# Why Restrict Gear?



## kzoofisher

Why should the Gear Restrictions that exist in Michigan be continued? This question has been asked in a number of threads and any answers tend to get lost in side discussions. I hope that by asking the question directly we can keep on topic in this thread. I also ask that those of you who can't control your desire to give demeaning names to the other side, can't resist telling others what they are really thinking instead of responding to what they say and otherwise drive the thread into the dirt will just sit on your hands for a couple of days. Thanks in advance though only time will tell who are the adults.

Troutguy26 asked me to stick to science rather than social reasoning and I will be happy to give him some insight into my views, but I will not ignore the social aspects because no rules are made in a democracy that don't consider the social ramifications. On to the science. There are a large number of studies, good luck trying to read them all, and not all of them agree. Biologists conduct studies, read other studies and form an opinion. When you read the studies you will notice that the results are almost always phrased as "we believe" or "we see" or "the numbers indicate" and almost never in terms of absolute findings. This is because growth rates are fairly easy to quantify whereas the exact outcome on fish of a change in human behavior is very difficult to quantify. This is also why they are called "scientific opinions". Different biologists also often have different opinions even regarding the same studies, e.g. the DNR and the Feds in the UP right now regarding the 10 fish brook trout limit. I tend to agree more often with the biologists who see small differences in mortality as possibly significant for fish populations that have a high mortality rate in the best of years. That's why I support regulations that reduce mortality by even a little bit. I hold that position for all gamefish, not just salmonids. You may feel the opposite as I do and that is a reasonable position, too. Doesn't make either one of us bad people. This is as short as I can make it and still try to make my reasons clear.

Now for the social. Whether you're for the most fish for the most people, the biggest fish for the most people or the whole river for yourself those are all social goals. If it is a regulation, a law or a general doctrine it is a social construct. I completely reject the idea that any management of public property for the public good is not socially based. You may use any number of tools to achieve your goal but the goal is social.

The two main objections to GR water are that they restrict access and that they discriminate. 

1. Access- FO 213 which establishes the criteria for GR water has only three criteria that have no exceptions: that the fishery be dominated by trout, that mean size at 2 years is at or above state average and that _public access be assured._ GR water in no way prevents access, it only restricts terminal tackle. Which brings us to...

2. Discrimination- Michigan has been restricting the legal methods by which trout can be taken since it has had a DNR. Currently two legal methods of fishing are restricted on 100% of Michigan's trout streams and always have been as far as I know. One opponent of GR water on this forum even went as far as to say that it bothers him to see Native Americans exercising their right to spearfish for trout. If you say you are for all legal methods and against discrimination I don't see how you can logically be against spearing and bowfishing on designated trout streams. After all, it has been said many times here that angler mortality has no effect on trout populations, so show me the sound biological science that says spear/bowfishing is more harmful than other methods or come out in favor of opening up all waters to these methods. Until you do that I consider any claims of discrimination to be pure rabble rousing. I have no problem restricting them, especially during spawning runs when fish are on redds, because I don't think it is fair chase. Maybe some of you agree with me. 

I do admit though that trying to hit a 10" brookie with an arrow in a tiny stream is probably a lot harder than getting him to take a fly, spinner or worm.

The economic impact is sometimes discussed. Since the State is studying that right now on the new water I will let it go until we have more information.


----------



## tannhd

Kzoofisher,

I understand, and fully respect the need to protect fish. 

My only question is: How does restricting a stream to flies only, rather than say artificial-single hook-barbless-(even no kill) actually protect fish?

If both types would be single hook and barbless- Is the hook on a fly softer on a Trout's mouth than a hook on a spinner or spoon?

It seems the need to protect fish should be determined on the hooking mechanism rather than the attractant.


----------



## swampbuck

kzoofisher said:


> 1. Access- FO 213 which establishes the criteria for GR water has only three criteria that have no exceptions: that the fishery be dominated by trout, that mean size at 2 years is at or above state average and that _public access be assured._ GR water in no way prevents access, it only restricts terminal tackle. Which brings us to....


Does anyone know what/where they use to determine mean size ?

And that the fishery is dominated by trout ?......Do they figure planted trout into this or is it naturally reproducing fish?

It seems that theses criteia could easily be manipulated to achieve whatever result was desired.


----------



## Benzie Rover

swampbuck said:


> Does anyone know what/where they use to determine mean size ?
> 
> And that the fishery is dominated by trout ?......Do they figure planted trout into this or is it naturally reproducing fish?
> 
> It seems that theses criteia could easily be manipulated to achieve whatever result was desired.


Mean size = sum of all fish lengths measured/number of fish sampled

Dominated by trout = are there more trout there than other fish sampled. Most studies do not differentiate stocked vs. natural repro unless there are fin clips or OTC markers to go by. They count all trout as trout. 

All data can be manipulated - just as people can be. Measurements can be off, weights can be off, ID can be off. Being consistent with standard procedures will help, but variability is inherent with any sampling effort.


----------



## troutguy26

kzoofisher said:


> Why should the Gear Restrictions that exist in Michigan be continued? This question has been asked in a number of threads and any answers tend to get lost in side discussions. I hope that by asking the question directly we can keep on topic in this thread. I also ask that those of you who can't control your desire to give demeaning names to the other side, can't resist telling others what they are really thinking instead of responding to what they say and otherwise drive the thread into the dirt will just sit on your hands for a couple of days. Thanks in advance though only time will tell who are the adults.
> 
> Troutguy26 asked me to stick to science rather than social reasoning and I will be happy to give him some insight into my views, but I will not ignore the social aspects because no rules are made in a democracy that don't consider the social ramifications. On to the science. There are a large number of studies, good luck trying to read them all, and not all of them agree. Biologists conduct studies, read other studies and form an opinion. When you read the studies you will notice that the results are almost always phrased as "we believe" or "we see" or "the numbers indicate" and almost never in terms of absolute findings. This is because growth rates are fairly easy to quantify whereas the exact outcome on fish of a change in human behavior is very difficult to quantify. This is also why they are called "scientific opinions". Different biologists also often have different opinions even regarding the same studies, e.g. the DNR and the Feds in the UP right now regarding the 10 fish brook trout limit. I tend to agree more often with the biologists who see small differences in mortality as possibly significant for fish populations that have a high mortality rate in the best of years. That's why I support regulations that reduce mortality by even a little bit. I hold that position for all gamefish, not just salmonids. You may feel the opposite as I do and that is a reasonable position, too. Doesn't make either one of us bad people. This is as short as I can make it and still try to make my reasons clear.
> 
> Now for the social. Whether you're for the most fish for the most people, the biggest fish for the most people or the whole river for yourself those are all social goals. If it is a regulation, a law or a general doctrine it is a social construct. I completely reject the idea that any management of public property for the public good is not socially based. You may use any number of tools to achieve your goal but the goal is social.
> 
> The two main objections to GR water are that they restrict access and that they discriminate.
> 
> 1. Access- FO 213 which establishes the criteria for GR water has only three criteria that have no exceptions: that the fishery be dominated by trout, that mean size at 2 years is at or above state average and that _public access be assured._ GR water in no way prevents access, it only restricts terminal tackle. Which brings us to...
> 
> 2. Discrimination- Michigan has been restricting the legal methods by which trout can be taken since it has had a DNR. Currently two legal methods of fishing are restricted on 100% of Michigan's trout streams and always have been as far as I know. One opponent of GR water on this forum even went as far as to say that it bothers him to see Native Americans exercising their right to spearfish for trout. If you say you are for all legal methods and against discrimination I don't see how you can logically be against spearing and bowfishing on designated trout streams. After all, it has been said many times here that angler mortality has no effect on trout populations, so show me the sound biological science that says spear/bowfishing is more harmful than other methods or come out in favor of opening up all waters to these methods. Until you do that I consider any claims of discrimination to be pure rabble rousing. I have no problem restricting them, especially during spawning runs when fish are on redds, because I don't think it is fair chase. Maybe some of you agree with me.
> 
> I do admit though that trying to hit a 10" brookie with an arrow in a tiny stream is probably a lot harder than getting him to take a fly, spinner or worm.
> 
> The economic impact is sometimes discussed. Since the State is studying that right now on the new water I will let it go until we have more information.


First off thanks for the answer i truly appreciate it since everything went downhill over on the other topic. 

I see your view on it and truly dont have a problem with how others view things or wanna beleive in what they do.

I do have some questions tho after reading that and first off would be. Why do the gr waters have to be as good or better than other water in the state? If you truly are protecting something here wouldnt protecting a more marginal stream be better? If the fish naturally reproduce fine is those areas there should be no need to protect anything right? Wouldnt a sand bottom creek that gets very hot in the summer and has high natural death rates be the one that needs the protecting? Or doesnt that fit into the social aspect of it per "we need to catch and protect and grow big fish and lots of em"?


----------



## quack head

Troutguy "If you truly are protecting something here wouldnt protecting a more marginal stream be better? If the fish naturally reproduce fine is those areas there should be no need to protect anything right? Wouldnt a sand bottom creek that gets very hot in the summer and has high natural death rates be the one that needs the protecting?"

A trout stream that is marginal for trout is very tough to bring up to par. we'll take water temp as an eg. The upper temps for a quality brown trout stream I belive is 66.2 d/f on the high end. Can the temp be altered by adding cover tress brush ect. to shade the water? In theory, I would have to say yes. I would take habitat improvement along nearly the entire streatch, not just adding cover either. The stream would need so much more. gravel beds, deep holes, bank errosion control, Hides for fry and par, It goes on and on. 

There was a study conducted in Spain on habitat improvement on a "marginal Brown trout steam. With all the work that was done on miles of stream to attp. to lower water temps and and create habitat for fry and par the results were minimal. I tried to look it up for you but couldent find it. Go figure I just read the study last week.

Hope this helped do some net searching I'm sure you'll find a better explination


----------



## cadillacjethro

kzoofisher said:


> Why should the Gear Restrictions that exist in Michigan be continued? This question has been asked in a number of threads and any answers tend to get lost in side discussions. I hope that by asking the question directly we can keep on topic in this thread. I also ask that those of you who can't control your desire to give demeaning names to the other side, can't resist telling others what they are really thinking instead of responding to what they say and otherwise drive the thread into the dirt will just sit on your hands for a couple of days. Thanks in advance though only time will tell who are the adults.
> 
> Troutguy26 asked me to stick to science rather than social reasoning and I will be happy to give him some insight into my views, but I will not ignore the social aspects because no rules are made in a democracy that don't consider the social ramifications. On to the science. There are a large number of studies, good luck trying to read them all, and not all of them agree. Biologists conduct studies, read other studies and form an opinion. When you read the studies you will notice that the results are almost always phrased as "we believe" or "we see" or "the numbers indicate" and almost never in terms of absolute findings. This is because growth rates are fairly easy to quantify whereas the exact outcome on fish of a change in human behavior is very difficult to quantify. I believe it's because there are to many uncontrollable variables in nature to conclude with absolutes. This is also why they are called "scientific opinions". Different biologists also often have different opinions even regarding the same studies, e.g. the DNR and the Feds in the UP right now regarding the 10 fish brook trout limit. Sometimes it even has something to do with whose funding the study. It is truly amazing the results that can be bought in some of these studies. I tend to agree more often with the biologists who see small differences in mortality as possibly significant for fish populations that have a high mortality rate in the best of years. That's why I support regulations that reduce mortality by even a little bit. I hold that position for all gamefish, not just salmonids. You may feel the opposite as I do and that is a reasonable position, too. Doesn't make either one of us bad people. This is as short as I can make it and still try to make my reasons clear.
> 
> Now for the social. Whether you're for the most fish for the most people, the biggest fish for the most people or the whole river for yourself those are all social goals. If it is a regulation, a law or a general doctrine it is a social construct. I completely reject the idea that any management of public property for the public good is not socially based. You may use any number of tools to achieve your goal but the goal is social. I agree, but think the social aspect should be addressed after all biological and legal aspects have been addressed.
> 
> The two main objections to GR water are that they restrict access and that they discriminate.
> 
> 1. Access- FO 213 which establishes the criteria for GR water has only three criteria that have no exceptions: that the fishery be dominated by trout, that mean size at 2 years is at or above state average and that _public access be assured._ GR water in no way prevents access, it only restricts terminal tackle. Which brings us to...
> Gear restrictions don't restrict access, they restrict gear used for fishing. If my means of fishing is restricted, I have no reason to access for fishing.
> 2. Discrimination- Michigan has been restricting the legal methods by which trout can be taken since it has had a DNR. Currently two legal methods of fishing are restricted on 100% of Michigan's trout streams and always have been as far as I know. One opponent of GR water on this forum even went as far as to say that it bothers him to see Native Americans exercising their right to spearfish for trout. If you say you are for all legal methods and against discrimination I don't see how you can logically be against spearing and bowfishing on designated trout streams. After all, it has been said many times here that angler mortality has no effect on trout populations, so show me the sound biological science that says spear/bowfishing is more harmful than other methods or come out in favor of opening up all waters to these methods. Until you do that I consider any claims of discrimination to be pure rabble rousing. I have no problem restricting them, especially during spawning runs when fish are on redds, because I don't think it is fair chase. Maybe some of you agree with me.
> Native Americans have more than a few rights you and I don't enjoy. Like it or not, treaties were signed and upheld. I can't say that I've ever read a study involving spear/bowfishing for trout.
> 
> I do admit though that trying to hit a 10" brookie with an arrow in a tiny stream is probably a lot harder than getting him to take a fly, spinner or worm.
> 
> The economic impact is sometimes discussed. Since the State is studying that right now on the new water I will let it go until we have more information.
> IMHO, economic impact should be at the end of the line or not in line at all with regards to this and other game management issues. I don't believe these should go to the highest bidder as it were.


 
As I said to you in PM, all I care about is an honest discussion on what is _right _and what is _needed._ If you were to pull up to the North side of a large bridge up here and pay your toll would you expect to cross? What if the attendant told you that crossing was not possible because you weren't driving a yellow car? Would it upset you knowing you paid your toll and your blue car wasn't doing any more damage, it simply wasn't yellow? I know it would me.


----------



## quack head

Ok. after reading what I just posted to troutguy, I now have a question. Givin that I just stated that "the upper temps for a quality trout stream are 66.2d/f" How does the "trophy waters" fit in? We all know that temps in Aug can excede 72d/f. 

Not trying to flame I hope we can al play nice.

To add to the qeustion I have read the wild rose and seelfo something or another strains of fish along with the Gilchrest are consider "wild" and that the genetics of these fish are far superior than the domestics that have been planted. Are these strains the reason for survival in high temp waters?


----------



## troutguy26

I wasnt talking about restoration. I am talking about protecting those spawning fish that everyone feels aare so vital to return to the river.


----------



## REG

I think there are more than 2 main objections, but yes, access and discrimination are where the rubber meets the road.

I've thrown this request out there before and will drag this out of the dusty bag again. I and others, regardless of whether they are for/against/neutral to the gear reg issue, can identify no studies that demonstrate an overall beneficial effect to trout populations as a result of gear restrictions as a stand-alone intervention, with said studies being conducted with the same or similar species mix (brown/brook trout and steelhead). 

As such, I guess you should include another main point of gear restrictions being inane.


----------



## quack head

troutguy26 said:


> I wasnt talking about restoration. I am talking about protecting those spawning fish that everyone feels aare so vital to return to the river.


Trout guy I understand what you were asking. The point that I was trying to make is that, why protect/gr a marginal stream? There at to many factors that are imo involved to improve the habitat to make the stream a quality one. But I do see you point. I think what kzoo is looking for is why should we or why souls we not impose gr on streams that are already considers quality. That's why I posted the question about the Ausable and its water temps. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## thousandcasts

I agree with science being the driving force in making fisheries decisions, but there are social implications that have to be taken into account as well. 

I mean, is there a scientific or biological reason why salmon snagging is illegal in places like the Ludington State Park or Harrisville Harbor? No. Snagging is unsporting and unethical, correct? That's a social implication. 

I'm not saying I'm for or against anything, but merely pointing out that in some cases, social implications will and should be taken into account. Same with economic reasons...they're not going to dump 100K of fish into some place that isn't going to be utilized. They're gonna put those fish where everybody gets more bang for the buck, so to speak. 

It's a fine line and requires common sense, but sometimes you just can't avoid social or economic implications coming into play in some decisions. Key phrase there being, "common sense."


----------



## troutguy26

Well i guess if i was to put myself in the others shoes i would want the marginal water. If you look at it everything is there to be had. That money that gets dumped into streams for improvement from our dnr, TU, and so on could very well be used somewhere else to rehabilitate the waters and make them great again. If my memory serves me right thats what alot of other states do. Kinda makes sence right? Then and if then that ever happened i just might maybe see some kind of logic to this and actually commend those people for it. Until then i dont and wont ever do such a thing. Alot of people think they are stewards to the river and really helping out when in fact they aint doin crap but making something that was already great water just a touch better to benefit themselves. Until then i will rely on and back all the other great org's out there that are actually doing something for our watersheds whether they hold trout or not.


----------



## quack head

It would be very interesting to take two marginal warmer streams. improve the habitat to both .than apply gr to one and all tackle to the other w/o stocking. That might be the only way to determine if g.r. work. Outside of the social issue of course.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## troutguy26

Perfect idea as long as theres no kill not involved it would make both sides happy i think or maybe not.


----------



## kzoofisher

troutguy


> Why do the gr waters have to be as good or better than other water in the state


? 
I don't know, that's the way the law was written. I guess it was felt that the best water needed the most protection if it was to remain the best, at least that is what Fisheries says in FO 213. read it here http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FO-213-04_182406_7.pdf


Reg


> I and others, regardless of whether they are for/against/neutral to the gear reg issue, can identify no studies that demonstrate an overall beneficial effect to trout populations as a result of gear restrictions as a stand-alone intervention, with said studies being conducted with the same or similar species mix (brown/brook trout and steelhead).


Fisheries agrees with you and prefers a multi-faceted approach to maintaining and improving streams so it does not apply Gear Restrictions as a stand alone approach. From FO 213


> The Division is committed to the long term protection of rare and valuable resources and to identifying those streams that can produce "exceptional" fisheries. It is generally accepted that some combination of gear restrictions, season restrictions and reduced possession limits are critical to the success of these efforts.


Cadillac


> I believe it's because there are to many uncontrollable variables in nature to conclude with absolutes.


 Exactly, and yet so many people continue to say that "science" should settle things even though the "science" itself is unsettled.


> I care about is an honest discussion on what is right and what is needed





> if my means of fishing is restricted, I have no reason to access for fishing.





> Native Americans have more than a few rights you and I don't enjoy. Like it or not, treaties were signed and upheld. I can't say that I've ever read a study involving spear/bowfishing for trout.


 I care about an honest discussion too, that's why I want to know what the rationale is for continuing the restrictions against spears and bows. There are no studies because both have always been banned and there have been no chances to perform a study. No studies and no science mean that the restriction is purely social yet many of those complaining about social regulations won't touch this subject. Why not? I have been honest about my reasons. What are the reasons that you have. What are the reasons of the lurkers reading this thread. We can't have an honest discussion if it is only one way.

Quackhead- The danger point for brown trout is 70 d/f though they prefer it colder and do have trouble at 68. Check it out here http://www.70degreepledge.org/ Side note, there is a growing awareness for other species like pike and musky that temps can be very dangerous or that being caught from below certain depths can kill walleye and smallmouth. As pressure increases on fisheries I expect greater restrictions to become more common.

Thousandcasts- Thanks, that is exactly the sort of honest response I was hoping for and a starting point for working together to work out a solution.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> but I will not ignore the social aspects because no rules are made in a democracy that don't consider the social ramifications.


True, but they are done under a system of checks and balances. Made by people that are elected, therefore can be recalled when not doing the will of the people. Please explain to me how a coldwater committee made of fly guys equals democracy. 



kzoofisher said:


> On to the science. There are a large number of studies, good luck trying to read them all, and not all of them agree. Biologists conduct studies, read other studies and form an opinion. When you read the studies you will notice that the results are almost always phrased as "we believe" or "we see" or "the numbers indicate" and almost never in terms of absolute findings. This is because growth rates are fairly easy to quantify whereas the exact outcome on fish of a change in human behavior is very difficult to quantify. This is also why they are called "scientific opinions". Different biologists also often have different opinions even regarding the same studies, e.g. the DNR and the Feds in the UP right now regarding the 10 fish brook trout limit. I tend to agree more often with the biologists who see small differences in mortality as possibly significant for fish populations that have a high mortality rate in the best of years.


There are things called scientific hypotheses. It is different than a scientific opinion. Our biologists are not mandated to regulate by their opinions, but sound science. You easily dismiss this fact. 



kzoofisher said:


> I tend to agree more often with the biologists who see small differences in mortality as possibly significant for fish populations that have a high mortality rate in the best of years. That's why I support regulations that reduce mortality by even a little bit. I hold that position for all gamefish, not just salmonids. You may feel the opposite as I do and that is a reasonable position, too. Doesn't make either one of us bad people. This is as short as I can make it and still try to make my reasons clear.


The philosophical sounds so nice, except that somewhere, your thinking demands a limit. If not it will end in the philosophical perfect ending of you not fishing. Think about it.



kzoofisher said:


> Now for the social. Whether you're for the most fish for the most people, the biggest fish for the most people or the whole river for yourself those are all social goals. If it is a regulation, a law or a general doctrine it is a social construct. I completely reject the idea that any management of public property for the public good is not socially based. You may use any number of tools to achieve your goal but the goal is social.


I agree to a certain extent. First, don't forget that is to be administered equitably. In fly only water, it has not been. Next, the question that begs to be answered, does the DNR take into consideration the opinion of PETA? After all are not they part of society and have an opinion? I believe the answer would be no. Why? Because they are managing wildlife, not social opinions. How conveniently we state social, when in reality it isn't even a fair subset. I noticed in another thread you feared some congressman pushing a bill to eliminate GR. Is not that part of social? Democracy? You seem to be conflicted in your thinking on this subject. One time you are arguing we need to accept social as game management, in another you are fearing it. 





kzoofisher said:


> The economic impact is sometimes discussed. Since the State is studying that right now on the new water


Really? We can't afford CO's but we can afford our DNR to be census takers for business. We were already told the last regulations were political. Why would they be trying to make a case for a economic impact? Last I checked the DNR was to manage game, not economics. I wonder if they will include my groups $53,000 that has gone elsewhere since 2010? Of course they can't quantify an awful lot of factors, so the numbers will be a joke. I really feel this is a good case of our DNR losing its way, and working hard to push an ideological view of a few, than a scientific one for all. Hopefully they will prove me wrong.


----------



## troutguy26

I understand the law and have read that already kzoo but thanks for the link. 

Does anybody have a reasonable answer to why the gr waters have to be as good or better than the rest of the water in the state? 

Lastly i dont think we need to protect these waters since theyve been just fine for how many years before there was gear restrictions..... 

If someone can give me a good description and something to back it on waters that have been improved by all this please have at it. ( I really think the marginal waters should have been picked as a "proving ground" if you will).


----------



## kzoofisher

> True, but they are done under a system of checks and balances. Made by people that are elected, therefore can be recalled when not doing the will of the people. Please explain to me how a coldwater committee made of fly guys equals democracy.


 The rule allowing GR was made by elected officials, it is implemented by the DNR (no elected staff) who have a coldwater committee (no elected members) which is the publics avenue for voicing its concerns to the state (free speech). The coldwater committee advises the Fisheries Division, it doesn't command them. It is at least public, which is more than can be said of so many lobbying firms, industry/business councils and thinktanks that have private meetings with legislators, governors and presidents. If you think we would be better off having all our fishing and hunting regs set by the legislature I'll ask you to picture them deciding what the Lake Erie walleye limit will be each year or picking the dates for waterfowl season.



> There are things called scientific hypotheses. It is different than a scientific opinion. Our biologists are not mandated to regulate by their opinions, but sound science. You easily dismiss this fact.


 A scientific hypothesis is an explanation of a phenomenon which can be tested using the scientific method and then it is either proven, disproven or studied further. The number of variables in 36,000 miles of trout stream make it impossible to use the scientific method so we are left with opinions and modeling, sound opinions and sound models but still not hypotheses.



> The philosophical sounds so nice, except that somewhere, your thinking demands a limit. If not it will end in the philosophical perfect ending of you not fishing.


 If hook and line fishing for trout becomes so repugnant to the public that they demand it be banned then it will be. Just like spear fishing for trout is banned now. 




> I noticed in another thread you feared some congressman pushing a bill to eliminate GR. Is not that part of social? Democracy? You seem to be conflicted in your thinking on this subject. One time you are arguing we need to accept social as game management, in another you are fearing it.


 You misunderstood. I feared the political compromises that would be made should a legislator once again try to alter the GR law and that the next mess would be even bigger than the one we are in now. As I remember, the last time it came down to pure political clout to pass the bill and the GR water got doubled so I don't fear losing any water, I just shudder at the thought of this forum when another hundred miles gets added.
As for PETA, they can ask to be considered stakeholders and put on the committee. Having gotten to know the current membership better I have to say it wouldn't surprise me if they got a seat.



> Really? We can't afford CO's but we can afford our DNR to be census takers for business


. The business they are surveying for is the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. They are studying the effect of GR on campground usage.



> I wonder if they will include my groups $53,000 that has gone elsewhere since 2010?


 Did you take your money out of state? Because if you took it from Baldwin to Wellston and somebody else took your spot in Baldwin that is a net win for Wellston and a push for Baldwin. Of course your group may have spent the money in Indiana and that would be a loss, at least for Wellston.


----------



## fishinlk

> . The business they are surveying for is the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. They are studying the effect of GR on campground usage.



I received one of those surveys in the mail! Needless to say I was a bit surprised. Been camping there for almost 30 years and this is was the first time I'd ever heard a word about anything.


----------



## kzoofisher

fishinlk said:


> I received one of those surveys in the mail! Needless to say I was a bit surprised. Been camping there for almost 30 years and this is was the first time I'd ever heard a word about anything.


Yeah, for years the DNR didn't care what anybody thought or wanted except of course for timber and mineral extraction. Now they want to know what the people who foot the bills want, which I think is great. But that's another thread, let's stick with GR and the reasons you support or oppose all or part of it.


----------



## tannhd

If someone could please address my question it would be appreciated. 

Why flies rather than single hook/artificials?

The only reason I can see is that the lawmakers were pressured into this distinction by special interest groups. It has nothing to do with protecting fish.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> The rule allowing GR was made by elected officials, it is implemented by the DNR (no elected staff) who have a Coldwater committee (no elected members) which is the publics avenue for voicing its concerns to the state (free speech). The Coldwater committee advises the Fisheries Division, it doesn't command them. It is at least public, which is more than can be said of so many lobbying firms, industry/business councils and think tanks that have private meetings with legislators, governors and presidents. If you think we would be better off having all our fishing and hunting regs set by the legislature I'll ask you to picture them deciding what the Lake Erie walleye limit will be each year or picking the dates for waterfowl season.


The Coldwater committee was instrumental in the decision. If The Steelheaders and Don wouldn't have agreed to the GR, they wouldn't have happened. So say what you want, its pretty obvious the DNR needed their approval, at least to make the claim of "we the people wanted it." Not sure where you went to school, but a group of non-elected people are not "we the people" and never have been. Let me see, legislator or TU group making bait fishing laws. Hmm, thats a hard decision. Not! This type of regulation is exactly how you can take a political motivated agenda and mold to your outcome. The state employees are supposed to work for all people of this state. Explain how the land swap to the Indian Club on the Little Manistee benefited "we the people.



kzoofisher said:


> A scientific hypothesis is an explanation of a phenomenon which can be tested using the scientific method and then it is either proven, disproven or studied further. The number of variables in 36,000 miles of trout stream make it impossible to use the scientific method so we are left with opinions and modeling, sound opinions and sound models but still not hypotheses.


Oh BS. This is the latest talking point for "social regulation" of those that think bait fishing is "repugnant". That somehow the biologists can't come up with good numbers and pulse of a river system. The only reason this crap is being pushed is to try to eliminate that argument of the science that says "bait fishing has no effect on the overall health of a system. How do you bypass the biologists? Make a claim that they can't possibly come to that conclusion. Ask Tonello if the fish surveys they do on rivers tell them anything. There is plenty of solid biology to go by. Its how you apply it that everyone has a problem with. Guess what? Apply it equitably, and there will be no issue. 



kzoofisher said:


> If hook and line fishing for trout becomes so repugnant to the public that they demand it be banned then it will be. Just like spear fishing for trout is banned now.


Thanks for making the point of the issue. A few Fly Fishermen who think its repugnant.




kzoofisher said:


> You misunderstood. I feared the political compromises that would be made should a legislator once again try to alter the GR law and that the next mess would be even bigger than the one we are in now. As I remember, the last time it came down to pure political clout to pass the bill and the GR water got doubled so I don't fear losing any water, I just shudder at the thought of this forum when another hundred miles gets added.


You keep saying this. I look forward to that day. Next time the DNR wont be able to hide numbers of people in opposition. There won't be a bunch of signatures that can be ignored to mold the outcome, we will bring them in person to the meeting, kind of hard to hide 2000 people.


kzoofisher said:


> As for PETA, they can ask to be considered stakeholders and put on the committee. Having gotten to know the current membership better I have to say it wouldn't surprise me if they got a seat.


Looking at the committee, they might already be there.



kzoofisher said:


> The business they are surveying for is the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. They are studying the effect of GR on campground usage
> 
> 
> Did you take your money out of state? Because if you took it from Baldwin to Wellston and somebody else took your spot in Baldwin that is a net win for Wellston and a push for Baldwin. Of course your group may have spent the money in Indiana and that would be a loss, at least for Wellston.


The campground survey is for the Baldwin area. Wouldn't the economic impact I make be relevant to Baldwin? Funny you try to dismiss it as nothing, yet if the campgrounds showed an increase it will be heralded as gear restrictions increased participation, with no mention of people just moving from Welston campgrounds lets say. We can mold this crap to be in favor of whatever we want. Most people know this. I had the great privilege of being interviewed in the Pigeon State game area campground last year. The questions were such that the outcome can be whatever you want to push. But I am sure those doing the surveys are for "we the people" and not a bunch of people that think bait fishing is repugnant, might give a bias to the survey.


----------



## quack head

I might be wrong but was not the water below McMaster or Wakely bridge down to the pond all tackle for years up untill recently? I ask because I assume it is now g.r. ( sorry I haven't check the regs for the Ausable in yrs. because I just f/f when I'm on it) Did someone start to notice a decline in fish numbers of size? Was there any scientific reason at all to g.r. this section of river? Every time I have floated the lower sections above the pond I have moved some bruzer's and hoked a few 15+ fish. Granted I ave not floated any part of that section in about 6 yr, so I really don't know whats going on there now. Other that fish tail's and we know how those are.


----------



## fishinlk

> Why flies rather than single hook/artificials?


I think that's what would be the fair answer, to include both.



> The campground survey is for the Baldwin area.


Mine was for the upper Manistee, so it sounds like the survey has a 1broader spctrum than just Baldwin. 

It would be interesting to see how many feathers would have been ruffled on this whole subject if they hadn't applied the gear restrictions on the PM. I see a lot of the arguments that end up being specifically tied to the impact of those who fish the runs on the PM. I'm not saying it makes the situation any less important, just wonder how many people would have really cared compared to what it is now.


----------



## troutguy26

Anyone see the new dnr program that is in the news? Its called 'catch and cook'. No lie. Things arent that bad guys you can keep some fish.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

The surveys where for two campgrounds on the Pigeon and the three on the upper Manistee. I just read the article in Michigan Trout. They seem to think there will be little to no impact on campers staying now there are GR's. The study concluded that people were already using flies/artificial lures there anyways and also that very few were concerned with quantity, size or harvest.


----------



## Trout King

everyoe knows gr water is there so fly fisherman dont have to look at piles of worm containers and beer cans when theu go fishing,lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thousandcasts

troutguy26 said:


> Anyone see the new dnr program that is in the news? Its called 'catch and cook'. No lie. Things arent that bad guys you can keep some fish.


Well, they spend a lot of money on put and take fisheries, so it makes sense that they would promote the take part of it. Look no further than the Eagle Lake strain of Rainbows. They plant those in lakes, marginal rivers, trout ponds, etc. They provide an artificial fishery designed to create angling opportunity and the benefit of a harvest. Period, end of story. One can wax poetic all they want, but most of the rainbows they plant in the lower peninsula are a disposable fish with catch and cook clearly being the purpose for them being planted. Some are caught and cooked, some might make it through a summer and winter, the bulk of them end up dead due to water temps and other natural factors. Just the way it is...


----------



## toto

Well I quess we should restrict gear, as long as you want to follow the UN's proposals:


Marine spatial planning (MSP), according to the United Nations, is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process."



The deal is that ecology must be managed, especially now that it is frailer than ever. We humans have trampled, and some boat people have contributed to serious damage. This is another topic to raise fear about government, you know, the one that we supposedly control.



I want Natural Resources Management and I want to fish, and I want my fishing hole to be clean so I can eat some of what I catch. Right now, the entire waterway system in the USA is so polluted, I am afraid if I eat fish what I catch I might one day awaken with a third eye.

Fishermens fear: Public's 'right to fish' shifting under Obama?


Sport fishermen worry about an eroding 'right to fish' as the Obama administration shifts fishing policy to include United Nations objectives. Proponents say fishermen have much to gain by zoning uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 


By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer / March 9, 2010


Atlanta


The Obama administration has proposed using United Nations-guided principles to expand a type of zoning to coastal and even some inland waters. Thats raising concerns among fishermen that their favorite fishing holes may soon be off-limits for bait-casting.

In the battle of incremental change that epitomizes the American conservation movement, many weekend anglers fear that the Obama administrations promise to fundamentally change water management in the US will erode what they call the publics right to fish, in turn creating economic losses for the $82 billion recreational fishing industry and a further deterioration of the American outdoorsmans legacy.

Proponents say the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force established by President Obama last June will ultimately benefit the fishing public by managing ecosystems in their entirety rather than by individual uses such as fishing, shipping, or oil exploration.

Its not an environmentalist manifesto, says Larry Crowder, a marine biologist at Duke University in North Carolina. Its multiple-use planning for the environment, and making sure various uses  are sustainable.

(Amateur outdoorsmen have been fighting for their rights for years, as the Monitor reports here.)


New way to manage marine resources


Faced with the prospect of further industrialization along America's coasts and the Great Lakes (wind turbines and natural-gas exploration, for example), the task force is charged with putting in place a new ecosystem management process called marine spatial planning. 

Marine spatial planning (MSP), according to the United Nations, is a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process."

That kind of government-speak scares Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs at the reel-and-rod maker Shimano. 

Mr. Morlock points to references by the ocean task force to one global sea as evidence that whats really being proposed are broad changes to America's user-funded conservation strategy, potentially affecting even inland waters.

I suggest that the task force recommend our model to the United Nations rather than us adopting the United Nations model, he says in a phone interview. The American model is the best in the world, so our question is: Why seek the lowest common denominator?

Protections for recreational fishermen


Mr. Obama has said he will not override protections put in place by Presidents Clinton and Bush that established recreational fishermen as a special class.


But critics still worry about the Obama administrations ties to environmental groups that espouse anti-use policies that put some habitats out of reach even for rod and reel fishermen, who take only 3 percent of Americas landed catch every year.

Angling advocates point out that senior policy officials on the task force seem inclined to ally themselves with preservationists and environmental extremists who want to create no fishing preserves, with no scientific justification, writes ESPN.coms Robert Montgomery. 

On the other hand, nonpartisan experts say the task force has already made strides in better recognizing various stakeholder groups, including recreational fishermen, and that it doesnt intend to undermine the ability of states to manage their natural resources, as many fishermen fear.

Theres been huge progress by the task force in terms of being more inclusive in thinking about economic, ecological, social, and political concerns, says Mr. Crowder at Duke. The paranoia  and there is paranoia on all sides  is that the process will be captured. My hope is that mutual concern gets people to the table.

The final report of the task force is expected in late March. Congress will decide its fate, unless Obama issues an executive order establishing MSP as the law of the water.


----------



## REG

toto said:


> Protections for recreational fishermen
> 
> 
> Mr. Obama has said he will not override protections put in place by Presidents Clinton and Bush that established recreational fishermen as a special class.
> 
> 
> But critics still worry about the Obama administrations ties to environmental groups that espouse anti-use policies that put some habitats out of reach even for rod and reel fishermen, who take only 3 percent of Americas landed catch every year.
> 
> .


One of the huge hurtles here is for policy makers to separate recreational angling (a more precise term vs fishing) from commercial fishing. Though we have a "special class", policy makers don't often discern the difference.

But heck, you guys are living that down there in FL! Isn't that part of what's going on with grouper out there????


----------



## troutguy26

thousandcasts said:


> Well, they spend a lot of money on put and take fisheries, so it makes sense that they would promote the take part of it. Look no further than the Eagle Lake strain of Rainbows. They plant those in lakes, marginal rivers, trout ponds, etc. They provide an artificial fishery designed to create angling opportunity and the benefit of a harvest. Period, end of story. One can wax poetic all they want, but most of the rainbows they plant in the lower peninsula are a disposable fish with catch and cook clearly being the purpose for them being planted. Some are caught and cooked, some might make it through a summer and winter, the bulk of them end up dead due to water temps and other natural factors. Just the way it is...


Yup very true. Just sayin here but i would be lead to beleive that alot of other trout could be put into that to. Maybe thats why we stocked this whole state with browns to eh? 

The catch and cook program is focused onto the big lake so why not dare to say the salmon and steelhead and put there to take? If they werent whys there a need for the hacheries and all the money we dump into it?

I know you were pointing out the more take type of things even relevant to the stockers on the east side in rivers but i feel this extends to alot more.


----------



## thousandcasts

troutguy26 said:


> Yup very true. Just sayin here but i would be lead to beleive that alot of other trout could be put into that to. Maybe thats why we stocked this whole state with browns to eh?
> 
> The catch and cook program is focused onto the big lake so why not dare to say the salmon and steelhead and put there to take? If they werent whys there a need for the hacheries and all the money we dump into it?
> 
> I know you were pointing out the more take type of things even relevant to the stockers on the east side in rivers but i feel this extends to alot more.


Most steelhead fisheries in the L.P. could be considered put and take. There are a few exceptions, but natural repro isn't going to sustain the fisheries in rivers like The Joe, Kalamazoo, Grand, Muskegon or Big Manistee. So, when guys are talking about a reduced steelhead limit, all that does is increase the amount of fish that might be available to be caught RIGHT NOW. It's sure not going to benefit natural reproduction since in most of those rivers, the effects are miniscule no matter if 10 fish spawn or 1000 fish spawn. That doesn't have anything to do with limits, bait or gear restrictions--it has everything to do with Mother Nature, period. That's the reality of the steelhead fishery though. It takes a window of perfect conditions for the eggs to hatch and then the young survive in the watershed for one to two years before out migrating. Most watersheds do not provide those perfect conditions since they not only have to provide summer survival, but winter survival as well. It's Michigan...not Washington or British Columbia. Just because we have created a world class steelhead fishery doesn't mean that it's capable of sustaining itself. Hence the keyword there being "created."


----------



## toto

That grouper thing down here is a mess. What they've done is say the numbers are down, but at the same time, they up the amount of commercial catch, and reduced how much you and I can catch with hook and line. Now how does that make any sense.


----------



## kzoofisher

It's a little disappointing that no one has tried to address my points. One poster did start to but almost immediately fell into saying that anything that disagrees with his viewpoint has a strong chance of being dishonestly manipulated. Another simply pretended that I hadn't made my post at all and asked the same question I had been responding to in the first part of my post. He of course also had to start with the insulting language which as many of you know is a debate trick some folks use when they haven't got an answer. All that in the first ten responses. Some people did respond with very good questions about the specifics of GR implementations and that would be a great separate thread if it could be kept civil. Thanks to you guys. 
By the second page the thread has spiraled off into the land of made up accusations and complete misdirection with the bringing in of side issues. I sure hope all you lurkers reading this will remember how unresponsive the anti-GR crowd was when they were given specific reasons for the support of GR. When asked to actually defend their position instead of just portraying the other side ad "bad guys", they got nuthin'.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Right.  The philosophical will never render a definitive response. 

"When asked to actually defend their position instead of just portraying the other side ad "bad guys", they got nuthin'."

That's what we were doing, asking you to defend your posts, which led to your meaningless last post. No one called you a bad guy, its only in your head. You seem to rely on these paranoid responses of "impugned integrity" and "they called me a bad guy" as a detractor to your inability to clarify your own thoughts when questioned. Nice try on the reverse psychology. 

Oh by the way, why didn't you respond to the point where I pointed out your own ideology comes to a conclusion that you must stop fishing? You crack me up.


----------



## troutguy26

Oh please k zoo. Well start us off then and throw in some links showing where gr have helped fisheries. Now i know you said theres alot of em but ive never read anything of the sort and i do my far share of research. 

When i asked why do they have to be the best waters in this state you had no idea and just posted the link with the criteria for gr water. 

I have posed quite a few questions myself in here and you have barely if at all touched any of them. At least quack was willing to talk.

For someone filling in the lurkers with our "sneaky" tricks i dont see it. Its more like the opposite since there have been nothing really to support your stance on this issue. Lastly i agree and would like more talk on this and keep it healthy.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Right.


Still not actually responding. I'll put it plainly. How do you account for different professionals in the field drawing different conclusions about the impact of angler pressure? Why are the traditionaly restricted gear not given the same consideration as bait in your arguments?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## REG

kzoofisher said:


> Still not actually responding. I'll put it plainly. How do you account for different professionals in the field drawing different conclusions about the impact of angler pressure? Why are the traditionaly restricted gear not given the same consideration as bait in your arguments?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Different interpretations of literature, personal bias, and differing external pressures.

That's a classic Straw Man argument. No further comment required.


----------



## toto

I'll try to give you an honest answer, although I may not explain myself very well.

When looking at research you will find about a million of em, and of those they will all tell you different things; which leads me to wonder what is the background of the person doing the research. Are they doing it without any bias, or is there a underlying scheme? Hard to know the answer to that. Also, it must be understood that reading the numbers such as percentages of fish lost due to hooking mortality is all over the board. Having said that, when looking at mortality issues, it needs to broken down in real world numbers, and you can't look at just one research study and determine it for sure. You have to take these studies and contrast and compare to determine the actual results.

I have posted an example of those numbers in a previous thread so I won't do it now, but I honestly don't feel the hooking mortality using bait is near as bad as some think. Remember, you can always find a research paper that will back your beliefs somewhere.

As you know, it is my belief that the DNR is using excuses that frankly concern me, but not as much on the conservation issue, as much as their agendas that are far too liberal (politically speaking) for my blood. 

What really bothers me, and others is the fact that we ALL pay for the fish, the DNR etc, but now we are being told that we can only fish in ways they tell us to, even though the science isn't there that these fish need protection. The DNR has argued that these regs are needed due to social issues, what social issues are those, exactly, thats the real question here. Are we talking about social as in it helps every citizen, or are we talking about social groups? Not really sure on that, but what I am sure of is, this is nothing more than a form of P.E.T.A. light in my mind. Not trying to be harsh here, but since when did the fish move to the top of the food chain? Yes trout are a beautiful animal, but they are just that, an animal. I'm not saying we should rope every fish we catch, but at the same time, don't fall into the trap that catch and release is a savior either. C&R is only as good as the person doing it, and if done the wrong way, the mortality rates are just as high as any other form of fishing.

In summation, if you want to lose your freedoms, continue to have the goverment dictate everything you do. But, this isn't about that, this is plain and simply a case of misunderstanding the facts, and the facts are these gear regs are not needed, do nothing, are probably not even legal to do, unless the species are in need of protection, and social and economic science has no place within our outdoors pursuits, unless of course you subscribe to the way the United Nations thinks. I have posted earlier a reference to that, and I'm sure everyone thinks I'm a conspiracy believer, but I gotta tell ya, I've done mounds of research on this stuff, and it all points right back to what the U.N. believes, and that just can't happen.


----------



## fishinlk

Honestly Splitshot I've lost a lot of interest in even discussing a lot of this with you. It seems like there's some kind of huge force field that forms some sort of barrier around your thought processes that don't allow you to absorb or honestly consider anything that falls outside of your pre-conceived bubble. My whole reply was kind of an off the cuff remark because of my absolute disgust of your usual twisting and turning of stories to discredit others views. I've said a number of times that I'd favor bait being allowed in many stretches with creel restrictions and yes I get that you'd fish with hex with a fly and nope I'd not be tossing worms either in a hex hatch. Your reply just shows how shallow you approach the replies of others that are outside of your view. You jump to twist and discredit without really reading it.

After working through all of these discussions with and through you I have to ask. Are you or have you ever been a politician??? You sure seem to have the "gift of spin"..... 

Don, Toto, and others have made for some intesting discussions and while we may not completely agree I don't feel that they are out to smear the competition but merely make a case for their view.

I've beat my head against the wall long enough with you..


----------



## Whit1

troutguy26 said:


> Why do the gr waters have to be as good or better than other water in the state? If you truly are protecting something here wouldnt protecting a more marginal stream be better? If the fish naturally reproduce fine is those areas there should be no need to protect anything right? Wouldnt a sand bottom creek that gets very hot in the summer and has high natural death rates be the one that needs the protecting? Or doesnt that fit into the social aspect of it per "we need to catch and protect and grow big fish and lots of em"?


I agree with the above premise. If protectiong trout populations is the purpose of GRs than it would seem logical that such laws be put on marginal trout streams such as the Betsie R. in Benzie and Manistee counties and other such streams? But no, those who push for GRs, and especially Flies Only, want to keep the very best sections of trout streams to themselves.

As for the suggested premise the author of this thread makes that trout populations need protection in GR waters, if not the entire stream trout fishing system of rivers that dot our state, this is ludicrous and worse, it is incorrect and cannot be supported by science in any way, shape or form. Simply put "You cannot stockpile trout", and those who pine to restrict gear and "no-kill" ignore this basic premise. Our own DNR, as well as those from other states, have stated this again and again. Approximately 50% of all trout in a stream die each year and this is true in "no-kill" sections of streams as well as those in which trout may be taken.

I've been trout fishing for over a 1/2 century and have listened to and watched these arguments unfold for all that time and it simply comes down to there being too many trout anglers who take up a method of trout fishing.........fly fishing.........and put themselves up on a pedistle as some sort of semi-sacred guru of Higher Protector of Trout and Trout Fishing. In reality far too many of them are simply selfish and or inept at catching trout who jealously look at those who stoop so low as to use bait and feel the need to curtail such low-life methods of trout fishing.

Damn, that felt good!...........:lol:


----------



## toto

Heres a quote by Jim Dexter from 10-17-2010 in MLive.

&#8220;On the PM, there is no biological justification,&#8221; Dexter said. &#8220;We evaluate the biology and social and economic forces in place. If there is a strong biological reason do something to protect a population, we won&#8217;t even ask people&#8217;s opinion, we will just do it. That&#8217;s our job


So therefore, I have to ask, why indeed?????


----------



## The Downstream Drift

toto said:


> Heres a quote by Jim Dexter from 10-17-2010 in MLive.
> 
> On the PM, there is no biological justification, Dexter said. We evaluate the biology and social and economic forces in place. If there is a strong biological reason do something to protect a population, we wont even ask peoples opinion, we will just do it. Thats our job
> 
> 
> So therefore, I have to ask, why indeed?????


I haven't participated in any of these multi-page threads for the simple fact that I don't want to be pulled into a never ending arguement. Frankly, I don't have time for that.

However, I think the quote from Jim Dexter says alot that many of us are overlooking due to our stance on the gear regs. While Jim plainly states that there is "no biological justification" he then very clearly states that the DNR "evaluates the biology and *social* and *economic* forces in place." 

Not sure about all of you but this tells me that in the grand scheme of things the DNR also looks at the social and economic impact of any proposed regulations. In fact, one of the DNR's four priorities is explained as follows:

_4. *Fostering the Growth of Michigan's Natural Resource-Based Economy *_
_Michigan's natural resources play a vital role in supporting the state's economy through tourism, forest products and oil and gas exploration. Each year, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, boating and snowmobiling activity in our state generates an economic impact of more than $9 billion a year. Our state forests support a forest products industry and recreational industry that generates $14 billion and 136,000 jobs a year. Oil and gas exploration in Michigan supports 10,000 jobs and generates $2 billion a year in economic activity. _
_Director Stokes wants the DNR to continue to foster growth in tourism and resource-based industries like mining, forest produWhile cts and oil and gas exploration and development. The DNR will protect and conserve natural resources, while at the same time managing them for wise use to support natural resources-based industries which have been an important driver of Michigan's economy since its founding as a state. Protection and conservation of natural and cultural resources is a core mission for the Department, but helping our existing or new industries that make use of Michigan's natural resources is an equally important mission._ 

While all of us would like to have our fisheries regulations based totally on biology, that simply isn't going to be the case. There is simply too much money at stake for that to happen 100% of the time.

Of course it will be argued that it was "all TU's fault" but the criteria for a river to be selected for gear regulations included the social and economic implications that such proposed regs would have. If there wasn't enough social and economic reason for the regs to be put in place the DNR would have simply rejected a proposal. In fact, there were many proposals that were originally turned in which were rejected due their inability to address these factors.

Let me be clear here. You will not see multiple posts on this from me. I do not wish to engage in a lengthy debate, nor do I have time to do so. However, I hope my post brings to light something that appears to be constantly overlooked.

Good fishing everyone!


----------



## toto

Thats fine downstream, but since when is the DNR to use social science as a criteria, cuz I don't see that in any PTD. If you want to argue that social, and economics are science, then we should also say the astro physics is a science. Therefore maybe we should have fishing closures when the Constellation Orion is in the southwest sky. Sounds about the same logic can be used there too.

Also, if they want to have gear restricted streams, those streams should not be stocked with tax payers money. These fish are paid for by all of us, and should be stock in open streams/rivers. Why would we stock fish, paid for by all of us, in streams that all of us want, can, or prefer not fish with these restrictions??

While I realize that these towns, villages, and cities may need a boost in economy, it isn't my responsiblity to give up my rights so they can prosper. Make no mistake, we are not talking about a conceived privledge here, we are talking about my rights to fish, which are inherent with citizenship. Just read Article IV of the Northwest Ordinance, which btw, was created from the PTD, and I see no where where it is my responsiblity to take care of someones else pockets. That whole logic smacks of spreading the wealth. If you want to be in business, then the one thing you should have learned prior to opening any doors is location, location, location. Furthermore, is our fishing rights responsible for the downfall of a local economy, or is it the state building highways around these communities that is at fault? I would suggest its more the latter, than the first issue.


----------



## Whit1

We need a feature in here like FaceBook where there is a Like button for posts that you agree with. Of course a Dislike should also be available. I, for one would use a lot of Like "comments" to that Toto guy's posts on this topic. They are researched, documented, well thought out, very well stated and without the influx of a tone of condensation bordering on insulting. Bill, ya are doin' good buddy. Too bad that I catch more spotted sea trout than you.........:lol:......but you do catch more redfish than I do....:sad:


----------



## toto

Now wait just a minute, it seems to me I am the one who got my limit in like 15 minutes! Also, you would catch more reds if you would pay attention to the fact the line is racing away from you.


----------



## Whit1

toto said:


> Now wait just a minute, it seems to me I am the one who got my limit in like 15 minutes! Also, you would catch more reds if you would pay attention to the fact the line is racing away from you.


Okay, so ya got me on that one, but I'm in it for the long haul...slow and steady. As for that redfish "racing away" that is not true. He knew what he was up against and was using stealth tactics in an effort to grab the shrimp, eat the shrimp and do both without triggering my finely tuned fish catching abilities. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.....:lol:


----------



## toto

I quess I didn't notice that through all my tears of laughter. Sheesh:banghead3


----------



## Splitshot

fishinlk said:


> Honestly Splitshot I've lost a lot of interest in even discussing a lot of this with you. It seems like there's some kind of huge force field that forms some sort of barrier around your thought processes that don't allow you to absorb or honestly consider anything that falls outside of your pre-conceived bubble. My whole reply was kind of an off the cuff remark because of my absolute disgust of your usual twisting and turning of stories to discredit others views. I've said a number of times that I'd favor bait being allowed in many stretches with creel restrictions and yes I get that you'd fish with hex with a fly and nope I'd not be tossing worms either in a hex hatch. Your reply just shows how shallow you approach the replies of others that are outside of your view. You jump to twist and discredit without really reading it.
> 
> After working through all of these discussions with and through you I have to ask. Are you or have you ever been a politician??? You sure seem to have the "gift of spin".....
> 
> Don, Toto, and others have made for some intesting discussions and while we may not completely agree I don't feel that they are out to smear the competition but merely make a case for their view.
> 
> I've beat my head against the wall long enough with you..


Lance,

You say you want an honest discussion but never answer the question. Yes you have said you favor bait on many sections with creel restrictions. We have creel restrictions on all of our trout streams already. Are you inferring that we should have further creel restrictions on some sections.

I think the current creel restrictions could be increased and the number and size of our trout would not be impacted. The reason I think that is because the MDNR field biologists think that as well.

The fact that you favor bait on many sections begs the question and that is you do not favor bait on all sections. If that is accurate, please tell me why you dont favor bait on those sections.

As far as smearing the competition the facts are responsible for that. I have tried the gentle approach and I have tried to be reasonable. In the end you cant provide one good reason we should have any bait restricted waters or fly only waters so you talk about bubbles around my thought process as if I were blinded by some type of philosophy or that I twist every thing you say. Anything to avoid the truth. You dont have a good reason and we all know that if you admit it everything I have said about you guys is validated.

I understand if you want to run from my challenge Lance, but I will answer any of your questions honestly and directly if you will do the same. No twisting, mocking, satire or dodging, just the truth. You up for that discussion?


----------



## thousandcasts

toto said:


> Thats fine downstream, but since when is the DNR to use social science as a criteria, cuz I don't see that in any PTD. If you want to argue that social, and economics are science, then we should also say the astro physics is a science. Therefore maybe we should have fishing closures when the Constellation Orion is in the southwest sky. Sounds about the same logic can be used there too.
> 
> Also, if they want to have gear restricted streams, those streams should not be stocked with tax payers money. These fish are paid for by all of us, and should be stock in open streams/rivers. Why would we stock fish, paid for by all of us, in streams that all of us want, can, or prefer not fish with these restrictions??
> 
> While I realize that these towns, villages, and cities may need a boost in economy, it isn't my responsiblity to give up my rights so they can prosper. Make no mistake, we are not talking about a conceived privledge here, we are talking about my rights to fish, which are inherent with citizenship. Just read Article IV of the Northwest Ordinance, which btw, was created from the PTD, and I see no where where it is my responsiblity to take care of someones else pockets. That whole logic smacks of spreading the wealth. If you want to be in business, then the one thing you should have learned prior to opening any doors is location, location, location. Furthermore, is our fishing rights responsible for the downfall of a local economy, or is it the state building highways around these communities that is at fault? I would suggest its more the latter, than the first issue.


A lot of where and what they plant in whatever numbers is based on usage and/or the social/economic aspects of said plant locations. So, to some degree, those have to be considered when making certain decisions. 

Certain decisions like that, obviously. Apples and oranges, though.


----------



## toto

So theres that word again, social, I can see the idea of social when it comes to planting fish, but not when it is gear restricted waters. Look at it this way: Lets assume that the GR waters are the best waters in the state, which most everyone agrees. Then two parts to this 1) they shouldn't be planted in those waters, as they are paid for by everyone, and 2) the fish should be planted if it is an area that needs the help, by that I mean the fish populations. In other words, why would you have a gear restricted area for the purpose of "trophy" waters, and then plant these stockers? Just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## thousandcasts

toto said:


> So theres that word again, social, I can see the idea of social when it comes to planting fish, but not when it is gear restricted waters. Look at it this way: Lets assume that the GR waters are the best waters in the state, which most everyone agrees. Then two parts to this 1) they shouldn't be planted in those waters, as they are paid for by everyone, and 2) the fish should be planted if it is an area that needs the help, by that I mean the fish populations. In other words, why would you have a gear restricted area for the purpose of "trophy" waters, and then plant these stockers? Just doesn't make sense to me.


I'll have to defer to you trout guys when you use the term "best waters." 

As a salmon/steelhead guy, I don't consider the flies only stretch of the PM as the best water on that river.  :lol:


----------



## Steve

tannhd said:


> Why flies rather than single hook/artificials?


I think this would be a great compromise. Other people.... not so much.


----------



## Steve

Jackster1 said:


> Since the question is, 'why restrict gear'...
> 
> Am I mistaken in thinking multiple treble hooks harm a fish more than single, barbless hook or that a gut hooked fish chomping bait impaled on a barbed hook has the same survival rate as one hooked on the lip with a small, barbless hook?
> 
> Jes wonderin'


No that can't be....


----------



## plugger

People put their own spin on most issues and fishing is no exception. we tend to key on aspects that support our beleifs and ignore what contrdictes us. I fish the PM water shed almost exclusively and fish numbers and size are more than passable. Numbers of fish and size of fish dont favor the same sections of the river. The lower in the pm you fish the fewer the numbers and the greater the size. 
Hooking mortality is influenced by several variables. I have never fished with splitshot but I have watched him fish on several ocassions over the years, I may have even followed him through the brush for aways to see how he fished a certain hole,. Ray is a master bait fisherman and I bet I gill hook more big trout this year on flies than Ray does on bait. I often fish some grotesquely large rapalas and never gill or gut hook an fish. 
I am far from an expert, but most studies I have read idicate water temp is often the greatest factor influencing hooking mortality. Should we close trout season during the warmer months?
Its pretty well documented that habitat not harvest will control fish numbers, natural mortality will far excede sport harvest so what purpose does no kill serve? 
My take on strict catch and release is it's cruel and unnessesary torture. If you step into nature and the food chain it's your place to fish, to harvest fish, and consume fish. Not all fish need to be retained, those too small or too large to be goood table fare should be returned to the water. If your only there to impale and cause a creature to fight for its life you might be a little sick!
I dont have much recent experience on watersheds other than the PM but the gear restrited water on the PM is the most acessable, easiest to fish water. Most of the water I fish is dangerous to wade and hard to get to. It,s no place you'd want to take a kid or inexperienced person. 
The thing that bothers me most about the trout fishing for now and into the future is the fact that I dont see kid's on bicycles heading to the river!


----------



## METTLEFISH

The last sentance in the above post says volumes....


----------



## fishinlk

Unfortunately that spans a lot more than just trout fishing. It's youth and the outdoors overall. I about fell out of my chair when my daughter came to me this spring and asked to go deer hunting this fall!


----------

