# Montana and Gear Restrictions



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Can we really compare Montana to Michigan? Montana has so much undeveloped land and private ranches that there are rivers and sections of rivers that may not see fishermen all year. Just dont think we have apples to apples here. Maybe we should compare two states that are more alike in fishing pressure and population.

Ganzer


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Ganzer,

Originally, that comparison was repeatedly referenced by gear reg advocates at the October NRC meeting. And, might I add, incorrectly, as the abundance of "flies only" water was highlighted. Upon examination of the regulations, however, it was duly noted that, in fact, the state of Montana has no flies only water, despite having to protect delicate populations of wild cutthroat and bull trout populations.

That said, your contrasts are duly noted, however, as it relates to fishing pressure, I would guess and say the fishing pressure for some of their waters may equal or surpass much of ours.

Cheers,

REG


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

> The question is, out of all the management tools available, how effective are gear restrictions, as a stand-alone intervention?
> 
> Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: Montana and Gear Restrictions - Page 2 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=365521&page=2#ixzz1Fe5wiZjd


That is a good question. One that I don't believe has been answered one way or another by studies yet. I have posted many of the studies here for everyone to look at. Most do not have good controls. Or they state that there is a statistical improvement but modest at best. 

Now with that being said, no where does it say it harms the fishery. Thus I have no problem with them setting some stretches a side for a different use. I just don't think they needed to increase the amount of gear restricted areas. Especially in streams that get anadromous runs.

I guess I'm different than most when I believe that the MDNRE has the right, and should, manage our resources for different uses. To regulate and study our waters for different methods and experiences. To say that just because we find a certain method of fishing or spearing or using TNT does not have a negative impact on the overall health of fish population then it should be allowed. I think that they need and should use social factors, science, and commonsense when creating our use regulations. And that is exactly what they do. We certainly don't have to agree with them and we certainly can protest them. Which also has been done.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

I respect your personal opinion on preferences, Wildcatwick. To your point, I would say that if it wasn't for the last push to expand these waters, and, especially to add waters that were not recommended by the DNR/CWC selection criteria, it is doubtful we would have all this contentiousness. 

However, I would repeat there are at least 3 studies that demonstrate the combo of restricted regulations (gear regs and restricted creel) has no effect, again, the 23 year survey on the Pere Marquette River, the newly completed Black River study, and from the Prairie River in WI. That is about as separated as the studies get. Based on these 3, I think you would agree that it is highly unlikely that gear regs alone would show anything different.

That, and remember, social input is a 2 way street. With the increasing urbanization of the population, and perhaps changes in "common sense", there is a highly organized, motivated sector of the public (PETA) that would like to see no fishing at all. Whether those opinions will become more mainstream in the future, who can say? But I would guess and say much of their argument would be the same as those currently contending to increase gear reg streams, in that it would be for the trout's benefit.


----------

