# Another push for more miles of water



## troutguy26

https://www.change.org/petitions/mi...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

Read the 25 page article sent with this petition for more info as to where and why. 

I strongly urge anyone who is against the taking of OUR waters for personal playgrounds (let's keep in mind lots of local guides are pushing this) to do something and stand up against this.


----------



## REG

Doubtful that this will be visited before 2015. Also, it appears to me that if you are going to comment on it, that you will counted as a signee. Truly discouraging to see the mantra of promoting gear regs continues without any inquiry for evidence of effectiveness or other indications of critical thinking.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

It looks like a bunch of cut and pasting from other documents and then slapped them together by a few guides that really just want the river to themselves and their clients.


----------



## TVCJohn

I went thru the whole thing. Here's the jest of it what is being proposed. I'm not into most gear restrictions anyway so I wouldn't support this proposal.



> *PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES
> 
> *Type I regulations for the mainstem and all tributaries in the Jordan River watershed except the following changes shall be enacted:
> 
> *From the upper culvert site on Jordan River Road (N45 03.871 W84 55.549) downstream to Graves Crossing (45°01.997N, 85°3.85W):
> 
> Fishing Season*: open for the entire year; *Possession season*: last Saturday in April through September 30 for brook trout and brown trout; open entire year for rainbow trout; *Tackle*: artificial lures only, and only single-pointed hooks may be used; *Daily possession limit*: two (2) trout; *Size Limits*: minimum size limit: brook trout &#8211; 10 inches; brown trout &#8211; 10 inches; rainbow trout &#8211; 10 inches; all other trout and salmon &#8211; 10 inches. *Mileage*: [approximately] 10 miles.
> *
> Graves Crossing (45°01.997N, 85°3.85W downstream to Alba Road Access (N45°7.354, W85°7.316):
> 
> Fishing Season*: open for the entire year; *Possession season*: last Saturday in April through September 30 for brook trout and brown trout; open entire year for rainbow trout; *Tackle*: artificial flies only; *Daily possession limit*: two (2) trout; except that the daily possession limit shall not include more than one (1) trout 18 inches or greater; *Size Limits*: minimum size limit: brook trout &#8211; 10 inches; brown trout &#8211; 18 inches; rainbow trout &#8211; 10 inches; all other trout and salmon &#8211; 10 inches. *Mileage*: [approximately] 8 miles.
> *
> From Alba Road Access (N45°7.354, W85°7.316) downstream to the mouth of the river at Lake Charlevoix:
> 
> *Type 4 except that the minimum size limit for brown trout shall be 18 inches and up to 5 salmon (chinook and coho) may be retained in the daily possession limit. *Mileage*: [approximately] 2 miles.


----------



## Jackster1

Where's the problem? It looks pretty straight forward from where I sit. You get to keep fish and it's open year round. Is it that you can't use bait or spinners or what? Honest questions here. I see no place in the bit you posted that you cannot fish so it must be that you can't fish the way you want to.


----------



## troutguy26

Boardman Brookies said:


> It looks like a bunch of cut and pasting from other documents and then slapped them together by a few guides that really just want the river to themselves and their clients.


BINGO! 

This is one of many things that made me question the credibility of this petition. 

But on the other hand, if you come up with such a thing to impress your friends, they will dam near hold a parade for you right through the center of town...


----------



## troutguy26

Jackster1 said:


> Where's the problem? It looks pretty straight forward from where I sit. You get to keep fish and it's open year round. Is it that you can't use bait or spinners or what? Honest questions here. I see no place in the bit you posted that you cannot fish so it must be that you can't fish the way you want to.


Jackster,

After I read the 25 page explanation of why these regulations need to be put in place... I seen a lot of things that don't exactly "fit". 

Read that paper with an open eye and remember the reasons as to why these regs are already in place, then you will see where this shows its flaws.


----------



## REG

Jackster1 said:


> Where's the problem? It looks pretty straight forward from where I sit. You get to keep fish and it's open year round. Is it that you can't use bait or spinners or what? Honest questions here. I see no place in the bit you posted that you cannot fish so it must be that you can't fish the way you want to.


Fair enough. In a nutshell, your main question is correct. Keep in mind that there is no evidence that gear regulations have any benefit in improving trout populations as we have here (brook/brown and/or potadromous salmonids). And in contrary, for the type of makeup we have, there is evidence supporting gear regulations in of themselves have no benefit in improving trout populations.

So, we are looking at propagation of restrictions/regulations that have no demonstrated benefit, much less enhancement of trout populations. Then what redeeming values do such regs have? 

Look at it this way. If you primarily prefer to fly fish, if regulations were in effect that restricted you from fly fishing, though let's say spinning was legal, would you still want to fish there? How would you feel if said waters were some that you really loved to be on, especially with the backdrop of the regulations not of any benefit to the trout themselves?


----------



## TVCJohn

Concur and that is one reason why I'm not too much into gear restrictions. I think baiters, spinners and flyers should be able to fish how they want and where they want as they see fit. This is much like the APR debacle.


----------



## toto

TVC, it's almost exactly like the APR. I haven't figured out yet why the APR's are so important in respect to the deer herd. Just as I haven't figured out yet why gear restrictions re: flies only, there is no evidence that these rules and regs have done anything for the health and size of the fish in those streams. In fact, I've read studies to the contrary.


----------



## TVCJohn

toto said:


> TVC, it's almost exactly like the APR. I haven't figured out yet why the APR's are so important in respect to the deer herd. Just as I haven't figured out yet why gear restrictions re: flies only, there is no evidence that these rules and regs have done anything for the health and size of the fish in those streams. In fact, I've read studies to the contrary.


Yeeeuup! I'm not going to hijack this thread with APR stuff but I agree with that part.


----------



## toto

I wasn't either just wanted to make a point that seems to parallel, carry on.


----------



## Jackster1

REG said:


> Look at it this way. If you primarily prefer to fly fish, if regulations were in effect that restricted you from fly fishing, though let's say spinning was legal, would you still want to fish there? How would you feel if said waters were some that you really loved to be on, especially with the backdrop of the regulations not of any benefit to the trout themselves?


You are not stopped from fishing those streams and you are not prevented from taking a catch home to eat or help the rose bushes grow.
If you are trying to tell me that bait fishing doesn't gut hook more fish or that treble hooks cause less damage to fish than single hooks then I'll just back away and do whatever it is I was doing before I stepped back into this hornets nest.
In the snippet that was posted here I do see restrictions but such is life.
You can't snag or floss or toss a 1/4 stick of TNT in the water to bring home all of the fish you can net yet I'm willing to bet the fishing is all the better because of that. Since the cry is about restrictions, is no one here even a bit happy that the Native Americans can't use gill nets long enough to dredge an entire inland lake? I can't fish certain streams any time of the year that I want yet I never saw reason to belly-ache about it. If someone can't or don't want to learn to fly fish these rules still don't exclude you. I fished plenty of times with a spinning rod, float and flies if I wanted to catch fish that were eating on top. It ain't scary it's fun.
They call fly fishers elitist yet some folks want it all and have to have all of it their way.

I will say this, you folks have it better than good. You live in a state that has the water and type of water that makes for not good but great fishing. Even with no salt water around the diversity and numbers of fish you have are the envy of a whole lot of states around you. Just check out the license tags on the cars you see when out fishing. You are for sure doing some things right when it comes to the fishery so enjoy it and count your blessings!


----------



## Fontinalis

REG said:


> Doubtful that this will be visited before 2015. Also, it appears to me that if you are going to comment on it, that you will counted as a signee. Truly discouraging to see the mantra of promoting gear regs continues without any inquiry for evidence of effectiveness or other indications of critical thinking.


Sorry you're discouraged by such an encouraging proposal.

The common sense movement of gear restrictions and slot limits is winning more anglers over to the cause than the common nonsense all-tackle and increased harvest limit rhetoric that's been running rampant in this forum. 

The push to protect Michigan's wild trout is well underway. Time for a gut check. Get on the right side of history.


----------



## REG

Jackster1 said:


> You are not stopped from fishing those streams and you are not prevented from taking a catch home to eat or help the rose bushes grow.
> If you are trying to tell me that bait fishing doesn't gut hook more fish or that treble hooks cause less damage to fish than single hooks then I'll just back away and do whatever it is I was doing before I stepped back into this hornets nest.
> In the snippet that was posted here I do see restrictions but such is life.
> You can't snag or floss or toss a 1/4 stick of TNT in the water to bring home all of the fish you can net yet I'm willing to bet the fishing is all the better because of that. Since the cry is about restrictions, is no one here even a bit happy that the Native Americans can't use gill nets long enough to dredge an entire inland lake? I can't fish certain streams any time of the year that I want yet I never saw reason to belly-ache about it. If someone can't or don't want to learn to fly fish these rules still don't exclude you. I fished plenty of times with a spinning rod, float and flies if I wanted to catch fish that were eating on top. It ain't scary it's fun.
> They call fly fishers elitist yet some folks want it all and have to have all of it their way.
> 
> I will say this, you folks have it better than good. You live in a state that has the water and type of water that makes for not good but great fishing. Even with no salt water around the diversity and numbers of fish you have are the envy of a whole lot of states around you. Just check out the license tags on the cars you see when out fishing. You are for sure doing some things right when it comes to the fishery so enjoy it and count your blessings!


The example that you quoted me on was so that you perhaps could see what it's like to walk a mile in our shoes. It was my intention that perhaps if your proclivities were limited by forced choice for inane reasons, perhaps you could see my point. Unfortunately, your comments have shown that's not possible. So, let's go back to the crux of the whole issue.

It is hoped that fishing regulations do have some demonstrable benefit in protecting fish populations. The point to which you didn't comment on is that not only have gear regulations, in of themselves, have no demonstrable benefit to trout populations as we know them in this region, there are also multiple examples that shows that they don't help at all. 

The tangents on snagging, treble hooks, TNT, rose gardens, closed seasons and Native American gill netting serve no place in this discussion except to distract from that main point. 

Additionally, gear regs, bag limits, as with closed seasons are separate management strategies. However, as they become intertwined, it only obscures their stand alone value in managing trout populations. 

You can accept rules that serve no purpose for whatever reason you may have. However, when rules of this nature malignantly spread to more and more waters only to serve unsubstantiated beliefs of a segment of the angling community that negatively affect opportunities for the rest of us; I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'll take exception.


----------



## troutguy26

Fontinalis said:


> Sorry you're discouraged by such an encouraging proposal.
> 
> The common sense movement of gear restrictions and slot limits is winning more anglers over to the cause than the common nonsense all-tackle and increased harvest limit rhetoric that's been running rampant in this forum.
> 
> The push to protect Michigan's wild trout is well underway. Time for a gut check. Get on the right side of history.


I think by protecting our wild trout there needs to be less pressure on them. I mean come on, these rivers are wild and scenic and the last thing I want to see while out there is a guide who pounds that stretch of water everyday. 

So I might have to write up a petition to keep all guides off from our gear reg water. I'm sure you and your friends wouldn't have a problem with this, right?


I asked you before who/what groups are backing all this propaganda that you and others are pushing and you lied to me... are you now ready to say? I can....


----------



## toto

I always laugh when I hear the argument: "You can still fish it, you just have to use fly fishing equipment, or hardware". It shows to me that the point is just not getting accross. Those that make those statements seem to think we are all about raping the resource and that just isn't fact. We are just wanting to be able fish in a legally accepted fashion in waters that we pay for, and fish for fish that we pay for. I don't think I can make it any more easy to understand than that. I find it amazing too that those folks who say we are being selfish, are actually the ones who themselves, are being selfish. So the conundrum is, both sides feel the other side is being selfish.

Our side only wants to have biological science dictate what the resource can reasonably stand and sustain. If the science does not prove that gear restrictions help the resource in any way, why have them? I know some will say it's a mortality issue, the problem with that is, is that most every study I've read about live bait and mortality is using the passive method of using bait. In other words they are using the idea of propping up a rod on a stick and waiting for the fish to hook itself. Yes that does happen, but I suspect that most guys who are on the side of no gear regs don't fish that way. In fact, if you really want to get technical, fly fishing regs should be relagated to using dry flies only, why, because I have read studies that say that the use of wet flies mortality rates are nearly equal to using live bait. It appears that trout will take a wet fly deeper and thereby getting hooked deeper and in to the esophagus, or the tongue, and that is nearly a death sentence for a trout. In those same studies it has been said that if the hook is left in in a deeply hooked trout, you should cut the line as close as possible to the hook and leave the hook intact. It appears that the hook will dissolve, in most cases, within 34 days and the trout will live to fight another day, should you decide to release said fish.

The bottom line is, there is trully no biological reason for gear restrictions, and studies have proved that. In fact, there was a study done on the PM years ago, after the institution of the flies only. This study was done in conjunction to the effectiveness of sand traps, and in this study it was determined that it appeared that the fish populations were the same after the gear regulations change, as they were prior to. Therefore, there was no particular purpose for flies only on the PM other than to quantify some social enigma.


----------



## MERGANZER

I have said it before and I will say it again, we have enough fly only water in my opinion and I do not support the addition of more fly water. That being said, as mentioned earlier you can all fish the fly water without a fly rod etc. My biggest concern of the proposal is the year round fishing for Brook trout. 

Ganzer


----------



## Trout King

Fontinalis said:


> Sorry you're discouraged by such an encouraging proposal.
> 
> The common sense movement of gear restrictions and slot limits is winning more anglers over to the cause than the common nonsense all-tackle and increased harvest limit rhetoric that's been running rampant in this forum.
> 
> The push to protect Michigan's wild trout is well underway. Time for a gut check. Get on the right side of history.


Where is the common sense? Do you have science or studies to prove any reason gr are necessary? 

Gut check? Wild trout? History? Well, before planting there was no such thing as a wild trout in Michigan. FACT. Why do they need so much protection? They survived decades of a TEN fish limit, they are still there. FACT. It seems to me if they need all of this protection that you wouldn't fish them at all.
You can push the feel good rules etc, but when it comes down to it science has shown no difference pre to post gear restrictions on currently restricted water.

I will be waiting for sound biological evidence why we need GR water in MI...probably won't see it since we have been waiting since these debates started a few years ago.


----------



## REG

Fontinalis said:


> Sorry you're discouraged by such an encouraging proposal.
> 
> The common sense movement of gear restrictions and slot limits is winning more anglers over to the cause than the common nonsense all-tackle and increased harvest limit rhetoric that's been running rampant in this forum.
> 
> The push to protect Michigan's wild trout is well underway. Time for a gut check. Get on the right side of history.


Common sense also at one time dictated the earth was the center of the universe and the world was flat. Evidence showed the contrary, but this "common sense" as history shows, did live on for a long time, didn't it?

It's not that there's no evidence for gear regs and such. It's just that the big distinction here is the available evidence shows that gear regs do nothing to enhance trout populations, aka protecting trout, as we know them in this region.

Previous, we had provided you with these studies that demonstrate this. It is apparent by your comment above that this evidence had no effect in changing your opinions.

Thus, "common sense"(sic) carried on despite the evidence via scientific inquiry to the contrary is at best anti-intellectual dogma. Maybe it's just me, but I won't be joining the described crowd going off that cliff.

Oh, previously, I had outlined conditions where I could support catch and release sections. Never did get a reponse. Was there something in them you found objectionable?
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4692315&postcount=150


----------



## Fontinalis

Want to protect trout? How about creating fish refuges where fishing is banned? No? I thought so.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd like to see some rivers shut down for 2-5 years in order to allow trout to recover from mismanagement and overharvest.

So to trout refuges, even sections that are permanent, the answer is: YES! Surprised. Thought so.

It is only appeasement of other members of the angling community that various proposals have fostered gear regulations and slot limits. Which I also support. Confused? I thought so.


----------



## walleyebum

Fontinalis said:


> Want to protect trout? How about creating fish refuges where fishing is banned? No? I thought so.


Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd like to see some rivers shut down for 2-5 years in order to allow trout to recover from mismanagement and overharvest.

So to trout refuges, even sections that are permanent, the answer is: YES! Surprised. Thought so.

It is only appeasement of other members of the angling community that various proposals have fostered gear regulations and slot limits. Which I also support. Confused? I thought so.[/QUOTE]

You can manage rivers successfully without having to impose gear restrictions!!!

This is what you people do not seem to grasp. There have been many on here like me that have posted they do fly fish and enjoy it but by making a river fly only your are not improving the quality of the fish. It is backed by scientific data not just oppinion.

Now managing a river to produce better fishing is way different. Slot or size limits, number of fish allowed to be kept, habitt restortion and seasons open for fishing are what will bring about results to improve trout populations not gear restrictions.

And I am so tiered of hearing the "wild trout" comment. There is no such thing as wild trout in michigan!!!! They were brought here. Infact they are an invasive species if you actually want to be technical about it. 

No one here wants to see trout dissapear. That is not any fishermans intentions weather they fish with fly, spinner, or bait. 

But people like you that believe your way of fishing is the only way to fish for trout is what is really standing in the way of successfull management. You are trying to protect and create a section of river to be fished the way you and those supporting your way want it fished. 

If you could show any proof that flys only can create a better fishery I would be on board in a heart beat because then it would be about protecting a Fishery not a fishing style.


----------



## troutguy26

Just because people are against gear regs doesn't mean they are against fly fishing/don't fly fish themselves. 

A lot of people on here, including myself, like to fly fish and do not support these restrictions. So I wouldn't read a book by its cover.


----------



## mondrella

Fontinalis said:


> This particular forum has always been run by a bunch of disgruntled, anti-fly fishing types preaching to the choir. Now that opposing voices have joined in the conversation it's time to GROW A PAIR and understand it's about protecting the resource not class warfare.
> 
> Wild trout aren't easily replaced. Do the right thing.


Can you show me evidence to back up your claim? What you are saying is a theory that has been found to be false in this state so far. Trout are a renewable resource. There are far more trout than any of us even can imagine in many of our streams. In fact I catch trout andmany of them in places many of you would never tthink to fish. In fact my largest trout this year came from a area no one and I mean no one fishes for trout. People say they want more trout or bigger trout guess what there is only one proven method to do that. Bait fishung has little to no impact on the numbers of trout or size of trout. People say they want more trophy trout. Guess what harvest of fish will create larger fish. You just have to be good enough to catch them. Name one river that is over fished in this state for stream trout? There is none. I have yet to find a place where I cannot catch double digit numbers of trout in a day. While some struggle to catch a single fish. 
Quit being selfish and realize you are on the wrong side of history when this is all said and done if those that think like you get your way.


----------



## ab5228

There may be no native trout but there are native char aka mr brookie and laker and wild non-native stream born trout. Pheasants aren't native to this continent either but they tend to garner the same reverence among many....The population on this planet is growing, just because 10 fish limits worked in the past for brookies doesnt mean it will work in the future. Flies only is probably unneccassary and just creates a larger rift between types of fishermen. It probably hurts conservation efforts as well with the lack pf unity that goes along with it. However single barbless hooks, slots, no kill in certain areas and possibly even no fishing in the few sensitive fisheries and research areas such as The Salmon Trout river make sense. Bait or Fly, APR or not, outdoorsmen need to get on the same page and focus on what matters. It makes a lot of sense to protect these fish and the streams they live in. Especially as our population grows. Ever heard of Michigan Grayling?..... #coasters......#twistedsteelandsexappeal #fishsohard #puremichigan


----------



## Shoeman

Boardman Brookies said:


> There are those three words again, "quality fishing experience."
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Might it be too hard to catch these on articials?


----------



## mondrella

ab5228 said:


> There may be no native trout but there are native char aka mr brookie and laker and wild non-native stream born trout. Pheasants aren't native to this continent either but they tend to garner the same reverence among many....The population on this planet is growing, just because 10 fish limits worked in the past for brookies doesnt mean it will work in the future. Flies only is probably unneccassary and just creates a larger rift between types of fishermen. It probably hurts conservation efforts as well with the lack pf unity that goes along with it. However single barbless hooks, slots, no kill in certain areas and possibly even no fishing in the few sensitive fisheries and research areas such as The Salmon Trout river make sense. Bait or Fly, APR or not, outdoorsmen need to get on the same page and focus on what matters. It makes a lot of sense to protect these fish and the streams they live in. Especially as our population grows. Ever heard of Michigan Grayling?..... #coasters......#twistedsteelandsexappeal #fishsohard #puremichigan


Yet numbers fishing has decreased over time. Limits have tightened and habitat has continues to improve. Granted we are not as plant happy as in the 50 and 60's. Which is a good thing. There is not no where near the numbers fishing brook trout as there was 20 years ago. Most trout fisherman I know sit in their living rooms and tell me stories of the days of old when I take them a meal of trout to eat. Those guys cannot get out anymore and live it through me. The future is bright for trout more than many of you think. People are much more conscience of the things they do and its effects.


----------



## Fontinalis

walleyebum said:


> Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd like to see some rivers shut down for 2-5 years in order to allow trout to recover from mismanagement and overharvest.
> 
> So to trout refuges, even sections that are permanent, the answer is: YES! Surprised. Thought so.
> 
> It is only appeasement of other members of the angling community that various proposals have fostered gear regulations and slot limits. Which I also support. Confused? I thought so.


You can manage rivers successfully without having to impose gear restrictions!!!

This is what you people do not seem to grasp. There have been many on here like me that have posted they do fly fish and enjoy it but by making a river fly only your are not improving the quality of the fish. It is backed by scientific data not just oppinion.

Now managing a river to produce better fishing is way different. Slot or size limits, number of fish allowed to be kept, habitt restortion and seasons open for fishing are what will bring about results to improve trout populations not gear restrictions.

*And I am so tiered of hearing the "wild trout" comment. There is no such thing as wild trout in michigan!!!! They were brought here. Infact they are an invasive species if you actually want to be technical about it. 
*
No one here wants to see trout dissapear. That is not any fishermans intentions weather they fish with fly, spinner, or bait. 

But people like you that believe your way of fishing is the only way to fish for trout is what is really standing in the way of successfull management. You are trying to protect and create a section of river to be fished the way you and those supporting your way want it fished. 

If you could show any proof that flys only can create a better fishery I would be on board in a heart beat because then it would be about protecting a Fishery not a fishing style.[/QUOTE]
----------

WB ---*Sounds like you are confused between what are considered Wild Trout and Native Trout. The DNR isn't though: 
*
http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/IFR/ifrlibra/Research/reports/2080rr.pdf


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Shoeman said:


> Might it be too hard to catch these on articials?


Sorry not following you Shoeman?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## walleyebum

I don't get were you are going with the link? 

My point is any time gear regs are proposed it is always behind a shield of protect the wild/native trout. I was simply stating these fish were stocked here by us. It is not like we are trying to save the last place on earth they naturally were from.

Believe me I am 100 percent behind protecting trout streams and trout populations. I have spend more time in streams and rivers fishing for them than most ever will in a life time. But proposing gear restrictions is the furthest thing from helping protect trout.

I do not doubt your intentions, but like already stated fisherman from all sides need to come together on this. And the future of all our outdoor passions relay on passing this on to our children. Which is another reason I am so against gear regulations. I first learned how to catch trout not with a fly rod but a worm. Which I am sure about 99 percent of every one else has. 

Fly fishing is not a simple way to fish. Kids do not have very much patience and get discoraged very easily. Once they are addicted like we are it is there choice weather they want to cast a fly or use other methods but the more people that enjoy the streams and rivers the more power we as fisherman hold to protect our passion.

I plan on teaching my 2 children how to fish for trout just as I did in the same spot and way I did. And yes that means with a worm. Because to me it is about being out there and enjoying the resorce we have not what rod and lure we use. I would love to be able to someday sit on a stream bank with my children years down the road waiting for a hatch to start up and fish to start feeding. But that will never happen unless they are interested and want to be there.

I know this does not directly relate to what is going on in this thread but it is very important in my opinion. What does it matter in managing a resorce if we have no one to protect it when we are all gone?


----------



## ESOX

I think the rest of the flys only water should be reserved for other non indigenous species. I Have a great time fly fishing for carp in Halloway Resivour. How about we make everything above Mt Morris Road flies only so those damn worm dragging walleye fishing pigs stay the hell out of my way while I chase the revered man stocked carp??


----------



## Fontinalis

walleyebum said:


> I don't get were you are going with the link?
> 
> My point is any time gear regs are proposed it is always behind a shield of protect the wild/native trout. I was simply stating these fish were stocked here by us. It is not like we are trying to save the last place on earth they naturally were from.
> 
> Believe me I am 100 percent behind protecting trout streams and trout populations. I have spend more time in streams and rivers fishing for them than most ever will in a life time. But proposing gear restrictions is the furthest thing from helping protect trout.
> 
> I do not doubt your intentions, but like already stated fisherman from all sides need to come together on this. And the future of all our outdoor passions relay on passing this on to our children. Which is another reason I am so against gear regulations. I first learned how to catch trout not with a fly rod but a worm. Which I am sure about 99 percent of every one else has.
> 
> Fly fishing is not a simple way to fish. Kids do not have very much patience and get discoraged very easily. Once they are addicted like we are it is there choice weather they want to cast a fly or use other methods but the more people that enjoy the streams and rivers the more power we as fisherman hold to protect our passion.
> 
> I plan on teaching my 2 children how to fish for trout just as I did in the same spot and way I did. And yes that means with a worm. Because to me it is about being out there and enjoying the resorce we have not what rod and lure we use. I would love to be able to someday sit on a stream bank with my children years down the road waiting for a hatch to start up and fish to start feeding. But that will never happen unless they are interested and want to be there.
> 
> I know this does not directly relate to what is going on in this thread but it is very important in my opinion. What does it matter in managing a resorce if we have no one to protect it when we are all gone?



No one is advocating that children or other anglers must be forced into the scenario to fly fish or not fish at all. Every stream that has a flies-only section has 10x more water in close proximity and on the same system that is accessible to ALL anglers. Besides, most of the trout water in the state doesn't meet all of the DNR requirements for flies only water either. 

I grew up just like everyone else fishing with spin tackle and I enjoyed it. When I started learning to fly fish at 13 it added another dimension. I also realized that those treble hooks on the end of my Panther Martins were ending up in the eyes and deep in the gills. So when I began to release fish I knew from experience that the gear I used did have an effect on the fish.

Most of the friends I know that fish with spin tackle and bait admit that they do more harm to the fish, especially the ones who fish the most. The bottom line is the DNR is underfunded and unable to properly stock and manage the resources we have in MI and if we're going to protect wild trout populations the responsibility will most likely fall on our shoulders. I and others accept that and are willing to facilitate the new situation we face on the ground.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Great post wallyebum, you have summed up why I am againist GRs. I guess I have graduated to exlusivly fly fishing for trout now but I will not forget my roots and how I got where I am now. When my daughter is old enough I plan on soaking some worms with her. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## DLHirst

ESOX said:


> I think the rest of the flys only water should be reserved for other non indigenous species. I Have a great time fly fishing for carp in Halloway Resivour. How about we make everything above Mt Morris Road flies only so those damn worm dragging walleye fishing pigs stay the hell out of my way while I chase the revered man stocked carp??


Actually, fishing for carp on the fly is a very technical, but enjoyable day on the water. Closest we get to bonefishing this far north!


----------



## the rapids

Fontinalis said:


> No one is advocating that children or other anglers must be forced into the scenario to fly fish or not fish at all. Every stream that has a flies-only section has 10x more water in close proximity and on the same system that is accessible to ALL anglers. Besides, most of the trout water in the state doesn't meet all of the DNR requirements for flies only water either.
> 
> I grew up just like everyone else fishing with spin tackle and I enjoyed it. When I started learning to fly fish at 13 it added another dimension. I also realized that those treble hooks on the end of my Panther Martins were ending up in the eyes and deep in the gills. So when I began to release fish I knew from experience that the gear I used did have an effect on the fish.
> 
> Most of the friends I know that fish with spin tackle and bait admit that they do more harm to the fish, especially the ones who fish the most. The bottom line is the DNR is underfunded and unable to properly stock and manage the resources we have in MI and if we're going to protect wild trout populations the responsibility will most likely fall on our shoulders. I and others accept that and are willing to facilitate the new situation we face on the ground.


I think it goes without saying that people who "fish the most" do the most damage. any form of hooking has some kind of mortality related to it. however, those who fish for pleasure and let a ton of fish go in the day are likely killing x% of the fish (there are studies out there that state the mortality based on single, treble, whatever) more than the angler that goes out and gets his 5 and goes home. so why even have c&r? I wonder this sometimes myself when I let fish go. I have only kept one brown trout this year of the hundreds I have landed using flies and artificials (not much of a bait fisherman here), but I am not so naïve to believe that my interactions with trout fisheries is somehow better for the fishery than what others choose to do.

lets face it, what we do as c&r anglers is cruel to the fish by any measure, and fishing is a blood sport. always has been, always will be. we aren't (as some poetic flyfishers like to say) "dancing with the fish" I think the fish would disagree as its heart pumps with terror trying to survive a hooking experience.

one of the purest forms of living and experiencing the nutrient cycle on this earth is to take the life of another organism, consume it and let it become a part of you. it is an intimate and sacred part being alive. as our species evolved, hunting tactics such as fishing for food were learned. those who choose to practice this ancient technique should be allowed to do so anywhere it is sustainable. and I have yet to see a wild trout fishery that is not sustainable. it is inherently sustainable.

it really doesn't matter what you use, you are going to kill some fish whether it is due to the hooking, the fighting, the releasing, the photographs, the net, the handling, whatever. there are many factors that go into it.

to think that protecting a wild fishery can be accomplished (even in part) by changing the gear that anglers have to use is laughable when you think of the actions of us as people in a larger role on this earth.

our human impacts on the Jordan river are numerous, and if you really want to "protect" or "improve" the fishery you had better start by looking at ways to protect the natural processes that allow the Jordan river to be such a great wild trout stream. before you think of gear restrictions as the answer, I hope you at least tried to affect the following:

*human development in the watershed
*resource development in the watershed (minerals, gas, oil, groundwater)
*pressures of having an un-sustainable civilization and country occupying this watershed
*habitat impairments from historic and future land use patterns
the list goes on

in short, fontinalis these regulations are not doing anything to assure the long range protection of the trout fishery by imparting gear restrictions.

have you ever looked in the mirror and assessed how your lifestyle or even choice of fishing gear is also negatively impacting natural communities and ecosystems across this earth? have you ever considered how many natural areas on this planet your unsustainable consumptive demands due to taking part in a capitalistic imperialist country have destroyed? or how those places are special to other animals (including people) than yourself in this world? are you going to impart "lifestyle regulations" to keep yourself from participating in a civilization that routinely and unabashedly is destroying the living and non-living things on this earth? why are you pushing gear restrictions when so many other things that you are taking part in are destroying the living systems of this planet?

what a joke these gear restriction people are.


----------



## DFJISH

DLHirst said:


> Actually, fishing for carp on the fly is a very technical, but enjoyable day on the water. Closest we get to bonefishing this far north!


OMG! In the middle of a thread about protecting the aritocrats of the rivers and streams, someone brings up fly fishing for bottom-feeding sewer inspectors. :lol:


----------



## Fontinalis

the rapids said:


> I think it goes without saying that people who "fish the most" do the most damage. any form of hooking has some kind of mortality related to it. however, those who fish for pleasure and let a ton of fish go in the day are likely killing x% of the fish (there are studies out there that state the mortality based on single, treble, whatever) more than the angler that goes out and gets his 5 and goes home. so why even have c&r? I wonder this sometimes myself when I let fish go. I have only kept one brown trout this year of the hundreds I have landed using flies and artificials (not much of a bait fisherman here), but I am not so naïve to believe that my interactions with trout fisheries is somehow better for the fishery than what others choose to do.
> 
> lets face it, what we do as c&r anglers is cruel to the fish by any measure, and fishing is a blood sport. always has been, always will be. we aren't (as some poetic flyfishers like to say) "dancing with the fish" I think the fish would disagree as its heart pumps with terror trying to survive a hooking experience.
> 
> one of the purest forms of living and experiencing the nutrient cycle on this earth is to take the life of another organism, consume it and let it become a part of you. it is an intimate and sacred part being alive. as our species evolved, hunting tactics such as fishing for food were learned. those who choose to practice this ancient technique should be allowed to do so anywhere it is sustainable. and I have yet to see a wild trout fishery that is not sustainable. it is inherently sustainable.
> 
> it really doesn't matter what you use, you are going to kill some fish whether it is due to the hooking, the fighting, the releasing, the photographs, the net, the handling, whatever. there are many factors that go into it.
> 
> to think that protecting a wild fishery can be accomplished (even in part) by changing the gear that anglers have to use is laughable when you think of the actions of us as people in a larger role on this earth.
> 
> our human impacts on the Jordan river are numerous, and if you really want to "protect" or "improve" the fishery you had better start by looking at ways to protect the natural processes that allow the Jordan river to be such a great wild trout stream. before you think of gear restrictions as the answer, I hope you at least tried to affect the following:
> 
> *human development in the watershed
> *resource development in the watershed (minerals, gas, oil, groundwater)
> *pressures of having an un-sustainable civilization and country occupying this watershed
> *habitat impairments from historic and future land use patterns
> the list goes on
> 
> in short, fontinalis these regulations are not doing anything to assure the long range protection of the trout fishery by imparting gear restrictions.
> 
> have you ever looked in the mirror and assessed how your lifestyle or even choice of fishing gear is also negatively impacting natural communities and ecosystems across this earth? have you ever considered how many natural areas on this planet your unsustainable consumptive demands due to taking part in a capitalistic imperialist country have destroyed? or how those places are special to other animals (including people) than yourself in this world? are you going to impart "lifestyle regulations" to keep yourself from participating in a civilization that routinely and unabashedly is destroying the living and non-living things on this earth? why are you pushing gear restrictions when so many other things that you are taking part in are destroying the living systems of this planet?
> 
> what a joke these gear restriction people are.


Umm...okay? In other news the Tigers lost to the Red Sox 20-4 tonight.


----------



## Trout King

Someone please provide evidence where gear restrictions improve size and or numbers! I have been waiting three years...
All of the science I have read does not show gr water helps. Keep playing the conservation card because it just is not valid. Period.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Fontinalis said:


> The bottom line is the DNR is underfunded and unable to properly stock and manage the resources we have in MI and if we're going to protect wild trout populations the responsibility will most likely fall on our shoulders. I and others accept that and are willing to facilitate the new situation we face on the ground.


Ah yes, the proverbial broke DNR, therefore we need fly fishing only water to protect the fisheries argument. Except the DNR biologist didn't say, we are underfunded therefore we don't know if gear restrictions are needed to protect the waters. They said over and over again in review, gear restrictions in the overall scheme of things are irrelevant to the health and sustainability of the rivers. So this "new situation" is purely philosophical and ideological.


----------



## walleyebum

Come on do you know how many bigger trout I have seen played half to death on 3lb tippet then held out of the water for picture time. Then some half ass atempt at reviving the fish but when the ngler loses patience because the fish doesn't want to swim away quickly it is just released. Which, Is almost certin death. Do not feed me the flies only kills less fish line. I have been fishing way to long to buy any of that crap.

My whole point to you which I have repeated several times and you are still not getting is how a flies only section will do nothing to improve trout populations, size or whatever it is you are trying to improve.

Even now in this thread you are so blinded with the though of "flies only" that you can not stop and listen to alot of good advise from fellow fisherman. It is quite obvious that I am not getting through to you and that is fine. You can go on choosing to believe in the fairy tale of "flies only" protects the trout. 

Bottom line is there is no scientic data that suggest imposing flies only restrictions on a river will some way improve "wild fish" stock or size or whatever you say you are trying to improve. 

The simple fact is you and your buddies do not want to float down river and have othere people fishing in "your spots" with bait/artificials. I have seen this pushed so hard by guides that want thesee river to them selves. And this is what you remind me of. So good luck with your mission I sincerly hope it does not happen!!!!


----------



## REG

TC-fisherman said:


> What a surprise! A study that is only referenced by just about every biologist doing hook mortality work doesn't meet the "scientific" standards of Don.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much sums up this forum and glfsa.


Where did he say that? Certainly not in addressing it a couple of posts above?


----------



## Fontinalis

TC-fisherman said:


> What a surprise! A study that is only referenced by just about every biologist doing hook mortality work doesn't meet the "scientific" standards of Don.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much sums up this forum and glfsa.


That's why arguing with them is a waste of time. Exposing their error, however, isn't. Thanks TC.


----------



## toto

Okay, so I just read a study by Alexander where they said that catching trout with a Rapala with twin trebles has a low mortality rate, it also says that the apparantly the way a Rapala wobbles etc is one reason for the low mortality, just as stated earlier. Also, the mortality rate with spinners and trebles was greater, but less with single hook. Also, the mortality rates were significantly reduced with deeper hooked fish if the hook was left in place, not disturbed, and if the line is cut and the hook left in place. Therefore if a guy fishes with bait and is wise enough not to remove a deeply hooked hook, the fish most of the time will be fine.

Now, here we are going around that big circle again, and it seems the pro gear reg side just keeps using the same old arguments, it's the mortality, no it's the litter, no it's this or that. Seems like if you really want to win a debate you would stay on point, but of course you first need to determine that point. Like I said, is it litter, mortality, we are thugs, just what is it?

Frankly this whole arguement has been beaten to death, and frankly I'm getting a little tired of it. Here we are and I assume we are all decent stewards of the outdoors, at least I hope so, and we just can,t seem to quite bi#$%*(&$ about this. The simple fact is, you guys say we are the ones who are being selfish, and we say you are being selfish, but let me say this: I fail to understand how the side against gear regs is being selfish, we are the ones who want to open oppoutunities for all, not just a chosen few. How does that define selfishiness again, cuz I must have missed something.


----------



## TK81

I grew up in a small west Michigan town and my only access to trout fishing prior to getting a driver's license was a couple tiny feeders of the Thornapple River that were within biking distance. I caught nice smallies and pike with regularity out of the Thornapple, but my biggest thrill was catching a 12 to 14 inch trout out of one of these "trickles". Imagine my joy when family friends invited me to accompany them to their cabin on the Little Manistee. They were hunters and did not fish. Their 12 year old son and I hiked the river from their cabin toward the main road bridge, catching a couple small trout and having a ball. Upon nearing the bridge, I spied two huge trout. Little did I know that I was looking at steelhead for the first time. I was so excited at the opportunity to throw my worm in front of those fish that I never even saw the guy on the other side of the bridge fishing another hole. After he heard our bobbers plop a couple times, he promptly came over a made us aware that what we were doing was illegal and needed to stop immediately. My introduction to "flies only" water. Ruined my weekend. I fish only flies these days...except for occasonally spawn for the salmon and steel...but my position on flies only has been the same for 38 years now. It is only reinforced by my time on the water and the evidence I see presented. Flies only was BS then, and it is BS now. Pretty much the same with other GR's. Exclusionary BS.


----------



## tannhd

You never hear these fly only guys advocate for single hook, barbless or single hook, barbless artificial only. Their argument is for flies only. 

It just doesn't make any kind of sense to me.


----------



## GuppyII

tannhd said:


> You never hear these fly only guys advocate for single hook, barbless or single hook, barbless artificial only. Their argument is for flies only.
> 
> It just doesn't make any kind of sense to me.


Spot on!


----------



## Jackster1

the rapids said:


> according to the prevailing science, these proposed regulations are not likely to enhance or protect the trout fishery at all. therefore, it is not necessary to implement them.














the rapids said:


> what a joke these people are.


Have you looked in the mirror lately? Tell me this brown you caught is no worse for the wear after you extracted the trebles from its mouth and gills.


----------



## Jackster1

Boardman Brookies said:


> There are those three words again, "quality fishing experience."
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I prefer that over a lousy, trashy or cheap pellet-pig chasing fishing experience. You? If you don't then, as they say down here, "Well bless your 'lil 'ol heart"


----------



## Jackster1

walleyebum said:


> Do you really not read what you type? I mean come on!!
> I believe that if you buy a license you should be able to fish any water the way you are comfortable. PERIOD!
> I have watched a certain section of the ausable get raped the last ten years by the same people that push so hard for these gear restrictions. Pushing to try and gain controll over a river so you have to fish how they want, when they want.
> And in the end this same section of river has the worst fishing I have seen in 30 plus years. I don't think that is a coincidence. And ironically a section less than 15 miles away with no restricions has some of the best fishing I have seen in a long time. Go figure.


Just as in politics these days the extreme Kool-Aid drinkers know no common ground.
Despite your VERY unscientific 'personal experience', some regulations are necessary. My unscientific response is to wonder how anyone would bother to go fishing if some rules weren't in place to protect the spawn and such. Only an extremist would think people would self regulate.


----------



## tannhd

Jackster- Instead of designating streams as "flies only", why can't we simply limit the streams to single, barbless, artificial only?

Please explain why flies only is a better option than that.


----------



## Shoeman

This will continue until we're all dead, and beyond!

One side argues about given rights, another about preservation. An equal playing field would be nice. 

I'm sure some land owners would love to keep the public out. Since that is not probable solution, or even legal, some endorsed C&R and gear restrictions/limited take. 

Again, some landowners were delt a shuffled/stacked deck hand after purchase (much like Ray). I'd have a wild hair on my butt as well. 

Yet on the conservation side of things, some of the most prolific streams (the ones with the most natural reproduction), should require some restraints!

It's done throughout the country without much squabble. Yet here in Michigan it seems to be at an increase of miles do to outside influence advocated by Guide Houses who do indeed try to make the rules!

Law Makers (which most are oblivious to fishing in general) vote on these measures just for a "feel good vote" much like the worm bill. Our local Rep didn't have a clue, but he voted for it. It was concealed under something that may get the youth involved....

After I personally confronted him, he said it looked like a great opportunity for up-coming sportsmen. Yeah OK!

Most Lawmakers are dweebs and walk the line without realizing the impact of their vote and most of their constituents don't either. 

What's left? Us fighting on and on over these miles, studies that can be fudged in either direction? 

I see a post about flydunkers not advocating "single hook, artificial only rules" is a crock! 

I'll jump on that! I'll pinch any barb in my box and tie any bug in the future on milled hooks. No big deal! I'll still get a few for that night's meal.

But to say that we need a free-for-all to justify "equality" sounds silly!

You fish bait, Cool. Go where it's allowed. Screw Flies Only. I'm all aboard! Single hook artificial opens a whole new spectrum. Rubber eggs, wigglers, ect.
(All within Flies Only). wow, sure we had that option 10 years ago, no to mention opening it up to many sections that have previously been closed after the 30th.


----------



## tannhd

Shoeman said:


> This will continue until we're all dead, and beyond!
> 
> One side argues about given rights, another about preservation. An equal playing field would be nice.
> 
> I'm sure some land owners would love to keep the public out. Since that is not probable solution, or even legal, some endorsed C&R and gear restrictions/limited take.
> 
> Again, some landowners were delt a shuffled/stacked deck hand after purchase (much like Ray). I'd have a wild hair on my butt as well.
> 
> Yet on the conservation side of things, some of the most prolific streams (the ones with the most natural reproduction), should require some restraints!
> 
> It's done throughout the country without much squabble. Yet here in Michigan it seems to be at an increase of miles do to outside influence advocated by Guide Houses who do indeed try to make the rules!
> 
> Law Makers (which most are oblivious to fishing in general) vote on these measures just for a "feel good vote" much like the worm bill. Our local Rep didn't have a clue, but he voted for it. It was concealed under something that may get the youth involved....
> 
> After I personally confronted him, he said it looked like a great opportunity for up-coming sportsmen. Yeah OK!
> 
> Most Lawmakers are dweebs and walk the line without realizing the impact of their vote and most of their constituents don't either.
> 
> What's left? Us fighting on and on over these miles, studies that can be fudged in either direction?
> 
> I see a post about flydunkers not advocating "single hook, artificial only rules" is a crock!
> 
> I'll jump on that! I'll pinch any barb in my box and tie any bug in the future on milled hooks. No big deal! I'll still get a few for that night's meal.
> 
> But to say that we need a free-for-all to justify "equality" sounds silly!
> 
> You fish bait, Cool. Go where it's allowed. Screw Flies Only. I'm all aboard! Single hook artificial opens a whole new spectrum. Rubber eggs, wigglers, ect.
> (All within Flies Only). wow, sure we had that option 10 years ago, no to mention opening it up to many sections that have previously been closed after the 30th.


I don't understand this part.


----------



## fishinDon

TC-fisherman said:


> What a surprise! A study that is only referenced by just about every biologist doing hook mortality work doesn't meet the "scientific" standards of Don.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much sums up this forum and glfsa.


Not sure where I said that. In fact I said the study showed exactly what we all already know, that single hook flies have lower hooking mortality than bait. I agree with that. I said it ~20 posts ago and I've said it before and I'll say it again. Single hook flies have been shown "scientifically" to have a statistically lower average hooking mortality than bait. In short, I agreed with the premise of scientific study in your post. 

What I don't agree with is that a lower hooking mortality actually adds up to any noticable difference in the fishery. I have yet to see that proven, but I've seen it disproven. Based on what I've read, it appears more factors than hooking mortality (like natural mortality) also affect the fishery, and to a greater degree. 

The PM River Assessment and the Black River Research Papers agree:

http://www.glfsa.org/science/PM_River_Assessment_2010.doc

http://www.glfsa.org/science/BlackRiver-SpecialRegsevaluation2010.pdf


Thanks,
Don


----------



## fishinDon

Shoeman said:


> This will continue until we're all dead, and beyond!
> 
> One side argues about given rights, another about preservation. An equal playing field would be nice.
> 
> I'm sure some land owners would love to keep the public out. Since that is not probable solution, or even legal, some endorsed C&R and gear restrictions/limited take.
> 
> Again, some landowners were delt a shuffled/stacked deck hand after purchase (much like Ray). I'd have a wild hair on my butt as well.
> 
> Yet on the conservation side of things, some of the most prolific streams (the ones with the most natural reproduction), should require some restraints!
> 
> It's done throughout the country without much squabble. Yet here in Michigan it seems to be at an increase of miles do to outside influence advocated by Guide Houses who do indeed try to make the rules!
> 
> Law Makers (which most are oblivious to fishing in general) vote on these measures just for a "feel good vote" much like the worm bill. Our local Rep didn't have a clue, but he voted for it. It was concealed under something that may get the youth involved....
> 
> After I personally confronted him, he said it looked like a great opportunity for up-coming sportsmen. Yeah OK!
> 
> Most Lawmakers are dweebs and walk the line without realizing the impact of their vote and most of their constituents don't either.
> 
> What's left? Us fighting on and on over these miles, studies that can be fudged in either direction?
> 
> I see a post about flydunkers not advocating "single hook, artificial only rules" is a crock!
> 
> I'll jump on that! I'll pinch any barb in my box and tie any bug in the future on milled hooks. No big deal! I'll still get a few for that night's meal.
> 
> But to say that we need a free-for-all to justify "equality" sounds silly!
> 
> You fish bait, Cool. Go where it's allowed. Screw Flies Only. I'm all aboard! Single hook artificial opens a whole new spectrum. Rubber eggs, wigglers, ect.
> (All within Flies Only). wow, sure we had that option 10 years ago, no to mention opening it up to many sections that have previously been closed after the 30th.


I agree Ralph, I think there's a compromise in here that makes sense for everyone...


----------



## the rapids

Jackster1 said:


> Have you looked in the mirror lately? Tell me this brown you caught is no worse for the wear after you extracted the trebles from its mouth and gills.


in all fairness, there are no hooks in the gills of that particular fish. and i'm sure being on the ground did it some favors too. I try not to do that anymore.

yeah gill hooking does happen. I also happen to know that I've released plenty of fish that have basically 0% chance of surviving from trebles on cranks, size 12 dry flies taken into the back of the gills, and the size 1 and up bass hooks which are great for articulated or single streamers but not so great for the fish. that being said, in our healthy and wild fisheries, or even our put and take fisheries, it doesn't appear that (to paraphrase our own DNR) recreational angling has any noticeable effect on fish populations. 

killing fish because we hook them in the mouth, gills, etc is the nature of the game. fishing = blood sport. remember, all hooking has mortality associated with it.

do you really think any fish we release after playing them is no worse for wear? or are you one of those fisherman that call the hooking experience a "dance" with the fish you just hooked in the face? do you think that catching and releasing fish is really a healthy practice for fish? or even humane? fishing is a blood sport and a form of hunting.

anyway, its pointless to argue that we need gear restrictions when we really need much more than that to preserve and enhance our shared existing fisheries. so why disenfranchise individuals that don't fish the way you want them to?


----------



## toto

I could be wrong about this, but I haven't seen anyone advocate catching and keeping a ridiculous amount of fish per outing. I can't speak for everyone that is against the gear regs, but I will say that we agree that if the science shows a 5 fish limit is sustainable, than fine. If it shows 10 etc, thats fine as well. To say we are just about catching fish til heck won't have it, no one has said that.

As for disenfranchisement, I wonder when we became a franchise?? Just one of those things I've always wondered about.


----------



## TC-fisherman

the rapids said:


> .
> that being said, in our healthy and wild fisheries, or even our put and take fisheries, it doesn't appear that (to paraphrase our own DNR) recreational angling has any noticeable effect on fish populations.


Wrong

http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/Research/abstracts/1996abs.htm

But don't let that stop you from repeating that recreational angling has no noticeable effect on fish populations. It's a favorite crowd pleaser here and lets people fool themselves that their actions don't matter.


----------



## aimus1

ab5228 said:


> There may be no native trout but there are native char aka mr brookie and laker and wild non-native stream born trout. Pheasants aren't native to this continent either but they tend to garner the same reverence among many....The population on this planet is growing, just because 10 fish limits worked in the past for brookies doesnt mean it will work in the future. Flies only is probably unneccassary and just creates a larger rift between types of fishermen. It probably hurts conservation efforts as well with the lack pf unity that goes along with it. However single barbless hooks, slots, no kill in certain areas and possibly even no fishing in the few sensitive fisheries and research areas such as The Salmon Trout river make sense. Bait or Fly, APR or not, outdoorsmen need to get on the same page and focus on what matters. It makes a lot of sense to protect these fish and the streams they live in. Especially as our population grows. Ever heard of Michigan Grayling?..... #coasters......#twistedsteelandsexappeal #fishsohard #puremichigan


I'm a ditch fisherman that does 99.9999% of his fishing with a fly rod and probably 75% of it on the ditch mentioned. 
The starter of this petition is a fly guide who's livelihood largely depends on this fishery and the ability to provide a particular "experience" to the client. You know...the whole wine and cheese thing.
The summer lake run of brown trout that the petition refers to which ended for "reasons unknown" ok...try looking up trout perch. These fish used to run up the Jordan to spawn... and the browns would follow. No more trout perch...no more summer lake run of browns. 

Single barbless hooks.
Slots.
No Kill.
No fishing areas.
Maybe even no professional guiding.


Why would any fly guide, fly-fisherman or outfitter claiming efforts to protect the resource elect for flies only water over any of the other restrictions listed above.... You be the judge.
You want flies only? Fine. But you know as well as I that it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the resource. Flying this banner is just silly. Maybe you'll hook the signature of people who just don't know any better. Wait a minute....You're actually counting on it. 
Politicians and Lobbyists of the Jordan. Just please stop with the "protect the resource" and "create a quality fishing experience" bullroar. Call it what it is. 

Yes a Fly-fisherman against flies only water. I have no hidden agenda. My ego... or lack ther of allows me to accept the facts. I know many, many, many, fly-fishermen and many, many fly-fishing guides. Some of which are some of my best friends in the world. One thing I always have to keep in mind: Theres something about moving your arm between 10 and 2 oclock. It has a tendency to kinda act like a pump for the ego..... ever inflating. I'm just a fisherman who'd like to see a petition listing real protection and enhacement for the Jordan River. I can also accept that if, and when, I do see one.....The guides and outfitters will likely show little interest in signing it. 
Yeah Yeah I know. Put one together Aimus.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Excellent post Aimus. Thank you


----------



## aimus1

The outfitter which owns the business that the starter of this petition works for recently sold riverfront property which allowed public and recreational access to a local unmentionable. This unfortuanately limits all fishermen including the starter of this petition and their clients access to this unmentionable. The new landowner has actually been staging himself out there almost every day as the steelhead and salmon start their spawning run informing fishermen that have been fishing those banks for years that they are now trespassing. This now private stretch of river bank borders some of the best spawning gravel the river has to offer. Historically fished by fishermen who like like the ol floss em and rake em off the gravel method. Love to get those hens full of loose eggs!

No more dry access:
Good for the fishery and fish mortality? You bet your sweet ass!
Bad for the fishermen that love raking that gravel.....In their minds yes!

I bopped into that fly shop the other day for some odds and ends. Only comment I heard was the gripe about the newly limited access. Never heard a word about how it would allow great numbers of steelhead and salmon to freely spawn on undisturbed prime gravel. Weird Huh?

I do worry a bit about the gentleman who bought the property. It's been historically used by fishermen from all over the country since the beginning of time to access this unmentionable for salmon and steelhead. I've seen fist fights break out on this ditch for a lot less. He's definately got his work cut out for him.


----------



## Shoeman

Ranger Ray said:


> Our fish and game are a renewable resource. Every year as we start the seasons for trout, deer, rabbit, grouse etc... we start at renewed numbers. As the season goes on populations decrease as we pursue our sports. The creel limits and regulations that are in place account for that decrease and are based on a numbers that will sustain the population for future use. Our own biologists have said that gear restrictions in the overall scheme of things is irrelevant. I doubt anyone will complain when the biologists see an issue, and they respond in decreased limits etc.. I have lived through three of my brook trout streams I fish being totally destroyed by the beaver, one twice, and they have all returned eventually to what they once were. I have yet to see a stream I fish in my lifetime be destroyed by fishing it.
> 
> Here we see again a push for special regulations. What group of fishermen is doing it? I say let the biologists regulate, based on science, social considerations and fairness of all. The odds of a "its to late" is pretty slim in today's age. A catastrophic event could, but when that happens, nothing, including stockpiling fish will help. These new found "social" regulations suck. It will divide, and everyone will point the finger at the other. You can't keep claiming peace and love from the right hand when the left hand keeps slapping the face.


I'm not slapping anyone. I just have a real difficult time with not allowing certain sections with the opportunity of trophy regs. (not flies only), just limited take and artificials. Slots aren't embraced (although should be implemented, but we won't see those), with the comments in this sub-forum.

So since all fish over 10" are fair game, 20+" dinner fare all in the name of fairness. Double and even triple hook Raps cool, regardless of the outcome. 

Go down to Cherokee and see the possibilities of a real trophy fishery, or to the White with restrictions. 14-20" fish all day on hoppers. Why, because they treasure the fishery for a few miles. Outside of those boundaries the Dough-ball anglers get their share of stockers. (and yes, it gets stocked a few times a week) There's 40 some miles of river and only a few are designated to single hook. they live with it. 

Is the push for more regs getting out of hand as the time passes? Maybe and it should be curtailed. Yet some proven stretches (and I'm not referring to the ones the Guide Houses advocate) should provide some type of quality experience just for the draw. 

Flies Only sucks! We already established that, but why not a few sections of limited take, with the least amount of harm to the fish? 

Like a little kid in a sandbox. Take your pail and shovel and go home, or fish elsewhere to fill your cooler just a mile down.... :gaga:

Quite simple, really!


----------



## Shoeman

To add, I was never impressed with the Little, or the Pine. Yes they hold nice fish, but not "prime" for Flyfishing. One is too fast, the other the fish will spot you before you even step into it. Can it be done? Sure, during a decent hatch, colored water and streamers on a sinker. Compare that with other waters like SB, Mio, parts of the MO and even the Rifle. 

As Sportsmen we really need to take our heads out of the sand and realize that we do have the potential of a great fishery without a free-for-all using bait and Multi-hook baits. (which some of you see as no harm) 

I don't get it... Ain't no love on this right hand!


----------



## -Axiom-

Shoeman said:


> To add, I was never impressed with the Little, or the Pine. Yes they hold nice fish, but not "prime" for Flyfishing. One is too fast, the other the fish will spot you before you even step into it. Can it be done? Sure, during a decent hatch, colored water and streamers on a sinker. Compare that with other waters like SB, Mio, parts of the MO and even the Rifle.
> 
> As Sportsmen we really need to take our heads out of the sand and realize that we do have the potential of a great fishery without a free-for-all using bait and Multi-hook baits. (which some of you see as no harm)
> 
> I don't get it... Ain't no love on this right hand!



I don't have a problem with slot limits, bag limits, bait restrictions, no-kill, artificials only, or several other management tools the DNR has at their disposal.

I am against Flies only regs because there is absolutely no good reason for such a designation, it is discriminatory & elitist purely designed to exclude a certain class of people from partaking in the sport of fishing.

Fishing with flies and/or fly equipment would fall under artificials only regs, there is no reasonable reason to have flies only waters.


----------



## tannhd

-Axiom- said:


> I don't have a problem with slot limits, bag limits, bait restrictions, no-kill, artificials only, or several other management tools the DNR has at their disposal.
> 
> I am against Flies only regs because there is absolutely no good reason for such a designation, it is discriminatory & elitist purely designed to exclude a certain class of people from partaking in the sport of fishing.
> 
> Fishing with flies and/or fly equipment would fall under artificials only regs, there is no reasonable reason to have flies only waters.


Pointless to even argue this. The pro flies only guys just look right past this argument, and push for more flies only water. 

I've said this exact same thing two or three times in this very thread, and even asked that someone explain why this wouldn't work. No takers...ever. 

I'm with you, man. But it's not about protecting the fish. That's just the cover for another agenda.


----------



## toto

So, if I understand this correctly, a part of the criteria for fly fishing only should be, the water can't be too fast, and can't be too clear. Sorta like the 3 bears on this one.


----------



## mondrella

Shoeman said:


> To add, I was never impressed with the Little, or the Pine. Yes they hold nice fish, but not "prime" for Flyfishing. One is too fast, the other the fish will spot you before you even step into it. Can it be done? Sure, during a decent hatch, colored water and streamers on a sinker. Compare that with other waters like SB, Mio, parts of the MO and even the Rifle.
> 
> As Sportsmen we really need to take our heads out of the sand and realize that we do have the potential of a great fishery without a free-for-all using bait and Multi-hook baits. (which some of you see as no harm)
> 
> I don't get it... Ain't no love on this right hand!


Ralph

I have fished all the waters you mentioned. To me they all shine. 
I have caught trophy trout from them all on flies and artificials. There us a huge difference in our waters and the southern fisheries. They have a limited number of miles of trout water. Heck they do not evenbhave as many miles of trout water as we have blue ribbon miles of streams. Fishing pressure is incredible down there from what I seen when I fished down there. It was like tippy during the salmon run. The locals said it was like that all the time. Very few if any released fish. I fished GR water and the open for all. I caught great fish and numbers in both. Granted the more protected waters I caught more fish. I don't know anyone wanting to hammer fish to a negative condition in this discussion. If it was needed to lower harvest numbers to protect the numbers of fish to have a viable fishery we would be the strongest voices to do what is needed. The fact is 5 fish limit is even more conservative than what is needed. 

It is a great idea to do the things to protect the fisheries. They have been tried and when you look at all the information it really has not helped over the years do what it was touted to do.


----------



## tannhd

toto said:


> So, if I understand this correctly, a part of the criteria for fly fishing only should be, the water can't be too fast, and can't be too clear. Sorta like the 3 bears on this one.


the criteria listed above is actually for the designated blue ribbon streams.


----------



## Shoeman

toto said:


> So, if I understand this correctly, a part of the criteria for fly fishing only should be, the water can't be too fast, and can't be too clear. Sorta like the 3 bears on this one.


I have no criteria for flies only, just some rivers are more conducive toward fly fishing. Not that they need to be designated, Bill

Take Rim Shoals on the White, the designation is about 1/2 mile downstream of my favorite haunts. I think the wade ability of the reg stretch allowed its designation. I prefer the slower water and the dry fly fishing is insane. 

Again, one can fish and harvest to their heart's content and keep their 5 all around these areas. Same river, same trout, same stocking, just certain sections apply to different rules. Like mentioned above, I would never advocate flies only, but limited take, tackle restrictions and even C&R seem to work within certain destinations. It's a draw and anglers come from from great distances each year. Not just to fish designated areas, but the fishery as whole.

Ok, here in Michigan we have that 15-30 pound Salmon draw. Snagging at best using 1000 dollar rigs. I'm not talking about THAT type of fishery. Just talking about trout.

This thread started with the Jordan. Only fished it once. 

Same crud, each time when it comes to regulations. Let the Bio's set rules.

OK, at what point after your so-called free for all will the impact be measured? 2 years, perhaps 3 or never? Once again, I do not promote flies only, just some restraint on what you guys promote. where's that study and how does it impact the fishery in the long term? it doesn't exist. 

I put a lot of faith in the work of Tonella, but it seems his hands are tied. special interest, guides, politics, ect.

Hell, look at the deer forums. Same crap! Bigger racks, less does, yet some hunters with marginal properties are left in the cold. Same ****....


----------



## the rapids

Shoeman said:


> Same crud, each time when it comes to regulations. Let the Bio's set rules.


the frustrating thing about this is they did already. so why does this Ethan Winchester guy think he knows more about the decision making process (going so far as to make assumptions using the gear restriction decision making flow chart) than our own biologists? not asking you to answer for him, just wondering this questions aloud...

Unit: CLMMU

County: Antrim & Charlevoix

Waterbody: *Jordan River*


Segment(s): Headwaters to Graves Crossing (15.3 miles) & Graves Crossing to the

confluence with Lake Charlevoix (17.2 miles)

Entry No: 417 & 418

Requested by: Public

*Recommendation: We recommend that existing regulations be maintained.


**Rationale*: Fishery dominated by potamodromous species (salmon and steelhead); Poor


survival of resident trout past age 2.

Upstream of Graves Crossing, the Jordan River is designated as a Type-1 trout stream.

From Graves Crossing downstream to Lake Charlevoix, the Jordan River is designated as

a Type-4 stream. Local knowledge and management experience with the stream and

angling community indicate that the majority of Jordan River anglers fish for salmon and

steelhead. The Jordan River has relatively low populations of resident brown and brook

trout, along with populations of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon. The mean length of

age-2 brown trout is about average for Michigan trout streams, while mean length of age-

2 brook trout is below average. Total mortality rates for both brook trout and brown trout

are high, and very few of either species survive to age 3. We believe that most of this

mortality is natural mortality because fishing pressure on the Jordan River is very light,

with most effort directed at salmon and steelhead. There is assured public access and

there is some public support for gear restrictive regulations. However, the Jordan River

does not fulfill many of the biological criteria in FO-213 for trout streams that are good

candidates for gear restrictive regulations. We recommend that the present Type 1 and

Type 4 regulations be retained.


----------



## toto

As I've said before, you can't compare the waters in the south to the waters in Michigan, different in so many ways. Also, you can't compare one stream in Michigan to all streams in Michigan they are all different as well.

As for limit numbers, if the biologist feels that 5 fish a day is okay, than fine, if they think 10 that's fine too. I don't think anyone is advocating going to any of these streams and just taking home everything they catch, what we are saying, and advocating is let the biologist, that our license fees pay for, do their damn job. If we don't we can save a lot of money and get rid of them. That's basically the two options here.


----------



## fishinDon

the rapids said:


> the frustrating thing about this is they did already. so why does this Ethan Winchester guy think he knows more about the decision making process (going so far as to make assumptions using the gear restriction decision making flow chart) than our own biologists? not asking you to answer for him, just wondering this questions aloud...
> 
> Unit: CLMMU
> 
> County: Antrim & Charlevoix
> 
> Waterbody: *Jordan River*
> 
> 
> Segment(s): Headwaters to Graves Crossing (15.3 miles) & Graves Crossing to the
> 
> confluence with Lake Charlevoix (17.2 miles)
> 
> Entry No: 417 & 418
> 
> Requested by: Public
> 
> *Recommendation: We recommend that existing regulations be maintained.
> 
> 
> **Rationale*: Fishery dominated by potamodromous species (salmon and steelhead); Poor
> 
> 
> survival of resident trout past age 2.
> 
> Upstream of Graves Crossing, the Jordan River is designated as a Type-1 trout stream.
> 
> From Graves Crossing downstream to Lake Charlevoix, the Jordan River is designated as
> 
> a Type-4 stream. Local knowledge and management experience with the stream and
> 
> angling community indicate that the majority of Jordan River anglers fish for salmon and
> 
> steelhead. The Jordan River has relatively low populations of resident brown and brook
> 
> trout, along with populations of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon. The mean length of
> 
> age-2 brown trout is about average for Michigan trout streams, while mean length of age-
> 
> 2 brook trout is below average. Total mortality rates for both brook trout and brown trout
> 
> are high, and very few of either species survive to age 3. We believe that most of this
> 
> mortality is natural mortality because fishing pressure on the Jordan River is very light,
> 
> with most effort directed at salmon and steelhead. There is assured public access and
> 
> there is some public support for gear restrictive regulations. However, the Jordan River
> 
> does not fulfill many of the biological criteria in FO-213 for trout streams that are good
> 
> candidates for gear restrictive regulations. We recommend that the present Type 1 and
> 
> Type 4 regulations be retained.


X2 - we outdoorsman are very quick to ignore our biologists when we think we have a better idea. 

I would bet that a gear regulation study on the Jordan would turn out much like the Black River study did - no impact to numbers or size. The Jordan river is already known to be lightly fished for trout - like the vast majority of our trout streams that are not near population centers - minus the Au Sable. 

It's hard to expect that regulations designed to reduce the impact of fishing pressure are going to make much difference when there isn't much pressure to begin with. 

Don


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Splitshot

Shoeman said:


> To add, I was never impressed with the Little, or the Pine. Yes they hold nice fish, but not "prime" for Flyfishing. One is too fast, the other the fish will spot you before you even step into it. Can it be done? Sure, during a decent hatch, colored water and streamers on a sinker. Compare that with other waters like SB, Mio, parts of the MO and even the Rifle.
> 
> As Sportsmen we really need to take our heads out of the sand and realize that we do have the potential of a great fishery without a free-for-all using bait and Multi-hook baits. (which some of you see as no harm)
> 
> I don't get it... Ain't no love on this right hand!


Ralf,

Since I have fished with you on the Little Manistee and the Pine when you were using bait, I understand why your not impressed. Ralf, we dont have our heads in the sand and we already have a great fishery. Our biologists say that multi-hook baits and the use of bait have little if any effect on our fishery. The MDNR biologists say bait and treble hooks cause no significant harm and the reason you dont get it is because you cant or wont admit that the problem might be you and not bait fishermen.

They plant over a million trout a year on the White and we all know planted fish are easier to catch than wild trout like those found on the Little Manistee and the Pine. 

Over and over you refer to bait fishing as a free for all as if bait fishing was a lowly, unethical way to catch trout when the opposite is true. 



Shoeman said:


> ......... This thread started with the Jordan. Only fished it once.
> 
> Same crud, each time when it comes to regulations. Let the Bio's set rules.
> 
> OK, at what point after your so-called free for all will the impact be measured? 2 years, perhaps 3 or never? Once again, I do not promote flies only, just some restraint on what you guys promote. where's that study and how does it impact the fishery in the long term? it doesn't exist.


Another contradiction. You say let the biologists set the rules and then immediately go into a rant criticizing guys like me for supporting those MDNR biologists. Your chicken little fear filled theory that without restraint our fishery might crash cannot be reconciled with the truth. Our trout fishery has been improving for over 60 years without any bait restrictions and much more liberal limits. 

The DNR defines a trophy trout at 15". This year I have only fished trout about 20 times on 6 different rivers and mostly where all the trout are wild. I have landed nearly a thousand keeper trout with almost 60 of them over 15 inches. At least 6 of the trout I hooked but didnt land were 20 inches or bigger. What more do you want? We have rivers full of trophy trout almost up to their capacity now according to the experts. You seem to want an extensive stocking program of easy to catch trophy trout in rivers that are easy to fish like the White River in AK and impose bait restrictions even in that situation to increase your success even more.

The DNR fish biologist I talked to today stated that most of our trout rivers have been way under fished. The impact of fish mortality by bait fishermen is so insignificant that it is hardly worth a footnote, yet you remain convinced that bait fishermen are somehow a source of harm or ruin to trophy trout fishing in Michigan.

While Im at it, you keep crying that this not being a fly friendly site and your tired of everyone putting down fly fishermen. Not one person I know in our organization has any ill will against people because they fly fish. We strongly disagree with proponents that support bait restrictions and have no problem defending our position. We think most fly fishermen have no problem sharing public waters with us and we feel the same. We also have no problem sharing our public waters with people who canoe or use tubes or any other legal activity. We dont support people who litter, snag fish, or break any other laws or participate in activities that cause harm to our public resources.

We are not angry, we are not on any kind of vendetta, we are not jealous of what other people have and all our efforts are directed toward fairness and rules that allow everyone to participate equally under the law.



-Axiom- said:


> I don't have a problem with slot limits, bag limits, bait restrictions, no-kill, artificials only, or several other management tools the DNR has at their disposal.
> 
> I am against Flies only regs because there is absolutely no good reason for such a designation, it is discriminatory & elitist purely designed to exclude a certain class of people from partaking in the sport of fishing.
> 
> Fishing with flies and/or fly equipment would fall under artificials only regs, there is no reasonable reason to have flies only waters.


Axiom and Tannhd 

You along with others raise some excellent questions about other tools, but in this debate they only serve as a red herring. Having said that, I will offer a short explanation. Slot limits work well in specific situations but not every situation. Brook trout for example live only on average 2 years and brown trout on average 3 years. I personally dont see any benefit from using slot limits, but if our MDNR field biologists had research to show the advantages of slot limits, we would support them. 

The same is true of bait restrictions, no-kill, artificial lures only or other tools. Again because fishermen overall have such a minor effect on our fishery those rules would only result in reducing public participation for the benefit of a small minority. 

Our experts state that 50 to 80% of the trout in our rivers die every year regardless of fishing pressure. That mortality happens because of life span, water levels, the amount of food, water temperatures and other natural causes. All studies show that in the long run that where bait or artificial lures are not allowed or even in no-kill areas the fishery remains the same. In the year 2000, trout preservationist lobbied to reduce the creel limit from 10 trout to 5 trout on all trout waters. The result? No effect on the fishery. Every biologists understands that you can not stockpile fish.

I understand why a rule that seems to support conservation and protect our fisheries appals to lots of people but we feel those decisions should be made using sound science and not because they seem to make sense or appeal to our emotional desire to protect the sports we love. 

Ethan Winchester chief guide of Boyne Outfitters is an ideologue. He has been pushing for the DNR to stock the waters on Boyne Highlands and/or Boyne Mountain with trout and then not allow fishing for them. The proposal submitted is based on criteria written by the Citizens Cold Water Committee when almost all members were fly fishing advocates and calls for single hook artificial lures only. While it is not a call for flies only, the goal is the same. To reduce the number of fishermen who use this public river, and protect a fish population that needs no protection. 

This proposal is not based on sound science and is not supported by the MDNR field biologists.


----------



## Shoeman

Splitshot said:


> Ralf,
> 
> Since I have fished with you on the Little Manistee and the Pine when you were using bait, I understand why your not impressed. Ralf, we dont have our heads in the sand and we already have a great fishery. Our biologists say that multi-hook baits and the use of bait have little if any effect on our fishery. The MDNR biologists say bait and treble hooks cause no significant harm and the reason you dont get it is because you cant or wont admit that the problem might be you and not bait fishermen.
> 
> They plant over a million trout a year on the White and we all know planted fish are easier to catch than wild trout like those found on the Little Manistee and the Pine.
> 
> Over and over you refer to bait fishing as a free for all as if bait fishing was a lowly, unethical way to catch trout when the opposite is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Another contradiction. You say let the biologists set the rules and then immediately go into a rant criticizing guys like me for supporting those MDNR biologists. Your chicken little fear filled theory that without restraint our fishery might crash cannot be reconciled with the truth. Our trout fishery has been improving for over 60 years without any bait restrictions and much more liberal limits.
> 
> The DNR defines a trophy trout at 15". This year I have only fished trout about 20 times on 6 different rivers and mostly where all the trout are wild. I have landed nearly a thousand keeper trout with almost 60 of them over 15 inches. At least 6 of the trout I hooked but didnt land were 20 inches or bigger. What more do you want? We have rivers full of trophy trout almost up to their capacity now according to the experts. You seem to want an extensive stocking program of easy to catch trophy trout in rivers that are easy to fish like the White River in AK and impose bait restrictions even in that situation to increase your success even more.
> 
> The DNR fish biologist I talked to today stated that most of our trout rivers have been way under fished. The impact of fish mortality by bait fishermen is so insignificant that it is hardly worth a footnote, yet you remain convinced that bait fishermen are somehow a source of harm or ruin to trophy trout fishing in Michigan.
> 
> While Im at it, you keep crying that this not being a fly friendly site and your tired of everyone putting down fly fishermen. Not one person I know in our organization has any ill will against people because they fly fish. We strongly disagree with proponents that support bait restrictions and have no problem defending our position. We think most fly fishermen have no problem sharing public waters with us and we feel the same. We also have no problem sharing our public waters with people who canoe or use tubes or any other legal activity. We dont support people who litter, snag fish, or break any other laws or participate in activities that cause harm to our public resources.
> 
> We are not angry, we are not on any kind of vendetta, we are not jealous of what other people have and all our efforts are directed toward fairness and rules that allow everyone to participate equally under


Oh boy, the messenger replies.... 

Fly fishermen are evil! We want all waters! Yeah, ok! I could give a ratsazz!

And yes, you do throw sand into the wheel. 

Your organization... a handful of guys trying to overturn decades of regulations! Cool! 'cause what, you don't want to trow spinners, release trout and keep the dumb ones? 

I'm all aboard for the anti Flies Only, but opening it up to keep one's limit each time out? I've seen the results of that around Henning and above!

The few times we fished together were awesome with a decent catch rate and I enjoyed your hospitality. Not many guys would offer the keys to their lodge!

At some point we really need to smoke the peace pipe and but all this behind us. 

We all miss your posts, pics and insight!

I see where you're coming from, but sometimes the delivery sucks!


----------



## 6Speed

Hummmm? I thought discussions of the Pine river was forbidden so I reported it to the moderators.

Hope this helps?


----------



## plugger

I spend much more time fly fishing than I do bait fishing and I release most but not all fish. The areas I fish are not the flies only stretch so it is possible to fly fish these stretches but I would like to have a wadeable stretch to bait fish, esp with my grandsons. The stretches that are open to bait fishing have the poorest access and the most difficult wading. I am not a great bait fisherman but I have developed a great respect for good bait fishing. If you look through the guide picture galleries few of the big fish came out of the flies only stretch. I think the flies only designation does more to keep the orvis image than it does to protect fish. I cant compare our fishing to down south because I have yet to experience it. The stretches of river I normally fish, with the exception of the rainbow rapids area get to warm in the summer and the fish become lethargic. The greatest threat to our fishing may well be the silting and rapid aging of the river. I guess the reason certain stretches of river are considered blue ribbon is because there aren't enough miles of them.


----------



## Trout King

Shoeman said:


> Oh boy, the messenger replies....
> 
> Fly fishermen are evil! We want all waters! Yeah, ok! I could give a ratsazz!
> 
> And yes, you do throw sand into the wheel.
> 
> Your organization... a handful of guys trying to overturn decades of regulations! Cool! 'cause what, you don't want to trow spinners, release trout and keep the dumb ones?
> 
> I'm all aboard for the anti Flies Only, but opening it up to keep one's limit each time out? I've seen the results of that around Henning and above!
> 
> The few times we fished together were awesome with a decent catch rate and I enjoyed your hospitality. Not many guys would offer the keys to their lodge!
> 
> At some point we really need to smoke the peace pipe and but all this behind us.
> 
> We all miss your posts, pics and insight!
> 
> I see where you're coming from, but sometimes the delivery sucks!


Wow...have you ever thought bait fisherman aren't the problem?


----------



## REG

Trout King said:


> Wow...have you ever thought bait fisherman aren't the problem?


Indeed! Have you ever given consideration as to why things are the way they currently are, especially when compared to before 2010 when hardly any...if any of these discussions and certainly, divisions occured?


----------



## Splitshot

Shoeman said:


> Oh boy, the messenger replies....
> 
> Fly fishermen are evil! We want all waters! Yeah, ok! I could give a ratsazz!
> 
> And yes, you do throw sand into the wheel.
> 
> Your organization... a handful of guys trying to overturn decades of regulations! Cool! 'cause what, you don't want to trow spinners, release trout and keep the dumb ones?
> 
> I'm all aboard for the anti Flies Only, but opening it up to keep one's limit each time out? I've seen the results of that around Henning and above!
> 
> The few times we fished together were awesome with a decent catch rate and I enjoyed your hospitality. Not many guys would offer the keys to their lodge!
> 
> At some point we really need to smoke the peace pipe and but all this behind us.
> 
> We all miss your posts, pics and insight!
> 
> I see where you're coming from, but sometimes the delivery sucks!


How did you get all fly fishermen are evil from what I wrote? Many of us fly fish when we think thats what the trout want. We wouldnt have any flies only or bait restrictions if the DNR biologists made the decisions instead of those higher up that are forced by politics. 

In most cases the same biologists set legal limits to protect the fishery unless over ruled by upper management motivated by political interests like reducing the limit from 10 trout to 5 trout in 2000 and the reduced creel limits on all bait restricted waters. Those rules have had no impact on our fisheries. 

We do want to overturn unfair rules that have been in effect for decades because they only serve to restrict thousands of fishermen from fishing the legal way they choose on some of the best waters in our state for no other reason than it is their preference.

The Muskegon river below Croton Dam is a put and take fishery and the best thing that could happen is the last fisherman catches and keeps the last trout on the last day of the season. If the DNR stopped stocking trout, anyone would be lucky to catch a trout or steelhead in the Muskegon river. You seem upset because your catch rates are lower as a result of more fishermen participating in the sport of trout fishing. It is called sharing and each of those fishermen have the exact same privileges of catching and keeping those fish as you do.

No one is calling for a free for all! A free for all implies that some are interested in only killing as many trout as they can by any means with no consideration for the fishery. I dont know anyone who feels that way. 

Your statement; Your organization... a handful of guys trying to overturn decades of regulations! Cool! 'cause what, you don't want to trow spinners, release trout and keep the dumb ones? is a blatant example of your biased opinion of us. First you know we use spinners, lures, flies, and bait and that we release most of the fish we catch including dumb ones but often you continue to make those kind of statements anyways. We can only guess why Ralf, but maybe you can clear it up for us and explain your reasons.

We are not looking for any special privileges. We have no problem sharing our public resources with all legal fishermen because as citizens of this state we all have the same claim on those resources. In other words Ralf, we dont want it all, we just want the same opportunity as you. We feel that fair rules will draw more citizens into our sport and sometimes that will mean that there will be more pressure on our fishery and we might have to work harder to find the type of experience we desire that might have been much easier to find in the old days, but sometimes the rewards are more meaningful.

We also have no fear of our fishery crashing because the evidence is clear that our rivers hold about as many trout as they can based on all of the factors and as we continue to improve the habitats of those rivers, the fishery will continue to improve. Friday I fished a section of river I havent fished in a couple of years and had a spectacular day. I lost two bruisers and landed three more trophy fish. In one hole I landed 7 legal browns and rainbows. 

This year I fished about 23 days for trout on about 120 miles of river and encountered less than a dozen fishermen. In conversations with about a dozen of guys I fish with they also have encountered very few other fishermen. People I talked with at the DNR and tackle shops also have similar opinions. There is no reason to believe we need more rules to protect trophy trout or any other trout through more restrictive rules.


----------



## MarkP

REG said:


> Indeed! Have you ever given consideration as to why things are the way they currently are, especially when compared to before 2010 when hardly any...if any of these discussions and certainly, divisions occured?


Oh, this division has been going on longer than that my friend.


----------



## toto

You are probably right Mark, however it came to the forefront in 2010. The reason it has become so highly devisive is due to some statements made by those on the pro side of this issue. When you have those stating they won't stop at this mileage, and they want more and more, that's an issue. When they state that bait fishers are slobs, that's an issue. When you have one person even intimating that some make the woman outdoors person so nervous they won't fish, that's an issue. I'm not saying that all bait fishers are perfect, but neither is the fly guy. This has become devisive due to the arrogance of some on the pro side. It's a shame, but it is what it is.


----------



## toto

It doesn't appear as much can be done, the elite want all the water to themselves and they will not stop until they do. Perhaps we should just encourage the DNR to give it all to them, then when they don't sell any fishing licenses they can whine about that.


----------

