michigan) God gave us the fish and animals to eat. I don't want to be the guy depriving the less fortunate their groceries. 

I'd be curious if any lawmakers, LEO's, etc are/will read through this forum. Might be illuminating.


----------



## dinoday

swampbuck said:


> The thing I can't understand is WHY it should be illegal anyways....those fish are going to die and go to waste, if they are not caught. That is a waste of our resources. Why should one group have the right to determine "ethics" over all, regarding fish that have 0% chance of survival.


You're right that they are going to die but they aren't wasted.
If they don't get gigged in the back and dragged into a net, they will reproduce and make more salmon for the future.
It does take some skill to catch one legally but almost none to snag one..just my opinion.


----------



## Dox811

Just because a fish isn't on someone's stringer post spawn doesn't mean it is "wasted". Salmon have been swiiming up streams to spawn then die long before we've been trying to harvest them. Fish have been dying since there have been fish. Think of the dead fish as fertilizer for the water, nature doesn't "waste" anything that's naturally occuring. I look at the new regulations as a way of protecting these fish not wasting them. Let's be honest. Do you think a huge treble with a bit of yarn on it looks appetizing to a fish? How about a big chunk of lead with a couple trebles on it? Those tactics are targeting salmon on gravel trying to snag them while they are trying to spawn. The "they're gonna die anyway" argument is dumb if you ask me.Maybe we should just chuck a grappling hook out midstream and yank it back in or just go out on a boat with spears and bow and arrows for salmon, they're gonna die anyways right? I have foul hooked salmon before as have most people who have been more than once, it happens. The issue is intent. Keeping a foul hooked fish is just wrong.This regulation is to protect the fish while spawning, and to increase catch rates and bites for lawful anglers, and I support it


----------



## Robert Holmes

swampbuck said:


> The thing I can't understand is WHY it should be illegal anyways....those fish are going to die and go to waste, if they are not caught. That is a waste of our resources. Why should one group have the right to determine "ethics" over all, regarding fish that have 0% chance of survival.


Okay why not let tribal members net them all and nobody will have a chance to snag them or catch them by fair methods. If tribal fishermen net them all they will be sold to fish markets and they won't go to waste.


----------



## Quack Addict

swampbuck said:


> The thing I can't understand is WHY it should be illegal anyways....those fish are going to die and go to waste, if they are not caught. That is a waste of our resources. Why should one group have the right to determine "ethics" over all, regarding fish that have 0% chance of survival.


The government has pretty much eliminated planting salmon so the salmon are relegated to natural reproduction for now. 

With that, I wouldn't be surprised to see fishing closures in the future to allow the salmon time to spawn, unmolested. Kind of like walleye, pike and bass seasons.


----------



## Ranger Ray

JVoutdoors said:


> Deer and ducks are all going to die also from natural causes, so maybe we be able to shoot them at will so they don't just go to waste in 8-9 years also? Not ethics or better than others to me, just a fair chase and let people try to catch them issue. Seen a few steelhead and browns get the same snagger's hook also. But they will die someday anyway I guess...


So how does this fair chase work on your ducks? You see them, you shoot them. They have no "catch them" moment like fish. What about the deer that walks by and you shoot? Where is its "catch them" moment? As sportsmen, the "moral" argument is a slippery slope and only serves to hurt us all, or hurt a segment of our sportsmen. There is a thing called limits (as in size and quantity) that sustain the population, insure "good rates and bites," and provide opportunity to harvest. 

We have too many salmon in the system, its crashing the food chain, but don't you dare keep one. That is the definition of idiocy.


----------



## Corey K

Ranger Ray said:


> So how does this fair chase work on your ducks? You see them, you shoot them. They have no "catch them" moment like fish. What about the deer that walks by and you shoot? Where is its "catch them" moment? As sportsmen, the "moral" argument is a slippery slope and only serves to hurt us all, or hurt a segment of our sportsmen. There is a thing called limits (as in size and quantity) that sustain the population, insure "good rates and bites," and provide opportunity to harvest.
> 
> We have too many salmon in the system, its crashing the food chain, but don't you dare keep one. That is the definition of idiocy.



What info are you going on or from leading you to believe we have too many Salmon? Curious not questioning. I've seen various harbors boiling with Ale's this spring, I had a 2 mile stretch of bait last week, I've cleaned and seen thousands of Ales in stomach contents this year, etc. Trawls and Acoustic surveys, I don't put a whole lot of confidence in them...I think if you read back, like 2001 and 2007 there were hardly any Ale's left in the lake and the Perch were going to make a huge comeback and Salmon were done for....according to ancient methods and the same testing, and comparing results from when there was waaaay too many Ale's....I'm sure I'm wrong, I have to be! IMO if we have low numbers, most fish will spawn at 4yrs old and eat more bait than if we had more Kings and they returned at 3 yrs old...


----------



## cmueller302

Agree with pinhead on this one, read it closely and it applies to artificial lures, hence the definition at the top. 
"Terminal fishing gear is restricted to single pointed, unweighted, hooks measuring 1/2 inch or less from point to shank or treble hooks, measuring 3/8 inch or less from point to shank only when attached to an artificial lure on the following waters:"

With no periods in the sentence it makes, "only" reply to the entire sentence.

Reading this "only" applies to artificial lures. 

Any attorney should be able to argue this point and depending on a judges interpretation this should not apply to bait fisherman. 

No where does it state anything about bait fisherman the use of bait. 

Now before everyone jumps down my throat, I think the intent was to be for all snagging purposes, like trebles and yarn and lead torpedoes. 

The new law leaves room for interpretation like most laws do, unless you are a judge in any of Michigan counties you may not say for certain the outcome of this law. 

I wish the law was more specific. It would have been nice to add a sentence like 
"No treble hooks allowed for anything other than artificial lures....."

Or make a sentence "that bait fisherman are restricted to a single point hook."

Funny that it ends nov 15 and tippy sees a bigger run of steelhead in April now than any of our salmon runs will be in the fall.

Lets lock this thread and fish, because honestly anyone reading this thread is probably not the ones this law was intended to restrict.





Sent from my iPad using Ohub Campfire


----------



## swampbuck

First of all, of all the species you guys listed, only 1 spawns.....and dies 100% of the time.

Also....did you catch the post about toxic chemicals being transported up and deposited in our trout streams....by rotting salmon.

And how about the post by Jay W. Where he stated that our stream are NOT nutrient deficient....


----------



## Quack Addict

swampbuck said:


> First of all, of all the species you guys listed, only 1 spawns.....and dies 100% of the time.
> 
> Also....did you catch the post about toxic chemicals being transported up and deposited in our trout streams....by rotting salmon.
> 
> And how about the post by Jay W. Where he stated that our stream are NOT nutrient deficient....


The fact that salmon spawn then die is irrelevant. It's part of that particular circle of life. I hardly see it as justification to look the other way on snagging.

What about the toxic chemicals, bird flu, CWD, etc that waterfowl transport around from field to field by direct contact (dirty feet, molting), or for example the piles they leave parking lots and on golf courses? For waterfowl, we have to plug guns to limit to no more than 3 rounds. For river fishing, single hooks on flies and bags. Gear restrictions either way. It's the way the powers that be define fair chase today.

You mentioned a couple posts back about one groups opinion being forced on everyone else. What are your thoughts on QDM /APR's? Baiting?? Cross bows??? LOL


----------



## JasonSlayer

So I can't use a wobble glow in front of a treble hook on a three way swivel with sinker?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Corey K said:


> What info are you going on or from leading you to believe we have too many Salmon? Curious not questioning. I've seen various harbors boiling with Ale's this spring, I had a 2 mile stretch of bait last week, I've cleaned and seen thousands of Ales in stomach contents this year, etc. Trawls and Acoustic surveys, I don't put a whole lot of confidence in them...I think if you read back, like 2001 and 2007 there were hardly any Ale's left in the lake and the Perch were going to make a huge comeback and Salmon were done for....according to ancient methods and the same testing, and comparing results from when there was waaaay too many Ale's....I'm sure I'm wrong, I have to be! IMO if we have low numbers, most fish will spawn at 4yrs old and eat more bait than if we had more Kings and they returned at 3 yrs old...


We have too many fish, the DNR has reduced the salmon. I haven't stayed up on the numbers but remember something like 50% reduction in 2013 and not exactly sure the number since then. Only in 2015 game management do we argue we need to plant less because we have too many in the eco system, yet argue we need to limit ones catch because we want more. It really is as silly as it sounds. As far as alewives go, and not believing the trawls etc, you are entitled to go by your anecdotal thinking. But if you want to go by anecdotal evidence, I lived on White Lake growing up. In the 70's there was literally a dead alewife every 10 square foot of surface water. There wasn't an area you didn't mark bait. They had to remove them from the beaches with front end loaders daily, or the stench became unbearable. Do you see that today? Obviously what was there years past doesn't exist today. Is there enough ales in the system to sustain the numbers of salmon we have been planting? Obviously the DNR doesn't think so. Oh and by the way, the trawls show no chubs and poor smelt populations. Odd, that's pretty much what we have.


----------



## swampbuck

Quack Addict said:


> The fact that salmon spawn then die is irrelevant. It's part of that particular circle of life. I hardly see it as justification to look the other way on snagging.
> 
> What about the toxic chemicals, bird flu, CWD, etc that waterfowl transport around from field to field by direct contact (dirty feet, molting), or for example the piles they leave parking lots and on golf courses? For waterfowl, we have to plug guns to limit to no more than 3 rounds. For river fishing, single hooks on flies and bags. Gear restrictions either way. It's the way the powers that be define fair chase today.
> 
> You mentioned a couple posts back about one groups opinion being forced on everyone else. What are your thoughts on QDM /APR's? Baiting?? Cross bows??? LOL


So I guess you feel the same about spearing or bow fishing other species....How about live bait for stream trout ?


----------



## METTLEFISH

swampbuck said:


> First of all, of all the species you guys listed, only 1 spawns.....and dies 100% of the time.
> 
> Also....did you catch the post about toxic chemicals being transported up and deposited in our trout streams....by rotting salmon.
> 
> And how about the post by Jay W. Where he stated that our stream are NOT nutrient deficient....


And again... Michigan has NO Native Trout or Salmon. Are you saying the Salmon are hurting our "precious" Trout?


----------



## METTLEFISH

JasonSlayer said:


> So I can't use a wobble glow in front of a treble hook on a three way swivel with sinker?


No it does not mean that. You can use a treble hook up to 3/8" gap, ON AN ARTIFICIAL LURE, or as some have pointed out, on bait you can (?) use most any size you'd like!...


----------



## GVDocHoliday

METTLEFISH said:


> No it does not mean that. You can use a treble hook up to 3/8" gap, ON AN ARTIFICIAL LURE, or as some have pointed out, on bait you can (?) use most any size you'd like!...


Only. Don't tie that treble hook directly to the line.

You can only use a treble as long as its attached to an artificial lure.


----------



## kzoofisher

The new rules to prevent snagging are in no way biologically based. Fish populations have nothing to do with it. The practice is considered unethical by enough anglers and the DNR that it was banned many years ago (bow and spear fishing for salmon is likewise considered unethical) and the behavior of a large enough percentage of those still practicing it due to a gray area in the rules led to this change. I'm sure many of you have witnessed behavior at popular snagging spots that was unruly to put it mildly. *Do not go by the short version in the fishing guide.* The guide is just that, a guide. For complete information and background on the reasons for and intent of the rule, read Fisheries Order 202 which has been linked here before. The order was signed on August 18, 2014 but because of the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act could not be implemented until April of this year. Here are some relevant passages.

_ 
Snagging was once a common method for harvesting spawning salmon in Michigan. It was commonly believed that the only way to catch migrating salmon was by snagging them with large, heavy fishing gear made from a combination of treble hooks and molded lead. Sport angling grew in popularity as anglers learned more ways to catch migrating salmon with more traditional angling methods and through fair chase. Eventually snagging was prohibited in the early 1990s through the efforts led by sport anglers as public sentiment changed. Michigan has maintained the prohibition on snagging with a vast majority of recreational anglers still supportive of this regulation. However, some areas continue to be fraught with unlawful snagging activities as anglers have modified fishing gear and techniques in order to circumvent current law. For example, it has been common for some anglers to use treble hooks fished only with yarn as a means to rip the gear through the water column in an attempt to snag salmon. The Department proposes new gear regulations for several waters with heavy spawning runs of salmon in an attempt to further reduce snagging activities.

Law enforcement division helped develop the proposed gear regulation proposal which will help aid their efforts to reduce snagging activities. This regulation would also enable anglers on some of these waters (where treble hook usage has been unlawful) to still use treble hooks as long as they are attached to an artificial lure. *The new regulation proposed would no longer allow the use of treble hooks not attached to a defined artificial lure*. For example, lures primarily made out of lead that are currently used during the peak salmon spawning migrations would not be lawful anymore.

The waters recommended for this new suite of gear restrictions have become a new priority for law enforcement division where unethical use of fishing gear has been common during peak salmon spawning events. This is purely a social issue and fisheries division has worked with law enforcement personnel and local prosecutors to develop this regulation proposal to help reduce this unlawful activity.......

*This regulation will make it unlawful for some anglers to use a treble hook not attached to an artificial lure. Some anglers currently use treble hooks while fishing bait such as spawn and will now need to use single hooks for this type of fishing behavior.....*

Biological

The decision to make these recommendations does not have a biological foundation.

Social

Snagging is a social issue, is seen as an unsporting way to catch game fish, and is greatly frowned upon by the angling public. As sport fishing gained popularity, sportfishing organizations initiated efforts to eliminate the practice. Snagging has been unlawful for decades in Michigan and the sport angling community is still very supportive of the ban

Economic_

_There are no anticipated significant economic gains or losses expected from the passage of this proposal. *However, there could be minor economic gains attributed to replacing unlawful angling efforts with those of lawful anglers who will be able to bring their families to high profile salmon fishing areas.*_
.

I hope this answers some of the questions about what you can use. The last bolded section was a very important consideration for the DNR, getting kids back into easy access areas. The intent of the DNR is clear even if the wording in the Guide is not. If you want to try and parse the language to find a gray area that's your business. I hope that in a year or two the DNR will be satisfied with the reduction in snagging and allow trebles size ten or smaller for use with spawn and wobble glows. Until then, blame the yahoos and not the DNR.


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> The new rules to prevent snagging are in no way biologically based. Fish populations have nothing to do with it. The practice is considered unethical by enough anglers and the DNR that it was banned many years ago (bow and spear fishing for salmon is likewise considered unethical) and the behavior of a large enough percentage of those still practicing it due to a gray area in the rules led to this change. I'm sure many of you have witnessed behavior at popular snagging spots that was unruly to put it mildly. *Do not go by the short version in the fishing guide.* The guide is just that, a guide. For complete information and background on the reasons for and intent of the rule, read Fisheries Order 202 which has been linked here before. The order was signed on August 18, 2014 but because of the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act could not be implemented until April of this year. Here are some relevant passages.
> 
> _Snagging was once a common method for harvesting spawning salmon in Michigan. It was commonly believed that the only way to catch migrating salmon was by snagging them with large, heavy fishing gear made from a combination of treble hooks and molded lead. Sport angling grew in popularity as anglers learned more ways to catch migrating salmon with more traditional angling methods and through fair chase. Eventually snagging was prohibited in the early 1990s through the efforts led by sport anglers as public sentiment changed. Michigan has maintained the prohibition on snagging with a vast majority of recreational anglers still supportive of this regulation. However, some areas continue to be fraught with unlawful snagging activities as anglers have modified fishing gear and techniques in order to circumvent current law. For example, it has been common for some anglers to use treble hooks fished only with yarn as a means to rip the gear through the water column in an attempt to snag salmon. The Department proposes new gear regulations for several waters with heavy spawning runs of salmon in an attempt to further reduce snagging activities.
> 
> Law enforcement division helped develop the proposed gear regulation proposal which will help aid their efforts to reduce snagging activities. This regulation would also enable anglers on some of these waters (where treble hook usage has been unlawful) to still use treble hooks as long as they are attached to an artificial lure. *The new regulation proposed would no longer allow the use of treble hooks not attached to a defined artificial lure*. For example, lures primarily made out of lead that are currently used during the peak salmon spawning migrations would not be lawful anymore.
> 
> The waters recommended for this new suite of gear restrictions have become a new priority for law enforcement division where unethical use of fishing gear has been common during peak salmon spawning events. This is purely a social issue and fisheries division has worked with law enforcement personnel and local prosecutors to develop this regulation proposal to help reduce this unlawful activity.......
> 
> *This regulation will make it unlawful for some anglers to use a treble hook not attached to an artificial lure. Some anglers currently use treble hooks while fishing bait such as spawn and will now need to use single hooks for this type of fishing behavior.....*
> 
> Biological
> 
> The decision to make these recommendations does not have a biological foundation.
> 
> Social
> 
> Snagging is a social issue, is seen as an unsporting way to catch game fish, and is greatly frowned upon by the angling public. As sport fishing gained popularity, sportfishing organizations initiated efforts to eliminate the practice. Snagging has been unlawful for decades in Michigan and the sport angling community is still very supportive of the ban
> 
> Economic_
> 
> _There are no anticipated significant economic gains or losse
> s expected from the passage of this proposal. *However, there could be minor economic gains attributed to replacing unlawful angling efforts with those of lawful anglers who will be able to bring their families to high profile salmon fishing areas.*_
> .
> 
> I hope this answers some of the questions about what you can use. The last bolded section was a very important consideration for the DNR, getting kids back into easy access areas. The intent of the DNR is clear even if the wording in the Guide is not. If you want to try and parse the language to find a gray area that's your business. I hope that in a year or two the DNR will be satisfied with the reduction in snagging and allow trebles size ten or smaller for use with spawn and wobble glows. Until then, blame the yahoos and not the DNR.


Perhaps, however the almost complete lack of fish lies directly on the DNR.. with or without mussels... the Feds seem confident that theres enough food for the Char they keep throwing in the lake(s) that have little if any benefit to those paying for them...


----------



## Quack Addict

swampbuck said:


> So I guess you feel the same about spearing or bow fishing other species....How about live bait for stream trout ?


Do what you want as long as it's legal. I have personal opinions on bow fishers and use of live bait on trout streams, but I don't think regulations should be based on my .02

FWIW, I have been using singles on rivers and even when spawn fishing piers and surf for a long time. The spoons on my boat have mostly been switched over to singles, all trolling flies too. As a data point, my dad and I caught a 45" sturgeon when I was a kid. We were fishing for menominee, using a size 14 single hook and single salmon eggs as bait. In all honesty, I prefer singles over trebles for a BUNCH of reasons. But that's just my .02

It just so happens the current regulations align with my personal preference. The fact that SO many guys complain about treble hook restrictions like it's the end of fishing as they know it is humorous though.

For those out there looking to make the switch to singles, buy quality. Owner and Gamakatsu are about the best. I wish more brick & mortar stores carried Owner products.


----------



## Corey K

Ranger Ray said:


> We have too many fish, the DNR has reduced the salmon. I haven't stayed up on the numbers but remember something like 50% reduction in 2013 and not exactly sure the number since then. Only in 2015 game management do we argue we need to plant less because we have too many in the eco system, yet argue we need to limit ones catch because we want more. It really is as silly as it sounds. As far as alewives go, and not believing the trawls etc, you are entitled to go by your anecdotal thinking. But if you want to go by anecdotal evidence, I lived on White Lake growing up. In the 70's there was literally a dead alewife every 10 square foot of surface water. There wasn't an area you didn't mark bait. They had to remove them from the beaches with front end loaders daily, or the stench became unbearable. Do you see that today? Obviously what was there years past doesn't exist today. Is there enough ales in the system to sustain the numbers of salmon we have been planting? Obviously the DNR doesn't think so. Oh and by the way, the trawls show no chubs and poor smelt populations. Odd, that's pretty much what we have.



Oh ok your right, I'm not entitled to any opinion sorry buuud. Your comparing bait numbers from the 70's, stick with your memories of all the bait and how you used to pound em! Actually you probably don't fish that much, I could look back and link some posts....3 or 4 yrs ago, we had a pretty decent die off....very tough fishing for all of May, June, and July because there was that much bait...oh and the trawls said the opposite...Bloaters and Smelt fluctuate a lot, every time the Smelt comeback on Huron the massive Laker stocking brings them back in check...now it's the same on Michigan! Oh and I never said I wanted more Plants!!!


----------



## swampbuck

So, just realized these rules only apply to 4 rivers.....cool!


----------



## Dox811

swampbuck said:


> So, just realized these rules only apply to 4 rivers.....cool!


Yeah kinda silly if you ask me. Guess they don't have a snagging problem on the PM, muskegon, or at 6th street????? Lol, read the dnr weekly report said reports of chinook, coho on the Grand at 6th st. on spawn, flies, YARN!!!! There's just something delicious about a big treble with a bit of yarn on it, I try to eat 3 a day, 5 on the weekends


----------



## rkeene74

DNR told us treble on manufactured lures only i.e. Rapala you can't make your own


----------



## Dox811

rkeene74 said:


> DNR told us treble on manufactured lures only i.e. Rapala you can't make your own


It's unfortunate for honest guys who make their own plugs, but I can see why they did that. Can't have people wrapping a light metal/feathers/ whatever around the lead "lures" the snaggers are so fond of


----------



## Fishndude

METTLEFISH said:


> Perhaps, however the almost complete lack of fish lies directly on the DNR.. with or without mussels... the Feds seem confident that theres enough food for the Char they keep throwing in the lake(s) that have little if any benefit to those paying for them...


The DNR did not bring the Mussels to the lakes, and the Mussels are about 99% responsible for the decline in Salmon. Salmon and Lake Trout don't focus on the same baitfish for food. The evidence for that is bright, and shiny - lots of Lakers, and very few Kings. Kings focus almost exclusively on Alewives for food, and Lakers will hit Ales when there is an easy opportunity. Kings will follow schools of Alewives all over a great lake, while Lakers are more sedentary, and mostly hang out right on the bottom. Lakers eat more Smelt, Sculpins, Chubs, etc. 

Q: If they Kings just about die out completely, would you rather have some Lakers to fish for, or just not fish for anything bigger than a Bass on the great lakes?


----------



## Corey K

Fishndude said:


> The DNR did not bring the Mussels to the lakes, and the Mussels are about 99% responsible for the decline in Salmon. Salmon and Lake Trout don't focus on the same baitfish for food. The evidence for that is bright, and shiny - lots of Lakers, and very few Kings. Kings focus almost exclusively on Alewives for food, and Lakers will hit Ales when there is an easy opportunity. Kings will follow schools of Alewives all over a great lake, while Lakers are more sedentary, and mostly hang out right on the bottom. Lakers eat more Smelt, Sculpins, Chubs, etc.
> 
> Q: If they Kings just about die out completely, would you rather have some Lakers to fish for, or just not fish for anything bigger than a Bass on the great lakes?


Browns and Steelhead, and plant more GLS strain Muskies to eat Lake Trout...LOL...It would be nice to see stocking of GLS fish in other areas besides Mona and Macatawa....


----------



## dinoday

Fishndude said:


> Q: If they Kings just about die out completely, would you rather have some Lakers to fish for, or just not fish for anything bigger than a Bass on the great lakes?


I'd rather not fish for anything on the Great Lakes. I don't like lake trout to eat.
I'm actively planning to move west already, not completely because of this but it plays a part in it.
Say what you want about west coast fishing but the fish aren't extinct yet.


----------



## Treven

METTLEFISH said:


> Perhaps, however the almost complete lack of fish lies directly on the DNR.. with or without mussels... the Feds seem confident that theres enough food for the Char they keep throwing in the lake(s) that have little if any benefit to those paying for them...


THIS THIS THIS... THIS! I'm with you 100% on that. Gal dang propaganda, just like Nazi Germany! Speaking of Germany, I miss those big Seeforellens no matter how big of a pain in the rear-end they were to raise...


----------



## METTLEFISH

Fishndude said:


> The DNR did not bring the Mussels to the lakes, and the Mussels are about 99% responsible for the decline in Salmon. Salmon and Lake Trout don't focus on the same baitfish for food. The evidence for that is bright, and shiny - lots of Lakers, and very few Kings. Kings focus almost exclusively on Alewives for food, and Lakers will hit Ales when there is an easy opportunity. Kings will follow schools of Alewives all over a great lake, while Lakers are more sedentary, and mostly hang out right on the bottom. Lakers eat more Smelt, Sculpins, Chubs, etc.
> 
> Q: If they Kings just about die out completely, would you rather have some Lakers to fish for, or just not fish for anything bigger than a Bass on the great lakes?


Well the DNR certainly did NOTHING to prevent them coming into the Gt. Lakes. Surely they were aware of the "other" invasives that came Via the canal. Personally. I'd fish for Buffallo or Carp over Lakers. I also prefer Smallmouth over Steelhead... Sure are lots of Alewives in most lakers I've seen the last few years!...
However, I do believe that with the proper mindset and a vociforous sportfishing community fertlity levels can be brought back to a level that can support Mussels, Alewives and Sportfish. The proof's in the lake now... it looks like a Char...


----------



## ESOX

Saying banning snagging has no biological purpose is nonsense. Snagging is indiscriminate. All indigenous species are as susceptible to snagging as are those nastyass half dead salmon.


----------



## kzoofisher

ESOX said:


> Saying banning snagging has no biological purpose is nonsense. Snagging is indiscriminate. All indigenous species are as susceptible to snagging as are those nastyass half dead salmon.


What the DNR is saying is that there is no biological necessity, the number of fish taken and non-target species harmed is not high enough to require them to make this change, though I'm sure it would be if enough people had the mentality of he snaggers. The social problems associated with snagging are big enough that the DNR made this change without going to the public. An unusual step.

The "by any means necessary" crowd often use the complete destruction of a fishery as the baseline for regulations. So long as the fishery hasn't collapsed yet they should be able to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want and once the fishery does collapse they think it is only fair that the rest of us should suffer right along with them by not being allowed to use our more conservation minded methods. Thankfully, a large majority of license buyers are also sportsman and disagree.The DNR does too and is sick of seeing sections of some salmon rivers being Belle Isle West. The new rules are a pain for some law abiding fisherman, no doubt about that. Once the mentality of "I'm going to get mine and the heck with everyone else" is broken I'm sure the DNR will be able to ease up a bit.


----------



## eye-sore

I think a reading comprehension class would be a wise investment for the dnr.lmao it couldn't be any clearer guys.stop trying to bend the law.it's written in plain English


----------



## Treven

METTLEFISH said:


> Well the DNR certainly did NOTHING to prevent them coming into the Gt. Lakes. Surely they were aware of the "other" invasives that came Via the canal...


I see it this way 100%.

The DNR employs people who went to school to manage fisheries, no? This hindsight is 20/20: "Well, if we would have known all this before this started..." is BS!!! What was done / what is being done now to change it? As far as what has been promoted from the DNR - friggen NOTHING! Is the salmon fishery (and steelhead fishery, as far as I'm concerned) that low on the economic totem pole that it is just best to let it fizzle out and hope people forget and move on!?! That is certainly a rhetorical question to me, but I'm not sure it is to the DNR and Lansing... We created this fishery to start with, it prospered, it was wildly popular, Michigan WAS known for their diverse fishery across the world. Now, were just known as a waste of a license fee...

Why can't this be managed back to health instead of just flushing it down the toilet and saying "we gave'er the 'ol college try, boys!" I find that completely unacceptable and beyond arrogant. This why I feel there are other factors (that most, including myself, are not aware of), that explain the sharp demise of this fishery. Who screwed the pooch and why is it being covered up like this? Better yet, why wasn't this planned for sooner so this wouldn't happen? Is losing the salmon fishery really this petty to the State of Michigan?


----------



## eye-sore

METTLEFISH said:


> And again... Michigan has NO Native Trout or Salmon. Are you saying the Salmon are hurting our "precious" Trout?


Except for lakers and Brookies right


----------



## swampbuck

kzoofisher said:


> The social problems associated with snagging are big enough that the DNR made this change without going to the public. An unusual step.
> 
> .


You could have just said that the TU/fly guys told the DNR to do it so they did, and that's how it works.


----------



## Matt24324

Treven said:


> Michigan WAS known for their diverse fishery across the world. Now, were just known as a waste of a license fee...


You're kidding right?


----------



## swampbuck

Seems to me that Great Lakes diversity is on the increase


----------



## AdamBradley

swampbuck said:


> You could have just said that the TU/fly guys told the DNR to do it so they did, and that's how it works.


Some of your posts are intelligent. Some ignorant. The tu and fly guys did in fact rally for harvest decreases and chum limits.... we saw how that went.... and no, I refuse to join TU, so let's not take it there. I also one one fly rod for gills and residents, so let's not take it there either.... so no, that's not how it works.


----------



## mrjimspeaks

To everyone screaming about how inept the DNR is; what's your solution to the mussels? As far as I know that's the biggest problem facing the big lake fisheries. 

Also have you poured over kreel reports/studies etc etc etc, they've got plenty on the subject. If you're dismissing their work, what's the best way to study the fisheries? Leave it up to anecdotal evidence and sportsman? Worked out great for TU I guess.

It's really easy to sit at your keyboard and bitch about the DNR. Not quite as easy trying to get a handle on the science and research that goes into fisheries management. It's a massively complex ecosystem, and the solutions (if any) to the problems probably won't be limited to "plant more of x, I want to catch more x"


----------



## kzoofisher

METTLEFISH said:


> Well the DNR certainly did NOTHING to prevent them coming into the Gt. Lakes. Surely they were aware of the "other" invasives that came Via the canal. Personally. I'd fish for Buffallo or Carp over Lakers. I also prefer Smallmouth over Steelhead... Sure are lots of Alewives in most lakers I've seen the last few years!...
> However, I do believe that with the proper mindset and a vociforous sportfishing community fertlity levels can be brought back to a level that can support Mussels, Alewives and Sportfish. The proof's in the lake now... it looks like a Char...


You obviously aren't aware of it but the DNR has zero control over invasive species entering the great lakes. The international shipping trade that brought us all these wonderful species is the responsibility of the federal government. And since the mussels arrived in the 1980's there isn't much benefit in blaming any of the last few administrations for it either.

At the moment getting rid of them is a pipe dream. I'm all for dedicating a few billion for research to control them but I'm probably in a pretty small group in that regard.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> You could have just said that the TU/fly guys told the DNR to do it so they did, and that's how it works.


I could have said that but since it is untrue I'm very unlikely to say it. I know you haven't been following this very closely since it was brought up by the DNR in May of last year so I'll just do a quick c&p to bring you up to speed on how this started. This is from the minutes of the May 6, 2014 Cold Water Resources Steering Committee meeting, emphasis mine. There was a thread on the subject a month or two later and there have been other threads since.

_ 
Treble Hook Restriction Regulation (Mark Tonello)

Mark Tonello explained that *illegal activities on NW Michigan streams, particular during the salmon run in the fall, continue to be a major problem*. This is despite the fact that snagging has been illegal for 25+ years. *Law Enforcement Division has asked that we help them address the issue by tweaking fishing regulations on certain streams where problems exist. *Here is the current draft proposed regulation:

“From August 1 to November 15, terminal fishing gear is restricted to single point, non-weighted hooks, no larger than 1⁄2 inch from point to shank. Treble hooks (no larger than 3/8 inch from point to shank) may only be used when attached to a lure. A lure is defined as a body bait, plug, spinner, or spoon. A lure is not a device primarily constructed of lead, commonly referred to as a “grabber,” “lead minnow,” “salmon slayer,” “torpedo,” or “Turk’s tickler.”

This gear restriction shall be enacted for the following waters: Benzie County: All waters of the Betsie River. Manistee County: All waters of Bear Creek. All waters of the Betsie

River. The Manistee River from Tippy Dam downstream to Railroad

Bridge below M-55 (T21N, R16W, S6). Mason County: The Big Sable River downstream of Hamlin Lake Dam.”

Several questioned why the regulation was not written to cover more waters. Tonello explained that this was the compromise that was arrived at within the Department. *The streams listed are those that have annual, recurring, intense law enforcement issues on them. *Another comment was that if this law is enacted, it may shift snagging effort to other rivers that don’t have the regulation. Those rivers named included the White, Muskegon, and Pere Marquette rivers. Tonello explained that if this regulation is successful and that happens, we can certainly add more waters in the future. It was pointed out that if this regulation if proven effective, it can be extended to other Michigan waters that have other restrictions that are intended to prevent snagging. Tonello also explained that Law Enforcement Division has met with the County Prosecutors for all three of the counties affected by this proposal, and all three were wholeheartedly in favor. _


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> You obviously aren't aware of it but the DNR has zero control over invasive species entering the great lakes. The international shipping trade that brought us all these wonderful species is the responsibility of the federal government. And since the mussels arrived in the 1980's there isn't much benefit in blaming any of the last few administrations for it either.
> 
> At the moment getting rid of them is a pipe dream. I'm all for dedicating a few billion for research to control them but I'm probably in a pretty small group in that regard.


Wrong. Each and every State has a Constitution. Its how America works. Yes, there are Federal regulations, however there are also regulations that States inact and enforce. Ever notice the past regulations on dumping bait buckets in waters of the State?...


----------



## pinhead

kzoofisher said:


> [/B]Here is the current draft proposed regulation:
> 
> “From August 1 to November 15, terminal fishing gear is restricted to single point, non-weighted hooks, no larger than 1⁄2 inch from point to shank. Treble hooks (no larger than 3/8 inch from point to shank) may only be used when attached to a lure. A lure is defined as a body bait, plug, spinner, or spoon. A lure is not a device primarily constructed of lead, commonly referred to as a “grabber,” “lead minnow,” “salmon slayer,” “torpedo,” or “Turk’s tickler.”
> 
> .[/I] [/I]


Where is this typed, or printed? (Beside here) No where have I seen a period separating the 2 sentences on single hooks and the usage of trebles only if on an artificial. 

See my problem is the fact that they didn't control the size of hooks on artificial lures in the past. A 3/4 inch gap on a spoon, or tickler was ok. All other fisherman using spawn, or "The awesome Yarn Cluster" on a treble were already limited to the 3/8 size gap. 

This is where I feel the confusion began and continues to perpetuate here because what is typed and what was released to the public in many documents online all say the same thing which I interpret it to apply to artificial lures listed ONLY. The version above means an entirely different thing with that period breaking the two into separate pieces. 

Either the DNR clarifies this or not, because what is typed and released by them is the law. Not our personal opinions or revisions of what we think they meant.


----------



## JVoutdoors

METTLEFISH said:


> Wrong. Each and every State has a Constitution. Its how America works. Yes, there are Federal regulations, however there are also regulations that States inact and enforce. Ever notice the past regulations on dumping bait buckets in waters of the State?...


Wrong. Interstate Commerce clause. The MI delegation has been trying to get the carp stopped in IL for years with push back and interference from the Feds. MI cannot stop or control the ships or waterways that started the problem.


----------



## METTLEFISH

eye-sore said:


> Except for lakers and Brookies right


 Except those are Char... not Trout... or Salmon...


----------



## JVoutdoors

pinhead said:


> Where is this typed, or printed? (Beside here) No where have I seen a period separating the 2 sentences on single hooks and the usage of trebles only if on an artificial.
> 
> See my problem is the fact that they didn't control the size of hooks on artificial lures in the past. A 3/4 inch gap on a spoon, or tickler was ok. All other fisherman using spawn, or "The awesome Yarn Cluster" on a treble were already limited to the 3/8 size gap.
> 
> This is where I feel the confusion began and continues to perpetuate here because what is typed and what was released to the public in many documents online all say the same thing which I interpret it to apply to artificial lures listed ONLY. The version above means an entirely different thing with that period breaking the two into separate pieces.
> 
> Either the DNR clarifies this or not, because what is typed and released by them is the law. Not our personal opinions or revisions of what we think they meant.


Like he said, it is a draft from over one year ago. The language was tweaked before final passage.


----------



## METTLEFISH

JVoutdoors said:


> Wrong. Interstate Commerce clause. The MI delegation has been trying to get the carp stopped in IL for years with push back and interference from the Feds. MI cannot stop or control the ships or waterways that started the problem.


States are tasked with control of thier waters. The Lamprey program is evidence of that. Whose law is it that you can NOT dump ''head" waste into the waters?... The State of Michigan. And even if thats the case, why would the State look the other way even after all the invasives that came EARLY ON after the completion of the Canal? how stupid can they be! Why do State Offficers patrol the Great Lakes? You see, it IS the responsibility of the State, if not, lets disolve the the State organizations that work on regulations and law of them.


----------



## JVoutdoors

Mettlefish, I don't disagree with a thing you are saying. States rights and we do and have a duty to protect our resources and pass laws State officers enforce. Just saying that when the States try to do certain things (like stop freighters or restrict their actions), the Feds will override them or not make, say IL, stop the problem there. Like the MI delegation has been pushing for. A Fed solution to stopping the carp in the IL river before they get here and trash us even worse. A lot of info out there on it. Call one of our Congressional delegation and ask them their position and they will give you an earful on the stupid Feds most likely. Elections have consequences. Read up on how the EPA is trying to take control of more water rights out west, out of state and local control...


----------



## METTLEFISH

JVoutdoors said:


> Mettlefish, I don't disagree with a thing you are saying. States rights and we do and have a duty to protect our resources and pass laws State officers enforce. Just saying that when the States try to do certain things (like stop freighters or restrict their actions), the Feds will override them or not make, say IL, stop the problem there. Like the MI delegation has been pushing for. A Fed solution to stopping the carp in the IL river before they get here and trash us even worse. A lot of info out there on it. Call one of our Congressional delegation and ask them their position and they will give you an earful on the stupid Feds most likely. Elections have consequences. Read up on how the EPA is trying to take control of more water rights out west, out of state and local control...


I understand all that. Pass the Laws, then let someone challenge them. Diplomatic Impunity does not apply regarding shipping. THose laws regarding Riparian rights have passed as far as I know, now Obama has rule over your Spring puddles... Insane.


----------



## pinhead

JVoutdoors said:


> Like he said, it is a draft from over one year ago. The language was tweaked before final passage.


Thanks for that clarification. However, what I am reading from most of these posts is a combination of both them. The proposal, and the "tweaked" version per your post. What I am waiting for is an absolute clarification from the DNR. As the FO 202 (i think is the one) has some generalizations which do not fit what they printed as the regulation to the public.


----------



## Dox811

Friend of mine called dnr for clarification purposes. They told him single hook 1/2 in point to shank for spawn, no trebles. Treble hook on lures only and 3/8 in point to shank. I highly doubt arguing punctuation will prevent a ticket if you are using trebles not attached to lure. I wish he would have asked if bead head nymphs are considered weighted hooks but I assume that they are and won't use the bead head ones before nov 15th to be safe.


----------



## kzoofisher

pinhead said:


> Where is this typed, or printed? (Beside here) No where have I seen a period separating the 2 sentences on single hooks and the usage of trebles only if on an artificial.
> 
> See my problem is the fact that they didn't control the size of hooks on artificial lures in the past. A 3/4 inch gap on a spoon, or tickler was ok. All other fisherman using spawn, or "The awesome Yarn Cluster" on a treble were already limited to the 3/8 size gap.
> 
> This is where I feel the confusion began and continues to perpetuate here because what is typed and what was released to the public in many documents online all say the same thing which I interpret it to apply to artificial lures listed ONLY. The version above means an entirely different thing with that period breaking the two into separate pieces.
> 
> Either the DNR clarifies this or not, because what is typed and released by them is the law. Not our personal opinions or revisions of what we think they meant.


The minutes of the May. 6 CWRSC can be found here. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-65134_65139_65164---,00.html It was from these minutes that I first heard about the new rules. There is a link to committees and commissions on the main page of the dnr's web page and you can get minutes from all sorts of meetings.


----------



## o_mykiss

METTLEFISH said:


> States are tasked with control of thier waters. The Lamprey program is evidence of that. Whose law is it that you can NOT dump ''head" waste into the waters?... The State of Michigan. And even if thats the case, why would the State look the other way even after all the invasives that came EARLY ON after the completion of the Canal? how stupid can they be! Why do State Offficers patrol the Great Lakes? You see, it IS the responsibility of the State, if not, lets disolve the the State organizations that work on regulations and law of them.


I'm curious why you would cite a federal/international program (lamprey program) which is administered through the USFWS and the canadian equivalent as evidence that the states are tasked with control of their own waters. Care to shed some light?

Several states (including Michigan) sued Illinois in federal court over the asian carp, and lost. When it comes to interstate commerce, the feds have ultimate responsibility and oversight. The state isn't stupid... they would all LOVE to prevent introduction of more invasives. But guess what? It's not their call. They can't regulate interstate commerce, and the lobbying from the shipping industry is FAR more powerful than that of a few measly sportsmen, no matter how valuable the fishery


----------



## pinhead

kzoofisher said:


> The minutes of the May. 6 CWRSC can be found here. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-65134_65139_65164---,00.html It was from these minutes that I first heard about the new rules. There is a link to committees and commissions on the main page of the dnr's web page and you can get minutes from all sorts of meetings.


Thanks, After reading this, I see the period. However these were minutes and not the final printed version. I am irritated that they think if you just ban trebles to be used as hooks for bait fisherman, it doesn't decrease snagging efforts by the illegal activities mentioned. Now these individuals just buy a spoon, or diving plug. I can throw a thunder stick across the big man at tippy. If I have two treble hooks now, my chances of raking one on the back is still pretty high. Not what I want to do or my preference, however they did not correct the problem, only change the method of the yarn on a treble hook fisherman's method. Now they just spend a little more cash for a spoon and since a Cleo will do the same thing that the stupid lead ticklers did, there is no change. If the dnr said no trebles, then throw a plug, Cleo, etc with single hooks attached only. PERIOD. Now this is something that is not confusing, or going to be misunderstood. And Jigs, place restrictions on weight, for those of us who use them legally!!!!!!! In my opinion, that would be reasonable, and corrective for the snagging crowd who need to take responsibility for catching them legally.


----------

