# Mortality question.



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Ranger Ray said:


> Andy's later studies show contrary to this study. The Smoky Mountain studies and Wisconsin studies also. We talked to Andy during the Black River study. Not sure where he is now, maybe he would take your phone call.


I see... the only time "science" matters is when you agree with it. After all it's only a detailed 40+ year study of a single stream, it can't be valid.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

TC-fisherman said:


> I see... the only time "science" matters is when you agree with it. After all it's only a detailed 40+ year study of a single stream, it can't be valid.


I have no problem with the study. The relevancy of it I do. Talk to Andy, report back to us. I could tell you what we got out of the conversation with Andy, but it would only be my word. We know how butt retentive some get about that.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I may be missing something here, but with this study on hunt creek it says 50% mortality right? If so, isn't right in the middle of what Dexter, therefore his statement is correct, unless again, I'm missing something.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

toto said:


> I may be missing something here, but with this study on hunt creek it says 50% mortality right? If so, isn't right in the middle of what Dexter, therefore his statement is correct, unless again, I'm missing something.


After sifting thru all the data i don't think you can argue Dexters statement on mortality.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

> No other government agency renders their powers to the people when a subject is neutral. The police? Nope. The FDA? Nope. Fire? Nope. Courts? Nope. Why the DNR has the obligation to is puzzling.


Ranger,
Seriously? That is exactly what the government does almost all the time. The FDA is crafting some new regulations and the public voices its opinions through lobbyists, letter campaigns, petitions etc. The SEC, same thing. The FCC, Depts. of Ed., Interior. Housing and on and on. They all do it. At the state level its the DOT, SOS, Agriculture, Energy Labor and Economic Growth etc. They all ask what the public thinks about new regulations and hold meetings with concerned parties. The DNR didnt do this for many years and now they do; responding to the people who pay the bills instead of dictating to them. I guess you must have never dealt with government before this issue or you would have been aware that talking to the public is SOP in America.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Ranger,
> Seriously? That is exactly what the government does almost all the time. The FDA is crafting some new regulations and the public voices its opinions through lobbyists, letter campaigns, petitions etc. The SEC, same thing. The FCC, Depts. of Ed., Interior. Housing and on and on. They all do it. At the state level its the DOT, SOS, Agriculture, Energy Labor and Economic Growth etc. They all ask what the public thinks about new regulations and hold meetings with concerned parties. The DNR didnt do this for many years and now they do; responding to the people who pay the bills instead of dictating to them. I guess you must have never dealt with government before this issue or you would have been aware that talking to the public is SOP in America.


Lobbying at the state level is different than taking a popular vote of the public and abdicating your duty and oversight to them. 

Past posts you have stated the social has always been part of fisheries management because it fit the story you were trying to craft. Now you say the DNR didn't ask for social opinion for years and now they are listening to the people to fit the story you are trying to craft.  Oh and the DNR has been lobbied as long as I can remember.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranger Ray said:


> Lobbying at the state level is different than taking a popular vote of the public and abdicating your duty and oversight to them.
> 
> Past posts you have stated the social has always been part of fisheries management because it fit the story you were trying to craft. Now you say the DNR didn't ask for social opinion for years and now they are listening to the people to fit the story you are trying to craft.  Oh and the DNR has been lobbied as long as I can remember.


Do you ever get anything right? When has the DNR ever decided an issue exclusively by popular vote? Never. How has the Department abdicated its duty and oversight? It hasn't, this is Ranger Ray's new canard that he will hold onto until constant correction makes him drop it. Just like when you used to say that social considerations don't enter into game management. We settled that quite a while ago; that was when I explained to you that no action taken on behalf of the public good could be without social considerations because the public good is itself a social consideration. That was also when I said that the DNR has always considered the social, but in that case it was only to extent that as a part of society they could not be operating outside of it. The case is different today in that the DNR now actively seeks out public opinion when biology does not dictate a single course of action. When a critical biological need is seen they still don't ask the public e.g. the Betsie closure this year. This distinction may be a bit too fine for you but I don't doubt your friends can explain it to you. In no way does the DNR's respect for the public equate to an abdication of its duties. How do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Do you ever get anything right? When has the DNR ever decided an issue exclusively by popular vote? Never. How has the Department abdicated its duty and oversight? It hasn't, this is Ranger Ray's new canard that he will hold onto until constant correction makes him drop it. Just like when you used to say that social considerations don't enter into game management. We settled that quite a while ago; that was when I explained to you that no action taken on behalf of the public good could be without social considerations because the public good is itself a social consideration. That was also when I said that the DNR has always considered the social, but in that case it was only to extent that as a part of society they could not be operating outside of it. The case is different today in that the DNR now actively seeks out public opinion when biology does not dictate a single course of action. When a critical biological need is seen they still don't ask the public e.g. the Betsie closure this year. This distinction may be a bit too fine for you but I don't doubt your friends can explain it to you. In no way does the DNR's respect for the public equate to an abdication of its duties. How do you come up with this stuff?


The last round of gear regulations were popular vote. The biologist said the gear restrictions weren't needed, the DNR said the people wanted it, used the majority emails for it as confirmation and pushed it based on it being the will of the people. That is a vote dude. That and my new canard is being reviewed as we speak. People of higher pay grade then me have agreed with its premise. Be interesting to see the outcome. Always twisting and tweaking your stories to fit perfectly what you said and what you meant. Let me know when you figure it out. Oh wait, you're never wrong. So goes the world according to Kzoo.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranger Ray said:


> The last round of gear regulations were popular vote.


No, they werent. They were just like the brook trout regs in the UP last year. The DNR reviewed the studies, saw no unacceptable level of harm in any of its options so it took public opinion into consideration. Thats nothing like abdicating its duty though I can see why you want and need to put this new spin on the story, your old tales have all been exposed as barely defensible



> The biologist said the gear restrictions weren't needed,



Like this one. You really have to twist it to get the meaning you are going for. To paraphrase the quote that was in MLive Dexter said: If there is a strong biological need for a course of action Fisheries does it because that is there duty. When there is no strong need then Fisheries looks at the feasibility of proposals, considers public support for the proposals as well as other public policy issues.
You have misrepresented what he said because either it was too complex for you to grasp, the portions that contradict your views could not penetrate your delusion or you understood it and chose to misrepresent it.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Like this one. You really have to twist it to get the meaning you are going for. To paraphrase the quote that was in MLive Dexter said: If there is a strong biological need for a course of action Fisheries does it because that is there duty. When there is no strong need then Fisheries looks at the feasibility of proposals, considers public support for the proposals as well as other public policy issues.
> You have misrepresented what he said because either it was too complex for you to grasp, the portions that contradict your views could not penetrate your delusion or you understood it and chose to misrepresent it.


That's funny, they had to disqualify the majority to herald the vote of the minority as the majority in the last round of gear restrictions. Why would they have to do that? Hmm, maybe because they needed to show a vote of the populace for the regulations were in favor. Your rosy picture of how the DNR came to the conclusion on the last regulations is delusional. It was politics. How do we know this? The DNR themselves told us. I know its hard for you the man of all knowledge to not have been included in such talks and information, but its fact. As most can comprehend politics are nothing like you present above in your scenario. Just as the no kill section of the PM was a vote of the people at the meeting that decided it, 16 people by the way, so was this last round of gear regulations. Game management was never meant to be by social will of the populace, although social considerations are involved. Sorry Charlie.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

> That's funny, they had to disqualify the majority to herald the vote of the minority as the majority in the last round of gear restrictions. Why would they have to do that? Hmm, maybe because they needed to show a vote of the populace for the regulations were in favor.


 Oh boy, are we back to _The Mystery of the Missing Petition_?



> Your rosy picture of how the DNR came to the conclusion on the last regulations is delusional. It was politics. How do we know this? The DNR themselves told us. I know its hard for you the man of all knowledge to not have been included in such talks and information, but its fact. As most can comprehend politics are nothing like you present above in your scenario.


 Of course, none of the written accounts of are accurate but your recollections are. Just like your memory of Dexter's statement on mortality was spot on (oops, guess not) and the way you remembered what he said in that MLive article was razor sharp (dang, you blew another one). All you seem to have left is your memory because the public facts are leaving you high and dry. By the way, did you know that the entire standard for testing safeties and controls on boilers was written by a committee of government employees and private citizens. Try telling your state inspector that you won't follow it because you don't believe the public should help craft regulations.:lol:



> Just as the no kill section of the PM was a vote of the people at the meeting that decided it, 16 people by the way, so was this last round of gear regulations. Game management was never meant to be by social will of the populace, although social considerations are involved. Sorry Charlie.


 I don't believe that first part one bit. If you have some evidence that the DNR actually gave up its regulatory power to a group of private citizens you should produce it. I'm going to guess that all you've got is your memory, maybe a friend who will say he remembers it that way too* and some secret highly placed source. Spare me the histrionics, it's all just internet bluster.

*Hopefully not one of the same guys who remembered the Dexter mortality stuff wrong too. That was just three years ago and the no-kill was thirteen but I'm sure there hasn't been any evolution of memories in the intervening years.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

You have a propensity to present the perfect tailored story of how the last round of gear restriction were the end result of the written methodology. That all regulations and procedures were followed therefore it was the perfect conclusion. Then there is reality. When one looks at the chronology of gear restrictions and flys only water from 1999 on, its apparent manipulation and prejudice was there from the beginning. From the defining of Blue Ribbon Trout Waters on up till this last shameful debacle we call FO213. It was a perfect manipulation of the system by special interests. Well done men of great philosophical ideology. But the days of the good old boy clubs and no one questioning you is over. You argue inanely irrelevant points to confuse and muddle. You complain about I's not dotted and T's not crossed, all irrelevant BS. This buds for you point man of befuddlement. May the crown of your preservationist organization be placed upon your head. We are here to stay. Life is good, cant wait till tomorrow.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Impressive facts you have there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

kzoofisher said:


> No, they weren&#8217;t. They were just like the brook trout regs in the UP last year. The DNR reviewed the studies, saw no unacceptable level of harm in any of its options so it took public opinion into consideration. That&#8217;s nothing like abdicating its duty though I can see why you want and need to put this new spin on the story, your old tales have all been exposed as barely defensible
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kzoo - I have no dog in this fight, between you and Ray, but I think you've taken what Ray said out of context, applied it to Dexter, then proved that wrong kinda and declared victory. 

Since I lived through this minute by minute, I'll provide clarification on what the biologist from the Pere Marquette said regarding gear restrictions on the Pere Marquette in the published "A Review of Michigan Trout Streams Nominated For Gear Restrictive Regulations" in May, 2010. The whole PDF is available here - http://glfsa.org/science-and-research/ The 6th link. The biologist reviewed both biological and social criteria in coming to his conclusion. His conclusion was, of course, not what we ended up with.

In regards to the "historical" section from M-37 to Gleason's Landing:


> 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.


In Regards to the new nomination by the "public" for the entire Main Stem of the Pere Marquette:



> Unit: CLMMU
> County: Lake & Mason
> Waterbody: Pere Marquette River
> Segment(s): Entire mainstream (67 Miles)
> ...


Thanks,
Don


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

Kzoo
What do you need, to hear it from the horses mouth?
I have a recording from a meeting on the 13th of march that the mortality IS 30 to 70 percent.
IF you don't believe it, try e-mailing Jim Dexter yourself...I am very sure he will tell you the very same.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Don,
I'm not convinced that I misread what Ray was referring to because he has had two days to come back and show I was wrong but he hasn't. Maybe now that I've shown him he has the opportunity to catch me misreading his post he'll triumphantly return. In any case, the second part of your post shows that the CLLMU felt that additional gear restrictionsn were not necessary and the local public did not support them. The results of the public meetings in Bitely and Cadillac certainly showed that local support was very low. The restrictions went through anyway because voting did not decide the issue. The CLLMU's recommendations did not decide the issue because as you well know they were recommendations, not orders. These things can always change as the go up the food chain, even all the way to the NRC as Dir. Creagh learned last fall. What were the final considerations that tipped the scales in Lansing? I have no idea. The one take away I think we can all agree on is that the DNR learned a valuable lesson about its methods of gauging public opinion and has worked hard to improve on that score. I am certainly encouraged that the recent record setting surveys have shown public support for more conservative regulations and for unique fishing opportunities.

The quote you have on the flies only section is interesting. I've seen it before and have wondered what weight, if any, fishing pressure is given in the study. I don't doubt that pressure is much much greater now than it was in 1973, especially pressure during fall and spring spawning seasons, yet the brown trout populations have remained constant. I should probably get off my lazy ____ and write Mr. Tonello to see what he knows about it. It would be difficult to change the pressure on the PM to see what the results would be, but on a river with less access and pressure like the Pine an experiment could be done. First a population survey would have to be done, then a few well placed articles mentioning the success of anglers like my friend Brad could be published to increase awareness of the fine fishing on the Pine. Brad's method by the way is to float between access points in one of those inflatable pontoon boats. He drifts crickets into holes and likely spots and does embarrassingly well on 15"-20" fish. I don't doubt that a couple of articles, maybe a story on MOOD with a fisherman holding up some nice fish and grinning like a possum eating bumblebees, and the pressure on the Pine would increase considerably. It might also be helpful to include information on fisheman's rights to access water and walk above the high water mark while avoiding obstacles so that more fisherman would be encouraged to take advantage of one of our great rivers. Let that pressure have five years or so to take effect and do another survey to see if it did. I don't know that anything like this has ever been tried. If the DNR doesn't have the funds I suppose TU might be approached to fund it. Something to think about, anyway.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Don,
> I'm not convinced that I misread what Ray was referring to because he has had two days to come back and show I was wrong but he hasn't. Maybe now that I've shown him he has the opportunity to catch me misreading his post he'll triumphantly return. In any case, the second part of your post shows that the CLLMU felt that additional gear restrictionsn were not necessary and the local public did not support them. The results of the public meetings in Bitely and Cadillac certainly showed that local support was very low. The restrictions went through *anyway because voting did not decide the issue*. The CLLMU's recommendations did not decide the issue because as you well know they were recommendations, not orders. These things can always change as the go up the food chain, even all the way to the NRC as Dir. Creagh learned last fall. What were the final considerations that tipped the scales in Lansing? I have no idea. The one take away I think we can all agree on is that the DNR learned a valuable lesson about its methods of gauging public opinion and has worked hard to improve on that score. I am certainly encouraged that the recent record setting surveys have shown public support for more conservative regulations and for unique fishing opportunities.


Kzoo, the antithesis to reality. You were wrong, was no need for me to reply, as I am sure most others observed as Don did. I especially like this:


Kzoo said:


> Maybe now that I've shown him he has the opportunity to catch me misreading his post he'll triumphantly return.


Well I return once again to show the people there is reality and then there is Kzoo's theory. From the Fisheries:



> "Based on public comments received during the September, October, and November meetings of the NRC and after further consultation with members of the CRSC, our final recommendation to the director was to add various gear restriction regulations on 81.5 miles of trout streams."


They then go on to show the polling numbers to justify the "public comments." 

As we have stated and we keep showing, it was political. Why? Because the DNR themselves told us. They used the populace vote of the people to justify it. Although they had to throw out the majority that was against it to promote the minority as a majority. Hello! Hello! Are you out there?


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

kzoofisher said:


> Don,
> I'm not convinced that I misread what Ray was referring to because he has had two days to come back and show I was wrong but he hasn't. Maybe now that I've shown him he has the opportunity to catch me misreading his post he'll triumphantly return. In any case, the second part of your post shows that the CLLMU felt that additional gear restrictionsn were not necessary and the local public did not support them. The results of the public meetings in Bitely and Cadillac certainly showed that local support was very low. The restrictions went through anyway because voting did not decide the issue. The CLLMU's recommendations did not decide the issue because as you well know they were recommendations, not orders. These things can always change as the go up the food chain, even all the way to the NRC as Dir. Creagh learned last fall. What were the final considerations that tipped the scales in Lansing? I have no idea. The one take away I think we can all agree on is that the DNR learned a valuable lesson about its methods of gauging public opinion and has worked hard to improve on that score. I am certainly encouraged that the recent record setting surveys have shown public support for more conservative regulations and for unique fishing opportunities.
> 
> The quote you have on the flies only section is interesting. I've seen it before and have wondered what weight, if any, fishing pressure is given in the study. I don't doubt that pressure is much much greater now than it was in 1973, especially pressure during fall and spring spawning seasons, yet the brown trout populations have remained constant. I should probably get off my lazy ____ and write Mr. Tonello to see what he knows about it. It would be difficult to change the pressure on the PM to see what the results would be, but on a river with less access and pressure like the Pine an experiment could be done. First a population survey would have to be done, then a few well placed articles mentioning the success of anglers like my friend Brad could be published to increase awareness of the fine fishing on the Pine. Brad's method by the way is to float between access points in one of those inflatable pontoon boats. He drifts crickets into holes and likely spots and does embarrassingly well on 15"-20" fish. I don't doubt that a couple of articles, maybe a story on MOOD with a fisherman holding up some nice fish and grinning like a possum eating bumblebees, and the pressure on the Pine would increase considerably. It might also be helpful to include information on fisheman's rights to access water and walk above the high water mark while avoiding obstacles so that more fisherman would be encouraged to take advantage of one of our great rivers. Let that pressure have five years or so to take effect and do another survey to see if it did. I don't know that anything like this has ever been tried. If the DNR doesn't have the funds I suppose TU might be approached to fund it. Something to think about, anyway.


 I used to fish the PM quite a bit (for resident trout) up til the mid 90's, the river was never crowded.
I didn't even see guides that often.

I fished the entire stretch from both the middle & little south branch all the way down to & a little past rainbow rapids.
I always caught a lot of fish, with plenty of nice fish.

The only reason I quit fishing the PM at the time is because I moved and am much closer to the upper & middle Manistee.

It wasn't until that damn movie came out that the river started to get crowded.

The best parts of the Pine are kinda difficult/hazardous wading for the avg trout fisherman.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

kzoofisher said:


> Don,
> I'm not convinced that I misread what Ray was referring to because he has had two days to come back and show I was wrong but he hasn't. Maybe now that I've shown him he has the opportunity to catch me misreading his post he'll triumphantly return. In any case, the second part of your post shows that the CLLMU felt that additional gear restrictionsn were not necessary and the local public did not support them. The results of the public meetings in Bitely and Cadillac certainly showed that local support was very low. The restrictions went through anyway because voting did not decide the issue. The CLLMU's recommendations did not decide the issue because as you well know they were recommendations, not orders. These things can always change as the go up the food chain, even all the way to the NRC as Dir. Creagh learned last fall. What were the final considerations that tipped the scales in Lansing? I have no idea. The one take away I think we can all agree on is that the DNR learned a valuable lesson about its methods of gauging public opinion and has worked hard to improve on that score. I am certainly encouraged that the recent record setting surveys have shown public support for more conservative regulations and for unique fishing opportunities.
> 
> The quote you have on the flies only section is interesting. I've seen it before and have wondered what weight, if any, fishing pressure is given in the study. I don't doubt that pressure is much much greater now than it was in 1973, especially pressure during fall and spring spawning seasons, yet the brown trout populations have remained constant. I should probably get off my lazy ____ and write Mr. Tonello to see what he knows about it. It would be difficult to change the pressure on the PM to see what the results would be, but on a river with less access and pressure like the Pine an experiment could be done. First a population survey would have to be done, then a few well placed articles mentioning the success of anglers like my friend Brad could be published to increase awareness of the fine fishing on the Pine. Brad's method by the way is to float between access points in one of those inflatable pontoon boats. He drifts crickets into holes and likely spots and does embarrassingly well on 15"-20" fish. I don't doubt that a couple of articles, maybe a story on MOOD with a fisherman holding up some nice fish and grinning like a possum eating bumblebees, and the pressure on the Pine would increase considerably. It might also be helpful to include information on fisheman's rights to access water and walk above the high water mark while avoiding obstacles so that more fisherman would be encouraged to take advantage of one of our great rivers. Let that pressure have five years or so to take effect and do another survey to see if it did. I don't know that anything like this has ever been tried. If the DNR doesn't have the funds I suppose TU might be approached to fund it. Something to think about, anyway.


There was an extensive creel survey done on the PM in the early 80's. '82, I think. The DNR just completed another, and we'll soon get the results of that. 

No doubt the "commercialization" of the PM fishery has contributed to increased levels of pressure that wouldn't be there without the advertising. That said, considerably fewer fishermen are buying licenses these days, so it will be interesting to see how those factors play against each other when we see the numbers.

Don


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> It would be difficult to change the pressure on the PM to see what the results would be, but on a river with less access and pressure like the Pine an experiment could be done. First a population survey would have to be done, then a few well placed articles mentioning the success of anglers like my friend Brad could be published to increase awareness of the fine fishing on the Pine. Brad's method by the way is to float between access points in one of those inflatable pontoon boats. He drifts crickets into holes and likely spots and does embarrassingly well on 15"-20" fish. I don't doubt that a couple of articles, maybe a story on MOOD with a fisherman holding up some nice fish and grinning like a possum eating bumblebees, and the pressure on the Pine would increase considerably. It might also be helpful to include information on fisheman's rights to access water and walk above the high water mark while avoiding obstacles so that more fisherman would be encouraged to take advantage of one of our great rivers. Let that pressure have five years or so to take effect and do another survey to see if it did. I don't know that anything like this has ever been tried. If the DNR doesn't have the funds I suppose TU might be approached to fund it. Something to think about, anyway.


Rumor has it your buddy Brad, even after being shown how to catch fish, still couldn't. He was last seen heading south on 75 with his tail between his legs. 

Way to sink to a new low. Surprised you were talked into that one, but it just confirmed what I thought to begin with.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranger Ray said:


> Rumor has it your buddy Brad, even after being shown how to catch fish, still couldn't. He was last seen heading south on 75 with his tail between his legs.
> 
> Way to sink to a new low. Surprised you were talked into that one, but it just confirmed what I thought to begin with.


Brad comes home on 131 and he's been going that way and on 37 since his grandfather started taking him up there in the early '60s. Why would you attack some guy you never heard of before? You are a strange dude. 

Also, you're surprised I was talked into what and by whom? What did you think? Are you against any scientific studies on the effects of an increase in angling pressure? The Pine is a well known river and not an unmentionable, pressure is lower on it because it can be difficult to wade, has tons of canoe traffic and does not have as much access as some rivers. Brad gets around that by floating from Skookum to Walker when he gets the chance. I think that stretch holds a special meaning for him because that's where he and gramps went when Brad got back stateside in '74. I have heard that the pressure increases when GR are put on a stream and I guess we'll find out in a year or two when the surveys are done. It would be both interesting and valuable to know if increased fishing pressure translates to increased biological pressure on the fish. If that were true an argument could certainly be made that GR have a negative impact. If increased pressure has no meaningful impact then that is an argument for removing GR. You and the GLFSA should propose this at the next Coldwater meeting.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Of course we all know that TU would never start a petition against anything, or do a survey that is nefarious in nature:

In September 2005, these green groups coalesced around provisions of the FY2006 Budget Reconciliation Bill that provided for producing more American energy from American soil. Staffers at Earthworks, the Wilderness Society, Trout Unlimited, and the National Wildlife Federation came together to kill the energy provisions. Trout Unlimited emailed its roughly 100,000 members to spotlight the fight. A petition signed by 758 sportsmen's clubs affiliated with National Wildlife Federation, helped kill the American energy industry.

Sound familiar?? EXACTLY what they did with gear regs issue in Michigan. BTW, that is taken from a website known as Undue Influence, very interesting website I might ad.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Brad comes home on 131 and he's been going that way and on 37 since his grandfather started taking him up there in the early '60s. Why would you attack some guy you never heard of before? You are a strange dude.
> 
> Also, you're surprised I was talked into what and by whom? What did you think? Are you against any scientific studies on the effects of an increase in angling pressure? The Pine is a well known river and not an unmentionable, pressure is lower on it because it can be difficult to wade, has tons of canoe traffic and does not have as much access as some rivers. Brad gets around that by floating from Skookum to Walker when he gets the chance. I think that stretch holds a special meaning for him because that's where he and gramps went when Brad got back stateside in '74. I have heard that the pressure increases when GR are put on a stream and I guess we'll find out in a year or two when the surveys are done. It would be both interesting and valuable to know if increased fishing pressure translates to increased biological pressure on the fish. If that were true an argument could certainly be made that GR have a negative impact. If increased pressure has no meaningful impact then that is an argument for removing GR. You and the GLFSA should propose this at the next Coldwater meeting.


Sad. Tell someone you have some credibility left with.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

kzoofisher said:


> Brad comes home on 131 and he's been going that way and on 37 since his grandfather started taking him up there in the early '60s. Why would you attack some guy you never heard of before? You are a strange dude.
> 
> Also, you're surprised I was talked into what and by whom? What did you think? Are you against any scientific studies on the effects of an increase in angling pressure? The Pine is a well known river and not an unmentionable, pressure is lower on it because it can be difficult to wade, has tons of canoe traffic and does not have as much access as some rivers. Brad gets around that by floating from Skookum to Walker when he gets the chance. I think that stretch holds a special meaning for him because that's where he and gramps went when Brad got back stateside in '74. I have heard that the pressure increases when GR are put on a stream and I guess we'll find out in a year or two when the surveys are done. It would be both interesting and valuable to know if increased fishing pressure translates to increased biological pressure on the fish. If that were true an argument could certainly be made that GR have a negative impact. If increased pressure has no meaningful impact then that is an argument for removing GR. You and the GLFSA should propose this at the next Coldwater meeting.


Are you kidding me? I think you need to do your homework before you make comments like you do. To me you are losing actually have lost any kind of credibility with your comments.
Name another river in the lp that has more of its flow crossing public ground. Was it easier in the past to get to all the water? Yes but still with leg work you can cover miles upon miles of it on foot. Is it as wader friendly as others no. It is a fast cold river and kicks your butt if you are not in good to great shape. I have waded miles upon miles of it. It might be a rough climb back to your vehicle. Not everyone is in shape enough to do it. Age of some and wore out bodies seem to have slowed the ones I know who once did it.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Well if you guys would like to stick to the point instead of attacking what another guy told me about his favorite stretch of a stream.....

What is your objection to a study of the effects of fishing pressure? I used the Pine as an example because it is a medium sized river with good populations of naturally reproducing fish. It's type 1 and 2 water and has campgrounds as well as commercial lodging nearby. There are plenty of big fish and the stream has improved since the dam came out from what I have heard. Because it is as you say a fast river and it fishes differently than most of our LP streams it might be more comparable to a western stream where the fish have to make snap judgements about taking food, I don't know. I'm sure there are things I didn't think of in the two minutes it took me to throw the idea out there, what are they and let's work together to make some valuable science happen. I don't think an increase in tourism would hurt anybody in Wexford County so there would be that benefit if the study proved inconclusive. We can make this happen!


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Now we're getting somewhere, do the studies, the scientific studies to determine management regulations. That's exactly what we've been saying all along. Who knows, now maybe we can actually accomplish something as a group.

But, just to be clear, earlier you said this study was done on Hunt Creek and it showed a huge mortality issue due to fishing, now you want to do studies on the Pine or whatever river you choose to study the mortality of trout due to fishing?? HUH?????


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Don't believe I ever said that the study TC Fisherman linked showed a huge mortality due to fishing. It showed a noticeable difference. Other studies don't' so more modern studies are needed. Still don't know why my suggestion was "low" or that I must have been "talked into it".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

