# The Great Compromise



## fishinDon

rcleofly said:


> I love the idea of a slot limit. It seems to work very well. Myself I don't keep fish ever. So, in a way my opinion may be distorted do to the fact. I do think instead of one general slot limit. Each and every stream should be studied to decide what would be the best limits to use. In areas where the population needs help a temporary catch and release should be put forth until the population is to a healthy level. In reality ever fish makes a difference.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Because you get to "write the rules" once it's gear restricted, this is a possiblity (different size limit for each river). I'm not opposed to that, but also wouldn't mind settling on a couple options that we could apply across the rivers to at least simplify a little, while still getting a good fit for each stretch.

Don


----------



## toto

I have an odd question and don't mean to bring up something that could take this off track, but here goes. If you want science to dictate what the slot limits should be on each and every stream, that really brings up two questions: 1) who's going to pay for this research? and 2) if science is to be used to to determine slots, why didn't we use this science in the first place, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Just sayin....


----------



## rcleofly

Toto and don. Realistically setting different limits for every stream is very unrealistic. But, we could push to have 4 standard slot lImits. And classify rivers do to what we know of the populations. And use the best of the 4 options that would best suit the populations and every 4 years adjust as needed. So much of science is a hypothesis, an educated guess rite. 2 scientist can come up with 2 complete different hypothesis. I guess and I can't believe I'm saying this, it depends on what side they are on. Therefore its time to create one side, the angler side, not the flyfisherman or spinning fisherman side. Ok guys I'm out of here in 2 hours I need to get packing. I promise I will be showing this topic very soon at a meeting full of guys like me who love our catch and release flys only sections. I'm sure that some jaws will hit the floor. Its guys like me who will really make the change and create this compromise. It's the big dogs in the fly fishing world who need to get on board and say this is ok. I'm dirty and loud and make sure I'm heard. Up until now I've been saying let's put gr on every trout stream. Trout ment for the fly rite. I've been this way do to a bad day of witnessing bait fishing at its worse. This topic has change my opinion. Maybe we are all aiming for the same thing. Our sons have better trout fishing then we do. Go get knee deep and good luck on the water. Post pics, let's do this together, let's do this rite.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## fishinlk

Toto, 

I understand what you're feelings are but how can you possibly make that judgement of who you see on the water and lump people into the "have's and Have nots? You really need to make effort to get past this some way. no matter how you feel about it, gear restrictions have_ very little _to do with income bracket and more so just a philosophy about fishing and nature. I know guys that have more money in the bank than I'll see in a lifetime that drive an old 80's vintage conversion van to the river to fish in an old tattered vest. He'll fish bait or flies and keeps fish for breakfast on most nights. Then there's the other guy who just started fly fishing a couple years ago and has all brand new gear because he hasn't had it long enough to put wear and tear on it and drive's a newer car because he saved for years to get to this point and he ends up on special regs waters it was the first places he found he like it there. Based on your stereo typing the guy on the flies only water is going to be some wealthy "have" guy and the guy other guy is the "Have Not" average Joe. It's just not true. In fact if there was an ACCURATE way to get a survey of average income on who is using the special regs watersI would venture that those that keep bashing this based on income would in for a rather rude awakening.

Matter of fact I'm actually kind of feeling bad about the fact I have to buy a new vest this spring and wear a brand new vest because I know first hand that there are going to be guys out there stereotyping me as the "Orvis/wealthy" fishman based on my appearance. I should be able to enjoy buying a nice new vest for the first time in 20+ years.....


----------



## fishinDon

fishinlk said:


> Toto,
> 
> I understand what you're feelings are but how can you possibly make that judgement of who you see on the water and lump people into the "have's and Have nots? You really need to make effort to get past this some way. no matter how you feel about it, gear restrictions have_ very little _to do with income bracket and more so just a philosophy about fishing and nature. I know guys that have more money in the bank than I'll see in a lifetime that drive an old 80's vintage conversion van to the river to fish in an old tattered vest. He'll fish bait or flies and keeps fish for breakfast on most nights. Then there's the other guy who just started fly fishing a couple years ago and has all brand new gear because he hasn't had it long enough to put wear and tear on it and drive's a newer car because he saved for years to get to this point and he ends up on special regs waters it was the first places he found he like it there. Based on your stereo typing the guy on the flies only water is going to be some wealthy "have" guy and the guy other guy is the "Have Not" average Joe. It's just not true. In fact if there was an ACCURATE way to get a survey of average income on who is using the special regs watersI would venture that those that keep bashing this based on income would in for a rather rude awakening.
> 
> Matter of fact I'm actually kind of feeling bad about the fact I have to buy a new vest this spring and wear a brand new vest because I know first hand that there are going to be guys out there stereotyping me as the "Orvis/wealthy" fishman based on my appearance. I should be able to enjoy buying a nice new vest for the first time in 20+ years.....


I have a "gently used" (only about 10-12 years old) vest that I'm willing to sell for the right price. And Ausable_Steelhead has an absolute beauty of a vest that he could easily get a few hundred for at auction as long as he leaves it unwashed! 

I'm about to peel out for the UP here in a bit for opening weekend, and I'm borderline giddy!!  

Would love to come back to a bunch more good feedback!

Good luck on the opener everyone!
Don


----------



## Shoeman

See even the members of the opposition won't see eye to eye...

How can anything be resolved without a compromise? 

Oh yeah, let's dig-in our heels and fight....lol

Changes have come and will be in the future. The only way to have some of the draconian ones reduced IS through compromise!

Don is on the right track, but as we can see after numerous posts, even the opposition is in the opposition unless they get it all...

Won't Happen!

Don's initial proposal was an meet-in-middle and keep the resourse in mind, but, it seems like anything but a free-for-all will do. A major downfall!


----------



## fishinlk

Toto,
That all sounds fair enough to me. I appreciate where you're coming from in life and I am very familiar with the type of guys you're talking about. 

I used to have long hair and do the whole band thing back when I was younger. I also kept a real office job and maintained some responsibility as well, but I'd get a lot of people making assumptions about me if they saw me outside the work place, even sometimes in the work place. Kind of the same thing you run into with your career but different. 

My personal grind I get into with fly fishing is when newbies come and state they are on a restricted budget and want to get into fly fishing on a shoestring and clearly state a $$ range that there is ALWAYS someone that has to insist that they will be wasting their money if they don't spend X number dollars on a rod even though that the rod alone has clearly doubled their budget. While they're trying to be helpful it's usually so far from being a realistic possibility that it tends to perpetuate that image that people sometimes paint fly fishers with. I've been at this for getting close to 40 years now and spent the first 15 of it using rods that cost me from $14-$45 and and absolutely loved the sport with my cheap gear. It's kind of become a personal crusade to enlightent people that it's affordable as most any other method of fishing.

All that being said there are people that work that way in all facets of the outdoors. Need gortex and scentlok to shoot a buck, need a great boat to bass fish, etc........ You get the point. It's just a matter of working through different personalities working your way to the majority....

Tight lines!


----------



## fishinlk

Don, 

Opener in the UP?? I'd be giddy too, heck I'm giddy everytime I cross the bridge!


----------



## toto

Shoeman, I'm not sure who you are referring, but I'll assume you are referencing me. I get that, you obviously don't care for me, and thats fine too, but at least I stayed on my belief, unlike some other we both know. As for the compromise, if you read any the above posts, you will see that I relented and agreed with a compromise. What don't you understand about that??


----------



## Shoeman

Bill.....

I could care less about your views. Quit trying place me into your picture!

My thoughts are placed into the conception of how the average guy looks at Don's compromise. Most sportsmen can deal with it, although some want it all. Won't happen! No bait restrictions, no limits, free for all...

Ain't gonna happen!

I still love ya


----------



## Fishin' Wizard

toto said:


> ....and as Rodney King said, lets just all get along.


I thought Stelmon said that?


----------



## toto

Maybe it was. Who knew????:lol:


----------



## fishinDon

We can do this! UP here I come!! 

Don


----------



## Shoeman

I guess my point was made

The majority of the membership would be willing to "compromise"....

Until the courts are willing to deal with the legality of the original bill.


----------



## broncbuster2

You are right Ralf.
Don IS all You have....
I am (as are others) still working to remove all gear restrictions.
And I really believe that I will be sucessful...


Jerry


----------



## toto

You know I can't win here, I tried to be compromising and I get railed on for that too. How do I win here, I quess what I'll do is just rescind my compromising position, and stick with my orginal thoughts, no compromise.

Now shoe, since you don't pm's from me as I tried to take this off board, as one should according to the rules of this website, that wasn't good enough, thanks for that.

So I'm out for now, I have to get back to work so I can pay my social security taxes.


----------



## fishinlk

"Sad" pretty well sums it up. When you go for all or nothing you usually end up with nothing......


----------



## centerpin

I can agree with the original post with some concerns.

I personally would rather move the ball down then field a ways than get stopped on the 1yd line after getting the ball.

I do feel however that the flies only groups would be more sympathetic with single hook and barbless added to the artificial only on the previously flies only waters. 

Its kind of confusing as well to have two different regulations concerning artificial fishing when you could just have one....single hook barbless artificial only. 

Its easier for other groups to claim just such a thing and shoot the whole thing down versus a simplified regulation that's harder to fight as it has less parts to attack.


----------



## fisheater

Good luck Don, and Downstream. I do not mind trying to keep the best waters special, and I could certainly live with this type of compromise. I do have one caveat though. It is my understanding that there are quite a few more miles that could be allowed to be restricted. I would like to see thee book closed on those miles.

I would be curious as to what others think of the my caveat. I value even those opinions that are different than mine, especially those more informed. I think the size limit on Paint Creek has irked me more than the restrictions, and now I learned there is a sound biological reason, I still do not like it, but I can accept it more readily.


----------



## fishinDon

centerpin said:


> I can agree with the original post with some concerns.
> 
> I personally would rather move the ball down then field a ways than get stopped on the 1yd line after getting the ball.
> 
> I do feel however that the flies only groups would be more sympathetic with single hook and barbless added to the artificial only on the previously flies only waters.
> 
> Its kind of confusing as well to have two different regulations concerning artificial fishing when you could just have one....single hook barbless artificial only.
> 
> Its easier for other groups to claim just such a thing and shoot the whole thing down versus a simplified regulation that's harder to fight as it has less parts to attack.


Thanks for the feedback. I think you are correct, some of the traditional gear regs supporters would likely be more comfortable with a single pointed hook artificial rule. I am currently on the fence about this. Some types of lures are almost impossible for a fish to swallow, while others are not. For example, I've seen Michigan DNR research that shows about 8% mortality of large brook trout caught on trebel hook spinners and cleos, but 0% caught on rapalas. It also indicates that those same lures that were 8% mortality with a trebel, drop down to about 2.5% with single pointed hooks. Of course this research was conducted in a lake and only with trophy sized trout, but it's consistent with my personal fishing experiences in rivers/streams. Once in a great while I will deep hook a large brook trout with a spinner, but I've never deep hooked a big brook trout or brown trout with a rapala...

http://70degreepledge.org/uploads/Nuhfer_and_Alexander_1992.pdf 

I've also seen research that shows decreased angling success with lures that come "out of the box" with trebels that were replaced with singles, with no corresponding difference in mortality between trout captured on treble/single. My guess is that the second study didn't specifically focus on "trophy" fish, and small and medium sized trout can't swallow a normal sized trebel, so it's not an issue there. 

http://www.glfsa.org/science/TroutHooking.pdf

Quote from that study:



> Anglers fishing with barbless and single-hook
> spinners can expect to land fewer trout per hour
> (i.e. experience reduced angling quality) than if
> conventional barbed treble-hook spinners are
> used.


The idea behind gear restrictions originally was to reduce mortality in non-target trout, which were traditionally those that were under-sized. Of course we live in a different era now, and non-target trout cover a much wider range, up to and including all of them. So should we restrict trebel hooks on lures, knowing we will likely hook fewer fish but save a couple of the big ones? I'm not sure...I am not married to one or the other approach. But the complexity between the two is what currently has me mired in the decision phase.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

Thanks,
Don


----------



## Ranger Ray

I would think you fishinlk and kzoofisher would be to busy helping Don in his proposal to be posting here. Going to take a lot of politicking to convince the TU brass to give up that fly only water. Don't be letting Don down now boys, he is counting on your lip service to turn into your words of truth. Go get em boys!


----------



## fishinlk

Ranger,

If they were actually going for the compromise I'd be MORE than happy to put my 2 cents of support in. There seems to be an all or nothing mentality going on that Don seems to be pressed back into supporting based on Bronc's perspective. Don's proposal seemed fairly reasonable. I fly fish 99.9% of the time but I've got no problem with artificials so pulling back large portions of fly only to artificals is good with me as long as the regs on size and creel limits are protected. Actually I've got no problem with bait in many cases either. I just want people on the water who are responsible flor their actions and respect the resource. If I see a fly guy treating stuff like crap I have no problems telling them about it.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Don, himself, is actually going for a compromise as he stated. I would think the way some were talking, they would rally around his proposal. I keep seeing many TU guys tell Don, his compromise is something they could get behind. Well, I am just wondering if they are men of their word, now Don has made his proposal public. A letter from a few TU chapters showing support of Dons idea, that he could present to the cold water committee, would be great. Maybe you and Kazoo could be the champions of those letters.


----------



## toto

One thing I can warn you about the compormise. Back when this all started about 3 years ago when the debates on the wheres, and how's was made public; I asked one of the head people in TU whether a compromise was doable, and they said no. To go one step further, this person also said that they discussed that with the DNR, but the DNR isn't having any of it. So lets just say thats true, now who is to blame? It would appear the DNR/NRC made that decision. 

The problem is, the DNR has also been told by their own biologists that this change wasn't needed, but the powers that be dictated it, which then brings up two questions to me 1) If the biologist is being paid good money to do his/her job, but his/her boss decides to do what they want anyways, then why have biologists? 2) What is the TRUE motivation behind these gear regs, thats what has been troubling me the most, just what is trully behind it? Think about it, when you have the experts saying this isn't needed, then why was it so important for the heads of the DNR to push it through? I hope I'm making my point clear here.

What I'm trying hard to get at is this: If the DNR/NRC has a motive we can't see, or if they are being dictated to by the legislature, then we need to ask two questions again 1) who, and 2) why? I have the suspicion that the heads of the DNR are being dictated to by someone in the legislature to do this, or loses their jobs, and that is totally against what I believe should be happening within the DNR. The DNR should be making fish and game decisions withou the input of the legislature, in other words, let the experts make those decisions, and those experts are the people within the DNR. We need to stop politcizing the DNR.


----------



## swampbuck

Toto,

While there may be a Legislator or two involved....I think you need to look squarely at the MDNR/NRC. There has been many MDNR/NRC actions over the last several years that were obviously driven by special interest groups regarding fishing, hunting, and access issues. I believe a wise course of action would be to look for Legislators on the House and/or Senate outdoor committee's who are willing to take up the cause.


----------



## fishinlk

> Don, himself, is actually going for a compromise as he stated.


I'd like to see that clearly stated, ithroughout most of this thread he said he was but when push came to shove with Bronc and his position within the the GLSFA he also said the his is was "with Bronc in spades" Bronc has been quite clear all along that he is all about no compromise. That sounds like a reversal to me.


----------



## fishinDon

fishinlk said:


> I'd like to see that clearly stated, ithroughout most of this thread he said he was but when push came to shove with Bronc and his position within the the GLSFA he also said the his is was "with Bronc in spades" Bronc has been quite clear all along that he is all about no compromise. That sounds like a reversal to me.


No reversal. 

I DO favor a compromise, because I feel it's the best thing for our state's fishermen right now and down the road happy fishermen will benefit our fishery more. 

I was agreeing with Bronc (in spades) when he said that he would agree with a compromise if half of the water was returned, my plan returns a little more than half to bait fishing...

Yes, I realize there are going to be some on both sides that will never agree to a compromise, but I do believe it's in the best interest of the majority of Michigan Trout Fishermen to think about this (or something similar) and put this horrible splinter issue behind us. 

What Ray suggested, some formal support from TU members, would be an incredible boost to this plan. 
Don


----------



## Splitshot

Many people today attack other people personally when they dont have any good reasons, facts or information to defend their position. In the last few weeks me and other members have been called terrorist, extremists, claimed our organization had no legitimacy, told us we were undermining and dividing fishermen and sportsman, claimed that we would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars if we continued fighting and more.

In this thread Kzoofisher stated that he wasnt sure what GLFSA stood for and Fishinlk made 2 comments I take issue with the first is;


fishinlk said:


> Well if your public trust Doctrine is everything you say it is I should be able to go bowfishing for salmon then! wohooo!!!! lol


First it is clear that you have no idea of what the PTD is, but first you are right it is our Michigan PTD. Although every state is compelled to look out for the citizens rights in their state under the Public Trust Doctrine, each state must decide how they will manage it. Like lots of things Lance you twist stuff to fit your conclusions. The Public Trust Doctrine is there to protect the rights of the public against greedy politicians, special interest groups, commercial interest groups from taking or usurping the rights of the public in Michigan. We are where we are in Michigan because our public managers have lost touch with the PTD. 

In Michigan our Fisheries Division states; The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan. The statement is consistent with the PTD, but excluding the use of bait that a vast majority of fishermen use when there is not threat to our resource is not consistent with their mission statement and the PTD.

Most of us welcome people from anywhere to our great state of Michigan, but since the DNR is charged with making rules that protect our resources for all Michigan citizens I do object when people from other states try to influence our DNR to push for special rules especially when those rules take away the rights of Michigan citizens.. I know you used to live here, but when you fish Michigan now you buy a non-resident license.

Outside of that, it is this quote that I really take issue with. You stated


fishinlk said:


> yeah but they're too blinded by their bitterness and self interest to figure that out.


I wont argue the bitterness point because many of us are miffed about the new rules and your opinion that it is bitterness is just that, an opinion. The other attack that we only have self interests is one I am calling you on. Tell me what our self interests are Lance. In what way are we trying to take anything for ourselves. We have no problem sharing our public waters with all fishermen using all legal methods for whatever fish they seek, even people from Ohio. Once you answer my question about our self interest I will answer that same question about you and all the others who support gear restrictions.

I respect that Don is trying to move the ball forward even against what he thinks is fair and I respect the fact that Broncbuster, Toto and other members of GLFSA are standing on principle, the principle that all citizens should have equal access to all our public waters. So Lance, after you explain what our self interest are, give me one good reason we should have any gear restrictions at all?


----------



## broncbuster2

Never... Never, did i say that I would support a compromise.
I stated that it would be a compromise if half reverted back to bait.
out of 183 miles how do you see over half being bait in your proposal?
the original fly water was 100 miles, and they added 83 for the artifical
This new math doedn't add it up for me, or subtract it in this case.
I am done with this.
Either you are with us or not, doesn't matter to me any more, I am doing what i think should be done.


----------



## kzoofisher

> Many people today attack other people personally when they dont have any good reasons, facts or information to defend their position.


I'm sure you weren't including me in that. I asked what the GLFSA believes in, working within the current system or not. Don had the guts to put a proposal out and was attacked for it. I think anybody should be able to put an idea out there and get feedback without being attacked. What are your ideas? Anybody?


----------



## toto

You know, we've talked about the PTD, and other parts of this issue, but one question just occurred to me.

Those of you, who don't know about the PTD this is more directed at you.

What is it about this document that scares you so much??? And as a followup, what if we are correct?? What would you have to say then. I'm not trying to be smart here, but just wondering.


----------



## broncbuster2

I would guess you are refering to me Kzoo

I will tell you why I am calling Don out...


Quote
"I can work with other coldwater leaders again without a disclaimer stating **Danger, I oppose Gear Restrictions** " Endquote


That irritates the heck out of me. 
They should know we oppose Gear Restrictions, and dang well better believe it.

Don is a leader in the GLFSA and knows exactly what is being done. 

If he is so afraid of what others think then he should resign the position.

i would be surprised if other members would back this compromise 


Now, again I am done with this


----------



## kzoofisher

> What is it about this document that scares you so much??? And as a followup, what if we are correct?? What would you have to say then. I'm not trying to be smart here, but just wondering.


The PTD doesn't scare me at all because I think the DNR takes it into account and is not in violation one bit. I don't worry about you being right. What scares me is that one or two term limited legislators will decide to use your ideas to make a big noise leading up to whatever the next race is that they are running. That will be a waste of resources.


----------



## toto

The truth is, Dexter was asked about the PTD when doing these new regs, and his answer was he had never heard of it. Hum!


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> What scares me is that one or two term limited legislators will decide to use your ideas to make a big noise leading up to whatever the next race is that they are running. That will be a waste of resources.


Wasn't when TU was doing it to gain all the fly's only miles. Now it would be a waste of resources? The hypocrisy is astounding.


----------



## kzoofisher

> The truth is, Dexter was asked about the PTD when doing these new regs, and his answer was he had never heard of it. Hum!


Considering that it was kept in the 1994 NREPA, which the DNR operates under, and was hotly debated with the proposal of a bill to extend it to groundwater and privately surrounded surface water in 2009, is it possible that your sarcasm meter was out of calibration? Or if you read that in an interview is it possible that the interviewer failed to get any sarcasm? It seems terribly unlikely that after all the court proceedings involving Nestle, Ice Mountain, the Muskegon and PM, plus the even more recent Kolke Creek and the old Homestead Resort battles that any highly placed DNR employee would be unaware of the PTD.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Wasn't when TU was doing it to gain all the fly's only miles. Now it would be a waste of resources? The hypocrisy is astounding.


I'll repeat it for the umpteenth time. The Senator from Bay City proposed a change that would partially eliminate no-kill regs. TU and others lobbied against the bill and in the negotiations that followed ended up doubling the miles of GR water. Maybe you can try again and we'll end up with 450 miles of no bait but you'll get back 2 miles of the PM.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Maybe, then again, maybe not.


----------



## Roger That

What this debate needs is more Black Panther and less MLK.


----------



## cadillacjethro

My question is a simple one. If, biologically speaking, no appreciable harm would be done by allowing bait, why on earth would TU be against it. It is Trout Unlimited after all, not Fly Fishing Unlimited. TU has done much good work in protecting trout. Apparently, at least according to state biologists, trout don't need protecting from bait fisherpersons. If the fly flinging segment of TU has become the mouthpiece for that great organization, they might want to think about a name change that more accurately describes their intentions.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

METTLEFISH said:


> FishDon, Michigan has NO Anadromous Species, Trout or otherwise.


Mettlefish, you are correct if you use the definition of an anadromous fish that runs from salt water to fresh water. However, the origin of the word (and it's use by those of us within the Great Lakes) is simply that of a fish that runs upstream.

Word Origin & History

anadromous 

of fish ascending a river to spawn (as salmon do), 1753, from Gk. anadromos "running upward," from ana "up, back" + dramein "to run". 
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper


----------



## METTLEFISH

The Downstream Drift said:


> Mettlefish, you are correct if you use the definition of an anadromous fish that runs from salt water to fresh water. However, the origin of the word (and it's use by those of us within the Great Lakes) is simply that of a fish that runs upstream.
> 
> Word Origin & History
> 
> anadromous
> 
> of fish ascending a river to spawn (as salmon do), 1753, from Gk. anadromos "running upward," from ana "up, back" + dramein "to run".
> Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper


The correct term for FISH returning to fresh water from fresh water
is "Potamodomous"


----------



## fishinDon

METTLEFISH said:


> The correct term for FISH returning to fresh water from fresh water
> is "Potamodomous"


I'm aware of the difference, but as downstream pointed out, the terms are pretty much interchangeable here in the Midwest where there's no salt, but plenty of migratory fish. If the order is amended as I proposed, Ill ask for the pot on the front! 

P.S. Thanks for the support Steve!

Don


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## HURONFLY

METTLEFISH said:


> The correct term for FISH returning to fresh water from fresh water
> is "Potamodomous"


 Wrong, it's potamodromous.


----------



## toto

For those of you who don't think TU fights against bait fishing, maybe you should read this link:

http://www.in.gov/nrc/files/Brookville_Public_Meeting.pdf


----------



## METTLEFISH

HURONFLY said:


> Wrong, it's potamodromous.


Obviously the "r" key was missed or not hit hard nuff!... 

What is Potanadromous?.....


----------



## METTLEFISH

toto said:


> For those of you who don't think TU fights against bait fishing, maybe you should read this link:
> 
> http://www.in.gov/nrc/files/Brookville_Public_Meeting.pdf


 
Yup!... I saw a bunch of T.U. insignia on shirts at the Kentucky Derby this weekend on T.V.!... do they realize Michigan has no native Trout(s)


----------



## toto

My point is, read the arguments they had for this deal, do they sound familiar? It seems as though thats their mantra, its the same mantra they used here. Just sayin.......


----------



## The Downstream Drift

METTLEFISH said:


> Yup!... I saw a bunch of T.U. insignia on shirts at the Kentucky Derby this weekend on T.V.!... do they realize Michigan has no native Trout(s)


What about the Coaster Brook Trout? While the lower pennisula brookies are technically not native to our state, the Coasters are.

Also, Michigan TU's mission statement reads: "To conserve, protect and restore Michigan's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds." Nowhere in that statement, or in MITU's strategic plan does it state that the organization is focused only on native species. Coldwater fishery conservation is the main objective. This includes non-native trout and salmon that are now important coldwater species in Michigan.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Char are not Trout, member of the same family though!...


----------



## kzoofisher

It's potadromous.

The only trout native to North America are the Atlantic Salmon and its sub-species.

The Brown Trout were brought to the Pere Maquette specifically to be caught on flies. It is the Rainbows that were propagated as a food source for the poor. This model of resource management has been such a complete failure that it has been rejected completely by every state in the Union.

Can we stick to the topic of Don's proposal and keep our comments polite?


----------



## quest32a

You are all wrong. Its actually "pocahontas"

Seriously a few of you guys would argue 2 and 2 equals 4. 

Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick.


----------



## Roger That

Have you ever heard a wolf cry to a blue corn moon?! Or asked a grinning Bobcat why he grins?!


----------



## METTLEFISH

As long as we all know Char are not Trout and Anadromous fishes are different from Potamodromous fishes!....

Hmmm... I've yet to see a document stating the purpose of bringing the Browns here was to be caught on flies, that would change the whole issue!, did it also say only on Fly Casting gear?

P.S. in January 2010 I heard a Coyote cry to a Wolf Moon!


----------



## Splitshot

fishinlk said:


> Lastly Im still on the Protect the fishery" boat while its improving it doesnt mean that its necessarily hit its potential yet either...... Why shouldnt we all expect the best vs. good enough???


Lance,

I think one area where you and I differ fundamentally is based on your above definition of protect the fishery. You believe that protecting the fishery means improving it to its potential. The Public Trust Doctrine, The MDNR mission statement and my understanding of protect the fishery means maintaining a sustainable fishery. Maintaining them so the most people can obtain the most benefit.

One of the few ways you can manage any trout fishery so fishermen can consistently catch trophy fish is to improve and enhance the habitat and limit the number of people and pressure simply because reduced pressure improves the chances to catch them.

You say you dont want more gear restrictions, but you continue to ignore my premise that gear restrictions discriminate. Restricting bait discriminates because it involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group.

As long as you either show me why keeping bait fishermen from some of our best waters is not prejudicial or provide a material reason why bait threatens our fishery based on hard science we are pretty much at an impasse.

You stated again that you think creel limits and size limits are the key. Every biologist I have talked to disagrees with your premise based on the best science they have available. I know you believe that those trout that die after being released by bait fishermen have a significant impact on the fishery but statistically it means nothing.

Getting rid of all gear restrictions levels out the playing field for all fishermen and if in the future the experts (DNR Biologist) decide we need to reduce creel limits, do it so it is fair for everyone.
. 



fishinlk said:


> * What do I see as the self interest of those that are fighting for the complete abolishment of gear restrictions? *
> 
> I see those that want to do what they want, where they want regardless of anything else. They dont care about anyone but themselves but paint it as a picture that they are doing this for everyone else.


What I want is to be just like you Lance. I want to be able to fish the legal way I want to fish on all the water you have available to you to fish. I say again, once we reach that point, it will be much easier to find compromises to work together to make our trout fishery better and better.

There are thousands of people like me that have given much to improve our trout fishery. Think of how we feel when after all our efforts we are told we can no longer fish them because some people dont think we are entitled. Saying that I can fish those sections if I fish the way you want me to fish doesnt cut it and I hope you dont pretend that it is the same thing because I am really tired of being insulted.



kzoofisher said:


> Splitshot,
> You asked my reason for supporting gear restrictions. They are probably pretty similar to yours and certainly similar to Toto's though I'm not as hard line as he is:


Kzoofisher, 

If you support them, your reasons are not even close to mine, because it is pretty clear I dont support any gear restrictions. Gear restrictions provide opportunities for fly fishermen not provided for bait fishermen on public waters owned by all citizens.

If you want to discuss issues like spearing and bow-fishing for salmon start another thread and Im not surprised people are breaking the law on the Big South and many other rivers. As far as the bio-mass I was told by a reliable source they have been dumping leaves somewhere in the headwaters for a few years now. That is hearsay as I have never seen anyone actually do it. The point about Mr. Dexter I thought I cleared up since I asked and he answered the question about the PTD, no PR there.

Still looking for one good reason we should not allow bait on any trout stream? By the way Blanchard was the first governor in recent times to politicize the DNR and each governor since has added to their demise. 



centerpin said:


> The only thing that is silly splitshot is that the idea of working together is somehow twisted into something evil. Its not evil its what this country was founded on and if that bothers you then take a number because right now its one hell of a long line.
> 
> I take the long view, that is why I support what don is doing even though I disagree with some details. I would rather change something closer to something I want then get nothing, perhaps that's just the optimist in me.
> 
> Wars are not won anymore with this "us vs them" attitude culminating in one epic battle deciding all. Dont belive me? Go visit a place called Washington DC.


Centerpin,

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet un-equivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Your statement; the idea of working together is somehow twisted into something evil. is something I never said so your description of me is disingenuous and dishonest to say the least.

If you want to attack my argument, I dont mind but the personal attacks are usually come from people who have taken a position they cannot logically defend like, gear restrictions are a good thing, but cant explain why they are a good thing.. So if you have one good reason for gear restrictions, please tell me what the reasons is, Ill be waiting.

As far as Dons idea, it is a step in the right direction for sure and is better than what currently exists. Since I have watched and listened to some of the individuals for over 30 years try to justify the first 100 miles I am pretty sure this compromise wont go far. Most fly fishermen I know like flies only, but realize they are unfair. Some other fly fishermen do not care if they are unfair and will take whatever steps they can to maintain the status quo.


----------



## toto

Ray, good post and pretty much spot on, with one exception, the act of compromise isn't in my vocabulary on this issue. You stated its a good start, or something to that effect, but why is it? Either the PTD is correct, and our interpretation of it is correct, as well as others more knowledgable than I on this subject; how could I possibly go back to a compromise? Just sayin.........go ahead let the bashing begin.

BTW, if TU has to back off some things in Montana on stream access, due in part to the PTD, than it tells me that there is some relevance to what I speak.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Splitshot said:


> Kzoofisher,
> 
> As far as the bio-mass I was told by a reliable source they have been dumping leaves somewhere in the headwaters for a few years now. That is hearsay as I have never seen anyone actually do it. The point about Mr. Dexter I thought I cleared up since I asked and he answered the question about the PTD, no PR there.


If the DNR & DEQ would enforce the wetland & scenic waterways laws there would be no need to enhance. "Urbanization" to quote Dr. Hal Schraam is the problem, green belts along all waterways and bodies are needed DESPERATELY, that alone would enhance the Trout fishery by great measures, I heard it somewhere else...FERTILITY!


----------



## kzoofisher

> If you support them, your reasons are not even close to mine, because it is pretty clear I dont support any gear restrictions. Gear restrictions provide opportunities for fly fishermen not provided for bait fishermen on public waters owned by all citizens.


 I disagree that you don't support gear restrictions, I will say that you don't support bait restrictions. If you go to page 8 post 112 of the Public Trust Doctrine thread you will see my fairly long back and forth with Don on the subject. Because neither Don nor I post as often as some the conversation goes on for a few pages, but I will specifically point out post 161 for an explanation of my views and my perception of your views and the GLFSA's. It also answers your final question to me.



> As far as the bio-mass I was told by a reliable source they have been dumping leaves somewhere in the headwaters for a few years now. That is hearsay as I have never seen anyone actually do it. The point about Mr. Dexter I thought I cleared up since I asked and he answered the question about the PTD, no PR there.


 This is another example of a completely unsupported claim that is later clarified but without any actual evidence. You don't need evidence though, because the idea has already been put out there and people will remember the original claim and not the clarification. This is an old trick in the media, run the headline and worry about a retraction later because nobody ever remembers the retraction. A great example is John McCain's illegitimate child in South Carolina. No proof was ever offered and the story was apologized for later. McCain went from leading in the polls to second and went on to lose the nomination to George W. Bush. Was it a dirty trick or just sloppy reporting? Does it matter? I'm sure you can think of many examples where someone was demonized with an incorrect story and never regained their good name despite later "corrections".


----------



## centerpin

Call my spartan metaphors silly all you want splitshot... its true, work together or fall.I understand its not as expertly crafted as your scarecrow reply and that's fine.

I just feel that its pointless to approach this as some sort of battle amongst fisherman and I am sick of the atmosphere and rhetoric. If this come across is some of my posts then so be it. It seems that some out there really enjoy beating drums and shouting.

I am willing to compromise in the place of nothing changing and if that's a bad thing then so be it. So yes I am for single hook barbless only regulations in the flies only water if that's all I can get. Its a step in the right direction.


----------



## fishinlk

Ray,



> The Public Trust Doctrine, The MDNR mission statement and my understanding of protect the fishery means maintaining a sustainable fishery. Maintaining them so the most people can obtain the most benefit.


 I agree with a sustainable fishery. I just beleive in some instances that it can be maintained at a higher level than what is currently being done. Hence the creel regs. I don't agree with the premise you are applying that reduced pressure is necassary. I've fished PA tribs that are smaller water without benefit of wood and deep pockets that see so many fisherman that it will make your head spin. And you know what? You can catch still nice fish there because they apply trophy trout regs on them. The fish are educated but catchable. They are artificials only, not fly only. The argument that artificials still discriminates doesn't hold much water with me. Almost EVERYONE still has some spinners or spoons in there box and they cost less than a dozen worms.  Oh and BTW if you look above again I said I was fine with bait in the replealed areas, as long as the creel restrictions remained intact. 



> I know you believe that those trout that die after being released by bait fishermen have a significant impact on the fishery but statistically it means nothing.


 Actually that is not even remotely true. Overall the mortality higher but I'm not feeling that to be the truth at all. You're painting it with an awful wide brush.

If I remember correctly over the years I've seen an awful lot of fish pics from pitching any variety of methods. To paint the idea of a artificials only(not fly only) water with being discriminatory and not letting other fish as well is a tough one to swallow. 




> You stated again that you think creel limits and size limits are the key. Every biologist I have talked to disagrees with your premise based on the best science they have available. .


 Really?? This is one of the fastest spreading tools being employed by wildlife managment departments across the country and it's being employed well beyond the trout streams with outstanding success in fresh and saltwater alike. Federal and state level alike. It's being credited with being coupled to habitat improvement and the complete restoration of fisheries ranging from trout to bass to redfish. No gear restrictions involved, just things like slot limits, single trophy fish or sometimes anything _under _a certain size.

Let's see some sustbstantiated documentation that speaks to that one. If you can come up with multiple credible sources I'll listen. Right now the numbers are overwhelming the other way.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Why are there G.R. waters in Michigan? - Trout do not do well where they do not belong! If the Regs. are to induce larger Trout, why allow one method and not another, that still allows fish of all legal sizes to be taken. The "chosen" method would lend itself towards higher ''take" rates, as "flies" (in the eyes of fly Angler) are a more natural food source for them, and therefore the "only" way to fish them. Descrimination in this instance is blatant! 

Why has this been allowed to prevail in this State, in our fishery! Science proves the best way to grow more & bigger fish is slot limits, I'm not surprised our Biologists are behind the eight ball on this... they'll figure out a better way!... and until then they'll stick with archaic methods of fish management, they've proven this again and again. 

KZoo stated yesterday the Browns were brought here to be caught "with flies"... again another mis-leading statement!, where's the support for the statement?... I suppose the Seaforrelins were also planted to provide a "flies only" Angling experience!

Perhaps a show of force from the non - supporters would be effective, lets all have a meet and greet in the flies only waters, however every one fish with spinning/casting or cane poles for that matter, that would bring some attention the the issue for sure! Anyone in?

P.S. I've heard Grayling take dry flies readily... sure wish we had some of those here in Michigan!


----------



## Steve

> The argument that artificials still discriminates doesn't hold much water with me. Almost EVERYONE still has some spinners or spoons in there box and they cost less than a dozen worms. Oh and BTW if you look above again I said I was fine with bait in the replealed areas, as long as the creel restrictions remained intact.


Took the words right out of my mouth. Anybody who uses bait with a spinning reel and rod can use spinners and spoons and it might even cost less than the bait depending on how many snags you get. I find the use of the word discriminates in this case nonsensical. Too many people on both side of this debate want zero compromise and that is the heart of the issue.


----------



## Shoeman

Steve said:


> Took the words right out of my mouth. Anybody who uses bait with a spinning reel and rod can use spinners and spoons and it might even cost less than the bait depending on how many snags you get. I find the use of the word discriminates in this case nonsensical. Too many people on both side of this debate want zero compromise and that is the heart of the issue.


That was always the root of my argument. I can see the flies only water, but if the DNR wants certain sections to be "artificials only" I don't see the discrimination. Again, look at the section below the power line in Mio. Some of the biggest browns (25" and up) are caught each year. And talk about marginal water. Below the dam I've seen temps approaching the 90's, yet there's enough thermal refuges to allow the fish to thrive.

Even in the 70's it was designated. (may have been late 70's)

It never crossed the social science boundaries, but NO BAIT! We lived with it... Same rod, same line, just artificials. 

I can see where the PM, Upper Man and the Indian Club on the Little causes issues with the Flies Only designation, but to make these stretches a free-for-all soaking crawlers... Come on!

Throw your cranks and spinners and bring a bug rod. You might surprise yourself and like it 

I see all the posts bitching about the ghetto anglers fishing below the weir and at Indian Bridge. Does anyone really want all these gems filled with rope enough to tow a 30' boat, or are some sections sacred and provide a sanctuary without guys lining the banks using spark plugs for ground tackle?

To continually use the "we want to use bait" is really narrow-minded and anything less a compromise. It will never happen and not the much emphasized social science, just a more active fishing style that protects the resource. (not that I advocate a gang of treble hooks). I've seen what they do to fish in the hands of many!


----------



## METTLEFISH

HMMM.... Sacred and protect! These fish are put here/there to take. How on Gods green Earth could the term sacred ever come into play? If the fish are not plentiful enough or of a disired size to pursue, iether plant more and impose a slot or completely stop the angling pressure! If the use of the word discriminate does not seem proper, perhaps your on the side of the desired designated privileged few this practice provides recreation for, how this has not been stopped by the Court I do not understand!

If you truly want trophy Trout and the experience it brings... go to where the Trout are native, they have great choice of surroundings... perhaps that's why they did not choose Michigan to live in.....


----------



## Steve

Shoeman said:


> That was always the root of my argument. I can see the flies only water, but if the DNR wants certain sections to be "artificials only" I don't see the discrimination. Again, look at the section below the power line in Mio. Some of the biggest browns (25" and up) are caught each year. And talk about marginal water. Below the dam I've seen temps approaching the 90's, yet there's enough thermal refuges to allow the fish to thrive.
> 
> Even in the 70's it was designated. (may have been late 70's)
> 
> It never crossed the social science boundaries, but NO BAIT! We lived with it... Same rod, same line, just artificials.
> 
> I can see where the PM, Upper Man and the Indian Club on the Little causes issues with the Flies Only designation, but to make these stretches a free-for-all soaking crawlers... Come on!
> 
> Throw your cranks and spinners and bring a bug rod. You might surprise yourself and like it
> 
> I see all the posts bitching about the ghetto anglers fishing below the weir and at Indian Bridge. Does anyone really want all these gems filled with rope enough to tow a 30' boat, or are some sections sacred and provide a sanctuary without guys lining the banks using spark plugs for ground tackle?
> 
> To continually use the "we want to use bait" is really narrow-minded and anything less a compromise. It will never happen and not the much emphasized social science, just a more active fishing style that protects the resource. (not that I advocate a gang of treble hooks). I've seen what they do to fish in the hands of many!


Yeap and I forgot that if you are fishing bait with a fancy bobber and lose both to the river gods it most likely equals the price of a panther martin. There is no discrimination with this compromise. Everyone who fishes bait can also fish a spoon or crank unless you tell me you are fishing without a reel (i.e. bamboo pole).


----------



## michigan made

Shoeman said:


> That was always the root of my argument. I can see the flies only water, but if the DNR wants certain sections to be "artificials only" I don't see the discrimination. Again, look at the section below the power line in Mio. Some of the biggest browns (25" and up) are caught each year. And talk about marginal water. Below the dam I've seen temps approaching the 90's, yet there's enough thermal refuges to allow the fish to thrive.
> 
> Even in the 70's it was designated. (may have been late 70's)
> 
> It never crossed the social science boundaries, but NO BAIT! We lived with it... Same rod, same line, just artificials.
> 
> I can see where the PM, Upper Man and the Indian Club on the Little causes issues with the Flies Only designation, but to make these stretches a free-for-all soaking crawlers... Come on!
> 
> Throw your cranks and spinners and bring a bug rod. You might surprise yourself and like it
> 
> I see all the posts bitching about the ghetto anglers fishing below the weir and at Indian Bridge. Does anyone really want all these gems filled with rope enough to tow a 30' boat, or are some sections sacred and provide a sanctuary without guys lining the banks using spark plugs for ground tackle?
> 
> To continually use the "we want to use bait" is really narrow-minded and anything less a compromise. It will never happen and not the much emphasized social science, just a more active fishing style that protects the resource. (not that I advocate a gang of treble hooks). I've seen what they do to fish in the hands of many!


 


It would be a sad day to see people lining the banks of the Holy Waters.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of the G.R. waters is?


----------



## troutguy26

I think ive came to the conclusion after reading so many pages about this topic for awhile now that no matter what, even with a compromise, that bait fisherman will still be looked at as treble hook throwing snaggers in some eyes. Even tho some of those same eyes have no problem throwing their flies at fish on redds and flossing or flat out snagging in these prize protected waters. Im not directing this at anyone either. Sure the local yahoos go below dams and under the cover of night and snag. The same goes on in the flies only sections except the fact that those fish get a pic taken then released. Wheres the difference? I strongly beleive there will always be a seperation of anglers no matter what and thats just how its gonna go based on mentality. With that said i revoke any thoughts, actions, or anything i said toward a compromise. No compromise. Im out and kinda sad i almost thought maybe one day everyone could play together nicely.


----------



## Shoeman

Some of you guys really need to get past the flysnagging argument that is continually brought up. YES it does take place and mostly on the PM, but what about the rest of the GR waters?

Try that on the upper Man...LOL. You won't catch a thing! Same in the Holy Waters. You can't force feed those fish!

Let's not bring trout fishing back to the stone age do to an urge to fish bait!

There's been too much talk about gear restrictions, but what's the difference between traditional tackle and a lure? No discrimination there, just a different method. Same delivery, no flyrod needed! Just loose the worms!

That's why I don't understand why the resistance to a compromise? You won't get it all :gaga: Those days are gone!


----------



## troutguy26

Well i think if some get their way we'd be able to add more than the pm to the list. Just sayin'.


----------



## troutguy26

And what is with this worm hatred? Would it be better if i fished leeches or a crawdad under a float? I honestly do not get it.


----------



## METTLEFISH

michigan made said:


> It would be a sad day to see people lining the banks of the Holy Waters.


Would those be the same "Holy Waters" that held no Trout til about 100 years ago?


----------



## fishinlk

Dude, you need to get over the whole thing that trout weren't here 100 years ago! lol As much as it sucks the Grayling are forever gone. They tried to bring them back years ago and they just didn't take I don't know that they would take if you completely poisoned out the river and took out all competition at this point. For all intent and purpose trout are now the fish of record for these waters and should be treated as such. Oh and the Char. 


As for the worm hatred the real problem is that not all baitfisherman are created equally, there are some that are very skilled and could probably lip hook trout on worms 99 out of 100 times. Then there are others that don't have a clue that there is a fish on until the worm is half way down the gullet on better than 50% of the fish they catch. Those are the ones that really skew the mortality rates against baitfishing and result in a lot of the negativity on bait. I won't get on the litter stereotyping because I've seen pigs out there with all gear...


----------



## michigan made

i think it all boils down to being better off safe than sorry. sorry worm guys.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I see more kids and old men than pricks. Put keep telling yourself its for the pricks while you screw the other two. Any of you fly guys know what it costs to fund a day spinner fishing? If your lucky $15, more often than not $25 plus. How many of you had that money to be able to fund that growing up? I have 3 boys that love to fish, and yes they used to fish the now special regulated waters of the PM with me. You think about what that costs me to fish it now. All because someone wants bigger fish? You don't think there are other kids out there that live around these gear restricted waters that can't afford all this gear? Who gives a crap though when we can run across the country in our 4 wheel drives, fishing the flats in Florida in winter and the holy water in summer. I doubt 1/4 of you could do that as a youth. Something about humans after the age of 35, they become self righteous pricks and forget what youth was all about. Hope you all choke on your cigars.


----------



## METTLEFISH

That's right... Trout are not native!.... these waters are not conducive to them though they are for the Char and maybe if we could get the Biologists to get a Grayling from a geograpically similar area we could have them again, I would much rather see them than the Trout, especially when I look at the Discrimination that is being afforded certain groups that pursue them! (in such a purist way)

A dead fish is a dead fish, do they taste better when fly caught? People catch many types of fishes on crawlers in many places, why not protect those fish as well!


----------



## thousandcasts

michigan made said:


> i think it all boils down to being better off safe than sorry. sorry worm guys.


What...dude, you're from Hillsdale. The only fly fishing there is a rubber spider and a torpedo bobber for blue gills in the powerhouse cove. But hey, we'll go 50/50. There's six ponds at Lewis Emery--spider guys get two, bass guys get two, worm guys get two. Since there's only carp across the road in the marrow pits, that's corn only water. Sound fair? :lol:

I was born and raised there, so just saw where your location was and had to kid around. :lol:


----------



## michigan made

Ranger Ray said:


> I see more kids and old men than pricks. Put keep telling yourself its for the pricks while you screw the other two. Any of you fly guys know what it costs to fund a day spinner fishing? If your lucky $15, more often than not $25 plus. How many of you had that money to be able to fund that growing up? I have 3 boys that love to fish, and yes they used to fish the now special regulated waters of the PM with me. You think about what that costs me to fish it now. All because someone wants bigger fish? You don't think there are other kids out there that live around these gear restricted waters that can't afford all this gear? Who gives a crap though when we can run across the country in our 4 wheel drives, fishing the flats in Florida in winter and the holly water in summer. I doubt 1/4 of you could do that as a youth. Something about humans after the age of 35, they become self righteous pricks and forget what youth was all about. Hope you all choke on your cigars.


 
i am 22 years old, married, have an 18 month old daughter and make under 35 a year, that being said... fly fishing means enough to me for me to be able to figure out a way to go. the point is that this resource will be there when my daughter grows up . and thats not to get sympathy by the way. i love my sport and i try my best to protect it


----------



## Ranger Ray

michigan made said:


> i am 22 years old, married, have an 18 month old daughter and make under 35 a year, that being said... fly fishing means enough to me for me to be able to figure out a way to go. the point is that this resource will be there when my daughter grows up .


Good for you. Fly fishing doesn't mean as much to me, bait fishing does. What makes you think you deserve special treatment? The fisheries have survived up till today, you are going to have a hard time convincing me for some reason the fisheries today are all of a sudden endangered.


----------



## michigan made

thousandcasts said:


> What...dude, you're from Hillsdale. The only fly fishing there is a rubber spider and a torpedo bobber for blue gills in the powerhouse cove. But hey, we'll go 50/50. There's six ponds at Lewis Emery--spider guys get two, bass guys get two, worm guys get two. Since there's only carp across the road in the marrow pits, that's corn only water. Sound fair? :lol:
> 
> I was born and raised there, so just saw where your location was and had to kid around. :lol:


 
yep i was raised in adrian actually but still the same general area. and yes i will be at baw beese later to cash in on the gills. but after spending the last 2 weekends in grayling and mio fishing, its becoming even more clear that its time to move up north. i could flyfish every day of my existance and not get sick of it. i cant wait to go back up again soon. we have a trip to crystal mountain next month so i want to stop and do a day of fishing on the way back and try to talk the wife into letting us move. GOOD TO HEAR FROM A SOUTHERN MI FLYFISHER THO!!!


----------



## METTLEFISH

ranger ray said:


> i see more kids and old men than pricks. Put keep telling yourself its for the pricks while you screw the other two. Any of you fly guys know what it costs to fund a day spinner fishing? If your lucky $15, more often than not $25 plus. How many of you had that money to be able to fund that growing up? I have 3 boys that love to fish, and yes they used to fish the now special regulated waters of the pm with me. You think about what that costs me to fish it now. All because someone wants bigger fish? You don't think there are other kids out there that live around these gear restricted waters that can't afford all this gear? Who gives a crap though when we can run across the country in our 4 wheel drives, fishing the flats in florida in winter and the holly water in summer. I doubt 1/4 of you could do that as a youth. Something about humans after the age of 35, they become self righteous pricks and forget what youth was all about. Hope you all choke on your cigars.


applause!!!


----------



## michigan made

Ranger Ray said:


> Good for you. Fly fishing doesn't mean as much to me, bait fishing does. What makes you think you deserve special treatment?


 


Because ive never seen a flyfisherman act the way the idiots at tippy do. unless its early a.m. at rusty gates and the bloody mary's are flowing. haha. no honestly sir its about keeping a sport alive and if people have to deal with people flyin down the river tossin worms everywhere then they just wont come anymore and our great trout fisheries will be in danger.


----------



## thousandcasts

michigan made said:


> yep i was raised in adrian actually but still the same general area. and yes i will be at baw beese later to cash in on the gills. but after spending the last 2 weekends in grayling and mio fishing, its becoming even more clear that its time to move up north. i could flyfish every day of my existance and not get sick of it. i cant wait to go back up again soon. we have a trip to crystal mountain next month so i want to stop and do a day of fishing on the way back and try to talk the wife into letting us move. GOOD TO HEAR FROM A SOUTHERN MI FLYFISHER THO!!!


I moved up here about 12 years ago, but I'm a salmon/steelhead guy so I fall into the category of evil spawn fisherman. My fly fishing is when I'm out fishing, I hit something and then fly out of my boat. At that point, it ceases to be fishing and instead becomes something called swimming. :lol:


----------



## METTLEFISH

michigan made said:


> Because ive never seen a flyfisherman act the way the idiots at tippy do. unless its early a.m. at rusty gates and the bloody mary's are flowing. haha. no honestly sir its about keeping a sport alive and if people have to deal with people flyin down the river tossin worms everywhere then they just wont come anymore and our great trout fisheries will be in danger.


FYI those "great Trout fisheries" are in danger, that's why they MUST BE PLANTED in order to maintain a quantity of fish that keeps people fishing.( yes there is natural production) Why should the license buying public be forced to keep ''your" sport alive!. It's an archaic method utilizing a cable that deadens the feel of the fish, gearfisherman do it right... on gossamar strands... no cables.


----------



## michigan made

thousandcasts said:


> I moved up here about 12 years ago, but I'm a salmon/steelhead guy so I fall into the category of evil spawn fisherman. My fly fishing is when I'm out fishing, I hit something and then fly out of my boat. At that point, it ceases to be fishing and instead becomes something called swimming. :lol:


 
hey no disrespect to the spawn guys. i go up to tippy dam just about every year. i just see that there needs to be reserved water for the people like me who want to kick it old school and fish with bugs. there is plenty of water to fish steelies, salmon, and lake trout in that doesnt encroach on fly guys territory. i hope i get to move up there. i love this state but sothern michigan is such a drag.


----------



## Roger That

michigan made said:


> i am 22 years old, married, have an 18 month old daughter and make under 35 a year, that being said... fly fishing means enough to me for me to be able to figure out a way to go. the point is that this resource will be there when my daughter grows up . and thats not to get sympathy by the way. i love my sport and i try my best to protect it


The worst part is that when she grows up she'll probably be a brook trout , steelhead hen killing sinner. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## michigan made

and my last thought on this is that i have NEVER EVER kept a trout that i've hooked from the au sable. dont even know what brook trout tastes like. anyone who fly fishes understands the "magic". it sounds corny i know but it speaks to my soul


----------



## Ranger Ray

michigan made said:


> i just see that there needs to be reserved water for the people like me who want to kick it old school and fish with bugs.


I thought it was to save the fishery? Don't worry, by the time your 50, you will forget you ever made that statement. For the Fishery! And the crowd roared.


----------



## Roger That

michigan made said:


> and my last thought on this is that i have NEVER EVER kept a trout that i've hooked from the au sable. dont even know what brook trout tastes like. anyone who fly fishes understands the "magic". it sounds corny i know but it speaks to my soul


Lol, this is classic!!! As a non fly fisher person I am sure I am not capable of understanding the "magic"... And for the record, I ate brook trout yesterday and it was delicious!! You're missing out!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Roger That

I will admit that in " A River Runs Through It" watching Brad Pitt cast atop of rock aroused me slightly... This the magic you referred to?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## thousandcasts

michigan made said:


> hey no disrespect to the spawn guys. i go up to tippy dam just about every year. i just see that there needs to be reserved water for the people like me who want to kick it old school and fish with bugs. there is plenty of water to fish steelies, salmon, and lake trout in that doesnt encroach on fly guys territory. i hope i get to move up there. i love this state but sothern michigan is such a drag.


I don't have a problem with the current bug water on the upper Big M or upper Au Sable. It's been there for decades so it has some history. What I have a problem with is adding more in places where salmon and steelhead make up the bulk of the fishery OR places where studies have shown that bait fishing/angler mortality is not having any negative effect on the trout populations. 

There's definitely an allure or special place for certain flies only waters...key phrase being "certain flies only waters" -- I get that and don't have a problem with it. Where I have a problem is when he/she/it/they/whatever tries to push more of it down the trout guys' throats and the science and biologists can clearly prove it's not needed.

"Magic" is everywhere--it's not just something that's related to having a fly rod in your hand. Even bait guys can feel the magic in certain things. Lord knows I do. If I didn't--then put me in the box. Once I don't get excited over a king crunching a crank bait or seeing one of my hand made bobbers shoot under the surface, I'm sure not going to find that magic in stamp collecting or anything else!


----------



## troutguy26

Ranger, you said my point exactly. The phrase take a kid fishing jumps into my mind. 

Michigan made, you need to move north. Then you can expereince the real flies only waters. They are not the best around or the prettiest around for ethics and ettiquite. You wanna see the tippy of the fly world? Go to the pm, lets put it mid fall, salmon all over. Guys with thousand dollar set ups with snagged fish high fiveing and taking pics. But us bait guys dont get to see that so that is a stolen story from a very reliable source who fishes it. Or hopefully used to . You know who you are. 

Hutch, i like your new style of fly fishing lol lol lol.


----------



## swampbuck

sparkplug sinkers, holy waters lined with bank fishermen, people flying down the river tossing worms everywhere........What a bunch of hyperbolic elitist B.S.

I changed my mind....You can not compromise with that mentality. It would be nice if the holy waters/mason tract bait fishermen could do it in the daylight for a change.


----------



## toto

Someone said that fly fishing speaks to your soul, thats fine, but you also have the other 11,788 miles of trout streams to use as well, so I quess you only get that thrill up your leg in the gear restricted waters? Interesting.

Look this isn't about what I want, or the others, this is about whats equality actually. We all pay for this resource, we all should be able to use it equally, if you don't get that, you would basically have bigot tendencies. Just sayin.....


----------



## broncbuster2

Just hold your britches up for a bit more swamper....

They are comming to an end very soon.

Wanna roll a worm down the holy waters with me and a few friends?

Trust me ....It IS going to happen, Soon......
Then I will stand on the highest mountain, and yell to all of those that thought it wouldn't happen....



I told you SO


----------



## Splitshot

If you believe something strongly enough or think that if you repeat something enough times it becomes truth, why not just accept the consensus and do away with dictionaries!. 

The definition of discrimination is listed below:

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group.

If I am excluded from fishing the legal way I want to fish I dont know how you can argue it is not discrimination.



Shoeman said:


> That was always the root of my argument. I can see the flies only water, but if the DNR wants certain sections to be "artificials only" I don't see the discrimination.


So flies only is discrimination but not artificial lures only? I having a difficult time rationalizing that one Ralf. By the way it is not accurate to say the DNR wants certain areas to be artificial lures only, they did so because of politics and lobbying mainly by fly fishing organizations including TU.



Shoeman said:


> There's been too much talk about gear restrictions, but what's the difference between traditional tackle and a lure? No discrimination there, just a different method. Same delivery, no flyrod needed! Just loose the worms!
> 
> That's why I don't understand why the resistance to a compromise? You won't get it all :gaga: Those days are gone!


Ralf, 

As a fly fisherman you currently have it all and no matter how many times you guys say we want it all, it still wont be true. Fly fishermen currently can fish all waters in addition to about 20% or the prime waters the DNR defines as Blue Ribbon Waters The biologist stated over and over again it the public report they submitted to Kelly Smith that in the waters where they had data for sport fishing had no noticeable effect on the fishery. It is on the DNR web-site. If you cant find it, call Jim Dexter or any of the biologist who worked on the report and they will verify what I am saying. 

Claiming you just want to protect the fishery is a belief not based on the facts. We dont have any problem sharing our waters with any legal fishermen or other people that use our public waters including people that enjoy canoeing. 

We dont want it all, we just want the same right to fish the way we choose on all waters just like you do. It is you guys who want special privileges on the best trout waters in our state and are trying to twist change the discussion by insinuating that we are somehow greedy and that we are somehow infringing on your rights.

Perhaps the reasons you are against bait can be seen in these statements.


Shoeman said:


> Let's not bring trout fishing back to the stone age do to an urge to fish bait!





Shoeman said:


> It never crossed the social science boundaries, but NO BAIT! We lived with it... Same rod, same line, just artificials.
> 
> I can see where the PM, Upper Man and the Indian Club on the Little causes issues with the Flies Only designation, but to make these stretches a free-for-all soaking crawlers... Come on!....
> 
> Throw your cranks and spinners and bring a bug rod. You might surprise yourself and like it
> 
> . Does anyone really want all these gems filled with rope enough to tow a 30' boat, or are some sections sacred and provide a sanctuary without guys lining the banks using spark plugs for ground tackle?
> 
> To continually use the "we want to use bait" is really narrow-minded and anything less a compromise.


It is clear to see how your attitude has changed about bait fishing in the last few years and I wont explain why since your words speak for themselves.



Steve said:


> Yeap and I forgot that if you are fishing bait with a fancy bobber and lose both to the river gods it most likely equals the price of a panther martin. There is no discrimination with this compromise. Everyone who fishes bait can also fish a spoon or crank unless you tell me you are fishing without a reel (i.e. bamboo pole).


Although I am not surprised at the little dig Steve, I am a little disappointed. I also dont really know how that statement fits into the discussion unless you are trying to belittle me. I remember a time when I took you fishing and you took my advice and landed the biggest brown trout of your life fishing a crawler and by the look on your face it appeared you were extremely pleased. (I still have some pictures) 

Since I consider myself an accomplished fly fishermen, lure fisherman and bait fisherman I know there are times when lures and flies wont catch many fish and since I go fishing to catch fish, I want the choice to use the best legal technique available to me to catch them. 

None of us want any thing for ourselves nor do we want any special privileges, we just want all fishermen, women and kids to have the same opportunities that fly fishermen have. However if any of you have a good reason I should not enjoy the same privileges as you have, I am willing to listen.


----------



## troutguy26

Bronc when the day comes crow will be the dish served i think and i will buy all the beer you boys can drink. Ya know im a gambler and play the lottos every week. Some say ya when i win im gettin a new car or new house or etc. Ive said it from day one i got involved into this issue that if i ever win there will be that court case. Heck i might even buy off a senator or two. Maybe start up a local chapter of Worms Unlimited.


----------



## broncbuster2

I could be wrong, but I don't think we will need a court case,
sorry I don't drink beer, but might have some of miss mable's Sweet tea, 
maybe even a double...

Just cause she thinks my tractor's sexxy......


----------



## Shoeman

I don't see the big deal, Ray

So you can't use bait... I realize that flies only would put a burr under your saddle, but now all bait restrictions? 

How does that discriminate? You can still fish it without a flyrod. Nothing social there. 

So a neutral/negative fish has to be waited out. We don't need to catch them all.


----------



## thousandcasts

I wish I could say that I care about what kind of resource my children will have, but...I can't. Not right now. Those two have my DNA, so my biggest concern is getting them to adulthood in one piece. Which is day by day...or hour by hour depending on the day. They're 8...if they get to nine, I'll be one step closer.

Case in point. Last night, my son...the one I share a name with ironically enough, decides to go digging around his mother's purse. He's been told 100 times to stay out of our stuff. He finds the small can of pepper spray. He thinks it's cologne. 20 minutes of hideous screaming later, poison control says to rub Maalox on his skin and that will help. Meanwhile, the house is filled with pepper spray and his brother is yelling at him for being an idiot and his mother and I are clawing our eyes out while opening windows and trying to find the number to even call poison control. 

That was Monday...there's still the rest of this week yet. Right now, they can go catch chubs when they're 18, for all I care...just as long as they actually get to 18. :lol:


----------



## Steve

> Although I am not surprised at the little dig Steve, I am a little disappointed. I also dont really know how that statement fits into the discussion unless you are trying to belittle me. I remember a time when I took you fishing and you took my advice and landed the biggest brown trout of your life fishing a crawler and by the look on your face it appeared you were extremely pleased. (I still have some pictures)


And I still fish that way where it is legal and hope to do so in the future, so I know how much those bobbers cost. It was not a dig at you, I was trying to prove the point that making some of the flys only waters artificials only would open these waters up to many more fishermen and it wouldn't cost them a dime more than they pay today for tackle. Sorry if it got taken the wrong way.


----------



## fishinlk

> Any of you fly guys know what it costs to fund a day spinner fishing? If your lucky $15, more often than not $25 plus.


 Well as a matter of fact I do. On occasion I will break out the ultra light and spinners and have at it. On a bad outing I may lose two but most of the time I come home with what I took with me. I don't like loosing them so I'll work to get them back. 

As far as what I could afford when I was a kid? Beleive me not much.... I saved my money for a $9 Berkly Lime Rod and a $4 Martin reel. I tied flies on my dads little hobby desk vice with sewing thread and feathers I found, and as I could save up money I'd buy an occasional packet of feathers. And I managed to catch plent of panfish as well as enough trout to keep me interested. So I appreciate a lack of money and being young.



> *Mettlefish said...* That's right... Trout are not native!.... these waters are not conducive to them though they are for the Char and maybe if we could get the Biologists to get a Grayling from a geograpically similar area we could have them again, I would much rather see them than the Trout, especially when I look at the Discrimination that is being afforded certain groups that pursue them! *AND * FYI those "great Trout fisheries" are in danger, that's why they MUST BE PLANTED in order to maintain a quantity of fish that keeps people fishing.( yes there is natural production)


 Really? You honestly crack me up! Trout thrive in the Au Sable as well as most of these waters. And no the Upper Ausable and the tribs are NOT stocked. They are 100% self sustaining wild fish.

I do appreciate an occaisional trout. I have no problem with people keeping "some" fish. I just don't subscribe to the theory of those that always try to go home with a limit. I know guys that try to do it every time they go out up there. Then they wonder why they aren't catching as many keepers after 2 weeks in camp. :help:


----------



## METTLEFISH

fishinlk said:


> Well as a matter of fact I do. On occasion I will break out the ultra light and spinners and have at it. On a bad outing I may lose two but most of the time I come home with what I took with me. I don't like loosing them so I'll work to get them back.
> 
> As far as what I could afford when I was a kid? Beleive me not much.... I saved my money for a $9 Berkly Lime Rod and a $4 Martin reel. I tied flies on my dads little hobby desk vice with sewing thread and feathers I found, and as I could save up money I'd buy an occasional packet of feathers. And I managed to catch plent of panfish as well as enough trout to keep me interested. So I appreciate a lack of money and being young.
> Really? You honestly crack me up! Trout thrive in the Au Sable as well as most of these waters. And no the Upper Ausable and the tribs are NOT stocked. They are 100% self sustaining wild fish.
> 
> I do appreciate an occaisional trout. I have no problem with people keeping "some" fish. I just don't subscribe to the theory of those that always try to go home with a limit. I know guys that try to do it every time they go out up there. Then they wonder why they aren't catching as many keepers after 2 weeks in camp. :help:


Yes, I am aware of those waters, and I am aware of the natural production -as stated, .... Carp reproduce naturally here too! I can go to White Birch Lodge and fish all I want. The real issue is the discrmination. I asked in a previous post in this thread, "why are there gear restricted waters".... care to answer that for me?


----------



## toto

The simple fact is, there is no biological scientific reason for these rules, period. When the biologists state that, and Jim Dexter states that, then why is it that a social issue dictates what our DNR does? And, just for a side question define social in this debate.

The bottom line is this: We all know, even deep in our heart, that the powers that be in this state have gotton their own way, again. I'm not exactly sure who those powers are, or better yet, why, but it appears obvious to me the DNR, or at least some of the personal, had their backs put against the wall. What this thing is telling me is that our DNR doesn't have the power to do what it does best, and thats make these decisions. Just to help my point along, here is one of the orginal articles on the issue, see what Dexter had to say about it:
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/10/proposed_plan_for_gear_restric.html

So now that we know that this is a social issue, although we know not on which social set we are talking about; even though we could guess, we need to ask ourselves one question: What if the DNR made a decision that effected you negatively? For example, lets say the DNR suddenly decided to take away the Holy Waters of the AuSable and made it bait only? Just because a certain segment of society wants it that way? Would that be fair? You fly guys would be screaming bloody murder, and you know it and it wouldn't be because the fish aren't being protected any longer, it would be because you lost your holy waters. 

I know I'm putting on my tin foil hat here, but I'm a firm believer that somewhere up the food chain on this thing, there is someone who is a firm believer in Agenda 21, which is a U.N. thing cuz when I read about this agenda 21 thing, this whole issue looks, and sounds just like that agenda. Remember the old saying if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck? Think that applies here, sorry Ray for stealing that one from ya.

I've also heard the argument that the waters that run through a national forest are regulated a little differently, but I can tell you they are still Michigans water, and its Michigan that has control of that water, with one exception, and thats the issue ofvigability, which I won't confuse this argument with right now.

The simple fact is, and I've stated it all along its all of our waters. Yes mine too, I still have property there and pay taxes. If you honestly think that this issue will stop at fishing gear restrictions, you would be mistaken. I will bet you right now, there will come a time when someone somewhere will begin a push to have miles of forest, and the waters within them designated as wilderness areas, and if that happens, this whole debate will seem pretty silly then. Don't believe me, they've already tried in the Sleeping Bear Dunes national lakeshore.

Want to know about another issue that concerns those that have been trying to take from those that don't? This would have stopped coho planting dead in its tracks. Does any remember the Platte Lake Improvement Association suing the DNR about phosphorous levels in Platte Lake, and therefore trying to stop the coho planting? I remember it very well, and I can also tell you how that battle was won, but I don't want to brag.

All I can say is, this is a tough fight from both sides, unfortunately someone needs to see the forest for the trees, and its funny (almost) that the gear restriction proponets are walking right into their little trap, the social elites are setting you up pretty good if you ask me. These people have you revering trout more than people, we will lock people out of certain areas because we want to "protect" trout? Does that sound logical to you? I'm not saying don't protect them and use dynamite or whatever to kill them all, come on, we stock them every day if need be. Last I knew, the human was at the top of the food chain, and yes we need to use some common sense, but really? We can't do this or that because the little fishys are our friends?? Criminy I just can't get my head around that.


----------



## Shoeman

Since you put it this way, Bill...

I can see the conflict. I guess if the original restrictions didn't include total flies only and C&R there would have been less of an uproar, but greed killed the cat!


----------



## michigan made

U guys are doing a fine job at the ******* worm guy thing. are u the ones that flew past me with your camo hat on flyin down the river in a john boat and a trolling motor with 5 poles of mepps spinners on em last weekend?


----------



## samsteel

is it legal to chum in the flies only water?


----------



## michigan made

Splitshot said:


> If you believe something strongly enough or think that if you repeat something enough times it becomes truth, why not just accept the consensus and do away with dictionaries!.
> 
> The definition of discrimination is listed below:
> 
> Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group.
> 
> If I am excluded from fishing the legal way I want to fish I dont know how you can argue it is not discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> So flies only is discrimination but not artificial lures only? I having a difficult time rationalizing that one Ralf. By the way it is not accurate to say the DNR wants certain areas to be artificial lures only, they did so because of politics and lobbying mainly by fly fishing organizations including TU.
> 
> 
> 
> Ralf,
> 
> As a fly fisherman you currently have it all and no matter how many times you guys say we want it all, it still wont be true. Fly fishermen currently can fish all waters in addition to about 20% or the prime waters the DNR defines as Blue Ribbon Waters The biologist stated over and over again it the public report they submitted to Kelly Smith that in the waters where they had data for sport fishing had no noticeable effect on the fishery. It is on the DNR web-site. If you cant find it, call Jim Dexter or any of the biologist who worked on the report and they will verify what I am saying.
> 
> Claiming you just want to protect the fishery is a belief not based on the facts. We dont have any problem sharing our waters with any legal fishermen or other people that use our public waters including people that enjoy canoeing.
> 
> We dont want it all, we just want the same right to fish the way we choose on all waters just like you do. It is you guys who want special privileges on the best trout waters in our state and are trying to twist change the discussion by insinuating that we are somehow greedy and that we are somehow infringing on your rights.
> 
> Perhaps the reasons you are against bait can be seen in these statements.
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear to see how your attitude has changed about bait fishing in the last few years and I wont explain why since your words speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I am not surprised at the little dig Steve, I am a little disappointed. I also dont really know how that statement fits into the discussion unless you are trying to belittle me. I remember a time when I took you fishing and you took my advice and landed the biggest brown trout of your life fishing a crawler and by the look on your face it appeared you were extremely pleased. (I still have some pictures)
> 
> Since I consider myself an accomplished fly fishermen, lure fisherman and bait fisherman I know there are times when lures and flies wont catch many fish and since I go fishing to catch fish, I want the choice to use the best legal technique available to me to catch them.
> 
> None of us want any thing for ourselves nor do we want any special privileges, we just want all fishermen, women and kids to have the same opportunities that fly fishermen have. However if any of you have a good reason I should not enjoy the same privileges as you have, I am willing to listen.


 

ALL GOOD POINTS. i just think that there should be fly only water to support a sport that almost requires it. its very nice to have water that doesnt have anything but fly anglers. its a luxury that i hope stays intact for the future. and to whoever brought up the mason tract... that will never happen.


----------



## toto

Ralf, the question really is, who is the greedy ones? We aren't being greedy, at least not as I see it, we aren't the ones pushing to have waters set aside for us exclusively. I have said this before, but look at it this way. Do you pay your property taxes? Do you buy a license? Those monies go to the state to take care of things that are the citizens. Where we are perhaps getting a little backwards is the fact the government works for us and we should be dicatating to them what it done, not the other way around. That isn't just inclusive of the DNR either, but ALL government. I'm not saying to revolt, but we must at least make our voice heard.

When the DNR/NRC asked for input on this issue, they looked at a mere 500 emails concerning this issue. I know for a fact there were a few thousand others that weren't utilized for one reason or another, but can you honestly say that 500 fisherpeople are a fair cross section of what the other 1,000,000 +/- anglers think? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think a small minority, and very small at that, should have the force to make decisions that effect over 1,000,000 fisherpeople. In my opinion, I think this whole thing was decided long before the public had any input, it then just became a decision on where they wanted to implement these new rules.

This whole thing is weird, and I"m getting the impression that the point isn't getting accross, and its frustrating, and frankly I'm not sure how to convey the message clearly so that it could be understood by all. All I can say is if anyone wants more information on the Public Trust Doctrine, and other doctrines and articles on this stuff, send me a pm and I"ll send it along. All I would ask at that point is to read it with an open mind.


----------



## troutguy26

Whatever wets your whistle bronc.


----------



## Roger That

michigan made said:


> U guys are doing a fine job at the ******* worm guy thing. are u the ones that flew past me with your camo hat on flyin down the river in a john boat and a trolling motor with 5 poles of mepps spinners on em last weekend?


It was a driftboat, a blue hat that says get r dun, and those were panther martins you pompous douchebag.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## michigan made

Roger That said:


> It was a driftboat, a blue hat that says get r dun, and those were panther martins you pompous douchebag.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


 

cool bro. congratulations on being a hick i guess. and ur "driftboat" looks like a green turd... so... there's that info for ya. anyway back to people with topics of debate and facts and stuff like that.


----------



## fishinlk

What kind of responses did you honestly think you would generate with your "worm guy" post??? Nothing good comes from comments like that,


----------



## Shoeman

michigan made said:


> U guys are doing a fine job at the ******* worm guy thing. are u the ones that flew past me with your camo hat on flyin down the river in a john boat and a trolling motor with 5 poles of mepps spinners on em last weekend?


probably way over the line!

I have fished with many members using bait and ALL of them fish it responsibly. Even guys new to trout fishing ended up pinching the barbs on the hardware seeing the damage.

That being said, there's compromising factors. Ohio for one! Maumee and Sandusky Bay only allow single hooks, although I prefer Blades. Nope, not there during the early season! Same with Michigan tribs. We fish for the bigger cats, but are limited to something like a size 4, when in reality a 2/0 would work best. 

Not sure where those will end up. I wish you luck. Many States have reversed their stance on Flies Only, but are still barbless-artificials/no bait AND C/R

It's an ugly fight with the opposition having the interest of the resource in their pocket (regardless of the input from bios). Either way we have a limited resource and a lack of funds to replenish this resource unlike many tailwaters down South where a 12" weekly plant with growth rates that would blow our mind is the norm.

We could have that and possibly the best trout fishing in the US, but Special Interest noticed it won't happened and tried to create something with what we do have. Gear Restriction was one of the only options.


----------



## Roger That

A turd huh? Thats weird! Mike Batcke at Stealthcraft told me it was a Drift Boat!! Every comment you make speaks to a social divide. You don't know me at all , yet you call me a hick? You're every part of the problem sir.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## troutguy26

He's the main root of the problem and my reason for withdrawing my compromise vote. That mentality will never die and has a very big breeding yard for it. Even a tv show.


----------



## Steve

Come on guys. How can anyone reading this thread take this as a serious discussion while we are calling each other "turds", "********", or "elitists". Let's grow up and have some productive discussion.


----------



## toto

Ralf, one thing to think about is holding capacity too. You are right on the southern fish, its amazing how fat they get in a short amount of time, but in that instance its pretty hard to compare that to Michigan. 

What it boils down to is any river/stream or body of water is only going to support so many fish, period. Case in point, look at Lake Huron, pretty tough to find a decent salmon anymore, why is that, because the lake at this point in time will only handle some many fish based on food supply and habitat. In fact, didn't the DNR just have some public hearings concerning the stocking of salmon in lake michigan, for the same reason? I know I'm getting off point here a bit, but what I'm trying to say is, you can't stockpile fish, in this case trout. A segment of water is only going to support X amount of fish. Once you are over that carrying capacity, you will have dwindling numbers until such time as the numbers equal out to the capacity of the water to sustain that population.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Yet still no reply as to why we have G.R. water in Michigan! Regardless of size, quantity, availability, the issue is why are some given special privy and some restricted to what we ALL pay for on public waters? I guess in reality most of the fly guys are just getting as close to their dream as they can get. The people I know that truly have expendable resources simply scoff at Trout fishing here in Michigan, they go to where Trout and the quality angling truly are, Alaska, Canada, Russian camps Etc. 
I really would like all of us that are against discriminative angling practices to show up & make a weekend of fishing the said waters with our spin /cast gear, maybe a monthly thing, I'll bring the smoker!


----------



## Roger That

Im down! I can fish 3 out of my Turd!!


----------

