# NRC and chumming



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I've been trying to find out, hopefully I can find out something today. RH, that is exactly one of the arguments we presented before, but these guys are so bent on getting the own nirvana it's crazy. The excuses they use are just unbelievable.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I am thinking that the APR and the Fly only guys are two peas in the same pod. right now the DNR is not in a position that it can risk losing more in license sales. For the DNR no changes would be a good stance to take. I also highly doubt that they would change major stretches on major rivers to fly only waters. I could see them closing areas of rivers to fishing during spawning periods.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I agree with all of that except one thing. The fly guys will push and push for more water, they've already stated they will, perhaps these were just wishful thinkers, but they'll try. I do know the upper echelon of TU and other groups are a little cautious about pushing too much, they've already got enough flack about the last go around. In the end, you have to remember, some of these fly groups have quite a bit of money, therefore pull with the legislators of Michigan, and other states too.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Fly fishing has to be very boring all that I ever see those guys catch if anything is 7 - 10 inch trout. Lets see $1200 LL Bean waders, $600 Orvis fly vest, $2600 Orvis fly rod and reel combo, $400 worth of flies, and an $80,000 SAAB to get you there. All of that to catch a 10 inch trout.........Priceless. I don't know where I get more laughs watching fly guys or idiots at the boat ramp. I see there $$$$$ every time that they get out of their car to go fishing. Somehow I have never been overly impressed by their ability to catch anything for dinner.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

The more-fly-only idea is silly. There are way more Trout than Trout fishermen these days, more than enough to go around, and perhaps what is needed to grow big Trout is for someone to eat a few of the 8" Trout once in a while. Don't know how else or where to put that thought; and it could be completely wrong. I read the C&R thread the other day but little Internet time right now. No Trout time either, that sucks. January in the mountains though, can't wait...stream living Chrome is darn brilliant that month.

Trout in general need more fishermen and more license sales, or support for Trout habitat will decline. Any new restrictions on the sport would not help that idea. And I think this is the reason for the extra bag limit on the 7-8 Brook Trout rivers in the U.P., a social experiment, not an ichthyological one.


(Though I do really support the Brook Trout Restoration Areas where it is hoped that increasing the population via no-Take fishing will create new Coasters, I can't wait to see how that turns out in a few more seasons.)


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

As I've stated all along, if it is for a biological reason, and the science supports these rules and regulations, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is, in every study I've read, that doesn't appear to be the case.

On the subject of chumming, at one time it was eliminated and reasoning was a head scratcher to say the least. It was determined that it needed to be halted as there were concerns of BKD in the eggs. Well IF that were true, than you would need to stop salmon from spawning all together wouldn't you? No the only reason for the push of banning chumming this go around is due to fly guides, particularly on the Muskegon who want to have it their way. They aren't thinking about anyone else but themselves. This all started because one guide was chumming, and the rest didn't. Of course this one guide was catching fish like crazy, while the others were being shown up and making them look bad to their clients. As for the coasters, I would love to see that fishery return, and if they have to do some protecting, I have no problem with that, that's what the DNR is supposed to do.

BTW, I did receive an email from Jim Dexter, head of fisheries for the DNR. His statement was the NRC did talk about it the other day, and they want to see the rationale behind such a move, and whether or not it is truly justified, at least that's the way I took it. We'll see, not sure when it will be brought up again, but I also sent an email to the NRC about it, and my stance on the issue, and also my feelings about why it was brought up in the first place.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

There are miles and miles of rivers and streams in the UP that I fish and rarely ever see another fisherman. You would think that the fly guys would be happy driving the SAAB up north to fish. Lots of rock snot so they better pack the $300 felt sole wader boots.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

toto said:


> As I've stated all along, if it is for a biological reason, and the science supports these rules and regulations, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is, in every study I've read, that doesn't appear to be the case.
> 
> On the subject of chumming, at one time it was eliminated and reasoning was a head scratcher to say the least. It was determined that it needed to be halted as there were concerns of BKD in the eggs. Well IF that were true, than you would need to stop salmon from spawning all together wouldn't you? No the only reason for the push of banning chumming this go around is due to fly guides, particularly on the Muskegon who want to have it their way. They aren't thinking about anyone else but themselves. This all started because one guide was chumming, and the rest didn't. Of course this one guide was catching fish like crazy, while the others were being shown up and making them look bad to their clients. As for the coasters, I would love to see that fishery return, and if they have to do some protecting, I have no problem with that, that's what the DNR is supposed to do.
> 
> BTW, I did receive an email from Jim Dexter, head of fisheries for the DNR. His statement was the NRC did talk about it the other day, and they want to see the rationale behind such a move, and whether or not it is truly justified, at least that's the way I took it. We'll see, not sure when it will be brought up again, but I also sent an email to the NRC about it, and my stance on the issue, and also my feelings about why it was brought up in the first place.


Thanks for the update. Sounds like this issue will continue to churn despite this earlier recommendation and release: http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...g-and-steelhead-bag-limit-regulations.547630/
Since the public meetings were held, it seems like the NRC should have had enough information to reach a decision. But that's science for you....sociopolitical science, that is.

If chumming was so detrimental, then why do most of the guides complaining about it report good to great fishing?:16suspect:shhh:


----------

