# So os this what trout fishing is all about?



## toto

Sorry bout that, go ahead and insert a g, too tired I guess.


----------



## troutguy26

No offense just figured wed get it clear and straight. 

As far as keeping every legal fish i catch that will never happen. I like to fish for at least four hours to all day when i go out which is every weekend and dont feel like pulling a quick limit and leaving cutting myself short. Now it could be done but that isnt enjoyable to me. Normally three fish is my max but i beleive i have taken four once or twice this year and have released lots and lots of legal fish. You know how big of a freezer someone would need to keep every legal fish they caught? Theres alot of stereotypes that float around and this topic about keeping every legal fish is one of them.


----------



## troutguy26

One thing i will end the night out on is that if someone feels passionate about something isnt it their place to defend it? Isnt this why there are some many gr debates from people that are passionate about their stance on it? And lastly i dont see why the no gr regs guys get such a bad blasting from the other side when at the end of the day your the ones who started this whole thing. You guys want a compromise and to now start playing together when if that would have been done in the first place there never would have been this issue. I hope u get where im going with this because we all used to play nicely with each other until some people wanted to seperate themselves and it wasnt us.


----------



## Shoeman

toto said:


> I must have missed something here, when did any of those above mention keeping their limit every time out? I admit, with all the reading and posting going on with this debate, I could have missed it.
> 
> Ralf, I do need to ask one honest question, as I'm really getting confused here, which side of the debate are you on again? I seriously thought you were against the gear regs idea, but I may have misinterpreted what you said before. Not trying to pick a fight, but I'm honestly confused.


I guess I'm on the fence when it comes to "certain" waters. And no, not the PM or the Little River. The latest thread about the Trophy water below Mio is a prime example. Heaven forbid there a small stretch of No Kill for browns. So what! It had restrictions throughout the 80's and even before. These are not lake-run fish and the water is marginal at best during the heat of the summer, yet fish as long as ones arm are caught every year and MOST are released. Yup, GR water. Artificials only with a reduced creel and a special size-restriction. Seemed to have worked there for decades.

If an angler wants to use bait or keep the 10" fish, go above Mio or fish down by 4001. Pretty simple.

Jerry's previous post about lining the Holy Waters with baitfishermen is a prime example of "in your face". Same with posting pics of gutted trout doesn't help overturn GR's. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the opposition uses that as ammunition when it comes to protecting existing waters and perhaps for establishing additional sections.

I've always understood Ray's distain when they pulled the rug out from under him on his property. I'd be livid myself! Same with Kirk if certain GR's were to be installed around his cabin.

Trout will never be considered a food source by a good majority. Therefore to open all trout waters to a free-for-all will never happen. Trout fishing is a religion and has been for generations. Maybe it's where they live? 

It's a passion even among anglers that prefer bait. Many clubs and organizations have spent countless hours improving habitat, fighting big corporations that showed potential contamination all in the name of protecting the species and the waters they live in.


----------



## toto

Okay, thanks for spelling that out. Now, let me explain my take on it. I have no problem with gear restrictions IF it can be proven SCIENTIFICALLY that the fishery is having trouble. At that point go ahead and limit fishing in some way, until such point that either one of two things happens. 1) Either they (DNR) find a way to improve the fishery, which most times means water temp, although not always, or 2) decide that that particular area is not going to be a viable fishery. If its the first, then do what needs to be done to improve it, and at some point, once the fishery recovers go back to normal, or in scenario #2 stop planting fish, as they should know its a waste of resource.

The bottom line is, if the DNR is paid for by ALL citizens tax dollars, and license fees, then they work for ALL citizens, not just the ones who have some political pull. Social science makes no sense to me what so ever, the DNR should only be worried about the natural resources of this state as a biological issue. It is not, nor should it be the DNR's responsiblity to make sure that businesses are doing well. Ralf, you are a business man, would you be okay if the DNR came along and told you to do something with your business, because it benefitted someone else? Probably not, your family put up the sweat, blood, and tears to make it what it is today, and to have some outside entity come along and tell you what to do with your business just wouldn't happen, I don't believe.

I know that is a wild example, but my point is, we are the citizens of the state, and we should be dictating to them what we want, and lets be honest here, its a small segment of society that has pushed for these regs at the detriment of those that prefer to fish another method. Even though when I trout fish I don't keep all the fish I catch, in fact very few, but if someone isn't breaking the law, what are you going to do??? Ever thought about why it is that the DNR sets limits the way they do? They do their research and have an opinion that the resource can handle the amount of catch and keep limits that are in place. IF, down the road they discover that it needs to be changed, they will, and it doesn't take as long to recover a trout fishery as you may think. Lets assume others are right on here, and that a brook trout, for example only lives a couple of years, that means if you planted brookies today, two years from now, they aren't there anymore anyways, correct???

Also, I think we sometimes think there are far more fishermen keeping fish, than there really is. I have no numbers to back up my claim, but I'd willing to bet the fisheries in question are barely touched by the catch and keep crowd, again I have no proof of that. What we need to do is stop thinking of trout as a GOD, they are not, they are a fish, created by GOD for our use, and enjoyment. Why on earth is there a group of people out there, and I don't care which organization it is, that think these are their special pets, only for their special use? Thats what I don't get.

Sorry for the edit, but just though of one more thing. As for contaminated water, we ALL can agree with the fact we need, and deserve clean water, but again, that is the DNRE's job, and once again, that is also part of their job based on the Public Trust Doctrine.


----------



## riverman

"The bottom line is, if the DNR is paid for by ALL citizens tax dollars, and license fees, then they work for ALL citizens, not just the ones who have some political pull. Social science makes no sense to me what so ever, the DNR should only be worried about the natural resources of this state as a biological issue. It is not, nor should it be the DNR's responsiblity to make sure that businesses are doing well. Ralf, you are a business man, would you be okay if the DNR came along and told you to do something with your business, because it benefitted someone else? Probably not, your family put up the sweat, blood, and tears to make it what it is today, and to have some outside entity come along and tell you what to do with your business just wouldn't happen, I don't believe."


You are seriously out of touch with reality. What you just described happens everyday through a wide range of business"s FOR the benefit of society.


----------



## METTLEFISH

I could never consider a non-Indiginous fish a trophy, kind of like bragging to your buddies after a night at a brothel.... Planting 6 to 8 inchers... at least then the fin damage is limited and you can imagine yourself in a western U.S. stream gazing at the mountains with snow caped peaks.... I'm tired of my license monies funding someones fantasy!... get off your $'s and take a trip out west or to Russia were there are true trophies to be had... you can practice for the real thing here in Michigan!......


----------



## Steve

I don't understand why some people would feel the need to indiscriminately take their limit of fish every time they go out on waters that are not self sustaining. I can understand it if it was a "once in a while" thing, but lets face it, if everyone did that every time they went out I think we all know where the fishery is headed. 

Even if the water is restocked, the stocked fish don't hold a candle to the ones that naturally reproduce and reside in the streams their whole lives. I like to catch fish that don't have their fins wore off from living inside a tank.

I think we all know that state isn't able to replace unlimited amounts of fish from just license fees and more funds are not likely to come out of any general fund. Can't there be any waters kept in a state where a guy doesn't feel like he needs to get out in the first month of the season and keep his limit or there might not be any fish left when he gets there (also kind of like shooting the first 3" spike that you see)? I'm NOT saying that the fish have to be caught any certain way, but letting a legal fish go once in a while is not a crime.

Tell me where my logic is flawed.....


----------



## toto

Riverman, give me an example, because I don't think we are talking exactly the same thing here. What I'm referring to is a "takings" issue. For example lets say that someone comes along and says you need to donate to such and such cause out of your profits, even though you disagree with that cause, either you disagree due to you just do, or for religious reasons, whatever, do you think thats right as well? Look, I think we've discussed this issue to death, and for what its worth, I have not changed my stance one little bit, and I won't until I'm proven wrong.


----------



## riverman

toto said:


> Riverman, give me an example, because I don't think we are talking exactly the same thing here. What I'm referring to is a "takings" issue. For example lets say that someone comes along and says you need to donate to such and such cause out of your profits, even though you disagree with that cause, either you disagree due to you just do, or for religious reasons, whatever, do you think thats right as well? Look, I think we've discussed this issue to death, and for what its worth, I have not changed my stance one little bit, and I won't until I'm proven wrong.


Own property that has a been declared wetland? Try and do something with it.

Have property that has a gravel vein in it? Try and get permits to mine it after all the neighbors that moved out to the country the last 50 years get wind of it.

Ever grow a corn and soybeans? Feed the wildlife out of your wallet.

Try and build a mega hog farm on property that has been in the family for over a hundred years.

Ever own property that a major highway was put through?


----------



## toto

I see your point, I guess I probably used a bad example, but I hope you understand what I was getting at. Look, what I do understand is the regulations on business today is ridiculous, too much in my opinion. Do I think we are entitled to clean air and water, yep. But thats another discussion for another day.


----------



## Shoeman

There's compromise to reduce conflict in most situations. 

Prime example: During deer season squirrel remains open, but yet we're reduced to using a scatter gun? Why? yet we comply... Stupid not to use a .22 like during the rest of the season, especially that during that time the leaves are down and a long-range shot would benefit us small game hunters. For what? To reduce the temptation of shooting a deer...LMAO

Same with bow hunters. A 3 month season. So the guys that prefer shooting a 270 are discriminated against just because that's their preferred method???

Pick your fights. I guess my main beef was to the objection to Don's compromise. You won't get it all. 

And according to Jerry, we'll be blessed with his presence and arrogance even if it appears to be primeval in substance!


----------



## toto

Curious, again Ralf, how do you know we won't get it all, and secondly, what if we do? What I am sensing here is that the side of pro gear restrictions are pretty nervous, and thats as it should be, there needs to be an answered found, one way or the other, thats the only way this will end.


----------



## Steve

> Pick your fights. I guess my main beef was to the objection to Don's compromise. You won't get it all.


Agreed.


----------



## Steve

> Pick your fights. I guess my main beef was to the objection to Don's compromise. You won't get it all.


Yeap. That's the problem with this whole country. It's why we have grid lock. It's why we will run into the deficit wall again this year. Neither side will give an inch.


----------



## Shoeman

toto said:


> Curious, again Ralf, how do you know we won't get it all, and secondly, what if we do? What I am sensing here is that the side of pro gear restrictions are pretty nervous, and thats as it should be, there needs to be an answered found, one way or the other, thats the only way this will end.


I'm not nervous, I could care less, even at the demise of trout populations throughout. If the situation calls for a reduction of take, including GR'r to reduce take, so be it! pretty simple. Some waters are overfished and DO require a certain restriction! It's not rocket science, it's a way to keep the experience at the potential. Open it up and the same experience is reduced!

The stubbornness of the opposition does not make sense seeing the DNR is working on limited funds.

OK, open them all up and keep the 5 in combination... How long will our limited resources support that?

Not long....

Just cut Jerry loose with his bucket of worms in the Holy Waters and his entitlement. perhaps you need to put a muzzle on him and others!


----------



## troutguy26

Shoeman said:


> There's compromise to reduce conflict in most situations.
> 
> Prime example: During deer season squirrel remains open, but yet we're reduced to using a scatter gun? Why? yet we comply... Stupid not to use a .22 like during the rest of the season, especially that during that time the leaves are down and a long-range shot would benefit us small game hunters. For what? To reduce the temptation of shooting a deer...LMAO
> 
> Same with bow hunters. A 3 month season. So the guys that prefer shooting a 270 are discriminated against just because that's their preferred method???
> 
> Pick your fights. I guess my main beef was to the objection to Don's compromise. You won't get it all.
> 
> And according to Jerry, we'll be blessed with his presence and arrogance even if it appears to be primeval in substance!


Id like to touch on this a bit even tho way off subject. I beleive the stupidity is using a .22 during deer season for the fact of all the hunters taking pop shots up in the trees at squirells and who knows whats behind it. Maybe me in a tree stand. And yes i do agree with people popping deer to. 

As far as hunting season you get both for your desired method and we dont get that in the gr waters now do we. So should we split the trout season on the gr waters? 

And like stated what if we do get it all? Then can we start lobbying to keep you guys out? A no flies zone.


----------



## toto

To me, part of the problem with talking keeping limits, is just how many do that? I mean in reality? I know we go on weekends for the most part, and probably see more people than we care to, but is that a true indicator of how many fished are strung up? Good question, maybe we can find some studies on that. All I know for sure is if the DNR feels the fishery can handle X amount of people keeping their limits on streams, than they are also saying the fishery is fine, or at least capable of self sustaining itself. One thing to keep in mind, the GR's on the PM for example, if it were allowed to be fished with bait, and if the fish are kept, wouldn't other fish move in and take their place? I don't have an answer to that, but I have read studies on fish movements, sorry I don't remember those stats. All I can say is on the issue of keeping limits, I have to trust the DNR that they know what they are doing, I for one don't advocate it, but thats just me.

On the issue of barbless hooks, makes some sense actually, I could go along with that, call it compromise if you want, but that doesn't mean I'm caving in, the fight for me will go on. And really I'm not even sure anymore if its a fight on fishing bait, or if its a fight against government going overboard, at least for me personally.


----------



## riverman

Don't think for one second trout are not being removed from the c&r water. Maybe not as many as open water, but they are removed by fishermen.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I don't know what rivers you fish Shoeman, but I fish all west Michigan and if there is some great threat to our trout, you could have fooled me. We fished Muskegon and its tribs several times now this year. If anything our fishing has been the best we have seen in the last couple. Anecdotal? Yes. But so is pushing a compromise when the biologists say our streams health are just fine. Its a compromise for the sake of compromise, that eliminates bait fishing, which in fact is no compromise to the bait fisherman that can no longer bait fish. If there is a river in such bad need to stop all bait fishing, then it more than likely should be shut to all fishing. Don't believe me, ask a biologist.


----------

