# Paint Creek C&R and keeping fish.



## BIG "D" (Sep 14, 2005)

great post


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

1siena said:


> I think she had just as much fun letting it go and getting splashed than cooking it up in butter. (FYI..we bought a Fish Sandwich from McDonald's on the way home from fishing. It was awesome!) I'm not sure I buy the "cook them with your kids argument". So if we want to eat fish, eat them. Don't attach it to the "for the children" argument.


So you are saying its OK to kill fish for eating as long as its not in the trout streams you fish? Where do you think the fish you ate at McDonald's came from. Some poor boy in the Netherlands is saying, man I wish these McDonald's commercial fishermen would leave, they are destroying our fisheries. 


> I definitely believe that the scientific findings should hold more value than they currently do, and they hold much less than everyone thinks.


Oh I think there are many that are aware and more being educated every day. I have never seen so many laws passed in my life as these past couple years that reek of "ethical" mandates. When you incorporate social laws in to your decision making, you have given a green light to those that rule to enforce personal preference based on "ethics" not science. Those in charge at this time are out of control in "ethic based ruling".
Here are just a few examples. Let me say I am for some of these examples but they were no doubt on someone in charge "ethics" list.

1 deer found with CWD in a fence enclosure that was brought to this state, and the whole LP gets bait banned.

VHS is found in Wisconsin and chumming is stopped. But roe can still be used in skein form or bags.

Big wilderness is formed. All streams and rivers in the area are automatically "managed for trout will be determined using the guidance documented in Fisheries Order 213,
&#8220;_Criteria for selection of trout streams with gear restrictions regulations_.&#8221;

This is not to say that there are not decisions being made that are based on science or for the good of all. But there has definitely been a change toward "feel good, appease this group, and enforce my thinking (because I can) on you mandates.

I think that the internet is going to change the face of the behind closed door, small special interest push my agenda meetings. There is no reason for the DNR now not to get a diversified opinion from the populace vs a small special interest input. The DNR does have a dual purpose. One is to regulate our fish, game and natural resources in a sustainable manner for the future. Second is manage to allow maximum use and exposure for the public, this of course is with one in mind. It can only be determined by science what that threshold is.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

I know that this is a long article but read this......


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/inland_trout_regs_May-2009_277407_7.pdf


----------



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

I like the fact that I fish the Paint, live near the Paint and have a pretty good idea how there are abuses that take place there. It would be tough for me to comment on creeks or rivers that I don't fish.

Plus I am glad that we won't have a ton of deleted posts on this thread. Nothing worse than getting deleted over an opinion.

I still think that if they planted 16" fish, there might not be much of a debate.

KW


----------



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

kingwilly said:


> Plus I am glad that we won't have a ton of deleted posts on this thread. Nothing worse than getting deleted over an opinion.


Like I said man, I could care less if you guys debate this topic forever and ever. But a report is not the place to do it. I told you guys right up front that you could take it to another thread, but you chose not to. That is why so many posts were deleted.


----------



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

Can you move it then? Plus, maybe its just me, but can you give an outline of the things that can be said in this discussion? I am not clear on how you separate the topic of Paint Creek with the ongoing concern of how to maintain fish in that 12 mile run. I am lost on why this is called Paint Creek C n R and keeping fish and not discuss that.....was it my comment about getting deleted? 

When you going to Alaska?? :lol::lol:

KW


----------



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

kingwilly said:


> Can you move it then? Plus, maybe its just me, but can you give an outline of the things that can be said in this discussion? I am not clear on how you separate the topic of Paint Creek with the ongoing concern of how to maintain fish in that 12 mile run. I am lost on why this is called Paint Creek C n R and keeping fish and not discuss that.....was it my comment about getting deleted?
> 
> When you going to Alaska?? :lol::lol:
> 
> KW



Actually I leave Tuesday, so after that it is a free for all I guess. 

Answering your question though, for the most part on the forums we try and keep C&R discussions out of "report threads" esspecially when the threadstarter obviously did not want that discussion there. Thats the only reason I deleted about 10 responses. I still have access to all the responses and can copy them here if you would like. I am all for a good debate, and as long ast it is civil have at it. Just keep it out of the "report threads" like the original topic that set this conversation off.


----------



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

I think this Thread ran its course. I don't think there is a need to put the deleted posts back in.....I do know that it is very hard not to discuss the Paint and C n R at the same time. It is very true that kneedeep should have been congratulated only.....

I do love watching Ray(Splitshot) get fired up thou.....

KW


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Boardman Brookies said:


> I know that this is a long article but read this......
> 
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/inland_trout_regs_May-2009_277407_7.pdf


Already have. Thanks for posting it though. Oh, and on the DNR website they are asking for angler input on these regulations.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

Ranger Ray said:


> Already have. Thanks for posting it though. Oh, and on the DNR website they are asking for angler input on these regulations.


Yes please respond to the email about feed back!


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Fish Skeered,

No question that you are correct. If we had all the facts, all decisions would be easy. The best we can do in most cases is use all the facts we have and let the professionals make decisions about our wildlife based on their understanding and professional intuition. The rules and regulations are tempered with judgement, scientific facts and yes sometimes political ideology. That to is part of the real world.



1siena said:


> I don't think anyone is knocking the guy who catches a fish with his kid and wants to keep it. To each ther own..
> 
> However, to be perfectly honest, I had a sick feelingin in my stomach when fishing my local spot and seeing groups of three and four people with there creel full. (no kids) When talking to them they told me that "it was really hot at about 1:00 AM." I know its a right if they buy a license, bla bla bla. I just wonder what the river would be like if there where different restrictions or it....do I saw it....a catch and release stream.
> 
> ...


Your argument is a weak opposition set up only to be easily confuted. I have been a hard core trout fisherman for well over 50 years and the only time I have ever seen more than one person with his creel full is in waters shortly after they have been planted. The problem that Ranger Ray brought up about selfish individuals wanting rules so they can either make more money or catch more fish is typified by your straw man argument.

It is none of your business if 500 fishermen descended on Paint Creek and caught their limit, but if you want to get sick to your stomach because honest law abiding fishermen are catching what you consider to be your fish and your creek so be it. There was no childrens argument. Knee Deeps heartfelt story just happened to be about him and is son and if it had been his brother it would have made little difference except many of us know what a gift it is to pass along our love of the outdoors to the little ones.

Changing the rules is an easy way out for the groups RR was talking about. Instead of learning how to fish or learning how to hunt, you try to change the rules to make it easier usually under the guise of protecting something. That is the real irony here,



BIG "D";2708886 said:


> OK, Lets get the facts straight.
> 
> 1. First off I never said the the young man shouldn't have kept his trout. I actually congratulated him. That post was deleted.
> 
> ...



Big D

First of all I didnt attack you personally but I will attack your ideas if I dont agree with them and I encourage you to attack my ideas if you dont agree with them. If the DNR plants trout in any creek or river it becomes a put and take fishery. No offense, but I have no desire to ever fish Paint Creek. Having said that I spent years fishing small streams and creeks around the Grand Rapids Area. I still fish a lot of smaller streams and creeks in the area where I live, but I usually fish bigger rivers because they do indeed hold more fish and feeling that tug at the end of my line is the main reason I go trout fishing.

In northern Michigan the DNR does not plant trout in streams or rivers where there would otherwise be no trout. In southern Michigan some of that is done to provide a seasonal trout fishery.

The 12 miles of Paint Creek you talk about will naturally only hold a certain number of fish limited by the habitat. If you plant 6,300 fish, most of them are either going to die, displace wild fish or go home in someones creel. The best thing that can happen in my opinion is that they go home in someones creel. As the fish are taken out of the system the remaining fish become more difficult to catch because they either wise up or live in areas difficult to even get a hook into.

Besides I dont know what difference it makes if Paint Creek is called a put and take creek or not. If you would have said it should be a No Kill area it would make a difference. I also dont know what you meant when you said you have your opinion and I have mine because you never really stated what your opinion was except to say Yeah That to 1seanas post. If that is your opinion then my answer to him is my answer to you since he added nothing to the debate except to take the position in favor of No Kill. I find that most guys that favor this social regulation are selfish and self serving. They would rather see all the fish end up as crab food just so they would have a better chance of hooking a trout. 


There should be a debate about the size of fish planted in our streams and rivers, but that is for another thread. I can tell you it is a very complex issue. This one is about Catch and Release.


----------



## Michigander1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Im sure in the hell glad some of you guys dont fish the NW area.Keep talking it up and all the more folks you have otw to fish it :lol:,Mich


----------



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

Splitshot, you always have great points to ponder. I very much agree on the size of the plants. Put a ton of 16"+ fish in the Paint and this would not be a debate. Just figure they will all die or be caught, take whatever you want. I just want to know how a retired guy, who lives in a beautiful house on the LM, has anytime to spend at his computer enlightening the rest of us younger bucks??? Get out there, catch some fish, post the pics and let the rest of us in the urban jungle drool over what we wish we could be doing!!!!!

KW


----------



## geojasstef (Jan 23, 2005)

This will probably get lost in all the posts but I wonder if that 17.5" fish in the original post had ever been caught and put back or was this its first time?



Also, I have thought about this for a while now, dose any one know if there is any scientific justification for a slot limit type system rather than a size limit........maybe all fish under 12" and above 18" are fair game and leave the above 12" and below 18".


----------



## BIG "D" (Sep 14, 2005)

I'm heading up to the Ausable at 4:00 am. I will answer tomorrow night


----------



## jmessenger (Apr 3, 2009)

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=1386&pictureid=9125


----------



## jmessenger (Apr 3, 2009)

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=1386&pictureid=9124


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

geojasstef said:


> This will probably get lost in all the posts but I wonder if that 17.5" fish in the original post had ever been caught and put back or was this its first time?
> 
> Also, I have thought about this for a while now, dose any one know if there is any scientific justification for a slot limit type system rather than a size limit........maybe all fish under 12" and above 18" are fair game and leave the above 12" and below 18".


It might have been caught a dozen times or never been hooked once, we never know. As far as slot limits, they work in some areas like bottom draw dams in states like Kentucky, Arkansas and Tennessee. In Michigan rivers slot limits might work to some degree, but it depends on if your trying to protect spawners or just provide bigger fish.

I like the trophy regulations in Michigan better. On the Little Manistee for example in the flies only waters fish grow big so the DNR made the minimum size 15" and a 3 fish limit. It works well but it is because the stream produces larger fish. It will work on the Ausable below Mio, but the flies only guys are pushing for no kill regulations. Again they are only protecting the easy fish because they want to reduce the challenge. Of course they will say they want them to protect these large trout.

This section of river has always been a big fish producer. According to studies the brown trout average size will average smaller as the number of fish increase. Lots of politics in that part of the state and the DNR fish biologist has a record of appeasing the special interest crowd. The final regulations on that section of river will reveal a lot about special interest success.




kingwilly said:


> Splitshot, you always have great points to ponder. I very much agree on the size of the plants. Put a ton of 16"+ fish in the Paint and this would not be a debate. Just figure they will all die or be caught, take whatever you want. I just want to know how a retired guy, who lives in a beautiful house on the LM, has anytime to spend at his computer enlightening the rest of us younger bucks??? Get out there, catch some fish, post the pics and let the rest of us in the urban jungle drool over what we wish we could be doing!!!!!
> 
> KW


KW,

I cant fish all the time but I should have something to report next week as I have plans to fish with my son. By the way I am still working full time. There are lots of rivers and streams between where you live and where I live that hold large numbers of big trout but you just have to do some exploring to find them. Do that and then post your own pictures. By the way many people here dont think what I do is enlightening. lol.

Jmessinger, those are some great trout. Just a hint, keep your camera handy and take a picture quickly and it will show the true colors better. This fish my son caught a couple of years ago is about the same size and I'm sure your fish was just as colorful. Just a suggestion.


----------



## jiggineyes (Feb 19, 2005)

1siena said:


> However, to be perfectly honest, I had a sick feelingin in my stomach when fishing my local spot and seeing groups of three and four people with there creel full. (no kids) When talking to them they told me that "it was really hot at about 1:00 AM." I know its a right if they buy a license, bla bla bla. I just wonder what the river would be like if there where different restrictions or it....do I saw it....a catch and release stream.
> 
> 
> 
> Im wondering why we need to start throwing them back if theres all these groups of fisherman with their limits? if everyones catching that many, Id have to say the system is in great shape and isnt a concern here at all. Seems to me you have all the evidence to support the fact that the guys keeping them arent keeping to many.


----------



## jmessenger (Apr 3, 2009)

the colors are sweet. i do take a cam with me now! have lot of more pics will post sometime.


----------

