# Baldwin Businesses To Go "...belly up"



## Flyfisher

Pinefarm said:


> When I brought up gear restrictions, I wasn't advocating for or against them. I only used the example that the fly water is always pretty busy, sometime extremely busy and almost never vacant, except for ice/extreme cold. Yet other sections of water, that may not be as good quality wise but are close, don't receive near the interest. (There's sections of the tribs I'd argue are better, trout wise, yet they're vacant in the summer. And no, don't PM me for the secrets. LOL. They're right there on your map book, LOL)


Yes, seemingly counterintuitive from a management aspect to draw special attention to one of the best sections of a river. Certainly the added pressure as a result of its popularity can't help it to reach its potential.

I agree with Toto in that management practices should be dictated by a few that profit from it. Fortunately, the DNR chose the correct route when it made its decision on how to manage the Muskegon River.


----------



## Pinefarm

I'm not saying manage anything for business. My point is a question. Do special regs create more interest? 

If given good public access, would Bowmans to Rainbow have all the crowds, if that was the fly only water? 

We were talking about how the new MDNR Directors new goal is stemming participation loss. That's how this conversation got started and is the crux. 

In case some haven't seen it...

December 05, 2010 4:45 PM


LANSING, Mich. (AP) - The incoming director of Michigan's reorganized natural resources agency says he wants to reverse a steady decline in the number of people who hunt and fish in the state.
Gov.-elect Rick Snyder has named Rodney Stokes as director of the Department of Natural Resources.
The incoming Republican governor is dividing the old Department of Natural Resources and Environment into two agencies.
Stokes tells The Detroit News he wants to do something about the slow buy continuing drop in the number of people buying fishing and hunting licenses in Michigan.
He says he wants to expand the focus of the department's recruitment efforts beyond young people and encourage adults to take their neighbors hunting or fishing.
Stokes also says he has no plan to increase license fees, set in 1996.



So, MDNR is looking at increasing participation and interest. All I said was, let's look at where the most popular places are, for hunting and fishing alike, and maybe we can glean some info from that. And perhaps that info may be counter-intuitive to conventional thinking. That's all.


----------



## Flyfisher

Pinefarm said:


> I'm not saying manage anything for business. My point is a question. *Do special regs create more interest? *
> 
> *If given good public access, would Bowmans to Rainbow have all the crowds, if that was the fly only water*?


No, and yes, because special regs sections create a "perception" of enhanced angling opportunities (ie more/bigger fish). In the case of the PM, there is no scientific (biological) evidence to support this theory. But as long as the perception is there, the people will come. BUT, that doesn't necessarily equate to an increased interest in fishing in the state. What it means is that more people that would usually fish in Michigan, residents included, would migrate to these areas, assuming they angle with the fly.

Increasing angler interest in the state is not going to happen by creating special areas for the minority of the angling population. It will happen through management practices that optimize the fishery without excluding the majority of the angling population. 

On that note, look what OH/PA have done with their steelhead fisheries. They plant the hell out of steelhead and their banks are lined with fishermen. Guys from OH don't need to drive to MI anymore to catch a few steelhead. They can go out their back door and hook 20 or 30 fish, *without the hassle of special regulations*. Maybe MI should take the same approach on its waters that don't support natural reproduction? Now that would increase angler interest!


----------



## Bruce William

Whit1 said:


> T
> According to this scenario fly anglers only come to Baldwin and fish the PM because it offers flies only fishing and that if such regs were removed they would no longer come. This is ludicrous at best. Those anglers will still fish the river.


As someone that has floated flies only for the past 10 years yes I do book a float in Baldwin twice a year because of the flies only section. 

Will I go back if the upper river is open not sure I just hope they don't change the regs.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Numbers. Numbers bring numbers. In the heyday of the salmon, there was a booming salmon business. Where are the salmon numbers today? You will see a correlation of the number of fisherman with the number of fish. In the deer population boom of the 80's there was a sea of orange. Where are the deer numbers today? You will find the sea of orange fluctuates with the numbers. What about the walleye population? When there was big numbers on White and Muskegon lake, there was big numbers of fishermen. Where are the numbers today? The fishermen numbers have declined with the walleye numbers. When there was a perch boom, there were people all over Lake Michigan. Charters thrived. Where did the perch go? The numbers of fishermen went with the decline of perch. Grouse. Where are the grouse numbers. People used to be everywhere hunting grouse. Now the numbers are down, so are the hunters.

Maybe in reality this state can no longer sustain the number of sportsmen they want. All I hear is no money for hatcheries etc...Reality sucks. So get your special interest group, get a legislator on your side and try to grab your little peace of the pie. Its the going thing you know.


----------



## Abel

Can someone please tell me what the difference is between a 1/32oz jig under a float and a beadhead nymph? That's all, if someone can show me that the jig is harder on the fish I'll back the flies only.


----------



## Steelheadfred

Abel said:


> Can someone please tell me what the difference is between a 1/32oz jig under a float and a beadhead nymph? That's all, if someone can show me that the jig is harder on the fish I'll back the flies only.


 
A Jig is hardware, perm attachment of the weight to the hook. A bead head or lead eyes is lashed to the hook with thread hense by law def making it a fly.

At some point you need to draw some lines, I tend to agree with your thoughts, but at some point you need to set some rules and this seem to be a clear way to write the rule. The best thing ever to happen to the fly water was the banning of chum IMO.


----------



## Flyfisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Numbers. Numbers bring numbers. In the heyday of the salmon, there was a booming salmon business. Where are the salmon numbers today? You will see a correlation of the number of fisherman with the number of fish. In the deer population boom of the 80's there was a sea of orange. Where are the deer numbers today? You will find the sea of orange fluctuates with the numbers. What about the walleye population? When there was big numbers on White and Muskegon lake, there was big numbers of fishermen. Where are the numbers today? The fishermen numbers have declined with the walleye numbers. When there was a perch boom, there were people all over Lake Michigan. Charters thrived. Where did the perch go? The numbers of fishermen went with the decline of perch. Grouse. Where are the grouse numbers. People used to be everywhere hunting grouse. Now the numbers are down, so are the hunters.
> 
> Maybe in reality this state can no longer sustain the number of sportsmen they want. All I hear is no money for hatcheries etc...Reality sucks. So get your special interest group, get a legislator on your side and try to grab your little peace of the pie. Its the going thing you know.


You forgot to mention how rampant VHS is destroying our fisheries and how we had to suspend inland lake walleye stocking to prevent the spread of the disease. I often wonder if VHS also infected the fisheries budget?


----------



## The Downstream Drift

I've been following this thread from the start and I have one question that I don't think can be answered.

Those of us that have followed the gear reg issue know the reality with the fly only water on the PM. We know what MDNRE has said in regards to the trout population there. Some of us still fish it while others won't. 

Other anglers in Michigan that want to give trout fishing a try will usually seek advise from a friend or hire a guide. These contacts will put them on the rivers they find to be most productive (usually).

Now to my question... Are there numbers that will tell us what the out-of-state tourism dollars are in Baldwin? I doubt it, but that would give some substance to Pinefarm's question. Being a former retail guy myself, we could get some good traffic count information fairly easily by having the businesses in Baldwin conduct a zip code survey for a little while. I think the tourism numbers would surpise alot of us. 

The reason I ask relates to a comment Flyfisher made. For the out-of-state angler who knows nothing about Michigan fishing the fly only water gives the perception that this is where you should be fishing. It is kind of like the PM's neon sign advertising. Just like the Holy Water. Just like the famed Tippy Dam.

I would be curious to ask some out-of-state fly fisherman what water they would fish if they came to Michigan. It would be interesting to see what the perception of our trout fisheries is nation-wide.


----------



## fishigan07

Very interesting thread. I used to go to Baldwin a few times a year steelheading in the flies only stretch. Been a couple of years since I was there. Fact is I have found just as good of fishing closer to home. So with gas prices the way they are I would rather drive an hour less.
On another note...I would like to see Michigan do a program like they have in Erie. They have a stream that gets loaded with thousands and thousands of steelhead that is closed completley to fishing of any kind. If any of you have ever been to Erie you have probably seen it and you would also know that they have one huge steelhead population for such a small place. Why can't Michigan do a similar set up? Stock more steel and lake run browns? Keep a couple of streams completely closed too?


----------



## uptracker

Well, on a semi-positive note, California prisoners are to fill the vacant prison in Baldwin.


----------



## Abel

That stream is Trout Run, it's the hatchery stream for PA. Fish it in the lake out front. Last I heard/read, PA stocked a dozen streams, over 1.5 million fish total, the biggest is ELK and is only the size of Platte. They also have more guys line up on those rivers than you'll ever see at Tippy, Homestead, or anywhere else in MI. Get in s pot at dawn, hole is the size of a buick with 15 other guys, don't move your feet all day or you loose it. You really don't want to see that here, IMO.

I use to fish the Flies only stretch when I first got up here from OH. It was all I heard about but fishing was never that great, unless you fished the spawn. I only really liked it because it was easy to wade, I could park above Green Cottage and have easy wading to Green, then an easy walk back to truck. I've since found other stretches that put up more for for me IMO, less guys, but I'm also floating it on my pontoon.


----------



## GVDocHoliday

As long as Jones' and Pompeii's continues to remain open...I'm cool.


----------



## gooseboy

I will second the Jones ice cream parlor.....I really never fished the flies only section because my gear/clothing isnt from the Orvis catalog


----------



## Flyfisher

The Downstream Drift said:


> I would be curious to ask some out-of-state fly fisherman what water they would fish if they came to Michigan. It would be interesting to see what the perception of our trout fisheries is nation-wide.


I moved to Michigan in 1997, a diehard east coast flyfisherman. I only knew what I read in book and magazines. *The main focus was the PM, Muskegon, and Ausable River systems*. The former two have never lived up to their reputations in print, in my honest opinion. While I used to live in CT, my home trout waters were in New York, mainly small tailwaters that fed out of the NYC drinking water reservoirs. Some of these waters were planted, but others were completely wild fisheries with big brown trout. Despite their proximity to "the city" itself, they weren't written about and yet was some of the best, and most consistent, trout fishing I have experienced. Relatively uncrowded waters. My favorite was the Amawalk Outlet, and despite its generous *three fish limit*, it remained a consistent producer of large, wild fish. 

I also had the pleasure of fishing the Delaware River with some regularity and enjoyed its excellent fishing. I remember reading one author referring to the Muskegon as "_the Delaware River of the Midwest_". He couldn't have been further from the truth.


----------



## Fishndude

This is a great debate, and it is fantastic that everyone can voice their different opinions without resorting to name calling. However, I have to add that, if someone doesn't figure out what to do about the Quagga and Zebra Mussels in the great lakes, the gear restrictions will be the least of the problems local businesses have. Look at Oscoda and Harrisville, if you don't believe me. Just 6 short years ago they were both thriving fishing-oriented towns. Now there are almost no charters in them, and they are ghost towns. I realize that the PM is not dammed, and there probably aren't Quagga and Zebra Mussels in that river, but all of the migratory fish that really draw a lot of tourists for the fishing, are on a serious decline. Numbers and sizes are way down. The trend is NOT our friend. Trout are very cool fish to fish for, and fly fishing is a great way to do it. But if you basically remove Salmon and Steelhead from the PM, the Trout fishing will not draw half of the fishermen that currently make it a point to fish that river. And the same will go for all other rivers which are tributaries of lake Michigan. 

I know I rant about this enough to drive some folks to distraction. But it is because the Mussel invasion literally is the MOST dire challenge to our fisheries, *and it is right here, and right now!* We might end up with a problem with Asian Carp, and we might have to work with gear restrictions. But right here and now, those Mussels are just sucking the life out of our fisheries, and are destroying them in front of our eyes. Everyone who thinks the Mussels are just a small matter, which will correct itself, are delusional. The darned things out-compete other native species at the bottom of the food chain. That means that everything else will die off before the Mussels do, and when the algae and phyto-plankton start to rebound, the Mussels will be first to rebound, ahead of other species. Sorry, but that is just the way it will work. Imagining that isn't the case, won't do anything to make it not be the case. Unless we find a solution to the Mussel problem, our anadromous fishery seems doomed.


----------



## Flyfisher

Abel said:


> That stream is Trout Run, it's the hatchery stream for PA. Fish it in the lake out front. Last I heard/read, PA stocked a dozen streams, over 1.5 million fish total, the biggest is ELK and is only the size of Platte. They also have more guys line up on those rivers than you'll ever see at Tippy, Homestead, or anywhere else in MI. Get in s pot at dawn, hole is the size of a buick with 15 other guys, don't move your feet all day or you loose it. You really don't want to see that here, IMO.


Have you been to the Green Cottage during "peak" runs of salmon/steelhead? 

I made the statement because OH/PA have found a way to interest their local anglers, and attract fishermen from other states as well. I know people from the Detroit area that would rather go fish OH than drive up to the PM or Manistee Rivers. I also know people from OH that no longer fish in MI because they have great steelhead and walleye fishing right there. All this without flies only/no kill regulations.


----------



## Abel

FF,
Ya, been a long time since I was there during the king run. I never saw it as bad here as I have in PA. But you probably have seen it more here than I, I have probably seen it more in PA/OH than you may have. OH def has no issue recruiting new anglers, that I will full heartedly agree with. The rivers are more crowded now than I ever thought possible. I mean, are there that many crazy people out there? And yes, anyone who willingly decides to stand in water that shold be frozen to catch and release fish, is well, crazy, myself completely included

Fishdude,
I'm not saying the mussels aren't a huge issue, but.....

We had and explosion of them in Lake Erie in the 90's. They found a spot in the chain and fell into, their population actually declined and leveled out. Am I saying the same thing will happen here, no. Should they be here, no, would I like to see them gone, yes. But maybe, just maybe Lakes MIchigan and Huron will get lucky and they'll do the same. Just wishful thinking. I know for a fact that the sheephead and yellow perch eat the crap out of them, maybe it's that Erie has more Sheeps that's what keeps the mussels in check You guys want more sheepies? I'll get my old man to round some up

As for the name calling, you're all a bunch of &*^*%&%*$!!!!

There, I fixed that


----------



## Flyfisher

Abel said:


> FF,
> OH def has no issue recruiting new anglers, that I will full heartedly agree with. The rivers are more crowded now than I ever thought possible.


Sounds like there are plenty of fish to go around despite the crowds. The Manistee and Muskegon Rivers combined receive less plants annually than some of the individual rivers.


----------



## fishigan07

Abel said:


> That stream is Trout Run, it's the hatchery stream for PA. Fish it in the lake out front. Last I heard/read, PA stocked a dozen streams, over 1.5 million fish total, the biggest is ELK and is only the size of Platte. They also have more guys line up on those rivers than you'll ever see at Tippy, Homestead, or anywhere else in MI. Get in s pot at dawn, hole is the size of a buick with 15 other guys, don't move your feet all day or you loose it. You really don't want to see that here, IMO.


 My point being with that was that if a small place like Erie Pa. can have 1.5 million steelhead in a 15 mile stretch of shore with what...10 streams to fish? Why couldn't Michigan impliment a similar program with thousands of miles of shore and streams and rivers? I would dare say they have more steelhead in one 15 mile stretch or Erie coast than we have in a 100 mile stretch west michigan coast.


----------



## jatc

diztortion said:


> Salmon just don't have a long running season. It's a benefit to have steelhead in a stream 8 months a year.


 
I catch salmon in my boat from April to ice-up on Lake Michigan. True they are only available to stream fishers for two months, but which fisherman has the greatest monetery impact on the state? I honestly don't know. Steelhead in summer are much harder to reach by boat, often we have to run 15 plus miles to get to the slicks and many guys won't do that. My question is about economics. Which species, if viable due to available forage, has greater potential for funding OTHER fishing opportunities across the board. I guess so many of our decisions at the state level come down to finances that this is probably being looked at by the DNR and NRC. Just throwing it out there.


----------



## Fishndude

muddy waters said:


> If it's any consolation, I attended a presentation given by Prof Emeritus Gerald Smith from UM in the past year (it was really more of a promo release for his book about Great Lakes fish). He mentioned that Lake Michigan populations of Whitefish are beginning to eat Quagga mussels. Jury's still out whether it's good or bad, as these bivalves are filter feeders and absorb toxins, which then are introduced to the food chain when they are eaten. Still interesting though.


I won't disagree with this, but I will pose a question. I keep hearing about how this fish, and that fish will eat Zebra and Quagga Mussels. Gobies. Brown Trout. King Salmon. Whitefish. And I can well believe that any of those species might take in a Mussel, or a few, from time to time. But if any of those species were focused on consuming Mussels, we would have a HUGE proliferation of that species - because we have a HUGE proliferation of Mussels. So, which species is increasing in numbers at an astronomical rate? The answer is......none of them. From the data I have seen the last few years, Whitefish numbers are declining on both lakes Huron and Michigan. 
Quagga Mussels have been documented to be blanketing large parts of the bottom of lake Michigan to as deep as 300 feet. What species, that lives at that depth, preys on them? 

I will say that Sheephead numbers are WAY up, compared to 20 years ago. And they do have heavy "pads" in the back of their throats, which are used for crushing shells. I have to think they may be consuming Mussels a lot more than other species. But the Mussels just keep increasing.

The reason Erie wasn't as affected by them is because there are a LOT more fertile rivers, streams, and shorelines on Erie than there are in lakes Huron and Michigan. The rivers in northern MI and WI run clean and clear. The more southern rivers are murkier and carry more nutrient load. Erie is fed by murkier rivers with more nutrient load, which helps other species live, even with the presence of the Mussels.


----------



## Jones

Fishndude said:


> This is a great debate, and it is fantastic that everyone can voice their different opinions without resorting to name calling. However, I have to add that, if someone doesn't figure out what to do about the Quagga and Zebra Mussels in the great lakes, the gear restrictions will be the least of the problems local businesses have. Look at Oscoda and Harrisville, if you don't believe me. Just 6 short years ago they were both thriving fishing-oriented towns. Now there are almost no charters in them, and they are ghost towns. I realize that the PM is not dammed, and there probably aren't Quagga and Zebra Mussels in that river, but all of the migratory fish that really draw a lot of tourists for the fishing, are on a serious decline. Numbers and sizes are way down. The trend is NOT our friend. Trout are very cool fish to fish for, and fly fishing is a great way to do it. But if you basically remove Salmon and Steelhead from the PM, the Trout fishing will not draw half of the fishermen that currently make it a point to fish that river. And the same will go for all other rivers which are tributaries of lake Michigan.
> 
> I know I rant about this enough to drive some folks to distraction. But it is because the Mussel invasion literally is the MOST dire challenge to our fisheries, *and it is right here, and right now!* We might end up with a problem with Asian Carp, and we might have to work with gear restrictions. But right here and now, those Mussels are just sucking the life out of our fisheries, and are destroying them in front of our eyes. Everyone who thinks the Mussels are just a small matter, which will correct itself, are delusional. The darned things out-compete other native species at the bottom of the food chain. That means that everything else will die off before the Mussels do, and when the algae and phyto-plankton start to rebound, the Mussels will be first to rebound, ahead of other species. Sorry, but that is just the way it will work. Imagining that isn't the case, won't do anything to make it not be the case. Unless we find a solution to the Mussel problem, our anadromous fishery seems doomed.


Fishndude is absolutely correct. Quagga mussels are BY FAR the most important issue that is currently affecting Lake Michigan and its fishery. There have been several papers written involving the decreasing springtime phytoplankton blooms in southern lake michigan, the "phytoplankton donut" you may hear it referred to. It's very real and frightening and it's happening as we speak.

As far as planting goes, you cannot plant fish in places where they don't have food! The DNR will not increase plants until some sort of healthy balance occurs, which looks highly unlikely given the current mussel trends. Lake Michigan is a totally different animal than Lake Erie. Its less fertile, cooler, deeper, and in general much more susceptible to a mussel takeover. 

While steelhead do have a more diverse diet than kings, the fact is that a large percentage of steelhead forage is alewives, and much like king salmon sizes, the average size of steelhead seems to be a dropping a bit. I think it will get alot worse before it gets better, but I hope that I'm wrong.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Just expect a decline in participation with a decline in game.


----------



## fishinDon

Abel said:


> Don:That's one thing that I can give FFF, Anglers of the Au Sable, and TU credit for. They put time and $$ into projects that improve the fishery, especially dam removal and negotiations with the power co's. Those projects are worth their weight in gold. I just wish those groups didn't turn around and lobby for gear restrictions once the projects were done.
> 
> Why, once the dams are removed and the population is natural spawners we'll all have to convert. the only steelhead or salmon that will hit anything other than a fly is those dumb tailwater stockers.


I don't have an answer for that! I'd prefer not to be converted, but I wouldn't mind helping with the habitat projects. 

That's the rub, most guys like you and I won't join TU or whatever because of their position on gear regs, yet those orgs are doing good things and could do way more if they just figured out how to represent many anglers instead of a few.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fishinDon

METTLEFISH said:


> Don,
> Can you show me one example of compliance with these negotiations / regulations ?..... even after court orders they will not / do not comply.


I totally hear where you are coming from on the non-compliance. That said I believe things are improving in places like Muskegon and the Au Sable as Consumers is getting better, but is still not perfect.

Also a dam removal project on the Boardman will be another big help. 

Its an uphill battle, no doubt, but worth the fight.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## The Downstream Drift

fishinDon said:


> That's the rub, most guys like you and I won't join TU or whatever because of their position on gear regs, yet those orgs are doing good things and could do way more if they just figured out how to represent many anglers instead of a few.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And this is exactly why a few guys I know and myself are sticking with TU. As an organization the average age of Michigan's membership is very high. The majority of these guys are older, stuck-in-there ways fly fishermen. 

I recently had a conversation with our area's fisheries biologist about this. Since the average age of TU membership is older it is very difficult to change their opinions on things (no matter how wrong they may be from the start). Its kind of that teaching an old dog new tricks thing.

The hope my small group has is that we can start the movement in Michigan TU to become more open-minded about these issues. It won't be easy but it is a fight we are willing to take up. Lets just hope we can eventually make some headway with this organization so the conservation efforts they do will be shared by others like those of you who have left the organization.

Keep up the good conversation on this thread guys. Its nice to finally see some civil talk on here.


----------



## FishFace23

Ranger Ray said:


> Numbers. Numbers bring numbers. In the heyday of the salmon, there was a booming salmon business. Where are the salmon numbers today? You will see a correlation of the number of fisherman with the number of fish. In the deer population boom of the 80's there was a sea of orange. Where are the deer numbers today? You will find the sea of orange fluctuates with the numbers. What about the walleye population? When there was big numbers on White and Muskegon lake, there was big numbers of fishermen. Where are the numbers today? The fishermen numbers have declined with the walleye numbers. When there was a perch boom, there were people all over Lake Michigan. Charters thrived. Where did the perch go? The numbers of fishermen went with the decline of perch. Grouse. Where are the grouse numbers. People used to be everywhere hunting grouse. Now the numbers are down, so are the hunters.
> 
> Maybe in reality this state can no longer sustain the number of sportsmen they want. All I hear is no money for hatcheries etc...Reality sucks. So get your special interest group, get a legislator on your side and try to grab your little peace of the pie. Its the going thing you know.


Ranger you hit it right on the Head!!! Not sure of the numbers now but at one time Michigan had some 750,000 hunters.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> That said I believe things are improving in places like Muskegon and the Au Sable as Consumers is getting better, but is still not perfect


Maybe on the MO, but the A is still being ran like ****! They still drop it way, way down in the fall and still have big gushes of water seemingly from nowhere. Can anyone tell me a valid reason, when no maintenance/repairs are taking place, why the Au Sable river below Foote dam should be dropped all the way down to 5-600cfs? This year it only hit 6-700cfs, but that is way too low for a river like that.

Last year there were gravel bars well out of the water and the river off the Point(below the dam) was about the size of the Rifle in Omer! One of the locals from this site(who doesn't post anymore here) took pics. It was sickening, and people have been fighting Consuckass since 2007, to just about no avail. The DNR, USFS, different angling organizations have all been contacted and involved, yet not much has been done. They had meetings, a tour of operation, all that. All Constupids did was come up with a different, albeit lame, excuse for why the dam was being ran like it was.

Consumers flat out could care less about any of our rivers and the fishing or river inhabitants, as long as they're making money; *******s!


----------



## REG

Jones said:


> Fishndude is absolutely correct. Quagga mussels are BY FAR the most important issue that is currently affecting Lake Michigan and its fishery. There have been several papers written involving the decreasing springtime phytoplankton blooms in southern lake michigan, the "phytoplankton donut" you may hear it referred to. It's very real and frightening and it's happening as we speak.
> 
> As far as planting goes, you cannot plant fish in places where they don't have food! The DNR will not increase plants until some sort of healthy balance occurs, which looks highly unlikely given the current mussel trends. Lake Michigan is a totally different animal than Lake Erie. Its less fertile, cooler, deeper, and in general much more susceptible to a mussel takeover.
> 
> While steelhead do have a more diverse diet than kings, the fact is that a large percentage of steelhead forage is alewives, and much like king salmon sizes, the average size of steelhead seems to be a dropping a bit. I think it will get alot worse before it gets better, but I hope that I'm wrong.


Bingo!...both you and Fishindude.

Downstream Drift....the "graying" of TU also pretty much applies to all Fishing Clubs....I do see a fair amount of young guys out fishing, but it does not translate to the organizations.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

REG said:


> Downstream Drift....the "graying" of TU also pretty much applies to all Fishing Clubs....I do see a fair amount of young guys out fishing, but it does not translate to the organizations.


Reg, this is exactly the problem with these organizations. Without new, younger guys in them they will continue with the old mindset they have always had. The catch here is that due to that old mindset they are struggling to gain new, younger members. Kind of a catch 22. But the "graying" membership has done it to themselves. 

I'm certain I don't have to explain to anyone how a meeting goes with four younger guys that want to see the organization grow talking to twenty older guys that are happy with their "fishing club" just the way it is. :banghead3:banghead3


----------



## fishinDon

ausable_steelhead said:


> Maybe on the MO, but the A is still being ran like ****! They still drop it way, way down in the fall and still have big gushes of water seemingly from nowhere. Can anyone tell me a valid reason, when no maintenance/repairs are taking place, why the Au Sable river below Foote dam should be dropped all the way down to 5-600cfs? This year it only hit 6-700cfs, but that is way too low for a river like that.
> 
> Last year there were gravel bars well out of the water and the river off the Point(below the dam) was about the size of the Rifle in Omer! One of the locals from this site(who doesn't post anymore here) took pics. It was sickening, and people have been fighting Consuckass since 2007, to just about no avail. The DNR, USFS, different angling organizations have all been contacted and involved, yet not much has been done. They had meetings, a tour of operation, all that. All Constupids did was come up with a different, albeit lame, excuse for why the dam was being ran like it was.
> 
> Consumers flat out could care less about any of our rivers and the fishing or river inhabitants, as long as they're making money; *******s!


Out of curosity, what was Consumer's reasoning for 500-600cfs? Sounds like my anecdotal information of the Au Sable getting better may be off base. Or maybe it was HORRIBLE before, and even this would be better, not sure. I never fish there, so it's only based on what I've heard. I know the Anglers of the Au Sable have been fighting Consumers for years on the issue...


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> Out of curosity, what was Consumer's reasoning for 500-600cfs? Sounds like my anecdotal information of the Au Sable getting better may be off base.


Oh they used "a new operator was making errors", "guage was messing up", lame stuff like that. Okay, that could happen, but multiple times through the fall/winter? The Au Sable used to always be around 1200cfs in the fall, that was an average all-around flow. 

Now you get a lot of 900cfs, or even lower. IMO, when gravel is exposed, flow is way too low. In early 09' there was massive shelf ice like I've never seen because of it. ****, the shelf ice at the Gasline was probably 10-12' out into the river!

Do a search Don, on " Au Sable flows" here on the site, and you'll find plenty of stuff to read. Check the NE section, there's threads on flow from 07'-09'.


EDIT: LMFAO! Just checked the AS flow and she's at 747cfs! Let me guess, ice right!? The river has dropped down in temp to just above freezing, but nothing should be froze yet upstream.


----------



## fishinDon

ausable_steelhead said:


> Oh they used "a new operator was making errors", "guage was messing up", lame stuff like that. Okay, that could happen, but multiple times through the fall/winter? The Au Sable used to always be around 1200cfs in the fall, that was an average all-around flow.
> 
> Now you get a lot of 900cfs, or even lower. IMO, when gravel is exposed, flow is way too low. In early 09' there was massive shelf ice like I've never seen because of it. ****, the shelf ice at the Gasline was probably 10-12' out into the river!
> 
> Do a search Don, on " Au Sable flows" here on the site, and you'll find plenty of stuff to read. Check the NE section, there's threads on flow from 07'-09'.


35 years old and I just relearned one of my own lessons - don't believe everything you hear. 

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'll have some questions to ask when I get to the committee meetings this winter. A couple of the guys on the cold water committee are from Anglers of the Au Sable, and I want to hear from them and the DNR what's going on there...


----------



## METTLEFISH

Steelhead and Browns were doing well from the late 1800's on, well before the Alewives came to the lakes. Fertility has dropped in Lk. MI.. I believe that at least part of the issue of smaller fish is do to the fact that they are landlocked here, and as all landlocked Salmonids do around the world, they are down sizing to accomodate their new environment. Perhaps some new Genes would help the size issue - somewhat. some groups want glacial sterility in the lakes, again the master equation is the carrying capacity. Perhaps shifting to a wild fish attitude is something to look at. I find hatchery fish lack in attitude and prowess.


----------



## toto

I may have bad information on this, but I don't think so. Tippy Dam was suppossed to be converted to a bottom draw dam. That was part of an argeement years ago, but that hasn't happened, and no one is forcing them to, which I don't understand either.

The planting of fish in the great lakes, is a co-operative agreement with the other surrounding states. I don't recall the overall agreed to stocking numbers between the states, but they have tried to keep some balance, but they can't figure in natural production, which does happen with salmon, and steelhead, for sure, and probably LRB's too. Having said that, someone needs to keep a closer eye on just what the DNR is doing, and not just becoming a bunch of sell outs, having everything dictated to them by the government.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> Perhaps shifting to a wild fish attitude is something to look at. I find hatchery fish lack in attitude and prowess.


I think our hatch fish, being direct decendents from wild LM steelhead, pretty much makes them close to wild fish. MI strain fish, all around, scrap pretty damn good. I fish a couple small tribs in the upper NW, and we have a mix of hatchery and wild steelhead. Some fight good, some don't, which I believe has more to do with the individual fish, then the fact one might be a planter.


----------



## Steelheadfred

ausable_steelhead said:


> I think our hatch fish, being direct decendents from wild LM steelhead, pretty much makes them close to wild fish. MI strain fish, all around, scrap pretty damn good. I fish a couple small tribs in the upper NW, and we have a mix of hatchery and wild steelhead. Some fight good, some don't, which I believe has more to do with the individual fish, then the fact one might be a planter.


 
I can't tell a difference in behavior of wild fish and hatchery fish in MI. Running timing yes, fighting and behavior no.

It is a dam shame our lake superior tribs are not managed in the fashion WI and Ontario manger theirs.


----------



## Shoeman

Just like our job market, Michigan's outdoor opportunities need to be reinvented. It would require dollars spent on stocking, lumbering, access and basically create a draw, not a division in what little we have left.

Lake Huron was mentioned in other threads. Many of those ports have died and in turn so has the economy that was based on the salmon fishing. Some believe Lake Michigan is next. Probably right! You can spend millions promoting "Pure Michigan" but unless you provide a draw outside of Frankenmuth, TC and their wine and cherries, there's still a big void compared to let's say 5 years ago.

Crying that we have a lack of funding and/or hatchery space to create a better Inland fishery is a joke, since we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Any campaign to create tourism needs a draw and a result. 

Sure tourists will come once, but if disappointed they will not tell others and won't return.

Just like in any business, one needs to spend money, to make money. Cut-backs in something as important as fish plantings, creating hunting habitat and allowing more opportunities are vital for growth. Yet Michigan took the opposite approach. Plant less fish, plant smaller fish, reduce lumbering efforts and allow special interest to dictate the few resources we had left.

ASS BACKWARDS....


----------



## Shoeman

BTW, that post is kinda hacked. I could go on and on, but I still have to keep my own business afloat in this crappy environment. Like an old timer told me several decades ago, when business is good, a baby can run it..


----------



## Fishndude

METTLEFISH said:


> Steelhead and Browns were doing well from the late 1800's on, well before the Alewives came to the lakes. Fertility has dropped in Lk. MI.. I believe that at least part of the issue of smaller fish is do to the fact that they are landlocked here, and as all landlocked Salmonids do around the world, they are down sizing to accomodate their new environment. Perhaps some new Genes would help the size issue - somewhat. some groups want glacial sterility in the lakes, again the master equation is the carrying capacity. Perhaps shifting to a wild fish attitude is something to look at. I find hatchery fish lack in attitude and prowess.


Steelhead and Browns existed before Alewives made their way into our lakes, but I wouldn't say they were doing "well." Of course they weren't planted in the quantities which were planted starting in the late 1960's, and continuing to today. 
What part of "the fish don't have enough food" isn't clear? You can triple the plants of our favorite sportfish, and you can use "fresh eggs" from Washington, Oregon, or BC; but if there aren't forage fish for them to eat, they won't be any larger than the fish we have right now. If a solution to the Mussel problem is found, the Alewife numbers will rebound, and the size and quantities of Salmon and Steelhead will increase. The carrying capacity of the lakes is being tied up in Mussels.


----------



## Steelheadfred

Shoeman said:


> Just like our job market, Michigan's outdoor opportunities need to be reinvented. It would require dollars spent on stocking, lumbering, access and basically create a draw, not a division in what little we have left.
> 
> Lake Huron was mentioned in other threads. Many of those ports have died and in turn so has the economy that was based on the salmon fishing. Some believe Lake Michigan is next. Probably right! You can spend millions promoting "Pure Michigan" but unless you provide a draw outside of Frankenmuth, TC and their wine and cherries, there's still a big void compared to let's say 5 years ago.
> 
> Crying that we have a lack of funding and/or hatchery space to create a better Inland fishery is a joke, since we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Any campaign to create tourism needs a draw and a result.
> 
> Sure tourists will come once, but if disappointed they will not tell others and won't return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steelhead and Browns existed before Alewives made their way into our lakes, but I wouldn't say they were doing "well." Of course they weren't planted in the quantities which were planted starting in the late 1960's, and continuing to today.
> What part of "the fish don't have enough food" isn't clear? You can triple the plants of our favorite sportfish, and you can use "fresh eggs" from Washington, Oregon, or BC; but if there aren't forage fish for them to eat, they won't be any larger than the fish we have right now. If a solution to the Mussel problem is found, the Alewife numbers will rebound, and the size and quantities of Salmon and Steelhead will increase. The carrying capacity of the lakes is being tied up in Mussels.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like in any business, one needs to spend money, to make money. Cut-backs in something as important as fish plantings, creating hunting habitat and allowing more opportunities are vital for growth. Yet Michigan took the opposite approach. Plant less fish, plant smaller fish, reduce lumbering efforts and allow special interest to dictate the few resources we had left.
> 
> ASS BACKWARDS....
Click to expand...

Best post(s) I have read in a long, long time. I will agree with you that Pure Michigan has had a big impact on Frankenmuth, TC, Mackinac, but add also promotion of our golf, Ski, the town of Grand Rapids, and up and down the lake. The amount of out of state traffic to Traverse City has never been higher, Pure MI can be thanked for that. An effort to shift market share from Door County, the Dels, ect...is working. 

Back to the fisherie issues, I could not agree more with the last part of your post. I would like to see a bigger investment in habitat repair rather then just stocking more fish, the more self sustaining poplulations we have the further ahead we are. But right now I see the DNR as a Deer, Turkey, Salmon and Walleye factory.


----------



## Flyfisher

Steelheadfred said:


> Back to the fisherie issues, I could not agree more with the last part of your post. I would like to see a bigger investment in habitat repair rather then just stocking more fish, the more self sustaining poplulations we have the further ahead we are.


Self-sustaining populations through habitat restoration make for a great long term goal. It takes time to research, plan, and implement restoration/improvement programs. In the short term, making our rivers and lakes more productive through hatchery stocking would seem like a viable option where capacity would allow.


----------



## Steelheadfred

Flyfisher said:


> Self-sustaining populations through habitat restoration make for a great long term goal. It takes time to research, plan, and implement restoration/improvement programs. In the short term, making our rivers and lakes more productive through hatchery stocking would seem like a viable option where capacity would allow.


 
I would agree 100% - it seems I have been told we have a hachery capacity issue for Steelhead and we have a forage base issue for Kings for sure. 

If I had it my way, we would reduce King plants further, let nature run it's course from the Muskegon North, dump the coho program all together and increase the stocking of steelhead and find a strain of Lake Run Browns.

What is nice about the Steelhead and Browns is they provide a 9 month fishery for folks, beaches, peirs, rivers, small boats - from a management perspective what does this say? When I was in NRM Classes at GVSU we were drilled over and over that DNR was to manage for Multiple use.


Million dollar question as we are all snowed in and can't hunt or fish, how do we have an impact and influence on the future management of our resource?


----------



## Flyfisher

Steelheadfred said:


> I would agree 100% - it seems I have been told we have a hachery capacity issue for Steelhead and we have a forage base issue for Kings for sure.
> 
> If I had it my way, we would reduce King plants further, let nature run it's course from the Muskegon North, dump the coho program all together and increase the stocking of steelhead and find a strain of Lake Run Browns.
> 
> What is nice about the Steelhead and Browns is they provide a 9 month fishery for folks, beaches, peirs, rivers, small boats - from a management perspective what does this say? When I was in NRM Classes at GVSU we were drilled over and over that DNR was to manage for Multiple use.


It would appear that an inordinate amount of management is focused on the a five month window over the summer for people that own or charter boats on the Great Lakes.


----------



## Abel

Snowed in, what??/ Never, snow never stop me....


----------



## METTLEFISH

Steelheadfred, If you read more you'll see that I have mentioned carrying capacity many times, sure Zebra / Quaga are cleaning up the water somewhat, but compare fertility to an era of no E.P.A regs. NOT. unless a fertilization program is implemented, what we see is what we got.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> sure Zebra / Quaga are cleaning up the water somewhat, but compare fertility to an era of no E.P.A regs. NOT. unless a fertilization program is implemented


Cleaning up the water somewhat? Look at Lake Huron, more like clean out the lake bro. Despite considerably cleaner water, the lakes would still be 100x better without the mussels. IMO, if Lake Michigan's chinook fishery ends up like Huron or slightly above, scrap it for something else. No sense in wasting money on something that's not fixable. Unfortunately, they had Lake Huron for reference, so I doubt they'll take as long to get rid of the king plants for Lake Michigan, if it ends up going the same path. 



> If I had it my way, we would reduce King plants further, let nature run it's course from the Muskegon North, dump the coho program all together and increase the stocking of steelhead and find a strain of Lake Run Browns.


I fully agree with your idea Fred, but maybe try to keep cohos. I love those fish, something cool about them. I'm not sure if they are as dependent/one track minded like kings on ale's. I do very badly wish they'd get LRB's going full bore again. Aside from steelhead trout, there's not a fish I love more then a big ol' lake brown.


----------



## Steelheadfred

METTLEFISH said:


> Steelheadfred, If you read more you'll see that I have mentioned carrying capacity many times, sure Zebra / Quaga are cleaning up the water somewhat, but compare fertility to an era of no E.P.A regs. NOT. unless a fertilization program is implemented, what we see is what we got.


 
Sorry Mettlefish, did not mean to not give you credit on this thread, lots to wade through in this thread and I have not been following every post really close.


----------



## MERGANZER

Baldwin is not Bozeman MT. The fact is that community has suffered enough with the elimination of baiting and supplemental feeding. Take away fly fishing and they are done.

Ganzer


----------



## Flyfisher

MERGANZER said:


> Baldwin is not Bozeman MT. The fact is that community has suffered enough with the elimination of baiting and supplemental feeding. *Take away fly fishing and they are done*.


I didn't realize that bait-fishing could destroy a local economy? And I have never heard anyone mention anything about "taking away fly fishing"? I believe people would like to see gear restriction regulations removed, meaning people can still legally fly fish if that is what they choose.


----------



## METTLEFISH

What I don't understand is the fact I see relatively no one ''fly fishing" for our Indiginous species such as Smallmouth, they are found in most any stream around here, and as many know, they fight as well as any Trout, is it any less of a challenge to catch Smallmouth from water below their prefered range than it is to catch Trout from our typicaly non conducive Trout waters ?, I wonder why nature never put Trout here !....


----------



## Steelheadfred

METTLEFISH said:


> What I don't understand is the fact I see relatively no one ''fly fishing" for our Indiginous species such as Smallmouth, they are found in most any stream around here, and as many know, they fight as well as any Trout, is it any less of a challenge to catch Smallmouth from water below their prefered range than it is to catch Trout from our typicaly non conducive Trout waters ?, I wonder why nature never put Trout here !....


I am not much of a fly fisherman unless it is the best method for catching the fish, and i do really enjoy fish that eat flies. IE Hex Hatch, Hoppers, ect. Or out west where Fly Fishing in Alaska is a really good method to catch salmon and trout.

When I lived down state though I fly fished smallies a bunch, it was a ton of fun.


----------



## thousandcasts

After reading some of the comments in this thread, the organized fly groups are the least of our worries when we can't even get the bait community to see eye to eye on most things. 

I've tried, but after one meeting with some bait guys, I'm done accepting invitations to hear them out. 

I got contacted by a group called Politically Unified Steelhead Supporters and their main agenda, despite being bait guys, was: 

1) reduce salmon plants even further.

2) Keep the ban on chumming. 

Now, since I oppose both of those things 100% they invited me to one of their chapter meetings to "hear them out," so to speak. So, I grabbed Sam Steel and we went down to Saugatuck with the intent of discussing our differences in good faith.

It did not go well. In fact...aw hell, I'll let the video speak for itself. All I know is that I'm DONE with those secret meetings, that's for sure. Not sure if Sam's done since I haven't heard from him since that night, but I think he and I are on the same page.


----------



## Abel

I thought we had a very good meeting at Tippy Dam. No one got hurt. and it was very secret, if the parking lot is secret.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Mike McDonald said:


> IMO not enough steel in no kill section to kill and maintain fishery.


That's funny, it did for years and years and years before no kill.

IMO, if you are a small business in Baldwin making a living off of fisherman, the state owes you nothing. The resource is public and should be managed for the benefit of the public. If you can make $$$ with those rules, fine, but don't expect the fishery to cater to your pocket.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> IMO, if you are a small business in Baldwin making a living off of fisherman, the state owes you nothing. The resource is public and should be managed for the benefit of the public. If you can make $$$ with those rules, fine, but don't expect the fishery to cater to your pocket.


. Who thinks managing a fishery around guide /business needs is a good, healthy idea?


----------



## diztortion

How come other towns and ports are doing good without the "benefit" of selective gear restrictions?


----------



## J-Lee

Gee Hutch, I am glad you didn't take the boys, to that meeting.:lol:


----------



## fishinDon

ausable_steelhead said:


> . Who thinks managing a fishery around guide /business needs is a good, healthy idea?


guides and business.


----------



## diztortion

Splitshot said:


> By the way, where did you get the idea that the fly dudes buy one or two dozen flies every time they go into a fly shop. Most of the real die hard fly fishermen, tie their own so maybe you should check your facts a little better next time you try to keep it real.


Just like the real spawn fishers, tie their own. 

Some people around here, spend just as much time caring, prepping, and tying spawn bags as someone who might tie their flies.


----------



## swampbuck

When this first got going I was under the impression that it was limited to the P.M. Is that still the case or will it be directed at all restricted water, Including the Ausable and upper manistee ?

I would really like to see the Ausable opened up, Although I hope those fly guys dont go exploring and find the real trophy waters.....


----------



## Flyfisher

swampbuck said:


> Although I hope those fly guys dont go exploring and find the real trophy waters.....


:lol:

Didn't you get the memo that all the "trophy fish" were in th especial reg waters?


----------



## Flyfisher

Abel said:


> Maybe you can, because Chris Wood (CEO of TU) Brian Boroughs (MTU) and John walters (MTU Headwaters), no one at the Nov NRC meeting, nor anyone else for that matter that is pushing these regs has been able to answer.



Did you actually get a reply? Neither Burroughs or Woods would reply to my email(s)? Apparently TU can send me emails and requests for donations (as a former member) but they can't answer a simple question for me  Frankly, I believe that they don't know how to answer the question I asked.


----------



## Flyfisher

I did receive an email from Burroughs today and he included some links to answer my questions.


----------



## Whit1

Flyfisher said:


> I did receive an email from Burroughs today and he included some links to answer my questions.


 

Share those links please either in here or via a PM


----------



## Chromedoggy

Splitshot said:


> Benzie Rover,
> 
> First what difference does it make how much money a fisherman spends in Baldwin. In years past, I estimate I have spent around $1,000.00 a year at one particular fishing store. Since I fish all methods and could be considered a spawn dude, some of that money was spent on flies. According to an article in one of the fly fishing magazines I read, only 2% of fishermen exclusively fly fish. If that is true, for every fly guy who purchases a $20.00 breakfast at the Orvis Lodge, 49 other fishermen might be buying subs at the Hungry Tummy or some gas station.
> 
> I dont know how many guys are like me, but I get someone else to build my rods, I stay in motels and if you chase away those 98 fishermen it might hurt business more than if you cater to the better off dudes. Ill bet the Hungry Tummy outlets would like to be heard on that issue. If you owned a gas station in Baldwin you might prefer 49 customers as opposed to one.
> 
> In any event, do you think we should manage our trout rivers for economic benefits to some businesses or for the benefit to the fishery and a majority of fishermen who pay for that management? We are losing lots of fishermen in MI and some of it might be due to special rules that are based on nothing but greed.
> 
> By the way, where did you get the idea that the fly dudes buy one or two dozen flies every time they go into a fly shop. Most of the real die hard fly fishermen, tie their own so maybe you should check your facts a little better next time you try to keep it real.
> 
> By the way this gear reg issue is not going away until they are reversed and all fishermen are treated the same and given equal access to all our public waters. Now if you have a good reason we should have any gear restrictions, we would all love to hear what it is.


Splitshot
I am by no means an advocate of flies only.
Some of the statements in this post need more consideration.
You are absolutely correct that most diehard fly fisherman tie there own. Where I feel this statement does not apply to Baldwin in particular, is that the PM is a river that is a worldwide destination that attracts fly fisherman from great distances. There is a greater number of fishermen who rely on the local shops and local tiers to provide the most currently effective patterns at the particular time. I can safely say this because I have hundreds of customers worldwide that I supply for this exact reason. I also feel this is why so many guides have operations on the PM.
I think you can run the entire Michigan shoreline and not find another trib that experiences this phenomenon to the same degree. The Man and AS would be close but minor by comparison.
I think you would find the same phenomenon on the Salmon River, which is 8 hours away from 1/3 of the US population.
Just my opinion


----------



## Abel

FF, I got it, PM me your e-mail. When I get to work on Maonday I can shoot you the reply I got.


----------



## diztortion

Tippy is a world class destination that attracts snaggers in the fall. 

Should they open the river to snagging because of this?


----------



## toto

Abel, I'm not sure what you asked Burroughs, but I would be interested in what he said also. Of course, if you don't want to share thats okay. I'm mostly interested in how he's trying to twist things around with you.


----------



## Chromedoggy

diztortion said:


> Tippy is a world class destination that attracts snaggers in the fall.
> 
> Should they open the river to snagging because of this?


If this is in reference to my post you need to re read.

Where this does correlate is that Andy's and Fisherman's HQ sell an inordinate amount of Turk's Ticklers and other snagging related devices.
You can go along the entire Michigan shoreline and it would be hard to find an area of shops that sells more "legal to sell" snagging tools.

And yes- Tippy is world wide criminal destination.


----------



## Flyfisher

Chromedoggy said:


> Splitshot
> I am by no means an advocate of flies only.
> Some of the statements in this post need more consideration.
> You are absolutely correct that most diehard fly fisherman tie there own. Where I feel this statement does not apply to Baldwin in particular, is that the PM is a river that is a worldwide destination that attracts fly fisherman from great distances. There is a greater number of fishermen who rely on the local shops and local tiers to provide the most currently effective patterns at the particular time. I can safely say this because I have hundreds of customers worldwide that I supply for this exact reason. I also feel this is why so many guides have operations on the PM.
> I think you can run the entire Michigan shoreline and not find another trib that experiences this phenomenon to the same degree. The Man and AS would be close but minor by comparison.
> I think you would find the same phenomenon on the Salmon River, which is 8 hours away from 1/3 of the US population.
> Just my opinion


You seem to be implying that anglers will stop going to Baldwin if people are allowed to use bait and lures throughout the entire system? I find it interesting that the Muskegon River also attracts a significant number of fly anglers despite its general gear regulations. Any number of fly anglers and guides ply the waters below Gleason's Landing as well. Its clear that a trout stream can be shared by anglers practicing a variety of techniques. Its also a fact that the "flies only" restriction on the PM does not create any better a fishery than if other legal tackle and techniques were permitted. 

If the DNR wants to reduce bag limits and change size limits to maintain a wild fishery, that is one thing. Restricting the type of legal tackle under the premise of conservation is a sham, as there is no hard "real life" evidence to support that theory.


----------



## Chromedoggy

Flyfisher said:


> You seem to be implying that anglers will stop going to Baldwin if people are allowed to use bait and lures throughout the entire system? I find it interesting that the Muskegon River also attracts a significant number of fly anglers despite its general gear regulations. Any number of fly anglers and guides ply the waters below Gleason's Landing as well. Its clear that a trout stream can be shared by anglers practicing a variety of techniques. Its also a fact that the "flies only" restriction on the PM does not create any better a fishery than if other legal tackle and techniques were permitted.
> 
> If the DNR wants to reduce bag limits and change size limits to maintain a wild fishery, that is one thing. Restricting the type of legal tackle under the premise of conservation is a sham, as there is no hard "real life" evidence to support that theory.


I guess my post was too difficult for most.
I made no reference to catch and release or gear restrictions.
My post was directly addressing the correlation between fly fisherman who tie their own flies and those who purchase flies, and the theory that Baldwin Shops sell more flies than most Michigan tribs.
But I guess if I was sitting at my computer waiting for someone to post something to argue about, I may jump to conclusions about posts without grasping what the post states. 
Do you know of any shops that sell a large amount of flies in Newaygo?
I have dealt with all of them and not one comes close to Baldwin.
Must of missed the FIRST statement that I am not an advocate of gear restrictions. 
My position is hook number and gape restrictions in any trib that experiences potamodromous species.

I anxiously await the next lashing out about what I was "implying" but not posting.


----------



## diztortion

Flyfisher said:


> You seem to be implying that anglers will stop going to Baldwin if people are allowed to use bait and lures throughout the entire system? I find it interesting that the Muskegon River also attracts a significant number of fly anglers despite its general gear regulations. Any number of fly anglers and guides ply the waters below Gleason's Landing as well. Its clear that a trout stream can be shared by anglers practicing a variety of techniques. Its also a fact that the "flies only" restriction on the PM does not create any better a fishery than if other legal tackle and techniques were permitted.


I can totally agree with this.

People head to the PM for the world class fishery, not because of the world class "fly's only"..

People also head to Florida and other destinations to fly fish. At this time I'm unaware of any "fly only" areas of the ocean.


----------



## Flyfisher

Chromedoggy said:


> I guess my post was too difficult for most.
> I made no reference to catch and release or gear restrictions.
> My post was directly addressing the correlation between fly fisherman who tie their own flies and those who purchase flies, and the theory that Baldwin Shops sell more flies than most Michigan tribs.
> But I guess if I was sitting at my computer waiting for someone to post something to argue about, I may jump to conclusions about posts without grasping what the post states.
> Do you know of any shops that sell a large amount of flies in Newaygo?
> I have dealt with all of them and not one comes close to Baldwin.
> Must of missed the FIRST statement that I am not an advocate of gear restrictions.
> My position is hook number and gape restrictions in any trib that experiences potamodromous species.
> 
> I anxiously await the next lashing out about what I was "implying" but not posting.


I understood your post and was trying to put in context of the original thread. I get it, a lot of flies are sold in Baldwin.

For whatever reason, there is no dedicated flyshop on the Muskegon. There are several very good ones in the Grand Rapids area and would venture to guess a particular shop in Rockford sells a fair amount of flies destined for the Muskegon River.


----------



## Chromedoggy

Flyfisher said:


> I understood your post and was trying to put in context of the original thread. I get it, a lot of flies are sold in Baldwin.
> 
> For whatever reason, there is no dedicated flyshop on the Muskegon. There are several very good ones in the Grand Rapids area and would venture to guess a particular shop in Rockford sells a fair amount of flies destined for the Muskegon River.



That is why I pointed out a specific segment of Splitshots post, instead of addressing gear restrictions in general.

I would agree with the Rockford reference, but do not see how it relates to the context of the original thread.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> People head to the PM for the world class fishery, not because of the world class "fly's only"..


Agreed. I do think the PM gets all the fly traffic because it's basically been glorified by flyfishing. Fairly easy to fish/access, classic water, scenic, and throw in the allure of mostly wild fish and hot damn we got a flyfishing river.

If everybodys throwing around the world class fishing tag, then the Big Man, MO and Grand all offer lots and lots and lots of steelhead. The latter river isn't scenic, but it's got a ton of fish in it. You could have said that about the Au Sable 15-20 years ago, but it's degraded so far it's sick. I really think everybody over does the whole PM thing, it's nice and all, but there are several gems in Michigan.


----------



## Chromedoggy

There are countless world class fishing spots in Michigan.
Sorry I had to start this argument, but I specified world class fishing destinations, not world class fishing. Didn't mean to offend anyone's river. 
I don't think there are as many people flying in to GR or driving 5 hours to fish 6th St as there are to fish the PM or the Man or AS or even the Mo Joe and St Mary's. Thank God. 
Unfortunately there are a few outdoor writers that feel it is practical to publish articles on a nationwide level listing every river up and down the western shoreline with accesses and hotspots- hopefully some of the world class fishing will remain that and not become a world class fishing destination.


----------



## hjbigrapids

There are some big money people who have places in the "fly's only" section of the PM. Their interest is to keep it that way.....

When you have the money, politicians and appointed state workers have a tendency to listen to suggestions and out-right demands made upon them.

This post and the other post about gear restrictions are great outlets for people to vent, but it still comes back to "who has the money????"......

So it does not matter if you have fished for 50 years or more, or have studied all the written materials. If you don't have the money it just ain't going to go your way.

Sorry, it is a simple truth.........


----------



## SR-Mechead

hjbigrapids said:


> There are some big money people who have places in the "fly's only" section of the PM. Their interest is to keep it that way.....
> 
> When you have the money, politicians and appointed state workers have a tendency to listen to suggestions and out-right demands made upon them.
> 
> This post and the other post about gear restrictions are great outlets for people to vent, but it still comes back to "who has the money????"......
> 
> So it does not matter if you have fished for 50 years or more, or have studied all the written materials. If you don't have the money it just ain't going to go your way.
> 
> Sorry, it is a simple truth.........


I agree . After living up here for the last 5 years, the ones who want the gear regs are the GUIDES and a couple of fly shops. They don't give a rats a!! about anyone but themselves, but when fishing gets tuff they head down to Cluster and get some eggs and do they release them fish hell no, right on there grill. I have been trout fishing for many years and still today I can go to my streams and catch some real nice fish. I haven't hurt them one bit. As far as hurting Baldwin I would have to say it would hurt the bait shops that don't sell alot of flys and it would hurt the bars and grills. Theres nothing better than a good bar burger after a good day of fishing with BAIT


----------



## Shoeman

Honestly, I hope that those businesses suffer temporary losses to show them the price of selfish behavior. Then again it would be a shame to limit customers to only one shop....

Look here, it's not like the PM is god's gift to anglers. The boys with money go where the fish are

Keep screwing with it..... The economy has already taken its toll as far as many of us taking trips are concerned. 

If I were to spend a grand or 2 on a trip, it sure won't be to Baldwin. :lol:

Pay a bunch of coin to play mouth hockey with salmon..... Give me a break!

You can go to New York and do same catching 10 pound browns


----------



## toto

That shoe, is a perfect statement. Couldn't agree with you more, on all of it.


----------



## Splitshot

Maverick1 said:


> I think the idea has merit for sure. Keep in mind that TU was founded as a conservation organization to protect our fisheries. To me it doesn't matter how you catch fish, just that you respect the resource and do your part to sustain and improve it.


That might be correct Maverick, but TU has morphed into something different at least when it comes to stream designations. Bryan Burroughs Michigans TU director has made many statements about TU not only to me but other people that are in conflict with the TU you support. He told me that TU should probably not taken a position on the gear restrictions issues but two weeks later the home page of TU was still asking members to write the DNR in support of the issue. He even went so far as to say TU is not even a fishing organization. He also told us he had data to prove that bait hooking mortality was a threat to the Pere Marquette fishery but never showed that data to the DNR or to any of the people like me he promised to send.

The biggest one however is when he told Ranger Ray and me that hooking mortality was only a problem during the salmon and steelhead season because that is when the pressure was greatest and the trout were much more susceptible to bait especially spawn. Bryan stated that hooking mortality was not an issue during the regular trout season because there was hardly any pressure. In the end, TU then supported THE Comprmise that allowed a ban on bait during the regular trout season when there was no problem and allowed b ait (spawn) during the salmon and steelhead fishing season where TU believes hooking mortality was a problem.

If you think like I do that the controlling factor inside of TU believes that bait fishing is unethical and immoral and does not fit in to their idea of fair chase then TUs support for these new regulations becomes clear. They are much more than a conservation organization.

I have respect for those who feel they can change the organization from the inside, but in the meantime it means giving support and money to a group who will use it to promote an ideology that may be in direct opposition to the way they think, the interest of the general public and in many ways to the fishery itself.

The best comparison I can think of is of the kindly priest that gives comfort to the old and sick and provides aid to those in need. He helps people for altruistic reasons and most people in the community praise and laude him for his sacrifice and then he takes the little altar boy in the back of the church and molests him.


----------



## motorcop1

REG said:


> For the meeting that took place on the 15th, one thing I was going to suggest (somewhat in gest), if it weren't for the dues appropriation structure was the group form a TU chapter. I know, I know, but could you imagine a TU chapter made up of bait, hardware, and fly anglers OPPOSED to gear restrictions?:evilsmile:evilsmile:lol::lol:


I'm in!!!!!


----------



## Maverick1

I can't speak for other members Nor will I. But just as in the case of your priest, should stereotype everyone for the sins of a few. By nature people make mistakes, I am certainly guilty of that. 8 months ago I was 100% in favor of gear restriction, because I like so many others were given bad data to base my opinions on. After listening to others such as yourself and reading the data that was presented I changed my mind. 

Not all TU guys are bad, many may disagree with you in one area, but support and agree with you in several others. Should all the good the organization is doing be written off because on one topic they disagree? Should all fly fisherman be considered elitist because they prefer a different method of fishing? O hope not, and I'm willing to place wager that you are more intelligent then to categorize all people the same as well.

I would welcome you with to attend Any one of our general membership or board meetings, to see for yourself how things are evolving. Yes, many of our members fly fish, yes many of our meetings incorporate fly fishing into them. But as a leadership board we are focused on restoration, education and conservation.


----------



## Splitshot

Maverick,

I am a fly fisherman. In fact it is my favorite way to catch trout. I know most members of TU are there for the trout becasue like me they care about those places where trout live.

I believe you 100% that you are trying to change things from the inside and I encourage you. I don't lump all fly fishermen together. My last post was just to let you know how I see a core group within TU.

I am also aware that this internal battle is one that has been fought for a long time. Your executive director Bryan Burroughs knows it as well and it is a very dividing issue within the organization.

I don't think anyone would have tried to reverse the flies only rules on the first 100 miles of water or even considered it if some groups hadn't lobbied for more of our best waters. It is the greed that will lead to their downfall. Once we get the rules reversed and there are no quality waters just for quality fishermen perhaps we will all get along much better. When you give someone special rights, sometimes they start to feel special, even superior.

Most of the fly fishermen I know and bait fishermen as well all care about our fishery and don't mind sharing all the water with other fishermen no matter how they leagally choose to fish. Having said that I hope you don't feel I was attacking you. From what you have posted, I feel we are on the same page.

This is not about being against fly fishermen but against special priviliges.


----------



## Chromedoggy

Shoeman said:


> Honestly, I hope that those businesses suffer temporary losses to show them the price of selfish behavior. Then again it would be a shame to limit customers to only one shop....
> 
> Look here, it's not like the PM is god's gift to anglers. The boys with money go where the fish are
> 
> Keep screwing with it..... The economy has already taken its toll as far as many of us taking trips are concerned.
> 
> If I were to spend a grand or 2 on a trip, it sure won't be to Baldwin. :lol:
> 
> Pay a bunch of coin to play mouth hockey with salmon..... Give me a break!
> 
> You can go to New York and do same catching 10 pound browns



Not sure I follow this one Shoeman. I know two of the flyshops have expressed no desire to increase the flies only zone. The third I have not talked to, but they also sell bait.

Just don't talk too loud about the browns, fortunately the millions of fisherman on the east coast stop at Pulaski.


----------



## Shoeman

Chromedoggy said:


> Not sure I follow this one Shoeman. I know two of the flyshops have expressed no desire to increase the flies only zone. The third I have not talked to, but they also sell bait.
> 
> Just don't talk too loud about the browns, fortunately the millions of fisherman on the east coast stop at Pulaski.



Two out of the 3 sell bait. I can't talk about their business plan, but restrictions were spawned somewhere. Ed might just be the smartest by selling arms, bait and fly gear

So who is pushing this? BBT, Orvis? Honestly, I don't care! Screw that whole area! I've been pushed out of holes, discouraged to fish in some and dealt with the crowds. Well the crowds have left. I don't care, the rest of you can have it. That kind of fishing isn't for me. I guess you guys won!

As far as New York, I know of many that have made the trip and after a night-long discussion with a good friend, most of the browns are lined, just like the salmon


----------



## Shoeman

See here is when I get pissed off!

I can go all over the US and fish my flies. Eventually I do quite well after dialing them in. Usually it only takes a few hours. Never have I been questioned about my methods. It's mostly about "where" , especially in the salt

Frankly, I could give a ratz ass about the regs in Michigan. Splitshot warned us about this 10 years ago. I took it to heart and learned to tie bugs and acquired the proper gear. Actually I hate bait on my boat, even for bluegills (well maybe waxies)

I quit worrying about regs, politics and ethics several years ago. I just adhere to the rules

You want to defend the shops, restaurants, lodges, feel free. There's an agenda....


----------



## Abel

Most of the browns are lined, definitley, fish up there a lot. But go in there on the oak floating spawn


----------



## Maverick1

Don't feel attacked at all. I just take allot of pride in things I put my name on and TU happens to be one of them.


----------



## Maverick1

Cut myself off... Basic point is I feel strongly about the good TU can do. I try to focus on the future and learn from the past. I can't speak for Brian, but I do recognize he has a difficult job to do and I will support him where I can and openly oppose him if I think a decision isn't in the best interest of the fishery and ALL its fisherman. In the meantime should there be issues you would like me to bring up within my chapter or within MITU you know how to get ahold of me.


----------



## Flyfisher

Maverick1 said:


> Cut myself off... Basic point is I feel strongly about the good TU can do. I try to focus on the future and learn from the past. I can't speak for Brian, but I do recognize he has a difficult job to do and I will support him where I can and openly oppose him if I think a decision isn't in the best interest of the fishery and ALL its fisherman. In the meantime should there be issues you would like me to bring up within my chapter or within MITU you know how to get ahold of me.


I'd like to know where the hooking mortality studies are that Splitshot was referring to in his conversations with TU? I tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain that data as well. That is all I will say on that subject here...

And oh, welcome to the discussion. Its refreshing to see others like myself that used to subscribe to "flies only" charade but have since educated themselves.


----------



## Abel

I've been e-mailing some with Brian as well. While I haven't got any numbers from anyone yet.... I will concede with what he said to me abot hooking mortality being higher with bait than arts. How much higher, especially on our waters and how it effects them, I have yet to hear or see. Also said was that TU never pushed for any flies only water, according to their missions, but I call BS on that, but that's my opinion from what I saw. Also said he, on behalf of TU pushed for circle hooks, slots and creel limits instead of bait restrictions, but the powers to be wouldn't have it.

As far as the Business in Baldwin going Belly Up. I won't spend a dime in that town, or any other that pushes flies only.


----------



## toto

To me it doesn't matter what organization you are referring to, you can find something good within all of them. My problem is, I too have emailed Brian, and while he may be a nice guy, he still hasn't provided me with the data either. The way I see it, if he doesn't answer, he probably doesn't have it, at least none that is relevant to our rivers. There may well be some point in the fact the mortality rates are a little higher with bait, I've seen some data on this, but the percentages aren't any higher than they are with catch and release, if improperly done. In fact, I read a research study done years ago, where they discovered that treble hooks are just as high in mortality, as is bait, which really isn't as high as people think.

What troubles me is, if several of us have asked Brian for the data, and he won't supply it, then I think we need to say someone has been hoodwinked. Its sorta like a legal issue, if you send a registered letter to someone on a legal issue, and they don't respond in like 21 days or something, then they are considered quilty.

It seems to me that this whole issue could be toned down, if they would just prove their point, which for some reason, they just won't, haven't, or don't have the research to show us. 

As for the businesses in Baldwin, or the surrounding areas, the way I see it is, if they are voicing their opinion on this subject, then they need to understand the unintended consequences of doing so, and if thats losing their business in the long run, then who's fault is it, really? Some of us have decided to voice our opinion with our wallets, maybe thats the voice that will ultimately be heard.


----------



## J-Lee

It is hard to find an organization that you agree with 100%, TU is certainly one of them. They do great work on stream improvements, conservation etc. I still belong to T.U. but as I told Mr. Burroughs, I am rethinking that connection. You must look at the total picture, with the groups you belong to. I belong to the N.R.A. also, they leave me angry many times, with their positions, overall they are very effective, so I stay.
Ray converted me some years ago also, I mostly flyfish, these gear restrictions are unacceptable.










i


----------



## Splitshot

Propaganda works so well not because it is made of untruths but just the opposite. Propaganda is made up of truth, half truths and lies. Propaganda causes uncertainty and brings in a complexity of issues that are often difficult to discern.

The very fact that we are still looking for studies about hooking mortality is proof that many of us are confused. Since our own DNR fish biologist have stated that legal sport fishing in its entirety has no noticeable effect on all the trout rivers in Michigan they have studied, the small 
number of fish killed above and beyond those killed by flies or lures is a non issue. Those fish are just a small % of fish killed or harvested by fishermen which in total according to the experts has no effect.

Gear restrictions are discriminatory rules forced on us not by DNR fisheries scientist, by DNR fisheries managers as a result of political pressure. Before you decide that these rules are not discriminatory, please read the definition.

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards members of another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.

I belong to a group of bait fishermen and I am excluded from using bait on 182 miles of river. The fact that I can join the group that uses flies and not lures on some waters does not change the fact that the group of anglers who choose to use bait are excluded. 

Ever since they passed the law allowing 112 miles of our trout waters I have been waiting for this to happen. I am embarrassed that I was not aware of the Cold Water Committee and the influence and significance this committed would have on the decision to close more waters where bait could be used. When I did find out about it last summer, I called Jim Dexter and asked what I needed to do to get on the committee. A couple of weeks later I called again and he said it was up to director Kelly Smith and he had. submitted my name. I finally met Kelly Smith at the Baldwin meeting and asked him directly to consider me for membership.

Finally in November after the decision had been made he told me that he would not have any member of his committed attack other member of a committee where everyone worked so well together. I asked where he got the idea that I would attack anyone and he told me he had been reading my posts on the Michigan Sportsman web-site.

I guess I will let you be the judge of wether he had a valid reason or not, but at that meeting I asked who the members of the committee were since I couldnt find any information on the DNR web-site. I did however find dozens of other citizens committees listed. He never answered that question, but I recently found out by reading an article in the North Woods Call.

In an article by Thomas Buhr and ardent supporter of flies only catch and release and President of the Au Sable River Water Restoration Committee and member of the Coldwater Committee he thanked these members for their hard work in passing these exclusionary rules. The members he lauded were; Michigan Trout Unlimited, Anglers of the Au Sable, the Federation of Fly Fishers, The Great Lakes Council of Fly Fisheres, the Au Sable Big Water Preservation Association, the Pere Marquette Watershed Committee, the Sierra Club and the Michigan River Guides Association.

I wonder why Director Smith might have assumed I would have a difference of opinion with members of his committee. Mr Buhr in his article didnt mention MUCC who supported the compromise for what reason no one knows, and we know that The Steelheaders came to the party late along with a few members of this web-site. We know they were rushed into making a decision with hardly enough time to really consider it.

In the end Rebecca Humphries signed the order as her last act before resigning and taking a position with Ducks Unlimited. While doing some research it turns out that George Mason was the person responsible for coming up with the idea for Trout Unlimited as he was an active member of surprise Ducks Unlimited.

I dont know if this connection will put any doubt in your mind as to the politics and how the deck might have been stacked, but it might. At this point, I only hope that Rodney A Stokes our new DNR Director gets wind of how these special rules got passed and dose something about it. If he does, it is clear he needs to talk to fishermen other than those who were on the Cold Water Committee before last summer.


----------



## Ranger Ray

It was political. Let me repeat that. IT WAS POLITICAL. TU pushed it. It wasn't a coincedence that it happened at the end of Humphry's term. Everyone else just fell in line. It is what it is. End of story. Forget all this other crap that is being thrown out there about the reasons for these regs, they are detractors. 

Walk into a NRC meeting with a thousand people and all sign up to speak. State your displeasure with these special regs and someone will take notice. I will volunteer to be number 1. I doubt however another 999 will volunteer. As a whole, bait fishermen are lazy group and won't take the time to do what is needed.


----------



## Abel

hey Ray's, pick a meeting and let do it. You both have my e-mail... Let's crash a party.


----------



## Whit1

We're settled in our place in FL and I'll be looking in more often. I'm going to start a thread in this forum about hooking mortality. I am not on my home computer where I have access to specific studies so I won't be able to put any in.

Ranger Ray is correct in his mention of speaking at NRC meetings. I've seen how effective.......and ineffective it can be. The important point in speaking is to be concise and have facts/data on hand and to be classy in your demeanor and bearing.


----------

