# Gear Restriction Proposal Changes



## fishinDon

Toto- you are right, this is not done. There are miles left and there will be a push to "use them up."

Going forward though we have a voice at the table at the beginning of the process, since we now have several guys on the cold water committee. As many of you have pointed out, it's a whole different ball game when you start at the beginning of the process than when you try your best to get some changes during the last 6-8 weeks of a 2 year process.

Don


----------



## REG

JB85 said:


> Can someone please repost the links to send feed back to? Thanks!


 
Kelly Smith- [email protected] Fisheries Chief
Jim Dexter- [email protected] Fisheries Director
Rebecca Humphries- [email protected] Director of the DNRE

NRC Commissioners- [email protected]
Mary C. Brown, NRC Commissioner
Hurley J. Coleman, NRC Commissioner
John Madigan, NRC Commissioner
John Matonich, NRC Commissioner
Tim Nichols, NRC Commissioner
J.R, Richardson, NRC Commissioner
Frank C. Wheatlake, NRC Commissioner


----------



## JB85

Thank you Reg. Emails sent. Better late to the party than not at all....


----------



## Ranger Ray

Flyfisher said:


> I am a little confused by your statement. Are you referring to "repeat spawners"?
> 
> With my support of a one steelhead limit, I was referring to reduced angler mortality resulting in more fish being able to spawn. Simple statistical science. Three hen steelhead swim upriver, all three get caught but two have to be released under the new regulation. Make sense now?
> 
> There is biological science to support that natural reproduction occurs on the PM. In fact (as I am sure you already know), the main stem relies entirely on natural reproduction (or strays from other rivers). Unless there is science to support that the river is already at its carrying capacity for trout, how can giving additional fish the opportunity to spawn be a bad thing? And given that steelhead are spring spawners, they are not competing with either the brook or brown trout. While I don't have time to research the data, I believe that the steelhead returns to both the PM and Little Manistee have been depressed over the past 5 years. Again, support for a one fish limit that may help to improve natural recruitment. I believe the Little Manistee should also have a one steelhead limit above the weir, as well.


I want, you want. So what? What does the science say? What do our biologists say? Without science, its just a bunch of guys wanting. Read this whole thread over, its what you get when we react to a bunch of wants. I never knew biology changes so fast. I mean we have gone through only 3 different proposals to save the fish. He'll, they are probably all dead by now.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ranger Ray

toto said:


> So, I wonder, with these new gear regs, we will now have 177.8 miles of gear restricted waters. Since the legilature decided there can 212 miles, just where and when do they plan on instituting the next 35 miles or so? Trust me, if you think this over, you are sorely mistaken. What if your favorite stretch of river is included in these upcoming regs, will be happy with that too?


If you tac on the added miles I think we are around 187. Funny how that math works.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Flyfisher

Ranger Ray said:


> I want, you want. So what? What does the science say? What do our biologists say? Without science, its just a bunch of guys wanting. Read this whole thread over, its what you get when we react to a bunch of wants. I never knew biology changes so fast. I mean we have gone through only 3 different proposals to save the fish. He'll, they are probably all dead by now.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Good luck tomorrow, Ray!


----------



## Shoeman

I really appreciate the efforts (time, fuel, ect), but why did we have to give up bait for additional water during the trout season?

Granted, we dropped the ball during the infancy of this crusade, but wouldn't flies only to Bowman's be the lesser evil instead of giving up bait all the way down to Rainbow? Just asking, we can't have it all, but to give up all that water past McDougalls seems hard to fathom. 

Personally I don't have a dog in this fight, since all of my trout fishing is done with a long rod, but to give up additional miles just to curb flies only?

I'd have told them to stuff it and keep those skanky salmon and beat-up steelies. Hell, anyone throwing skein and plugs would be way below that stretch. 

I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops, but that one fell right into the flydunkers and guides laps. 

I don't see the benefit, unless it's about the runs, not trout

Help me out


----------



## Big Brown

WOW. First thank you to anyone that was involved. 

Secondly, I can't believe they extended it to RR. Complete BS as far as I'm concerned. Trout camp is not going to be the same this year and there will be some profanity flying around our camp. Every year we float 4-6 boats, 8 to 12 guys, anywhere from Gleasons to Lower. 1000 night crawlers split up between us. We dont stack every trout we catch in the cooler, but do keep a few to take home. Been doing it every year since the early 1980's. WE JUST GOT CUT OFF. For what? F the PM watershed council and screw the DNR on this deal. They jumped on the bandwagon of the flyfishing elitists who want more and more water for themselves. I can't believe this has happend. If they wanted to extend to bowman, it sucks, but to sacrifice the McDougal's stretch is ridiculous.:rant:. So a compromise was to give up EVEN MORE water than the latest proposal to keep the fly fairy's happy? I love catching Browns on the PM and was my first love of fishing. Can't wait for camp every year. I FEEL LIKE WE (BAIT FISHERMAN) JUST GOT RAPED.


----------



## Big Brown

What would make me happy? How about a NO GUIDES section on the PM. Or better yet a NO GUIDES NO FLIES section. Only seems fair to me?? We(bait fishermen) are excluded from the upper sections of the fly water so 100 guides can line up and chuck n duck for a profit. Profiting off a public resource. The fly guys push and push to have us excluded calling us "slobs" and trying to portray us as some slant jaws that are out there draggin bottom and destroying the rivers and wildlife. I would love to speak publicly but I can see that being disastrous with the amount of frustration..........:rant:...I am fed up fishing against 15 guides on any given stretch that think they own the water and thinking because their clients paid them $300, they have more rights than the average Joe. If you think the answer is a compromise I completely disagree. Make them give a little to get a little. If they want flies only stretches, tell the fly guys to stay the hell out of anywheres below RR. That is "their" turf up there, "ours" is down here. I am blown away that this is actually going to happen with no scientific justification.


----------



## Gooseanator26

You guys could try to pick up fly fishing, its not that hard and it dosen't have to be that expensive


----------



## diztortion

Gooseanator26 said:


> You guys could try to pick up fly fishing, its not that hard and it dosen't have to be that expensive


You should try to pick up bait fishing and casting hardware...


----------



## Gooseanator26

I do it makes me the ultimate kinda like a fishing ninja:lol: just slip catch some and slip out:evilsmile


----------



## mcfish

Gooseanator26 said:


> You guys could try to pick up fly fishing, its not that hard and it dosen't have to be that expensive


I was bored so I read this thread and thought the exact same thing. I like to fly fish occasionally and I would rather not follow a THOUSAND night crawlers down the river. And it has been my experience that bait fishermen are in general the worst offenders of slobbish behavior next to tubers. I said in general, not all.


----------



## Flyfisher

Gooseanator26 said:


> You guys could try to pick up fly fishing, its not that hard and it dosen't have to be that expensive


You miss the entire point of this thread.


----------



## Abel

Fly fishing really isn't that hard. All you need is polarized glasses, gin clear water that's no deeper than 3' and 5 ft of leader. They don't even use fly lines anymore, no Amnesia is not fly line, it's monofilament, but they give it a fancy name, then charge you twice as much, making you feel twice a superior to the guy fishing the same rig on a spinning rod. The real joy in watching these guys is, we really know what's going on.


That's my one rant, thank you, I'm done ranting. Time to drive to Lansing for the meeting tomorrow and speak in a clear calm manner.

For all those that really fly fish, and don't need their own personal stretch of river, tight lines and good fishing, I hope you the best of seasons.


----------



## Spanky

mcfish said:


> I was bored so I read this thread and thought the exact same thing. I like to fly fish occasionally and I would rather not follow a THOUSAND night crawlers down the river. And it has been my experience that bait fishermen are in general the worst offenders of slobbish behavior next to tubers. I said in general, not all.


Greedy aren't we?:lol:

Bored, did you just finish the latest issue of" fly flinger's guide to supremacy"?

If you don't want to follow a thousand night crawlers down the river, don't fish after a good rain then. You think your precious trout get bigger on feathers or worms?:lol:

Maybe next time, the holier than thou feather heads can try to regulate the tubers too. I mean they pee in the water and scare the precious trout, not to mention all that pee and body heat probably raises the water temp by at least 1/10 of a degree.:16suspect


----------



## Gooseanator26

Abel said:


> Fly fishing really isn't that hard. They don't even use fly lines anymore, no Amnesia is not fly line, it's monofilament, but they give it a fancy name, then charge you twice as much, making you feel twice a superior to the guy fishing the same rig on a spinning rod.
> 
> For all those that really fly fish, and don't need their own personal stretch of river, tight lines and good fishing, I hope you the best of seasons.


Amnesia isn't a fly line Chuck n duck isn't fly fishing I don't mean to hate on the bait guys because they are their for the same reason that I am. 
I don't care about the restrictions because I may only keep a couple of fish a season
Hell I swing streamers right next to guys bouncing spawn all the time


----------



## Big Brown

mcfish said:


> I was bored so I read this thread and thought the exact same thing. I like to fly fish occasionally and I would rather not follow a THOUSAND night crawlers down the river. And it has been my experience that bait fishermen are in general the worst offenders of slobbish behavior next to tubers. I said in general, not all.


Well if you dont want to follow 1000 crawlers stay up in the fairy water. 1000 crawlers between 12 guys. What is that too many? I always seem to run out.... Maybe they will add a bait limit to the proposal too. You may only possess 3 night crawlers/person and 4 spawn bags when fishing the PM...


----------



## mcfish

Spanky said:


> Greedy aren't we?:lol:
> 
> Bored, did you just finish the latest issue of" fly flinger's guide to supremacy"?
> 
> If you don't want to follow a thousand night crawlers down the river, don't fish after a good rain then. You think your precious trout get bigger on feathers or worms?:lol:
> 
> Maybe next time, the holier than thou feather heads can try to regulate the tubers too. I mean they pee in the water and scare the precious trout, not to mention all that pee and body heat probably raises the water temp by at least 1/10 of a degree.:16suspect


Whoa, easy Spanker! The fly flinger was a good one. I should have said a thousand crawlers with eagle claw size four bait holders skewering them (pretied with a foot of ten pound of course). And I am all about regulating tubers so we are on the same page! How do we get that done? Although it wouldn't be quite the same without a styrofoam bait container and a beer can next to every bush.


----------



## Gooseanator26

Big Brown said:


> Well if you dont want to follow 1000 crawlers stay up in the fairy water. 1000 crawlers between 12 guys. What is that too many? I always seem to run out.... Maybe they will add a bait limit to the proposal too. You may only possess 3 night crawlers/person and 4 spawn bags when fishing the PM...


Yeah then we should limit the number of steps you can take in the river and how many casts that you can make don't be so serious


----------



## Flyfisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Look, by the time I figure we are done compromising, all waters by 2015 will be flies only. So being faced with spending my end years around a fire with a bunch of fat old men wearing Orvis gear, sipping cognac and smoking cigars while reveling in the fact we outwitted a 7" trout on a woolly bugger, *hanging with a bunch of naked vegans sounds a hell of a lot better*.


I hope you don't mind hairy legs and armpits


----------



## REG

Ranger Ray said:


> Look, by the time I figure we are done compromising, all waters by 2015 will be flies only. So being faced with spending my end years around a fire with a bunch of fat old men wearing Orvis gear, sipping cognac and smoking cigars while reveling in the fact we outwitted a 7" trout on a woolly bugger, hanging with a bunch of naked vegans sounds a hell of a lot better.


BTW, what kind of salad dressing do you like, Ray??:lol::lol:
http://www.peta.org/tv/videos/vegetarianism/110843671001.aspx


----------



## Jimmy2

Wow!! What a spirited little debate here!! 

I've sent letters and emails to all involved here in opposition. We need to come to grips we may lose this battle. I'm not "in love" with the compromise, but Don and the others deserve our gratitude for taking the bull by the horns here, but it may be too little too late. O.K., where do we go from here? We need to get organized and take on the groups that are currently better organized than we are. They may win the battle but we can win the war. This doesn't have to be the end. We need to work together to reverse this. Anything that has been done can be undone. I'm an optimist here. Let's roll up our sleeves, get organized, and start repealing this stuff in the next few years. As Don stated, the opposition has gotten a head start on us. Time to play catch up.

Thank you to Don and the others for attempting to get us in the game here.


----------



## Spanky

We just voted in allot of new faces yesterday. A new governor, a new Director coming soon. Maybe a trend is beginning. Hopefully good, smart decisions will be made tomorrow .


----------



## brookies101

Good luck to everyone attending and speaking at the meeting.... Hopefully everything goes according to plan and stays civil. The way this thread has gone the past day or two has made me nervous


----------



## diztortion

What's the word...?


----------



## Abel

I was there about all day yesterday. Kelly Smith talked about the new proposal to the NRC during the 115 meeting. That was the only official mention of it from what I heard. He said there are no new Flies only Sections being proposed, also mentioned to me later on that this would probably be the last time Flies only will be brought to the table, I was happy to hear that. 

I didn't take very detailed notes, however most from both sides stated that they could live with the deal. 

One gentleman said that the entire stretch to Wahala needed gear resrticted. 

One commisiner seemed intriged with what spiltshot said (pretty sure it was him) about float permits and not bring able to fish from McDougals anymore with bait. I can't remember exactly what he said so I won't try to quote him (if it wasn't you that said it, sorry). 


Someone also mentioned the amount of revenue McDougals might loose from the loss of the bait fisherman in the summer. 

One guy mentioned that the PM was no longer a great fishery, and for that reason a number of guys are now going to Ohio. I'm from Ohio, I never met that many guys on the rivers from Michigan, or states other than PA. Every year I read articles in STS and all the other mags about going to the PM. Everyone did, and still does talk about going to the PM and BM, so that I feel was way off base. 

I was very adament about no section of water, anywhere being deemed "flies only". I brought that up with Keely afterwards, he said that those stretches aren't going away, I almost take that as a challenge But that's another battle all together.

I didn't take a count, but it seemed the fly guys out numbered us, but only by a few, I think there was 6 of us from here. Like I said, most of both sides said they could live with what's on the table now. 

Over all I think the new proposal is going to go through and for the near future there "might" be a "seize fire". But I honestly don't expect it to last long.

It was also nice to finally meet some of you, now lets get back to what we love, standing in water that should be froze and trying to out wit something that has a brain the size of a pea.


----------



## Spanky

Thanks for the update. I am sure I am not the only one who needs to know what happened, and who got screwed.


----------



## Abel

I think we may have unlocked the door to getting bait allowed back in that section, but it's early to tell. Sometimes, you have to suck up a couple losses before you can get back on track.


----------



## toto

I'm surprised that they would say the Flies only sections aren't going away, and that we just need to live with it.

I have been talking to a friend of mine, who happens to be an admiralty attorney, another term would be maritime attorney. Anyways, it is also his opinion that this can't be done on navigable streams. If the stream is deemed non-navigable, then perhaps, and only perhaps, do they have any chance of being able to dictate these things, based on social issues only.

Furthermore, I am working on a side issue to all this, actually not really a side issue, but an appendix to it. IF I am right, which by all indications that I am, on the discrimination issue, and the 14th amendment and the equal rights clause of the 14th, then its quite possible that we can stop federal dollars for the fish and wildlife of the state of Michigan. Which would mean, the elitist wouldn't have the money for stream habitat improvement, such as they had before, to the the tune of over $400,000. This money was used in the flies only section of the AuSable to put in logs etc for habitat for trout. This was federal money, and if they want it again, they better start thinking a little more clearly.

What I'm trying to tell you all is this: I am PO'd about this whole thing, and there are always other avenues to follow to prove your point, and if I have to do this alone, I will, but the elitist of the state of Michigan will not take waters away from me, that, we the people, own. Its the publics waters, it the publics right to use, it isn't a privledge, as some would like you to believe, its your right to use your property, and if you don't fight for it, it WILL get worse. Its up to you, do you just want to cave in and say "I can live with that", when in fact you should know full well you are being hoodwinked? Or, do you want to put a stop to it right now?? Decide right now, what you want for your future, and your kids, and grandkids future. Just remember what social science is, and you'll get my point completely.


----------



## fishinDon

What Able said looks to be correct at a high level, here's some more detail from the notes I took. I was only able to attend the 4:30 public session this time.

All Speakers who talked about Gear Restrictions (in order of appearance):

ThousandCasts (MS) - supported compromised proposal, or line item veto on PM

Paul Rose - can't remember who's he's affiliated with, supported gear restrictions and pulled out the ol' "religion" card.

Thomas Burr - president of Au Sable Anglers big water Preservation - supported gear restrictions

FishinDon (MS) - was neutral on compromised proposal, asked for bait fishing inclusion with circle hooks.

Able (MS) - against more flies only water specifically. showed pics of a bunch of lip hooked steelhead and trout with bait.

Kevin Morlock - Indigo's guide service. Asked for restrictions from Gleason's to Walhalla.

Bryan Burroughs - Executive Director of TU supported compromise on all rivers but Pigeon.

Splitshot (MS) - was opposed to gear restrictions - no biological reason, no compelling social reason, explained that he felt disenfranchised.

Ranger Ray (MS) - opposed to gear restrictions, had a big handout for the commissioners with a TON of supporting data including Robert Kerr, retired WI biologist information against gear restrictions.

Lynn Dooling - MUCC, support compromised proposal. supported addition of aditional people to the cold water committee

Dennis Mead - President of Mi Steelheaders/Salmon - probably the most interesting speaker of the night. Supported the current compromise, but said flatly that any future pushes for gear restrictions would be met by strong opposition from their group. The commission asked him to speak for the average angler, Dennis said that he felt the aveage angler feels they should be allowed to fish with all legal methods.

Jim Schramm - President of Great Lakes Council of FFF - said he could live with the ammendments to the proposal. Did not agree with the biologist who recommended against the gear restrictions on the PM.

Steve Martinez - STM Outfitters, Mason County - said he believed trout populations were decreasing, would favor decreadsed bag limits and gear restrictions.

Walter Grow - Spey Rod Outfitters, Branch MI - endorced the compromise on the PM, would favor a "yearly limit" on trout/salmon/steelhead, but acknowledged that it would be difficult to enforce. 

Matt Dunn - Employee of Kevin Morlock, Indigo's guide service, supported gear restrictions and asked for reduced creel limits on the PM.

Randle (MS) - Could live with the current compromise on the PM.

Rick Hunt - West Michigan Tourism - didn't really say if he supported or not, but asked the DNR to consider tourism when setting their regulations.

John Bebo - Anglers of the Au Sable - supports gear restrictions and endorced the compromise on the PM. 


At this point it's totally up to director Humphries. This will probably be the last big decision she makes as director of the DNR, as this proposal is scheduled for action in December, and she is scheduled to start at DU in Jan.

Don


----------



## thousandcasts

fishinDon said:


> What Able said looks to be correct at a high level, here's some more detail from the notes I took. I was only able to attend the 4:30 public session this time.
> 
> All Speakers who talked about Gear Restrictions (in order of appearance):
> 
> ThousandCasts (MS) - supported compromised proposal, or line item veto on PM
> 
> Paul Rose - can't remember who's he's affiliated with, supported gear restrictions and pulled out the ol' "religion" card.
> 
> Thomas Burr - president of Au Sable Anglers big water Preservation - supported gear restrictions
> 
> FishinDon (MS) - was neutral on compromised proposal, asked for bait fishing inclusion with circle hooks.
> 
> Able (MS) - against more flies only water specifically. showed pics of a bunch of lip hooked steelhead and trout with bait.
> 
> Kevin Morlock - Indigo's guide service. Asked for restrictions from Gleason's to Walhalla.
> 
> Bryan Burroughs - Executive Director of TU supported compromise on all rivers but Pigeon.
> 
> Splitshot (MS) - was opposed to gear restrictions - no biological reason, no compelling social reason, explained that he felt disenfranchised.
> 
> Ranger Ray (MS) - opposed to gear restrictions, had a big handout for the commissioners with a TON of supporting data including Robert Kerr, retired WI biologist information against gear restrictions.
> 
> Lynn Dooling - MUCC, support compromised proposal. supported addition of aditional people to the cold water committee
> 
> Dennis Mead - President of Mi Steelheaders/Salmon - probably the most interesting speaker of the night. Supported the current compromise, but said flatly that any future pushes for gear restrictions would be met by strong opposition from their group. The commission asked him to speak for the average angler, Dennis said that he felt the aveage angler feels they should be allowed to fish with all legal methods.
> 
> Jim Schramm - President of Great Lakes Council of FFF - said he could live with the ammendments to the proposal. Did not agree with the biologist who recommended against the gear restrictions on the PM.
> 
> Steve Martinez - STM Outfitters, Mason County - said he believed trout populations were decreasing, would favor decreadsed bag limits and gear restrictions.
> 
> Walter Grow - Spey Rod Outfitters, Branch MI - endorced the compromise on the PM, would favor a "yearly limit" on trout/salmon/steelhead, but acknowledged that it would be difficult to enforce.
> 
> Matt Dunn - Employee of Kevin Morlock, Indigo's guide service, supported gear restrictions and asked for reduced creel limits on the PM.
> 
> Randle (MS) - Could live with the current compromise on the PM.
> 
> Rick Hunt - West Michigan Tourism - didn't really say if he supported or not, but asked the DNR to consider tourism when setting their regulations.
> 
> John Bebo - Anglers of the Au Sable - supports gear restrictions and endorced the compromise on the PM.
> 
> 
> At this point it's totally up to director Humphries. This will probably be the last big decision she makes as director of the DNR, as this proposal is scheduled for action in December, and she is scheduled to start at DU in Jan.
> 
> Don



Yes, my "speech" was that I supported the current proposal, but that I understood that it might be controversail and too "technical." I said if that wasn't a road that the commission wanted to go down, then they need to pull everything off the table and leave the PM as is--unchanged. 

I wanted to give the MSSFA (Steelheaders) guy a standing ovation. In fact, I'm getting ready to send the check for an at-large membership! :lol:


----------



## Abel

I thought he did an outstanding job as well, I'm looking MSSFA up on the web now. I don't have my notes in front of me at work.


----------



## Spanky

Thank You Don for the great notes and names of those who spoke. Again, thanks for taking the time to go and speak.

Toto, I am with you brother, you won't have to go this alone. If Kelly thinks that the flies only water is here to stay, he must either know something we don't or expects to keep his job a long time and continue on the flies only side. Everyone is expendable. No job is a guarantee, and this whole thing stinks.

This time when we come to the table, we will be prepared.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

toto said:


> Furthermore, I am working on a side issue to all this, actually not really a side issue, but an appendix to it. IF I am right, which by all indications that I am, on the discrimination issue, and the 14th amendment and the equal rights clause of the 14th, then its quite possible that we can stop federal dollars for the fish and wildlife of the state of Michigan. Which would mean, the elitist wouldn't have the money for stream habitat improvement, such as they had before, to the the tune of over $400,000. This money was used in the flies only section of the AuSable to put in logs etc for habitat for trout. This was federal money, and if they want it again, they better start thinking a little more clearly.


Just a side bar to this Toto. You have done alot of research on this issue so I figure you are looking at everything. But just remember, all that federal money does not go just to the benefit of the elitist. It is used in various places around the state. 

For example, the dam we just removed in my area was federal money with an in kind match from the state. With out this federal money the dam, which failed several years ago, would still be in the river disrupting natural flow. It would also still be there creating an excessive sediment build up. Now that this dam is gone there are now a ton of river miles opened up for the downstream smallmouth population. This is not an elitist river by any stretch of the imagination.

Without this federal money we are not just impacting the elitist to a small degree but instead impacting ourselves in a much greater way.

Just saying...


----------



## Spanky

Dennis Mead - President of Mi Steelheaders/Salmon - probably the most interesting speaker of the night. Supported the current compromise, but said flatly that any future pushes for gear restrictions would be met by strong opposition from their group. The commission asked him to speak for the average angler, Dennis said that he felt the aveage angler feels they should be allowed to fish with all legal methods.

Did the commission also ask the guides and TU guys to speak for the average angler? I bet not.

I cannot wait to hear splitshot's side of this circus!


----------



## Shoeman

Spanky said:


> Dennis Mead - President of Mi Steelheaders/Salmon - probably the most interesting speaker of the night. Supported the current compromise, but said flatly that any future pushes for gear restrictions would be met by strong opposition from their group. The commission asked him to speak for the average angler, Dennis said that he felt the aveage angler feels they should be allowed to fish with all legal methods.
> 
> Did the commission also ask the guides and TU guys to speak for the average angler? I bet not.
> 
> I cannot wait to hear splitshot's side of this circus!


And there again the newly compromised regs favor steelheaders, not the trout fishing public. It's a shame

OK no more flies only, but a bait ban for additional miles in order to curb that (except during steelhead run)

I guess being organized like the Steelheaders allowed an exception.....


----------



## Flyfisher

The Downstream Drift said:


> Just a side bar to this Toto. You have done alot of research on this issue so I figure you are looking at everything. But just remember, all that federal money does not go just to the benefit of the elitist. It is used in various places around the state.
> 
> For example, the dam we just removed in my area was federal money with an in kind match from the state. With out this federal money the dam, which failed several years ago, would still be in the river disrupting natural flow. It would also still be there creating an excessive sediment build up. Now that this dam is gone there are now a ton of river miles opened up for the downstream smallmouth population. This is not an elitist river by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Without this federal money we are not just impacting the elitist to a small degree but instead impacting ourselves in a much greater way.
> 
> Just saying...


If federal money is being used to improve sections of the Au Sable that are restricted to "flies only", that money should not be earmarked as such due to the inclusive (and discriminatory) nature of the access as an angler. Federal money spent to shore up log jams and other fish "holding" structure does not benefit the general angling public. I would much rather see that same federal money being spent on a river with general gear regulations. A river where anyone can fish. With that in mind, I would be disappointed to see ALL federal money restricted due to a few projects on "discriminatory reg water". In all seriousness, perhaps we would be better off contacting the ACLU if we have a case for discrimination.

On an unrelated topic, and more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. I have a NEW proposal for the current "flies only/no kill" section of the PM. If TU and FFF were proposing social regulations that would help and improve the fishery, shouldn't it be "flyfishing only" with a real flyline and no weighted flies or attached weight on the leader? If its really all about the trout, they should have no problem catching browns and brookies this way. But, its really NOT just about the trout. Its as much about the salmon and steelhead, and being able to have a "refuge" from all the "slobs" and "snaggers". I'll get off my soapbox now, just had that thought pop up in my head as this is all sinking in.

Once again, kudos to ALL the guys that made an appearance yesterday, even those with whom I shared a spirited debate with this past week. We are all on the same side, just have varying degrees of tolerance and different timetables to accomplish our goals. Now that this is in Becky's hands, should we continue to write emails to her expressing our opinions?


----------



## ESOX

> Now that this is in Becky's hands, should we continue to write expressing our opinions?


Of course we should. Just because the jury is out doesn't mean we stopped having opinions.


----------



## Ranger Ray

5 minutes is not enough time to speak. I had to speed read to try to say just what little I had brought. I think a couple sentences were one syllable. :lol:

Very interesting for being my first time there. The commissioners seemed to be very engaged and paying attention to what everyone was saying. I would have fallen asleep after about the fifth person myself, if I had been there all day.

Dennis Meads response to the one question was one that needed to be heard. I am sorry, but I can't remember what commissioner asked it, but kudos to him. After all its about all fishermen, whether at the meeting or not. I also believe Dennis's answer to be fact.

It was nice to meet Kelly Smith for the first time. He took the time to speak to several of us after the meeting in depth. I believe him to be sincere and honest. I believe he is acting as a facilitator to all groups. Not taking any sides, but trying to bring everyone to the table to hash things out. He is doing his job.

Had a chance to talk to thousandcasts for awhile and get his point of view and take on the issue. I believe he is sincere in all he has said and done. To bad he couldnt make it to dinner, I bought! 

Don and Abel got out of there before I was done chatting with Kelly Smith so I wasn't able to talk to them but would have liked to. Would have liked to talk to Jim Schramm also. Maybe next time I run into him.

As far as no fly water, I believe we are only talking the PM. The other proposed fly only water in the Sept recommendations still stand I believe.

I think the bait guys took a beating on this one. Enough people spoke up and wrote letters, to the point it made a difference. They know there is bait fishermen willing to speak up for their rights now. Lets hope all involved are sincere and we do what is right for the fishing community and not a small segment of it. TU claims to be a organization made up of all fishermen. They may be. But the perception they convey to me does not reflect this. Show to me you are and I will become a member. Show to me you are and I will stand next to you at the next TU project. 

To those of you who already arent stealheaders, shame on you. :fish2:

Keep voicing your opinions!


----------

