# Any news on gear regs?



## toto

Just wondering what the latest scuttlebutt is on the proposed hosing, oops, gear regs. Any new news???


----------



## foxfire69

Well Toto,
I suspect that when Deer camp ends we'll hear some more news! Or not!!


----------



## REG

I wish there was some news, but my guess is the jury (NRC) is in deliberation.


----------



## wintrrun

REG said:


> I wish there was some news, but my guess is the jury (NRC) is in deliberation.


Ahhh the meeting of the minds. Can see the smoke from my high morals tree stand up here on the Platte.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ranger Ray

Hopefully they are reading the packet of info I left with them.


----------



## Splitshot

Bill,

I think most of us are resigned to the fact that the political decision for more gear restrictions was preordained. All the meetings, and all the efforts by all those involved was for naught as far as this decision goes. 

As you know we are organizing and are planning a strategy or several strategies one of which is to look at the discriminatory aspects of this decision and many that preceded it. To my surprise at least one attorney is already interested in this action.

We are just beginning and I am encouraged by the number of people interested in reversing the trend of special rules for special people. I will be contacting all those who responded to me by e-mail, phone and Pm in the very near future. The idea is already spreading and I think many like the idea that the members will determine the issues we will pursue including our agenda.


----------



## toto

www.semperliber.org/rights.aspx

food for thought


----------



## fishinDon

FO-200 (which includes gear restrictions) was submitted for action by the director at the next NRC meeting (December). Here's a link to the final document:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FO-200_Statewide_Trout_etc._regulations_338701_7.pdf

The gear restrictions part is near the end of the document.
Don


----------



## Abel

So we can speak about this at this meeting too?


----------



## fishinDon

Hey Abel, 

FO-200 and the Gear Restrictions were open for public comment in October and November. At this point it's either going to be signed by the director or not...not sure if the NRC would literally make you stop talking if you went to Lansing and brought up the gear restrictions again, but I'm fairly certain that they've moved on to other issues at this point and are just waiting on the director's decision, just like the rest of us.

Don


----------



## Abel

Too late for me to put in for leave to go anyway.


----------



## Whit1

Anyone can speak about what's on your mind at NRC meetings during the Public Comment portion of the day. You do have to set it up ahead of time is you would like a 5 min. block of time.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Not to late to *contact* Humphries and others with your opinion.


----------



## fishinDon

Not too late to contact Humphries and others with your opinion. Never too late for that. 

I just know that Abel already did that AND attended/spoke at the Nov meeting, maybe I should have been more clear for everyone else that didn't know that. Like most everyone who's posted in this thread, Abel has already done a ton! 

Don


----------



## foxfire69

fishinDon said:


> Not too late to contact Humphries and others with your opinion. Never too late for that.
> 
> I just know that Abel already did that AND attended/spoke at the Nov meeting, maybe I should have been more clear for everyone else that didn't know that. Like most everyone who's posted in this thread, Abel has already done a ton!
> 
> Don


Thanks Don and Abel! Geez...that sounds Biblical!


The only person of interest that I haven't contacted I believe is Mr. Snyder! Hmmm...


----------



## toto

For some facts on your rights to fish Michigans inland rivers, streams, and lakes. Go to a good bookstore, or amazon or something and get "Forever Free, your rights to fish Michigans Inland Lakes and Streams.

Found this litte facttoid in the reading I did on line:

U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids in 1934: The right to take fish is not an incident of navigation, but a RIGHT arising from the fact that the waters in which the right is claimed are public waters. Both rights arise from the fact that the waters are public, not private. The rights co-exist and neither finds it source in the other.

This was a ruling concerning anchoring a boat on a river. The person anchored and got out to wade, in which case an adjacent land owner told him he couldn't do that. At the time, the boat owner didn't know the law, but found out the truth in court, hence the above ruling.

The point here is mention of PUBLIC WATERS. Later I will get into the Northwest Ordinance, which still stands today, and our rights to fish public waters.

Anyways, get the book, it will tell you a lot about our fishing rights.


----------



## toto

www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-public.htm


----------



## Splitshot

Thanks Bill. This will be good resource information when we establish our legal team.

It appears the gear regs are going to be implemented to Rainbow. We need to bring this issue to the attention of the new Governor Rick Snyder and his new DNR director.


----------



## JimP

Splitshot said:


> Thanks Bill. This will be good resource information when we establish our legal team.
> 
> It appears the gear regs are going to be implemented to *Rainbow*. We need to bring this issue to the attention of the new Governor Rick Snyder and his new DNR director.


The BM?
What's going on there I haven't seen?


----------



## Randle

He is referring to Rainbow Rapids access site on the PM


----------



## JimP

Ah Ha, Still learning the BM, thought it was that bend, haven't been down that way yet to the PM...Thanks.


----------



## rockman

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/12/michigan_dnre_shows_good_faith.html


----------



## toto

Gee thats great, except it may well be illegal to do this. Maybe they need to do a little research on the law before they make these decisions.

Go to some of the links I put up in the latest gear reg thread, and read em.


----------



## Whit1

Thanks for the article.

However it points out a problem that needs to be attacked and that is the new gear regs and others that are awaiting borning that apply to streams without migratory fish runs and that would make up the vast majority stream miles being looked at with greedy eyes by those who would restrict trout anglers and the gear they use.

What effects have gear regs and especially flies only had on other streams where they have been in vogue for several years? Yes, I know that fishery biologists have said that "You could remove the flies only regulations on stream x and not adversely affect trout popoulations or the fishing." This is not what's needed, but rather we need definative studies showing this...........IF they exist.

We need to put some focus,not only on the PM, but also other streams.


----------



## toto

Actually whit, thats not true, we don't need any of that, if the NRC has stated in public that this is a social issue, than they cannot do it. And that goes to Article IV of the northwest ordinance, and the original common law before that, these two things have never changed.

The English Common Law is still what our country operates under, even in these days. Probably a good idea to read the links I put up earlier, and read them closely, I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

If you google "Fishing Rights in Michigan", you'll find a website from Smashwords, that gives a link to a book about our freedoms to fish in Michigan. Open up the free reading protion of this link, and read it, very interesting stuff. It applies mostly to navigable and non-navigable waters, but it also states exactly where are rights derive from, and also, just what our rights are.


----------



## METTLEFISH

The whole intent of planting these fish in Michigan - that by the way has no Indiginous Trout or Salmon - is for them to be caught by all. Some say they are "purists" and have more rights to these fish. B.S. , when they make their own reels, wood / bamboo rods... braid their lines from horse tail, and get to the river via horse or foot, I'll believe the "Purist" thing. The more people enjoying the fishery the better off all of us are. Maybe as part of the deal, we can get them to plant a spring run King, that would put more fish in the entire system for all to enjoy -benifiting everyone, not just those waxing nostalgic. I have nothing against using flies, I tie and have great success with flies, I personally do not want to spend my fishing time flailing a cable with "tippet" on it, and I don't. Some do not realize they can not put fly gear Regs. in place there, only the bait can be regulated. If some want to truly have the Trout experience, simply hop on I-94 and head west, or come and catch those incredible hatchery fish on the Huron in the spring !


----------



## Shoeman

Whit1 said:


> Thanks for the article.
> 
> However it points out a problem that needs to be attacked and that is the new gear regs and others that are awaiting borning that apply to streams without migratory fish runs and that would make up the vast majority stream miles being looked at with greedy eyes by those who would restrict trout anglers and the gear they use.
> 
> What effects have gear regs and especially flies only had on other streams where they have been in vogue for several years? Yes, I know that fishery biologists have said that "You could remove the flies only regulations on stream x and not adversely affect trout popoulations or the fishing." This is not what's needed, but rather we need definative studies showing this...........IF they exist.
> 
> We need to put some focus,not only on the PM, but also other streams.


Funny you mention greedy eyes

Here's a quote from the recent TU newsletter

"Michigan TU played a leading role in advocating a sensible rewrite of the first revision to the State's trout regulations in nearly 10 years. Michigan TU earned a seat at the table with MDNRE to ensure that "sound science and comprehensive input from anglers are represented in the new regulations"

Funny, next to the article is a picture of a "Quality Fishing Area Regulation" sign. "Artificial flies only"

Sound science....


----------



## Abel

Shoeman, you got that newsletter? Could you PM it to me, or e-mail it?


----------



## Ranger Ray

I know people that submitted over 200 signatures against. They must have had them in before this bizarre date the DNR decided to start counting them. Anyone else catch this pulled from outer space count date? I know the date was after I wrote in opposition. Ask for feedback and then not start counting the day you ask for it, but start the count 3 months later? Something smells here.

I was told they had to review some new study that showed the DNR's own biologists were wrong in their stating no special regulations needed. Anyone get a chance to see this study? The DNR was supposed to be reviewing it at the time of the Nov. 7th meeting. Maybe the Cold Water committees bait fishing representatives or Steelheaders can fill us in on it. I am sure they would have been brought in to view such an important document so they could make a informed opinion. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## Shoeman

Abel said:


> Shoeman, you got that newsletter? Could you PM it to me, or e-mail it?


It's an actual letter

PM me your address and I'll mail it out


----------



## Whit1

Shoeman said:


> Funny you mention greedy eyes
> 
> Here's a quote from the recent TU newsletter
> 
> "Michigan TU played a leading role in advocating a sensible rewrite of the first revision to the State's trout regulations in nearly 10 years. Michigan TU earned a seat at the table with MDNRE to ensure that "sound science and *comprehensive input from anglers are represented in the new regulations"*
> 
> Funny, next to the article is a picture of a "Quality Fishing Area Regulation" sign. "Artificial flies only"
> 
> Sound science....


A qualifier needs to be added.......but won't of course.....that the "comprehensive input" must come from anglers who think like TU and others who favor and are pushing mightily for more gear restrictions.

I have never joined TU due to their stance......despite deniels.....on pushing fly fishing and I never will join that organization.


----------



## Abel

I'm with you Whit, I was donating to them. I will be e-mail/writing them as well to let them know why I stopped my automatic deposits to them. The stance and what I've seen here, discusted me.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Abel said:


> I'm with you Whit, I was donating to them. I will be e-mail/writing them as well to let them know why I stopped my automatic deposits to them. The stance and what I've seen here, discusted me.


I signed up this past year and will not be renewing. They do some good stuff that is for sure, but they do not have my interests in mind. I was extremely put off about a a proposal to my local river for flies only recomendation that stated it was supported by our 300 members.


----------



## Abel

you should let them know why you're leaving.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Abel said:


> you should let them know why you're leaving.


I plan on it when I get my renewal offer. I am sure there is a comment section.


----------



## fishinDon

Boardman Brookies said:


> I signed up this past year and will not be renewing. They do some good stuff that is for sure, but they do not have my interests in mind. I was extremely put off about a a proposal to my local river for flies only recomendation that stated it was supported by our 300 members.


I'm sure you already know this, and you pretty much stated it in your quote above siting the 300 TU members, but your river (Boardman) is next on the list, the only reason it didn't get in this time is because of the dam removal project. 

Make sure you stay involved and circle the wagons in your area if you don't want to see gear restrictions go through. If there's no proposal on the Boardman in the next few years, I'll be very, very surprised. At least you know now that it's coming and you have time to get prepared, completely different than the last time around...
Don


----------



## Shoeman

Boardman Brookies said:


> I plan on it when I get my renewal offer. I am sure there is a comment section.


I have yet to see a poll from them asking how I feel toward any of their proposals. I think each proposal comes from the chapter closest to the target area (and probably should), since the rest of the membership is unaware of the needs of a certain watershed. BUT this is a movement toward many rivers that involve more than just "the health of the river"


----------



## Abel

If I wanted a river for my private enjoyment that's what I would do. Get a bunch of people fo help fund the project, then say look what I did here, it should be mine.... Maybe we should make the first push, a no-flies section of the Boardman. Or better yet, look at the post with the cane pole vid. How about cane poles only.... That's traditional.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Here is a copy of the link to the letter from last year.

http://adamschaptertu.com/Chapters_Positions.aspx

If you go to the mainpage,http://adamschaptertu.com/default.aspx,half way down on the right is a direct email link to Kelly Smith. They are asking for email stating YOU support gear restrictions. This is why I will have nothing to do with TU in the future. I was told when I signed up they welcome anglers who fish with all methods. I do fly fish, but I prefer to use hardware. I would rather get involved with the GTLC and give time rather than money that *may* go to supporting gear restrictions.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Boardman Brookies said:


> If you go to the mainpage,http://adamschaptertu.com/default.aspx,half way down on the right is a direct email link to Kelly Smith. They are asking for email stating YOU support gear restrictions. This is why I will have nothing to do with TU in the future. I was told when I signed up they welcome anglers who fish with all methods. I do fly fish, but I prefer to use hardware. I would rather get involved with the GTLC and give time rather than money that *may* go to supporting gear restrictions.


Is this any different than if an organization would have asked it's members to email Kelly Smith to state that they are against gear restrictions? 

Of course all of you guys know I'm the one guy here that is sticking with TU, but I do believe that the wording on these types of email requests should be way different. By stating it the way they have the organization has already prompted its members to have an opinion. Of course we all know that this was purposely done.

Perhaps it would have been better if they would have requested their members to email Kelly Smith to share their opinions on the potential gear restrictions. This would have left it open for members to come to their own conclusions. This is how my chapter communicated the issue to MDNRE and it should have been the same for all chapters.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

The Downstream Drift said:


> Is this any different than if an organization would have asked it's members to email Kelly Smith to state that they are against gear restrictions?
> 
> Of course all of you guys know I'm the one guy here that is sticking with TU, but I do believe that the wording on these types of email requests should be way different. By stating it the way they have the organization has already prompted its members to have an opinion. Of course we all know that this was purposely done.
> 
> Perhaps it would have been better if they would have requested their members to email Kelly Smith to share their opinions on the potential gear restrictions. This would have left it open for members to come to their own conclusions. This is how my chapter communicated the issue to MDNRE and it should have been the same for all chapters.


You are correct. It should have stated "Please email Kelly Smith with your thoughts or suggestions on gear regs." I would have no issue with that at all. But the issue I have is being a member and lumped into this group that speaks on my behalf without ever asking me how I felt. Therefore I am done with TU. I still might participate on river restoration efforts but I cannot give money to a group that may use part of it to fund these battles to put forth more regulations that I do not support. My two cents on the issue.


----------



## bonefishbill

Hopefully--another couple of hundred miles of quality Michigan streams will benefit from gear restrictions..learn to fly fish people...it's far less damaging to your resource.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

bonefishbill said:


> Hopefully--another couple of hundred miles of quality Michigan streams will benefit from gear restrictions..learn to fly fish people...it's far less damaging to your resource.


I do fly fish. It is not always my prefered method. So why restrict me to where and when I can fish. Please add something useful to the debate we are having or stop using this forum. Your post are always all the the same.


----------



## REG

bonefishbill said:


> ..learn to fly fish people...it's far less damaging to your resource.


Really...how so?..more people stomping around spawning gravel?


----------



## Boardman Brookies

REG said:


> Really...how so?..more people stomping around spawning gravel?


REG I am glad you brought this up because I have been thinking about this today. I was thinking about hitting the Holy Waters over x-mas since it is open year round. But why is it open? Yes it is no-kill, but it is worth keeping open year round, during prime spawning times? I am sure that is not helping the fish trying to spawn having anglers in there. I am sure that is the reason the huge majority of streams and rivers are closed for 1/2 of the year.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Boardman Brookies said:


> REG I am glad you brought this up because I have been thinking about this today. I was thinking about hitting the Holy Waters over x-mas since it is open year round. But why is it open? Yes it is no-kill, but it is worth keeping open year round, during prime spawning times? I am sure that is not helping the fish trying to spawn having anglers in there. I am sure that is the reason the huge majority of streams and rivers are closed for 1/2 of the year.


Studies have shown that fishing year around really has no effect on a quality fishery. You can drag 1,000's of guide anchors through the spawning grounds and trample in waders everywhere. How does it effect the fishery? It does not, because the damage is irrelevant to the healthy system. But holy crap, use bait and the world is falling. Not really, but the fly guys have the DNR believing it over their own biologists.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

bonefishbill said:


> Hopefully--another couple of hundred miles of quality Michigan streams will benefit from gear restrictions..learn to fly fish people...it's far less damaging to your resource.


All I can say is... WOW!

Nothing quite like tarnishing the already damaged image of flyfishermen. Somehow I am trying to believe that you are not serious with this very vague statement. Nothing quite like stirring the pot.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

The Downstream Drift said:


> All I can say is... WOW!
> 
> Nothing quite like tarnishing the already damaged image of flyfishermen. Somehow I am trying to believe that you are not serious with this very vague statement. Nothing quite like stirring the pot.


DD, he is serious, just look at his previous posts. These are the attitudes that will never be changed. It is the same with people who primarily bait or hardware fish and are stuck in their ways. I wish these changes or propositions were based solely on scientific evidence data and research but we all have seen they are not. We all need to work together on the issue. If the Boardman is the next on the list I will do what ever I can to prevent what happened on the PM happen here.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

BB, I've seen the previous posts. And still can only read them in awe. 

I guess the "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" thing applies in fishing too. It funny (sad really) that there are so many people that believe they are doing the right thing for the fishery but through their own stubborn, close-minded thinking they are actually hurting things. Good thing I am a little open-minded and did some research on the subject. If not you guys would have run me out long ago. :lol:


----------



## Abel

He's just antoher arrogant wanabe stirring the pot, probably still thinks that kings really do attack that size 22 caddis fly on the gravel, as long as its on 5ft of leader.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

You mean they won't chase a fly that small? I guess if they won't chase it we might just need to add another foot or two of tippet. :coco:


----------



## REG

Ranger Ray said:


> Studies have shown that fishing year around really has no effect on a quality fishery. You can drag 1,000's of guide anchors through the spawning grounds and trample in waders everywhere. How does it effect the fishery? It does not, because the damage is irrelevant to the healthy system. But holy crap, use bait and the world is falling. Not really, but the fly guys have the DNR believing it over their own biologists.


Got a source for those studies?


----------



## Ranger Ray

REG said:


> Got a source for those studies?


I have read literally hundreds of studies the last couple months to prepare for the NRC meeting. I will see if I can find them, but its not happening today. 

Maybe you could ask the TU guys that are pushing for year around fishing on some of our rivers. I mean they must have studies that show it doesn't harm trout. With their hysterical worrying about the possible harm baiting may cause, they certainly wouldn't be asking to fish these prime rivers year around if it has an adverse affect on the trout.


----------



## REG

I appreciate anything you can send, thanks.


----------



## Abel

Interesting paragragh out of a paper I'm reading now....

All too often anglers take what I would characterize as a &#8220;FIRE, AIM, READY&#8221; approach to trout management. They are quick to seize on a solution without an appreciation or even any thought of what they want to achieve. As a result, fisheries managers may, under pressure from top-level administrators or legislators, implement regulations designed to appease a particularly vocal or influential group only to find that the issue has been aggravated to the detriment to the resource. This has a snowball effect resulting in distrust and antagonism between the anglers and the fisheries agency.

I think that sounds very fimiliar. 

Brian Boroughs went to say that the DNR Biologist was wrong about his work on the PM, NOV 4th meting. TU was conducting thier own study, but wants the change before they have conducted said study. My questions is, if they do conduct the study, and it shows oppoiste of what they want, and the regs they pushed are detrimental to the fishery, will they push for a repleal?


REG. PM me your e-mail address, I have some stuff I can shoot ya.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Bonefishbill,
Do you believe I should only "fly cast'' for these fish? if so, why ? My spin gear with a bubble or shot work fine for me.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Boardman
Not so sure that is the reason for the closures. Could it be that during the cold weather months the fish concentrate in certain areas and are much more succeptable then ?


----------



## Flyfisher

bonefishbill said:


> Hopefully--another couple of hundred miles of quality Michigan streams will benefit from gear restrictions..*learn to fly fish people*...it's far less damaging to your resource.


I've been doing it for over 30 years now but generally don't like the other people that do it, and their attitudes. Flyfishing is such a small window in the angling world, not unlike the narrow mind of the people that practice it exclusively. Even worse is when a flyfisherman stands on a pulpit proclaiming that their method is superior to others. This unfortunate mindset is the result of an incredible amount of ignorance. 

I do have a few questions. Please explain to me how flyfishing guides putting their clients on actively spawning fish is "far less damaging to the resource"? How is sight-casting relentlessly over non-feeding salmon or steelhead in a foot of water even considered sporting when the vast majority of these harrassed fish will end up foul-hooked or "flossed" (lined)? How is dropping/dragging an anchor on or near spawning gravel "far less damaging to the resource"?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Abel said:


> Brian Boroughs went to say that the DNR Biologist was wrong about his work on the PM, NOV 4th meting. TU was conducting thier own study, but wants the change before they have conducted said study. My questions is, if they do conduct the study, and it shows oppoiste of what they want, and the regs they pushed are detrimental to the fishery, will they push for a repleal?


So we have a group that has a dog in the fight and it has the study to prove our own biologists
wrong. Gee that's what I would be making my decision on. LOL. Sometimes even my little mind can predict the outcome of these highly complicated social issues. Right now its telling me to make sure I get a kiss for what is about to happen to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Flyfisher

METTLEFISH said:


> Boardman
> Not so sure that is the reason for the closures. Could it be that during the cold weather months the fish concentrate in certain areas and are much more succeptable then ?


The closures cover, for the most part, spawning periods for resident stream trout. Fish are indeed susceptible when they are in small headwater streams on shallow spawning gravel. Not to mention that closing the stream, or sections of it, prevents wading traffic that could potentially damage spawning redds.


----------



## toto

Hey how about this? Based on Burroughs comment, maybe we should just get rid of the biologists. After all, they don't know what they're talking about. Think of the money that the DNR could save by not having to pay biologists. 

Of course I'm only kidding, but this sounds just like the Platte Lake Improvement Association from years ago, if anyone remembers that fiasco. PLIA was using the same argument then, as the NRC is using now. The experts don't know what they're talking about, if the science doesn't fit their agenda.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Flyfisher said:


> I've been doing it for over 30 years now but generally don't like the other people that do it, and their attitudes. Flyfishing is such a small window in the angling world, not unlike the narrow mind of the people that practice it exclusively.


Nice to see your such an open minded guy.


----------



## Flyfisher

TC-fisherman said:


> Nice to see *you're* such an open minded guy.


Oh, this is after giving someone the benefit of the doubt. To further clarify, I was referring to the "type" of individual that continually espouses the benefits of flyfishing while failing to recognize that there are other techniques that are just as effective and ethical. My apologies to all the open-minded flyfishermen out there for my comments.


----------



## Splitshot

Perhaps this is a going away present from Becky Humphries to the fly fishermen at DU where she has secured a position. That is just speculation of course, but if there is no compelling reason for gear restrictions also known as slob restrictions why is the DNR even considering those restrictions.

Over and over those in favor keep changing the reasons and over and over it makes them look pathetic. Bryan Burroughs the director of TU told me personally that bait fishing during the steelhead and salmon season was harming the trout fishery. The reason according to Bryan was that there was tremendous pressure from those fishing salmon with eggs and catching all the trout stationed behind the spawning fish that were overly susceptible to eggs. He said there wasnt enough pressure during the regular trout season to harm anything.

So the new regulation will state eggs may be used during the steelhead and salmon season but not allowed during the regular trout season when there is no pressure. When I asked him to reconcile his position, he just shrugged his shoulders.

DNR fisheries director Kelly Smith said there were studies which contradicted the data supplied by DNR fisheries biologist Rich ONeal and upper level fisheries biologist were analyzing the data. Of course director Smith made his recommendation to the NRC over ruling his own biologist before the analysis was completed.

The whole gear restrictions agenda is a scam by the DNR to take waters from a majority of fishermen in our state and give them to a few elitist who feel they are entitled to them. I remember when I attended the Baldwin meeting and asked director Smith about the section of the Big Manistee below M72 that was made flies only and he agreed that there was a lot of local opposition when they made the administrative change but it quickly died down and went away.

All you have to do is get through the initial uproar and it will all go away. That was true before the Internet, but this isnt going away. Every time you go fishing on the Au Sable and drive past the Holy Waters or on the PM past the gear restricted waters or the Big Manistee toward Grayling and realize you are not allowed to fish the best waters you should think about the reasons you must fish less productive waters.

Of course is you take this guys advice;


bonefishbill said:


> Hopefully--another couple of hundred miles of quality Michigan streams will benefit from gear restrictions..learn to fly fish people...it's far less damaging to your resource.


 you will probably catch less fish than he catches on the best waters. The above statement clearly displays the arrogance we are dealing with. He contends that if you learn how to fly fish Michigan streams will benefit when all the scientific evidence shows just the opposite. He probably believes that fly fishing is far less damaging to the resources, but can show no data to support his position.

The argument that some businesses might suffer is just as preposterous as fly fishing protects the fishery. How many people would agree that the purpose of the DNR was to do what is best for the resources and not what is best for a few small businesses. Should we be managing our resources for the benefit of some business? I dont think so, and is a non sequitur meaning; an inference that does not follow from the premises; specif : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition.

The facts are pretty clear, The DNR assisted a special group of people in taking some more of our most productive waters for no other reason than a special group wanted it. Well Becky and Kelly are leaving so there is little recourse for us except to remember that it was easier for them to cave in to political pressure instead of their due diligence. 

Trout Unlimited is a fly fishing organization that claims they are not a fly fishing organization in an attempt to garner money from the members of the fishing community that many of them despise. Anyone who is interested in working on improving the habitat of our rivers need only contact one of the over 100 watershed organizations in Michigan like the Little Manistee Watershed Conservation Council www.lmwcc.org/ and you will know your money will go toward stream improvements without the threat of fly fishermen claiming anything for themselves.


----------



## Abel

This I sent to TU yesterday, will probably send it to the TC and headwaters chapter today, debated on posting it here, but what the hell...

I have, and with regret decided to stop all my donations to Trout Unlimited. Since I transferred to Michigan my views of the TU organizations have drastically changed. Once I thought TU was about nothing but the preservation and restoration of trout. But I have been pushed to the notion that it is becoming a fly fisherman only club. The views of Brian Boroughs and the Michigan TU during the Special Regulations agenda this last year in Michigan have disgusted me. 
I had a real issue with the stance that was taken in pursuing fly only sections of out trout stream, instead of trying to include as many trout fisherman as possible with say, single hook, no bait. I have/still ask the question-What is the difference between a rubber egg and a glowbug, or a 1/32oz jig and a beadhead nymph, when it comes to fish mortality? No one has an answer, yet the position of MTU and all other fly fisherman that supported this is that flies kill less fish.
The data that was used in on TU's side of this was outdated at best. They pushed the fact that studies show that bait has a mortality of 33%, but yet never showed the dates of these studies or methods used. New studies show this to be true, and the methods used in the studies that show that 33% are rarely used in Michigan, or in many trout streams anywhere anymore. I can show you multiple studies that show this.
Brian Boroughs stated at the November Michigan NRC meeting, that the DNR biologist that had data stating that the "Flies Only" stretch of the Pere Marquette river had done nothing to improve size/numbers of resident trout, was wrong. Yet Brian had no proof or studies of this. Then went on to state that TU was conducting its own study to show this. Well if this is the case, do your study, then if your data shows otherwise, try to change. What if the new data is the same, the PM doesn't need changed, will they ask that it be returned to the original regulations to fish there? What if the study shows that flies only isn't the best thing for the PM, will MTU push to have the Flies Only stretch removed?
Now I'm do appreciate what the organization has done and is doing towards dam removal, habitat restoration and access. But I'm afraid that my hard earned dollars, that I was donating, is also the same money going to have me pushed out of waters that I love to fish. I fear that the Boardman here in Traverse City, once the dams are removed, will become the next target of the pure/elitist fly fisherman who want all the best water to themselves. Now, I am a fly fisherman, bait fish, troll, I guess you could call me a jack of all, master of none. But I do not and have not seen any studies done to show that fly fishing is better for the fish than artificial lures of comparable size and nature.
I hope that someone can restore my faith in this once great organization that is for the trout fisherman, not only the fly fisherman. Feel free to e-mail, call, write, whatever it maybe.

Disappointedly/regretably,


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Abel, great letter. You summed up exactly why I am going to be done with TU for now. Did you ever get that place on that creek you asked about?


----------



## Abel

No, my house in Ak didn't sell, so the one here fell thru, sucks!!!!!! I woulda love a log cabin on 8 acres on that creek.


----------



## METTLEFISH

I do not think you could damage a Redd, they'll just dig it again, the eggs ?, ever try to pop a water cured egg ?. nearly imposible, I don't think that they (Trout) would exist if a lil gravel being moved around was lethal to the eggs or Alevines. Maybe we should push to eliminate all the non-indiginous fishes in the state !, I would love the opportunity to fish for our native whitefish, the Grayling in it's natal waters here in MI. .


----------



## Flyfisher

METTLEFISH said:


> I do not think you could damage a Redd, they'll just dig it again, the eggs ?, ever try to pop a water cured egg ?. nearly imposible, I don't think that they (Trout) would exist if a lil gravel being moved around was lethal to the eggs or Alevines.


Okay, yeah, right 

If I can break a water cured egg between my finger and thumb, I am pretty sure someone weighing 150-200lbs would NOT have an issue doing the same if they stepped on it


----------



## Abel

But the felt on your soles creates a nice cushion, and gravel isn't that hard. Those to combined should created a nice soft landing of your foot.


----------



## J-Lee

Nice letter Abel, I need to tell the national that also. I have already made Mr. Burroughs aware of my position.


----------



## toto

Now that I've got my feet wet on this research thing, its amazing just what I come accross. The latest is the ruling by Judge Fox years ago, concerning the Indian Treaty Rights. He used the Northwest Ordinance as his reasoning for allowing the tribal rights to stand, which he should have.

But, it got me to thinking, if a federal Judge is using the Northwest Ordinance to settle this issue, isn't that saying the Northwest Ordinance stands for other issues as well? You can't a federal document picked apart for only the uses you want to use them for. It is good on a whole, or it isn't good at all.

Just some more of my rambling thoughts.


----------



## Flyfisher

Abel said:


> But the felt on your soles creates a nice cushion, and gravel isn't that hard. Those to combined should created a nice soft landing of your foot.


:lol: Thanks, what was I thinking?


----------



## FISHMANMARK

Abel said:


> Brian Boroughs stated at the November Michigan NRC meeting, that the DNR biologist that had data stating that the "Flies Only" stretch of the Pere Marquette river had done nothing to improve size/numbers of resident trout, was wrong.


 
Granted it is only anecdotal evidence. But having fished the flies only stretch for the last 12-13 years. There is defiantly larger fish.... 

Either the study is flawed or I became a better fisherman. 

I'm pretty sure the study is flawed.:16suspect


----------



## Whit1

Abel said:


> Brian Boroughs went to say that the DNR Biologist was wrong about his work on the PM, NOV 4th meting. *TU was conducting thier own study,* but wants the change before they have conducted said study. My questions is, if they do conduct the study, and it shows oppoiste of what they want, and the regs they pushed are detrimental to the fishery, will they push for a repleal?
> 
> 
> REG. PM me your e-mail address, I have some stuff I can shoot ya.


 
How does one spell b-i-a-s-e-d?


----------



## FishKilla419

Whit1 said:


> How does one spell b-i-a-s-e-d?


Spelled. TU


----------



## Flyfisher

Whit1 said:


> How does one spell b-i-a-s-e-d?


I think your spelled it correctly.

Maybe we should let new home builders perform their own permit inspections as well? Or just let the oil industry inspect their own oil wells and drilling operations :yikes:

I am really disappointed in TU, given the good that they do in regards to habitat restoration and improvement. 

I didn't see anything on TU's national website about promoting discriminatory fishing regulations. Their original goal was to create sustainable wild trout fisheries in lieu of the "put 'n take" hatchery based practices common on the Au Sable River at that time. As we all know, self-sustaining fisheries do not require "flies only" regulations to prosper.

With even our own DNR fisheries biologists admitting that the new PM regs were socially driven with no biological evidence, I have to wonder how this would fit into the thoughts of TU's founders?



tu.org said:


> From the beginning, TU was guided by the principle that if we "take care of the fish, then the fishing will take care of itself." *And that principle was grounded in science*. "One of our most important objectives is to develop programs and *recommendations based on the very best information and thinking available*," said TU's first president, Dr. Casey E. Westell Jr. "In all matters of trout management, we want to know that we are substantially correct, *both* morally and *biologically*."


----------



## Flyfisher

FISHMANMARK said:


> Granted it is only anecdotal evidence. But having fished the flies only stretch for the last 12-13 years. There is defiantly larger fish....
> 
> Either the study is flawed or I became a better fisherman.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the study is flawed.:16suspect


And what you say very could well be true, given the excellent habitat of the "flies only" water. But truly, how much time have you spent outside the flies only water strictly pursuing trout? There is probably a reason why the guides float lower on the river during the hex hatch, and catch BIG fish. There's my "anecdotal evidence".

What one has to look at is the history of the regulations on that stretch of water. The studies on the current special regs stretch don't support the notion that "flies only/no kill" has produced bigger and better trout, period.


----------



## fishinDon

Splitshot said:


> Anyone who is interested in working on improving the habitat of our rivers need only contact one of the over 100 watershed organizations in Michigan like the Little Manistee Watershed Conservation Council www.lmwcc.org/ and you will know your money will go toward stream improvements without the threat of fly fishermen claiming anything for themselves.


One word of caution here, the PM Watershed council is firmly on record as supporting the gear restrictions on the PM. 

Ray, I believe you are a member of the Little Manistee Watershed Council, and you can speak for them much better than I can, I'm sure it's a great organization, that does great things for the resource, I just don't know much about it...I'm simply cautioning people about the PM Watershed council. 

Jim Bos, who I believe is the current president of the PM Watershed council spoke on behalf of the organization at the October NRC meeting and gave their support for the restrictions, that were at the time flies-only, no kill.

I don't know if Mr. Bos pays his own way to Lansing, but if he gets reimbursed through the PM watershed council and you are a member or sending them money, then you are paying for gear restrictions.

Also, in briefly scrolling through the names under the board of directors on their web site I recognize a few guides (including Kevin Morlock - who also asked for restrictions at the November NRC meeting) and Dick Schwikert, who was quoted by Howard Meyerson in the GR Press as calling bait fishermen "slobs."

Let's just say I won't be joining the PM Watershed council any time soon, for the same reasons I won't be joining TU.

Don


----------



## Abel

Proud member of the MI river angler assoc.


----------



## Whit1

Keep in mind that this is but the opening scirmmaging in a battle that will involve more than the PM. We need to expand the data/studies to find out if gear regs have made a difference in trout numbers over the years on other streams where they are or have been in place.

Little Manistee R. between the Indian Club Bridge and Johnson Bridge
The Mason Tract
Does the Clam River still have a Flies Only stretch? At one time it did.
The Big Manistee R in the Grayling area.
Others?

Keep opinions and emotion out of the debate and focus on the science as well as Choice and Opportunity. We want to expand choice and opportunity and those who support gear regs only want to restrict.........fewer anglers that offer competition on THEIR streams for THEIR trout.


----------



## toto

And that sir, is exactly why I have done hours of research on this issue. I can find only one study done back in the 50's on mortality of trout fishing with bait. In that study, it was determined that the mortality rate was not sufficiently high enough to do damage to the population in question. 

I'd have to find the study again, but it seems to me they did a study also, on the mortality rates while using spinners, spoons, and body baits. While the catch rate was lower on this gear, it was also determined that the mortality rate on this gear was quite low as well.

I couldn't find any reports concerning fly fishing and mortality, but I bet its out there. If I still lived in Michigan, I would take a day, and drive to Ann Arbor to the Fisheries Research Institute and find the studies. I've been there before when I did a research paper for college, and believe me, they have more studies on fisheries than you could ever use. I would encourage any of you to take the time to do that, you will learn quite a bit about our fisheries.

I still think we need to keep the pressure on, but we need to do it with facts, and not just beliefs. While the concern of steping on redds is valid, is there any facts to back that up? If so, thats the stuff you need to use. Conjecture won't win this argument, only the facts, and they be as simple as proof of their erroneous belief in helping the fishery, to something more complicated, such as the things I've trumpeting all along. At some point, they'll be forced to listen, and someone somewhere within the DNR/NRC, will have to take note. 

I know the steps I want to take, but I need your help in making the voice heard. Just keep emailing the NRC/DNR and telling them what you think, but use facts, that is always impossible to argue against.


----------



## thousandcasts

6 members and 17 "guests." Hmmmm....

Dear Lurkers,

Since this whole thing involves politics and everyone involved with politics seems to "get their's," I'm going to stay nuetral until such time as I "get mine." 

That's right--my integrity CAN be bought--but it's up to you to PAY. 

What are my qualifications, you might ask? 

1) I once read Dale Carnegie's "How To Tell People To Go To Hell In Such A Way That They'll Enjoy The Trip." 

2) I attended the following seminars: 

*The Seven Sins of Truly Evil People
*Sell Your Soul and Still Sleep Good At Night
*How To Pimp And...(never mind that one) 

3) While I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express per se', I have used an alternate name and had illicit romantic relations with some women at a highway rest stop...on more than one occassion. 

So, as such, I think my qualifications would help anyone's cause! 

However, "anyone" is a misnomer. Someone is more accurate...someone being the first one to pony up the following: 

1) 42 cartons of Marlboro Lights in the hard pack

2) My own home morphine drip

3) A 20' Wooldridge Alaskan with a jet engine. Notice I said "engine" as in just that--the kind that powers jet airliners. 

4) A $5000 a night Bosnian prostitute on call. Uh...female, don't be sending me some dude named Ivan. While I may want said prostitute to have a thick accent like Bela Lugosi, I don't want Bela Lugosi showing up at my door. Female...Bosnian...thick accent...dark hair. 

That's it. 

Provide me "mine" and I'll say whatever you want me to say. 

PM for details on where to send above items. And to everyone else, please remember--it's not personal, it's just politics. Don't hate the playa, hate the game sucka's!


----------



## Abel

This thread just went to hell....... Figures the guy with the lil devil avatar would send it there.


----------



## thousandcasts

Abel said:


> This thread just went to hell....... Figures the guy with the lil devil avatar would send it there.


Eh, hell is for the rest of you--I'm Catholic. A few tears and 17 hail mary's and I'm good to go!


----------



## Ranger Ray

Here is part of my NRC presentation. Note how studies already show a 90% *voluntary* release rate amongst fishermen. Note what the DNR themselves say about a achieved 90% voluntary release rate. 

Thank You for giving me this time to speak. Everyone should have a stack of supporting documents. Some supporting documents are incomplete, in the spirit of killing as few trees as possible. Each alphabetized point has a corresponding alphabetically marked supporting document. I will not read or cover each one in detail but will touch on the points within them that are highlighted. 


B.	B Is a graph showing what percentage of blue ribbon streams will be special regulations if we go to 161 miles. One of the definitions of Blue Ribbon as stated by the MDNRE is the best waters. I did not include the creeks that would make up the proposed 178 miles, hence the 161 figure. 19% of the blue ribbon water will be special regulations. A substantial amount of our best waters. 
Much of the argument for these special regulations has been the need for catch and release and elimination of bait fishing to sustain the fish populations. Lets look at what our own DNR biologists have to say on the matter.
C.	DNR biologists state: Our observations also indicate that many contemporary brown trout anglers on the Pere Marquette River practice voluntary release of legal sized trout. This means that angling mortality for brown trout in the river is likely low compared to natural mortality.

D.	Page 3, DNR biologists state: We observed an increasing trend in voluntary release of trout in the control sections. During the mid-1970s, anglers released about 40% of the trout they caught, but by 1990, the release rate was up to 80-90%.

Page 10, DNR Biologists state: Obviously, in terms of impact on trout populations, there would be little difference between a fishery with 90% voluntary release of fish and one with mandatory release of fish.

E.	In a 2004 study from Pennsylvania, page 2 states: Anglers caught an estimated total of 343,240 trout on all wild trout streams and anglers released 92.7% of the trout caught resulting in about 25,000 trout harvested on all wild trout streams during the 2004 survey period; thus, about 4% of the 600,000 legal size wild trout were harvested. Anglers harvested a very small number (9/mile) of the legal size trout available on wild trout streams (221/mile).

There are many other studies from Wisconsin, Iowa and New York amongst others stating the same percentages for voluntary catch and release as those I just quoted. As we can see the culture of catch and release has reached the 90% mark. Remember and I quote Obviously, in terms of impact on trout populations, there would be little difference between a fishery with 90% voluntary release of fish and one with mandatory release of fish. 

One must ask, with this knowledge; why we are introducing more special regulations for something that is by our own DNR studies, irrelevant?

A quick point on hooking Mortality.

F.	Page 2 (32). A Oklahoma Fisheries Biological study on hooking mortality states:
Bait fishing may be having less negative impact on wild stream trout fisheries than previously thought because earlier studies have tended to overestimate bait fishing mortality and because evidence suggests that some anglers are already fishing actively (setting the hook immediately).

Other studies concur. Again, we are fixated on what appears to be in the whole scheme of things, irrelevant. Our biologists already know this. Their recommendations for gear restricted waters reflect it. Why are we ignoring our own biologists? With the money crunch the MDNRE is under, lack of COs and matters of way more importance facing us; one must ask; why we are spending all this time on micro managing such irrelevant issues? We are adding all these special regulations that waste the time of all, including our over worked COs. We need to simplify the regulations and rid them of these irrelevant regulations so our COs have more time to focus on the important issues. We need to be focusing and spending our time on things that have major impacts on our fisheries like habitat and erosion. 

Thank you for your time.


----------



## the rapids

fishinDon said:


> One word of caution here, the PM Watershed council is firmly on record as supporting the gear restrictions on the PM.
> 
> Ray, I believe you are a member of the Little Manistee Watershed Council, and you can speak for them much better than I can, I'm sure it's a great organization, that does great things for the resource, I just don't know much about it...I'm simply cautioning people about the PM Watershed council.
> 
> Jim Bos, who I believe is the current president of the PM Watershed council spoke on behalf of the organization at the October NRC meeting and gave their support for the restrictions, that were at the time flies-only, no kill.
> 
> I don't know if Mr. Bos pays his own way to Lansing, but if he gets reimbursed through the PM watershed council and you are a member or sending them money, then you are paying for gear restrictions.
> 
> Also, in briefly scrolling through the names under the board of directors on their web site I recognize a few guides (including Kevin Morlock - who also asked for restrictions at the November NRC meeting) and Dick Schwikert, who was quoted by Howard Meyerson in the GR Press as calling bait fishermen "slobs."
> 
> Let's just say I won't be joining the PM Watershed council any time soon, for the same reasons I won't be joining TU.
> 
> Don


 
The Clinton River Watershed Council is another conservation organization which also sent out pro-gear restriction mailings, etc. This group supported the gear restrictions on Paint Creek in Oakland County. In fact according to one mailing they did so in coordination with several TU chapters and fly fishing groups.

Needless to say, it is dissapointing to see these watershed councils take a "pro-gear restrictions" stance towards some of our trout waters. It seems completely counter to enhancing user opportunities, generating additional recreation interest and increasing watershed issue awareness, which I thought (along with other important targets) these organizations were all about. It is also dissapointing that if science indicates there would be no benefit from additional gear restrictions, that these organizations would still advocate for the restrictions.


----------



## skipper34

Whit1 said:


> Keep in mind that this is but the opening scirmmaging in a battle that will involve more than the PM. We need to expand the data/studies to find out if gear regs have made a difference in trout numbers over the years on other streams where they are or have been in place.
> 
> Little Manistee R. between the Indian Club Bridge and Johnson Bridge
> The Mason Tract
> Does the Clam River still have a Flies Only stretch? At one time it did.
> The Big Manistee R in the Grayling area.
> Others?
> 
> Keep opinions and emotion out of the debate and focus on the science as well as Choice and Opportunity. We want to expand choice and opportunity and those who support gear regs only want to restrict.........fewer anglers that offer competition on THEIR streams for THEIR trout.


Milt, I don't think the Clam ever had a "flies-only" stretch, but it did and I believe still does have an "artificial lures only" stretch. I may be mistaken. I have never fished the Clam but I find that the trout regulation digest makes for some excellent fireside reading.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Good read.

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cg...dx?type=header&id=EcoNatRes.DNRRep054&isize=M


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Ranger Ray, I'm not going to quote your post of how you presented things to the NRC in hopes of saving some space on this thread. Just wanted to say that I wish I could have been there to see you present this. From your post it appears you did an outstanding job getting your thoughts out in front of the NRC. Bravo!


----------



## toto

While I realize my twisted logic at times, I was thinking about this whole thing last nite.

One thing that came to mind was the statement by Burroughs when he stated, in essence, the science from the fish biologists is wrong data, or something akin to that.

So heres my thinking, isn't it the NRC that dictated no baiting for deer because it causes the spread of CWD or Bovine TB? Didn't they use the deer biologist data for that? Seems kinda weird to me that they made that decision based on biologist data that they felt was absolutely right, but the fisheries data is flawed? Anyone else see the two faced nature of this?? Or am I screwed up? How can the biologist be correct in one area, but not correct in another area? Weird!


----------



## fishinDon

Ranger Ray said:


> Good read.
> 
> http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cg...dx?type=header&id=EcoNatRes.DNRRep054&isize=M


Great Read Ray, one of the things that I found most interesting about that study is that it proved the old addage that 90% of the fish are caught by 10% of the fishermen is true. 

Look at the total numbers of trout caught by the handful of fishermen (4-10 people in most years) who fished there often (10+ trips). They account for 40-50% of the total trout harvest in a given year. As opposed to the other 800+ anglers who fished there 1-2 times a year, which all 800 together accounted for about 40% of the harvest. 800 people caught roughly the same number of trout as 5 or 10 people did.

In short, 5-10 people who know what they are doing are WAY more effective than 800 people who don't. 

So should me make regs that keep 800 people who only fish a couple times a year off the water (when they don't catch very many fish anyway) so the other 5-10 guys can have plenty of fish to catch?

Don


----------



## Whit1

fishinDon said:


> Great Read Ray, one of the things that I found most interesting about that study is that it proved the old addage that *90% of the fish are caught by 10% of the fishermen is true. *
> 
> Look at the total numbers of trout caught by the handful of fishermen (4-10 people in most years) who fished there often (10+ trips). They account for 40-50% of the total trout harvest in a given year. As opposed to the other 800+ anglers who fished there 1-2 times a year, which all 800 together accounted for about 40% of the harvest. 800 people caught roughly the same number of trout as 5 or 10 people did.
> 
> *In short, 5-10 people who know what they are doing are WAY more effective than 800 people who don't. *
> 
> So should me make regs that keep 800 people who only fish a couple times a year off the water (when they don't catch very many fish anyway) so the other 5-10 guys can have plenty of fish to catch?
> 
> Don


 
This is another of the key points (with supporting data) that needs to be kept in mind. Either in this thread or another recent one on gear regs....it may have been the one I started on Baldwin businesses closing if flies only regs were removed on the PM....it was stated by a longtime MS member about the dire consequences if angler after angler would take limits of trout out of the river. The simple point is that *ISN'T* going to happen for the simple reason that the vast majority of trout anglers don't have the experience and skill needed to take that many trout.

It reminds me of the Opening Day (Last Saturday in April) that a CO asked to look into my creel after I had come off the river at about noon. Thankfully she waited until three other anglers.....who had nothing.......had left after chatting for awhile. When she saw the fish I had kept...well within the legal limit...she exclaimed in surprise, "That's the most fish I've seen today and I've been checking with anglers all morning."

Please, I am not laying claim to being an expert trout angler, although I do have my moments, but rather to empahasize the point that Don is making above.


----------



## Whit1

toto said:


> While I realize my twisted logic at times, I was thinking about this whole thing last nite.!


You've got a lot more that is twisted about ya than yur logic my friend.....:evil: :lol:.........sorry buddy, but I couldn't resist.


----------



## toto

Yeah, but, at least I know how to twist floaters in spawn bags!!


----------



## Flyfisher

Whit1 said:


> This is another of the key points (with supporting data) that needs to be kept in mind. Either in this thread or another recent one on gear regs....it may have been the one I started on Baldwin businesses closing if flies only regs were removed on the PM....it was stated by a longtime MS member about the dire consequences if angler after angler would take limits of trout out of the river. The simple point is that *ISN'T* going to happen for the simple reason that the vast majority of trout anglers don't have the experience and skill needed to take that many trout.
> 
> It reminds me of the Opening Day (Last Saturday in April) that a CO asked to look into my creel after I had come off the river at about noon. Thankfully she waited until three other anglers.....who had nothing.......had left after chatting for awhile. When she saw the fish I had kept...well within the legal limit...she exclaimed in surprise, "That's the most fish I've seen today and I've been checking with anglers all morning."
> 
> Please, I am not laying claim to being an expert trout angler, although I do have my moments, but rather to empahasize the point that Don is making above.


What many flyfishing proponents fail to recognize is the DNR's ability to manage a fishery though size, slot, and kill limits as well as closed seasons. Sure, on a put/take fishery like the Muskegon where a great deal of the trout perish over the summer months, allowing five rainbow trout makes sense. Maybe a one, two, or three fish limit on brown trout during the regular trout season (last Saturday in April-September 30) would make sense on the PM? I am sure the DNR biologists would be the best people to make that decision, not special interest groups, guides, or politicians.


----------



## toto

FF, except the NRC seems to think the fish biologists don't know their job. I'll repeat what Mr. Burroughs said, the data used is in error, and is wrong. So why would you believe the NRC would listen to the biologists about this? The unfortunate part of that statement by Burroughs, is he has just established that the NRC won't listen to the experts. 

Everyone needs to understand the NRC has some sort of secret that keeps poking its head out into the light. Don't just listen to what they say, listen to what they don't say. These guys are listening too much to the legislature, who, by the way, know nothing of fish and wildlife; seems like they are running scared, either that, or there are a lot of back door things going on we don't know about yet. Trust me, in due time, these things have a way of coming out, and it will. Once it does, the NRC will no longer exist, as no one will be able to trust them, which is pretty much where we are now. Hopefully the new governor will have a level head about these things, and see the importance of our fisheries to this state, and its economy. You cannot narrow down the field, and expect fishing, and hunting license sales to increase. If these license sales decrease any further, the DNR won't exist either, they won't have the money to do anything, let alone worry about gear restrictions.

What I'm smelling here isn't smelling to pretty. Something is rotten, and somehow we need to get to the bottom of it, and just what is driving this. IF it is one legislator, which I've heard it is, pushing for this as a way of "pay back" for one his constituents, than that is wrong, plain and simple. In fact, who knows, I'm not even sure thats legal, but I haven't looked into that yet. Maybe the only thing to do is haul their butts into courts and let them explain themselves, don't think they can do it, and I'd love to be the one to ask the questions.


----------



## FISHMANMARK

Flyfisher said:


> And what you say very could well be true, given the excellent habitat of the "flies only" water. But truly, how much time have you spent outside the flies only water strictly pursuing trout? There is probably a reason why the guides float lower on the river during the hex hatch, and catch BIG fish. There's my "anecdotal evidence".
> 
> What one has to look at is the history of the regulations on that stretch of water. The studies on the current special regs stretch don't support the notion that "flies only/no kill" has produced bigger and better trout, period.


 
Sorry for the misunderstanding.... I meant an increase in the size of fish in the fly water.

We have a largest fish caught during daylight hours contest. The average winning fish size has grown over the years.


You guys are hanging your hat on this study... Personal experience shows me a different result.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

FISHMANMARK said:


> Personal experience shows me a different result.


I have fished in the Flies only on the N and S Braches of the Ausable, Holy Waters, Manistee below 72 and Little Manistee around Spencer Bridge. I have caught nice fish on all of those waters but, personally, I have caught some really, really big fish on the gear restricted waters below Mio in the research area. This is not flies only but artifical lures/flies. It all has to do with the habitat. The flies only waters, from what I have read and witnessed , are some of the best sections of cold trout water habitat in the state. I would like to see the all gear restricted waters change to how the Au Sable below Mio is regulated.


----------



## FISHMANMARK

Quick link to the regulations on the research areas? I found they are colored grey.... but can't find the details.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

FISHMANMARK said:


> Quick link to the regulations on the research areas? I found they are colored grey.... but can't find the details.


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/trout-salmon-county-listing-lakes-streams_272061_7.pdf

Scroll down to Oscoda Co.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

I may be setting myself up for a beating here but I keep hearing something that is not exactly true in regards to Bryan Burroughs. If I remember correctly he never said that the MDNRE fisheries biologists were "in error" or "wrong" with their data. I believe he said that the data was "sloppy". It might be splitting hairs a bit but these are two totally different statements in my eyes.

As I have stated before I know several of our fisheries biologists and I believe they do way more than they get credit for. But in the idea of building a scientific trend of data the MDNRE simply is under-funded to do a complete job statewide. This is shown by the watershed I'm in not have been completely surveyed since 2002 and by the PM being surveyed on a 3 year on - 3 year off basis. This type of funding problems lead to holes in a long term trend of data. Not the fault of our fisheries biologists, just the way the funding has lead things to be.

I'm not saying that you guys should relax on the position TU has taken with this issue. But I do question not looking into the reason Mr. Burroughs said what he did or changing the wording of what he has said. We all know where mis-quoting someone can get us.


----------



## fishinDon

FISHMANMARK said:


> You guys are hanging your hat on this study... Personal experience shows me a different result.


You are either an incredible fisherman or putting magic dust on your flies if you're outfishing the electro-shockers! 

To further explain:
I've caught some big trout outside of the restricted water. I've caught little ones outside the restricted water. Sometimes I catch a bunch, sometimes I get skunked. What does all this mean? Nothing! Just cause I caught a big fish doesn't mean anything about the regulations - restrictive or not. It simply means at least one big fish was present and hungry while I was fishing. There's no science attached to one man's fishing trip. 

That the difference between anecdotal evidence - "hey, I caught a big one, these regs sure are working" and the kind of evidence you find if you read the study that Ranger Ray just posted. Check it out. It's very interesting. They measured the same trout stream over the course of 10-15 years, every day of the entire trout season. They even tinkered with the rules over time to see what mattered. Guess what mattered more than anything? 

Size limits. That's it. 

They made half the river flies only and despite a HUGE drop in the number of anglers that used it, the trout didn't change almost at all. 

Guess what we already have in place across the entire state - size limits. Seems the DNR already knows at least a little about how to manage trout, and has known it since my Grandfather's hayday.


----------



## FISHMANMARK

fishinDon said:


> You are either an incredible fisherman or putting magic dust on your flies if you're outfishing the electro-shockers!


 
That is the issue with the study....

As far as the PM, I only fish the fly water. Over the last 10 years or so, the amount of "big" fish has increased. It's a fact. You keep citing the study... Do you have any personal knowledge of that stretch?

I really don't care one way or another about the new regs.... the flies only stretch isn't going away, so the new regs don't matter to me.


----------



## Abel

You may be correct DD, he may have said sloppy. But following it up with wanting tighter regs, the opposite of what tha biologists said was needed, he is saying that they were wrong. My biggest problem with what he/TU said/did....

He said that TU was going to conduct another study. So why not wait until your study proves or disproves something. I they really intended this they would have been working on a study already (maybe they are). If they actually do their study, will they go by what it shows, especially if it shows that the stringent regs have done nothing. If it shows that, will we get to go back to the table and undo what was just done? How about they're study shows that the Flies Only sections are hurting the fishery, will they push to have it removed.......

Now I highly doubt that they will have a study showing otherwise for 2 reasons...

1. They are highly biased towards what they want, which I understand. Now our DNR biologists might be biased as well, I don't know. Studies aren't like math, it's not like 2 plus 2. It's more like putting 2 and 2 together, you can get 0, 4, or 22, it depends on who's reading it and how they think it goes together.

2.They got most of what they wanted, so why put money and time towards it. Put the resources towards your next target. If I went to rob a bank and they caught me, but let me slide with half of what I wanted, I'd walk away happy too. But I would also wait a while and scope another one. Won't be long till another river that they work on (Boardman or Pigeon) that will be next.

Until I see a study ro something otherwise by an unbiaised group that proves our DNR biologists wrong, I will stand behind them.

FISHMARK, you only fish the Flies Only stretch so.... 
How do you know it isn't like that across the board, how do you know that the fish in the other areas haven't increased in average size as well. That's the trouble with only fishing, or hunting for that matter, in one specific area, you don't have personal experience on what's going on else where, only what your fed from those that do.

Hutch, maybe you should get the MRAA to do one We get a bunchof use together and going chunking, see what mortality rates are with eggs


----------



## FISHMANMARK

Abel said:


> FISHMARK, you only fish the Flies Only stretch so....
> How do you know it isn't like that across the board, how do you know that the fish in the other areas haven't increased in average size as well. That's the trouble with only fishing, or hunting for that matter, in one specific area, you don't have personal experience on what's going on else where, only what your fed from those that do.


 
You are absolutely correct. Maybe, the fish size has increased across the board. I don't know. Is there anything in the study that suggests this?


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> Yeah, but, at least I know how to twist floaters in spawn bags!!


Man toto, that must have really been a traumatizing night for those guys, as that floater bag incident of your's is now legendary:lol:!


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Everyone keeps bringing up the study that TU is going to do themselves. This is part of the Riverkeepers program that TU has begun statewide. They have worked with MDNRE to set up the program and it is being used statewide to provide volunteer data to our biologists when they are, again, not funded well enough to complete enough surveys within the MDNRE.

The important thing to remember here is that MDNRE will not consider any data valid if it is not collected properly. A biological protocal for wadable streams was developed by the Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section (GLEAS) of the MDEQ called (no joke here) Procedure 51 and is used to evaluate fish collection data. If this procedure is not followed all of what TU collects will not be deemed as valid.

I know I keep flying the TU flag here, and I thank all of you for not beating me too bad for it, but if any organization wants to complete a fish population survey and have the MDNRE take it as credible data then state mandated procedures will have to be adhered to.


----------



## Abel

DD, I wasn't serious about the study, pretty sure you know that. More than willing to help in anyway I can, but I alone, don't know enough about it, I'm not a biologist. 

Fishman, I will see what I can dig back up to send you if you want.


----------



## fishinDon

The Downstream Drift said:


> Everyone keeps bringing up the study that TU is going to do themselves. This is part of the Riverkeepers program that TU has begun statewide. They have worked with MDNRE to set up the program and it is being used statewide to provide volunteer data to our biologists when they are, again, not funded well enough to complete enough surveys within the MDNRE.
> 
> The important thing to remember here is that MDNRE will not consider any data valid if it is not collected properly. A biological protocal for wadable streams was developed by the Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section (GLEAS) of the MDEQ called (no joke here) Procedure 51 and is used to evaluate fish collection data. If this procedure is not followed all of what TU collects will not be deemed as valid.
> 
> I know I keep flying the TU flag here, and I thank all of you for not beating me too bad for it, but if any organization wants to complete a fish population survey and have the MDNRE take it as credible data then state mandated procedures will have to be adhered to.


DD,

One, I don't think you're really "flying the TU flag" so much. I understand why you support them (for habitat and other good things they do for the trout), and I understand why you want to help them change - same reason I won't join.

Two, the information you just posted is valuable, so don't stop doing that. I didn't even know there was a thing called procedure 51! 

Don


----------



## toto

It matters not just exactly what the verbage was from Burroughs, the effect was the same. I'll stand by what I said. It still doesn't make sense that the Fish Biologist wouldn't already know what they have to do, such as protocal 51 or whatever, while the deer biologists do? Again, I'm seeing a selfish agenda here, either from the fly guys, or from the individual NRC members themselves, or possibly both.

Yep, ausable, that was quite a nite, but hey, milt starts it everytime.


----------



## fishinDon

FISHMANMARK said:


> That is the issue with the study....
> 
> As far as the PM, I only fish the fly water. Over the last 10 years or so, the amount of "big" fish has increased. It's a fact. You keep citing the study... Do you have any personal knowledge of that stretch?
> 
> I really don't care one way or another about the new regs.... the flies only stretch isn't going away, so the new regs don't matter to me.


I have the study from the PM that was done by Rich O'Neal and Todd Willis from the MDNR that everyone is talking about - if you want a copy PM me your email and I'll send it to you. This is the study that was sited by the DNR in the draft proposal for gear restrictions that did not recommend the Pere Marquette for any further gear restrictions. It's based on 23 years of fish shocking over a 37 year period at the same site inside the flies only stretch of the PM, near the mouth of the Baldwin River. 

The study shows that over the years, the population of trout has increased and decreased all on its own, including a long period of decline from 1982 through the late 90's, when flies only regs were in place the entire time. More recently the population has recovered, which maybe why you are seeing more big fish. The problem is that this recovery almost certainly has nothing to do with the fishing regulations we put in place on the stream, since the long term population trends seem to be independent of those regs. 

The conclusion that was drawn in the study is that the flies only regs have not benefited the size or numbers of trout in that section, because the size and numbers of trout are statistically similar or the same as some of the other rivers/streams in the area that are surveyed, but managed under type 1 regs. No data from outside the flies only water is available on the PM, but the study did compare against two sites on the Baldwin River, which is managed under Type 1 regs. 

To answer your question, no, I never fish in the flies only water. The few times each summer when I get my fly rod out, I still don't go there because I prefer to fish in less crowded areas...just my preference, nothing else.

I wonder if you fished a stretch in the lower river this spring/summer what you'd find? I bet you might find there are big fish there too! When the hex hatch is on, I regularly see guides in the lower river, you might ask your guide if he'd let you try it out, see if you like it. You might find out that you don't need gear restrictions to catch big trout - just habitat, food and a little luck/skill.

Good Luck whatever you decide!
Don


----------



## Abel

Fish populations always go through cycles, highs and lows, most usually have always will. Just seems that when they go low people blame the bait and kill crowd, when it's high they praise the catch and release crowd. Normally weather is the biggest factor, it makes or breaks the spawning seasons, makes or breaks the food suppy, same goes with water temps. Doesn't matter how many fish you release or don't die from hooking, the system will only support so many. You can have numbers or size, usually not both. Rivers are not a warehouse, you can't stock pile fish.


----------



## TSS Caddis

REG said:


> Really...how so?..more people stomping around spawning gravel?


Because that is what the guy at the Orvis store told him.


----------



## REG

METTLEFISH said:


> I do not think you could damage a Redd, they'll just dig it again, the eggs ?, ever try to pop a water cured egg ?. nearly imposible, I don't think that they (Trout) would exist if a lil gravel being moved around was lethal to the eggs or Alevines. Maybe we should push to eliminate all the non-indiginous fishes in the state !, I would love the opportunity to fish for our native whitefish, the Grayling in it's natal waters here in MI. .


http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675(1992)012<0450:EOAWOS>2.3.CO;2


----------



## REG

Abel said:


> Hutch, maybe you should get the MRAA to do one We get a bunchof use together and going chunking, see what mortality rates are with eggs


I would doubt it would be any higher than found here.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/inventory/TroutHooking.pdf


----------



## Abel

So basically Reg, close all spawning grounds during the spawnig periods. Sept-Dec for Browns and Salmon, Feb to say Apr 15th for steelies/bows.... That cures "catching" fish off the gravel during the spawn, and pretty much the flies only secitons for a good part of the year. But if there really worried about the fish like TU says they are, this is what they'd want.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Well said Abel ! I fish Steelhead primarily, and have to wade through a LOT of hatchery fish.......to find a wild one, AWE !..... catch a bunch of fish in between the prime specimens, sounds like a good problem to me, after all weren't these fish put here to be caught ! If so many people need a cause, adopt the Grayling, and re-establish them, they at least are Indiginous to the Great Lakes area.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Reg, how does a contrived scenario relate to actual deaths in the River, any numbers on the actuall loss of fish in a natural environmet from foot traffic?...


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> Yep, ausable, that was quite a nite, but hey, milt starts it everytime.


Yeah, Milts a trouble maker huh?


----------

