# Justification for 10 broke limit?



## kzoofisher

Trying to keep the other thread focused on what the OP wanted.

As posted elsewhere, the latest study by the DNR showed harm to the experimental streams and therefore potential to harm other streams should the limit be raised. The study also showed no increase in angler participation.

_ 
Phil provided an update on this study, showing summary results that had been presented earlier in the month to the Natural Resources Commission. Data from 2012 to 2016 for electrofishing, creel, postcard, and internet surveys were compiled and a couple of questions that had been raised at the NRC meeting were clarified. *Contrary to predictions going into the study, it was found that the ten-brook trout bag regulation had potential to negatively affect abundance and size structure of local brook trout populations and the opportunity for higher harvests did not result in increased angler activity.* The audience commended Fisheries Division on their forthrightness in conducting the study and sharing findings. Dexter provided additional info on how study results will be incorporated into further discussion of this topic at the December NRC meeting. 
_
Fisheries Division has recommended against the increase and the majority of the public has opposed it, but the appointed members of the NRC have chosen to move forward with options for raising it. 

Reactions from members here have varied from silence to lukewarm statements that "if the science shows it's bad I guess I would oppose it". Several posters have offered opinions without knowing about the study had been done (there was no press release) and I hope now that they have seen it we can stop wondering if brookies are overpopulated. 

Ok, so what's my gripe if you care? I'm sure many of you don't but you've already made the popcorn. Here it is. One of the primary arguments against GR water, maybe the primary argument, is that science doesn't show that they are needed. We have heard of conversations with and even seen some quotes from biologists who guessed that because of the high mortality of trout current fishing pressure made no difference. Other biologists who disagreed were also quoted and their bona fides and motivations were called into question. This especially applied to brook trout which have the highest natural mortality. Many times it has been said that if the science showed it was needed there would be no argument. It has been said that the next round of regulation negotiations would be a tough fight for the GR guys because scientific management and the PTD would be brought in and GR didn't have a leg to stand on. Well, now we have the latest study that shows even a small increase in harvest on brookies in the UP had a negative effect. Where are the pro science guys? Where is the outrage that science is being ignored for something that has been shown to do harm and have no social benefit? There has been only silence or milquetoast hedging. Certainly no apologies offered for questioning the integrity of biologists who drew different, and now obviously correct, conclusions from the data. 

What does that pre-eminent science based group, GLFSA, have to say about it? They had at least three members in attendance at the meeting where the results of this study were presented.* They had at least one at the meeting where it was explained that the NRC intended to move ahead anyway. Why haven't they responded? Where are the cries for science based management? I'll leave it to them to explain themselves but it is starting to look like they were never that interested in conservation or rights and greatly interested in being able to take as many fish as they could by whatever means struck their fancy. 

*I know this because of the attendance list and because they posted here that they attended. I am not part of the Deep State with spies everywhere.


----------



## -Axiom-

There were several decades in which the possession limit was 10 trout, the majority of streams were fine.

Why can't this time period be used rather than waste money on further studies?


----------



## toto

The outrage isn't there as the science showed that it could be detrimental to fish populations. Where the problem comes in isn't the science, it's the attitude of the NRC. They have become a group of people who are doing what they want, not what they were appointed to do. I fail to understand how the NRC can keep making decisions when the science is showing it one way or the other. Let's review one of their recent decisions, they banned chumming, why because the science showed it was harmful. Now they want to disregard science and go against what the DNR says is happening? What's that all about? Frankly, I can think of 3 members of the NRC board who should recuse themselves from any fly fishing, or even perhaps any trout related issues. The reason is, 3 of them have stated in their biographies they are "avid" fly fishermen. Kzoo, you are a smart guy, put aside your flies only mentality for one minute and think of the whole picture, do you honestly think the NRC is making sound decisions based on that scenario alone? I think not.

Furthermore, I have no idea why it is you are against things like the PTD, it's the law, and it's supposed to protect all of us when it comes to water related issues, but you just want to turn your nose up at it, why? 

It amazes me that you are concerned about the fact that the DNR can sell land, to the highest bidder and are worried about access should they do so. Your reasoning is sound, to a point, but where you lost me was talking about "elites" doing some sort of land grab, that's the only way I can put this right now, and you'd be justified in doing so. Where I get mixed signals from you is that you don't see the problem with the "elites" and flies only fishing. If you just stop and think for one minute, you might be able to see the justification in what we are about, unless of course you are one of those that believe in "do as I say, not as I do". You cannot have rules and regulations that are arbitrary in nature, and you sure can't have rules and regulations made up that you want to see, and not what the science says it should be.


----------



## PunyTrout

This is from the other thread but it is certainly a sentiment I would like to state here as well.

Much of this discussion has revolved around Scientific and Non-Science (not nonsense) arguments. That is a fine and well but these camps often oppose one another vehemently and only serve to polarize us as anglers.

The NRC has a mandate to use science based decisions and pass them to the DNR as I understand it.

Well allow me to offer my 2 cents. This proposal has nothing to do with science at all. It has do with Money. Specifically tourism dollars being spent in the Upper Peninsula.

Who can blame them? It’s a beautiful place. The unfortunate reality is that all along US 2 you are more likely to see a closed down business or abandoned house or a For Sale sign than you are likely to see a Whitetail Deer.

The UP could certainly benefit from some extra dollars being spent there by Down-Staters. But a 10 fish limit on Brook trout in a bid to increase tourism is going about it the wrong way.

Let’s quit hoodwinking ourselves here discussing the science stuff. This proposed rule change is about money, pure and simple.


----------



## 357Maximum

toto said:


> The outrage isn't there as the science showed that it could be detrimental to fish populations. Where the problem comes in isn't the science, it's the attitude of the NRC. They have become a group of people who are doing what they want, not what they were appointed to do. I fail to understand how the NRC can keep making decisions when the science is showing it one way or the other. Let's review one of their recent decisions, they banned chumming, why because the science showed it was harmful. Now they want to disregard science and go against what the DNR says is happening? What's that all about? Frankly, I can think of 3 members of the NRC board who should recuse themselves from any fly fishing, or even perhaps any trout related issues. The reason is, 3 of them have stated in their biographies they are "avid" fly fishermen. Kzoo, you are a smart guy, put aside your flies only mentality for one minute and think of the whole picture, do you honestly think the NRC is making sound decisions based on that scenario alone? I think not.
> 
> Furthermore, I have no idea why it is you are against things like the PTD, it's the law, and it's supposed to protect all of us when it comes to water related issues, but you just want to turn your nose up at it, why?
> 
> It amazes me that you are concerned about the fact that the DNR can sell land, to the highest bidder and are worried about access should they do so. Your reasoning is sound, to a point, but where you lost me was talking about "elites" doing some sort of land grab, that's the only way I can put this right now, and you'd be justified in doing so. Where I get mixed signals from you is that you don't see the problem with the "elites" and flies only fishing. If you just stop and think for one minute, you might be able to see the justification in what we are about, unless of course you are one of those that believe in "do as I say, not as I do". You cannot have rules and regulations that are arbitrary in nature, and you sure can't have rules and regulations made up that you want to see, and not what the science says it should be.



NAILED IT, If I could like just one post 10 times that would be the post.


----------



## Quig7557

How detrimental to the fish was it? Is that information available?


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> The outrage isn't there as the science showed that it could be detrimental to fish populations.


You missed the point completely. This is just like the chumming issue, the DNR makes a recommendation based on the best information available to them and the NRC goes the other way. The difference here at MSF is that chumming had multiple threads that went on for pages and pages full of outrage at the decline of Western Civilization, and comments on this issue have largely been, meh. Of course, the two episodes differ in one respect: chumming or not chumming would only affect fisherman and not the resource, the 10 fish limit is detrimental to the resource. Again, the difference in attitude towards the subject speaks volumes about your true motivations. With chumming you were outraged that people would be barred from using and effective method to catch fish, with the 10 fish limit you don't seem to mind harm to the resource so long as people get to keep more fish.



toto said:


> Furthermore, I have no idea why it is you are against things like the PTD, it's the law, and it's supposed to protect all of us when it comes to water related issues, but you just want to turn your nose up at it, why?


 I'm not against the PTD. I have always maintained that your interpretation of it was wrong and that all the regulations in Michigan meet the requirements of it. You have held it and *science* up like talismans to ward off the things you don't like and now *science* has turned against you and will support PTD arguments for maintaining GR. I think that's funny.

Your last paragraph misses the primary argument in support of GR and lower limits again, like for the thousandth time. Don't feel too bad, most people miss it too because to acknowledge it requires that they abandon their purely political arguments which they think are scientific. I have said countless times that there are reasonable disagreements to be had when it comes to fisheries management and to the interpretation of studies. My interpretations always tend towards being more conservation minded. Others tend to being more consumption minded. Now we have a study, a very specific study that was focused just on an increased bag limit, and it bears out that that fishing pressure can make a pretty big difference. Keeper size fish in the 10 fish streams -58%, keeper size fish in the 5 fish streams +47%. That's pretty significant.



toto said:


> You cannot have rules and regulations that are arbitrary in nature, and you sure can't have rules and regulations made up that you want to see, and not what the science says it should be.


 You say this while downplaying the latest study from the DNR and brushing off the same behavior by the NRC that you have screamed about in the past. Shameless. At least your comrades have the decency to stay in hiding and hope that the next time they act all outraged most people won't remember their hypocrisy on this issue.


----------



## kzoofisher

Quig7557 said:


> How detrimental to the fish was it? Is that information available?


Just a power point presentation, I hope the full write up will be available soon.

http://www.michigantu.org/images/pd...Brook Trout Bag Summary CRSC Sep 16 (002).pdf


----------



## toto

It is you who missed my point. What I'm saying is if the studies show the resource can't handle 10 fish limit, then don't do it. That is why we were quiet as that's what the science showed. I wasn't at the last CRSC meeting so I'm not sure what happened. Forgetting the PTD for a minute I would rather look at the northwest ordinance. The simple reality is you are trying to play both ends. On one hand you don't want a 10 fish limit, nor should you because the science shows the problems. But when it comes to flies only you don't want to give that up even though the science shows the fish populations are fine, plus the fact studies have shown that fishing with bait, actively, is nearly the same mortality rates. You need to quit calling names and have a legitimate discussion. I refuse to fall into the trap of the liberal mentality and blame everyone else for your faults.


----------



## toto

Also as for chumming, the science did show problems under certain circumstances and IF that's true they did the right thing. Where I had a big problem was when the anti side said some guide was using 500 gallons of eggs per season, that statement was just a lie and no one questioned them on it. The bottom line is the commission has become nothing more than a self serving entity and should be abolished.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto, you have gone on and on about the NRC not using science countless times. Just in this thread you said that three members should recuse themselves anytime they might think differently than you. But how impassioned was your response to them ignoring the science and allowing increased harvest? "I'm not sure how I feel on this, but my feelings are: If the DNR has done a population survey of the fish in said streams, and they feel 10 is adequate, than make it 10, if not make it 5, or whatever number the DNR feels should be an adequate catch and keep limit that is not over taxing a resource. This is the way to properly use conservation methods IMHO." You act like the information is news to you but you were at the meeting in September where this was presented. You may have forgotten the presentation, I notice that information contrary to your agenda seldom sticks in your memory. Post #8 https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/september-crsc-minutes.578986/

You'll also notice that the same paragraph I pasted in post #1 here is in that other thread. And that the significance of it was ignored although one poster did try to deflect away from it by asking about a totally unrelated issue. 

Forgetting the facts, discrediting studies, discrediting our own DNR, deflecting and distracting from contradictory evidence, all par for the course with the agenda driven posters who are more concerned with harvest than with conservation.


----------



## toto

Well genius I was at that meeting in September and I remember the report very well. At the time we were all surprised at the results and felt that 10 may not be appropriate, that is why we never said anything. Now you are saying the commission is considering going against the data which they should not do. Furthermore there was only one person who questioned the results and that was one of your fly buddies. Here is a perfect example of liberal mind think, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger, do yourself a favor and don't even try that with me, pal. I find it funny that you are for the elitist mentality of flies only but all worried about the elite mentality when it comes to the state selling property. We aren't about raping a resource as you seem to want to portray, we are about fairness plain and simple. You, on the other hand, are basically PETA light. Since when did fish become higher on evolutionary scale? You guys just crack me up, you cast yourselves as holier than though when in fact you play right into the hands of the animal rights crowd. Maybe you should follow the lead of Cass Sunstein and just go ahead and marry one of your little fishs


----------



## Lumberman

I agree this science argument is rampant in many quarrels among sportsman. 

That point that people miss is the science is the means to achieve a goal. The DNR/RNC sets a goal and then use science to achieve it. Hence why you both are exactly right. 

If the goal is to increase fly fishing participation and reduce fish mortality than absolutely the science says gear restrictions and CR are the answer. 

If your goal is to increase angler activity and opportunity at harvesting brook trout then 10 fish limit is correct. 

If we always just do what's best for the resource based on science then PETA would simple argue all angling is bad for trout population and we would have to ban it immediately.


----------



## toto

As a further aside, just where did I EVER say a 10 fish limit is fine? I can say with certainty I never said that, remember I was at the meeting where the info was presented. What I didn't know, again is that the commission still wants to go with it. What's odd about this dust up is, we happen to agree it's just in your blind rage against us, you refuse to see it. I think it should obvious to all that you are the trying get it the way you want, not me. As for the chummin thing if I said it once I said a thousand times, I don't chum, but that wasn't the point, but apparently you didn't grasp that either. I'll try this one more time, in plain English for you; if the science doesn't agree we shouldn't do it. In this case the science shows a 10 fish limit is too hard on the resource, then don't do it. If the commission pushes for It, your problem is with them not me.


----------



## Ranger Ray

What happens when man, at the beginning of trout season, starts to remove fish? The population decreases as people keep them through the season until the season closes. Happens on 1 fish limit streams, to 10 fish limit streams. The statement "_*it was found that the ten-brook trout bag regulation had potential to negatively affect abundance" *_is in fact an absolute in every stream whether under a 5 fish limit or 10. If one looks at the graphs, we gained fish under a 10 fish limit on some streams? How can this be? It's, it's a miracle! The fact of the matter, the reason we gained fish in a stream we removed fish through the year and increased the limit on, is because fish move in and out of areas. It's why you gained fish in a negatively decreasing fishery. It is why we get, *"it was found that the ten-brook trout bag regulation had potential to negatively affect abundance". *Not "the 10 fish limit is absolutely harming the streams." Why? Because the science does not lead us there. Matter of fact, it is quite unclear. Note Kzoo in another thread needed to change *"had potential"* to "it harms the fishery." Because in the preservation mindset, any reduction, any "if," processes as "absolutely". I think it is good we are doing the study. Lets keep it going and see exactly where it leads. Maybe we need to go to no kill on some streams, maybe we could go to 20 on some.

How many fish are supposed to be in a stream? There would be a lot more if we didn't fish. But lets not be so ridiculous. The fact of the matter is, there are special interests that would be just fine with keeping no fish. Some groups constantly push for reduced limits on the PM, even when the biologists using existing science say there is no need for reduced limits or gear restrictions. These same groups now demand science on this 10 fish limit. It is pure befuddlement, of which some of these groups are experts. We could go on for ever about how they proclaimed to have science, promised to show us, but never could produce it. Who do you believe? Get involved, you will quickly see where we are going. Tunnel vision rules these groups and those connected to them. Restrictions are the rule of the day, C&R is an obsession. I will give you an example. I noticed in one of the cold water minutes, there was discussion that gear restrictions on steelhead rivers under the restricted areas are getting crowded. They proclaimed the need for more gear restricted areas to relieve the crowding. The fact is, the non restricted areas are also extremely crowded, and need more area to expand also. So who gets the expansion? Funny how that works, and shows the mindset of some of these groups. It is always about the restricted areas and increasing them.

We have several people on this forum that fished the 10 before the 5 limit. How did the fish ever survive the 10 limit? Their experiences are interesting. What science took us to 5? There was none, only feelings and emotions. When you mange by man, not science, you manage by emotions. You don't keep fish because they are "beautiful." Where does that end? Science is in fact the way to go. In science there are lots of variables, like getting an increase of fish on rivers we just went from 5 to 10 limit on. One has to analyze and figure if *"has potential"* needs a reaction or not. Some will run around like monkeys proclaiming groups that don't drop to their knees and worship the fish when there is *"potential to negatively affect" *are therefore against the science. These people are befuddlers and obfuscaters. They try to prove the fault of the people, not the truth in the science presented. Sad people and days we live in. There is risk in everything we do. What is acceptable, and why we are changing the rules is the question. I have had more restrictions implemented on me by my fellow sportsmen than PETA or HSUS. Matter of fact, I think my fellow sportsmen have been responsible for 100%. That is concerning, especially when much of it has been based on emotion. It is science we should manage by, but the science should always be in a state of analysis. This 10 fish limit is not going to destroy any river system. Lets keep studying for awhile instead of the usual emotional reaction of restriction, and thus not completing the study.

There is no law that states "manage game by emotions," but there is one by "sound science." There is always a human element in scientific game decisions. What the law tells me, is there better be some scientific need, especially when it comes to a "restriction." This is evidenced by the very reason we voted prop G in. To stop human emotions from managing game.


----------



## Quig7557

Great post Ray. I noticed the language change too


----------



## B.Jarvinen

I think I will start another thread about starting more threads. Four now, ridiculous.

I read the power-point link from Trout Unlimited. I guess I will have to 'wait for the write-up' - who is going to write it? TU?

I see one control stream had a decline in fish. Some other #s were a bit here and there on the +/-

Some years (winters) are better for spawning than others, I think?

I hope the DNR spends what they can on Brook Trout in the Lower Peninsula, and spends what they can on Deer in the Upper Peninsula. Last year, they basically publicized all the best Brookie streams in the Lower and many in the Upper in an article in a commercial magazine. I think they know the best thing for Trout would be .... more Trout fishermen.

The whole thing is highly variable, everywhere. Laws are unavoidably Social constructs. This is the part I agreed with for sure:


UP brook trout populations highly variable


----------



## kzoofisher

The elephant is still in the room.

"We pay the DNR biologists we should do what they recommend", "The special interests are getting their way with the NRC against science!", "It's just the fly guys and elitists who want their way no matter what the biologists think". All that sounded great to the lobbyists of the GLFSA when they were pushing their agenda. In fact, it sounded so great that they carried on their outrage for pages and pages and pages in threads not just in this forum but all the trout stream forums.

Now that the NRC is also pushing regulations contrary to what the DNR biologists say, but in line with the lobbyists agenda, what do we get? "My anecdotal evidence shows we should ignore the science", "I oppose this in principle but applaud it in spirit and am not going to make a fuss", "The study by our DNR isn't credible". Nothing like the courageous stands they took against *special interests* when they could paint themselves as outsiders.

Many times conservationists like myself have been accused of being elitists and greedy when we argue that increased harvest has a detrimental affect on trout populations and produce evidence from scientists who reasonably disagree with our DNR. We argue that we aren't taking anything away from anyone, just conserving the resource in high pressure areas but, we are not believed. Our character's have been questioned, we have been accused of being on the take, we have been told that we are part of an international conspiracy to destroy America, the list goes on. And now the same lobbyists find themselves on the other side of the fence arguing against the DNR or at most muttering that they disagree and hoping the issue will go away. Is it because they are standing up for the things they have always stood for? Yes, and those things aren't what they said they were. They claimed to be for the common man and for science but now we see their true colors. They are fish hogs. "We shouldn't change the rules until science shows the resource is in danger" is a favorite of one of them. They are adamant about keeping entire streams secret, otherwise the fishing would be "destroyed". They are mostly old men who want to use up the resource before they die and leave it to the young guys to build it back up again. 

Sure, they will be offended by my take and try to defend their actions. Their actions will show them up. It has been six weeks since the NRC's intentions were revealed to the lobbyists at a public meeting which at least one of their representatives attended. Have they responded? Are the prepared to fight for *scientific management*? Did they seem shocked and outraged when the NRC's intention became clear on these forums? No, no and no. If they can use backroom deals to take more fish, even when the DNR says it isn't right for the resource, they are happy to let the deal go through instead of alerting the *common man* they claim to represent. Fish hogs.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Ah, the biologists said increasing the limit could have a negative affect on the fishery. It could, then again, it may not. Always, and I mean always you are for restriction when it comes to trout. That is not a conservationist, that is a preservationist. So what great cause of conservation brought you to side with the gear restrictions last round on the PM. Yeah right, the great conservationist of science. As I stated previously, lets continue the UP study. Great way to eliminate the drama queen affect. Like I said previously maybe we go to 0 on some rivers because of the science, could be we go to 20. Is that a fish hog? Of course anyone keeping a trout is a fish hog to a preservationist. Often we hear from the trout worshipers, there is always other fish to keep and eat. That's not conservation, that is worship of trout. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Reality is, not always, but you sure would think listening to the preservationist.

This reminds me of the 15" limit on the Muskegon. When the science said it wasn't working, the preservationist were besides themselves, their anecdotal claim was it was working and were against the decrease. These special interests never saw a larger size limit or decreased creel they weren't for. They also push for gear restrictions at every turn. As one fly guy so nicely put it once on MS, the brook trout is my GOD. Trout worshipers.


----------



## toto

I swear to God you are getting dumber by the minute. Let me rehash, we happened to have agreed with the DNR in that the present science shows that having a 10 fish limit was not supportable. What part of that do you not understand? If the science changes at some time, then we can revisit it. Your hatred is misplaced on this one, your hatred should be directed at the NRC, they are the ones pushing this, at least according to you, perhaps you should take it up with them. What you apparently haven't figured out yet is we do believe in the science has to fit in order to make a regulation/rule that fits the science. The 10 fish limit isn't supported by the science, but then again neither is the flies only regulations, at least on some streams. 

I think you need to sit back and take a chill pill. Sitting here calling us old men who don't care, is not a wise thing to say. You are trying to gain support for your cause but doing so by degrading and trying shame those that believe otherwise. You have stated you are a conservationist, which apparently new age speak for liberal. What is about a fish that you just can't stand the idea of eating one or two. You rail against us as we do eat some fish, but what you fail to understand is there are limits put on all species. The biologist have done their jobs to determine just how much of the resource one can keep and still maintain a respectable population.

Me thinks there is something much deeper going on here, and I wonder what you are afraid of. Could it possibly be that we are much closer to making sense of our original argument than one would believe. You seem to know more about me than I know about me, you seem to know where I am, what I'm doing, what I'm saying, why is that? Are you stalking me, do you have Private Eye on my tail? What is your beef? To sit here and slam people who believe different than you is non productive, and frankly, downright shameful. Your selfishness is showing through, and I don't think I'm the only one who sees it, I'm probably the only one who has the fortitude to call you on it, which is pretty brave on my part since you seem to following me where ever I go.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> The elephant is still in the room.
> 
> "We pay the DNR biologists we should do what they recommend", "The special interests are getting their way with the NRC against science!", "It's just the fly guys and elitists who want their way no matter what the biologists think". All that sounded great to the lobbyists of the GLFSA when they were pushing their agenda. In fact, it sounded so great that they carried on their outrage for pages and pages and pages in threads not just in this forum but all the trout stream forums.


I don't think I have seen a statement from GLFSA. Why you bring them up? You sure have a bug up your butt about them, as you are bringing them up when they aren't even commenting in the study outcome. Appears your argument is out of hate, on a group that is obviously bothering you. Let the hate go grasshopper. The GLFSA was formed to fight gear restrictions. Why they are being brought up by you out of thin air, is telling. Hey, maybe you can "out" some fishing techniques of their members to bolster your conservationist claim. Where you see conservation, many are seeing contempt for an organization, members, and their message.

Seeing how you have chosen to discuss organizations out of the thin air. Did I hear right, you where a representative of the Sierra Club on the cold water committee?


----------



## Benzie Rover

toto said:


> I swear to God you are getting dumber by the minute. Let me rehash, we happened to have agreed with the DNR in that the present science shows that having a 10 fish limit was not supportable. What part of that do you not understand? If the science changes at some time, then we can revisit it. Your hatred is misplaced on this one, your hatred should be directed at the NRC, they are the ones pushing this, at least according to you, perhaps you should take it up with them. What you apparently haven't figured out yet is we do believe in the science has to fit in order to make a regulation/rule that fits the science. The 10 fish limit isn't supported by the science, but then again neither is the flies only regulations, at least on some streams.
> 
> I think you need to sit back and take a chill pill. Sitting here calling us old men who don't care, is not a wise thing to say. You are trying to gain support for your cause but doing so by degrading and trying shame those that believe otherwise. You have stated you are a conservationist, which apparently new age speak for liberal. What is about a fish that you just can't stand the idea of eating one or two. You rail against us as we do eat some fish, but what you fail to understand is there are limits put on all species. The biologist have done their jobs to determine just how much of the resource one can keep and still maintain a respectable population.
> 
> Me thinks there is something much deeper going on here, and I wonder what you are afraid of. Could it possibly be that we are much closer to making sense of our original argument than one would believe. You seem to know more about me than I know about me, you seem to know where I am, what I'm doing, what I'm saying, why is that? Are you stalking me, do you have Private Eye on my tail? What is your beef? To sit here and slam people who believe different than you is non productive, and frankly, downright shameful. Your selfishness is showing through, and I don't think I'm the only one who sees it, I'm probably the only one who has the fortitude to call you on it, which is pretty brave on my part since you seem to following me where ever I go.


Toto - Talk about needing to chill out - seriously dude, take your own advice. Why bring fly fishing into the argument at all? Obviously you two have long standing disagreements, but seriously guys, why can't everyone just agree the problem is the NRC not following biological sound recommendations from the biologists. The NRC should receive our collective focus, not each other. You say you get this, but then you digress into bashing fly fisherman. That sucks and is very misguided and pretty hypocritical for someone getting upset about Kzoo and others doing the same to you. You should keep your beef with him focused on him and stop putting all fly dudes in the same basket. Just because my son and I have a fly rod in our hand every night from May-July 6th or so does not make me or my kid PETA light. Just for your knowledge (and possibly education) we kept and consumed our 10 fish brookie limit twice while in the UP over Memorial Day. All caught on spinner & worms. They were insanely tasty, especially with sautéed morels on top. I knew the impact we were having and I was OK with it since this is our only trip to these particular streams all year. Many fly fisherman we fish with are also multi-species anglers that utilize A LOT of spinning and trolling gear. I myself have 8 fly rods I have built and approximately 25 various spinning rods. My fillet knife is sharpened a lot. But I am also on my fly tying bench almost nightly. Your need to fit others into exclusive boxes and then lob stones at them is getting old. This is not only directed at you, but anyone else that assumes a flyfishing addict is some sort of exclusive catch-n-release freak. Sure, I release the all of trout in the lower peninsula, but only because there is a lot of angler pressure here and I want to catch those fish over and over again. And I don't bother targeting brookies down here. If I did, I would surely keep a few. Would PETA really like me catching a big brown on a hex and then a month later impaling them with my size 2/0 mouse? Prolly not so much. PETA and fly fishing are not friends, my friend. But I get to catch a big brown twice, not once. That's a lot more fun to me. Let's direct this energy toward the NRC and we might get somewhere rather than circular arguments with misguided assumptions.


----------



## toto

I'll apologize right now for seeming to put ALL fly fishermen in this box, that wasn't my intention at all. For the record, I've been known to fling a bug around occasionally too, but that wasn't my point, or at least intended to be. You are right again when you say it is the NRC that deserves our focus, it wasn't GLFSA saying we should keep the 10 fish limit. I have no idea what meeting he is talking about, perhaps I'm confused. In one part I'm assuming he is talking about the CRSC meeting last September, I believe, but I think he may be talking about a NRC meeting which I personally wasn't at, therefore I had no idea what the NRC said in this case. IF there were someone from GLFSA at that last mentioned meeting, I haven't heard anything about it, and his comment about it surprised me. I'm gonna take a guess and say that is where the confusion is in all this, he thinks I was at the NRC meeting, when I'm talking about CRSC meeting. The bottom line, I can only speak for myself, I have no problem with fly fishing per se, I just don't want it pushed down my throat because it someone else's preferred method, if that makes sense.


----------



## Quig7557

Could someone give names to all the acronyms please?


----------



## toto

CRSC = Cold Water Resource Committee
NRC= Natural Resource Committee
DNR = Department of Natural Resources
GLFSA = Great Lakes Fishing Sports Association


----------



## toto

I'll try to attempt a reset here. First of all, until the science shows the need to change things, there should be no 10 fish limit. There seems to be 2 problems with this whole scenario 1) while on one hand we agree that science should be used to dictate any rules and regs with our outdoor pursuits, we have a Natural Resource Commission (NRC) who seems to be wanting to set standards they choose to have, and science is left as an aside. 2) The other part is, IF you are one who believes that science should dictate our pursuits, which it appears as though all those who have chimed in on this feel this way, you need to be ready to accept the science in areas you may not want to accept. 

It troubles me when we have blow ups, such as this, when in fact if we were to act in concert, perhaps we can get some things done. Everyone of us has a valid point, at least sometimes. 

My whole point to bringing up the chumming ban was the fact it shows the NRC doesn't care what the majority wants. I believe these two issues (10 trout, chumming) show me a very dangerous precedent, and that was my point earlier when I said some of the commission should recuse themselves in some issues, in this case, anything to do with trout fishing. I have no feel for the other issues with the NRC, such as forestry, although I could certainly see where that could go awry. 

I bottom line is, with all the back and forth, perhaps we can get on the same page with the thoughts about the NRC. 

In all the hubbub lately, it's odd that we were saying the same thing, but coming from different directions and misunderstanding what each other said, that's how these things go on the internet. If you are talking face to face it is much easier to correct any misunderstanding, on the net, the time elapsed from post to post makes things more heated, and for that I'll apologize as I'm probably just as much at fault as anyone else. Now it's time to use these energies and get something worthwhile accomplished.


----------



## kzoofisher

Back from a fine weekend of fishing. The walleye were biting and we got a meal's worth Saturday before the wind kicked up enough to chase us off. A smaller lake provided fast bass action for the afternoon. The Drakes were winding down but still spun for us in a new spot I found that hopefully won't have many other waders walking in to. Sunday saw a little boat and motor maintenance go smoothly for once.

Plenty of spin and diversions from the usual crowd so I'll lay it out plainly. Why the lack of outrage from the *pro-science* crowd? Why the questioning of the DNR study and conclusions? Why the diversions into old battles? Because this latest study from the DNR is a huge blow to the primary argument of the anti-GR crowd.

See, guys like me have been saying for years that on highly pressured water the standard regulations don't go far enough to protect the fish. The other side actually has always agreed with us, they admit that if the word gets out about any of their honey holes the fishing will be destroyed. But they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to take as many fish as the can from their favorite water water but keep everyone else off by keeping it secret. I'm different. I want to get as many guys fishing as possible but reduce the number of fish taken so that the populations don't get hurt. And this new study shows that just a little increase in harvest will hurt the population. Sure, the biologists use words like "may" and "potential" because they are professionals that need a higher level of confidence in the data than you or I. But their level of confidence was high enough to oppose the increased limit on scientific rather than social grounds. They agree now with the other biologists who thought ten fish was a bad all along. You remember those other biologists, they're the ones that the fish hogs said had ulterior motives like being members of PETA or whatever crazy conspiracy theories they had at the time. I say "harm" because I know darn well that is what will happen and so do you. If you show up at your favorite stream and find that there is a trail where you used to have to bushwhack you know what the fishing will be like. Everybody knows that overfishing a stream is easy if a bunch of people get on it and how long it can take to recover. Especially if you have a couple bad spawning years in a row and the population takes a natural dip along with the heavy pressure.

There you have the GR argument in a nutshell. If we want to have lots of fisherman and lots of access we need to do more to keep the streams from getting fished out. Our argument is in fact the opposite of what the fish hogs always said it was. They are the ones who want to keep the good rivers secret, have unmentionables on this forum, not talk about different techniques. Ray is still sore about the coincidence that a buddy of mine fishes his river the same way he does. He and his buddy got so mad about it and the way it would "destroy" the river if everyone knew that they went kind of crazy in that thread. They settled down a little after a bit but Ray still thinks that it couldn't have been a coincidence and that I somehow had spies follow him or planted cookies in his computer or retasked satellites or data mined him or some deep state paranoia whacked out theory.

I'm not angry about this, I'm laughing because we've had years of outrage that people like me put stock in the conclusions of biologists outside the DNR as well as the Fisheries biologists, outrage that anyone should even suggest that modern fishing pressure might adversely affect stocks, outrage that Prop G and the SFWMA didn't eliminate all social considerations, outrage that anyone should ever bring up anecdotal evidence, and now just for the chance at keeping more brookies in the UP we have posters abandoning years of holier than thou arguments and using all the *emotional* arguments they accused us of. The strongest opinion they express is *Well I guess so if that's what the science says*. No contrition for all the name calling, no apologies for accusing people of crimes, no taking back all the nasty insinuations that posters were moles for evil organizations and especially no admissions that they were wrong all along. I posted the minutes from the CRSC meeting last year to give them an opportunity to comment on its significance but they stayed silent. The high and mighty GLFSA only fights against gear restrictions they say. The health of fisheries and conservation aren't their problem. And I bet that's true, they are concerned about catching fish the way they want to catch them. All other biological factors are meaningless to them and if the resources get harmed in the pursuit of hot oil, well that's just the way it's got to be. Sad.


----------



## 357Maximum

kzoofisher said:


> Back from a fine weekend of fishing. The walleye were biting and we got a meal's worth Saturday before the wind kicked up enough to chase us off. A smaller lake provided fast bass action for the afternoon. The Drakes were winding down but still spun for us in a new spot I found that hopefully won't have many other waders walking in to. Sunday saw a little boat and motor maintenance go smoothly for once.
> 
> Plenty of spin and diversions from the usual crowd so I'll lay it out plainly. Why the lack of outrage from the *pro-science* crowd? Why the questioning of the DNR study and conclusions? Why the diversions into old battles? Because this latest study from the DNR is a huge blow to the primary argument of the anti-GR crowd.
> 
> See, guys like me have been saying for years that on highly pressured water the standard regulations don't go far enough to protect the fish. The other side actually has always agreed with us, they admit that if the word gets out about any of their honey holes the fishing will be destroyed. But they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to take as many fish as the can from their favorite water water but keep everyone else off by keeping it secret. I'm different. I want to get as many guys fishing as possible but reduce the number of fish taken so that the populations don't get hurt. And this new study shows that just a little increase in harvest will hurt the population. Sure, the biologists use words like "may" and "potential" because they are professionals that need a higher level of confidence in the data than you or I. But their level of confidence was high enough to oppose the increased limit on scientific rather than social grounds. They agree now with the other biologists who thought ten fish was a bad all along. You remember those other biologists, they're the ones that the fish hogs said had ulterior motives like being members of PETA or whatever crazy conspiracy theories they had at the time. I say "harm" because I know darn well that is what will happen and so do you. If you show up at your favorite stream and find that there is a trail where you used to have to bushwhack you know what the fishing will be like. Everybody knows that overfishing a stream is easy if a bunch of people get on it and how long it can take to recover. Especially if you have a couple bad spawning years in a row and the population takes a natural dip along with the heavy pressure.
> 
> There you have the GR argument in a nutshell. If we want to have lots of fisherman and lots of access we need to do more to keep the streams from getting fished out. Our argument is in fact the opposite of what the fish hogs always said it was. They are the ones who want to keep the good rivers secret, have unmentionables on this forum, not talk about different techniques. Ray is still sore about the coincidence that a buddy of mine fishes his river the same way he does. He and his buddy got so mad about it and the way it would "destroy" the river if everyone knew that they went kind of crazy in that thread. They settled down a little after a bit but Ray still thinks that it couldn't have been a coincidence and that I somehow had spies follow him or planted cookies in his computer or retasked satellites or data mined him or some deep state paranoia whacked out theory.
> 
> I'm not angry about this, I'm laughing because we've had years of outrage that people like me put stock in the conclusions of biologists outside the DNR as well as the Fisheries biologists, outrage that anyone should even suggest that modern fishing pressure might adversely affect stocks, outrage that Prop G and the SFWMA didn't eliminate all social considerations, outrage that anyone should ever bring up anecdotal evidence, and now just for the chance at keeping more brookies in the UP we have posters abandoning years of holier than thou arguments and using all the *emotional* arguments they accused us of. The strongest opinion they express is *Well I guess so if that's what the science says*. No contrition for all the name calling, no apologies for accusing people of crimes, no taking back all the nasty insinuations that posters were moles for evil organizations and especially no admissions that they were wrong all along. I posted the minutes from the CRSC meeting last year to give them an opportunity to comment on its significance but they stayed silent. The high and mighty GLFSA only fights against gear restrictions they say. The health of fisheries and conservation aren't their problem. And I bet that's true, they are concerned about catching fish the way they want to catch them. All other biological factors are meaningless to them and if the resources get harmed in the pursuit of hot oil, well that's just the way it's got to be. Sad.



Yep , just make everyone use a hand/throw line, get rid of any reel capable of throwing a line farther than 15 feet, stop all forms of that over efficient trolling in all lakes/rivers, even the Great Lakes....just think how many fish we would have. Your veil is as transparent as the wet rice paper you would have everyone walk on in order to catch one single fish.........we see through you and it irritates you. That's all the time I will spend on the off topic portion of this show. We know that you know that we know :lol: and it ain't our fault it p***es you off that we see through you.


----------



## Quig7557

Hand throw line and homemade lures only. Maybe even spin your own line from yarn, give them a sporting chance. Timed landing too, to much time on a hook tires them and could lead to a casualty.

Lol, just poking a little fun here


----------



## toto

I understand your rationale but in this case it seems the science is unsettled. I applaud you for your tenacity but the problem really seems to be around the social aspect. I seem to recall you once stated that the social aspects does matter but now you say it doesn't what am i missing? There does seem to be one point we can agree on: It appears as though the NRC has gone rogue and is making decisions on their own feelings, NOT what the bios say. If you and I can get past the issue of name calling etc and actually work together, we could perhaps accomplish something that is good for all of us. How bout that?


----------



## kzoofisher

357Maximum said:


> Yep , just make everyone use a hand/throw line, get rid of any reel capable of throwing a line farther than 15 feet, stop all forms of that over efficient trolling in all lakes/rivers, even the Great Lakes....just think how many fish we would have. Your veil is as transparent as the wet rice paper you would have everyone walk on in order to catch one single fish.........we see through you and it irritates you. That's all the time I will spend on the off topic portion of this show. We know that you know that we know :lol: and it ain't our fault it p***es you off that we see through you.


Ah, taking the most extreme position as though it is the only option; the sign of a man who has no argument. 

My goal is maximum sustainable yield that allows fish populations to mirror as closely as possible unexploited populations. Didn't you and I have basically this same discussion where you rejected the science on bluegill management, too? I'm sensing a trend.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> I understand your rationale but in this case it seems the science is unsettled. I applaud you for your tenacity but the problem really seems to be around the social aspect. I seem to recall you once stated that the social aspects does matter but now you say it doesn't what am i missing?


 Unsettled how? The DNR agrees with the USFWS who agrees with all the UP University academics I've seen quoted. That's pretty rare in biology. Do you have another biologist somewhere up your sleeve? Remember that six years ago the DNR thought any difference between the two limits would be negligible based on computer models but they did a study in the field and changed their minds. 

And I'm not at all against considering the social aspects of this. The majority of fisherman don't want it and it did not increase tourism. Add in that the limit is biologically unsound and there is no reason to implement it. Still, you continue to find excuses to try and justify the limit just a little bit. Remind me, how is this case different than all the other times you have opposed *non-scientific* regulation changes? Who is backing Agenda 21 this time? Who has taken a bribe? Who is trying to destroy our way of life and undermine American Exceptionalism? Or do none of those count when a small special interest group lobbies for biologically unsound regulations that allow _more_ harvest?


----------



## toto

Well it appears that you know of a study that I don't. The study i saw said it COULD harm the fishery therefore it is unsettled. Bases on that alone 10 fish is the wsy it is. Do i necrssarily agree with it, not sure just going what has bern said. Your problem is you are so bent on going against GLFSA, you judgement is clouded. You are obviously against keepimg any trout and thats your choice. There is no one that i know of who wants to eradicate trout, thats your comspiracy theory. We just don't happen to be fish worshippers like and others. This isn't the early 1900's all over again. This my final word on all this, carry on, I tried to find common groumd with you, I should havd known better than to argue with someone who operates by emotions.


----------



## kzoofisher

BTW, I don't disagree that more research is needed. I'd like to see the DNR pick 500 trout streams and take 5 years to get baseline data on them. Once that is done make 100 streams a limit of 10, 100 limit 7, 100 limit 3, 100 no kill and leave 100 at 5 for 10 years. In each group 25 streams would be artificial only, 25 flies only and 50 type 1. At the end of this 15 year study whichever regulation showed the greatest pounds of fish per acre would become the new and only statewide inland regulation. The additional miles of GR water would be allowed under the research loophole. Paying for it would be difficult but by cutting back on stocking I'm sure the money could be found. That would crush my favorite inland walleye lakes again but what can you do?


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> The study i saw said it COULD harm the fishery therefore it is unsettled.


 Hogwash. That is the language the biologists have to use because the data in these studies is always a little fuzzy and word like "will" are too absolute for professionals. Again, the DNR did not think the ten fish limit would make a difference based on their modeling before the study was done but the actual field data resulted in them changing their minds. That is how significant the data was, it made them reject their original hypothesis. Of course you would expect that from real scientists and real professionals. They go where the data takes them.


----------



## 357Maximum

kzoofisher said:


> BTW, I don't disagree that more research is needed. I'd like to see the DNR pick 500 trout streams and take 5 years to get baseline data on them. Once that is done make 100 streams a limit of 10, 100 limit 7, 100 limit 3, 100 no kill and leave 100 at 5 for 10 years. In each group 25 streams would be artificial only, 25 flies only and 50 type 1. At the end of this 15 year study whichever regulation showed the greatest pounds of fish per acre would become the new and only statewide inland regulation. The additional miles of GR water would be allowed under the research loophole. Paying for it would be difficult but by cutting back on stocking I'm sure the money could be found. That would crush my favorite inland walleye lakes again but what can you do?



That paragraph of your could be compressed into one sentence. 

More gear restriction at any cost, yep that's what I want. 

Like I said, we see through you, and you do not even realize how proudly you wear your true colors for EVERY ONE ELSE to see.


----------



## 357Maximum

kzoofisher said:


> I'm sensing a trend.


Me too, I guess I just do not believe your BS, I can just see your true goals plain as day, get over it.


----------



## toto

I


kzoofisher said:


> Hogwash. That is the language the biologists have to use because the data in these studies is always a little fuzzy and word like "will" are too absolute for professionals. Again, the DNR did not think the ten fish limit would make a difference based on their modeling before the study was done but the actual field data resulted in them changing their minds. That is how significant the data was, it made them reject their original hypothesis. Of course you would expect that from real scientists and real professionals. They go where the data takes them.


 Know i said I'm done but I can't resist. But saying it's fuzzy tells you everything you should know. I am surprised though i thought you want people to go somewhere else to stay away from your church, er holy waters. After all it was one of your altar boys back in September at the CRSC meeting stating they need more GR waters as it's getting too crowded, well ain't that a shame?


----------



## kzoofisher

357Maximum said:


> That paragraph of your could be compressed into one sentence.
> 
> More gear restriction at any cost, yep that's what I want.
> 
> Like I said, we see through you, and you do not even realize how proudly you wear your true colors for EVERY ONE ELSE to see.


 More science is what I want. What do the guys who know the science will go against them say? "We don't need your facts, we already know all about it."


----------



## 357Maximum

kzoofisher said:


> More science is what I want. What do the guys who know the science will go against them say? "We don't need your facts, we already know all about it."


It's your story, tell it anyway you want to. I will state it again and then let this thread die........WE SEE THROUGH YOU.


----------

