# An Honest Question...



## Boozer

Lately there has been a LOT of discussion about socially based rules being put into place in the State of Michigan...

This organization and that organization have been bashed, members of both groups have bashed one another, typical stuff that you would expect in such a heated situation...

My question is, exactly what is the plan to change this?

I see a lot of typing, guys proclaiming we are doing this or that, but at least I cannot find in black & white what the actual plan is...

I have seen comments that "we hope it doesn't have to come to going to court", why?

I guess I wonder, if you really have such a legitimate case legally, why wait a minute longer?

If you really feel you are being screwed, that low level fisheries biologists whom are very qualified are being ignored, or worse being forced into going along with stuff they feel strongly against by their superiors whom have supposedly been forced by politicians to fold under pressure, why would anyone want to wait to stop these things?

I do not argue that the recent laws were socially based changes, but I find it kind of crazy to simply think putting a few more level headed guys on a committee is actually going to change anything. If fisheries biologists are really being blatantly ignored, being denied promotions when they speak out, etc... why wouldn't court be the most logical place to take this fight?

Not saying I have any better plans, just simply wondering, exactly what is the plan, I can't seem to find one that anyone has. I just see threats about this or that...

Makes it pretty tough to "get on board" if there is no ship to set sail on with a real destination...

Any help?


----------



## fishinDon

The DNR Fisheries division has promised an open review of the gear restrictions in five years (from when they were implemented). I believe we have less than 4 years remaining now. I will wait. 

Don


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## Boozer

fishinDon said:


> The DNR Fisheries division has promised an open review of the gear restrictions in five years (from when they were implemented). I believe we have less than 4 years remaining now. I will wait.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> _OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


I have read that and in some ways, waiting does make sense, BUT let us not forget some of the accusations that have been made regarding this issue...

1) That MDNR Fisheries Biologists studied and reviewed the newly appointed gear restricted sections and advised AGAINST more gear restricted water. 

2) The biologists bosses "head honchos of MDNR" folded to pressure from State Representatives and Michigan Trout Unlimited to go ahead with this anyway even though it wasn't fair and had essentially no biological impact on the watersheds either way.

3) That there are legal grounds that would technically force these sections to be turned back into non gear restricted water if taken to court.

I am not saying these are facts, these are all claims of members of GLSFA that have been sent to me via PM and some mentioned here on a public forum. I understand that what a member says does not reflect directly upon an organization, I would simply just assume this information has perhaps been made common knowledge through contacts within the organization.

If these are indeed true, why wait 5 years to have them reviewed and if what has been stated is true, why believe anything would be changed after 5 years?


----------



## fishinDon

Boozer said:


> I have read that and in some ways, waiting does make sense, BUT let us not forget some of the accusations that have been made regarding this issue...
> 
> 1) That MDNR Fisheries Biologists studied and reviewed the newly appointed gear restricted sections and advised AGAINST more gear restricted water.
> 
> 2) The biologists bosses "head honchos of MDNR" folded to pressure from State Representatives and Michigan Trout Unlimited to go ahead with this anyway even though it wasn't fair and had essentially no biological impact on the watersheds either way.
> 
> 3) That there are legal grounds that would technically force these sections to be turned back into non gear restricted water if taken to court.
> 
> I am not saying these are facts, these are all claims of members of GLSFA that have been sent to me via PM and some mentioned here on a public forum. I understand that what a member says does not reflect directly upon an organization, I would simply just assume this information has perhaps been made common knowledge through contacts within the organization.
> 
> If these are indeed true, why wait 5 years to have them reviewed and if what has been stated is true, why believe anything would be changed after 5 years?
> 
> In a nut shell, I guess my thought process is, it seems that there was some serious foul play involved here, I would think the only real way to bring justice to those whom have been effected by this is legal action to ensure it doesn't happen again, would it not? I mean, if the people whom have made these claims have proof of this, I find it absolutely crazy they have not utilized this information to set things "right".


#1 is a matter of public record, you can find it in both the preliminary gear restriction review and in the PM River Assessment (on GLFSA/Science - 1st link - as a Word Doc) put together by the biologist in charge of the area.



> Fish population estimates were available for 23 years between 1973 and 2009 for the Type 7 section of the Pere Marquette River. These data provide no evidence that gear and harvest limits have improved brown trout population abundance or size structure.
> 
> However, because of the long history and popularity of gear restrictions on the M-37 to Gleasons Landing section of river we recommend that these regulations continue.





> Census data and our personal observations of the Pere Marquette River fishery show that far more angling effort is directed at potamodromous salmon and steelhead as compared to brown trout.
> 
> Michigans gear restriction regulations are intended to target resident
> trout species such as brown trout. Our observations also indicate that many
> contemporary brown trout anglers on the Pere Marquette River practice voluntary release of legal sized trout. This means that angling mortality for brown trout in the river is likely low compared to natural mortality. Although there is much public support for more gear restrictive regulations in the watershed, there is similar strong public opposition to additional gear restrictions on the river. Local knowledge and management
> experience with the stream and angling community suggests that a majority of anglers of the Pere Marquette fishing river sections outside the no-kill water prefer to have the option of angling with a variety of gear types that might include bait such as spawn or wigglers as well as with artificial flies or lures.
> 
> Our recommendation to preserve the current diversity of fishing opportunities on the Pere Marquette is based on both biological and social criteria.
> 
> Presently there are 5 sections within the Pere Marquette River watershed that are not classified Type 1 (standard seasons and gears). These include:
>  The Little South Branch of the Pere Marquette River from 16 mile Road to
> Foreman Road (5.7 miles  Type 2): We recommend that this section be
> designated as Type 1.
> 
>  The Pere Marquette River from M-37 to Gleasons Landing (8.5 miles  Type 7): We recommend that artificial flies and no kill regulations be retained here.
> 
>  The Pere Marquette River from Gleasons Landing to Reek Road (31.3 miles 
> Type 4): We recommend that Type 4 regulations be retained.
> 
>  The Pere Marquette River from Reek Road to old US-31 (20 miles  Type 3):
> We recommend that Type 3 regulations be retained.
> 
>  The entire mainstem of the Big South Branch of the Pere Marquette River is Type 4. We recommend that Type 4 regulations be retained.
> 
>  The Type 2, 3, 4, and 7 sections encompass the majority of the mainstem of the Pere Marquette River watershed.


I can not speak to #2 or #3. 

I will say this, I have had a lot of interaction with the DNR over the last couple years. I trust they will follow through on their promise for a public review and that is good enough for me. It will also cost the tax payer a lot less than a bunch of laywers in a courtroom. 

Don


----------



## Boozer

Well, I definitely believe you have had a lot of contact...

I guess my main worry is, in that amount of time passing, people don't begin to forget about the issue and/or stop caring...

Only time will tell!


----------



## fishinDon

Boozer said:


> Well, I definitely believe you have had a lot of contact...
> 
> I guess my main worry is, in that amount of time passing, people don't begin to forget about the issue and/or stop caring...
> 
> Only time will tell!


I actually was wondering the same thing (if people forgot), but based on the 17 pages (and counting) in the PTD thread, I don't think they did. 

I don't plan to forget, you can count on that. 
Don


----------



## Boozer

Neither do I...

Keep us posted!!!


----------



## john warren

isn't there room enough for both sides of this issue? are we so lacking in stream length that there can't be places for each to enjoy what they value? places where fly fishing can be left alone? artificial lures can be ok? or baiting allowed? there are quite a few miles of river in michigan,,,some 12,000 miles if my memory serves me. 
this whole argument seems like saying gun hunters should be allowed in the middle of archery season. which seems perfectly fine by me, but would cause a bit of a flap i think.
this is not going to be an argument that can be won, by anything other then our embracing each others needs, and pulling together as sportsmen.

or we can continue to bicker about fishing this way or that, hunting this way or that, baiting, not baiting. all the while our real enemy,,,the anti hunting and fishing groups sit back and let us do half their work for them.


----------



## Boozer

john warren said:


> isn't there room enough for both sides of this issue? are we so lacking in stream length that there can't be places for each to enjoy what they value? places where fly fishing can be left alone? artificial lures can be ok? or baiting allowed? there are quite a few miles of river in michigan,,,some 12,000 miles if my memory serves me.
> this whole argument seems like saying gun hunters should be allowed in the middle of archery season. which seems perfectly fine by me, but would cause a bit of a flap i think.
> this is not going to be an argument that can be won, by anything other then our embracing each others needs, and pulling together as sportsmen.
> 
> or we can continue to bicker about fishing this way or that, hunting this way or that, baiting, not baiting. all the while our real enemy,,,the anti hunting and fishing groups sit back and let us do half their work for them.


Just my opinion, but that is how I personally once looked at it, but when they began lobbying for more gear restricted water, I think that is where people began to think, enough is enough...

By lobbying for more, they "whoever they are" were in fact very effectively driving more of a wedge between the two angling groups...


----------



## TSS Caddis

john warren said:


> are we so lacking in stream length that there can't be places for each to enjoy what they value? places where fly fishing can be left alone? artificial lures can be ok? or baiting allowed? there are quite a few miles of river in michigan,,,some 12,000 miles if my memory serves me.


Fly fishing can be currently practiced on every inch of trout water in the state. By your premise, we should maybe take back half of the PM flies water and make it bait only?

I personally don't take too much objection to some fly water being set aside. It is the take take take of the best water in the state attitude that I take issue with and what fly water combined with salmon and steelhead runs do to the river.


----------



## toto

It needs to be equal, regardless of how you look at it. For example, try to find somewhere from Grayling to Luzerne and surrounding areas where I can fish for trout, without using flies, or lures. Answer: there isn't any. I find it surprising frankly that a lot of the guys who are professed fly anglers can see it for what it is, and also don't think its fair.


----------



## Rzr

If anybody believes that the state is not within their rights to do anything I would not wait 5 years from my experience with the DNR or _their_ relationship with the non-profits who continually cover for them.

We're teaching our kids to roll over and bow unto pressure when they go up against these guys while it's really a great lesson for them to learn about how the real world works in terms of the often incestuous relationship between these two groups and how power is brokered.

They're going to run into these choices sometime on different levels in their own communities if they choose to be leaders of any sort...so why model anything different or shelter them from the truth?


----------



## toto

I don't blame the DNR in entirety, its what comes from above. I think a lot of times, and probably on this issue as well, the legislature dictates things they shouldn't. In defense of Dexter et al, what would you do if your boss says you have to do this or else? I honestly believe this happened in this case. That is also one of the problems with Michigan, they are pretty quiet on who, where, and how much money a lobbying group hands out, and if you don't think it happens with the DNR, I think you'd be remiss in your thoughts.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> It needs to be equal, regardless of how you look at it. For example, try to find somewhere from Grayling to Luzerne and surrounding areas where I can fish for trout, without using flies, or lures. Answer: there isn't any. I find it surprising frankly that a lot of the guys who are professed fly anglers can see it for what it is, and also don't think its fair.


Try the Au Sable mainstream from Grayling to Burton's Landing and from McMasters Bridge to Luzerne. Also all of the East Branch, Big Creek north of the river, the East and West Branches of Big Creek south of the river and any other creek in Crawford county. Some of them are small but have very large fish. If you need bait you can find it in Grayling and Luzerne but Lucky & Laura's at 72 and Stephan Bridge has closed.

Boozer,

It may seem like splitting hairs but TU did not begin lobbying for more GR water. They began lobbying for the State to examine rivers to see if they would qualify for GR because only half of the statutorily allowed mileage was being used. How was it that only half was used? Well, in the late '90's a politician got involved to change the Gear Restricted rules, ostensibly so it would be easier for kids to fish, TU and others got involved to lobby the changes and the GR mileage got doubled. Naturally, with the carrot of all that extra mileage hanging out there TU etc. pushed to get it filled and since they had helped create the criteria for filling it in the first place, they knew right where to propose the new water. If somebody hadn't rocked the boat in the late '90s the new water would never have happened. But it did happen because TU and the other fly groups have a ton of clout, a long history political action/power, thousands of voting members and the savvy to get things done in Lansing. Can they be beaten in 2015 when the GR gets reviewed? Sure. Can they use their clout for another big win and maybe even more GR water or maybe some other goals? Sure. We'll see how it plays out.


----------



## toto

I stand corrected, thanks I made an assumption that I probably shoudn't have.

You stated my point exactly though, "a politician" and thats the rub with me. It seems to me the DNR should have the say over the rules and regulations of wildlife, and fish without interference from the legislature.


----------



## METTLEFISH

It is what it is, I really don't care if they TRY to make Michigan a prestine Trout State, it isn't.... it will not be. Soon the "fly" people will want to Wier off sections and mandate large specimens be trucked in to facilitate in their lil game. It's funny how people become over the whole issue, I just walk in with my spinning or bait cast gear and watch em turn red....


----------



## Boozer

Some very good info here, much appreciated!


----------



## Robert Holmes

I like to think that every public waterway in the state is open to fly fishing. So why should the fly guys have their own private domain? I would love to take my mepps spinners down to the PM for a day.


----------



## Rzr

kzoofisher said:


> "...TU and others got involved to lobby the changes and the GR mileage got doubled. Naturally, with the carrot of all that extra mileage hanging out there TU etc. pushed to get it filled *and since they had helped create the criteria for filling it in the first place, they knew right where to propose the new water*...





toto said:


> I don't blame the DNR in entirety, its what comes from above. I think a lot of times, and probably on this issue as well, the legislature dictates things they shouldn't. In defense of Dexter et al, what would you do if your boss says you have to do this or else? I honestly believe this happened in this case. *That is also one of the problems with Michigan, they are pretty quiet on who, where, and how much money a lobbying group hands out*, and if you don't think it happens with the DNR, I think you'd be remiss in your thoughts.


What folks seem to continually forget is the phrase "sunshine is the best disinfectant.."

Absolutely _nothing_ that the DNR does or any dealings that they have with _anybody_ should be considered "top secret" or not duly recorded.

We are in the 21st century folks where ALL meetings with outside entities can be recorded and digitally transferred _immediately _to the general public at very little cost (no need whatsoever for editing or paraphrasing). 

If anybody believes that our kids are ever going to learn about or _change_ the DNR and this corrupt cronyism through anything BUT allowing them to listen in on what is being proposed *in real time*...I'm not certain what to tell them. It's as if adults in the 21st century spend more time on the net teaching younger people "..well, you just can't fight city hall, Johnny..." rather than literally going after and EXPOSING the state employees/non-profit crooks who are stealing their access/legacy to the outdoors in the first place!

It's kind of like joining your local tea party.

"We like to spend a lot of time on the internet and at rallies shouting about life, liberty, spending and how bad the government is...but the only thing that you _can't_ holler about is the fact that our country is flat out broke, fiscally unable to pay entitlements of _any_ kind and that we all hope more of you kids 'do the math' to prevent your elders from riding off into the sunset *with what's left of your future that WE screwed up for you..."*

If you don't like gear restrictions...for pete's sake don't teach your kids to wait 5 years while the state and these non-profits not only cover their tracks from the last time around but get 'better' at doing so the next.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Politics and the DNR is an ongoing thing. Precisely why 80 percent of the trout and salmon planted in this state go to the SW LP. After a desease wiped out the brown trout in the EUP I spent 12 years trying to get the DNR to do something to get them re established. I finally got fed up and quit trying to communicate with them. I look at them like a bunch of little robots. They have a canned answer (from Lansing) for every question that you can ask them. I actually had a biologist tell me that there are some questions that (Lansing) does not want them to answer but that was regarding wolves and not fish.


----------



## Rzr

Robert Holmes said:


> I like to think that every public waterway in the state is open to fly fishing. *So why should the fly guys have their own private domain?* I would love to take my mepps spinners down to the PM for a day.


Every orv trail is open to motocyclists who can also navigate every public road without restrictions.

So why should I partner with the cycle organization that is BLATANTLY anti-atv of _any_ kind...not even advocating that motocycle trails be built _beside_ new multi-use trails (only) to achieve their desired experience?

Answer?

Because they are no different than the fly fishing group that not only desires the whole river to themselves _*but who are as arrogant*_ as the 'my trail' motorcycle club members who have demanded the same experience on land for literally decades now. Pair these two snob non-profits with liberal tree-hugging state employees who ALSO want to keep just as many taxpayers OFF and OUT of said resource as possible?...Nirvana for the elitists and a sad legacy for our kids whose parents very frankly never had the guts to do anything about it.

""..Just wait another 5 years little Joey...and let's see what happens..."


----------



## Rzr

Robert Holmes said:


> Politics and the DNR is an ongoing thing. Precisely why 80 percent of the trout and salmon planted in this state go to the SW LP. After a desease wiped out the brown trout in the EUP *I spent 12 years trying to get the DNR to do something to get them re established. I finally got fed up and quit trying to communicate with them*. I look at them like a bunch of little robots. They have a canned answer (from Lansing) for every question that you can ask them. I actually had a biologist tell me that there are some questions that (Lansing) does not want them to answer but that was regarding wolves and not fish.


Thanks, Robert.

I only spent 10 years myself trying to create some kind of legacy for our kids before reaching the same conclusion. The only thing the state respects is numbers (regardless of legality) and I'm sure that you found out as I did that there are a lot of people who enjoy the resource...and very few willing to truly fight for it in a manner that our kids can truly emulate for their future benefit.

It's like senior entitlements today. Every senior that I've ever met tells me that "it's all about the kids..." 
...yet every senior that I've ever met is _all over_ every single Republican plan to allow them all to ride off into the sunset *with no shared sacrifice whatsoever even so much as talked about. *My guess is that they presided over crappy public school systems for their entire lives so that kids couldn't do the fiscal math when the time came...but that's only a theory.  

I don't mind fighting the good fight...I just won't fight it alongside those who never really intended to fight in the first place.


----------



## METTLEFISH

How much of a coincidence is it that the P.M. is within an hours drive of Lansing?.... Hmmmmmmm......


----------



## toto

RZR, what I meant was the openess of the lobbying groups in Michigan, and how much they spend to lobby. In fact, I recently read an article about how the states did as far as reporting this kind of stuff, and Michigan got a failing grade. It would be nice to know those kinds of things though.


----------



## troutguy26

METTLEFISH said:


> How much of a coincidence is it that the P.M. is within an hours drive of Lansing?.... Hmmmmmmm......


How fast would one have to go to make it to the pm in an hour drive from lansing?


----------



## kzoofisher

troutguy26 said:


> How fast would one have to go to make it to the pm in an hour drive from lansing?


Fly fisherman all have jets.


----------



## GRUNDY

Per mapquest:

Suggested Routes

US-131 N

2 hrs 23 mins / 149.74 miles


US-127 N

2 hrs 31 mins / 145.91 miles


I'll be keeping an eye on the GR debate threads; pretty interesting facts to be found.


----------



## troutguy26

kzoofisher said:


> Fly fisherman all have jets.


I see. I thought those dang DNR guys were using the company leer again for personal use.


----------



## fisheater

Fishing Don, I joined the Association, I barely get a chance to fish, not even once a month, so I have not made any clean-ups.

When the time comes to start writing letters please let us know. I was fine with gear restrictions, before that last round. Now I wouldn't mind blood, and I will not be happy until I can legally roll bait on the Holy Waters.

I hope those arrogant jack asses realize that when you push things too far it can fly back in your face.


----------



## broncbuster2

I like the way you think Fisheater.
But I am going to be the first to get in the Holy waters,
I wouldn't mind if you came in just afterwards tho.
Just be paient, It WILL happen.
Then we from the GLFSA will be the bad guy's all over the Fly Fishing world.

LOL


----------



## Benzie Rover

Robert Holmes said:


> Politics and the DNR is an ongoing thing. Precisely why 80 percent of the trout and salmon planted in this state go to the SW LP. After a desease wiped out the brown trout in the EUP I spent 12 years trying to get the DNR to do something to get them re established. I finally got fed up and quit trying to communicate with them. I look at them like a bunch of little robots. They have a canned answer (from Lansing) for every question that you can ask them. I actually had a biologist tell me that there are some questions that (Lansing) does not want them to answer but that was regarding wolves and not fish.


Well, It is obvious that basic facts have NO business in the formation of several opinions on this issue! I am not weighing in on it simple because it has become a purely social arguement, whether you're a pro-baiter or fly fisherman ( I am staunchly both as I am PRO-HABITAT) neither side is talking facts anymore, just pure emotion... but when this sort of PURE GARBAGE gets put into the rhetoric, I have to step in and call a spade a spade... A very quick (5 minutes) review of the 2011 stocking database for Brown trout, statewide, finds that over 1,620,000 fish were stocked, state wide. Of that amount, less than 2.5%, or 45,525 browns were stocked in ALL SE Michigan counties, PLUS Kent and Eaton Counties were added, just for kicks... 

How in the world could anyone, even in a joking manner, assert that 80% of the trout/salmon get stocked in SE Michigan!?!? And you use these sort of factual epiphanies to fire up your base-support!?!? Good god folks....

Why not just accuse the DNR of stocking asian carp... secretly of course... behind 'closed' doors... in order to create, none other than, the world's first fly-fishing only asian carp fishery! 

Just stick with facts and you'll be amazed how much further your arguments will go...


----------



## Boozer

Benzie Rover said:


> Well, It is obvious that basic facts have NO business in the formation of several opinions on this issue! I am not weighing in on it simple because it has become a purely social arguement, whether you're a pro-baiter or fly fisherman ( I am staunchly both as I am PRO-HABITAT) neither side is talking facts anymore, just pure emotion... but when this sort of PURE GARBAGE gets put into the rhetoric, I have to step in and call a spade a spade... A very quick (5 minutes) review of the 2011 stocking database for Brown trout, statewide, finds that over 1,620,000 fish were stocked, state wide. Of that amount, less than 2.5%, or 45,525 browns were stocked in ALL SE Michigan counties, PLUS Kent and Eaton Counties were added, just for kicks...
> 
> How in the world could anyone, even in a joking manner, assert that 80% of the trout/salmon get stocked in SE Michigan!?!? And you use these sort of factual epiphanies to fire up your base-support!?!? Good god folks....
> 
> Why not just accuse the DNR of stocking asian carp... secretly of course... behind 'closed' doors... in order to create, none other than, the world's first fly-fishing only asian carp fishery!
> 
> Just stick with facts and you'll be amazed how much further your arguments will go...


I have no idea if he is right or wrong, but he clearly stated *SW* Michigan...


----------



## fisheater

It has been pointed out to me that there was a lot of venom in my last post and I would like to apologize. Trout unlimited does alot to help trout fishing throughout our state and nation. They are definately not *******s and I apologize. They can be a bit arrogant, but I guess my last post was also. I do not want to roll bait in the Holy Waters, but this last round of gear restrictions went to far for me, and I do hope for a push back against gear restrictions as a result.

I really do like alot of the TU guys I meet, we just choose different gear. I guess I have been working too much lately for too little money and no time to fish and I am a bit crabby. Bob


----------



## john warren

Boozer said:


> Just my opinion, but that is how I personally once looked at it, but when they began lobbying for more gear restricted water, I think that is where people began to think, enough is enough...
> 
> By lobbying for more, they "whoever they are" were in fact very effectively driving more of a wedge between the two angling groups...


 i imagine gear restrictions are a bad thing. i know i could catch a lot more if they would just let me use gill nets.
and yes thats not a serious argument.


----------



## john warren

TSS Caddis said:


> Fly fishing can be currently practiced on every inch of trout water in the state. By your premise, we should maybe take back half of the PM flies water and make it bait only?
> 
> I personally don't take too much objection to some fly water being set aside. It is the take take take of the best water in the state attitude that I take issue with and what fly water combined with salmon and steelhead runs do to the river.


 exactly. each type of fishing has things that can interfere with the other. pretty sure no one wants a fly whipping around their head while they are dipping bait. and fly guys don't want a big ol gob o worms drifting past their carefully tied and presented midge. so we should have places where each can fish his way without being interfered with. we have plenty of space. 
then later we can meet up over a nice shore lunch and tell stories.


----------



## Boozer

john warren said:


> exactly. each type of fishing has things that can interfere with the other. pretty sure no one wants a fly whipping around their head while they are dipping bait. and fly guys don't want a big ol gob o worms drifting past their carefully tied and presented midge. so we should have places where each can fish his way without being interfered with. we have plenty of space.
> then later we can meet up over a nice shore lunch and tell stories.


Huh?

Why would anyone be fishing that close to another angler on any of the gear restricted water?

Anywhere for that matter...


----------



## Rzr

john warren said:


> exactly. each type of fishing has things that can interfere with the other. pretty sure no one wants a fly whipping around their head while they are dipping bait. and fly guys don't want a big ol gob o worms drifting past their carefully tied and presented midge. so we should have places where each can fish his way without being interfered with. *we have plenty of space*.
> then later we can meet up over a nice shore lunch and tell stories.


The above is pretty much the 'unlimited resource' dogma that 'me only' Michigan single trackers (motorcycle only) and their non-profits in control (with similar blessing from the DNR?) put out to kids.

Unfortunately, most kids (as well as very young, old or disabled adults) could care less how many wheels their friends bring to the trailhead anymore than what lure is on the end of their line.

The premise is always the same. You go your way, I'll go mine and we'll all pretend later that we spent the day 'together' having fun...which works pretty well on brainwashing kids who still are of the age to 'play pretend'.


----------



## Boozer

john warren said:


> i imagine gear restrictions are a bad thing. i know i could catch a lot more if they would just let me use gill nets.
> and yes thats not a serious argument.


I gathered that, taking things way out of any realistic realm...

Rather ridiculous, kind of like assuming guys will be fishing on top of one another, hooking bait anglers with their back casts or bait dunkers casting worms over guys trying to fish midges if they are allowed to fish near one another...

With thousands and thousands of days fishing non-gear restricted water, it must be pure luck I have never witnessed such travesty... :lol:


----------



## Rzr

Boozer said:


> I gathered that, taking things way out of any realistic realm...
> 
> Rather ridiculous, kind of like assuming guys will be fishing on top of one another, hooking bait anglers with their back casts or bait dunkers casting worms over guys trying to fish midges if they are allowed to fish one another...
> 
> With thousands and thousands of days fishing non-gear restricted water, it must be pure luck I have never witnessed such travesty... :lol:


I think Mr. Warren and other 'me only' organizations supporting resource grabs _prefer_ the non-realistic realm (drama) as an effective vehicle in which to advance their agendas.

What's so dramatic or 'controversial' about your insistence that we simply all get along on the same piece of land and work _together_ in the same spot to create a sustainable legacy there that our kids can inherit?

I think that your sarcasm drove both points home well (thanks).


----------



## toto

I think some of you guys are starting to see the forest for the trees. In other words, the argument FOR gear restrictions/flies only is based on emotions, not on logic or science. Once you try to interject science or reality, they'll get PO'd and start talking down to you. But thats the whole problem with this argument, they can't get past their emotions.


----------



## Jackster1

On so it goes, on and on and still apparantly without the knowledge that you simply cannot please everyone. People will always find something to gripe about.

You folks DO know of course that Trout Unlimited is a cold water conservation organization that does not purposely promote what type of fishing you do to catch cold water fish. In its essence, TU doesn't care if you do or do not even fish. Want to help your cause, join TU and talk your truth into them.
Sadly though, many TU chapters have turned into fly fishing clubs but just ask yourself, 'why that is'?
Could it be because certain types of people are more geared toward saving the resource than thumping their chests about how many fish they killed last week?
Could it be because some care enough to give back to the resource and hope to have good, clean, fish-filled waters for future generations to enjoy as you do now?
Could it be because people in general tend to hang with like-minded souls?
I will admit to you from PLENTY of first-hand experience there are snobs in TU just as I have witnessed some true low-lifes who are not TU members. It's a big 'ol world out there and it takes all types to make it go round.
All told, I think TU has done far more FOR our resource than any other group around. Just as in life in general, there is good and bad in TU but I like to think there is far more good that comes out of that organization than bad. Name me one organization who does more for trout habitat.

A few years ago this sort of argument always led to someone trying to say that fly fishers are lesser fisherman who can't really catch fish unless they are given special regs. If that is true, those folks who are so great should be happy that fly fishers are off of their more productive wild waters.
Oh, and as for TU trucking big fish in to catch, that's a rare down here. Instead some TU idiots toss browns and 'bows up on the bank because they aren't 'native' brook trout! True story! I tend to call these chapters what they are, Trout Limited!


----------



## Boozer

Jackster1 said:


> On so it goes, on and on and still apparantly without the knowledge that you simply cannot please everyone. People will always find something to gripe about.
> 
> You folks DO know of course that Trout Unlimited is a cold water conservation organization that does not purposely promote what type of fishing you do to catch cold water fish. In its essence, TU doesn't care if you do or do not even fish. Want to help your cause, join TU and talk your truth into them.
> Sadly though, many TU chapters have turned into fly fishing clubs but just ask yourself, 'why that is'?
> Could it be because certain types of people are more geared toward saving the resource than thumping their chests about how many fish they killed last week?
> Could it be because some care enough to give back to the resource and hope to have good, clean, fish-filled waters for future generations to enjoy as you do now?
> Could it be because people in general tend to hang with like-minded souls?
> I will admit to you from PLENTY of first-hand experience there are snobs in TU just as I have witnessed some true low-lifes who are not TU members. It's a big 'ol world out there and it takes all types to make it go round.
> All told, I think TU has done far more FOR our resource than any other group around. Just as in life in general, there is good and bad in TU but I like to think there is far more good that comes out of that organization than bad. Name me one organization who does more for trout habitat.
> 
> A few years ago this sort of argument always led to someone trying to say that fly fishers are lesser fisherman who can't really catch fish unless they are given special regs. If that is true, those folks who are so great should be happy that fly fishers are off of their more productive wild waters.
> Oh, and as for TU trucking big fish in to catch, that's a rare down here. Instead some TU idiots toss browns and 'bows up on the bank because they aren't 'native' brook trout! True story! I tend to call these chapters what they are, Trout Limited!


Doubt you will find anyone here whom would argue any of your points...

See post #232

http://michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=417183&page=16


----------



## Jackster1

Boozer said:


> Doubt you will find anyone here whom would argue any of your points...
> 
> See post #232
> 
> http://michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=417183&page=16


To be quite honest, I couldn't tell that T.U. was understood at all by reading many of the other posts on this particular thread.


----------



## Boozer

Jackster1 said:


> To be quite honest, I couldn't tell that T.U. was understood at all by reading many of the other posts on this particular thread.


Well, I think a few get blinded by anger over these recent gear restriction issues, but deep down I don't think anyone does not understand that TU has done a lot of good.

At the end of the day though, can only speak for myself...


----------



## Ranger Ray

The good things an organization partakes in, does not eliminate the fact that they should be held accountable on the bad. To think one is blinded by anger because they address the one, without proclaiming the other is silly. If you feel such a need as to point out the good, maybe you should start a thread "Honest Question, Does TU Do Good Things." But don't forget to point out the bad, in the good thread. We can't be talking about the one, without pointing out the other you know.


----------



## john warren

Boozer said:


> I gathered that, taking things way out of any realistic realm...
> 
> Rather ridiculous, kind of like assuming guys will be fishing on top of one another, hooking bait anglers with their back casts or bait dunkers casting worms over guys trying to fish midges if they are allowed to fish near one another...
> 
> With thousands and thousands of days fishing non-gear restricted water, it must be pure luck I have never witnessed such travesty... :lol:


 lol come on down to yates,,,,lol


----------



## Boozer

Ranger Ray said:


> The good things an organization partakes in, does not eliminate the fact that they should be held accountable on the bad. To think one is blinded by anger because they address the one, without proclaiming the other is silly. If you feel such a need as to point out the good, maybe you should start a thread "Honest Question, Does TU Do Good Things." But don't forget to point out the bad, in the good thread. We can't be talking about the one, without pointing out the other you know.


Never said it did take away from the bad things, not once did I even hint at that...

However, the bad thing in this situation has blinded many to have any desire to talk about the good things TU has done, nobody can argue that and that's what I stated...


----------



## swampbuck

Boozer, lets try an example.......Say you had a friend for years, And then one day that friend hauled off and kicked you in the ball's....Would He still be your friend. 

The bait fishermen were on the recieving end of that kick from T.U.


----------



## Boozer

swampbuck said:


> Boozer, lets try an example.......Say you had a friend for years, And then one day that friend hauled off and kicked you in the ball's....Would He still be your friend.
> 
> The bait fishermen were on the recieving end of that kick from T.U.


Are you mental?

Have you read my posts?

You do realize I huck bait as much as I huck flies, right?

T.U. did NOT sign these laws into place, so exactly how did they kick anyone in the balls?

Anyway, I got money to make, can't be sitting on here playing all day...

You boys have fun!


----------



## beer and nuts

> Trout unlimited does alot to help trout fishing throughout our state and nation.


 I beg to differ, they have done a lot of "good" for the fly fishing sections for the majority part of the money they put in to a system. Rarely is TU the leader in rehab river restoration work for sections of rivers that allow open gear.

Also, TU is also the leader in trying to restrict public landings, private businesses(read canoe liveries), the aluminum crowd, etc.. in their access to use the rivers that contain fly fishing only. They have done alot of bad in their desire to be the only "group" access to certain parts of rivers. 

Trust me, my family has first had experience with TU and their antics.


----------



## heartsticker

kzoofisher said:


> Try the Au Sable mainstream from Grayling to Burton's Landing and from McMasters Bridge to Luzerne. Also all of the East Branch, Big Creek north of the river, the East and West Branches of Big Creek south of the river and any other creek in Crawford county. Some of them are small but have very large fish. If you need bait you can find it in Grayling and Luzerne but Lucky & Laura's at 72 and Stephan Bridge has closed.
> 
> Boozer,
> 
> It may seem like splitting hairs but TU did not begin lobbying for more GR water. They began lobbying for the State to examine rivers to see if they would qualify for GR because only half of the statutorily allowed mileage was being used. How was it that only half was used? Well, in the late '90's a politician got involved to change the Gear Restricted rules, ostensibly so it would be easier for kids to fish, TU and others got involved to lobby the changes and the GR mileage got doubled. Naturally, with the carrot of all that extra mileage hanging out there TU etc. pushed to get it filled and since they had helped create the criteria for filling it in the first place, they knew right where to propose the new water. If somebody hadn't rocked the boat in the late '90s the new water would never have happened. But it did happen because TU and the other fly groups have a ton of clout, a long history political action/power, thousands of voting members and the savvy to get things done in Lansing. Can they be beaten in 2015 when the GR gets reviewed? Sure. Can they use their clout for another big win and maybe even more GR water or maybe some other goals? Sure. We'll see how it plays out.


How much of McMasters to Luzerne is a kid able to wade? If I fish Grayling to Burtons and take nice trout out of the small holes how long till that water would be fished out in comparison to Wakeley to Townline? The best fishing water used to be the fly waters, now do to over fishing by the fly fishermen it is mostly smaller fish. A guy hooking 15 small fish in the heat of july kills how many of them?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## tannhd

beer and nuts said:


> I beg to differ, they have done a lot of "good" for the fly fishing sections for the majority part of the money they put in to a system. Rarely is TU the leader in rehab river restoration work for sections of rivers that allow open gear.
> 
> Also, TU is also the leader in trying to restrict public landings, private businesses(read canoe liveries), the aluminum crowd, etc.. in their access to use the rivers that contain fly fishing only. They have done alot of bad in their desire to be the only "group" access to certain parts of rivers.
> 
> Trust me, my family has first had experience with TU and their antics.


I can name 4 unrestricted gear streams near me that the local TU chapter has restored. Remember that each chapter has its own initiatives and goals. I think, like with any broad spanning special interest group, that the local chapters are made of local people. The members of your local TU chapter could be neighbors, coworkers and the like. These are people in your community that we are generalizing here.


----------



## troutguy26

Ya know i wasnt gonna touch on this but since some of it got brought up i will. Some landowners who are good friends were approached once by TU to have stream work done and if they could access through their land. A meeting was set up aand everything seemed to be going fine until the mention if gear restrictions would be sought after work is done and the room kinda got quiet and a solid answer was never given. With that said they were asked to leave and all land owners decided to never let them step forth their land. There is no state land so it will be impossible for them to ever access it. I will leave this story at that and not mention where or when this happened.


----------



## fishinlk

> Originally Posted by beer and nuts
> I beg to differ, they have done a lot of "good" for the fly fishing sections for the majority part of the money they put in to a system. Rarely is TU the leader in rehab river restoration work for sections of rivers that allow open gear.
> 
> Also, TU is also the leader in trying to restrict public landings, private businesses(read canoe liveries), the aluminum crowd, etc.. in their access to use the rivers that contain fly fishing only. They have done alot of bad in their desire to be the only "group" access to certain parts of rivers.
> 
> Trust me, my family has first had experience with TU and their antics.


 I agree that a lot of a particular chapter's agenda is driven on the local level. 

I can show you a number of areas on the Manistee alone were TU work was done and it was open water. Some of it is no longer open water but the work has spanned 20+ years when special regs on many of these areas was not even remotely in the equation.


I'm a TU board member for our chapter down here where I now live in Ohio. We have not once had a conversation about wanting gear restrictions added to a watershed we are trying to help, wether it's here or on the streams that we are helping in PA with acid mine remediation.


----------

