# Possible regulation changes for the Jordan river.



## mondrella

We can count on you Kzoo. 
SMH. Where did anyone say a 13" size limit? Try and misdirect your famous for it. 
I give you a chance to reread and educate yourself. Throw numbers out there but pretty sure off the top of my head status and trend numbers will blow that apart. I look into that later today.
A particular guide and group for years have asked for exactly what was said. To say otherwise is calling our biologist liars. I am sure some of the locals who have commented can confirm it too. 
Show me where the proposed regs meet the trout management plan


----------



## kzoofisher

SMH, Steve. Pure projection from you, though to be fair it's typical of the rest of your ilk, too. You guys post claptrap, hoohaw, general craziness and fear mongering; I respond with facts and you call it misdirection or obfuscation. They're only facts: not rumors or insider stories or things the locals know or reading between the lines. Here's what you said and I apologize for getting it wrong at 13". It was 15". The size limit in "99.9%" of the brook trout water would be 10". What you actually said was either dumber or more dishonest than I gave you credit for.



mondrella said:


> How many brook trout are caught in a outing over 13 inches? Some consider me a decent angler. All these years i only have 4 from there. Yet on another river i fish in the lower peninsula its a bad day if I don't catch 2 over that size in a evening trip. * Now changing to a 15 inch size limit effectively makes the river no kill for 99.9% of the brook trout in the system. *


Here's another tidbit from that 2004 assessment, and this is after the decline from the 87 & 94 surveys. Were you not fishing it in 2004 and earlier or did you not notice that it held twice as many fish as the Little Manistee?
_Brown trout are most abundant from just above the JRNFH downstream to Pinney Bridge. The number of brown trout in the Jordan River ranged from 273 to 1,838 fish per acre with an average of 833, which is twice as good as the Little Manistee, a stream with a reputation for its brown trout fishery.
_
Just facts. Not what Tim tells me about the changes he's noticed. No guessing that a stream loaded with fish, in a beautiful valley and near very popular resorts and towns got over fished. No emotional appeals to someones fear center. No stories of what someone told me on the phone. Just facts.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

From what I have heard they also ripped out a bunch of beaver dams in the headwaters too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## kingfisher 11

Must of taken the beaver dam out of the Cascade then?


----------



## PunyTrout

There were several beaver dams above the hatchery.


----------



## kingfisher 11

I am just curious why we can talk about this river so much if its an unmentionable? When you get into stocking data you are increasing the publicity of the river.
Me personally I never really cared for the rules.


----------



## SkunkCity

kingfisher 11 said:


> I am just curious why we can talk about this river so much if its an unmentionable? When you get into stocking data you are increasing the publicity of the river.
> Me personally I never really cared for the rules.


Since when is it an unmentionable? It's listed on the list of rivers for NW Michigan Streams and Rivers:


----------



## kzoofisher

Don’t know why there are any unmentionables at all.


----------



## mondrella

kzoofisher said:


> SMH, Steve. Pure projection from you, though to be fair it's typical of the rest of your ilk, too. You guys post claptrap, hoohaw, general craziness and fear mongering; I respond with facts and you call it misdirection or obfuscation. They're only facts: not rumors or insider stories or things the locals know or reading between the lines. Here's what you said and I apologize for getting it wrong at 13". It was 15". The size limit in "99.9%" of the brook trout water would be 10". What you actually said was either dumber or more dishonest than I gave you credit for.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another tidbit from that 2004 assessment, and this is after the decline from the 87 & 94 surveys. Were you not fishing it in 2004 and earlier or did you not notice that it held twice as many fish as the Little Manistee?
> _Brown trout are most abundant from just above the JRNFH downstream to Pinney Bridge. The number of brown trout in the Jordan River ranged from 273 to 1,838 fish per acre with an average of 833, which is twice as good as the Little Manistee, a stream with a reputation for its brown trout fishery.
> _
> Just facts. Not what Tim tells me about the changes he's noticed. No guessing that a stream loaded with fish, in a beautiful valley and near very popular resorts and towns got over fished. No emotional appeals to someones fear center. No stories of what someone told me on the phone. Just facts.


Have you ever even fished the river? 
The system is about 33 miles of river. From as near as i can tell type 3 water would be about 22 or 23 miles of the river. In that section of river is a extremely robust number of brook trout 12 to 10 inches. The headwaters is more of a nursery type water. 
You threw numbers out showing a declining population of trout. (At least in the areas shocked) Population fluctuate all the time. Take the 2004 to 2014 drop in population numbers. Many streams in that time had a spike in numbers. But some of the colder less fertile waters like the Jordan an example the pine also seen a decrease in numbers. Environmental conditions play a big role in those numbers. I have fished this river since 1998. Things change in a river like this one alot over a 3 to 5 year time frame. In 2004 thru 2006 i had a section of river that was incredible many 10 to 12 inch brookies. Just above them was the nirvana of big brown trout for about a half a mile. That section went dead nearly devoid of trout. Yet a 1/4 mile above where it was tons of browns is now loaded with brook trout. Prior to 2 years ago i caught 1 trout in that area. 
2 miles downstream the river deepened and slowed a touch. Lots and lots of browns. 
Our trout management plan description of what waters should be to fall into those reg types dont even come close for this river. 
Its not hearsay and make believe when said guide has publicly pushed for very restrictive measures on this river. Its about their pocketbook. 
Angler pressure has little to do with trout numbers. Creel census show us 90 percent of anglers dont even catch a single fish. 
Basically what i stated was the Jordan is not a river that grows trophy size trout. Nothing more.
We have proof no kill does not produce yhe biggest trout in the state. The PM studies and its control rivers show us that. Both those rivers see heavy harvest and hold more lbs per acre and its because of the size of the fish.


----------



## kzoofisher

Wow, a river that has an "extremely robust number of brook trout 12 to 10 inches" and "incredible many 10 to 12 inch brookies" doesn't sound all that infertile to me. Add in that at one time it also held twice as many browns as the Little Manistee and I can see that it's reputation as a hugely undervalued and under utilized stream was well deserved. Heck, the Little Man is under utilized. There's at least one poster here who will tell you it's the best big brown water in the State. I can't agree with your guess on the river mileage though. The DNR lists Graves Crossing at 10 miles from the mouth and Jordan Road at about 15 miles. That leaves the remainder of the river (much more than 0.1%) with a 10" limit.

River populations do fluctuate. That means they go down and UP. DNR surveys show a decline in '03/'04, another decline in '08/'10 and a third decline in '14. That's not a fluctuation, it's a steady downward trend. Just because we don't know conclusively why doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it. The most recent DNR studies show that an increase in fishing pressure can do it. Also that steelhead can do it, except the number of rainbows dropped, too. I know you question the validity of any study that contradicts your agenda, even if the study is done by our own DNR. But that's your bias, not the biologists.

That the Jordan doesn't, or didn't, hold big browns will come as news to my friend who's been going there for years. Big browns were the reason he went. And the sudden decline in their numbers is what had him asking me if the change on the North Branch had been figured out and whether the same thing could have happened on the Jordan. Unfortunately, I have no answer for him. But he is supportive of this rule change.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Trout King said:


> Basically, another guide trying to stockpile fish for their own reasons. Taking the size limit up on trout below Jordan River Rd to 15 inches, though it does not protect most of the lake runs. Turning upper stretches into type 2 water is making the size limit on brook trout to 10 inches and browns to 12, essentially making it more difficult for casual fisherman to get a trout or two for the pan, especially in a stream that seldom sees many large brook trout in the UPPER stretches (now this guide may be in the know and trying to protect something in the lower reaches with the 15" minimum )
> 
> The point I believe Mondrella is getting at is not opening the door for the privatization of our rivers, I agree that we shouldn't be letting guide services and companies determine what our fishing regs should be. Show me the science that says these regs are needed to save the Jordan River fishery and I may change my tune, until then, we shouldn't be allowing businesses dictate NRC policy. Proposal G has been **** on from the onset.


So who is calling for the regulation change? The DNR? A guide?

According to Kazoo, the DNR studies shows a grim picture of the resource. I would think the regulation change would thus be coming from our DNR. If it's not, what is their conclusion of the situation? Obviously not the same as some guide, a "friend" and Kazoo.

This the same guide who runs the sturgeon?


----------



## mondrella

Big browns do come from the Jordan. In fact i had one year i caught 17 browns in a month over 24 inches. Thing is these are lake lake run fish for the most part if not all 10 and 12 inch brookies are good fish and there are numbers of them if you cover water. I get excited seeing 14 and bigger brooktrout in decent numbers. Myself and another member of this site fish a stream that has them and we are kinda disappointed if we dont see one that big in a few hours of fishing. In fact we both have many brookies over 15 from there. This state has more brook trout water than people know that holds big fish. One just has to look for it. 
The Jordan when you look at the amount of food available be it bug life and others is low compared to many other lower Michigan streams. What has happened to the lake run brown plants in that time across the state? You might find your answer there. The big lake is just now bouncing back some. Will juvenile browns find food to survive now in the lake? If they do in 2 years you will see a big push of bigger browns in the river. The fish that are resident in the Jordan are slow growing fish. 
I have a lot of faith in our biologist. You bring up a study on brookies in the UP about angling pressure affecting size and numbers. We cut that study short what 2 years?? In fact i supported diverting the expense of that study to other things. After fishing those streams more up there much like i had been i think we made a mistake. 
One thing i have learned is brook trout have no issue schooling up in a perfect hole. In fact holes that were good a year before can be devoid of fish and a new one a 1/2 a mile away. Will have 100 trout in it. They are extremely opportunistic fish. One of the old 10 fish limit streams that showed a huge decrease in bigger fish. This past year i managed a insane number brook trout over 12" out of a spot not much bigger than a full size pickup. Never moved a fish in 1/3 of a mile till i got to one spot and it was every cast....
Has one questioning did something change out of the shocking areas like a much better hole pulling them to the best habitat?? We still have a lot to learn about stream trout.


----------



## Trout King

Ranger Ray said:


> So who is calling for the regulation change? The DNR? A guide?
> 
> According to Kazoo, the DNR studies shows a grim picture of the resource. I would think the regulation change would thus be coming from our DNR. If it's not, what is their conclusion of the situation? Obviously not the same as some guide, a "friend" and Kazoo.
> 
> This the same guide who runs the sturgeon?


Guide out of Boyne thinking about going to his NRC connection from my understanding of the situation.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ok, there's been an awful lot of pearl clutching here and I'm afraid some of you are going to get the vapors. So here are the facts.

The proposed change comes from the DNR and the Central Lake Michigan Management Unit is well aware of it. I'm very surprised that when mondrella spoke at length with a CLMMU biologist he didn't become aware of that little detail. I guess you can't know what you don't want to find out.

There will now be a public comment period and then the proposal will go to the NRC. This is important. The DNR proposal is already on its way to the NRC, so any claims that a guide or group is going to use the nefarious tactic of influencing an NRC member to bring it up are baseless and without merit. It is a little shocking that some people who cheered on the same nefarious tactic when it was used for increased harvest in the UP, are now up in arms at the suggestion someone else might use the tactic for a change they oppose. Almost as shocking as finding out there is gambling in Casablanca.

I hope that those of you who can be reassured by facts are reassured. I also hope that those of you who were fed misinformation, wrong information, rumors, stories and wild imaginary scenarios will reconsider the credibility of you sources, named or unnamed. 

There's no skullduggery. No deep and dark conspiracies. The apocalypse is not upon us. Our precious bodily fluids are not being poisoned. It's ok. Take a deep breath and go fishing. And then try not to be drawn in by fake news again.


----------



## toto

Well if that is so kazoo then personally I think that's how it should be done. I'm assuming the DNR has done the studies to accurately assess the situation. It may have been stated in this thread already but cant remember and frankly too lazy to look.


----------



## kzoofisher

I just claimed that all the arguments and outrage in this thread are nonsense and you're too lazy to check how accurate I am? Small wonder you get drawn in by fake news.


----------



## toto

Hey, I'm agreeing with you why do you want to fight? Take it while you get it. I saw the reductions in fish stock numbers what i didn't see is the EXACT reason why that is. That needs to also be considered you cant just arbitrarily blame it on fishermen. Show me a link to the study and I'll read a give my opinion from there. Btw, I dont just get drawn in tho fake news, sometimes i dont get all the info correct but guess what, you bought into the fake flies only fakeness so there is that.


----------



## -Axiom-

I don't suppose that the addition of type 2 water on the Jordan will be reciprocated with the removal of equal mileage of type 2 water on another stream, like the Pine or Manistee for example?

Otherwise this just looks like a push to discourage more people from enjoying the resource.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Who in the DNR has proposed the change?


----------



## kzoofisher

-Axiom- said:


> I don't suppose that the addition of type 2 water on the Jordan will be reciprocated with the removal of equal mileage of type 2 water on another stream, like the Pine or Manistee for example?


 Why? There's no statutory limit on any of the types 1-4. There are quite a few type 4s that don't get runs of migratory fish but the biologists have apparently decided that a 10" limit on browns is what is best for the resource.



-Axiom- said:


> Otherwise this just looks like a push to discourage more people from enjoying the resource.


 Again, why? The proposed regs expand the fishing season and don't change the gear that can be used. Yes, they increase the MSL. I remember back when the bass MSL went from 12" to 14" and the complaints about it. But bass fishing is more popular than ever. Why wouldn't trout fishermen react the same?


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Who in the DNR has proposed the change?


I have no idea, Ray. The announcement I saw came from the CLMMU without attribution. Scott Heintzelman manages the Unit, try asking him. 

I'm not aware of proposals being credited to individual personnel in the DNR. Is it your experience that they usually are?


----------



## toto

My guess is is that this problem, if there really is one, is bigger than a few people fishing and getting their limits. The list is pretty long, it could be sand loads, warming water from runoff, logging operations in the area, algae growth etc etc. I always get a kick out of it when the anti's (Nee PETA) always blame it on the fishermen. Could it be that the steelhead and salmon are disrupting the fish stocks, happens you know. We should probably put a sign at the confluence of the Jordan that says, no steelhead or salmon allowed, you know somewhere where the fish can read em. Man, give me a break, there is a lot more study that needs to be done, it's just too easy to blame those nasty fisherpeople for everything. Or maybe, did you buy property on the Jordan too? Give it a break Kzoo, your whole motive is to protect the fish, more than worry about the fisherman. AGAIN, if there is a reason to have these conservation measures, and it is obvious and provable, then have at it. But you darn well better be sure the whole picture has been taken, not just a knee jerk reaction to lean more and more to flies only, or sub sect of them.


----------



## Ranger Ray

When regulation recommendations are attributed to the DNR, it's usually committee. Unless it's political, then it comes out of administrative. If it didn't come from the biologists in the CLMNU, which by your comment on them, I take it didn't. It more than likely is at the administrative level. Which would mean an individual(s) or special interest pushing it. Think political. It's why I asked.

Who has this 2014 study? Doesn't seem to come up through google search.


----------



## kzoofisher

Obviously, that the DNR proposed this change demonstrates that they do think there is some sort of problem. The habitat work they did a few years ago on road crossings is another sign of that. A point you're missing is that changes in the watershed can take many years to repair or counter physically while changes to regulations are a quick reaction that can mitigate damage from the watershed changes. Maybe that's what's going on here.

As for protecting the resource before protecting fishermen, well that's what the law says. Natural resources belong to all the people and the first order of business for the DNR is to hold them in trust for all the people, not just fishermen. If fishermen are damaging the resource, even though they don't intend to, they have to change their behavior. The same goes for mountain bikers and birders and ORV riders. Exactly how a rule change that still allows all types of gear is discriminatory escapes me. But that's what brought me into this thread: false equivalence, misinformation, emotional fear mongering and wild conspiracy theories. I think I've done a good job of pointing out the facts. You must think so too since you and your friends have stopped arguing the facts and moved on to misdirection and obfuscation.


----------



## mondrella

Ranger Ray said:


> When regulation recommendations are attributed to the DNR, it's usually committee. Unless it's political, then it comes out of administrative. If it didn't come from the biologists in the CLMNU, which by your comment on them, I take it didn't. It more than likely is at the administrative level. Which would mean an individual(s) or special interest pushing it. Think political. It's why I asked.
> 
> Who has this 2014 study? Doesn't seem to come up through google search.


Ray it did come from a biologist. Like i stated in the first post. Those wanting these regs where "READY" to go to a NRC member from what i was told. What does history tell us about NRC members demanding something be looked into? 
This was brought to my attention by DNR employee. What it boils down to is it does not meet the standards put forth for the type of waters proposed?? Why do you think that is the case? Read the regulations portion of the trout management plan and tell me where i am wrong. 
Kzoo likes to twist words. For him i guess i have to write up a 50000 word post to cover everything at once. Outside pressure brought about this proposal not the biologist thinking its best.


----------



## mondrella

Our biologist are some of the best there are. The reason this plan was developed was to better manage our trout waters. The recommendation to change the regs dont even come close to meeting the management plan outlines. It is was a way to make it look like they listened but allow the average angler to squelch it if they speak up.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> When regulation recommendations are attributed to the DNR, it's usually committee. Unless it's political, then it comes out of administrative. If it didn't come from the biologists in the CLMNU, which by your comment on them, I take it didn't. It more than likely is at the administrative level. Which would mean an individual(s) or special interest pushing it. Think political. It's why I asked.
> 
> Who has this 2014 study? Doesn't seem to come up through google search.


Is it usually a committee? My experience attending meetings is that local changes are usually developed and proposed locally. Of course, the local management unit is a committee of sorts, overseen by a basin coordinator. I've no doubt that when they are considering any sort of change they talk among themselves, with Enforcement, with the basin coordinator and if it proceeds far enough with the brass in Lansing. A good example was a few years ago when the SLMMU wanted to take a number of streams off the trout stream list. The proposal came out of the SLMMU and went straight to the public for comment. Other examples are changes to limits in some local lakes and to stocking regimes. None of them went to any committee like the cold or warm water committees. Maybe you're thinking more of state wide changes or changes that affect a number of water bodies in various parts of the state. Why do you always leap to conspiratorial conclusions? Ask Scott Heintzelman and get some facts before you wind yourself up over nothing. He can probably provide you with the 2014 survey as well as the others.


----------



## kzoofisher

mondrella said:


> What it boils down to is it does not meet the standards put forth for the type of waters proposed?? Why do you think that is the case? Read the regulations portion of the trout management plan and tell me where i am wrong.


 Goal 4 sec. 3 Look at the type 4 streams in Calhoun, Kalamazoo, Ionia and other counties. Type 4 is used there to expand fishing opportunities. Because the Jordan actually has migratory fish type 4 was not suitable for the upper water. Type 2 is the best choice for expanding opportunity. If some other regulation existed, like one of the ones we had when there were seven types, that might have been a better fit. 1-4 are the only choices available now. Sorry if this seems long winded but I like to explain my reasoning, not just pontificate and expect people to accept what I say.

And if you knew this proposal came from the biologists why did you not only not correct the posts that said it came from a guide, you "liked" them.


----------



## toto

I think Kzoo AGAIN, if there is a problem with the fishery in that conservation measures are needed, no one that I know of has any problem with changing regs, including myself. The problem is, you have to determine the source of the problem you can't just make a knee jerk reaction and blame on too many fishermen, or the MSL's or daily limit. You need to ascertain all of it. As an hypothetical: What if you decide that only 1 fish can be kept per day, and the MSL is, I don't know, 14"? What if after that the stocks still dwindle? Is that the fishermen's fault, or is it something else. At least be rational and stop blaming fishermen for the world's problems in the fishery aspect. There are so many different things going on at once that it's hard to determine, not to mention costly, to figure out just what is going on. So since you don't seem to get it, there are more than just myself but if it's catch and keep that is the problem and it can be proved, fine make an adjustment. But understand this, it is our water, our fish, and our DNR, and to a point but much less so, the NRC works for us too. Yeah, Yeah I know they serve at the governors discretion but it is what it is. I'm just saying you have an agenda that just hasn't been discovered yet, perhaps you are connected with PETA, or perhaps Sierra Club, or one of those groups that are also considered PETA light. Not to worry, every dog has his day.


----------



## mondrella

kzoofisher said:


> Goal 4 sec. 3 Look at the type 4 streams in Calhoun, Kalamazoo, Ionia and other counties. Type 4 is used there to expand fishing opportunities. Because the Jordan actually has migratory fish type 4 was not suitable for the upper water. Type 2 is the best choice for expanding opportunity. If some other regulation existed, like one of the ones we had when there were seven types, that might have been a better fit. 1-4 are the only choices available now. Sorry if this seems long winded but I like to explain my reasoning, not just pontificate and expect people to accept what I say.
> 
> And if you knew this proposal came from the biologists why did you not only not correct the posts that said it came from a guide, you "liked" them.


 Type 2 does not expand opportunity.
Its meant to be used in these type of waters.
Type 2 trout waters are generally larger than Type 1 streams, often have less stable flows,
and somewhat faster-growing trout (Figure 13). Depending on the magnitude of groundwater
inputs, some Type 2 stream reaches contain self-sustaining trout stocks, while others are
supported by stocking. Because of their potential to support faster-growth and suitable
overwinter survival of trout, Type 2 waters have higher MSLs (12 inches for Brown Trout and 10
inches for Brook Trout).
So type 4 water allows the same and closes all harvest of resident brown and brook trout for nearly 7 months. Type 3 allows harvest of those fish. Really when most angling pressure occurs on a stream open to migratory fish.
Type 3 stream reaches typically receive seasonal runs of migratory fish from the Great
Lakes, and therefore are open to fishing and harvest all year (Figure 14). Resident Brown Trout
and Brook Trout fisheries are usually minor or non-existent in Type 3 streams, but if these
species occur they receive substantial protection from a 15-inch MSL. For streams accessible to
Great Lakes fishes, the 15-inch MSL protects stocked Brown Trout, giving them a chance to out-
migrate to the Great Lakes, and provides some protection for adfluvial Brook Trout. Type 3
regulations occur on 60 stream reaches (approximately 826 miles).

I liked those post because 2 different DNR employees told me the exact same thing and named the individual involved behind the pressure to change regs. 
Sorry i am privy to info you did not know about.


----------



## -Axiom-

I would rather see a stream closed completely for a couple yrs as opposed to a change in regs.

Regulations beyond what is standard is a slow burn towards exclusion.

I'm curious, where can I buy fresh brown trout or brook trout for consumption?


----------



## ongo

mondrella said:


> Type 2 does not expand opportunity.
> Its meant to be used in these type of waters.
> Type 2 trout waters are generally larger than Type 1 streams, often have less stable flows,
> and somewhat faster-growing trout (Figure 13). Depending on the magnitude of groundwater
> inputs, some Type 2 stream reaches contain self-sustaining trout stocks, while others are
> supported by stocking. Because of their potential to support faster-growth and suitable
> overwinter survival of trout, Type 2 waters have higher MSLs (12 inches for Brown Trout and 10
> inches for Brook Trout).
> So type 4 water allows the same and closes all harvest of resident brown and brook trout for nearly 7 months. Type 3 allows harvest of those fish. Really when most angling pressure occurs on a stream open to migratory fish.
> Type 3 stream reaches typically receive seasonal runs of migratory fish from the Great
> Lakes, and therefore are open to fishing and harvest all year (Figure 14). Resident Brown Trout
> and Brook Trout fisheries are usually minor or non-existent in Type 3 streams, but if these
> species occur they receive substantial protection from a 15-inch MSL. For streams accessible to
> Great Lakes fishes, the 15-inch MSL protects stocked Brown Trout, giving them a chance to out-
> migrate to the Great Lakes, and provides some protection for adfluvial Brook Trout. Type 3
> regulations occur on 60 stream reaches (approximately 826 miles).
> 
> I liked those post because 2 different DNR employees told me the exact same thing and named the individual involved behind the pressure to change regs.
> Sorry i am privy to info you did not know about.


Based on your and the 2 DNR empoyees description of class 2 and class 3 type streams. Along with the experiences of some of the other posts about their fishing on the Jordan. And with my limited fishing over the past 15 yrs on the Jordan. I feel the Jordan is a perfect fit and would benefit long term with those reg. changes. Especially since they removed some of the dams in the upper reaches, which has been warming the waters. As far as who initiated the reg changes, irrelevant. If the river meets the criteria " if the shoe fits ,lace it up" make the changes.


----------



## mondrella

ongo said:


> Based on your and the 2 DNR empoyees description of class 2 and class 3 type streams. Along with the experiences of some of the other posts about their fishing on the Jordan. And with my limited fishing over the past 15 yrs on the Jordan. I feel the Jordan is a perfect fit and would benefit long term with those reg. changes. Especially since they removed some of the dams in the upper reaches, which has been warming the waters. As far as who initiated the reg changes, irrelevant. If the river meets the criteria " if the shoe fits ,lace it up" make the changes.


 Hmm i taking this as sarcasm. If not you need to research the Jordan a bit. You will be surprised how much better an angler you become once you understand the stream.


----------



## -Axiom-

ongo said:


> Based on your and the 2 DNR empoyees description of class 2 and class 3 type streams. Along with the experiences of some of the other posts about their fishing on the Jordan. And with my limited fishing over the past 15 yrs on the Jordan. I feel the Jordan is a perfect fit and would benefit long term with those reg. changes. Especially since they removed some of the dams in the upper reaches, which has been warming the waters. As far as who initiated the reg changes, irrelevant. If the river meets the criteria " if the shoe fits ,lace it up" make the changes.



IMO it would be more appropriate to make the Jordan type 1 for it's entire length.


----------



## ongo

mondrella said:


> Hmm i taking this as sarcasm. If not you need to research the Jordan a bit. You will be surprised how much better an angler you become once you understand the stream.


No,No sarcasm was meant at all. If perceived that way, I apologize. I just feel that the opportunity to catch anadromous fish should be available for those who like to partake while the 15" MSL on brooks and browns is a good idea to protect the larger brookies in Nov while their spawning. As far as browns go I release all under 17" anyway. And I've never had a problem catching more than enough to eat in that system. 



-Axiom- said:


> IMO it would be more appropriate to make the Jordan type 1 for it's entire length.


I would much rather see the extended seasons for the anadromous fishes like they used to do it in many streams around the state.


----------



## ongo

I see the flaw in my earlier statement. It should be Type 1 or Type 2 would be ok. But with Type 3 for the rest of the year not the year round. That would give lots of opportunity for lake run fish while not hurting the brook and brown population. More opportunity for more people, while protecting the resource.


----------



## mondrella

The Jordan is a extremely stable flow river that is not very fertile. That means slower growing trout. The Jordan has few brookies that live past 2 years of age. My experience on rivers or streams that produce larger brookies. Have less gradient and more deeper pool waters allowing from my experience better winter survival. Going type 2 water is nearly 100% Opposite to what that water is intended for. 
Type 4 water allows fishing year round yet protects browns and brookies from harvest nearly 7 months a year. How does opening harvest up on the largest resident fish year round protecting them?


----------



## ongo

mondrella said:


> In 2004 thru 2006 i had a section of river that was incredible many 10 to 12 inch brookies. Just above them was the nirvana of big brown trout for about a half a mile. That section went dead nearly devoid of trout. Yet a 1/4 mile above where it was tons of browns is now loaded with brook trout. Prior to 2 years ago i caught 1 trout in that area.
> 2 miles downstream the river deepened and slowed a touch. Lots and lots of browns.


 I don't know md, your previous description of your experience on this system seems to contradict your stand on the possible rule changes.
In a somewhat less than fertile stream, 10" to 12" brook trout and lots of them," with only a few living past 2yrs?"


----------



## mondrella

ongo said:


> I don't know md, your previous description of your experience on this system seems to contradict your stand on the possible rule changes.
> In a somewhat less than fertile stream, 10" to 12" brook trout and lots of them," with only a few living past 2yrs?"


 The area that is proposed type 2 is more nursery type water. Sure there are some nice size trout up there. The better sized brookies i find lower down in the system. We dont have any hard facts but i believe many of the larger brookies actually migrate out to the lake at some point. Much like some other less known trout waters in this state. One has to look at the river habitat yes for what it is there are great numbers of trout the size i mentioned. Now a few streams closer to my home are fertile trout waters and one expects to catch a higher percentage of 10 to 12 inch brookies. Studies show in this state brookies live about 2 years. From 2 to 3 year old fish there is a incredible drop in trout. Even waters that see minimal fishing pressure. Anglers have little effect its habitat that plays the biggest role.


----------



## Jaspo

I see a lot of numbers in this thread. But maybe there's more to it. I too have fished the Jordan for nearly 20 years, there's been various size regulations over the years on many rivers. The beauty of the Jordan and it's sprawling headwaters has made it easy to teach my son the joys of trout fishing without much fear of him being swept away. It would be unfortunate to add this river to the list of elite streams where it would be difficult for a kid to keep some fish. My son will be 17 this year, he's been in the water starting out as the "official netter" since he was 3. If you see him out there say hi, he'll be the one with a spinning rod and a fly rod in his pack.


----------

