# Johnson Creek - Proposed to be removed from Gear Restrictions



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

I received a notice in advance of the upcoming October Coldwater Committee that one of the proposed changes to FO-200 for the 2012 season is that Johnson Creek in SE Michigan will be removed from the Gear Restricted category and placed in Type 1. The notice went on to explain the reasons for placing it in the Type 1 category. All the reasons sited were based on the science of the fishery: Seditimentation problems, stocking reductions, trout competetion with other speicies, etc. 

I applaud the DNR for putting the science of this fishery ahead of "social" considerations and even the legislature - who passed a law specifically for this stream's gear restrictions (not sure how the DNR is getting around that, but I intend to ask at the cold water meeting).

Don


----------



## Randle (Nov 6, 2000)

Thanks Don, Do you think that by removing this section from the Gear Restricted waters it will open the doors to additional sections to be added? While I applaud their efforts to remove these restrictions from waters where they are not needed I am concerned that now there are more miles of potential water for restrictions based on the 200 mile limit that was passed.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

Randle said:


> Thanks Don, Do you think that by removing this section from the Gear Restricted waters it will open the doors to additional sections to be added? While I applaud their efforts to remove these restrictions from waters where they are not needed I am concerned that now there are more miles of potential water for restrictions based on the 200 mile limit that was passed.


I was thinking the exact same thing Randle. Looks like Johnson's Creek currently has 6 miles under GR.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Valid question and one I'll certainly be adding to my list to ask in 2 weeks at the coldwater meeting. By law they are allowed up to 212 miles (I believe), but that was based on the fact that two streams were added separately by the legislature (Johnson's 6 miles were one of those and one other, also with 6 miles, which is a western UP stream, I believe, forget which one). So there are really 200 miles available by law, not including Johnsons and whatever the other one is... 

Great questions though. I forget the exact total, but I think were were right around 185-190 restricted miles after the last go around. So based on current law, we are nearly capped out, assuming this does not add 6 miles. I certainly don't want these 6 miles to provide leverage for restrictions on the Boardman, or more of the PM.

Don


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Hey guys... I'm certain this will not be looked at as a good thing due to the way the last round of gear restrictions went but MI TU is supporting the removal of Johnson Creek from the gear restriction list. Four of the local chapters in southeast Michigan are sending letters to Bryan Burroughs to add our support to the removal of this stream from the list.

I wouldn't be shocked though that the 212 miles of gear restricted streams stays on the books. I can only hope that if the restriction is removed from Johnson Creek that those miles are put into "good use" somewhere else. And by "good use" I mean a *sound scientific restriction* that would include a stream with needed size restrictions or creel limits, not another restriction on actual fishing gear.

We can only hope that something was learned from the division among fishermen during the last gear restiction debate. I know, it may be wishful thinking, but I am keeping hope alive.


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

Don;
Just remember that all 212 will be gone in the near future.
I haven't given up and won't.

Jerry


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

The Downstream Drift said:


> We can only hope that something was learned from the division among fishermen during the last gear restiction debate. I know, it may be wishful thinking, but I am keeping hope alive.


Amen Jason!


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

Your correct don on that western up stream i am very familiar with it but i wont name it no need to.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

It would seem to me that the DNR, or NRC is putting themselves in a pickle. If they use the scientific evidence in place, that would be a great argument to eliminate all others as well. They have already admitted the PM for example doesn't have any problems, so why the gear regs. What I'm saying is, you can't have a social issue on one hand, and scream science doesn't support it on the other. Just sayin......


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

Duck Creek is the UP gear restricted stream you mention above.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

tannhd said:


> Duck Creek is the UP gear restricted stream you mention above.


Thanks Tannhd - the name escaped me. I also sent you a PM regarding your inquiry on GLFSA. We'll get it straightened out. And we're glad to have you on board. Send your fishing buddies our way too!! The more the merrier!


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

The tackle restricted streams in Michigan (flies only) have absolutely nothing to do with habitat, fish planting, science or reproduction. Tackle restrictions started out with politics and it continues to be a political hot bed. In the early 1900's if you were a fly fisherman you could buy a section of river if you had enough money or political influence. Some of those very sections of rivers have never changed in the last 100 years and probably never will. I find it ironic that I just finished with watching a you tube video about a guy who is an avid fly fisherman explaining how to floss salmon. I hope that is not what fly fishing is all about. I almost wish one of these streams was nearby so I could break out my spinners. The number of sections, streams, and miles of flies only has diminished through the years which is probably a good thing. I am waiting for someone to post on why flies only is a good thing.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

We reviewed the Johnson's Creek Gear Restrictions at the coldwater steering committee meeting yesterday, which are slated to be stricken from FO-200 when signed by the Director shortly (Nov or Dec) and go into effect next fishing season. There really wasn't much review. They simply told us they were going away, and no one objected.

TU, as Downstream stated previously, support the removal of Johnson's Creek from the gear restricted list based on the fact that they are seeing very little year over year survival in that stream. Bryan Burroughs provided letters to Jim Dexter on behalf of the local SE MI TU chapters that showed their support for Johnson's removal based on the fact that the science of the fishery doesn't support the existence of Gear Restrictions.

The DNR was able to get around the legislature because the way the law was written it said that any designated trout stream in a county that had a city with a population over 750K, had to be gear restricted. So essentially this applied to Wayne county because of Detroit - and Johnson's is the only designated trout stream in Wayne Co, I believe. Well, Detroit's population fell below 750K in the last census, so the DNR was free to remove the gear regs.

Thx,
Don


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Thanks for the update Don. 

Last night at my TU chapter's board meeting an interesting question came up. If all of the gear restriction miles are not used up why are we concerned about removing the designation on this creek to free up more miles to be used elsewhere?

The only answer I had is that Johnson Creek didn't follow the criteria for being looked at for gear restriction in the first place. 

Any talk about this question at the meeting that would address this question?


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Hey Jason,

There was no discussion about removing these miles so they could be used elsewhere at the meeting. In fact, I'm not even sure if these 6 miles could be applied elsewhere, since they seem to be a separate legislative set-aside, but that's a bit of a different question.

Not to speak for anyone else, but I think folks on my side are concerned that these miles could suddenly get applied to another popular/productive stream, while they probably have less concern for this little unknown, less productive stream in SE Mi. Some of that "not in my back yard" effect in play...

Also, while not all of the miles are used up, they are close. We were in the high 180's so adding more than one or two more stretches is not currently possible under the current 200 or 212 limit.

I think these restrictions were eliminated because even to the side that likes them, they seem like a "waste." Essentially the story I've heard is that a certain SE MI legislator, who has now term limited out, pushed this through and many have wanted it off the books since the day it was passed. Both the DNR and TU Brass seemed happy to have them gone and the DNR made the comment that they were trying to figure out how to get rid of these for years, and the population of Detroit dropping, finally gave them the ability to do it.

Take some of this with a grain of salt, cause it's all anecdotal - I didn't go looking up house or senate records or anything to verify! 

Don


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Thanks for the response Don.

Let's hope that the removal of Johnson Creek from the gear restriction list starts a review process for other areas in the state that have unnecessary restrictions. It has been shown now that removal from the list can happen here in Michigan and, with the right research done, there may be other sections that can be removed.

In my mind this opens the door for review of other gear restricted areas to get started. I realize the powers that be have said there will not be any changes for the next five years but this allows for research to be completed to support the removal of other gear reg sections.

Good work reporting on this Don. Keep up the good work.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

The Downstream Drift said:


> Thanks for the response Don.
> 
> Let's hope that the removal of Johnson Creek from the gear restriction list starts a review process for other areas in the state that have unnecessary restrictions. It has been shown now that removal from the list can happen here in Michigan and, with the right research done, there may be other sections that can be removed.
> 
> ...


Sure Jason, no problem. I was also encouraged by how this process was completed and how the DNR and other stakeholders put the science of the fishery first in this case. I'd love to see Johnson's used like a model, as you stated, to review the others when the time comes.

I am also planning to put together a bit of a "full report," as usual, as soon as time permits from the cold water meeting. I'll provide a link for all if you if you care to read about some of the other ongoing issues (steelhead, brook trout, chumming, etc.).

Thx,
Don


----------



## gator29 (Mar 23, 2011)

I have been hearing about jhonsons creek alot on this site and was wondering were it is exactly? And what species of fish is their to catch from it. Thx for info. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

gator29 said:


> I have been hearing about jhonsons creek alot on this site and was wondering were it is exactly? And what species of fish is their to catch from it. Thx for info.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


I will now amaze you with the sum-total of my knowledge on this stream. 

1. It's in Wayne County
2. It, based on the research I've seen and what I heard at the meetings, is a marginal trout stream.
3. It will be reclassified as a type 1 trout stream come April 1.

That's all I got! Good Luck!
Don

P.S. I'm sure there are others on this site that know more about it (fishing/access/etc), but info may not be easy to come by via the internet on a small/marginal stream such as this one...


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Access to it is tough in most areas.


----------

