# Probably a Stupid Question



## Chromedoggy

There is a lot of accusations about who is behind the Gear Restrictions and expansion of those areas.
Does anyone know exactly who and why they were originally established, as well as who was the driving force behind the expansion?
I am tied up with another project and I know several of you have likely done 
the research.

Elite Fly Fishing snobs and guides is not really the answer I am after, just some more in depth info. TU? Chamber of Commerce? Rogue officials in DNR?

PM would be fine as well


----------



## REG

The real answer may be more complex, but the quick and dirty answer at least as far as the expansion of gear restricted waters would be some or all of the constituent groups represented in the Coldwater Steering Committee.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_46403_46404-238307--,00.html

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FO_213.10_317505_7.pdf


----------



## swampbuck

> William B. Mershon, a wealthy lumberman from Saginaw, Michigan, and T. E. Douglas, a lodge owner on the North Branch, flies were the only legal method of fish capture on a large portion of the North Branch. Mershon first advocated for this legislation once he purchased several thousand acres adjoining the river as a means to protect juvenile trout and keep people off his portions of the stream. The law went in and out of effect between 1907 and 1928 and provided interesting commentary on the conservation movement's struggle to form a cohesive identity. Although Mershon's law was repealed due to a lack of scientific support, it did launch interest into the conservation merits of fly fishing and started the legacy of fish conservation for which the Au Sable is famous for and would eventually lead to the creation of Trout Unlimited.
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt it funny how history repeats itself...........
Click to expand...


----------



## toto

First of all chrome, there is no such thing as a stupid question. I don't think I have a definitive answer to your question, only speculation.

However, if we connect the dots, perhaps we can come to a logical answer. 

1) How did it come about that the legislature determined another 100 + miles should be gear restricted? Again, not knowing the answer definitively, it would be only conjecture to assume that one of our legislators has an agenda for this. I have my suspicions on who that was, but for now, its only a quess. 

2) The next follow up question would be, just why did this legislator decided we needed to do this? Again, only suspicion, but was it due to one of his constituents wanting this for their "pet" stream/river? Again, don't know the answer for sure.

3) In reading the above links, it would appear to me that the biggest pushers for this are all fly fishing organizations, so then the question becomes, why? What is the TRUE motivation? Is it selfishness, greed, or envy? I don't think, according to everything I've heard, and read, that science (biological) has anything to do with this.

4) Did the legislature lean on the DNR to make this happen under some sort of threat? Probably will never get the answer to that, at least until those involved are retired, they won't give up their $100k/yr jobs by letting out that info.

5) IF, and thats a big if, these groups seem to think that this is for the protection of the fishery, then why won't they show the data to prove its needed? Its been asked for by several of us, and not once have they shown us the data they suppossedly have.

6) Why is it, this whole issue didn't come up, until the Gov. Granholm, and by extention, Rebecca Humphries, were lame ducks? Do you think that was all planned out? If this were set to have these extra miles 7 or 8 years ago, why would they wait til the last few days or months of this administration to get this done?

Those are some of the questions I have just off the top of my head, and I have no answers to any of them, for sure. 

I will end this with one thought: What would happen if a study was done on the existing flies only waters to see just how the trout population is doing? What would happen if it were found that the population is doing so well, that these gear restrictions were found to not be needed any longer? Would they reverse these flies only waters, or gear restricted waters? Or is it just another case of those that have, taking from those that don't?

Sorry if that didn't answer any of your questions, but I hope I've made you think through a little deeper, as I'm in the corner that none of this should be taking place, if its based on social science.


----------



## Whit1

toto said:


> I will end this with one thought: What would happen if a study was done on the existing flies only waters to see just how the trout population is doing? What would happen if it were found that the population is doing so well, that these gear restrictions were found to not be needed any longer? Would they reverse these flies only waters, or gear restricted waters? Or is it just another case of those that have, taking from those that don't?



This has already been done. The PM has been studied for over 20yrs. in the Flies Only/No Kill stretch and they have shown that the regs have made no difference in either population or fish size. Jim Dexter or Kelly Smith have stated this.

I would assume that similar studies have been done for many years on the Mason Tract of the Au Sable R. Those are some studies we need to look at. Perhaps a very pointed question to the DNR's fishery guys and gals with the intent to get the studies as well as a definitive answer is in order.

As for the thread's question you can look at the makeup of the original Coldwater Committee for a partial answer. I'm sure you can add other groups including land owners along some of the state's finest trout streams.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Whit... this is the second thread I have noticed you mention the over 20 years of sampling data from the PM's fly only water. You have also mentioned that Kelly and Jim have both stated the flies only regs have not changed the trout population in that section of the river.

My question here is... Where is the sampling data prior to the M-37 to Gleason's restricts? There is very little fish sampling data back this far. Therefore I don't think that Jim or Kelly either one can make an accurate conclusion that the fly only regs haven't changed things.

Now I'm not saying that our fisheries biologists are wrong and you guys all know where I stand on the gear reg issue, but how can statements like "the regs haven't improved the fishery" be made without the proper data to back it up?


----------



## Fishndude

Maybe it is time to get some current data on how lifting the gear restrictions on that water affects the fishery. I would think that just a few years would show any significant negative impact on fish numbers and sizes.


----------



## toto

Of course I don't have the data either, but one thought occurred to me. What if the the carrying capacity of this stream is already at max before the flies only designation? If that is true, there really isn't anything you can do improve those numbers, whether its gear restrictions or none at all. The stream/river is only going to carry so many fish per acre, after that the fish will either move up, or downstream to find better habitat (re: food etc) or they die. Either way a water way can only supply X amount of fish with suitable carrying capacity.


----------



## fishinDon

The Downstream Drift said:


> Whit... this is the second thread I have noticed you mention the over 20 years of sampling data from the PM's fly only water. You have also mentioned that Kelly and Jim have both stated the flies only regs have not changed the trout population in that section of the river.
> 
> My question here is... Where is the sampling data prior to the M-37 to Gleason's restricts? There is very little fish sampling data back this far. Therefore I don't think that Jim or Kelly either one can make an accurate conclusion that the fly only regs haven't changed things.
> 
> Now I'm not saying that our fisheries biologists are wrong and you guys all know where I stand on the gear reg issue, but how can statements like "the regs haven't improved the fishery" be made without the proper data to back it up?


Downstream,
I have a copy of the study, PM me if you want it. The study is very interesting because it actually shows the brown trout population was high when the regs started, then decrease pretty dramatically after the special regulations were put in place and have since recovered and are at high levels again. Which to me means that the trout population is almost certainly controled much more directly by nature than our "rules." 

Here's an excerpt from the Introduction, which talks about the data colleced and the special regs:

Quality trout and salmon regulations were implemented in the M-37 to Gleasons Landing river segment in 1970. Quality regulations were imposed for the purpose of protecting small trout with the expectation of increasing the number of larger trout in the stream. These regulations included a creel limit of five fish with standard size limits, a flies-only tackle restriction from June 1 through October 15, but no special restrictions were in force from April 25 to May 30 (Table 1). Special regulations gradually became more restrictive in this river segment. Significant changes occurred in 1978 when a flies-only tackle regulation was implemented throughout the year and the regular season possession limit was reduced in 1990 and 1999. The extended season harvest limits were gradually reduced and the minimum size limits were increased in 1990. In 2000, the Type 7 regulation was implemented which included all year fishing with artificial flies and catch and release only. The Type 2, 3, and 4 regulations were also implemented in 2000.

Twenty-three years of trout and salmon population estimates were collected at one station during the period from 1973 through 2009. This station (historically known as Zimmys is located adjacent to the mouth of the Baldwin River which is within the M-37 to Gleasons Landing river segment managed with Type 7 regulations. The purposes of these surveys were to evaluate fish population and habitat characteristics, document population trends, and make comparisons to other Michigan streams. ​


----------



## fishinDon

Fishndude said:


> Maybe it is time to get some current data on how lifting the gear restrictions on that water affects the fishery. I would think that just a few years would show any significant negative impact on fish numbers and sizes.


They have this data in WI, becuase they have lifted some special regs. One river was near an all time high for trout populations after they lifted the regs.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Don,

I have seen the data collected at the Zimmy's site since 1973. It does show a natural change in the trout populations over time, which all trout streams tend to do. However, the special regs were placed on the river in 1970. Where is there good data prior to 1970? I haven't found any yet.

While it may not be comparable I am working on a fisheries population study for the Clinton River right now. I have reviewed MDNRE sampling data on the Clinton back to 1925. The interesting thing here is that the most comprehensive data I have found began in 1973, the same year that the most comprehensive data for the PM began.

Because of the lack of data prior to 1973 on the Clinton I have no idea what the river was like prior to the major pollution issues that killed this river. And in the same respect, the lack of data prior to 1973 on the PM gives us a cropped picture of the historical Pere Marquette trout populations.

If we had good data prior to 1970 we may very well see that the fly only regulations have done nothing for the river. We may see that they actually decreased the trout populations due to the increased angling pressure. And we just may see that the regulations improved the fishery.

Now you all know where I stand on the PM's fly only regulations. But I find it very hard to determine what effects the regulations have had on the river without data prior to 1970. You can't say the fly only regs have no effect on the river without comprehensive sampling data prior to the regulations being put in place.

I hope that makes sense and I haven't compromised my positon on the fly only regs. I still believe they are discriminatory and regulations should not be put in place unless sound science proves them right.


----------



## fishinDon

I follow you Jason, it's too bad that we don't have data from the early days, we just don't. 

the biggest take away I have from that study is from 78 through 90. 78 was the first year of flies only year round. Yet the trout population continued to decline for 12 years straight after year round fly fishing went into effect. This says to me that we should be doing habitat work instead. 
Don


----------



## REG

Also consider natural cycles. Most biologic populations do not hold at a steady state, or keep climbing. On that WI river referenced, that was the message given by the biologist responsible for managing that stream. I had also heard the same said about steelhead populations on the Brule R. in WI in that they were anticipating a down cycle.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Don, I agree completely with the idea that habitat projects should have been the focus not additional gear restrictions. 

I find it very interesting though that AFTER the fly only regs were put in place there was a steady decline in the trout populations. This decline eventually evened out and slowly started to improve, as the data shows. Couldn't this be used as a way to make a case against fly only regulations? 

Perhaps, as I believe it was Toto that mentioned it earlier, the PM was at its max carrying capacity when the fly only regs were put into affect and the decreased fish mortality from anglers caused an increase in overall population due to competition for food sources? 

Or perhaps the populations at Zimmy's decreased simply because there were so many fish the macro invertebrate populations decreased to the point that the fish had to migrate to other sections of the river to find enough food? These population sampling events are only done in roughly 1000 ft sections, therefore it would be very easy for a large number of fish to "wipe out" the food source and be force to find alternative sections of the river to feed in.

There are several reasons the population data showed a decline. Habitat issues are of course one of them but there is a major connection to fish population and macro invertebrate populations. I would be very curious to see macro surveys from that same time period to see if there is indeed a connection. This could easily prove Toto's point about the river being at max carrying capacity. The problem there though is that macro surveys have been historically lacking throughout the state and there really is no good data dating this far back.

Sorry for the macro tangent here. The idea of this connection popped into my head and being a "bug guy" I am always interested in the macro/fish connection.


----------



## Splitshot

The Downstream Drift said:


> Now you all know where I stand on the PM's fly only regulations. But I find it very hard to determine what effects the regulations have had on the river without data prior to 1970. You can't say the fly only regs have no effect on the river without comprehensive sampling data prior to the regulations being put in place.


I think you need to speak with a local biologist, but your assertion that you cant judge the fly regulations without comprehensive sampling data prior is incorrect. Biologist take samples of many other rivers and compare the trends between them. In that way you dont need 50 years of data from one river.

In the end the biologist concluded that gear restriction regulations dont make any difference on all the rivers they studied. The logical conclusion is that the same thing happens on all rivers but because they are scientist they wont say that but they probably believe it to be true. But just for the sake of argument, lets say the regulations resulted in 20% more fish and more bigger fish. In my opinion even that would still not justify excluding a majority of fishermen from any part of any river especially when there are other regulations that would accomplish the same thing without excluding anybody and is the basis of our position.

As far as the wild fish argument, it is baseless. Many steelhead fishermen and trout fishermen put a premium on wild fish. As far as steelhead, all the steelhead planted or not planted are the offspring of wild parents. The only difference is one group of wild fish become smolts in whatever river they spawn in and the other group of wild fish are simply reared in a hatchery for about 18 months before being placed in a river. Why would someone put a premium on the wild fish that were born and raised in the river.

Hatchery trout are different because they are raised generation after generation in a hatchery and after some generations the gene pool gets watered down and they do not survive as well in the wild. In some places biologist are collecting fish from streams where trout are not planted and raising them just like steelhead, which makes a big difference between conventional hatchery trout and trout with first generation wild parents. Studies show that many more of them survive the rigors of living in the wild. The problem is they have much more wile making them more difficult to catch.

I fished the PM many times in the fly water before the regulations changed and that section was my favorite because it held the best trout water in the river. I actually think there were more trout fishermen than today and although there were steelhead, the numbers were not even close to what they are today. In fact the fishing on the rest of the river is better than it was on the fly stretch. That is not just true for the PM, but all the rivers I fish. The DNR fisheries division has done a wonderful job in the 60 plus years I have been fishing. We get some years that produce less and smaller fish, but you can blame Mother Nature for that.

There is room for more trophy waters if that is what fishermen want, but we can provide those areas and allow more fishermen to participate. The first time I fished the Au Sable below Mio I hooked a monster brown on my third cast. That stretch has always produced trophy trout but now a majority of fishermen can not participate unless they fish the way others demand and the sad part is there is no reason for it except greed..


----------



## Splitshot

Chromedoggy,

Sorry this took so long, but I have been busy. I started asking questions last summer about who was on the Cold Water Committee and was pretty much stonewalled, It wasnt until last month the I found out who most of the members were and have listed them below. 

In the last issue of the North Woods Call, turns out to be the second last issue, Thomas Buhr wrote about the battle to acquire more gear restriction and thanked the citizen members or the Cold Water Advisory Committee for their support as he defended the exclusion of bait using the same old cliches and half truths.

The members he thanked were Michigan Trout Unlimited, Anglers of the Au Sable, Great Lakes Council of Fly Fishers, Au Sable Big Water Preservation Association, the Pere Marquette Watershed Committee, The Sierra Club (someone in the club must be a fly fisherman), The Resource Sellouts represented by Dave Borgenson and the Michigan rivers Guides Association.

As we started to voice opposition at the public meetings it became clear that fisheries needed some input from the other side. I suppose they got to thinking that it would look bad when we found out who the existing members were. So at the end of the process they enlisted a few members and had a special meetings in an effort to push the compromise through before director Humphries left. . 

The fly advocates already got their way on 82 of the 112 miles so there isnt much more to decide about, but it isnt over. Other members not mentioned by Mr. Buhr were MUCC who also supported the gear restrictions Any one wonder why MUCC is falling apart. The Michigan Steelheaders were involved until very late in the process as were 4 members of this web-site.

So now you know why we started a grass roots organization to overturn these biased rules and we hope to become a voice for other sportsmen who are being denied access to public lakes, streams and land because special interest groups.

Toto pretty much summed it up in his questions and I just added this for a little clarification.

Of the 600,000 plus trout fishermen in Michigan less than 42,000 fly fish and less than 12,000 of those exclusively fly fish. In the end we outnumber them by a large number and we think if we can educate enough fishermen we can reverse all the special rules. . By the way of the 12,000 who exclusively fly fish Id guess that less than 10% want special privileges at the expense of crowding other fishermen into less productive waters.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Splitshot said:


> I think you need to speak with a local biologist, but your assertion that you cant judge the fly regulations without comprehensive sampling data prior is incorrect. Biologist take samples of many other rivers and compare the trends between them. In that way you dont need 50 years of data from one river.


Splitshot, I do not mean to make this sound negative in any way but I speak to our areas fisheries biologist at least twice a week. As a matter of fact he called me today to discuss the pre-assessement project I am currently working on for the Fish & Wildlife Population BUI in the Clinton River AOC. While you may not know my background others on this site (including FishinDon) do. Trust me when I say that I am very much in contact with MDNRE Fisheries Division.

As for not needing 50 years of data to assess a single river you may very well be correct. But, as I mentioned earlier, you cannot accurately say that the gear restrictions on the PM alone have either hurt or improved the fishery without prior knowledge of how the fishery was prior to the restrictions. This is a simple scientific test. You have to have a control set of data on the subject (in this case the PM) prior to the restrictions in order to later evaluate the effects of them. If you do not have prior data there is no way to gauge the success or impairments the restrictions have caused.

In my mind this would be like putting in new fish habitat and claiming that it greatly improved the fish population when you have no population data prior to the new habitat being put in place. You are simply making assumptions without prior data. And telling me that you can use the data from another river system as a model simply does not work.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

I have thought of a good example of what I am trying to say here...

Last summer I helped the fisheries division complete a trout population survey at four different sites along Paint Creek. We follow the GLEAS Procedure 51 Sampling Protcol and collected good population data at these four sites. 

Next year the new regulations will go in to effect on 5 miles of the creek. It will now be artificial only, 2 fish a day, and 14 inch size limit within this 5 mile section.

Now if we were to return to the creek in three or four years (which we plan to do) the population data can then be compared to the 2010 pre-regulation data to accurately determine the effects of any changes. This will give us the chance to either stay with the regs because we see a postive change or to remove the regs because the trout populations have gone unchanged. Because of the 2010 data we have the ability to gauge the improvement or impairments on Paint Creek. 

I'm trying hard to maintain my point here but you should be able to see what I mean. You can't say something is improved or impaired if you don't know where you started from.


----------



## Ranger Ray

The Downstream Drift said:


> I have thought of a good example of what I am trying to say here...
> 
> Last summer I helped the fisheries division complete a trout population survey at four different sites along Paint Creek. We follow the GLEAS Procedure 51 Sampling Protcol and collected good population data at these four sites.
> 
> Next year the new regulations will go in to effect on 5 miles of the creek. It will now be artificial only, 2 fish a day, and 14 inch size limit within this 5 mile section.
> 
> Now if we were to return to the creek in three or four years (which we plan to do) the population data can then be compared to the 2010 pre-regulation data to accurately determine the effects of any changes. This will give us the chance to either stay with the regs because we see a postive change or to remove the regs because the trout populations have gone unchanged. Because of the 2010 data we have the ability to gauge the improvement or impairments on Paint Creek.
> 
> I'm trying hard to maintain my point here but you should be able to see what I mean. You can't say something is improved or impaired if you don't know where you started from.


A single year sampling? The odds are extremely favorable for there to be a different finding next year just based on normal population fluctuation. These one year studies are not much better than a guess. Maybe they should put off the special regulations for 1 to 2 more years to get more accurate data to compare against the special regulations.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Actually Ray the sampling done last year will work in conjuction with the sampling done during the 2001 Clinton River Assessment. This will give us a pretty good idea about the condition of the trout population prior to the gear restrictions. Then after they have been put in place for a couple of years we can review the changes, if any. 

Like many of you have said previously, our fisheries biologists know their job and do it pretty well. So I'll probably take their advice on how they will measure the success or non-success of the new regulations.


----------



## toto

You would be correct, in that it doesn't specifically state we have the right to fish, but there is extendable rights involved here. For one, since the NW Ordinance is about Navigable rights, then the fishing is an extension of that. And that was proved by Mr. Gerhardt and his suit to be allowed to fish the Pine River. 

Another example, Judge Fox quoted the NW Ordinance in his decision of Indian Fishing Rights, not exactly the same thing as here, but it shows that this ordinance still applies today.

Next, fishing is not a privledge, unless you make it so. By that, rights are always deemed to be unalienable rights, or put another way, God given rights. We have the right to fish, as we are the citizens, not the other way around. Even politicians will admit from time to time, that is us, the people, who own the state, of Michigan, in this case, so therefore, since all the waters, with few exceptions, and all fish that swin in these waters are public property.

Note here, the difference between rights, and privledges: http://www.stormy.org/rights.htm perhaps that will make it clearer.

Back to NW Ordinance, this document led to two other, pretty important documents, The U.S. Constitution, and the Public Trust Doctrine, both in use today. I don't have the time or energy right now to go into that in length, but its something you should read. On the NWO, you are incorrect in the fact this document had no effect on western states, it was paramount on how these states were drawn up, and in fact, California has used this document, and the Public Trust Document when concerning thier fisheries.

So, although you may be correct in that it doesn't directly mention fishing in art, 4 of the NWO, it does in the sense that all waters are public waters, and that is ALWAYS deemed to be used for swimming, navigation, and fishing.


----------



## Splitshot

Tuttlehead,

I actually took the time to write an answer your first post, but you posted again before I had a chance to post it. I thought it was a reasoned response but as everyone can see that is not what you were looking for. You were hoping that I would bash you so you could justify yourself. Sorry about that.

After everything you wrote these two things stand out the most. First, you said; Discrimination? If you get the federal or state government to list bait fisherman as a protected class, I'll support you 100%.

So Discrimination can be justified as long as it isnt against some protected class. It doesnt matter if it is right or wrong morally, as long as you and your ilk get what you want. How white of you!

Second, you said I think the reason you have not been given an answer is because there is no one good answer. Im pretty sure we all knew that Turtlehead, but for you to admit it says something about you and actually all you. I guess it makes my case and ends the speculation that some fishermen are elitist, selfish and greedy and want special privileges because they feel entitled. If there was any doubt about that, your quote from Mick Jagger shows us that not only is the above true, but shows your contempt by rubbing our face in it. 

Like you said before why should TU show us the data when they didnt have to because they won. Thanks Nancy and just so you know, things could change next time when we all get to vote.


----------



## toto

Now that I've thought a little more about this issue, I would say it is imperative that TU, or anyone else, show proof of the loss of fish, while using bait. If that is TU's stance, then it would their obligation to prove their point, they didn't do that, nor have they since.

As for the legislature making these rules, thats where I have a problem. Since when does the legislature of any state know anything about wildlife? That is why, in the orginal Administrative Procedures Act, of 1921 (I believe that was the year), the Department of Conservation (as it was called then), was hands off for the legislature, and the making of games laws. The rationale was pretty simple really, why would you pay the DNR, or its biologists to do thier studies, only to have them overridden by the legislature? Answer is, you shouldn't, but thats exactly whats being done today. Furthermore, it becomes apparant there is an agenda here from certain groups, and it isn't about the protection of the fish, or for conservation purposes. Just take a look at the groups in favor of these new regs, do you see any of them that are for the common public?? I don't. I would say there was a post on this site, that pretty much sums up the logic for this, it was posted by OH-Yeah, and I think it speaks volumes about the mind set of all of this.

You mentioned 2 brothers who won a repeal on a trout stream, in fact thats true, and it was Prairie Creek in Wisconsion. Find the article and read it, you'll find some pretty incredible similarties to this issue.


----------



## turtlehead

Splitshot, we will never agree on this issue and that's fine with me. I did not take the time to write all of that to get you to bash me, I felt compelled to finally state my opinion. Well, maybe the Stones quote was an attempt to get a rise out of you, but how is that any different from your priest metaphor or your "easy fish" argument? 

As far as discrimination goes, I never said that it is fine to discriminate against anyone, protected or not. I am not convinced that these gear restrictions constitute discrimination. Anyone can fish the regulated water provided they have a fly attached to the end of their line. If you can make a better case for being discriminated against (to me and/or the courts) other than providing the definition of discrimination, I could be swayed. 

toto raises some interesting questions here and he may well have a point. Does the Northwest Ordinance apply to riparian rights and by extension the right to fish? Maybe so. Should the legislature be in the business of managing our fisheries? Probably not. Is the coldwater committee mostly made up of fly fishing groups? Without a doubt. Are the fly groups trying to advance their own agenda? Of course they are. But this doesn't mean that pushing for special regs is done with selfishness, greed, or discrimination in mind. I truly believe that most, if not all of us, on this side of the issue are doing what we think is in the best interest of the resource. 

The reason I posted here was to counter what I thought was unreasonable speculation. The idea that some secret cabal of evil fly fishing overlords somehow exerted undue political pressure on members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, Gov. Granholm, DNR biologists, Director Humphries, the NRC, MUCC, The Resource Stewards and the general public in order to establish their own private fly fishing playground is taking it too far. Alright, that may be going overboard, but you see my point.

I make no claim to the moral high ground. I don't consider my fishing methods to be superior. I like to catch trout on flies. If you want to label me an elitist, so be it (although my bank account, lifestyle and worldview would beg to differ). You guys seem well on your way to making your voices heard. You feel like you have been left out and it is your right and responsibility to do what you feel is needed to get things changed. That's how it's supposed to work. This is America, knock yourselves out. In the meantime, I'll do the same from my side and we'll see what happens.

Live long and prosper.


----------



## toto

Its nice to see that you are at least open to the idea. If you weren't I doubt you would read any of what we say.

Perhaps in time, you will see what we see, and that is the injustice of just how this particular issue came about. You have to remember that this isn't a conservation issue, it is a social issue, and I think you'll see, this is what has turned us all off.

We have mentioned the statistics, and data concerning this issue, and its relative streams; it would just make so much more sense that that people such as TU, and the DNR to show us this data, if it exists. TU says they have it, but yet, no will produce it. Thats all we're asking, if its there, show us and we can either get on their side, or it will more prove our point.

Fishing and wildlife issues, should not ever be a legislative issue, these issues need to be handled by those that have the knowledge, not for some personal agenda, or some constituents wants. If we take away the knowledge of the biologists, and what we pay them for, then we have no need for biologists. Why pay them the money, if we don't heed their advice? 

I'm just saying, all of us who are on the side of not wanting this, should be listened to, especially if we are the majority. Unfortunately, by the time this issue really got rolling, the minds on top of this issue were already made up, at least to a major degree. Ask yourself if these extra waters were designated back in 2002, then why did it take until the last hours of the Granholm administration for these waters to deemed with these new regs? Hey, I like a good conspiracy theory, just like almost everyone else, but the facts speak for themselves. TU did a good job of "stuffing the ballot box" so to speak, and made sure that their voice was heard the loudest. How did that happen, because TU was on top off it, and made sure all their members knew about it, kudos to them. Now its our turn, how long will it take to be a voice of opposing these things, at least a loud voice, not sure. But it will happen, and it needs to happen. These can't always be controlled by one side, which is the case here, but needs to have a balance, and both sides should be represented equally.


----------



## Splitshot

Turtlehead,

I didnt bash you, you did! Now that it is obvious you arguments are looking weak, you want people to believe Im bashing you. Pretty lame, Turtlehead.

You said; But this doesn't mean that pushing for special regs is done with selfishness, greed, or discrimination in mind. I truly believe that most, if not all of us, on this side of the issue are doing what we think is in the best interest of the resource. 

Where is the proof? My counter has always been if these gear regulations are in the best interest of the resource you might have a point but just believing they do without any evidence makes you look kind of silly along with all the other adjectives I used to describe you..

You are pushing and have pushed for rules that exclude people from fishing the way they choose. No one on our side has ever tried to get rules passed to exclude you from using your fly rod and we never will because we believe in fairness. We believe in protecting the fishery more than you do and we back it up by supporting the field biologist we all pay to look out for the fishery for us. The same scientist that say that you are wrong and gear restrictions do nothing to protect anything. You call it disagreement but that is clearly is not the case.

When I say you can never win an emotional argument with facts, your statement below proves exactly what I mean.



turtlehead said:


> If you can make a better case for being discriminated against (to me and/or the courts) other than providing the definition of discrimination, I could be swayed.


----------



## Whit1

turtlehead said:


> The members of this site asked to be included and were and you guys now have your organization to make your voices heard. That's how it should work. You claimed that you asked to be on the committee and were turned down based on your posts here. I can't say that I am suprised based on what I have seen. (Comparing the steering committe members to abusive priests for example). I respect your right to your opinions, and the courage of your convictions, but sometimes you come across a bit strong.
> 
> I can't speak to the past regulation battles as it was before my time as an interested trout fisherman, but this time around I thought the process was almost as open as possible. *They allowed the public to nominate waters,*


Right there is part of the problem. They asked the public to "nominate waters". That shows it was a given that the powers that be were looking for more gear reg waters. I, and others had and have no intention of "nominating" more waters for gear regs. In my email comments to Jim Dexter and Kelly Smith I stated so and followed up with my reasons for NOT declaring more stream stretches be fitted with gear regs. The DNR knew and knows that gear regs have not proven to be the panacea their proponents claim




turtlehead said:


> That the meetings and comments were dominated by the fly fishing


Of course this was to be expected, but it's not the salient point. That would be the very makeup of the original Coldwater Committee which was, basically, made up of mainly those organizations who would and did nominate new water for gear regs.

Quite frankly the only reason four more anglers, all opposed to having gear regulated water, were added to the Coldwater Committee is that, finally, through MS, a serious protest was made towards not only adding more gear regulated water, but also the existing water. I am of the belief that the DNR fishery folks were relieved to have another set of voices that spoke for the average MI stream trout angler rather than only hearing from those who want to exclude anglers from "their" streams who might catch "their" fish.

Those four came to the game in the last inning and could do little to affect the outcome. In no way were they privy to most of the "work" of the Coldwater Committee. To their credit, as well as Splitshot, Ranger Ray, and others, they are going to work hard to reverse this trend in trout stream regulations that seek to bar the majority of anglers from fishing on public waters.

Is their a conspiracy afoot? From the DNR I'd say no, but from those gear reg advocates who were on the Coldwater Committee..............Absolutely!


----------



## The Downstream Drift

I've gotta give Turtlehead some credit here guys. He is one of the only fly guys that has stuck around to talk about this issue. While all of you guys know my stance on these issues it is nice to see someone come out and stand up for "the other side". 

Let's face it guys, while we may not have intentionally "bullied" fly guys out of these conversations alot of them may have felt this way. There are some pretty strong personalities here and I could easily see how those who are pro-gear regs would abandon these threads pretty early. This abandonment may have came from the responses we gave or from the lack of data to support their opinions. Either way, we lost alot of fly guys in this conversation.

Thanks for adding to the thread Turtlehead. A voice from "the other side" is, in my opinion, welcome since so many pro-gear reg guys have choosen not to continue the conversations. Keeping these guys in the conversation keeps us thinking (not that we'll stop) and continues to make us research the issue further and further. And who knows, maybe someday one of the pro-gear reg guys will show us a study that we haven't seen that will make us look a little harder at our own ideas. Anything is possible, right?


----------



## Whit1

toto said:


> Now that I've thought a little more about this issue, I would say it is imperative that TU, or anyone else, show proof of the loss of fish, while using bait. If that is TU's stance, then it would their *obligation to prove their point*, they didn't do that, nor have they since.


I would think it would be to TU's best interest to share with those interested parties, their members, other trout anglers, DNR, NRC, the legislature (if the need arises), and other interested parties, the data they have that supports the imposition of gear regulations to trout streams. I and others who have choosen to fight said regs are open minded enough to take a look at what is offered.

In this regard a point needs to be made that many of us have indeed looked at various studies that have been held up as reasons for the implementation of gear regs. We haven't come into this effort blind to those arguments that support GRs, but have found valid counterpoints to them.

I also have to chuckle....nothing to do with your post above Mr. Toto....with the comment about how gear reg guys are not posting in this thread or forum for that matter. The word "bash" is tossed about and we've seen it before on these boards in many areas of discussion. Just because a member's comments are taken up and disagreed with isn't "bashing", but rather a normal part of boards such as these. 

Actually there has been far more "bashing" of bait anglers.......and certainly some of them are deserving as is true of those who fish with flies and/or hardware (lining and snagging). I speak of comments, made for public consumption, about how bait anglers tend to be "slobs" (the infamous Schram quote) or how some ladies who fish are intimidated by bait anglers and feel unsafe in their presence.

As for the oft used tactic of bringing up hooking mortality rates and studies that "prove" bait hooking mortality rates are higher there are more recent studies that show the rates to be much lower than previously thought. Our own DNR has stated that bait fishing doesn't have a negative impact on trout populations here in MI. Earlier threads have given the specific quotes and sources of this. Not being at home now I don't have this easily at hand, but they are out there.

As I stated in another thread hooking mortality only comes into play if a trout is actually hooked and especially if it is caught. Those who apply hooking mortality as a reason for wanting gear regs are implying that the use of bait just about guarantees that an angler will be catching trout.....show me a person that believes in "guarantees" of catching fish and I'll show you a) an ad man b) a con artist c) a liar d) a fool e) all of the above...:lol:......with gusto.

Simply put gear regs are an attempt by one group of anglers to keep another group of anglers off the very best trout fishing waters in the state. Of course some of these are true believers, but I suspect that deep within the hearts of many there is a need and desire to limit competition.

If there indeed are compelling reasons for gear regs in order to "protect" trout populations (and size) then why not apply them to marginal trout streams where there is a demonstrated need to "protect" trout? This has been brought up many times and is always scoffed at by those who promote GRs. Scoffing is their only answer and it just doesn't pass muster anymore. I'll even nominate two rivers for such regulations...........The White R. upstream of the Hesperia Dam to M37 at White Cloud and the entire S. Branch of the PM.


----------



## TC-fisherman

The Downstream Drift said:


> Let's face it guys, while we may not have intentionally "bullied" fly guys out of these conversations alot of them may have felt this way. ......... This abandonment may have came from the responses we gave or from the lack of data to support their opinions.


It is not from lack of data to support their opinions. I've posted studies in similar threads for years that are conveniently dismissed under the "you can find a study that proves anything" excuse. 

how do you respond to crap like this?


> Of course some of these are true believers, but I suspect that deep within the hearts of many there is a need and desire to limit competition.


what data is there that would prove this wrong?

It's a complete bizarro world here. A group of fishermen who advocate protecting the fishery through restricting a type of fishing that accidentally kills more trout than any other type of fishing are elitists, greedy, selfish, just protecting "their fish" on "their streams". 

Meanwhile those that advocate against any restrictions that coincidentally match how they personally fish are not acting out of greedy self-interest, are not willfully ignorant when they ignore any study they don't agree with, but instead they are the ones whose true motivation is the best interest of the fishery.

For the same reason people don't respond to the loud obnoxious drunk at the end of the bar is the same reason alot of people don't respond to these threads.


----------



## turtlehead

toto, I can't argue with anything you said in your last post. I agree, let's get all of the studies out there and make sure every voice is heard.

DD, you have been a voice of reason around here and I appreciate that. 

Whit, I agree with much of what you have to say as well. There's no way I will defend the infamous "slob" comment, but that was not made by Mr. Schramm. Meyerson made an unfortunate mistake in his article and he corrected it two days later. The credit for that idiotic comment goes to Mr. Schwikert http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/10/proposed_plan_for_gear_restric.html

As for the oft repeated quote that bait fishing has no impact on trout populations in MI, that is only part of the quote from the DNR. From the original proposal:

_During the most recent and previous reviews of inland trout and salmon regulations, Fisheries Division has made it clear to anglers that existing trout and salmon regulations on inland streams protect trout populations from overexploitation. However, unique and diverse fishing
opportunities may be enhanced by placing more gear restrictive regulations on limited stream reaches throughout the state._

Then from FO 213.10 

_Aside from the biological and physical factors that must be considered in determining whether or not a stream should be included in the gear restricted category, there are other issues that are important, even critical, to the discussion. Political realities and social pressures/nuances at the local, regional, or state level are non-tangible criteria that factor into the equation. Certain user groups, and many anglers, in general favor the concept of moving additional waters into the categories that have gear restriction regulations. For others, further restricting fishing opportunities based on tackle type is considered unfair, overzealous, and/or not necessary to &#8220;protect&#8221; any fisheries.

This last point has some validity. During the 1998-2000 review of Inland Trout/Salmon regulations, Fisheries Division made it clear to anglers, that for all practical purposes, existing trout/salmon regulations on inland streams protect trout biologically. We suggested that by placing more restrictive regulations on stream reaches (gear restrictions), unique and diverse fishing opportunities could be enhanced throughout the state. This concept is actually part of the philosophical argument for gear restricted categories._

These documents explain that gear restrictions are not put in place to protect the fishery, rather to enhance fisheries by trying to produce bigger (and more) trout. They lay out biological requirements a stream needs to have to achieve this. (Which is why marginal streams don't make the cut) And with the exception of the PM, it seems that they followed their own criteria pretty closely. 

I guess that's about all I have to say right now. You guys have given me a lot to think about this year and I'm here to return the favor. It's the middle of winter and I felt like coming in to mix it up a little. Like Whit said, that's what the internet is for. And porn.


----------



## fishinDon

turtlehead said:


> toto, I can't argue with anything you said in your last post. I agree, let's get all of the studies out there and make sure every voice is heard.
> 
> DD, you have been a voice of reason around here and I appreciate that.
> 
> Whit, I agree with much of what you have to say as well. There's no way I will defend the infamous "slob" comment, but that was not made by Mr. Schramm. Meyerson made an unfortunate mistake in his article and he corrected it two days later. The credit for that idiotic comment goes to Mr. Schwikert http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/10/proposed_plan_for_gear_restric.html
> 
> As for the oft repeated quote that bait fishing has no impact on trout populations in MI, that is only part of the quote from the DNR. From the original proposal:
> 
> _During the most recent and previous reviews of inland trout and salmon regulations, Fisheries Division has made it clear to anglers that existing trout and salmon regulations on inland streams protect trout populations from overexploitation. However, unique and diverse fishing
> opportunities may be enhanced by placing more gear restrictive regulations on limited stream reaches throughout the state._
> 
> Then from FO 213.10
> 
> _Aside from the biological and physical factors that must be considered in determining whether or not a stream should be included in the gear restricted category, there are other issues that are important, even critical, to the discussion. Political realities and social pressures/nuances at the local, regional, or state level are non-tangible criteria that factor into the equation. Certain user groups, and many anglers, in general favor the concept of moving additional waters into the categories that have gear restriction regulations. For others, further restricting fishing opportunities based on tackle type is considered unfair, overzealous, and/or not necessary to &#8220;protect&#8221; any fisheries.
> 
> This last point has some validity. During the 1998-2000 review of Inland Trout/Salmon regulations, Fisheries Division made it clear to anglers, that for all practical purposes, existing trout/salmon regulations on inland streams protect trout biologically. We suggested that by placing more restrictive regulations on stream reaches (gear restrictions), unique and diverse fishing opportunities could be enhanced throughout the state. This concept is actually part of the philosophical argument for gear restricted categories._
> 
> These documents explain that gear restrictions are not put in place to protect the fishery, rather to enhance fisheries by trying to produce bigger (and more) trout. They lay out biological requirements a stream needs to have to achieve this. (Which is why marginal streams don't make the cut) And with the exception of the PM, it seems that they followed their own criteria pretty closely.
> 
> I guess that's about all I have to say right now. You guys have given me a lot to think about this year and I'm here to return the favor. It's the middle of winter and I felt like coming in to mix it up a little. Like Whit said, that's what the internet is for. And porn.


Turtlehead - 
Even if we don't agree on this issue, I have to say that I appreciate the points you made. You're right, gear restrictions were not designed to "protect" our trout. They don't need any additional protection - the combo of the statewide size and bag limits is already doing a find job, as is clearly spelled out in the text you pasted in from FO-213. 

The point of gear restrictions is to enhance the fishery. I get that. I think the reason that a lot of us end up going back to the "protect" thing is that we hear it over and over from those pushing restrictions. Three guides spoke at the November NRC meeting and spoke openly to the commission about the need to "protect" the wild fishery on the PM, and asked the committee to not only approve the current restrictions, but to carry them all the way down to Walhalla. Claiming that the fishery was essentially being "fished out" and was in dire need of "protection," even though the DNR has been very clear that none of our trout populations are in any danger of over-exploitation.

So now that we all agree that the PM, nor any of our other rivers need "protection," lets look at the actual purpose of gear restrictions - to enhance fish numbers, and more importantly, size. The DNR's review of the proposals for gear restricted streams that came out in the spring recommended that PM receive no further restrictions because:


"Special restrictions were implemented in the M-37 to Gleason&#8217;s Landing segment of the mainstem in 1970 when no restrictions were in force from April 25 to May 30, flies only from June 1 through October 15, with a creel limit of 5 and standard size limits. In 2000, the Type 7 regulation was implemented which included year-round fishing with artificial flies and catch and release only.

Fish population estimates were available for 23 years between 1973 and 2009 for the Type 7 section of the Pere Marquette River. These data provide no evidence that gear and harvest limits have improved brown trout population abundance or size structure. However, because of the long history and popularity of gear restrictions on the M-37 to Gleason&#8217;s Landing section of river we recommend that these regulations continue."​
This is quote from our own area DNR biologist, based of of 23 years of shocking data spread over 37 years. And his conclusion was that the gear restrictions were not "enhancing" the fishery. I have a copy of this study, if anyone wants it, PM me.

The point is that gear restrictions do little, if anything to enhance the fishery. And the DNR knows this. As further evidence, I offer up that soon we will also have the results of another study available from the Black River research area, which has been underway for 5 years now. I emailed the biologist in charge of this study and I've seen the preliminary data and conclusions. It shows the same thing as the Pere Marquette data. 3 years of bait exclusions starting in '08, increased size limits and reduced bag limits did nothing for the brook trout population there. It's the same as it ever was. And is absolutely comparable not only to the way it was before the study started, but to all the Type 1 and Type 2 sections (5 I believe) that were shocked as a control. Incidentally, it also concludes that Type 2 regs don't do anything either. 

Here's a single paragraph from the Black River research paper:

"The best data available for assessing the effects of artificial lures regulations were collected at the springs index station. Population estimates were not conducted at Tin Shanty Bridge between 2000 and 2007 when Type 2 regulations were in effect (Figure 5). However, at the springs station, five consecutive population estimates were conducted from 2006 to 2010 and hence data for comparing brook trout density under Type 2 regulations and artificial lures regulations were available at this site (Figure 6). No significant differences in abundance of larger brook trout were found between the period when bait was permitted and the period when artificial lures were required in this stream reach."​
So now we know the our trout don't need protection, and the restrictive regulations are not enhancing the fishery. The only thing left is "unique." I will say, flies only water is "unique." The only justifcation for this is "social" considerations, I'll leave it at that. 

Incidentally, the research area of the Black River was enrolled into the gear restricted category this year with the new package of restrictions - after looking that this data I really have to wonder why. Science shows it doesn't enhance, and this particular stretch of stream requires you to drive 10-15 miles of dirt roads across the pigeon river state forest to even get to an access point. I don't think we're in any danger of over-fishing here.

This, to me, is a 100% social issue. If you "like" the idea of gear restrictions, then you're for them, if you don't like the idea, well, then you're against them. I've yet to see biological science that will support that they either protect or enhance the fishery. If anyone has that I would be happy to read it with an open mind.

Don


----------



## Ranger Ray

Very well stated Don.

Interesting that a study area on the Black that showed gear restrictions do little if anything to enhance the fishery, were made special regulations. Kind of defies logic. Unless one looks at the quality of the fishery to begin with. But of course, truth can be made out to be conspiracy. 

My new book will be out in June. "How to make a quality fishery into a fly fishery. Claim it needs to be saved despite itself."


----------



## Splitshot

Ray, I'm not buying your book because I know the ending already.



turtlehead said:


> However, unique and diverse fishing opportunities may be enhanced by placing more gear restrictive regulations on limited stream reaches throughout the state


How about this statement:However, unique and diverse fishing opportunities may be, fishermen using flies may completely decimated the fish population. Without science to back up generalizations like the one quoted above or the one I just made up are meaningless. Anybody can say anything, but it doesnt s justify anything.



turtlehead said:


> Aside from the biological and physical factors that must be considered in determining whether or not a stream should be included in the gear restricted category, there are other issues that are important, even critical, to the discussion. Political realities and social pressures/nuances at the local, regional, or state level are non-tangible criteria that factor into the equation.......


We understand that social, political and even philosophical factors go into many decisions. A trophy regulation is one such example. First some fishermen may push or lobby for more trophy waters because they would rather catch one trophy fish as opposed to a dozen keeper sized fish. Seems reasonable. Before making a determination for trophy waters the DNR will look at the scientific data to evaluate if the stream is capable of producing trophy fish. After that is determined they must decide how much water should be regulated. So to deny that social or political factors are not part of the process is not real.

The DNR also has the responsibility to rescind the rule if after a period of time more trophy fish are not produced. That is exactly what they did on the Muskegon River. People were saying there were more trophy fish, but all the data proved other wise to a high degree of certainty. Please pay attention to my use of the word proved.

None of us object to the use of politics, but we do reject the idea of using political or social factors without science as an excuse to exclude one group of fishermen or to discriminate against them.


----------



## Whit1

TC-fisherman said:


> what data is there that would prove this wrong?
> 
> It's a complete bizarro world here. A group of fishermen who advocate protecting the fishery through restricting a type of fishing that accidentally kills more trout than any other type of fishing are elitists, greedy, selfish, just protecting "their fish" on "their streams".
> 
> Meanwhile those that advocate against any restrictions that coincidentally match how they personally fish are not acting out of greedy self-interest, are not willfully ignorant when they ignore any study they don't agree with, but instead they are the ones whose true motivation is the best interest of the fishery.
> 
> For the same reason people don't respond to the loud obnoxious drunk at the end of the bar is the same reason alot of people don't respond to these threads.



I had typed up and submitted my own reply to this "bizzaro" world comment, seeing as it was pointed my way, but after posting it and reading FishinDon's commentary above I couldn't improve on what he said so I deleted my post.

I do find it interesting that TC responds to a comment that mentions the fact that pro gear restriction advocates aren't posting in here because of being bashed by taking......dare I say it........a bash at this "one of those" anglers who are against gear regs......:lol:


----------



## Whit1

Ranger Ray said:


> Very well stated Don.
> 
> Interesting that a study area on the Black that showed gear restrictions do little if anything to enhance the fishery, were made special regulations. *Kind of defies logic. *Unless one looks at the quality of the fishery to begin with. But of course, truth can be made out to be conspiracy.
> 
> My new book will be out in June. "How to make a quality fishery into a fly fishery. *Claim it needs to be saved despite itself.*"


Kind of like if one lived in a bizzaro world.....:lol:.......sorry TC, but I just couldn't resist. The comment here is said in all humor rather than rancor.


----------



## Boozer

The Downstream Drift said:


> Splitshot, I do not mean to make this sound negative in any way but I speak to our areas fisheries biologist at least twice a week. As a matter of fact he called me today to discuss the pre-assessement project I am currently working on for the Fish & Wildlife Population BUI in the Clinton River AOC. While you may not know my background others on this site (including FishinDon) do. Trust me when I say that I am very much in contact with MDNRE Fisheries Division.
> 
> As for not needing 50 years of data to assess a single river you may very well be correct. But, as I mentioned earlier, you cannot accurately say that the gear restrictions on the PM alone have either hurt or improved the fishery without prior knowledge of how the fishery was prior to the restrictions. This is a simple scientific test. You have to have a control set of data on the subject (in this case the PM) prior to the restrictions in order to later evaluate the effects of them. If you do not have prior data there is no way to gauge the success or impairments the restrictions have caused.
> 
> In my mind this would be like putting in new fish habitat and claiming that it greatly improved the fish population when you have no population data prior to the new habitat being put in place. You are simply making assumptions without prior data. And telling me that you can use the data from another river system as a model simply does not work.


Perhaps a bit too simple for some, but I do feel you have a perfect way to compare the effects of gear restrictions on the PM.

Simply take the bottom 5 miles of flies only water and compare them with the top 5 miles of un-restricted water. This way you have two joining sections of river which were managed in two totally different ways.

From there you simply see just how healthy both sections of river are and what the fish populations are.

You don't need 50+ years of data, the river has been keeping it all along for you, unfortunately many aren't listening to her...


----------



## Boozer

The Downstream Drift said:


> I have thought of a good example of what I am trying to say here...
> 
> Last summer I helped the fisheries division complete a trout population survey at four different sites along Paint Creek. We follow the GLEAS Procedure 51 Sampling Protcol and collected good population data at these four sites.
> 
> Next year the new regulations will go in to effect on 5 miles of the creek. It will now be artificial only, 2 fish a day, and 14 inch size limit within this 5 mile section.
> 
> Now if we were to return to the creek in three or four years (which we plan to do) the population data can then be compared to the 2010 pre-regulation data to accurately determine the effects of any changes. This will give us the chance to either stay with the regs because we see a postive change or to remove the regs because the trout populations have gone unchanged. Because of the 2010 data we have the ability to gauge the improvement or impairments on Paint Creek.
> 
> I'm trying hard to maintain my point here but you should be able to see what I mean. You can't say something is improved or impaired if you don't know where you started from.


You are incorrect that this study will tell you anything about the effects of gear restrictions if that is what you were insinuating.

The reasoning is simple, the type of gear used may not make one bit of difference and the creel and size limit changes make all the changes. However, if there are positive results, you can bet there will be those hailing it as a victory that gear restrictions do indeed enhance a fishery, yet this study will in reality not show whether or not they did in any way, shape or form...


----------

