# Petition against Gear Restrictions



## joekrz (Oct 8, 2002)

REG said:


> Taken from here:
> http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/reports/fishingreport/fishreport2010_web.pdf#wildrose
> 
> Stream trout waters &#8211; Stream trout are doing
> ...


Here is the part you keep missing from the above articles.

_*While trout numbers increased, the proportion of bigger
trout declined.*_

The whole goal of the restricted gear and bag limits was larger fish and it worked. Why do you keep missing that?

When you remove the larger trout of course that makes room for a a whole bunch of little ones.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

joekrz said:


> Here is the part you keep missing from the above articles.
> 
> _*While trout numbers increased, the proportion of bigger
> trout declined.*_
> ...


The next sentence in this WDNR article states this:
Compared to 2007, the number
of brook trout six inches and larger
increased, and those eight inches and larger
stayed the same. 

Meriam Webster's dictionary defines proportion as:
Main Entry: 1pro·por·tion 
Pronunciation: \pr&#601;-&#712;po&#775;r-sh&#601;n\
Function: noun 
Etymology: Middle English proporcion, from Anglo-French, from Latin proportion-, proportio, from pro for + portion-, portio portion &#8212; more at for
Date: 14th century
1 : harmonious relation of parts to each other or to the whole : balance, symmetry
2 a : proper or equal share <each did her proportion of the work> b : quota, percentage
3 : the relation of one part to another or to the whole with respect to magnitude, quantity, or degree : ratio
4 : size, dimension
5 : a statement of equality between two ratios in which the first of the four terms divided by the second equals the third divided by the fourth (as in 4/2=10/5) &#8212; compare extreme 1b, mean 1c

&#8212; in proportion : proportional 1

I think this more than speaks for itself.

Joekrz, the tenor of your responses have, a best, included a certain amount of personal antagonism which you cannot seem to separate out in attempting to carry out a rationale discussion. So, to this, I would ask for an apology for your acrimony. Moreover, while looking at Wisconsin information is interesting and may serve as examples, myself and I would imagine others on this board would likely some tie in to Michigan waters. If you want to debate me personally, my specific interest very much focuses on the gear restrictions proposal as it pertains to the Pere Marquette river. Thus, discussions of sub group populations of brook trout, while perhaps interesting, are moot. Additionally, I am amenable to discussion of slot and possession limits as a fisheries management tool, however, am extremely skeptical of gear restrictions as a sole management tool, for which I cannot find any substantive scientific support, again as it relates to the rivers and trout populations in question.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Bonefish - 

For the second time now you've attempt to attack me and the petition, yet you have nothing (still) to back up your position.

I suggest you call a Michigan fisheries biologist, or read the Michigan DNR's recommendations on further restrictions.

MI DNR: A Review of Michigan Trout Streams Nominated For Gear Restrictive Regulations

I've done both of those things several times and both the draft proposal and the Michigan fisheries biologists (Jim Dexter, Chief of MI DNR Fisheries, most recently) I've spoken with agree that the special regulations are doing absolutely nothing for the size or the numbers of the trout available. Jim Dexter flat out told me that the restrictions on the Au Sable are a waste. Because, like almost every Michigan stream or river, natural mortality rates are way too high to notice any change in angling activity. That said, Jim doubted that the restrictions will ever be repealed because of all the "Anglers of the Au Sable" type organizations with political capital that would cry foul in a heart beat. In short, they are "popular." 

In addition, the draft proposal that the MI DNR put together spells out in plain English that the Pere Marquette has not improved one bit since restrictions were put in place. Here's the quote from the document I linked above:

"Special restrictions were implemented in the M-37 to Gleasons Landing segment of the mainstem in 1970 when no restrictions were in force from April 25 to May 30, flies only from June 1 through October 15, with a creel limit of 5 and standard size limits. In 2000, the Type 7 regulation was implemented which included year-round fishing with artificial
flies and catch and release only. Fish population estimates were available for 23 years between 1973 and 2009 for the Type 7 section of the Pere Marquette River. These data provide no evidence that gear and harvest limits have improved brown trout population abundance or size structure. However, because of the long history and popularity of gear restrictions on the M-37 to
Gleasons Landing section of river we recommend that these regulations continue."​
Now how do you explain that? There are no more trout, and there are no bigger trout! The MI DNR has science to the tune of 23 years of fish population estimates to show the restrictions are not working. 

As for my online petition, it matters not to me if you (one person) agrees. If everyone agreed, I wouldn't need a petition. Everyone would have already evaluated the empirical evidence and agree with me.  

It's stubborn and selfish people that stand behind what they once heard forever, never opening their eyes to the science or research behind the fishery, that are the reason I even need to put together a petition in the first place. 

Heck, if it worked in Colorodo, it must work here...is not sufficent justification to keep the public resource to yourself. Gear restrictions are selfish and there's no scientific reason for them in Michigan, we have different stream and river habitat and different trout. And Michigan's DNR will back that statement up with DATA.

If you are going to try to put together an argument that anyone is going to listen to, at least try to get together some data. The other fly guys that replied here did, and I can at least respect their position, because I can go and read the research they posted. 

My personal agenda and yours may not agree, and you may not agree that I should be allowed to post a petition in an online forum, but at least my personal agenda comes with some data attached to it. Yours comes with, "I know everything because I went fishing..."

Good Luck winning a debate with that kind of evidence in your hip pocket!
fishinDon


----------



## joekrz (Oct 8, 2002)

REG,

What your not getting from that article is A.) What the regulation was and B.) What the goal was.

The regulation that was put in place in 2003-2007 was artificials only. 1 trout for the bag limit. Brook trout had to be 12" and Brown trout had to be 18" in order to keep the 1 for the bag limit. And this was along a 5 mile section of stream on a 30 mile long river.

The goal was to increase the size of the brook trout in the greater than 10" and greater than 12" category. Not the 6-8". That goal was achieved until the regulations were lifted in 2008. I have the WI DNR scientific study that backs this up if you would like to see it.

Everyone needs to keep in mind the MI proposals to do something similar is limited to certain streams and certain sections of streams. It's not going to apply statewide to every stream nor will apply to the entire length of any of the streams that are on the list for gear restrictions.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Joekrz-

I just read this, which is a quote from the link you posted on the Prarie in WI:

"On the Prairie River in Lincoln County, the regulation changed in 1993 from a 10-fish bag limit (five browns) over six inches, to a two-fish bag limit with only one brown trout over 20 inches and one brook trout over 14 inches. Trout population estimates were compared from two years (1985 and 1988) before the changes, to four different years (1995, 2004-06) after the regulation. Brook trout over 10 inches improved 840 percent, and brown trout of quality size (over 12, 14 and 16 inches) all increased over 100 percent. Some of these changes may be attributable to habitat improvements made in this stretch in 1985. Regardless, the habitat work and the regulations working together have greatly improved the size and numbers of trout in this stretch of stream."​
Which leaves me with two big questions:
1) Was it the habitat improvements (obvious)?
2) What was angler pressure like after implementing new regulations (less obvious)? My guess would be that it dropped significantly.

Did they simply make it so many, many fewer fisherman wanted to fish there with the VERY restrictive gear and posession limits (as opposed to the liberal rules previously in place)? Once no one fishes there, I can just about guarantee that the fishery will improve at least a little...but is that in the best interest of the people who are using the resource, if they no longer want to use the resource?

My hypothesis seems to be supported by the same paper, two paragraphs down:

"Though we've had some success, fisheries biologists have also learned from mistakes that special regulations don't work in all situations and we can't always judge ahead of time which streams will respond well when we lower angling pressure aiming to grow larger, healthier fish. For instance, on Rowan Creek in Columbia County, *putting a 12-inch minimum size limit resulted in less fishing,less harvest, and no appreciable increase in numbers or size of brown trout.*, The regulation was subsequently changed back to the standard in the rest of the county streams of a three-fish bag limit with a nine-inch size limit."​
Which leaves me with my final thought, why did WI remove the regs on Prarie creek if they were working so well?
fishinDon


----------



## joekrz (Oct 8, 2002)

That article has a few things going on in it. A one mile section on a 30 mile long river where gear and bag restrictions were put in place, then that section was extended in 2003 to include 4 more miles of gear and bag restricted water. The DNR felt at the time that a one mile section of river wasn't enough water to gather data from so it was increased to 5 miles of a *30 mile *long river. The habitat work in the sections that was extended was old work from the 70's. But like the article states... Habitat combined with regulations did the job.

As to "Why did the WI DNR remove the regs?" Because a local contingent such as yourself was unhappy that they couldn't fish with worms and live bait and wanted to keep smaller fish. So they started pushing petitions, just like you, and bending the DNR's ear until they got their way. Once the regulations reverted back to what they were, there was a decrease in brook trout over 10 and 12". In this case, which is isn't the case for every stream, the regs did work as designed. It was unfortunate that out of 30 miles of fishable water, that a few locals had to bitch about 5 miles of it.

Since this river is primarily a brook trout stream and is what the special regs were geared toward, it doesn't pay to discuss the brown trout since there are very few of them in the stream compared to brookies. 

Here is the data from the WI DNR that backs up what I have been saying previously in this thread. Pay special attention to the tables starting on page 12 and look at the greater than 11" and greater than 12" columns from 2003-2007 (gear restrictions and bag limits) compared to all previous years. Then read the summary on page 17.

http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4b...lmYTctMDA3Njk5OWFhOTFl&hl=en&authkey=CM_q2d8L


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Couple of interesting points in there, thanks for the link. 

1. I agree that you can grow bigger brook trout if you stop letting people fish. This study proves that and I've read others (including one in Michigan where they completely closed fishing) that show the same. Again, for brook trout. For Browns, it's a whole different story and while there are fewer browns in this stream, it seems to show that the special regs didn't help them at all.

That said, in order to even get anything statistically significant, they had to throw out 1 or 2 "buffer" years. And even after that there were only a handful of 10-12" brookies (around 150 fish per mile in the good years out of close to 10,000). As, I'm sure you know, Brookies don't grow very fast, and when there's high natural mortality (which appears to be the case on this stream, especially in some years where nearly 2/3 of the total fish dissappeared), it's tough to create a trophy fishery, 'cause they die of natural causes. 

Finally, notice the number of 12" fish per mile is never more than 10, regardless of strict regulations or not. And the last two years of special regs there were 0 and 4 total fish per mile over 12 inches. I believe this to show that the true reason there are a few bigger fish in this river is that there are increased size limits required for posession, not gear restrictions. The regulations on this river allowed anglers to keep a 12"+ brook trout, so there aren't very many... 

I'd like to go on record right now as saying I'm not against slot limits or increased (trophy) size limits on certain stretches of rivers. They don't discriminate against one group of anglers or another. Gear restrictions do, which is why I'm firmly opposed to them. 

2. This survey says in the conclusion section, "Habitat improvement appears be more important at increasing numbers of larger trout than conservative
regulations, especially for brown trout."


The majority of the rivers Michigan is currently considering for further gear restriction, or where restrictions are already in place are brown trout rivers. Michigan's own DNR knows that gear restrictions aren't going to improve brown trout numbers or size, and they already have science to prove it, which I sited above in a previous post on the Pere Marquette. 

I'm opposed to putting discriminatory regulations in place that don't have any scientific basis. Gear Restrictions that do not positively change the fishery are selfish and a waste of time. I am not for (or against) anything else. I would be willing to consider both increased size limits/slot limits and/or reduced bag limits, as all of those have potential to actually help the fishery, while not excluding anyone. 

I appreciate the debate and if you'd like to talk more, PM me, as we're probably boring the pants off of everyone else. 
Don


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Don, don't think for a minute that you guys are boring us with this discussion. At least not me. I have been very busy with a dam removal project down here lately and have not had the time to put in enough research to add to the conversation.

I think you make an interesting point about the proposed special regulations in Michigan potentially affecting brown trout, not brookies. The major debate that has raged on here has focused on the Pere Marquette River downstream from the current fly only water. I don't know about any of the rest of you but I haven't caught a brookie down there for quite some time. The section of river in question is populated mainly by brown trout and some rainbows. 

We all know that there are major biological differences between browns and brookies. And with this knowledge we can assume that the regulations put in place should be different or tailored to each species of fish. While I have found the information posted from the WI DNR interesting in regards to brook trout, I wonder how this information can be applied to Michigan brown trout. These fish are completely different and data from brook trout surveys simply does not paint the right picture from the brown trout's side.

Just my quick thoughts. Keep up the discussion. You guys are providing some very good information for all of us interested.


----------



## joekrz (Oct 8, 2002)

fishinDon said:


> I'd like to go on record right now as saying I'm not against slot limits or increased (trophy) size limits on certain stretches of rivers. They don't discriminate against one group of anglers or another. Gear restrictions do, which is why I'm firmly opposed to them.


Unfortunately you can't have one without the other. Trophy size limits cannot be attained when live bait is used. There are many studies available showing hooking mortality is greater using live bait vs. artificial. Thats why many DNR entities have used gear restriction in MI and WI waters as well as on the trout waters of the east and west. 

I was a hard core live bait angler for 12 years. There were many trout that I caught in that time period that I had to let go because they didn't meet the minimum size limit...only to find them dead floating downstream 10-20 minutes later. I have not experienced that scenario once using flies in the 18 years I have been fly fishing.

If gear restrictions are only put on a few streams and only on certain sections (much much much less than unrestricted waters) it still leaves a whole lot of unrestricted water. So I really don't see the need for opposition. Let the DNR do it's work and we all gain.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

joekrz said:


> If gear restrictions are only put on a few streams and only on certain sections (much much much less than unrestricted waters) it still leaves a whole lot of unrestricted water. So I really don't see the need for opposition. Let the DNR do it's work and we all gain.


 
As for studies proving a point there are studies, as have been supplied in this and other threads that show bait fishing not to have an effect on trout populations. Our own DNR has stated such.

Gear Restrictions: They are always put on the most productive trout waters and never on marginal trout waters. IF.....a big IF....one of the purposes of gear restrictions is to increase trout populations why aren't they put on streams such as the Big South of the PM, the White R., and the Bestie R. These are all marginal streams with low trout populations...except for the upper White R. and it seems logical that if gear restrictions were so valuable in increasing trout populations they would be applied to these streams............but they aren't.


----------



## joekrz (Oct 8, 2002)

Whit1 said:


> . IF.....a big IF....one of the purposes of gear restrictions is to increase trout populations why aren't they put on streams such as the Big South of the PM, the White R., and the Bestie R. These are all marginal streams with low trout populations...except for the upper White R. and it seems logical that if gear restrictions were so valuable in increasing trout populations they would be applied to these streams............but they aren't.


The main purpose is to increase size and not populations. From the MI DNR document pages 5 & 6:

_The intent and design of gear restrictions in Michigan is to *produce more large resident trout*, particularly brown trout and brook trout. They are intended to reduce hooking mortality of resident trout that might be caught multiple times in heavily fished waters before they live long
enough (3 or more years) to grow to trophy size._

_One of the goals of gear restrictions is to* increase the number of large trout,* so growth rates are a critical factor to evaluate when considering gear restrictions. For example, a brown trout would reach 12 inches at age 3 under average or above average growth conditions and at age 4 under below average growth conditions. Given a 50% annual mortality rate, only half as many fish would ever reach 12 inches in the slower growth scenario. Thus, regulations intended to increaseabundance of brown trout larger than 12 inches have a greater chance of being successful instreams where trout grow rapidly._


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Like Whit and some of the others, I'm not convinced that fishing with bait necessarily means you are going to kill a greater percentage of fish. 

I fish Brookies with bait fairly regularly, and on a good day I release 20 (or more), yet I almost never see one go belly up. It's how you fish bait that can be the problem. If you actively fish with bait, and set the hook when you feel/see a bite, I don't believe you kill any more fish than you would with any other method...

Also, and I think this is important, wouldn't it stand to reason that you'd grow big fish more quickly if there were fewer total fish in the river? If the amount of food in a stretch of river remained the same, and you removed half of the fish, wouldn't the rest start growing really fast? Wouldn't it also stand to reason that natural mortality, the kind you can't control, would drop as well? So to that end, wouldn't we be better off with a limit like this:

Any tackle. 
Keep 4 Browns between 6-10 inches. 
Keep one over 18" (so you can show off, if you so desire). 

I'd bet my fishing license for the next 5 years that there'd be more big browns in my 2 miles of river (with no gear restrictions, but a smart slot limit) than in your identical two miles of river (flies only, no kill). In my stretch you're controlling the population going into the winter (less competition), and the survivors are healthier and fatter, so fewer die of natural causes. 

Love to see that study done. We could start today, just give me 2 miles of the current fly-only water on the PM. :evilsmile
Don


----------



## Doublegun (Jun 26, 2003)

Give me a break - less than 5% of the total flow of streams in Michigan that sustain populations of trout have gear restrictions. It's not like you can't find water to dunk works or thow Rapalas.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Doublegun said:


> Give me a break - less than 5% of the total flow of streams in Michigan that sustain populations of trout have gear restrictions. It's not like you can't find water to dunk works or thow Rapalas.


Yet you can fish all 100% of that water with a fly?


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

Doublegun said:


> Give me a break - less than 5% of the total flow of streams in Michigan that sustain populations of trout have gear restrictions. It's not like you can't find water to dunk works or thow Rapalas.


I'm so tired of seeing this point being brought up. See diztortions post above
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

brookies101 said:


> I'm so tired of seeing this point being brought up. See diztortions post above
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It is one of the "only" points they think they have. He will fire back about beer cans and bait containers.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

brookies101 said:


> I'm so tired of seeing this point being brought up. See diztortions post above
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm so tired of seeing guys walking around with lead tied to their fly.


----------



## Doublegun (Jun 26, 2003)

Boardman Brookies said:


> It is one of the "only" points they think they have. He will fire back about beer cans and bait containers.


Hey, personally I don't give a crap if you fish with a club. My point is on 95% of trout waters in Michigan you can fish with what ever you want and he wants to bitch about restrictions on that 5%. And no, the numbers are not "diztortions", whatever that is, they came from the DNR. Specifially, at the Public Hearing about restrictions held in Rochester on June 23rd.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Doublegun said:


> Hey, personally I don't give a crap if you fish with a club. My point is on 95% of trout waters in Michigan you can fish with what ever you want and he wants to bitch about restrictions on that 5%. And no, the numbers are not "diztortions", whatever that is, they came from the DNR. Specifially, at the Public Hearing about restrictions held in Rochester on June 23rd.


He wasn't implying that those were my "numbers".

I was *IMPLYING* that a person who fly fishes, can infact fish 100% of Michigan trout streams. 

Non-fly fishers, may only fish 95% of trout streams.


----------



## Doublegun (Jun 26, 2003)

Actually, that 5% is not limited to fly only water. Only 5% of the water has ANY gear restriction. (i.e. artificial lure or single hooks).

I want to fly fish, I can fish on 100% of the water. Want to do the same, buy a fly rod and have at it.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Why would I want to buy a fly rod?


----------



## Doublegun (Jun 26, 2003)

Have a bow?


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

Doublegun said:


> Actually, that 5% is not limited to fly only water. Only 5% of the water has ANY gear restriction. (i.e. artificial lure or single hooks).
> 
> I want to fly fish, I can fish on 100% of the water. Want to do the same, buy a fly rod and have at it.


And these 5% are some of the best waters there are. I think flies only are BS. It is a social issue. I would support a universal gear restriction, the artificial, single barbless hook. And guess what? I fly fish about 1/4 of the time I trout fish.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Doublegun-
I attempted to reply to your 5% post yesterday, but my connection must have dropped or something, because I don't see my post on here...summarized, what I wrote up yesterday, it goes like this:

9% of the current blue ribbon trout water is currently restricted as flies only (yes, that's just the flies only water...the rest of the restricted water is not blue ribbon). 

If the proposed new restrictions go through you'll have 13%+ of the blue ribbon water as restricted.

And when you get around to fooling the DNR for the last ~50 miles (of the 212) you'll have almost 18%. This math was done a while back by turtlehead in one of the other posts on gear restrictions in the NW forum. 

Look it up (go down to turtlehead's post):

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337167&highlight=blue+ribbon&page=9 

Now I know that I shouldn't complain that you guys have 5% of the total water, but you have 9% of the best water, soon to be 13% of the best water and then soon to be 18% of the best water...I think you can see where this is going. The words "slippery" and "slope" come to mind.

I also noticed that you guys are never asking for a marginal stretch of any rivers, only the prime stretches of the best rivers. But if I want to fish with rapalas, worms and "clubs," I suppose that's where I should go, the marginal water, right? Save me the marginal water...thanks for being so considerate.

I shouldn't complain. I'm sure that this is the last time that the fly guys ask for more water....more water that doesn't do anything for the fishery except keep the "other guys" out. 

fishinDon


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

Well said Don.


----------



## joekrz (Oct 8, 2002)

fishinDon said:


> I also noticed that you guys are never asking for a marginal stretch of any rivers, only the prime stretches of the best rivers. But if I want to fish with rapalas, worms and "clubs," I suppose that's where I should go, the marginal water, right? Save me the marginal water...thanks for being so considerate.


Why put special regulations on water that has little to no fish? That wouldn't make any sense.

_Recreational fishing gear and methods are generally restricted for one of three reasons:
&#9830; To enforce principles of fair chase by assuring that fish are captured individually and with sufficient difficulty;
&#9830; To prevent the spread of bait species into waters where they may be undesirable;
&#9830; To reduce mortality of fish which may not be legally harvested._

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


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

joekrz said:


> Why put special regulations on water that has little to no fish? That wouldn't make any sense.
> 
> _Recreational fishing gear and methods are generally restricted for one of three reasons:_
> _&#9830; To enforce principles of fair chase by assuring that fish are captured individually and with sufficient difficulty;_
> ...


If one of the purposes is to cut down on fish mortality then it makes perfect sense. The conundrum arises because of the lack of opportunity to regularly catch fish as is the case in marginal trout waters. That's why the very best, Blue Water, streams are targeted.

Fair chase? I've fly fished at times, night for instance, when I caught trout on most every cast. Is that difficult? Did I match the hatch? Certainly not. A #14 Adams did the trick nicely. Does that meet your criteria of "fair chase".

Fair Chase! May I assume then, that you would not use a hex imitation during a hex hatch. Using that would certainly diminish, it seems, "fair chase".

As has been often stated in these forums the DNR has stated that using bait to catch trout does not significantly diminish trout populations in the streams where the gear regs are applied. This puts the gear reg suggestions into the realm of social issues and this is especially true of Flies Only water.

After the opening weekend on the Last Saturday in April I can take you on one of the very best trout streams in Michigan and you'd be hard pressed to find anglers. The river is severely underfished and sports a viable and healthy population of trout. I've opened on that stream for many years and can usually count the anglers I see on one hand and on many of those days the number is zero and those that I do see have little clue as to how to fish.

Take the Au Sable R. How many bait anglers ply those waters? If you add in the cavet "How many bait anglers that really know what they're doing fish those waters" and the numbers would be even less. This, again, would be especially true after Opening Day.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

> Why put special regulations on water that has little to no fish? That wouldn't make any sense.


In fact, it makes perfect sense. To see if you can IMPROVE the fishery. Isn't that you're goal? We already know that you're not going to improve the good fisheries with special regs, we have science from the MI DNR to show us that. And we already know that browns respond to habitat improvement, not regs (as in the WI study you posted on the Prarie River). Why continue wasting time and money restricting prime water and seeing no benefit? If the goal is actually to improve the fishery? 



> &#9830; To enforce principles of fair chase by assuring that fish are captured individually and with sufficient difficulty;


Bait does not catch more than one fish at a time, nets do. No one who's fishing worms is asking to fish with nets. Also, I've fished with all methods enough times to know that it's no easier to catch Brown Trout with bait than it is with hardware or flies. That's why I almost never use bait to try to catch browns. I use flies and hardware 'cause browns are easier to catch this way. It's been well documented on here that some of the better hardware anglers (Butch, Mondrella) actually prefer to fish with some sort of artifical over bait because it's easier for them to catch fish that way. 



> &#9830; To prevent the spread of bait species into waters where they may be undesirable;


There's already separate laws in place to enforce the using of minnows and eggs, so I can't really see this having anything to do with special regulations. I'm not aware of any problems that fishing with worms, crickets, hoppers, wigglers, etc. would cause...

This is akin to the beer cans and bait containers argument. Littering is illegal, we don't need special fishing regulations to make it more illegal. Same goes for bait that's already outlawed.



> &#9830; To reduce mortality of fish which may not be legally harvested.


Back to this again, as Whit and I have both pointed out, bait, properly (actively) fished, doesn't kill any more fish than any other method. Studies that say, "we let the fish swallow the hook for a 5 count and then reeled them in" will certainly prove the point you're trying to make. Conversely, there are plenty of studies out that that show active bait fishing has very similar mortality rates to any of the other methods. 

Me, my 7 year old daughter, and other educated anglers know better than to sit there and let the fish swallow the hook before setting it and reeling it in. 

This, as far as I'm concerned, is a myth.
fishinDon


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Doublegun said:


> Give me a break - less than 5% of the total flow of streams in Michigan that sustain populations of trout have gear restrictions. It's not like you can't find water to dunk works or thow Rapalas.


This stat is suspect. Somewhere on these boards there's a post about this very "fact". The percentage is much higher when you limit it to Blue Water Trout Streams which, of course, are the only waters targeted by gear restriction advocates. Where is that, more realistic and telling stat in here?


----------



## joekrz (Oct 8, 2002)

fishinDon said:


> In fact, it makes perfect sense. To see if you can IMPROVE the fishery. Isn't that you're goal? We already know that you're not going to improve the good fisheries with special regs, we have science from the MI DNR to show us that. And we already know that browns respond to habitat improvement, not regs (as in the WI study you posted on the Prarie River). Why continue wasting time and money restricting prime water and seeing no benefit? If the goal is actually to improve the fishery?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Marginal trout waters are marginal for 2 reasons. Lack of habitat. Lack of cold(er) water. That is why they wouldn't be considered for gear restrictions. It wouldn't make sense. People rarely target marginal waters and fish them. The goal is to protect the waters that are targeted, have natural reproduction, contain the necessary habitat, have easy access and the possibility of being over-harvested. Marginal waters don't have those attributes thus they wouldn't be considered. 

Good on you for teaching your 7 year old "active" bait fishing. Unfortunately your in the minority and most youngsters and most bait fisherman are less experienced and will more than likely gut hook and kill a fish. Bait is typically swallowed whereas flies and spinner are not, resulting in bait fishing causing deeper hooking which results in a higher mortality rate. Numerous studies are available to prove this.

What you and others are failing to realize is that this is about resource management (by the MI DNR) and it is not some personal agenda by any one person or group to pitt bait anglers against hardware and fly anglers.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

joekrz said:


> What you and others are failing to realize is that this is about resource management *(by the MI DNR)* and it is not some personal agenda by any one person or group to pitt bait anglers against hardware and fly anglers.


 
You are wrong. It's as simple as that. These regs have historically been pushed by various individuals and groups. That includes the new, proposed, regs. The MDNR did NOT initiate the call for new stream miles to be added. The DNR does not see a need for additional stream miles being added to what's already there.

As I've posted before here's the list of organizations involved in suggesting streams for new gear regs.

Michigan Resource Stewards
Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman's Association
Michigan River Guides Association
Trout Unlimited
Pere Marquette Watershed Council 
Anglers of the AuSable
Federation of Fly Fishers
AuSable Big Water Preservation Society

All of this was initiated by these groups and their members. As the DNR has stated bait fishing does not have any significant influence or negative impact on a stream's trout population. You've conveniently ignored this simple fact and go back to the tried, and found wanting, the old adage that gear restrictions "save" trout.

Not a "personal agenda"? That is ludicrous at best and the best that can be said is your ending "by any one person or group to pitt bait anglers against hardware and fly anglers" may well be true, but that's exactly what it does and for what reason? To protect trout populations? The MDNR has already stated that they don't.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

If this is not about keeping the resource for one group of anglers and only about protecting the fishery, why do we hear things like this:

1. Beer Cans
2. Bait containers
3. And the holy grail...this quote was taken from the grand rapids press, read for yourself: http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/06/anglers_and_others_take_the_ba.html

"Then there were matters of civility. Dorothy Schramm, founder of Flygirls of Michigan and a well-respected fly fishing instructor from Pentwater, favored gear restrictions on the lower river to help reduce mortality and improve the fishing experience.

&#8220;I&#8217;ve introduced over 1,000 women to the sport of fly fishing,&#8221; Schramm said. &#8220;We find we&#8217;re much more comfortable and feel safer fishing where there are gear restrictions.

&#8220;What we find in the flies water is manners and less swearing. Down there, it&#8217;s the F-word every other word. There is trash in the parking lots. They build fires anywhere, and it&#8217;s an awful experience.&#8221;"​
Sounds like our "well-respected" Fly-Fishing instructor from Pentwater thinks I'm gonna mug her while I'm out fishing with my kids cause I might use worms. But if we put gear restrictions on the stream, swearing, fires, and trash will also disappear, by the transitive property of mathematics, I suppose...

I am blessed to have an education and a job. I consider myself a productive member of the community. I buy a fishing license every year and one for my wife that she never uses. I don't swear when I'm out fishing with my kids. I don't start fires and I generally haul garbage out in my creel, instead of fish. But if I don't fly fish, I shouldn't be allowed to go there.

It's these kinds of ridiculous quotes from "well-respected" members of the fly-fishing community that are so transparent that only a fool would not be able to read between the lines to find the true agenda. And that is NOT to protect the fishery. It's to keep the "others" out. 

This is why I'm against gear restrictions, they are discriminatory and come with an agenda (and that is not to improve the fishery). Oh, and there's no science in Michigan that backs them up as a viable resource management tool. You can grow big trout without them, and the DNR knows that. 

Don


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

An interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/08/08/should-fly-fishers-catch-and-always-release

While some of the opinions in this attachment may be debatable, the general tenor of the evolution of catch and release into dogmatic belief as it relates to the subject at hand is evident.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

joekrz said:


> Marginal trout waters are marginal for 2 reasons. Lack of habitat. Lack of cold(er) water. That is why they wouldn't be considered for gear restrictions. It wouldn't make sense. People rarely target marginal waters and fish them. The goal is to protect the waters that are targeted, have natural reproduction, contain the necessary habitat, have easy access and the possibility of being over-harvested. Marginal waters don't have those attributes thus they wouldn't be considered.
> 
> Good on you for teaching your 7 year old "active" bait fishing. Unfortunately your in the minority and most youngsters and most bait fisherman are less experienced and will more than likely gut hook and kill a fish. Bait is typically swallowed whereas flies and spinner are not, resulting in bait fishing causing deeper hooking which results in a higher mortality rate. Numerous studies are available to prove this.
> 
> What you and others are failing to realize is that this is about resource management (by the MI DNR) and it is not some personal agenda by any one person or group to pitt bait anglers against hardware and fly anglers.


You are very flawed in this logic. Marginal waters grow some of the largest trout in this state. If one wants to catch truely massive trout these are the streams to fish. I spend much time on marginal water because there are massive browns your chances of catching a brown over 24" if you know where to look are very good. 95% of the browns over 24" I catch come from rivers that get to the mid 70 degree range in the summer. 

The fact is these warmer rivers grow fish well above the average. Food sources are often much more plentiful. I have caught numerous bows over 20" that are true stream trout on such a river. The largest a fish 27". This same river I hooked and lost a brown that was a once in a lifetime fish. I have yet to land a brown of 30" yet I can honestly say I have done battle now with 3 browns over that mark and have came up on the losing end each time. Maybe 6 to 10 others that may have been close. All but one of those fish came from what is considered marginal water. I learned where to look and what these fish react to once they get this big. Most trout fisherman don't have a clue how to target big trout consistently. Often those bigger fish are lucky catches for them. I am amazed at the number of trout fisherman who think they know how to fish and they have so much to learn still. 
Fact is special regs have failed to improve the waters they have been placed on our biologist have now confirmed it does nothing to improve the best waters in this state. Possibly marginal waters may be improved. However in all honesty very few fisherman trout fish for stream trout. Like Whit has stated after opening week one can have any river in this nearly to themselves. Last week I fished some northern rivers since I am working near Boyne city. Never see any other fisherman in the 7 hours I fished. 
So why limit access to any fisherman? All it will do is limit future recruitment to the sport of trout fishing so why take us down a road that will end up putting more financial stress on our DNRE.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Please PM me if you signed this petition.
Thx,
Don


----------

