# Steelhead symposium in review...



## Westlakedrive

> Sportfish make up less than 25 percent of the composition of the fish community in the Muskegon.


What are the other 75%

As for the utillities personally I think I pay enough for utillities already. Any money spent for any improvements would be passed on.


----------



## REG

Hamilton Reef said:


> I was at the meeting. My wife sent me to deliver some of her home baked cookies to cohorts and retired biologist sitting in the audience. The biologist, research presenters, Jeff Alexander, and Jim Schramm did a fine job. Chuck Pistis did a fine job as dependable moderator. I did not need to make any comments.
> 
> Jory Jonus took some flack from the guides on the process of river surveys. She did well and has to stick to the strict protocols for statistics surveys. I know what it is like to do surveys on the Muskegon River When I was much younger I spent a season on the Muskegon River as a survey clerk from Lake Michigan to Croton. The problem with the guides is they wanted to be interviewed more often to bias data to their cause. However, it became clear that Supinski wouldn't believe any science data anyway unless it supported his bias. He made that very clear with his anti science rant against global warming and the science of the DNR blah blah.
> 
> The meeting was limited to few questions in order to stay on the time schedule, and Pistis did well. Had I spoke, it would have been about Jeff Alexander's two threats to the river, temperature and urban sprawl along the river. Jeff noted that we need to take a more active role with local government. Truth is the fishermen in the audience will complain, but not show up at the township zoning meetings. Overall, the DNR fishery staff was well prepared. I really enjoyed my conversation with Jim Schramm after the meeting talking about the future for the Boardman River and progress with the dam removals. I did make one mistake when I gave away all the cookies and had none left for my drive home.


You brought cookies?:sad: :corkysm55 Now I really feel bad about not being able to go.


----------



## Flyfisher

Westlakedrive said:


> What are the other 75%


Suckers, sculpins, minnows, chubs, carp, etc.

Yeah, and the more I think about...why are the guides making the DNR the enemy. That energy (npi) could be put towards putting pressure on Consumers to honor their most recent FERC relicensing agreement.


----------



## phlyphisher

Flyfisher said:


> Suckers, sculpins, minnows, chubs, carp, etc.



Suckers, exactly.


----------



## stsyrrd

Many valid point brought up during that gathering, but now I see some are being scewed and well, here's another summary.

First, this was supposed to be focused on RIVER HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY.

** The 15" limit on trout. Many still confused as to why it came, went, came, etc.. Even some attending with a formal education in fisheries management said such topics come and go like a MI weather pattern at times. The 10" stocks were first mentioned by Jory Jones -DNR - and that the Muskegon received them due to the Wolf lake hatchery being overstocked last year and "they needed to go somewhere".

** 1 steelhead limit. Don't think it will happen and believe primary support for this was what has happened with Salmon river in NY - but they had VERY poor fishing for many years and going from that, to what they have now, yes, it's GREAT and good for NY.

**Stocking of trout - Yes they do stock the heck out of the MO and supported that well. Is it a "put and take" fishery as Bacon disputed. Maybe, but contrary to some DNR officials, they DO live beyond a certain number of years/growth rates and believe that is was what Bacon was referring to. Less we bash anglers/guides too much at any gathering, when they're asked to provide "their perspective" and not one of a state employed biologist or other fed funded official.

** Data collected - A dispute by either Bacon or Sputnik on this was specific to data taken and used to create a "report/summary" related to the MO as a trout fishery. This data WAS collected a number of years ago, during the month of August, during a drought year and in a very poor stretch of the river.......point noted, not the best time or place to collect ANY data on ANY fish that swim the MO, except for bass since they thrive in the 75 degree temps that were present when said data was being collected.

** Other data - A LOT of data was shown that was related to other states and what they do/don't have, are/aren't doing and what we in MI are getting from them, in return for what we provide them. Didn't understand some of that since it didn't have anything to do with the primary topics discussed and reason for this symposium to begin with.

**In an early post, one referenced the "me" factor in what Bacon said. From what I heard, it was more "we as guides" on most topics and "me or any of my fellow guides" in particular having been/not been asked by DNR personnel about what guides have seen in RIVER HABITAT and WATER QUALITY changes as a result of such things as zebra mussels and bank degradation from boats wakes, recreators, etc.. A point I liked was the jesture of voluntary data and since we all know our DNR is strapped for $$, it is at least a good idea to have the powers that be give further consideration. If they can find a reputable method, it certainly can't hurt. Overheard a biologist, Mark Tunello (sp?) talk about this and he's implementing a trial on voluntary data on the Betsie this year.
Bacon was very up front in stating that he's not a biologist or water specialist and not what he was asked to come and talk about. It's simply what one person, who has self stated 1000+ days on the river over 11 years, has seen take place on the 2 topics he was told to talk about.

**Chumming - Former Asst. Fisheries Chief Borgeson did a great job on simply talking through the process of it, the affect on feeding patterns for fish and the lack of sportsmanship it brings to steelheading. He made valid points and yes, I agree with one post that I read, it's about the challenge as much as the fish for many anglers.

**One post mentioned why nothing was said about the closing of the season during the steelhead spawn, as they do for Walleye, etc.. This DID come up, didn't get much chatter, but was acknowledged.

** Cold water draw from Croton was talked about by Mr. Schramm (sp?) and this "bubbler" they're talking about being in operation at Hodenpyl on the Manistee this year will say a lot about the impact this device has on bringing colder water through hydro dams.

** Jeff Alexander from the Muskegon Chronicle put on a great presentation about the whole watershed, temps, tribs and MANY other topics that can be found in his book about the Muskegon river. 

In all, a good gathering and I hope that those who took the time to attend learned something from it, I certainly did and look to find the good in what all had to say -vs- bashing anyone or agency. 

*A familiar saying from MANY well known business professionals/speakers - "If someone is trying to pi-- on your parade, it's probably because they don't have a parade of their own".


----------



## TSS Caddis

REG said:


> You brought cookies?:sad: :corkysm55 Now I really feel bad about not being able to go.


I thought Tonello would open his up to share, but instead they went right into his coat pocket:rant:


----------



## Flyfisher

stsyrrd said:


> **One post mentioned why nothing was said about the closing of the season during the steelhead spawn, as they do for Walleye, etc.. This DID come up, didn't get much chatter, but was acknowledged.


Yes, I mentioned this earlier but more or less "tongue in cheek". Point being is that if there was a closed season, it would be illegal to "target" steelhead altogether. It just points out some ignorance on the part of Mr. Supinski for bringing up the topic in an earlier letter to the DNR. 

QUOTE: "It is staggering that other species such as walleye, bass and pike are protected during
spawning runs and yet we are allowed to kill three wild spawning steelhead  there is no
reason to this madness."

Taken from: http://www.wmtu.org/documents/Steelhead_Supinski_DNR.pdf

Would it be too arrogant of me to point out that walleye, bass, and pike are species native to the state of Michigan?

Point being, I don't think there are very many guides on the Muskegon River willing to give up 45 or so days of peak-time guide receipts to "protect spwning runs" of steelhead.


----------



## phlyphisher

stsyrrd said:


> **Chumming - Former Asst. Fisheries Chief Borgeson did a great job on simply talking through the process of it, the affect on feeding patterns for fish and the lack of sportsmanship it brings to steelheading. He made valid points and yes, I agree with one post that I read, it's about the challenge as much as the fish for many anglers.


He has his feelings and opinions on the issue, but used no fact or study to back it up.

Why? 

Because his presentation had no scientific basis. This is just like the size limit issue -- an emotional response, not one rooted in science. 

The whole VHS aspect was simply ludicrous. When has it been proven that chumming spreads the disease? If a fish has the virus and you take that fish out of the river, get its eggs and use them for chum -- e.g. putting eggs from a diseased fish into the water where it would have spawned anyway -- what's the difference? If the virus is there, it will get into the system regardless of whether chumming is legal or not. And when it comes down to it, how is chumming -- putting eggs in the river -- different from spawn fishing or "fusion" fly fishing -- squeezing egg goo onto flies? Eggs or egg parts are going into the water. Should that be banned as well? He's teetering close to the "slippery slope" argument. Where does it stop -- when the flies only advocates are happy?

He's also made assumptions about the amount of chum most guys use. Gallons per trip? Where did he get that figure? Did he measure out how much chum guys are using per trip, or is he just assuming? 

He also seems to have assumed that guys who chum don't regularly practice catch and release, hence his argument that chummers clean out the river. He said the practice makes fish "vulnerable for harvest," but has no way to say how many people who chum even keep fish in the first place. Are they statistically more likely to keep fish than people who don't chum? Do they take more fish annually? 

He also states that chumming doesn't have a history or a tradition in fishing. Hmm... Bullhead/catfish fishermen use stinky chicken guts and other scent-laden attractants to chum or lure the fish into their fishing area. Shark fishermen chum with fish parts and guts. Carp fishing -- steeped in tradition in Europe -- relies heavily on attracting fish with chum such as corn.

All right, enough from me. Have fun boys.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Flyfisher said:


> Point being, I don't think there are very many guides on the Muskegon River willing to give up 45 or so days of peak-time guide receipts to "protect spwning runs" of steelhead.


Sure there are










stsyrrd, I'm sure everyone appreciates another take on things. We all go to these things and we each take something different from them.

** The 15" limit on trout. Many still confused as to why it came, went, came, etc.. Even some attending with a formal education in fisheries management said such topics come and go like a MI weather pattern at times. The 10" stocks were first mentioned by Jory Jones -DNR - and that the Muskegon received them due to the Wolf lake hatchery being overstocked last year and "they needed to go somewhere". *True, but Supinski tried to use that in a context trying to lead the attendees to the conclusion that this happens every year and the plants need to be protected. If this was a one time deal and the typical plants are 7.5-8.5" then Matt was knowingly trying to mislead the attendees.*

** 1 steelhead limit. Don't think it will happen and believe primary support for this was what has happened with Salmon river in NY - but they had VERY poor fishing for many years and going from that, to what they have now, yes, it's GREAT and good for NY. *Agreed. Unless you are comparing apples to apples it doesn't matter what another state has done.*


**Stocking of trout - Yes they do stock the heck out of the MO and supported that well. Is it a "put and take" fishery as Bacon disputed. Maybe, but contrary to some DNR officials, they DO live beyond a certain number of years/growth rates and believe that is was what Bacon was referring to. Less we bash anglers/guides too much at any gathering, when they're asked to provide "their perspective" and not one of a state employed biologist or other fed funded official. *It seemed their perspective was to bash the DNR. Let's not forget Matt saying the biologists are arrogant and that they perceive the public as being ignorant and that Jeff said it appeared to him there was a conspiracy to ruin the river. I agreed with Jeff on his drift boat motor thoughts and errosion, but he made a left turn from there. I wish it was more his perspective on the river and fishery then his perspective on conspiracies and how data is invalid with nothing to back it up. IMO, if you are going to make accusations in the public eye like that you owe it to the audience to back it up. Let's not forget that Jeff complained that the DNR hasn't asked him about what he thought the impact of zebra mussels were and based on that the DNR was not doing any research, where the U of M guy later stated that they ARE doing research. Many of the comments by Matt and Jeff were intentionally misleading. I appreciate that they took their time, I just wish they handled themselves in a more professional manner. As a few have stated, just think what could get done if instead of wasting all their energy spreading intentionally misleading information if they put it toward the real issues.*

** Data collected - A dispute by either Bacon or Sputnik on this was specific to data taken and used to create a "report/summary" related to the MO as a trout fishery. This data WAS collected a number of years ago, during the month of August, during a drought year and in a very poor stretch of the river.......point noted, not the best time or place to collect ANY data on ANY fish that swim the MO, except for bass since they thrive in the 75 degree temps that were present when said data was being collected. * I don't know the specifics of the study, only the results, so I can't comment on when it was done but can check. I would hope that this is not true.*

**Chumming - Former Asst. Fisheries Chief Borgeson did a great job on simply talking through the process of it, the affect on feeding patterns for fish and the lack of sportsmanship it brings to steelheading. He made valid points and yes, I agree with one post that I read, it's about the challenge as much as the fish for many anglers. *I think this is just a "cause" and has not merit. I've chummed a lot on some days and most days I do not. It is not the end all be all that it is cracked up to be. If it was the end all be all I would be bringing more than 16oz or so with me in the boat. There is no biological aspect to this, so it all comes down to a person's definition of sporting. If a reg get's added to ban chumming, it is my understanding that it will impact at least one of the guides that spoke on Saturday.*

** Cold water draw from Croton was talked about by Mr. Schramm (sp?) and this "bubbler" they're talking about being in operation at Hodenpyl on the Manistee this year will say a lot about the impact this device has on bringing colder water through hydro dams.

** Jeff Alexander from the Muskegon Chronicle put on a great presentation about the whole watershed, temps, tribs and MANY other topics that can be found in his book about the Muskegon river. *IMO, this is where everyone needs to be focusing our attention, not on the trout size reg, 1 fish limit or on more plants.*

In all, a good gathering and I hope that those who took the time to attend learned something from it, I certainly did and look to find the good in what all had to say -vs- bashing anyone or agency. *Agreed*

----
What really pushed my buttons was the unprofessional way the two guides handled the time they were given. I think they both could provide some great insites from their time on the water and could have brought lot's of value to the meeting if they were focused on things other than bashing the DNR.

BTW, if it wasn't for some excellent moderating it would have turned into a circus and IMO, that is what Jeff and Matt wanted. I would have much rather listened to Betts or Feenstra.


----------



## TSS Caddis

phlyphisher said:


> He has his feelings and opinions on the issue, but used no fact or study to back it up.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because his presentation had no scientific basis. This is just like the size limit issue -- an emotional response, not one rooted in science.
> 
> The whole VHS aspect was simply ludicrous. When has it been proven that chumming spreads the disease? If a fish has the virus and you take that fish out of the river, get its eggs and use them for chum -- e.g. putting eggs from a diseased fish into the water where it would have spawned anyway -- what's the difference? If the virus is there, it will get into the system regardless of whether chumming is legal or not. And when it comes down to it, how is chumming -- putting eggs in the river -- different from spawn fishing or "fusion" fly fishing -- squeezing egg goo onto flies? Eggs or egg parts are going into the water. Should that be banned as well? He's teetering close to the "slippery slope" argument. Where does it stop -- when the flies only advocates are happy?
> 
> He's also made assumptions about the amount of chum most guys use. Gallons per trip? Where did he get that figure? Did he measure out how much chum guys are using per trip, or is he just assuming?
> 
> He also seems to have assumed that guys who chum don't regularly practice catch and release, hence his argument that chummers clean out the river. He said the practice makes fish "vulnerable for harvest," but has no way to say how many people who chum even keep fish in the first place. Are they statistically more likely to keep fish than people who don't chum? Do they take more fish annually?
> 
> He also states that chumming doesn't have a history or a tradition in fishing. Hmm... Bullhead/catfish fishermen use stinky chicken guts and other scent-laden attractants to chum or lure the fish into their fishing area. Shark fishermen chum with fish parts and guts. Carp fishing -- steeped in tradition in Europe -- relies heavily on attracting fish with chum such as corn.
> 
> All right, enough from me. Have fun boys.


Don't forget that people are importing chum from the East and West coasts! Um, East Coast???? Is he saying people are chumming with Atlantic Salmon eggs??

If I could buy salmon eggs from the west coast for $5/gallon I'd be all over it and would not be driving up to Tippy to mooch eggs.


----------



## silversides

TSS Caddis said:


> Don't forget that people are importing chum from the East and West coasts! Um, East Coast???? Is he saying people are chumming with Atlantic Salmon eggs??
> 
> If I could buy salmon eggs from the west coast for $5/gallon I'd be all over it and would not be driving up to Tippy to mooch eggs.


There are guide(s) on the MO that import chum from believe it or not, Atlantic salmon pens on the east coast.


----------



## SR-Mechead

Flyfisher said:


> ?
> Point being, I don't think there are very many guides on the Muskegon River willing to give up 45 or so days of peak-time guide receipts to "protect spwning runs" of steelhead.


 Point being I don't think there are many sportsman period not only the guides that would want to give up 45 days of fishing on the Muskegon river.


----------



## stsyrrd

I find many varied opinions in the posts that I read, but how many that posted actually attended ?

-Stocking info from Jory about the 10" fish were specifically from the Wolf Lake hatchery and they (DNR), as she put it, "needed to do something with them" and therefore they went in the muskegon last year. 

-Guides that were asked to speak, did so on different topics. One was from a very long standing, persistent point of view. Sputnik has his opinions, but no one can dispute that he's a smart guy and knows more than many on fisheries, entomology and more specific to this, steelhead. The other was from a guides perspective on river habitat and water quality. Believe that Bacon made a good point that as a group of guides, they may/may NOT be able to assist the DNR (with no financial burden on them) with their data/other efforts......doesn't hurt to consider. One "post" must not have attended, because a lot of "we", as he referenced GUIDES AS A GTOUP were in there along with "I" as he talked about the topics for this gathering, river habitat and water quality. What I as an attendee heard was "I", as Bacon put it, had not been asked/approached in many years of guiding about many valid topics such as habitat degradation, water quality reduction/improvement, zebra mussel impact, etc.. How much can you bash a guy for offering time and effort to our underfunded DNR?

-Stocking and put and take fishery. They do stock the heck out of the river, we're blessed that they do and many consider it a put and take fishery and this may be true. However, this was based on results of a study, where the data collected for it was taken during drought/high water temp conditions and in a stretch of river where habitat is by no means the best and mortality is very high for a number of reasons, Henning to New Bridge.

-One steelhead and 15" regulation. Don't know if 1 steely limit will ever happen, but "data" from the success in NY was used and all must consider that NY fisheries in question had terrible fishing for many years, so their successes are relative to where they came from, to where they are now.
The 15" reg is an interesting one and of course nothing will happen for a couple years if at all. That said, fish can/do grow beyond a certain length and certain number of years, which contradicted data that Mr. O'Neil put in HIS report of years prior. I like catching big trout, isn't that part of the point here, improved habitat and water quality ?

-Liked the post about consideration of a season change as is done for walleye and some other fish. Don't know how far it would fly, but if difficult questions aren't asked, then difficult answers or possible solutions will NEVER be addressed.

-Like the idea of this "bubbler" that Jim Schramm talked about being tested on the Hodenpyl site on the upper Man, results will tell us if it's applicable to other hydro's such as Croton........amazing info he shared on the Columbia river hydro dam and its power producing capabilities compared to ALL of our dams, wasn't it !!

-I can only presume that all who talked put significant time and effort into their work. Those from MSU and U of M have some great grad students working on this, along with research specialists and biologists. Additionally, they do work in conjunction with the DNR, MDEQ and others to the BEST OF THEIR ABILITIES AND BUDGETS, where do you think some of the elaborate graphs and charts came from. Talking with a non-speaking biologist who attended, he pointed out that it's often difficult to get what's needed, to where it's needed and when it's needed for consideration of any change and even for events such as this.......data is tough to gather, how many of you have tried stream sampling during all seasons ?

Happy fishing to all, obviously cabin fever is getting to all of us some, be civil and safe when out there, eh !


----------



## TA Bunker

To put this whole stocking size to and end, I only searched the last 7 years, but there has not been a rainbow trout or steelhead stocked in the Muskegon River that is over 8.5"s.


----------



## live2fishdjs

TA Bunker said:


> To put this whole stocking size to and end, I only searched the last 7 years, but there has not been a rainbow trout or steelhead stocked in the Muskegon River that is over 8.5"s.



Those stocking reports are only an average if I'm not mistaken...some larger, some smaller than what the listed length is.


----------



## Splitshot

There is no question the utilities have a horrible record and they have proven over and over that they are capable of exploiting the river if it benefits their bottom line.

As far as restoring the Muskegon, there is a watershed organization that is working on a plan. Any of you who really want to contribute should join. A couple of years ago I heard that the organization received either 12 or 17 million dollars to get the ball rolling. All watershed organizations start with a plan and then start restoration work from the headwaters. They must also include all the tributaries as well. It is a monumental task when compared with the problems related to the Little Manistee River for example and one that will take years and even more years if funding is slow in coming. 

I hope the experiments with the bubblers at Hoydenpyle and Tippy work. Be aware that if they run them 24/7 they will deplete the cold water supply before summer ends and the experiment will be called a failure. Then it will be business as usual. This cold water pool should only be used when water temperatures near critical water temperatures. 

If the volume of water in Hoydenpyle and Tippy is less than Hardy and Croton and the results are applied from this one test might not be relevant. How the test is conducted is all important.

Back to the Muskegon . In the summer the water above Big Rapids often reaches 80 degrees. One reason is because the river is wide and shallow with few holes and not a lot of shade so the sun heats it up fast.

The water flowing into Croton Pond is warm surface water warmed from the surface of Hardy Pond. There is a pool of cold water in Croton Pond, but is it enough to keep river temperatures cool enough to protect trout below Croton without additional cool water from the bottom of Hardy Pond.

In the end, the Big Muskegon might always be a marginal trout river but with sustained planting can remain a great steelhead and salmon fishery. Only time and a lot of hard work can change things. There is over 150 miles of mainstream and many many more miles of tributaries that need attention before they reach the waters below Croton.

In the meantime lets hope the bottom draw study gets completed and if the cold water pool above Croton can be used judiciously perhaps it will be enough but in the meantime it should be managed for what it is.

Again if you really want to contribute this web-site will help get you started.
http://www.kieser-associates.com/muskegon_river/index.htm


As far the guides providing data, it is clear that information provided by them can not be trusted. Not just on the Muskegon, but many other rivers as well. The only conclusion to be drawn from past experiences is that when push comes to shove when a decision between what is good for the river and what is good for their pocketbook, the pocketbook seems to come out on top. For proof, no one need look farther than the letter and rebuttal from the DNR.
Stsyrrd,
You can call it bashing, but some people are getting fed up with certain groups lobbying for rule changes that benefit them specifically without regard to the rest of the fishing community. If you see someone who is not acting responsible and making broad assertions dont you have an obligation to expose it? The hypocrisy is just overwhelming. You do something that is not in the best interest of sportsmen in general and someone calls you on it and you start crying your bashing or picking on me is just about as superficial as it gets. 

Then to try to dismiss other opinions because they didnt attend the meeting is just as disingenuous as trying to defend Bacon and Supinski. No one said they were stupid or couldnt provide insight into issues relating to the Muskegon River. Im saying based on what Supinski wrote it is clear that you cant trust what he says, even if he believes what he is saying. His motives are pretty clear to all the other bright people who are involved in this issue. 

Instead of defending the indefensible perhaps you could offer some positive ideas that will benefit the problems.

It does appear the Former Asst. Fisheries Chief Borgeson explained how chumming affects feeding patterns for fish, which means he agrees it works but then adds it is not sporting. It is well known that Mr. Borgeson is a hard core fly fisherman and I think it is beneath him to espouse his values on those fishermen who choose to chum, especially since he offered no scientific data to prove it has any detrimental effects on the river or the fish.

As Joe stated, chumming has been used in many fishing situations for eons. I know when fishing for yellowtail in the ocean it is a common practice to get a chum line going to attract the fish and get them in a feeding situation. Chumming for trout and steelhead is fairly new because we didnt have anything to chum with until salmon. No one I knew ever growing up caught enough steelhead hens to even consider wasting one egg chumming. It just never occurred to them. Then again I am sure some fishermen were smart enough to figure it out years and years ago.


----------



## Steelee

Trout Survey - Many people refer to a survey on trout fishing and the 15 inch survey done supposedly in a low water year at Henning Park in August to refute the data in the survey concerning the 15 inch limit and the viability of the Muskegon as a trout stream. 

My friend Charley has been fly fishing for trout in the Muskegon for 45 years He launches at Thornapple at least 3 days per week. He was checked routinely at the landing by people hired by the DNR to conduct creel census above and below Thornapple. I no longer live in the area, but I come up for a week or so every year, and I have been surveyed as well with Charley. Charley stops fishing in mid July because of the high water temps.

Therefore, I am confused. I believe those of you who are talking about a Henning Park survey in August one year. But, I am also sure that creel census data at Thornapple was collected the years the 15" limit was in effect.

With all of his experience and knowledge about the Muskegon, Charley predicted that the 15 inch limit would not work, that the Muskegon was a river inhabited by many species and without stocking, trout would all but disappear, and a 15" limit was an attempt by an elitist element to try to turn the Muskegon into something it is not.


----------



## thousandcasts

Great discussion thus far. Nicely done to those who take science and common sense into account! 



> As far the guides providing data, it is clear that information provided by them can not be trusted. Not just on the Muskegon, but many other rivers as well. The only conclusion to be drawn from past experiences is that when push comes to shove when a decision between what is good for the river and what is good for their pocketbook, the pocketbook seems to come out on top. For proof, no one need look farther than the letter and rebuttal from the DNR.


Amen! I can think of a handful of guides in general that I like, but as for the rest of them--I don't know where they get their big heads from. I know I'm not going out on a limb by saying this, but c'mon--Get 'em off the gravel and half those Clydes on their best day couldn't outfish most of us here on one of our bad days.


----------



## Splitshot

Welcome to the site Steelee. Your friend is proof that this is not about fly fishing but about what is best for the river. I have been to several meetings about this issue and each time the data presented has been for multiple years.

In fact Mr. Oneil I believe said they felt they had enough data but collected data for an additional year or two for the very reason that some would try to discredit it as not being comprehensive enough to provide adequate data.

If you can discredit the data by saying it was only collected from one hot month in one year, you discredit the entire study. Nice try, but this fisherman is not biting.


----------



## PineIsland

stsyrrd said:


> I find many varied opinions in the posts that I read, but how many that posted actually attended ?
> 
> 
> -Stocking and put and take fishery. They do stock the heck out of the river, we're blessed that they do and many consider it a put and take fishery and this may be true. However, this was based on results of a study, where the data collected for it was taken during drought/high water temp conditions and in a stretch of river where habitat is by no means the best and mortality is very high for a number of reasons, Henning to New Bridge.
> 
> !



Obviously there are *many* surveys done on the river every year, all season, so referencing one particular one that sampled a stretch or a time that was not peak is irrelevant. No management decisions were made based on any one survey.


----------



## riverman

lol, there's another picture on the site taken on a sunny morning:coolgleam on the pm. Funny thing is, I didn't see Doug around all morning!!!!


----------



## Flyfisher

bombcast said:


> flyfisher- you are correct sir. That is my jumping steelhead photo on his website. Funny, I was never contacted for permission...


Yeah, thought you might want to know. I was looking at "Riverratdog's" website and I thought that picture looked familiar...very classy to rip photos from other webpages.


----------



## bombcast

Riverman- really? :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Any shots of his clients raising the flag on Mt. Suribachi/Iwo Jima?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## riverman

Find the pic, I know you will reconize a certain cedar!!!! The only thing missing is Roller!!!!!!lololol I still thank Ted for showing me a little bead and tuff of yarn trick one day there. That's about all I ever use anymore on the pressured fish that river has now.


----------



## bombcast

From his website:


----------



## Steelhead Addict

nice photoshop job!


----------



## thousandcasts

_Dear Fly Clyde Guide Service,

Thank you very much for the wonderful day on the river. It was definitley a learning experience as I had no idea that spawning salmon were so aggressive. I'd heard that salmon were baitfish eaters, but you proved me wrong--who knew that they hit yarn like a little kid in front of a cotton candy stand! I also didn't realize that they use their tails to "slap" at their prey either. I was wondering why I kept hooking those fish in the rear end, but after you explained that to me, it made sense. Anyway, thanks again for a great day on the river! Oh...and here's that pic you took of me. Maybe you can use it on your website? _


----------



## Flyfisher

Steve, you don't have to hire a guide, or even handle a rod to get a hold of those big boys...you can just walk along the river bank and pick them up. And they taste great in the smoker. I usually try and find the ones that still have a little movement left in their gills. And don't forget to cut around the white patches when you are cleaning them. The bad part about hiring a Fly Clyde Guide is they usually make you release all your salmon to "fight another day", so consequently you are left with an empty cooler at the end of the day


----------



## thousandcasts

_PS: After showing me such a great day fishing gravel on the beautiful Muskegon River, I want to thank you by giving you as much support as I can in your battle against those unethical chummers and bait fishermen. After learning the right way to fish, under your expert tutelage, I find it hard to believe that such awful bait tactics are still legal. Please forward me a list of e-mail addresses and I'll send out whatever message is needed to convey that the ethics of anglers like yourself is what fishing is all about!" _


----------



## mechanical head

thousandcasts said:


> _PS: After showing me such a great day fishing gravel on the beautiful Muskegon River, I want to thank you by giving you as much support as I can in your battle against those unethical chummers and bait fishermen. After learning the right way to fish, under your expert tutelage, I find it hard to believe that such awful bait tactics are still legal. Please forward me a list of e-mail addresses and I'll send out whatever message is needed to convey that the ethics of anglers like yourself is what fishing is all about!" _


Thank you very much Mr. Hutchins, and I'd again I'd like to thank you for helping me with my own personnal egg harvest, the only reason I keep the eggs is so those no good for nothing greasers don't get em', and my cat Muffin likes them.

P.S don't worry about not tipping me this past trip, I know money is tough right now, you can catch me next time..

P.S.S I'll send you that backing caddis fly recipe, boy those kings inhale those things..

See you soon..


----------



## Steelhead Addict

Dude that is one NASTY salmon. How could you even touch that thing!!! I hope you had your innoculations.

That picture is funny too. Its like you donkey punched some poor grandma and are holding her head up by the back of her hair. Awesome!

You know guys pay good money for that quality "gravel" experience


----------



## steelie

Good Day,

You be the judge - do they use the same hair stylist?  





Steelie


----------



## bombcast

:lol: :lol:


----------



## quest32a

As much humor as I find in all of this thread, it is now way off track. I am not going to close it, but get it back on track or let it get buried.
Thanks


----------



## phlyphisher

MSupin: Michigan D.N.R.  You're fired!


----------



## steelie

Good Day,

Sorry quest... I just could not help it!

Steelhead are a lot of fun to fish for. I enjoy it every time I have done so. However, when we look at a river like the Mo, let's face it, it is an artificial salmonid fishery bellow Croton. Before the DNR started planting it, what if any runs of steelhead did it have? Salmon? Browns? I think people forget that these fish ARE NOT NATIVE! I dare say few if any even though some salmonids do have a bit of wanderlust when it comes to spawning... With continued cuts of funding and the like, I can see in the future that the DNR may be placed in a position to permanently suspend plantings on some waters or not plant every year (ie a bi-annual plant). Think about some West Michigan rivers. Now, put together a short list of rivers that most likely would face the shortfall of plantings. I would dare say the the Mo would be near the top of that list along with perhaps the lower Rogue or the tiny section of the Flat. Personally, I do not think it is a matter of if but when. The stream is listed as marginal trout habitat for a reason, it is marginal... duh. Honestly, I can see a day when rivers like the Mo may face the planting axe and then be managed as what they truly are, warmwater fisheries (read that smallmouth). Would it be a shame? Perhaps. Is it inevitable? Possibly. Now, if people like Supinski and Bacon want improvements on the Mo, then they better stop yelling at the DNR and pointing fingers. Instead, shut your mouth and do something constructive. Have a fundraiser and donate the money to the DNR. Or perhaps create a non-profit organization of volunteers to help supplement the DNR. Raise money as the non-profit and direct all the money to stream improvement and plantings. Get involved with the Muskegeon Watershed Council. Educate your clients and fish ethically. Etc., etc.

Steelie


----------



## thousandcasts

> Now, if people like Supinski and Bacon want improvements on the Mo, then they better stop yelling at the DNR and pointing fingers. Instead, shut your mouth and do something constructive. Have a fundraiser and donate the money to the DNR. Or perhaps create a non-profit organization of volunteers to help supplement the DNR.


I'm pretty much convinced that I'll win the lottery and have a one night stand with Charlize Theron before I see either one of those guides at a river clean up, riverwatch, etc. That's where I give Fraley a lot of credit--at least he's involved with and even organizes things like that on his home river. 

I think it's safe to assume that with most guides, the phrase "non profit" should never be mentioned in the same paragraph as their names, let alone the same sentence.


----------

