# Flies Only.....



## Shupac

Shoeman said:


> I just have to ask, how many of you (us) are drawn to these waters and why?


It varies. Some years 75-80% of my fishing may happen on the fly only sections of the au sable branches, some years much less. I spent very little time there last year, maybe 10% of my water time. I almost always fish the Manistee above 72, and I like the North branch upstream from the fly water a lot. On the little manistee I usually fish in the gen regs section.

As far as being crowded, I've almost never found that. Of course I usually fish weekdays and don't mind wading far from the accesses. 

Reasons I go? I would say mainly the hatches. I don't think there are many other rivers in Michigan that get the volume, consistency, or variety of hatches the au sable does. Even the PM doesn't match it. I've hit great hatches on other rivers but it doesn't happen as often. And while I don't think fly fishermen are somehow superior, I would say that only fly fishermen could really appreciate that dimension of the river and why it makes it so unique. That's not a reason to make the river fly only, but I think it does point to why fly fishermen hold it in such high regard. Of course, if you're more of a streamer fisherman, it may not matter than much. 

Other reasons...I would say the company of like minded anglers is part of it, but not because I don't want to be around bait dunkers. I'm addicted to the long rod, and I appreciate meeting others who understand the obsession. (And yes, some of those people can be quite snobby, and I don't like that either, but I don't believe theyr'e the norm. Maybe if I fished when/where it was crowded I'd see a lot more people like that). The fly only stretches, especially near Grayling, do tend to cluster the fly afish-cionados, just like silicon valley draws techies or Wall Street does moneymen. That wouldn't change w/ the end of fly only, but the fly only regs foster it. 

I appreciate skilled fishermen of all types. As far as I'm concerned, if you're having fun and you're doing it legally, you're fishing the right way. 
I do have a special affection for the fly-only waters, but keeping them that way isn't a concern of mine. It's the _waters_ I love, not the regs.


----------



## Shupac

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the end of year-round or extended seasons on streams that don't get steelhead or salmon. Give the fish a break for spawning and just more time of being unmolested. (Although I wouldn't mind leaving the season open till mid-October, just to get in on the last nice olive hatches of the year)


----------



## Flyfisher

Litehen55 said:


> I fish the flies only water a lot, partially because it has good access and is easy to wade. But I boat fish the Trophy water and Mac to Parm where my cabin is a lot as well. I would say the numbers are better in the north, south and holy waters, not the size necessarily.


Numbers may be better due to better habitat and consistent water temperates. Lack of size may be due to more competition for food in areas that are no kill. Rivers cannot always produce both numbers and size. Usually there is a tradeoff in growth rates. Merely speculation on my part as your evidence is anecdotal. My in-laws live on a well-known inland walleye lake in northern Michigan. For whatever reason, the walleye population has collapsed. There is plenty of forage for walleyes, in fact probably too much. The lack of predators (whether it be man or walleye) on the perch has resulted in a lake full of 3"-4" yellow perch. 



Litehen55 said:


> If folks could fish with anything, *I believe *more fish would be killed even if released. It does help protect the fishery, *I have to believe*.


Speculation on your part, no doubt based on myths perpetuated by flyfishing organizations. And, unfortunately the studies used to show trout mortality are generally flawed in that its a laboratory setting (still water) using doughbaits (powerbait) with an inordinate amount of time before the hook is "set". This scenario is not nearly as likely on a river setting. I am not saying that there wouldn't be mortality from "gut-hooked" fish but it would probably be far less than the natural mortality experienced in Michigan rivers annually. The only way to determine this is sound scientific studies. 

I used to be of your way of thinking, but now realize that politics recently have played a much bigger role in the management of our fisheries then biological science. We pay for DNR biologists through fishing licenses fees and taxes. If the decision makers are going to ignore the studies we might as well remove all the biologists from the state payroll to help balance the budget shortfall.


----------



## Flyfisher

fishigan07 said:


> I see it more as a conservation effort. I'll say one thing that is a plus with flies only water...they are generally a cleaner stretch of river. No where near as much trash as other waters.


How is "flies only" a "conservation effort"? You still use a hook, right? A conservation effort would be staying at home and not fishing at all. Or spending time restoring stream habitat.

And, for some reason, the dominant theme from the "flies only" proponents is that bait fishermen are "slobs" and leave trash everywhere. Unfortunately, no one can articulate a more compelling argument FOR special regs.



fishigan07 said:


> In Pa and NY you can't fish in the dark. I wouldn't mind seeing that here.


That would suck for those of us that like to fish hatches after dark, like gray and brown drakes, as well as the hex.


----------



## ESOX

Personally, I think the argument about increased mortality is a silly one. Weather or not there is increased mortality is irrelevant unless one is talking strictly about brook trout water. There is no point in even discussing the mortality rate of stocked, nonindigenous fish like rainbows and browns.


----------



## Shoeman

Plenty of valid points. I agree on the litter. The Whirlpool is a prime example, but that being said, the DNR has removed many of the barrels do to staff reductions. We all know that ideally our trash should be carried out. Well, some don't see it that way

I can't blame anyone throwing bugs to be drawn to these areas. They were designed for prime water, lots of gravel, small enough to wade, yet allow enough room for a back cast. 

Granted many organizations have spent thousands of hours to improve these sections (for the trout at first), just to reclaim them in the long run.

There's the issue! Does that allow first dibbs when it comes to methods?

Originally it was done to maximize the fishery, but to claim it down the road and try to remove less desirables is a stretch. 

Michigan has been known to take advantage of its citizens for a long time. Look at the sin taxes, business taxes, permits, ect. 

Now it's dog eat dog trying to milk the public for every other dime. 

Oh, we're broke and unless we hike the tax on gas you'll be driving on dirt roads..... FT!!!!!

Noone is ever held accountable. 

I regress! I had full intentions to keep politics out of this thread and should delete it....lol

(I might have to in order to allow the members that DO utilize these waters to speak up)

I don't see anything wrong with anyone choosing F/O water as a destination. Hell we didn't write the books.


----------



## Shoeman

Perhaps the real question is, do many of you select these sections because of locality, wadeablity, hatches, access or is it do to the regulations?


----------



## fishigan07

Flyfisher said:


> How is "flies only" a "conservation effort"? You still use a hook, right? A conservation effort would be staying at home and not fishing at all. Or spending time restoring stream habitat.
> 
> And, for some reason, the dominant theme from the "flies only" proponents is that bait fishermen are "slobs" and leave trash everywhere. Unfortunately, no one can articulate a more compelling argument FOR special regs.
> 
> 
> That would suck for those of us that like to fish hatches after dark, like gray and brown drakes, as well as the hex.


For starters...isn't the flies only stretch a no kill zone? I could be wrong but that is what I was always told. I was also under the understanding that it was started as a conservation effort to begin with.
As for the trash it is a fact. Not saying all bait chuckers leave trash. But if you have a stretch where no one is carrying bait containers then then you are less likely to see as much trash. If you are carrying 3 fly boxes around and you loose all of your flies do you chuck the fly box into the river? How about an empty crawler container? You see it all over michigan. little round blue walts crawlers containers. 
Point taken on the hex hatch though...I do like that myself. I was thinking more like the "3rd shifters" at the dams and fish ladders.


----------



## Flyfisher

fishigan07 said:


> For starters...isn't the flies only stretch a no kill zone?


Yes, on the PM it is. I am pretty sure this thread is about "flies only", not "no kill". I will agree that "no kill" can be viewed as a conservation effort. "Flies only", not so much.



fishigan07 said:


> As for the trash it is a fact. Not saying all bait chuckers leave trash. But if you have a stretch where no one is carrying bait containers then then you are less likely to see as much trash. If you are carrying 3 fly boxes around and you loose all of your flies do you chuck the fly box into the river? How about an empty crawler container? You see it all over michigan. little round blue walts crawlers containers.


I must be fishing the wrong general reg areas because I don't see a lot of the blue worm containers. Still, your point does not provide a valid reason for "flies only" regulations.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Flyfisher said:


> I must be fishing the wrong general reg areas because I don't see a lot of the blue worm containers. Still, your point does not provide a valid reason for "flies only" regulations.


I have to agree with you on this one. True, I do see some blue worm containers along the banks of general regulation water. But I also tend to fill a whole pocket up with leaders, tippets and flies that I have cut out of trees while fishing the restricted waters.

Fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what gear an angler uses there is always potential to leave the river a mess. This is why the "worm container" arguement isn't valid. 

It seems as though this arguement is the fall-back crutch for those opposed to bait fishing. Maybe we should just outlaw the blue containers? Oh wait, that would be another useless regulation that can be prevented if anglers did the right thing while on the stream, kind of like resticting bait because some anglers will wait until a worm is completely swallowed before setting the hook. Regulations cannot be put in place on everyone because of the ignorance of a very small percentage of people.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Sorry Shoeman but I have yet to answer your original question. I do not, and will not fish the fly only waters. While I am strictly a fly fisherman I often fish with guys who are not. This leads me to water that everyone in my group can fish. 

I would love to see the fly only water go away completely. (Look out, a TU guy just said that) This would allow for my group to fish sections of the PM that they have never seen before due to the current regulations.


----------



## Abel

I routinely drift a stretch below the fly only water on the PM, haven't seen much trash at all, and no, it's not all pirvate water either. Only thing I really see lots of is flies n such hanging in the trees. I'll probably be on the same stretch tomorrow.


----------



## fishigan07

I get your point on the "flies only" waters. In the end I could care less if they have them or not. I seldom fish them anyway. 
And I realize we all fish different waters so in some places trash is a problem where as in others it is not so bad. I don't think I have seen much on the MO but I have seen a good deal of it on the Kzoo and Man in certain places. A few years ago I fished the Man and came across a guy coming out with a full garbage bag of beer cans, leaders and general trash. Helluva a guy that spends an hour cleaning up.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

I like fishing catch and release water because seeing a steelhead or salmon or lake run brown with its stomach sliced open and the carcass left to rot in a parking lot enrages me. 

I see that at a popular access on the White at least once a year. I no longer fish with guides in Michigan but we would see that all the time on the Manistee. 

I have never seen that at a catch and release access.


----------



## Chromedoggy

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> I like fishing catch and release water because seeing a steelhead or salmon or lake run brown with its stomach sliced open and the carcass left to rot in a parking lot enrages me.
> 
> I see that at a popular access on the White at least once a year. I no longer fish with guides in Michigan but we would see that all the time on the Manistee.
> 
> I have never seen that at a catch and release access.



Where have you been Oh-Yeah?
Hope all is well.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Chromedoggy said:


> Where have you been Oh-Yeah?
> Hope all is well.


Thanks, Chromedoggy. Things are good and busy so I haven't been in here much.

Hope things are well with you.

I should also say that seeing fish swim by that look like Christmas trees with all the flies dangling off them is pretty anger inciting, too. The bait/hardware guys do fish with more appropriate line as even in the all gear allowed waters it's rare to see a king or steelhead swim by with a spoon, spinner or crankbait lodged in its back or gut. The same obviously can't be said for all the fish tagged with flies/yarn that can be seen all run long.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

I will also say that it is much easier to find wide stretches of open water on the 3 or 4 rivers within an hour of the PM's flies only water.

I haven't fished the PM for salmon in a couple years cuz it's easier to find un-spooked fish just north or south of the flies only. Plus, the bar food is better in Frankfort or Manistee. :lol:


----------



## Boozer

There will always be idiots doing stupid things, there is bad things done by bait and fly fisherman. Making rivers flies only will not change that.

All flies only sections do is divide anglers, taking away from the resources we have because guys are too busy fighting with eachother to look at the big picture and do something about the actual important things.


----------



## Flyfisher

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> say that seeing fish swim by that look like Christmas trees with all the flies dangling off them is pretty anger inciting, too. The bait/hardware guys do fish with more appropriate line as even in the all gear allowed waters it's rare to see a king or steelhead swim by with a spoon, spinner or crankbait lodged in its back or gut. The same obviously can't be said for all the fish tagged with flies/yarn that can be seen all run long.


The main difference is that kings are more likely to hit a spinner, spoon, crankbait, skein, or streamer fly. Particularly when they are fished to early in the run before they start spawning. The unfortunate practice of continually casting double fly rigs to actively spawning fish is the norm throughout the PM fly water, as well as many other rivers. If the fish didn't hit on the first couple of casts, its unlikely 30 more casts with a small egg fly and #10 stonefly nymph is going to illicit a strike. Couple those fly rigs with long leaders(tippets) an occasionally a fish will be "flossed", rewarding the "sportsman" with a headshaker. Only the naive and ignorant truly believe that a 15lb king salmon swam 30 miles upriver to "eat" stoneflies or caddis larva while in the middle of procreation. The guides and flyfishing authors perpetuate the myth to protect their "cash cow".


----------



## Jackster1

Are we behind the times? Many people from around the world head to Montana and its environs strictly for the fly fishing. The fish seem to love it and the fishermen for sure do. I bet the state enjoys the revenue it brings too. This has some of the finest trout fishing in the world yet a bulk of the fishing is flies only... not only flies only but lead-free fishing and barbless hooks only!
Yeah... I admit to loving the heck out of the experience of fishing the flies only areas out west, down here in the south and in Michigan when I get back.
Me thinks a lot of the stink is from people simply afraid to learn a new technique. Except for the extremely young, every single person I know who fly fishes solely once spin and bait fished. That includes me where growing up, there was all sorts of gear to use, from the hardware store bamboo noodle rods to Paul Young bamboo fly rods. We used whatever we had an inkling to but in the end most of us gravitated to the long rod. Maybe it was the challenge, maybe it was the fact you were always working the rod and keeping busy but of the many decent fishermen I know I cannot name one who went from the fly rod to worm-dunking and spin casting.
I'm all for flies only areas.


----------



## Boozer

I give up...


----------



## fsutroutbum

I enjoy the flies only section on the PM up until around September 1 when it gets crowded with the salmon crowd. Fish a few others within an hour of there. Mostly fish mid week on rivers so I usually do not have to put up with crowds. A lot of places I have fished in other states are restricted to flies only. I do not have a problem with having a couple hundred miles of river throughout the state set aside for gear restricted fishing. When one looks at all the access to water in our state as compared to others we really have a good deal hear in Michigan.


----------



## ESOX

fishigan07 said:


> I will also add that flies only water does NOT mean you have to use a fly rod. Anyone can fish it with a float and a fly with out any problem.


No problem? I have heard that line before, and I am amazed anyone who knows a damn thing about fishing can deliver it with a straight face, unless they think their audience is a bunch of morons.
Big trout, particularly browns are meat eaters. You really need to fish streamers to get them to hit a fly. How could someone possibly effectively fish a streamer on a float and fly? On a flyrod we use weighted lines to get the streamer down and keep it down, not a floating line......


----------



## Flyfisher

Jackster1 said:


> Are we behind the times? Many people from around the world head to Montana and its environs strictly for the fly fishing. The fish seem to love it and the fishermen for sure do. I bet the state enjoys the revenue it brings too. This has some of the finest trout fishing in the world yet a bulk of the fishing is flies only... not only flies only but lead-free fishing and barbless hooks only!
> Yeah... I admit to loving the heck out of the experience of fishing the flies only areas out west, down here in the south and in Michigan when I get back.


Making comparisons between Michigan and Montana is laughable. With a significantly lower population density and miles and miles of quality blue-ribbon water well suited to flies, Montana is a "destination" fishery. Are we supposed to give up access to our best trout waters so that out-of-state flyfishermen can visit here once a year when there are any number of non-fly fishing licensed residents that would also like to enjoy that water. Certainly, out-of-state tourism is important to our economy, but so is in-state tourism where people drive up north from the urban centers and city suburbs. The vast majority of those people are NOT fly fishing.



Jackster1 said:


> Me thinks a lot of the stink is from people simply afraid to learn a new technique. Except for the extremely young, every single person I know who fly fishes solely once spin and bait fished. That includes me where growing up, there was all sorts of gear to use, from the hardware store bamboo noodle rods to Paul Young bamboo fly rods. We used whatever we had an inkling to but in the end most of us gravitated to the long rod. Maybe it was the challenge, maybe it was the fact you were always working the rod and keeping busy but of the many decent fishermen I know I cannot name one who went from the fly rod to worm-dunking and spin casting.
> I'm all for flies only areas.


You write like flyfishing is at the top of some sort of evolutionary ladder?  We get that you enjoy it, but some of us consider it just another arrow in our quiver. I ONLY fly fish for trout with a dry fly during hatches anymore. Historically speaking, that's the truest form of fly fishing. I don't feel superior for doing it but having spent many years stripping streamers, swinging wets, and watching a fly-bobber its what I enjoy about flyfishing. Chucking slinky rigs with a running line is NOT flyfishing although any number of guides and fly shops will say different.

I also enjoy casting a long fly line for striper, bluefish, and false albacore in the east coast salt but could care less if the guy next to me is casting hardware. If something works for you, that's wonderful but I doubt that anyone is "afraid" to learn flyfishing. Tackle is a personal choice and not one that can be forced on others. 

Many of my "decent" fly fishing buddies also enjoy other techniques. They are fairly open minded and see that various techniques and tackle provide the same reward as fly fishing. Quite a few my "decent" fishing friends have picked up baitcasters and centerpins in the pursuit of steelhead and salmon in lieu of their spey rods and long single-handers. 

Larry Dahlberg, creator of some of the most innovative fly patterns of our generation also makes and casts artifical lures on conventional tackle. He must be a lesser person when he puts down the flyrod in favor of his baitcaster. 

I used to think a lot like you, 15 or 20 years ago, when I first became really serious about fly fishing. I dabbled in it as a kid growing up in FL, most warmwater stuff like bass and bream (bluegill) but when I moved north I embraced every aspect of it. Over the years, I have tried and enjoyed other techniques and tackle, realizing its not a sin to use bait or troll a crankbait.


----------



## turtlehead

I fish the Au Sable almost exclusively and the number one reason is locality. We have a place near Mio and I split my time between the Trophy Water and the South Branch. That's the reason I started fly fishing and then I stayed with it because of the hatches. Access is great and wadeability would be last on your list Shoeman. 

The reason I'm drawn to the flies only stretches is the year round fishing that goes with it. I'm not much of a steelhead or salmon guy, so in the fall and early spring I like having the chance to toss streamers and have the river to myself. Because I fly fish for trout, gear regs don't limit my fishing, instead they provide more opportunities. 

I think the Mio stretch is a good example of maximizing the use of gear regs. They are lowering the size limit for rainbows during the regular season, raising the limit to protect trophy browns, and opening it up in the off season for catch and release. The bait guys are still shut out, but all in all, the regs are more liberal overall than before.


----------



## Abel

Oh-Yeah, the issue here isn't really cathc and release/no-kill areas, but someone saying that their beadhead nymph is better for the fish than my 1/16 oz marabou jig, or their size 2 streamer and whatever I use that's equal to it. It has a lower mortality for released fish because it's called a fly? Or doesn't have the weight molded onto the hook, but rather tied in?


----------



## Jackster1

Flyfisher said:


> You write like flyfishing is at the top of some sort of evolutionary ladder?  .


and the problem with that is? I do indeed think fly fishing, if done right, takes fishing to another level. I can drag a crawler harness through the weeds with the best of them. Toss a spinner into cover too and even notice the twitch of a bobber bobbing. Could it possibly be there ain't no joy in it for some of us? Naw... we must not know what we prefer, even if our only fly fishing experience consists of 25 years of fly fishing 3-4 times a week all over the state and our total fishing experience covers some 55 years.



Flyfisher said:


> I used to think a lot like you, 15 or 20 years ago, when I first became really serious about fly fishing. I dabbled in it as a kid growing up in FL, most warmwater stuff like bass and bream (bluegill) but when I moved north I embraced every aspect of it. Over the years, I have tried and enjoyed other techniques and tackle, realizing its not a sin to use bait or troll a crankbait.


That too depends. I don't eat fish so don't quite get a kick out of turning brookies inside-out to save a Mepps spinner, to gut hook a bow or brown just for chest-thumping purposes or to bring a limit of perch off the ice, cuz I can, just to let them freezer burn at home.

Still the fact remains, I cannot name one person who went from the fly rod to worm-dunking and spin casting... I honestly know VERY many who, myself included, who went the other way from hardware to flies.

As for gear restrictions, flies only is not off-limits. All you have to do is use flies. Not allowing spears, 1/4 sticks of dynamite, trot lines and seine nets to fish with are esentially gear restrictions, let's rip this thing wide open and have it any way we want it. :16suspect


----------



## The Downstream Drift

I hate to be the guy that is finally switching over but... 

Most of you know that I am a strict fly fishing guy and have been for a very, very long time. But I just spent a bunch of money on a spinning rod and reel to drift waxies this winter. Through my experience the guys that are drifting waxies during late December, January and February are far more productive than I have been with any fly pattern I have thrown. So, for the next couple of months my fly rod will be at home in the rod rack wondering why it got dumped for a lower class spinning rod. :lol:


----------



## Flyfisher

Jackster1 said:


> and the problem with that is? I do indeed think fly fishing, if done right, takes fishing to another level. I can drag a crawler harness through the weeds with the best of them. Toss a spinner into cover too and even notice the twitch of a bobber bobbing. Could it possibly be there ain't no joy in it for some of us? Naw... we must not know what we prefer, even if our only fly fishing experience consists of 25 years of fly fishing 3-4 times a week all over the state and our total fishing experience covers some 55 years.


That's great that you found what you enjoy. I never suggested that you give up fly fishing, whatsoever. That shouldn't mean that those of us that choose other legal, reasonable techniques and tackle should be excluded from ANY water in the state.

Maybe you can relate to this, but my favorite fishing of any kind, is casting my small epoxy flies to false albacore from shore in coastal RI. Its great fun but I don't think its necessary that I have a special area reserved for me so I don't have to stand next to a guy casting tin or bottomfishing for scup. Its funny, even the guys that are using conventional tackle release their "albies" rather than thumping their chests, carrying dead cat food as they walk off the jetty. Shocking, isn't it? The reality is that flies are probably the most effective technique for these tunoid speedsters, given the size of their preferred local prey, the bay anchovy. You should see the pattern I tie, my local CT/RI fly fishing friends love it when I share a few with them.

For the past couple of years I have been spending a lot of time trolling from a kayak for salmon, steelhead, walleye, pike, etc. With that in mind, I don't feel its necessary that the state set aside a particular stretch of water for my needs, and that is what this debate is truly about. Like fly fishing, angling from a kayak presents its own challenges. But I don't feel any degree of superiority over my powerboating brethren. I enjoy the exercise and freedom of the kayak, as well as the convenience of being able to launch anywhere that the water touches land. 



Jackster1 said:


> That too depends. I don't eat fish so don't quite get a kick out of turning brookies inside-out to save a Mepps spinner, to gut hook a bow or brown just for chest-thumping purposes or to bring a limit of perch off the ice, cuz I can, just to let them freezer burn at home.


The problem is that you have blurred the line between between reality and perception. From what I can tell, your perception about anyone that doesn't fly fish exclusively is they kill, intentionally or not, any and everything they catch. Its been estimated that 90% of all resident stream trout caught in Michigan are released, regardless of the regulations. Many more trout probably die annually due to old age, predation (from other fish and birds), anchor ice, and thermal pollution. 

Personally, other than fresh walleye, I don't enjoy eating most fish. I will kill legal walleye and eat them fresh. I kill a steelhead or two a year to for the smoker to give to appreciative relatives and friends. I release all my trout as I will not use them for food. Since I started bait fishing and trolling crankbaits over the past 6 or 7 years, I can't recall any gut-hooked rainbows, browns, or steelhead for that matter. Even the steelhead and salmon I hook with multi treble-hooked crankbaits are easliy released with a twist of the pliers off the side of my kayak. I do recall having to creel a steelhead 10 years or so ago that somehow bled out as I was reeling it in. I caught that one on a #10 Glo-Bug, fished under a fly-bobber.


----------



## Flyfisher

The Downstream Drift said:


> I hate to be the guy that is finally switching over but...
> 
> Most of you know that I am a strict fly fishing guy and have been for a very, very long time. But I just spent a bunch of money on a spinning rod and reel to drift waxies this winter. Through my experience the guys that are drifting waxies during late December, January and February are far more productive than I have been with any fly pattern I have thrown. So, for the next couple of months my fly rod will be at home in the rod rack wondering why it got dumped for a lower class spinning rod. :lol:


indecent heathen :evilsmile


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Yup, fly fishing heresy. I'll have to head straight to confession the first of March. I wonder if I should take off my waders when I step in the booth?


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Jackster1 said:


> and the problem with that is? I do indeed think fly fishing, if done right, takes fishing to another level. I can drag a crawler harness through the weeds with the best of them. Toss a spinner into cover too and even notice the twitch of a bobber bobbing. Could it possibly be there ain't no joy in it for some of us? Naw... we must not know what we prefer, even if our only fly fishing experience consists of 25 years of fly fishing 3-4 times a week all over the state and our total fishing experience covers some 55 years.
> 
> 
> 
> That too depends. I don't eat fish so don't quite get a kick out of turning brookies inside-out to save a Mepps spinner, to gut hook a bow or brown just for chest-thumping purposes or to bring a limit of perch off the ice, cuz I can, just to let them freezer burn at home.
> 
> Still the fact remains, I cannot name one person who went from the fly rod to worm-dunking and spin casting... I honestly know VERY many who, myself included, who went the other way from hardware to flies.
> 
> As for gear restrictions, flies only is not off-limits. All you have to do is use flies. Not allowing spears, 1/4 sticks of dynamite, trot lines and seine nets to fish with are esentially gear restrictions, let's rip this thing wide open and have it any way we want it. :16suspect


This is the exact attitude and misconception that portrays fly anglers are elite jerks. I fish all methods and personally would never hope to run into you on the river. I would be afraid if I was tossing spinners you would attack me or if I was using my fly rod you may try to pick me up and take me home. Thank goodness the elite demographic is an older one. Maybe this problem will go away in a few years.


----------



## ESOX

> I fish all methods and personally would never hope to run into you on the river.


If you ever met Jack on the river you would be in great company. Jack is not only one hell of a nice guy and passionate and knowledgeable fisherman, according tothe FFF he is in the top couple percent of flyfishermen when it comes to proficiency.


----------



## Abel

I can't remember the last time I gut hooked a steelie, bow, brown, or king either. In fact the last time I was on the PM, every fish I hooked, on bait, was in the corner of the mouth, and I was well into the mid double digits.

O, by the way, isn't the top of the evulutionary/food chain the most efficient?

enough of this, I'm going fishing, see you on the river.


----------



## Shoeman

Let's not get back into that mouth-hockey debate

We all know what that's about...

If I were to run into Jack on the river, I'd get out, lean my rod against a tree and watch...LOL

I started this thread to get a feel for how many of us utilize F/O water to see the attraction. Most of us don't, but some do, mostly because of proximity to their cabins, the ease of wading, the hatches, year-round fishing and the amount of fish. Question is, would these guys still fish it if it didn't have the designation. Probably yes (for the same reasons). Again, I highly doubt that anyone on this board started F/O. I see nothing wrong with using this resource, even as a destination 

The F/O designation has dragged all flyfishermen many that frequent M-S through the mud for years now. Many have left because of the smear tactics of those opposed. Maybe you guys need to dig-up Rusty and direct your anger toward those pushing for more, not at flyfishermen in general. Our purpose is the same yours. We just prefer a different weapon


----------



## Flyfisher

ESOX said:


> If you ever met Jack on the river you would be in great company. Jack is not only one hell of a nice guy and passionate and knowledgeable fisherman, according tothe FFF he is in the top couple percent of flyfishermen when it comes to proficiency.


I am sure Jack is an excellent and knowledgable flyfisherman and if we met on the river or casting flies into the surf, in his element, we would get along fine. I just have issues with his generalizations about other tackle, and the people that utilize them. 

Its my belief that flyfishermen would still utilize the current "flies only" waters even if regulations were altered. The upper Rogue River used to have an "experimental" research area that had reduced limits and artificials only. Those regulation were removed when it was determined they did little to improve the fishery. Other than "opening day", its mostly flyfishermen utilizing the resource.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Flyfisher said:


> I am sure Jack is an excellent and knowledgable flyfisherman and if we met on the river or casting flies into the surf, in his element, we would get along fine. I just have issues with his generalizations about other tackle, and the people that utilize them.
> .


I let my emotions get in the way. The above sums up exactly how I feel.


----------



## REG

Jackster1 said:


> Are we behind the times? Many people from around the world head to Montana and its environs strictly for the fly fishing. The fish seem to love it and the fishermen for sure do. I bet the state enjoys the revenue it brings too. This has some of the finest trout fishing in the world yet a bulk of the fishing is flies only... not only flies only but lead-free fishing and barbless hooks only!
> .


Try this:
http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/regulations/

If you find any flies only water in MT, let me know because I couldn't find any in the regs.


----------



## Flyfisher

Jackster1 said:


> *Are we behind the times?* Many people from around the world head to Montana and its environs strictly for the fly fishing. The fish seem to love it and the fishermen for sure do. I bet the state enjoys the revenue it brings too. This has some of the finest trout fishing in the world yet a bulk of the fishing is flies only... not only flies only but lead-free fishing and barbless hooks only!


Maybe not so much here in Michigan?



Montana Fishing Regulations said:


> Clearwater River from Lake Inez fish barrier downstream to Salmon Lake outlet
>  Closed to fishing from Lake Inez fish barrier downstream for 100 yards.
>  Open entire year.
>  Catch-and-release for bass.
>  Northern Pike: no limit.
>  Spearing: open for northern pike.
>  *Snagging: open for salmon from Lake Inez Fish Barrier to Seeley Lake from September
> 15 through November 30. Closed to snagging from Seeley Lake to Salmon Lake*.


----------



## hjbigrapids

Boozer,

I give up also. It never fails that posts have to be beaten to death on here. I remember some years ago sitting in Edie's in Baldwin and the guys next to me were smoking. I told them that smoking would be banned in not too long. Their retort was never in Michigan. Guess what????????

Things change and a lot of people do not like change, but it is the nature of the beast.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Boardman Brookies said:


> OH-YEAH, I really enjoy reading your reports and insight you share. I know you have posted on some of my reports as well on how I did. I am kind of taken back on some of the things you have said here today. Personally I fish hardware 75% of the time I would estimate. The rest is fly fishing. I make many of my own spinners. I use larger barbless hooks. I also caught over 500 browns, brookies and rainbows last season. Out of that many I only kept a few for dinner when I went with my dad one afternoon. The rest were let go. I have mastered my skill with spinners and fish some very tight water. I do get a great deal of satisfaction from it. Is this the best way to fish? I don't I sure do like it. I also really enjoy fly fishing. The reason I don't use that method all the time is not that I am not good at it, it is I prefer to fish another method. I also fish many small creeks where it is almost impossible to use a fly rod.
> 
> To answer the original question. I honestly do not use the fly only sections that often. If I am in the area, there is a good hatch going on then most likely I will. I prefer to get away from the crowds, who ever they may be. If some day I make the switch and only fish with flies I will not forget my roots and certainly not criticize others who are fishing legally. That is my two cents for what it is worth.


Oops. Meant to reply to this post.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Boardman Brookies

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Boardman, I can tell from your posts that you are a great guy and a far better fisherman than me. I am taking a "devil's advocate" and strongly worded position cuz I am tired of the fly fishing bashing that goes on in MS by a very vocal number of members who have never even tried fly fishing. But, for some like me, it is a deep passion. I think having less than 5 pct of public waters set aside for flies only is abundantly fair. Plus, TU does more for stream conservation and demonizing TU is absurd. Just my opinion and hope the streams are good to you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thanks for the kind words and I do respect your opinion. I too and sick of the bashing on both sides. This needs to stop after all it is trout fishing that brings us all together in the end of it, regardless what you use. I would like to get down and fish the White sometime. That is one river that has eluded so far. Maybe this summer I will make it over there to explore.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

The Downstream Drift said:


> While I risk this post getting deleted I have to say that this thread was going along very smoothing until someone took there opinion and a began the "my opinion is superior" posts. Now this thread always had the potential for this to happen but everyone finally was able to post things without trying to be superior with their methods. It is sad to see that an opinion has slightly changed the mood of this thread. And even more sad to see that it was someone that is pushing the method that has been looked at as the "radical - I'm going to take everything for myself" method.
> 
> Oh-yeah, here is a simple question. One of my hobbies is painting. The medium I prefer to work with is either acrylic or watercolour. Does this make me any less of an artist because I do not use oil paints like the great European masters? Not at all. I simply choose to create my own art with a different medium. This can be easily compared to the subject at hand. You might be on the river with oil paints but there are plenty of people using acrylics that are painting just as good of a picture as you are. Sorry about the analogy but it is fitting here.


Using your "painting" comparison, I would say that spin fishing is like trying to create a masterpiece while using a paintball gun. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Boardman Brookies said:


> Thanks for the kind words and I do respect your opinion. I too and sick of the bashing on both sides. This needs to stop after all it is trout fishing that brings us all together in the end of it, regardless what you use. I would like to get down and fish the White sometime. That is one river that has eluded so far. Maybe this summer I will make it over there to explore.


That will be terrific, regardless of how we fish. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Bulletproof

Interesting fray.

Throughout my travels, most of the truly skilled fisherman I know, have been C-Pinners from Canada and New York. 

Defining skill and than measuring both methods, using an appropriate metric, would make for an intriguing study.


----------



## driftfisher

I have also enjoyed my trips to Alaska and BC, and you have played the devils advocate quite well, but the division between fishermen will never end as long as fishing opportunities and locations continue to be taken from one group and given to another. 

I also agree with bulletproof: the center-pin is the true masters choice and is proving as difficult to master as the fly rod, yet it continues to be my favorite.

Tight lines to all, even fly lines.

Later.


----------



## Abel

I've seen Sockeye chase down a fly many times while I lived in AK, amazingly you don't have to line them. 

As for the hating fly fishing idea, I don't hate fly fishing/erman. What I hate is the idea that there is fly only water, but not spoon, spinner or anyother type of water. Toto has it right, it's disrcimination, plain and simple. If you want solitude, get to walking, as many of you know, usually you don't have to walk that far. I have no issues with no-kill, or no bait for that matter. Lived with those rules in AK, but there was a reason for them, real reasons. But there wasn't any fly only water, at least not in SE AK. My 32th oz jig will do no more harm, nor will my single hook spoon or spinner than a beadhead nymph, conehaead bugger or streamer fly. Hook sizes are already restricted here, so my spoon can't have any bigger a hook to do more damage than a fly.

I'm with Drift on the pin, I find it much more difficult to master than the flyrod ever was, even with dries.


----------



## REG

Speaking of AK, one thing nobody talks about is how many 'hos get hooked deep in the gill rakers swinging 'wogs, because they hit it so hard. Then again, west coast salmon seem way more aggressive than their GL counterparts anyways.


----------



## Shoeman

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> The very act of casting a floating fly line requires skill. Casting a spoon, plug or other weighted lure involves essentially zero skill.
> 
> Watching a floating line cast in a perfect loop is a wondrous thing.
> 
> Mastering the perfect drift of a dry fly so that a trout thinks it is a natural insect that matches the other hundreds of actual insects on the water requires tremendous skill and patience.
> 
> Fly casting of a floated fly line itself is beautiful if done right. The environs of native trout are achingly beautiful places.
> 
> Dry fly fishing is like moving poetry and IS incomparably better in its aesthetics and psychic rewards than any other form of fishing.


You can still enjoy this art form without requiring special regs


----------



## Splitshot

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Actually, fly fishermen evolve from bait fishermen. Bait fishing involves zero skill and just being able to cast a fly involbves skill as do learning how to get the fish to believe that the fly is food. Fly fishing IS a better form of fishing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Elitism may refer to situations in which an individual assumes special privileges and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves. The term elitism is also sometimes used to denote situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an n-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination.

Please re-read your posts in this thread with the definition above in mind.

Truth is bait fishermen invented fly fishing because there were times when trout were feeding on the surface and they could not be caught with conventional methods. Evolution had nothing to do with it.

Dry fly fishing is extremely challenging when trout are in a neutral feeding mood or feeding on the bottom just like fishing bait on the bottom during a Hex hatch. The last time I recommended to a fly fisherman to fish bait on the bottom during the hex hatch told me that would be stupid. I agreed.

Dry fly fishing in my opinion (over 40 years of fly fishing) is the easiest way to catch a trout when they are feeding on the surface. When you see a trout rise, two things become apparent. First that the trout is actively feeding and second you know exactly where he is feeding. More often than not, a fly that closely matches the insects hatching an short cast anyone could learn in 10 minutes and its fish on.

While the bait fisherman has the advantage of using a bait that has sent and moves still must be able to read the water well enough to see in his mind where the fish is most likely to be feeding. He also must be aware of varying currents on the bottom and the knowledge to avoid snags. In my humble opinion bait fishing is much more difficult to master than dry fly fishing.

I must admit it is a thing of beauty to watch a master caster, but no matter how majestically you can cast, if the fish are feeding on the bottom and you are fishing on the surface I have to agree with the fly fisherman I mentioned above.

Many fly fishermen and women on this site have believed that somehow they rose above the lowly worm dunker and spin fishermen, but have been enlighten by this discussion and have come full circle. I started out as a worm fisherman, became a skilled spinner fisherman took another step and became an excellent fly fisherman and consider myself a fisherman. Fishing, hunting, and time in the outdoors fill a deep need in my soul and gives me a great deal of satisfaction and fulfillment.

You can think that other forms of fishing besides fly fishing arent worthy and those who participate in those forms of fishing cant feel deep serenity, contentment, or peace, but you would be wrong.

I have no problems sharing the water with anyone using any technique they want to use. In fact I am always willing to share my knowledge with them as any of the dozens of M-S members can attest to.

Fishermen are fishermen all the way up until the time they think it is okay put aside any of our public waters based on a method of fishing. I dont hate any fisherman as you insinuated in one of your posts but clearly hate the attitude of elitists as defined in my definition at the top of this post.

If the object of fishing is to catch fish, then the challenge should be to use any fair chase legal method to catch them and the person who is most skilled at all methods is the guy who will most likely meet the challenge and succeed.

We all love the solitude of a deserted trout river, we all appreciate the skill it takes to outsmart our quarry, we all appreciate the love of fishing and the romance of characters like Paul MaClean in A River Runs Through it, and we all understand we have differences although sometimes we have difficulties tolerating them.


----------



## Flyfisher

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Actually, fly fishermen evolve from bait fishermen. Bait fishing involves zero skill and just being able to cast a fly involves skill as do learning how to get the fish to believe that the fly is food. Fly fishing IS a better form of fishing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


We are all entitled to our opinions, some I agree with and some that I don't, like the above.

Rather than call you names, I'll share some personal experience and thoughts/opinions. First is that baitfishing is not as easy as it may appear to be with the exception being recent planters on rivers like the Muskegon. Personally, I'd be lost on a small stream with a container of nightcrawlers. To make a comment on how little skill it takes to catch wild stream trout on bait, can we assume that you were once a bait-fishing expert?

And, over the years, I have probably spent more time with a flyrod in my hand than anything else. I have fished dry flies on some of the most challenging streams in the eastern US. Long slick pools on the West Branch of the Delaware or TN's Clinch where the trout will come to a fly, inspect it, and float 10' downriver under the fly before they sulk back down to the bottom. There are certainly rewards in hooking the fish and I can, to some degree, understand the enthusiasm for flyfishing expressed by some here. Over time, the challenge was less rewarding as it became easier to trick those "smart" fish into taking my dry. When I moved to Michigan in 1997, I was surprised at how easy it was to bring rising trout to hook when compared to other places I have fished. The fish weren't terribly selective, even on the special reg waters, and the most simple of dry fly patterns worked well. 

That being said, the most challenging fishing I have experienced in recent years has been trolling crankbaits to suspended walleye in drowned rivermouth and inland lakes. It takes time, experimentation, and often, precision boat control to be successful. And what worked yesterday doesn't work today. Unfortunately, there are no "hatch charts" to reference. So, I constantly change lures, colors, and lure running depth all while trying to stay on a dropoff that goes from 10-22' in a space not much more than the length of my boat. It's intensely rewarding, for me, when I do bring home a walleye for breakfast or dinner.



OH-YEAH!!! said:


> TU does more for stream conservation and demonizing TU is absurd


TU does some great things for our trout streams through their rehabilitation projects and while garnering support for things like dam removal. These benefit trout and anglers alike. What troubles me about TU is how they have evolved from an organization of trout fishermen seeking to promote native and wild trout to one that pushes the "flyfishing agenda".



OH-YEAH!!! said:


> I am taking a "devil's advocate" and strongly worded position cuz I am tired of the fly fishing bashing that goes on in MS by a very vocal number of members who have never even tried fly fishing.


The interesting thing is quite a few of us in this thread opposed to "flies only" waters, people like myself, are quite experienced fly anglers. We just happen to also be well-rounded sportsmen in the sense that we also utilize any number of other techniques. 

And I'll say that the majority of the "fly bashing" that goes on around here centers on unethical flyfishing guides that practice questionable techniques such as double fly rigs on long leaders (tippets) for spawning salmon/steelhead. The hypocrisy is further amplified when these are the same people pushing for "flies only" regs to "protect the resource".


----------



## Flyfisher

fishigan07 said:


> I would like to say that me eyes have been opened up a bit here. :yikes:
> I had never put much thought into the flies only water. I fished them when I started out but left a while ago.
> I had no idea so many people hated them.
> I had no idea so many people felt the way the do about them.
> I took some advice and looked up some info on different rivers and water temps and spawning grounds. I will admit I was a tad ignorant on some of it. Having fished at Allegan but only at the dam I didn't realize the river conditions were less than ideal to steelhead and salmon spawning and survival.
> I feel ashamed that I spend sooo much time traveling and fishing yet I knew very little about a lot of the reasons behind some of the regs in our state.
> For about 9 years I have been a fly fishing machine chasing every species I can. From bass to wahoo. I own a ton of fly gear, yet not once have I ever felt like an elitist or a snob. I just want to fish man. That's all.
> I took it up full time as I had caught plenty of fish on other methods. I like the challenge and I think it is extremely rewarding to catch fish on flies you tie yourself and create. It's is a sheer joy to come up with a fly that can catch smallmouth bass in Michigan, tarpon in Mexico and mahi mahi in the Keys. But alas....this too is starting to peak and I hear a center pin and a spawn sack a calling. I see those guys catch a lot of fish man...I gotta give it a wallis try.
> Lot's of opinions here, some good, some knowledgable, some I don't agree with, some I do.


Excellent post, I am pleased to see that you took the time to read studies and the various data that the DNR biologists work so hard on. 

I went through what you have been doing for the last 9 years. I took the challenge to hand to catch as many species as I could fool on the fly. "Michigan Redfish" (aka sheepshead/drum) were a lot of fun on the flyrod, as were the carp of Grand Traverse Bay. I also conquered tarpon, snook, redfish, seatrout, ladyfish, and many others in FL, as well as the New England "Grand Slam" of stripers, bluefish, and false albacore ("albies"). The albie still remains my favorite saltwater fly rod fish, particularly when taken from shore or jetty.

The challenge of flyfishing somewhat lost its luster for me so I began to explore other tackle and techniques, to my personal satisfaction. Good luck as you accept new angling challenges, whether it be on fly, lure or bait.


----------



## fishigan07

Flyfisher said:


> Excellent post, I am pleased to see that you took the time to read studies and the various data that the DNR biologists work so hard on.
> 
> I went through what you have been doing for the last 9 years. I took the challenge to hand to catch as many species as I could fool on the fly. "Michigan Redfish" (aka sheepshead/drum) were a lot of fun on the flyrod, as were the carp of Grand Traverse Bay. I also conquered tarpon, snook, redfish, seatrout, ladyfish, and many others in FL, as well as the New England "Grand Slam" of stripers, bluefish, and false albacore ("albies"). The albie still remains my favorite saltwater fly rod fish, particularly when taken from shore or jetty.
> 
> The challenge of flyfishing somewhat lost its luster for me so I began to explore other tackle and techniques, to my personal satisfaction. Good luck as you accept new angling challenges, whether it be on fly, lure or bait.


It does seem like we have traveled a similar road. Personally I love saltwater more than anything. 
I am really looking forward to learning center pinning. It will be sort of like learning to fish all over again. 
If you are ever headed to southwest Mi give a shout, we can hit some water perhaps.


----------



## toto

I think its pretty safe to say that no one on here hates fly fishing, I don't see that. Its attitudes that people hate, which is weird, because if your read John Voelker (Robert Travers) "credo", you wouldn't think it would be this way, if we are all trully sportsmen/women.

Heres the "Credo" by voelker, tell me where its speaking of fly fishing:

I fish because I love to; because I love the environs where trout are found, which are invariably beautiful, and hate the environs where crowds of people are found, which are invaribly ugly; because of the television commercials, cocktail parties and assorted social posturing I thus escape; because, in a world where most men seem to spend their lives doing things they hate, my fishing is at once an endless source of delight and an act of small rebellion; because trout do not lie or cheat but respond only to quietude and humility and endless patience; because I suspect that men are going along this way for the last time, and I for one don't want to waste the trip; because mercifully there are no telephones on trout waters; because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness; because bourbon out of an old tin cup tastes better out there; because maybe I will catch a mermaid; and, finally, not because I regard fishing as being so terribly important but because I suspect that so many of the other concerns of men are equally unimportant-and not nearly so much fun.

In reading this, it dawned on me that that is exactly why I fish, whether its trout, or any other kind of fish. This isn't about fly fishing per se, its about the attitudes of some who feel that they are special, and deserve special treatment, and special areas all to themselves. But hey, the fly guys mention they want the solitude, well guess what, so do I, and I can do it with a spinning rod in my hand, just as well as I can with a fly rod in my hand. It isn't the methods that are goofing us up, its the idea of it that is.

Its a sad day really, when we in this country have so much, but yet still want to take more from someone else. Whether its money, or if its fishing, we are all created equal, we should all have equal access. Do I hate litter, yep, do I not like crowds, of course, do I explore to find places to be alone? Yep, and thats half the fun to me. There is nothing better than finding a place to fish, where you catch fish, and no one knows your there. We've all been there, I hope, you go out, do the research, and find THAT spot, where its magical, and you feel like a kid again, and the rest of the world disappears, even if for a little while. Why should a select group of people rob others of that experience? Whats right about that? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we just shared, knowing that we helped out someone, rather than took advantage of someone?

I don't know how to get this accross, but when it comes to the DNR and our government, don't we all pay taxes? Don't those taxes go to pay for the government to assure our rights? It would seem to me that if the fly guys, or bait guys would just slow down a little, they'd see it. It isn't my water alone, it isn't a fly guys water alone, no one has absolute right to what God created, we all do. This bickering about fly fishing is better, and if I fly fish I'm more of an artist, is sickening frankly, and also rather childish in my mind. Look, I spin fish for steel and salmon, and trout for the most part, but I fly fish at times too, especially down here in Florida. You tell me just how hard is casting a floating line, somewhat, but, have you ever tried launching a 400 grain sink tip 100 feet, now thats hard, especially into the wind. I can do it, maybe you can, but if you can't does that make me better than you??

Put another way, is Babe Ruth better than Mark McGuire? Is Barry Sheck a better attorney than Oh-yeah? Probably not, and frankly who cares, does it matter? Is it going to change my life? NO. All I know for sure is, I don't have that many years on this earth, and all I want is to enjoy the things that I enjoy, and one of those is trout fishing the way I've always done it. Sorry for the rambling, I quess this whole thing is just breaking my heart.


----------



## fishindude

Flyfisher said:


> Rather than call you names, I'll share some personal experience and thoughts/opinions. First is that baitfishing is not as easy as it may appear to be with the exception being recent planters on rivers like the Muskegon. Personally, I'd be lost on a small stream with a container of nightcrawlers. To make a comment on how little skill it takes to catch wild stream trout on bait, can we assume that you were once a bait-fishing expert?


First, let me say I've greatly enjoyed reading this discussion. It makes studying for finals that much more bearable.

Secondly, I believe fishing will always be as challenging as you make it, regardless of the method used. Some people only want an inexpensive rod/reel combo, others take it to the extreme. That's the beauty of it, there's a level or, "style" if you will for everyone. With that being said, I never considered myself a "bait fishing expert", but growing up my dad taught me to fish trout with every method possible, be it spinners, crawlers, minnows, and flies. I definitely feel that it's much easier to get a night crawler down under a log jam or back into a deep undercut bank where the big fish live when they're not feeding, so in that aspect yes, I'd say bait fishing can be easier(Read here: easier, not easy). But at the same time I feel trying to drift crawlers during a blanket hatch might not be as effective as flies since most bigger fish are out from their holding lies and in feeding lanes looking up. Along those same lines, 3 years ago I completely switched from a combination of bait and fly fishing to strictly fly fishing. And going from running spawn under a bobber to swinging a two hander for steelhead has been extremely humbling to say the least.

Count me in the group who has absolutely nothing against bait fishing as that's who I used to be. I just found my passion with a fly rod.


----------



## Jackster1

I won't get all flowery and wordy just to prove my point.
All I'll say is that I too fished proficiently using all sorts of methods. That I now prefer fly fishing over the other methods I've used over the years mean nothing, at all more than I enjoy it more.

Okay... maybe I will get a bit wordy... fly fishing has taken over my soul so much that I've spent good money and MANY long hours learning to do it better. It never ends, what you can learn fly fishing... never. That right there is part of the pleasure I get out of it. My latest learning deal is catching 20" wild browns on a tailwater with gin-clear, shallow water on size 24-28 midges in brood daylight. That ain't exactly slingin' PowerBait, crawlers or spinners at 'em and it darn sure isn't dry fly fishing! You had BEST know how to fish the seams and such and avoid the snags and generally read the water, just like a 'real' spin fisherman.
I've said it before on this fly vs, hardware debate and will say it again and again each time it comes up... just as long as you're legal, to each his own.


----------



## ESOX

> I've said it before on this fly vs, hardware debate and will say it again and again each time it comes up... just as long as you're legal, to each his own.


Agreed. But the crux of the issue is that fly fishing has more opportunity to be legal due to special regulations on some of the best waters in the state denying anglers employing other techniques the same water. I don't see how anyone viewing this objectively can see it is just not fair, or necessary. I have asked a buddy who is an attorney to take a look at the legality of it, We are denying people equal opportunity with very little (if any) justification, can a successful legal challenge be mounted?
I was going to ask you to look at it Paul, but I figured your heart may not be in it.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

ESOX said:


> Agreed. But the crux of the issue is that fly fishing has more opportunity to be legal due to special regulations on some of the best waters in the state denying anglers employing other techniques the same water. I don't see how anyone viewing this objectively can see it is just not fair, or necessary. I have asked a buddy who is an attorney to take a look at the legality of it, We are denying people equal opportunity with very little (if any) justification, can a successful legal challenge be mounted?
> I was going to ask you to look at it Paul, but I figured your heart may not be in it.


Paul, I commend your efforts in following through on your convictions.

I had some down time yesterday and was feeling kind of feisty and prosaic. Too much to do today to try and adopt my John Voelker wanna be persona. However, fly fishing is my passion even though I am not all that good at getting double digit trout in MI. 

The main reason I don't want the "flies only" waters to go away is that those waters really tend to concentrate pressure during the runs. I can find plenty of open water on non gear regs water during the week. The PM flies only is always incredibly busy during the fall and spring runs.

Take away "flies only" and I may suddenly start seeing the Range Rovers and 4 Runners with Illinois plates choking up the parking lots at general regs water during the salmon and steelhead runs. :yikes:

It's been a long time since I had to worry about Constitutional Law but I think for a State created "special class" designation to survive an Equal Protection argument under the 14th Amendment the State needs to show a "rational reason" behind the protected class, in this case "flies only". 

There are a number of people who have posted in this thread arguing that the "flies only" water has no logical justification. Maybe that's the case and maybe you could getthe right lawyer to get the law changed.

TU and the DNR will likely fight back but change never happens without struggle. I have always wanted to do volunteer legal work for TU but it's hard to pay salaries and rent doing volunteer work. Hopefully someday. 

I still think that the "flies only" is a good thing and I think that fly fishing is a higher form of existence. Bait or hardware fishing is not a bad or low form of catching fish and bait fishing is what got me hooked on my life's obsession.

Tight Lines and Happy New Year everyone. I've got work to do all day and am disappointed I wont be able to check in on this thread too much more today.

However, I will say that this has been a really well stated discussion without name calling or any true nastiness.


----------



## REG

toto said:


> I think its pretty safe to say that no one on here hates fly fishing, I don't see that. Its attitudes that people hate, which is weird, because if your read John Voelker (Robert Travers) "credo", you wouldn't think it would be this way, if we are all trully sportsmen/women.
> 
> Heres the "Credo" by voelker, tell me where its speaking of fly fishing:
> 
> I fish because I love to; because I love the environs where trout are found, which are invariably beautiful, and hate the environs where crowds of people are found, which are invaribly ugly; because of the television commercials, cocktail parties and assorted social posturing I thus escape; because, in a world where most men seem to spend their lives doing things they hate, my fishing is at once an endless source of delight and an act of small rebellion; because trout do not lie or cheat but respond only to quietude and humility and endless patience; because I suspect that men are going along this way for the last time, and I for one don't want to waste the trip; because mercifully there are no telephones on trout waters; because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness; because bourbon out of an old tin cup tastes better out there; because maybe I will catch a mermaid; and, finally, not because I regard fishing as being so terribly important but because I suspect that so many of the other concerns of men are equally unimportant-and not nearly so much fun.
> 
> In reading this, it dawned on me that that is exactly why I fish, whether its trout, or any other kind of fish. This isn't about fly fishing per se, its about the attitudes of some who feel that they are special, and deserve special treatment, and special areas all to themselves. But hey, the fly guys mention they want the solitude, well guess what, so do I, and I can do it with a spinning rod in my hand, just as well as I can with a fly rod in my hand. It isn't the methods that are goofing us up, its the idea of it that is.
> 
> Its a sad day really, when we in this country have so much, but yet still want to take more from someone else. Whether its money, or if its fishing, we are all created equal, we should all have equal access. Do I hate litter, yep, do I not like crowds, of course, do I explore to find places to be alone? Yep, and thats half the fun to me. There is nothing better than finding a place to fish, where you catch fish, and no one knows your there. We've all been there, I hope, you go out, do the research, and find THAT spot, where its magical, and you feel like a kid again, and the rest of the world disappears, even if for a little while. Why should a select group of people rob others of that experience? Whats right about that? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we just shared, knowing that we helped out someone, rather than took advantage of someone?
> 
> I don't know how to get this accross, but when it comes to the DNR and our government, don't we all pay taxes? Don't those taxes go to pay for the government to assure our rights? It would seem to me that if the fly guys, or bait guys would just slow down a little, they'd see it. It isn't my water alone, it isn't a fly guys water alone, no one has absolute right to what God created, we all do. This bickering about fly fishing is better, and if I fly fish I'm more of an artist, is sickening frankly, and also rather childish in my mind. Look, I spin fish for steel and salmon, and trout for the most part, but I fly fish at times too, especially down here in Florida. You tell me just how hard is casting a floating line, somewhat, but, have you ever tried launching a 400 grain sink tip 100 feet, now thats hard, especially into the wind. I can do it, maybe you can, but if you can't does that make me better than you??
> 
> Put another way, is Babe Ruth better than Mark McGuire? Is Barry Sheck a better attorney than Oh-yeah? Probably not, and frankly who cares, does it matter? Is it going to change my life? NO. All I know for sure is, I don't have that many years on this earth, and all I want is to enjoy the things that I enjoy, and one of those is trout fishing the way I've always done it. Sorry for the rambling, I quess this whole thing is just breaking my heart.


Best post ever!


----------



## Ranger Ray

One man just sued the Feds for quiet land and won. Yes, you heard that right, quiet land, 70,000 acres are now to be set aside with no guns, snowmobiles, etc...

I think we need some quiet rivers. Where I can go and hear the water gurgle and do my yogo without listening to boats hitting bottom on the gravel and smelling cigar smoke. Happy Times!


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Ranger Ray said:


> One man just sued the Feds for quiet land and won. Yes, you heard that right, quiet land, 70,000 acres are now to be set aside with no guns, snowmobiles, etc...
> 
> I think we need some quiet rivers. Where I can go and hear the water gurgle and do my yogo without listening to boats hitting bottom on the gravel and smelling cigar smoke. Happy Times!


Ray,

Do you have a link to anything discussing that situation?


----------



## Ranger Ray

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/10/us_forest_service_may_set_new.html


----------



## WILDCATWICK

Interesting read thanks for the link Ranger Ray.

I get confused between all the forest lands but maybe some here can help me. I know there are already lands that have been set aside that do not allow motored vehicles or hunting. I've seen huge area on the north west side of the state. Any one if that's federal or state land? If federal, which I believe it to be, what forest is it apart of?

If there are already designated lands I don't see a need for more. Just like I don't see a need for more fly only water. Again, there is nothing wrong with having some designated stuff for different uses of our resources. The only question in my eyes is how much.


----------



## toto

Going from memory here, but aren't these "QUIET AREAS" also known as wilderness areas? From what I remember, in order the have a wilderness area, you need to have 10,000 contiguos (sic?) acres. In other words, uniterrupted by roads, or private land etc. I would imagine they do in this forest, but don't know for sure. I know it was one of the problems for Sleeping Bear Dunes when they wanted to set up wilderness areas.


----------



## Flyfisher

After soaking this all in a bit, there appears to be a fair amount of misconception between "flies only" and "no kill", understandably so given the state often lumps the two separate regulations together. 

"Flies only" is clearly a social regulation, given there are other tackle/techniques that clearly are no more harmful to fish. Why the NRC and lobbyists failed to explore these other options in the case of many of the "gear reg" waters is inexcusable. Clearly, the "artificials only" regulation is more equitable on many levels. And it does not appear that anyone brought up any significant data to support that bait is significantly more harmful to a fishery.

"No kill" is a management tool that does not have to be inclusive to flyfishing. It should be used when all other management tools, such as slot limits, fail to build or sustain a quality fishery. Again, "no kill" does not have to be "flies only", plain and simple. Alternatives to "no kill" also include closed seasons and reduced limits such as one or two fish instead of the standard five fish limit common here in Michigan. Five fish limits make a lot of sense on streams that are stocked due to lack of natural recruitment, as they allow for fish to be taken that may otherwise die due to less than favorable stream conditions. As stated earlier here, or on anther thread, voluntary no kill is practiced now by nearly 90% of trout anglers anyway. 

I won't speak for everyone, but I believe a fair amount of the individuals opposed to "flies only" are not necessarily opposed to "no kill", given it made sense, and after other management options, like size/slot/kill limits were explored. I am not making any claim to be a fisheries biologist, but common sense should dictate on how we manage our resources. The state employs any (shrinking) number of biologists to study and analyze our fisheries. Why not let the biologists determine what an allowable take on any given river is and make recommendations based on those numbers? They determine allowable quota on walleye in Lake Erie, salmon in Alaska, bluefin tuna in the Atlantic, and many other places around the United States. Its not rocket science and I believe I speak for a few in saying that is why we oppose "flies only" as it stands in Michigan. 

So, lets not confuse the two separate regulations. If someone is really that afraid or disgusted to stand next to a guy with a spinning rod in his hand, I suggest joining a flyfishing only club that owns significant private river/pong holdings so those "unfortunate sights" would be minimized. Otherwise, why don't we embrace the shrinking numbers of anglers around the state, regardless of whether they are throwing a #18 BWO or a half a nightcrawler. The only way the state is going to encourage new people into the ranks of anglers is by providing opportunity. Restricting access based on someone's choice of tackle is NOT providing that opportunity.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Great post flyfisher. I totally support the concept of "no kill" on some rivers. I do not in any way support "flies only." I can even support no bait in the "no kill" zones, but do not just limit them to flies, make the artificial, single point barbless hooks.


----------



## Splitshot

I have to disagree with you on no kill Rick. With no kill, all the fish are wasted and none of them are utilized. In the PM it means no one can keep salmon when we all know they are very close to lives end. All the fish biologist I have talked to say no kill protects nothing and is a social rule. In my opinion it is there to protect the easy fish and limit the number of anglers that would otherwise use the river.

Remember the guy who said these regulations keep the slobs off the upper river. Unless there was a real threat to any fishery in Michigan which there isnt, it should never even be considered. All the data shows that the numbers of fish in the no kill areas are consistent with the numbers of fish in areas where these rules are not imposed. In other words flies only no kill artificial lures only dont contribute anything to improve our fisheries.


----------



## Flyfisher

Splitshot said:


> I have to disagree with you on no kill Rick. With no kill, all the fish are wasted and none of them are utilized. In the PM it means no one can keep salmon when we all know they are very close to lives end. All the fish biologist I have talked to say no kill protects nothing and is a social rule. In my opinion it is there to protect the easy fish and limit the number of anglers that would otherwise use the river.
> 
> Remember the guy who said these regulations keep the slobs off the upper river. Unless there was a real threat to any fishery in Michigan which there isnt, it should never even be considered. All the data shows that the numbers of fish in the no kill areas are consistent with the numbers of fish in areas where these rules are not imposed. In other words flies only no kill artificial lures only dont contribute anything to improve our fisheries.


Ray, reread my post in that I point out that "no kill" as an option where it "made sense", after all other management tools are utilized. If you are saying that studies on *all* self-sustaining fisheries in Michigan indicate that they can all support some degree of angler mortality, then I suppose "no kill" would NOT "make sense". Lets please not get caught up on just the Pere Marquette River and its studies. My statements were generalizations based on trout fisheries in general, and what biologists utilize on rivers nationwide. 

With that in mind, if there was a native trout fishery in Michigan (or any other state) that was somewhat troubled or in recovery, your suggestion would be a year-round stream closure over allowing a "catch and release" fishery? 

On an interesting side-note, Minnesota allows bait on a number of its "no kill" trout rivers.


----------



## Flyfisher

Boardman Brookies said:


> Great post flyfisher. I totally support the concept of "no kill" on some rivers. I do not in any way support "flies only." I can even support no bait in the "no kill" zones, but do not just limit them to flies, make the artificial, single point barbless hooks.


I guess I should clarify my position. I would support "no kill" only in instances where other management options were off the table, such as the case of the restoration of a native fishery, like Appalachian brook trout. Point is, no kill is the most restrictive regulation short of year-round stream closure. If our fisheries are in that dire of a situation to warrant no kill (which they are not), we should also be closing them part of the year. Allowing year-round fishing on a no kill fishery is contradictory, or simply proves that the regulation is not necessary.


----------



## Splitshot

Rick we are in agreement. No kill for Appalachian brook trout and Yellowstone cut throat trout are two good examples of where no kill regulations work and are necessary to protect a fishery. In rivers like the Au Sable or the PM or any other streams or rivers in Michigan there are no trout I am aware of that need no kill regulations for protection in spite of what Trout Unlimited wants people to believe.

Boardman Brookies unless there was some compelling reason to restrict live bait I would not support it. The argument that hooking mortality is well documented but is a mute point especailly if all fishing activity has no noticible effect on our trout fisheries.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Splitshot said:


> Rick we are in agreement. No kill for Appalachian brook trout and Yellowstone cut throat trout are two good examples of where no kill regulations work and are necessary to protect a fishery. In rivers like the Au Sable or the PM or any other streams or rivers in Michigan there are no trout I am aware of that need no kill regulations for protection in spite of what Trout Unlimited wants people to believe.
> 
> Boardman Brookies unless there was some compelling reason to restrict live bait I would not support it. The argument that hooking mortality is well documented but is a mute point especailly if all fishing activity has no noticible effect on our trout fisheries.


Split, I mentioned I like the concept of it, but I really do not support unless there is a scientific reason to implement it. I do let go the majority of the fish I keep but I would rather see no more further gear restrictions in fact I would rather see them go away. Places where "no kill" could benefit a river could be the Pigeon below the dam that blew. Let the river recover or better yet close it for a season or two. I think that we are on the same page on the issue. If it doesn't biologically better a fishery what is the point of it.


----------



## Bull Market

This has been a very interesting and enlightening thread. The posts have been insightful, thoughtful and provocative, all at the same time. Unless I've missed it, there seems to have been zero "mean-spiritedness". Bravo. 

While it seems obvious to me (and probably to everyone), that the bait fishing crowd has lost this round of the dispute, it is also obvious, that the angst is unabated. There is talk about reorganizing, and meet-and-greets to formulate strategies, etc. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. 

However, from my perspective on the issue, I have to reiterate, that I don't believe the bait fishermen are even on the same page as the "agencies" when it comes to arguing their logic, or trying to present their "case". 

Having just re-read some of the older posts, I think I FINALLY understand both the basis of the frustration bait fishermen feel, and the lack of their effectiveness in stopping the new gear-regs. One of the quotes from Splitshot, helped me to understand . . . 



Splitshot said:


> Well in order to get what you want you have to take rights away from other anglers and that is exactly what happens when gear restrictions are imposed and it is to much of a burden.


The underlying theme of the bait-fishing argument, seems to be that only way you can take "rights" away from someone else, is if it is in the best interst of the resource. And, since (as some claim) no one has conclusively proven that FFO or gear restrictions has a positive impact on the fishery, then there is no reason to restrict the rights of bait fishermen. So the logic goes. 

But, the reason the DNRE is "blowing off" that argument, is simple, indeed. Fishing is NOT a "right". It's a privilege. Just like driving a car is not a right. You have to pass through certain hoops, qualify for and buy a driver's license and abide by the rules. Failure to any of the three will result in your privilege being suspended or revoked. 

The EXACT same is true of the privilege of fishing. You buy your license, and that license represents a "contract". The state will allow you to fish in certain ways, on certain waters, using certain gear, during certain times of the year . . . all of which they choose and establish. You can't use explosives, or catch fish with your bare hands, or be in the water during closed seasons, etc. You live up to your end of the contract (obey the rules), and the state will live up to theirs (let you fish). 

The DNRE and Legislature are free to set the rules and guidelines, using pretty much any criteria and logic they chose. I understand that DNRE decisions have to be based on scientific logic, etc., but that's not so for the Legislature. If they think there are social reaons to allow 200 miles of gear restricted waters, so be it. They have that authority. It's up the the DNRE to get it done without having negative impacts on the resource. 

Bottom line is this: If I were on the bait fisher's side of the argument, I would focus my energies on NOT trying to STOP gear restrictions (that decision has ALREADY been made), but rather DIRECT which waters get that gear restriction designation. You'll stand a whole lot more chance of being successful if you take that approach. For example, "We already have plenty of FFO waters on the P-M. Why not designate some miles on the "X" River, instead. And here's why . . . "

I hope this helps.


----------



## Steve

Great discussion.


----------



## Flyfisher

Bull Market said:


> The DNRE and Legislature are free to set the rules and guidelines, using pretty much any criteria and logic they chose. I understand that DNRE decisions have to be based on scientific logic, etc., but that's not so for the Legislature. If they think there are social reaons to allow 200 miles of gear restricted waters, so be it. They have that authority. It's up the the DNRE to get it done without having negative impacts on the resource.


The MDNRE is NOT under a mandate to utilize all 212 miles for "special regulations". And the "special regulations" do NOT have to be "flies only/no kill". The process with this last set of "gear regs" just stunk. I won't rehash it all here, but read any of the threads in the NW river forum and one will realize that decisions were made based on recommendations by a few well-connected special interest groups and their members.


----------



## Jackster1

Flyfisher said:


> based on recommendations by a few well-connected special interest groups and their members.


Those groups represent the people who belong to them. Start a group or better yet, join T.U.
Trout Unlimited is strictly a cold water conservation organization which does NOT designate what kind fishing you do... just that your efforts with them concern cold water conservation.
Truth-be-told, most T.U. chapters I've been in are really just good 'ol boy fly fishing clubs in drag. They need a shake up IMHO.


----------



## toto

Bull Market, you are right, this has been one of the more interesting threads on here in years, and for as long as its gone on, its one of the most civil as well.

Heres my problem with the rights vs privledges thing. I'll go back to the Northwest Ordinance, and the Public Trust Doctrine. In those two documents, it was determined that we have the RIGHT to fish, and those are both pretty powerful documents.

Now, if we understand that we have the right to fish, than why do we buy a license for the PRIVLEDGE to fish. I realize its the law to have a license, and I'll continue to do so, but, and heres the rub. If I buy a license so that I have the privledge to fish, aren't I also giving up my 5th and 14th amendment rights? I have read lots of stuff on this, and theres lots of people who believe in this theory, and it isn't the militia groups either. Frankly, its just common sense.

Looking at it another way, if we pay for the DNR to plant fish, or take care of our resources, than why do we have to pay again, to use them? Besides that, this is public waters, and has been determined to be so by law, over and over again. I've asked this question from the beginning, and I'll ask you again, just who is the State of Michigan? It isn't an individual, it is you and all the citizens of the state. Therefore, when you say public, you are talking of its citizens, and if its public waters, then who owns it?? The Public Trust Doctrine protects your rights to use the waters for whatever reason you like, as long as you aren't polluting it, or destroying it in some way or another.

All I'm saying is, you, the citizens have much more power than you think on these issues, and there are more theories on this, but I would take way too long to post them here, and frankly, its quite confusing. If you want to test my theory, next time you buy your fishing license, sign your name, then sign under your name UCC 1-207/308. If you want to know more about that, just look it up. The citizens of the U.S. are protected more than everyone thinks, on a lot of issue, and fishing is one of them.


----------



## Splitshot

Bull Market said:


> However, from my perspective on the issue, I have to reiterate, that I don't believe the bait fishermen are even on the same page as the "agencies" when it comes to arguing their logic, or trying to present their "case".


I appreciate that you are trying to keep this a civil discussion, and that you took so much time to analyze these issues Bull Market, but your conclusions are based on air and not reality. If your conclusions are based on the good reason we should have any flies only, we are still looking for that reason.

First Kelly Smith did not use any logic in putting forth this proposal, he did it because of political pressure. How do I know that? Well I know that Dr Smith went to his district biologists and asked them to make their best recommendations for the new available 100 miles.

On the Pere Marquette river for example the biologists concluded based on social science and real science that no more gear restrictions were appropriate because there were already over 7 miles of the best water already designated for gear restrictions and that there was no scientific basis for these gear restrictions. That means logic had nothing to do with it.



Bull Market said:


> If they think there are social reaons to allow 200 miles of gear restricted waters, so be it. They have that authority. It's up the the DNRE to get it done without having negative impacts on the resource.


Excellent, Bull Market so you think that any rule is good as long as it doesnt negatively impact the resource. You need to read the mission statement of the DNR and see what they say their own mandate is. How easy it is for some people to simply tell people like me that you cant fish this section of river any more the legal way you chose to fish because I think youre a slob and meat fisherman, so you just move on down.

I know Jim Dexter stated in the Grand Rapids Press that the department doesnt think gear restrictions are discriminatory, but I fail to see how he can reconcile that statement with the definition that states; In sociology, discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards members of another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.



Bull Market said:


> Bottom line is this: If I were on the bait fisher's side of the argument, I would focus my energies on NOT trying to STOP gear restrictions (that decision has ALREADY been made), but rather DIRECT which waters get that gear restriction designation. You'll stand a whole lot more chance of being successful if you take that approach. For example, "We already have plenty of FFO waters on the P-M. Why not designate some miles on the "X" River, instead. And here's why . . . "
> 
> I hope this helps.


Thanks for your advice Bull, but we think that we will be successful in removing all gear restrictions based on the scientific facts and what is socially the right thing to do. 

Just suppose we were able to prevail in our endeavor and once we realized our power, be decided to pressure the DNR as payback to not only remove all the gear restrictions, but to exclude fly fishermens right to fly fish all the flies only areas for as long a time as they were exclusively flies only. I think we could make the case that a rule like that would have no negative impact on the resource. I just wonder if you would have the same liberal high minded attitude toward social regulations then? Just thinking!

Sorry Bull, just pulling your leg, us bait fishermen would never do that to you. We have no problem working together rehabilitating our rivers, we have no problem sharing our rivers with you and many of us would have no problem sharing our fishing knowledge to help you become a better fly fisherman. Overall we are a generous and fun group of people who feel as strongly about our resources as you, perhaps sometimes even more strongly.



Jackster1 said:


> Those groups represent the people who belong to them. Start a group or better yet, join T.U.
> Trout Unlimited is strictly a cold water conservation organization which does NOT designate what kind fishing you do... just that your efforts with them concern cold water conservation.
> Truth-be-told, most T.U. chapters I've been in are really just good 'ol boy fly fishing clubs in drag. They need a shake up IMHO.


Been there done that Jackster. Apparently you believe the TU propaganda. A couple of months ago I asked Bryan Burroughs if TU was a fly fishing organization or a trout conservation organization. He told me the same thing you did, surprise. I then asked him if 40% of the TU membership were not fly fishermen did he think it was appropriate to be pushing for more gear restrictions. His reply was; Probably not .

All I can say is it was lip service. The TU web-site never changed and kept asking members to write the DNR in favor of the restrictions. I guess it became 100% clear that Bryan was simply agreeing with no intention of backing his statements by deeds when he said he felt all flies only areas should be revised to artificial lures only regulations. 

I used to be a member of TU and I have never seen an article about bait fishing or spin fishing in any of the magazines I have read and if one decides to become a life member that person will receive a fly rod, an assortment of flies and other things non of which are associated with other forms of trout fishing. There is an old adage if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

If you are against special rules for groups who dont care if they discriminate against other groups TU is not an organization you want to support because as in this case they will use their considerable influence against you.


----------



## Shupac

Toto, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but that sounds like a contorted reading of the laws. 



toto said:


> Heres my problem with the rights vs privledges thing. I'll go back to the Northwest Ordinance, and the Public Trust Doctrine. In those two documents, it was determined that we have the RIGHT to fish, and those are both pretty powerful documents.
> 
> Now, if we understand that we have the right to fish, than why do we buy a license for the PRIVLEDGE to fish. I realize its the law to have a license, and I'll continue to do so, but, and heres the rub. If I buy a license so that I have the privledge to fish, aren't I also giving up my 5th and 14th amendment rights?


If everyone has to buy a license, how is requiring one a violation of equal protection?




toto said:


> Looking at it another way, if we pay for the DNR to plant fish, or take care of our resources, than why do we have to pay again, to use them? Besides that, this is public waters, and has been determined to be so by law, over and over again. I've asked this question from the beginning, and I'll ask you again, just who is the State of Michigan? It isn't an individual, it is you and all the citizens of the state. Therefore, when you say public, you are talking of its citizens, and if its public waters, then who owns it?? The Public Trust Doctrine protects your rights to use the waters for whatever reason you like, as long as you aren't polluting it, or destroying it in some way or another.


License fees are HOW you pay the DNR to manage the resource. It's supported largely by fees of various kinds.

On the public trust doctrine, consider this snippet from the DNR's publication on public water access:

_ The Michigan Supreme Court, in Parsons v DuPont De Nemours Powder Co. , 198 Mich. 409 (1917), held that frozen, navigable (public) lakes are public highways. A public inland lake is defined as any lake which is accessible to the public via (1) public-owned lands, (2) waters or highways contiguous thereto, or (3) the bed of a navigable stream which may be used for navigation, fishing, hunting or other lawful purpose and is reasonably capable of supporting a beneficial public interest. 
_
_
_
_The public has the right to use a navigable (public) stream or lake in its fluid state for navigation purposes and in its frozen state for the purpose of traversing its surface, with due regard to the rights of riparian owners and other members of the public. *However, the State of Michigan as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people holds all of its navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath them for the public use of navigation, fishing and such other use inherently belonging to the public. The State's power to control, regulate and utilize such waters, whether in a fluid or frozen state, within the terms of this public trust doctrine, is absolute except as limited by the paramount supervisory power of the Federal Government over navigable waters.*_

Public waters, as well as fish and game, are held in trust by the state for the people of that state. It's the state's responsibility to figure how to manage that trust best. To what extent they do is a conversation for another thread, but requiring licenses, setting seasons and creel limits, regulating what gear can be used is an exercise of that state responsibility. The nature of the resources available and the preferences of the people who use them affects how that trust is managed. 

Maybe I'm oversimplifying what you said, but if you throw out the state's ability to require and sell licenses, don' t you take away other powers to manage the resource?


----------



## REG

Splitshot said:


> I used to be a member of TU and I have never seen an article about bait fishing or spin fishing in any of the magazines I have read .


FWIW Splitshot, I do remember an article, I think around the early '90's in Trout magazine called "The Case for Bait". In the months following that article, there was a flourish of letters to the editor outraged for publishing that article and threatening to pull support and membership from TU for any shift towards acknowledgement or acceptance of any other method than flyfishing.


----------



## toto

Shupac, you are so close, you must be able to feel it. In your own response you said, without realizing it, I quess.

The key words here are PUBLIC. What you have to understand is just who the public is. Its you, me, or any other citizen of Michigan. Then you have to ask yourself, if its public, and its us, than who is the state of Michigan? Its you, and all its citizens. If, in your own synopsis, the mention of navigable waters is free (open) to the public for it use, including fishing, where does it say, except for area of specail interest groups? It doesnt' because that would violate the 14th amendment.

Look I know this is hard to understand, and frankly, it took me a long time to connect the dots, but they are connectable, just gotta keep trying.


----------

