# New Rules!



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I just got the new regs in. It's too long to type, but the gist is that on all streams from Aug1-May31, you can no longer use multi point hooks exceeding 3/8" and single hook exceeding 1/2". You may not use lures over 1 oz during that time either. The Detroit River, St. Clair river and St. Marys River are exempt. SNAGGERS BEWARE!


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

FO-218.02

GEAR RESTRICTIONS FOR FISHING

Under the authority of sections 41101 through 41105 of Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, as amended, being sections 324.41101 through 324.41105 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the Director of the Department of Natural Resources on November 9, 2001, ordered that:

In all waters of the State it shall be unlawful to:

1. Have a weight permanently and/or rigidly attached to a multi-pointed hook; or
2. Have a weight suspended from a multi-pointed hook; or
3. Have a weight suspended below any hook unless the hook is on an unweighted line which is at least 3 inches long; or
4. Retain any fish not hooked in the mouth; or
5. Fail to immediately return to the water a fish not hooked in the mouth.

Except for the St. Marys, St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, on all streams, including tributaries to the Great Lakes, it shall be unlawful to use the following gear during the period August 1  May 31:

1. Multi-pointed hooks exceeding 3/8 inch between point and shank and/or single pointed hooks exceeding ½ inch between point and shank; or
2. Lures exceeding one ounce in weight.

The intent of this regulation is to allow the baited hook or the lure to suspend freely in the water, allowing the fish to take the hook or lure in its mouth.

This order supersedes the Commission Order entitled "Gear Restrictions for Fishing effective April 1, 1997, and assigned number CFI-103.97.

This order is assigned number FO-218.02 and is titled Gear Restrictions for Fishing.

This order shall take effect on April 1, 2002, and shall remain effective through March 31, 2007.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Thanks Ray! They also lowered the pike limit from 5 per day to 2 fish. I think that's a great idea also. As you know, I go on about the deer numbers from time to time, but I've never had nothing but praise for DNR fisheries. Maybe because fish aren't the political football that deer can be, but fisheries tends to be very fast to act. I called Tom Rosich about a local lake that had Tiger Muskies planted about 15 years ago. They still have the Pike season closed during the winter to protect those Muskies. The thing is, there's only been 1 or 2 Muskies caught in the last couple years. They don't spawn and are basically gone. He was suprised to hear that the rule for no winter Pike was still around. Needless to say, he said that the new rules were already printed and it was too late for this year, but would certainly look into it for next year. Everyone in fisheries has been 100% great. But then again, there's no multi-milllion dollar disease with fish either.


----------



## Youper (Jul 8, 2001)

The gear I use for pike fishing is at or above those limits on hook size and lure weight, especially if bait fishing. I take it that the new rules don't apply to lakes, but what about resevoirs built on rivers that flow into the great lakes? I hear all these stories about snagging, but I have never seen a snagger. For my area it is an unwelcome solution to a proplem that doesn't exist.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

The hook size is no different than the law use to be not that many years ago. I think, if memory serves, the hook size expired in 1997. The weight limits were added and that part is new. In regards to weight, are you sure the lures you use are at or above that weight? Something the size of a 12 gauge slug (which weights 1-ounce) is a lot of weight for a lure.


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

Many pike and Muskie baits exceed that Boehr.
Now what???????


----------



## burbotman (Feb 20, 2001)

These new regs mean that most pike and musky lures are illegal as well as most spinnerbaits for bass if used in streams.I know of a section of the Huron river that is real good for pike.I use spinnerbaits that would be illegal as of August 15th Does this also apply to drowned rivermouth lakes and impoundments?I just feel this is another short-sighted law and more laws for our CO's to enforce I know of ways to snag with PERFECTLY legal fishing gear that don't fall within those new regs or the old regs for that matter.I wasn't intentionally snagging, but fishing for other species.I promptly released any foul-hooked fish.A CO can use *intent* to ticket snaggers.This new law only further restricts what gear a legitimate fisherman can use and trying to prevent an already illegal activity.Its like saying to outlaw guns because they kill people.Bottom line, I feel it *only* outlaws lures and rigs that honest fishermen use.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

The baits you are talking about that exceed the law, how do they exceed it, by hook size or weight?

If by hook size, what did you do when it was the law before?


----------



## burbotman (Feb 20, 2001)

Boehr, I was referring to hook size not weight.Most Pike/Musky lures and yes,spinnerbaits whose hooks easily exceed those new restrictions.IMO,it just seems like every year we get more and more restrictions on fishing until its illegal to fish.and subjecting more legitimate anglers to tickets. By more restrictions,we are only playing into the hands of PETA and all those other animal rights wackos. Just my opinion.............


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

The old law was worded for trout streams I thought?
I believe my cat fish hooks exceed 3/8"
Is the new law for all Waters? or just certain classes of trout steams?

Once again we see a possible law that effects legal sportsman because of Poachers, why?
Why not raise the fines and jail times? Direct the law towards the criminals not JOE LEGAL GUY.

In the future will we reach a point where we outlaw access to certain streams altogether?

Hopefully this "LAW" is not as big a blanket as I and others are assumeing.

I hope it is just a trout stream law, after all the trout and salmon swim in those waters mostly...right?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

My post above is the exact wording from the law so no, it is not just for trout streams. The old law was also not just for trout streams. Basically, this law mirrors the old law with the exception of the weight of the lure.

The existing laws already provide a penalty big enough to make someone not want to poach or get caught but again, like other laws where poachers get off easier that what they should, the problem is in the courts.


----------



## Youper (Jul 8, 2001)

My favorite pike lure is the 1 oz. Daredevel, and the treble hook that comes on it is right about 3/8 of an inch. I never measured it. I was unwittingly sometimes using hooks too large if that was the law in '97 and prior. I have been using 4/0 and 5/0 hooks for bait fishing when I use a single point hook. I guess I'll have to review my tackle more closely.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Come on, you have got to be kidding!!!! The average sized lure I toss in the fall for Muskie and big Pike weighs between 2.5 and 5.5 oz., with 5/0 trebles. Rivermouths are one of my favorite haunts as fall moves in......... Any decent Muskie will make a nice straight piece of wire out of some wimpy #6 treble. I am in shock.............. Heck, I just realized, all my bucktails are going to be illegal too they weigh 1.25-2.5oz.)


----------



## Youper (Jul 8, 2001)

What I'm mainly interested in is the talk about rivers. Most lakes have an intlet and outlet that is a river or stream. Does that make them part of the river. The division is some what arbitrary on some bodies.


----------



## walleyechaser (Jan 12, 2001)

Boehr,
This new/renewed law on lure weight and hook size really needs to be revisited on an urgent basis.
What this law accomplishes is the following:
1)It makes common lures such as body baits and bucktail spinners in sizes suitable for large pike and musky illegal
on some of our states premier waters---the Thornapple 
and Tequamenom Rivers to start with any other river that has a fishable population of either species.
2)It makes law abiding fishermen unwitingly susceptible to citations for fishing in an otherwise legal manner.

What does it accomplish in terms of preventing unlawful fishing
methods such as snagging? In realistic terms, nothing!
All one has to do is spend a day below any dam during the fall salmon and you'll see obvious snagging activity taking place.
The reason for this is simple, the courts are too easy on violators!
Until the courts step up to the table and do their jobs, no amount of new laws or changes are worth the paper they're printed on.
Just my 2 cents worth!


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I'm not disagreeing with anyone, legal fishermen, on this law. I'm pretty sure there will be more on this. I don't know what more information I can provide at this time. This law is not intended to effect legal fishermen and I really don't think it will. It is my duty on this Forum to advise exactly what the law states, not to mislead anyone to where it may or may not be enforced and have someone get into trouble. Maybe in a few months I might be able to give that guidance but I can not promise anything that I have no control over. I will do my best to keep everyone advised on this particular law the best I can.


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

I got clued in about the new regs last week by a CO. 
He indicated that he was going to use the new law as another tool against obvious violators. 
He further hinted that as far as he was concerned...like other situations he would exercise his discretion as to the intent of the individuals, and the applicability of the law. I may have misunderstood...and that doesent change the rule. 

Boehr does that sound way off base as far as my recollection is concerned?????

jp


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

Boehr,
Can you direct us to who we can complain to ?
Perhaps a petition is needed?
Thanks for all your help 
PS I wasn't yellin at ya 
I did make a funny face at the screen once tho 
Thanks


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

NEMichsportsman...no it doesn't sound off base but I can not advise on a public forum, again I must advise what the law is.

Trout...it's a Fisheries Order passed by the NRC and Director, that's where you complain, or make suggestions to make it better.


----------



## stelmon (Sep 21, 2000)

Boehr, does that make the 2 ounce weight you use for peir fishing illegal to and who can we email to tell them we disagree with the new laws?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Ruler...Do you think if nobody ever snagged or attempted to snag fish this law would have ever came about? Do you think even if there was snagging but by a very minimal amount there would be this law? Are you telling me nobody has ever snagged or attempted to snag walleye in the Saginaw River or the tributaries of the Saginaw River? It's poachers that are screwing you over.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

What do they propose to do about the snagging on the flies only section on the PM? The tackle that is illegal under this law has always been illegal on the flies stretch yet snagging happens there as much as most places. As long as we have people fishing, someone will be snagging, regardless of hook size. This law puts the CO's in a tough position...if the law is truly the law, then they will be forced to ticket law abiding fisherman. If you are walleye fishing yet using tackle thats illegal, you still get ticketed. Same for those fishing for Musky, Catfish etc. It won't matter if you aren't snagging, you will still be a criminal. And if the CO's start using discretion about who they will ticket, then the law becomes absolutely useless. (Its useless for the most part already). I know we must blame the poachers for this law and not the DNR or NRC but making legal fisherman violaters is not the way to go. As long as the rivers are full of fish, they will be full of snaggers. The state will never have the funds to fix this problem because it will take manpower solve. You can hardley expect one/two CO's per county to be enough to police each river and stream let alone conduct the other daily business that they must deal with also. I haven't seen a uniformed officer on the river(s) in over three years. Thats not to say they haven't been there in plain clothes or otherwise, I just haven't noticed. Then again, I've never needed to keep an eye out either! And most of my tackle is still legal now that I measured everything the correct way so I'm still legal atleast if I'm not pulling plugs.
Anyway, this law sets a dangerous precedent. What I don't understand is the fact that if this was the law in 97' why did they repeal(?) it then? or has it always been.....I don't remember any less snagging previous to 97' so has the law been ineffective all this time or what?


----------



## StumpJumper (Nov 13, 2001)

The whole point is snagging has been illegal for a long time. People still do it. If snagging was really to be deterred then all that was needed was more enforcement of the existing laws , not new laws that prohibit lawful fishing methods!

BTW, I could snag with a 1/4 oz jig if I wanted too! And that's just what these guys will do. Are they next on the list?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I'm not disagreeing with anyone but I don't think legal fishermen have too much to worry about. You all have good points. I also believe the snaggers dislike this law even more then all of you do.


----------



## MGV (Jan 22, 2002)

What can we say it will make the snaggers stick out in the crowd more.


----------



## Ruler (Nov 30, 2001)

Actually, I haven't seen anybody snagging or even trying to snag walleye on the Saginaw River. I get snagged up enough on all the crap in there just fishing with perch rigs! There was a hard south wind for a few days a couple of years ago. Water went down several feet and about 40' of shoreline was exposed that was normally underwater. There was so much stuff, it was unbelievable; logs 20' long, barrels, a steel cable, a picnic table from the park, etc. Walked out and didn't even find any torpedos, although I *did* find about two dozen plugs.  Anybody who would try to snag in it would lose their rig pretty quick.

The only places I've seen people snagging have been up north when fishing for trout/salmon. Watched em all the time at the AuSable below Foote Dam and at the mouth and once at the AuGres. For the rest of the rivers I fish, it's a bad solution for a non-existant problem.

For the snaggers, I recommend more enforcement. When I go up fishing to the AuSable 5 times in a row and all 5 times see people snagging without even trying to hide what they're doing, there's something wrong. The problem is not a lack of laws, it's a lack of enforcement of the existing laws. That point of view isn't popular with the state though. It seems like they like to believe that the enforcement is great, but the laws needed to ticket the snaggers don't exist. The laws *do* exist, but they are not enforced. (I've watched a DNR dude turn his head and walk away when a 15 year old kid snagged a steelhead at the mouth of the AuSable this past fall.  That was the *only* CO I saw during any of those trips.  ) In addition to at least some COs not enforcing the law when they see blatent infractions, according to a post you made here just a little bit ago we don't have enough COs and it's going to get worse.

Even if COs indeed choose to not ticket people using legitamite lures, I would still not like it as it gives them the *ability* to do so. Selective enforcement of the law is a bad idea.

Why would the snaggers be upset at these new laws? They don't give a rip about the laws that are on the books now, so what makes anybody think that they'll care about these new ones? They simply do not care about the law. New laws mean that they will simply not care about more of the laws.

However, imagine that everybody in the state only used lures conforming to the new restrictions. POOF! All the big hooks and heavy lures are gone and any that are made instantly disappear. (I don't know how the physics of this would work, but bear with me.) What would happen? The snaggers would use legal tackle to snag with. Because of this, the state would lower the restrictions to 1/4" hooks and 1/2 ounce lures. Snaggers would find another way to snag fish. The state would lower the limit to 1/8" hooks and 1/4 ounce lures. Snaggers would find another way around it. The state would make laws so that only size 24 hooks and 1/64 ounce lures could be used. This would have 2 effects. A) Everybody who fished basically would be susceptable to a ticket. B) The snaggers would *still* find a way to snag fish. I saw a little kid out at a cut one time trying to find line and hooks on shore so he could fish. I took pity on him and gave him some line and a 1/16 ounce jig with maribou feathers, thinking he could get some crappie. He took the line, tripled it, tied to to a heavy branch, tied on the jig, went over to the bank, put it in and snagged a carp with it. I walked over and cut the line and jig off and let him go back to scavenging. He eventually found an old rusted hook, some line and tied it onto the branch. Tied a rock on for a weight and went right back to snagging carp. Granted, nobody wants carp anyway, (except that kid... he took all that he got; dunno WHAT he was gonna do with em  ) but it makes the point well. People can snag with virtually anything. If it is not enforced that it is not allowed, they will continue to do so, no matter what equipment or lack thereof is available.

These new laws ban so broad a range of lures, it is roughly analagous to banning cigarette lighters. After all, a few people use them to start fires. Banning large hooks and heavy weights/lures is the same, as a few people use similar equipment to snag fish. Imagine that all cigarette lighters were banned and you could be ticketed for using one. Would the arsonists be screwing over the people who use them for legitamite reasons? Rather, wouldn't it seem more logical that the state, in making such a broad and unrestrained law prohibiting lighters, be screwing over the 99% of the people who use them legally?

Again, these new laws will accomplish nothing except to: A) Get a lot of people POed (which has already been done). B) Make a lot of law abiding fishermen who do not snag fish into criminals. C) Give the COs the power to write tickets to virtually anybody at their discretion.


PS- Sorry this turned into a book. I just feel rather strongly that these new laws are a load of $%*^.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

> Actually, I haven't seen anybody snagging or even trying to snag walleye on the Saginaw River.


It does happen. I worked in that District for 11 years.



> The only places I've seen people snagging have been up north when fishing for trout/salmon. Watched em all the time at the AuSable below Foote Dam and at the mouth and once at the AuGres.


And how many times have you called the RAP Hotline?



> (I've watched a DNR dude turn his head and walk away when a 15 year old kid snagged a steelhead at the mouth of the AuSable this past fall. That was the *only* CO I saw during any of those trips. ) In addition to at least some COs not enforcing the law when they see blatent infractions,


Are you positive it was a CO and not another DNR dude (fish tech or other DNR employee with no authority to issue tickets)? I hope you know positively, for a fact, that CO's do not enforce blatent infractions before a statement like that.



> Even if COs indeed choose to not ticket people using legitamite lures, I would still not like it as it gives them the *ability* to do so. Selective enforcement of the law is a bad idea.


CO's have always, as all other law enforcement officers, had the ablility to use discreation for any law. For a CO or any law enforcement officer to *not* have the ability to use discreation is a bad idea. Arrests by CO's average around the 20,000 plus or minus every year. If you took away discreation and told the CO they had to write *every* violation the numbers would likely be up to around 100,000 plus every year. You don't even want to go there.



> Why would the snaggers be upset at these new laws? They don't give a rip about the laws that are on the books now, so what makes anybody think that they'll care about these new ones?


You basically have two types of snaggers, one type like you mention that don't give a rip, the other type that want to snag but also don't want to get caught. That second type will be affected by the law. If you want to admit it or not, they will not like the law either. 

The rest of your post about reducing the weight even more, is really reaching and a bad attempt to compare something that isn't a law to something that is law.


----------



## Ruler (Nov 30, 2001)

This will be my last post in this thread. Nobody is going to convince me that either restricting the types of lures that legal fisherman can use like this or designing the law to be enforced selectively is a good thing, nor am I going to make a point, no matter how hard I try.

Maybe they do snag on the Saginaw River. I just havn't seen anybody do so in the 18 or so years I've fished the river in my area.

I called on my cell the first 2 times I saw it and hung around, just watching people. I left after an hour and a half, thoroughly disgusted.

I should have said that "at least some dnr dudes not enforcing the law" instead of "at least some COs not enforcing the law". I am not 100% that he was a CO, but he had a DNR jacket, green pickup, walkie-talkie, and clipboard with him. It's possible he was a "fish tech" or something; I've never heard of those before. If there is such a shortage of COs, why are there field employees who can't issue tickets? Why not give as many DNR personell as possible the ability to enforce the laws?

I'm not arguing that the COs shouldn't be able to use their discretion. I'm saying that enacting a law that's designed to be enforced selectively is a bad idea. Every CO I've heard from plans on using it to get the snaggers. However, what about the one that doesn't and uses it to write as many tickets as possible? Is this equitable treatment? Discretion is important in determining intent, but it's awful subjective and varies from person to person as well. This is where the danger lies.

If they don't want to get caught, why not just use legal gear to snag with? Like I illustrated in my last post, people can snag with virtually anything if they want to. The people who don't want to get caught will modify their arsenal to conform with the new weight and size restrictions and therefore they won't like it, but it won't stop them from snagging. The people who don't care simply won't care.

The part about continually reducing the size and weight allowed was designed to show how rediculous the new laws are. People who want to snag are going to snag. Period. Restricting the equipment people can use is simply going to annoy legal fishermen, not stop the snaggers from snagging.

--A useful device is used by a small percentage of people for illegal activity and is therefore outlawed for all uses, both legal and illegal.-- This statement describes both the hypothetical situation with the lighters above and the new laws. If you think this is reaching, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. (I purposely designed what was banned in the example to be rediculous to make the point. Almost anything could be used as an example- knives, computers, just about any cleaner, bananas, guns, etc. Just about anything can be used in an illegal manner. If you consider it to be a bad attempt/example, that's your opinion and I can probably do nothing that would alter it.)


----------



## jacondie (Feb 12, 2001)

What is the current status of this "new reg"? Has it been reviewed and/or changed? Is it being enforced (i.e., has anyone on this board been ticketed)?

I'm planning on a week long trip to several rivers across Michigan to muskie fish and almost all of my gear would seem to be illegal, including topwater baits. (The lures are too heavy, and all hooks are too big!)

It would seem that some of the tackle manufacturers, bait shops, and retail sporting goods stores would want to lobby someone in the state to get this regulation changed/reworded. [I think if Cabelas said that they were considering closing down... that would get someone's attention. They sell a lot of this illegal equipment, and they are the number one tourist attraction in Michigan per Michigan Out-of-Doors.

I don't want to cancel my trip... What should I do???


----------



## quix20 (Jan 14, 2001)

if i am correct, these regs only apply to designated trout streams.


----------



## Ruler (Nov 30, 2001)

As far as I know, nobody's interested in reviewing these laws. No idea if they're being enforced or not, as I've yet to see any DNR guys on the water this fall. You hit the only thing that would get them reviewed though jacondie. If the state were to start losing $$$, they'd do something. I don't spend enough personally to do anything though. I've e-mailed the DNR several times about the procedures to get a petition going to get the regs reviewed, a place to find such procedures, or who to contact about such a petition; nobody has responded since I sent them 6 months ago, nor to any of the follow-up messages I've sent.

I'm now classified as a snagger most of the time I fish rivers. I don't know what I'll do if I get a ticket, but I'm not going to pay it, as it's a BS law. I had an opportunity to keep a snagged king on the Pere Marquette a few weeks ago. Nobody was around, but I released it anyway. How much did I want to take (as I didn't catch it) that fish when I'd fished for over a year and had yet to catch one, all the spawn I had was moldy, and nobody would know? Doesn't matter though- I'm an illegal, unethical fisherman who doesn't deserve to be on the water.



Quix, it affects all rivers with the exception of St. Mary's, Detroit, and one or two others. It *used* to be just designated trout streams when a similar law was in effect several years ago.


----------



## jacondie (Feb 12, 2001)

Ruler:

What is absolutely amazing to me is that I could be ticketed under this rule fishing with a topwater bait. To the best of my knowledge, topwater snagging is not a common technique used by poachers.

If I do get ticketed, I think I'll hire Fred Trost to be my lawyer. That will get this issue some publicity.

I'm tempted to send an e-mail to the DNR to let them know exactly where I will be fishing with my topwater snagging equipment so we can meet on the water and have a discussion. This issue needs to be reconsidered and resolved.


----------



## JRock (Nov 28, 2001)

I am going salmon fishing next weekend in Oscoda off the river bank. I do not snag, but use hot n tots, baramundi maulers and pnig-a-tees to cast with. I have not measured weight or shank length, but can anyone tell me if these are legal or not before I go and end up with a fine? Thanks.


----------



## rb1 (Jun 24, 2002)

Come on guys the NRC has to have some thing to do.
And I don't believe Cabels is the number one attraction in Michigan! I believe Michigan woods and waters are. RB1


----------



## jeremy L (Sep 19, 2002)

ping a tees, some cleos, jonited rapalas!, some hot n tots, and many more! those are some of the lures that are now illegal to use on river. what sucks is, i see people getting fined on the dock for using a cleo the legal way, while a guy buy the bridge is netting kings in the shallows and using a cleos to snag in the daylight and he takes home 14 kings! i hate this new law and what is worse is that a dnr officer up here told me they want to make it for the great lakes too!!!!!  Just think, no more silver streaks  !!!!!!!!!!!!
WE MUST STOP THIS!!!


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

I just got done studying the new regs, Half of my bucktails are illegal at any time in any water in the state. the regs state it is illegal to:
1. Have a weight permanently and/or rigidly attached to a multi-pointed hook;
All of you Muskie guys has beter have a look at your Blue Fox and most Mepps tandem bucktails, theres a lead weight on the bottom hook to make them fly tailfirst into the wind, and stay down when cranking them in. I also usually add a weight to the shaft between the hooks, also illegal.


----------

