# Probably playing with fire...



## Trout King

Well after reading all this arguing and bickering between different people (one who is now banned), what I am getting is the same thing that has been the cycle in this state and is just wrong. Guys with money that throw money at projects and agendas believe they should have special rules and regulations and be rewarded with more water for their own use. Others like the GLFSA which are mainly blue collar folks believe everyone, including youngsters should have the same access to fishing PUBLIC waters. Unfortunately money talks when it comes to legislation, until the ordinary people step up andhave their voice be heard the money will talk. I am just sick of people with excess income believe they deserve the entitlements of their "own" spots on public water because they paid to help the fishery. That is their choice, me, I live paycheck to paycheck and do what I can to help. I have done local stream improvements on a great natural steelhead fishery as well as pick up trash, for some reason people don't want to listen to those small efforts, but if someone drops thousands to help a cause they are given entitlements. What adds up to more, thousands contributing a little or a few contributing a lot? I believe all public water should be regulated on science, not social to lessen the discrimitory laws that have no biological backing. 

Just to let you know I am in no way prejudice against fly fishing, hell I am planning on buying a new fly rod soon and get into fly fishing trout, but I don't want my son to grow up and 20 years from now not be able to fish the best trout streams by dunking a worm or throwing a spinner. 

I know this is just reitterating what has gone around and around, but jeez, when will money not be the determining factor of who fishes where? Probably never, but people need to fight the good fight and speak for the thousands of little guys who want to same opportunities to fish the same waters as anyone else. 

I hope anyone who feels the same looks into the GLFSA and understands it isn't a anti fly-fishing org, but a group that looks to promote the same opportunities for anyone and everyone who loves to trout fish, catch and keep, bait, fly or CR. I know I haven't had the time or funds to step in and do much more than voice opinions on the internet, but it is nice to know like minded people are out there. I as I assume many other GLFSA members WOULD support "protecting" fisheries if there was actually biuological data supporting the need for this protection.


----------



## fishinlk

I know I may regret saying this, but your opening statement is exactly what's wrong with this whole aregument and the picture that is trying to be painted by many of the GLFSA. You are like so many that don't like something and try turning into the "Have's" vs the "Have not's". If you guys would shelve that B.S you may actually get a little more credibility instead of looking/sounding like a bunch of sour grapes.

Every group of people has some with deeper pockets but there are plenty of others that don't and are an average Joe just like anyone else. To paint that picture is petty and irresponsible to your groups intersts. If you guys really want to get somewhere you need to get a grip.

I have no problems with gear restrictions one way or the other. My main thing is seeing regulated harvest. The average sizes have been going up on the waters I've fished for the past 30 years so I know they work. It's nice to NOT see the brookie population cropped off at 9" and actually see 12"-13" brookies around once in awhile now. I'd have no problem if the gear restrsictions fell back to what they were 10 years ago if they'd keep the size/posession limits as they are now.


----------



## Trout King

well is it the case of the average joe joining and go along w the guys w deep pockets just to have that water to fish? My 2 yr old cant fly fish how is gr water equal for him. Your point about brook trout is documented in studies that they only live 2 or 3 yrs avg. Hard to make 13 inches i fish a few streams that 13 to 14 arent uncommom and they are type 1 public streams w no restrictions. Its not anglers doing damage to fisheries its all about ecological and biological capabilities of the systems
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fishinlk

First the brook trout longevity. In the studies that the brookies are only live 2-3 years what is the primary cause of death? I'm going to take the chance to assume it's predation, but what percentage is fisherman vs. "other". Brook trout grow slower than browns and rainbows do and a 15" brook trout is much older than the corresponding brown. If I'm seeing an consistent increase in brook trout sizes(browns too) it would stand to reason that they now living longer due to limiting the predation at an earlier age. I would make the argument that a river that sees the fishing traffic of the Manistee or AuSable systems is going to have a tougher time getting to size than some of the smaller very productive brook trout waters in the state. 

I don't agree with the idea that the others are hanging on to the pockets of the wealthy to reap the benefits of the gear restricted water. i think it's an over simplified view of the situation.

I have a daughter who has fished with me since the get-go so I understand kids fishing very well and how improtant it is to get them into fish. That being said I never felt the urge that there was something wrong that I couldn't march down to the holy waters let her throw a worm in there. I just took her one of the other umpteen dozen places that I could let her fish that way and never had a shortage of fish or places to go within a relatively short distance. When she was five she was fishing for trout in the upper Manistee with sassy shad twister tails and catching fish. I've got a picture of her doing that in my cube here at work that will speak to that.(not in the flies only area  )


----------



## fishinDon

fishinlk said:


> I'd have no problem if the gear restrsictions fell back to what they were 10 years ago if they'd keep the size/posession limits as they are now.


Me neither. I've been saying this forever. Gear Regs are a horribly charged issue that divide us and start pissing matches when in reality the size limits and bag limits (to a lesser extent) are what matters far more to the fishery. 

While I am fundamentally opposed to Gear Regs, it may be time to find some middle ground and put this one to bed. IMO, it is in the best interest of the DNR and Michigan Anglers to come up with a compromise (maybe different size/bag?) on this issue that is agreeable to both sides so we can be done with this divisiveness. 

Anyone have any ideas for a reasonable compromise? fishinlk looks like he's got a decent start...
Don


----------



## ausable riverboat

Trout King said:


> Well after reading all this arguing and bickering between different people (one who is now banned), what I am getting is the same thing that has been the cycle in this state and is just wrong. Guys with money that throw money at projects and agendas believe they should have special rules and regulations and be rewarded with more water for their own use. Others like the GLFSA which are mainly blue collar folks believe everyone, including youngsters should have the same access to fishing PUBLIC waters. Unfortunately money talks when it comes to legislation, until the ordinary people step up andhave their voice be heard the money will talk. I am just sick of people with excess income believe they deserve the entitlements of their "own" spots on public water because they paid to help the fishery. That is their choice, me, I live paycheck to paycheck and do what I can to help. I have done local stream improvements on a great natural steelhead fishery as well as pick up trash, for some reason people don't want to listen to those small efforts, but if someone drops thousands to help a cause they are given entitlements. What adds up to more, thousands contributing a little or a few contributing a lot? I believe all public water should be regulated on science, not social to lessen the discrimitory laws that have no biological backing.
> 
> Just to let you know I am in no way prejudice against fly fishing, hell I am planning on buying a new fly rod soon and get into fly fishing trout, but I don't want my son to grow up and 20 years from now not be able to fish the best trout streams by dunking a worm or throwing a spinner.
> 
> I know this is just reitterating what has gone around and around, but jeez, when will money not be the determining factor of who fishes where? Probably never, but people need to fight the good fight and speak for the thousands of little guys who want to same opportunities to fish the same waters as anyone else.
> 
> I hope anyone who feels the same looks into the GLFSA and understands it isn't a anti fly-fishing org, but a group that looks to promote the same opportunities for anyone and everyone who loves to trout fish, catch and keep, bait, fly or CR. I know I haven't had the time or funds to step in and do much more than voice opinions on the internet, but it is nice to know like minded people are out there. I as I assume many other GLFSA members WOULD support "protecting" fisheries if there was actually biuological data supporting the need for this protection.


You are 100% right I could not said it better


----------



## ausable riverboat

fishinlk said:


> I know I may regret saying this, but your opening statement is exactly what's wrong with this whole aregument and the picture that is trying to be painted by many of the GLFSA. You are like so many that don't like something and try turning into the "Have's" vs the "Have not's". If you guys would shelve that B.S you may actually get a little more credibility instead of looking/sounding like a bunch of sour grapes.
> 
> Every group of people has some with deeper pockets but there are plenty of others that don't and are an average Joe just like anyone else. To paint that picture is petty and irresponsible to your groups intersts. If you guys really want to get somewhere you need to get a grip.
> 
> I have no problems with gear restrictions one way or the other. My main thing is seeing regulated harvest. The average sizes have been going up on the waters I've fished for the past 30 years so I know they work. It's nice to NOT see the brookie population cropped off at 9" and actually see 12"-13" brookies around once in awhile now. I'd have no problem if the gear restrsictions fell back to what they were 10 years ago if they'd keep the size/posession limits as they are now.


You have no idea what is going on here in Michigan you are 100% wrong you need to stay in Ohio


----------



## fishinDon

fishinlk said:


> First the brook trout longevity. In the studies that the brookies are only live 2-3 years what is the primary cause of death? I'm going to take the chance to assume it's predation, but what percentage is fisherman vs. "other". Brook trout grow slower than browns and rainbows do and a 15" brook trout is much older than the corresponding brown. If I'm seeing an consistent increase in brook trout sizes(browns too) it would stand to reason that they now living longer due to limiting the predation at an earlier age. I would make the argument that a river that sees the fishing traffic of the Manistee or AuSable systems is going to have a tougher time getting to size than some of the smaller very productive brook trout waters in the state.
> 
> I don't agree with the idea that the others are hanging on to the pockets of the wealthy to reap the benefits of the gear restricted water. i think it's an over simplified view of the situation.
> 
> I have a daughter who has fished with me since the get-go so I understand kids fishing very well and how improtant it is to get them into fish. That being said I never felt the urge that there was something wrong that I couldn't march down to the holy waters let her throw a worm in there. I just took her one of the other umpteen dozen places that I could let her fish that way and never had a shortage of fish or places to go within a relatively short distance. When she was five she was fishing for trout in the upper Manistee with sassy shad twister tails and catching fish. I've got a picture of her doing that in my cube here at work that will speak to that.(not in the flies only area  )


Hi Lance,

Thanks for bringing a level head to this debate. Here's a link to the most comprehensive study that I'm aware of on Brook Trout in regards to manipulations of the regulations in Michigan. Type 1 was compared to Type 2 and also to Gear Restrictions on the Black River.

http://www.glfsa.org/science/BlackRiver-SpecialRegsevaluation2010.pdf 

Based on this I can not help but conclude that restrictive regulations for Brook Trout don't serve much biological purpose. 

Good luck if you are heading out on the opener,
Don


----------



## Roger That

Excuse me but can anyone direct me to the fly fisherman only drinking fountain?


----------



## kzoofisher

> Guys with money that throw money at projects and agendas believe they should have special rules and regulations and be rewarded with more water for their own use. Others like the GLFSA which are mainly blue collar folks believe everyone, including youngsters should have the same access to fishing PUBLIC waters.


Frankly, I've had it with the class warfare you and others in the GLFSA are waging. I fished gear restricted water this weekend with a couple of other guys who strongly support the regs. We are an HVAC tech, a school teacher and a guy with a desk job who is trying to refinance his house so he can keep it. Hardly a bunch of high rollers dictating policy to the state. You trot out this *poor, pitiful me* routine every time you want to stir the pot and grow your membership and the lack of truth in it doesn't seem to bother you a bit.



> I believe all public water should be regulated on science, not social to lessen the discrimitory laws that have no biological backing.


They are regulated on science, the fact that others interpret the scientific findings differently than you do does not mean that biology is being ignored. As has been pointed out repeatedly in the last few week there is a social component to all regulations no matter how restrictive or open they are. Your *no social* meme is just a PR trick to try to recruit members.



> I hope anyone who feels the same looks into the GLFSA and understands it isn't a anti fly-fishing org, but a group that looks to promote the same opportunities for anyone and everyone who loves to trout fish, catch and keep, bait, fly or CR.


At least you've quit claiming you represent everyone, that's a start.


----------



## rcleofly

The holy waters is the best section of trout stream in the state. Reason being is the regulations. The section of the Pm from M37 to gleasons is getting better and better by the day. Reason being is the regulations. I'm sorry but I fish side by side with my best friend who is a crawler using trout eating fool. I on the other hand practice catch and release and fly fish only. He kills fish like crazy. For starters he eats them, witch fine I guess. But, so many of the fish he doesn't keep end up belly up. The fight is harder on them. The hook is normally way in the fishes belly. Idk I normally stay out of these topics. But, give it a brake. There is 10 times more open to whatever water in the state the there is restricted water. Get over it. There would be no holy waters if we lifted the restrictions. It would get ruined. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## jm77

fishinDon said:


> Anyone have any ideas for a reasonable compromise? fishinlk looks like he's got a decent start...
> Don


 I agree there probably needs to be some sort of compromise as the issue is just going to get more divisive. I don't see a problem with these regulated areas continuing to be catch and release only but allowing hardware, just not live bait to help keep fish mortality down. I've also fished a lake where treble hooks were illegal and didn't notice any difference in landing fish after clipping 2 points off a treble hook on a spinner or a rapala. There is plenty of very good water for everyone to use regardless of how they fish, and it's ridiculous for fisherman to be fighting each other when there are so many legitimate issues that they should be fighting together.


----------



## Ranger Ray

There was a compromise on the PM? I use bait to fish browns and rainbows, I lost. Where is the compromise?


----------



## Ranger Ray

fishinlk said:


> I have no problems with gear restrictions one way or the other. My main thing is seeing regulated harvest. The average sizes have been going up on the waters I've fished for the past 30 years so I know they work. It's nice to NOT see the brookie population cropped off at 9" and actually see 12"-13" brookies around once in awhile now. I'd have no problem if the gear restrsictions fell back to what they were 10 years ago if they'd keep the size/posession limits as they are now.


The size of fish have improved on my favorite stream also, and its not fly's only, imagine that. However, it has cycled back and forth on size in the thirty years I have fished it, so I am sure I will see a fluctuation in size in the future.


----------



## troutguy26

Roger That said:


> Excuse me but can anyone direct me to the fly fisherman only drinking fountain?


Yes sir take 37 north til ya hit a town called baldwin.


----------



## toto

Really kzoo, science was used, I quess Jim Dexter is confused as well.


http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/10/proposed_plan_for_gear_restric.html


----------



## Rzr

jm77 said:


> *I agree there probably needs to be some sort of compromise as the issue is just going to get more divisive*. I don't see a problem with these regulated areas continuing to be catch and release only but allowing hardware, just not live bait to help keep fish mortality down. I've also fished a lake where treble hooks were illegal and didn't notice any difference in landing fish after clipping 2 points off a treble hook on a spinner or a rapala. There is plenty of very good water for everyone to use regardless of how they fish, and *it's ridiculous for fisherman to be fighting each other when there are so many legitimate issues that they should be fighting together*.


There will never be any compromise on any issues resource related until more forum members both here and elsewhere learn how the regulatory system works. Those working to keep anybody off of their' resource (be it stakeholders or the DNR administration itself) know full well that most would rather 'talk' about why they can't do this or that than very simply seeking out the stakeholder and state employee who are orchestrating the entire show and pulling the curtain back.

Sure, access is related to money...so is lobbying in Lansing. Both can be easily countered and fixed by forcing conversations out in to the light of day. We're teaching our kids right now the same thing that our parents told us and that is 'you can't fight city hall'. I would say that if you're going to let your own employees run the show and teach your kids to not only lay down similiarly but not have a clue as to how decisions are made or by whom...then frankly you don't really _deserve_ to complain about decision making processes that you know absolutely nothing about.

Compare it to the older generation today who built crappy school systems so that the kids today couldn't figure out that entitlements were a scam and that they'd be the eventual victims. Young people are looking around today with blank looks on their faces instead of organizing enmasse to get checks cut and pensions cancelled that weren't even based on legitimate salaries or any present fiscal reality.

If those kids don't dig any deeper and go after the guys _still_ behind the curtain crapping on their legacy...I really have no sympathy for them and the same applies to gear restrictions.


----------



## quest32a

rcleofly said:


> The holy waters is the best section of trout stream in the state. Reason being is the regulations. The section of the Pm from M37 to gleasons is getting better and better by the day


Wrong, and wrong. The Holy waters aren't even best section of the Au Sable watershe. Ask any flyfishing guide which section they fish for big trout. I guarantee it is not the Holy Waters. It is downstream from there. 

Same on the PM, when the guides start fishing the big bugs and the hatches they are no wear near the fly water. Its downstream. 

The M-37 strech of the PM is still very, very good water. It has nothing to do with regulations though. It has to do with gravel, gradient, temperature and cover. Same reason that the Little Manistee River is good in the M-37 corridor along with the, Big Manistee, Pine, and Muskegon. Those sections of all the listed rivers have a great deal of gravel. 

Its not the regs that make these sections impressive, its the habitat.


----------



## jm77

Ranger Ray said:


> There was a compromise on the PM. I use bait to fish browns and rainbows, I lost. Where is the compromise?


 The compromise is you can use hardware in what should turn into a better fishery or go downstream a couple miles and continue fishing with bait.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Really kzoo, science was used, I quess Jim Dexter is confused as well.


Yeah, science was used. That's what I said.


----------



## Ranger Ray

jm77 said:


> The compromise is you can use hardware in what should turn into a better fishery or go downstream a couple miles and continue fishing with bait.


I did go downstream once, the fishing was great, still is great. That's why TU wanted it fly's only, not to improve it, but to keep bait fishermen off. How about you take your hardware downstream and give me back the last stretch changed to artificial? Good compromise? How about I give TU 80% of the river miles in the state that are marginal and take the 20% blue ribbon trout water for bait? I mean, its only 20% of the water. Fair?


----------



## toto

Obviously kzoo, you didn't read the article I linked. It says right in there what Dexter stated. He said, and I quote, "there is no biological reason for these changes, as if there were, they wouldn't need public input. These are social issues". Maybe not an exact word for word quote, but thats what the head guy in DNR fisheries said about it. What are we suppossed to believe based on that statement alone. Heres the problem with you kzoo, you are debating on emotions and only emotions. Thats fine that you have these emotions, but they aren't fact, and fact is the only thing that can be properly debated on this issue. The facts are there, you need to take your blinders off and see it, that is of course if you care to see it.


----------



## jm77

Ranger Ray said:


> I did go downstream once, the fishing was great, still is great. That's why TU wanted it fly's only, not to improve it, but to keep bait fishermen off. How about you take your hardware downstream and give me back the last stretch changed to artificial? Good compromise? How about I give TU 80% of the river miles in the state that are marginal and take the 20% blue ribbon trout water for bait? I mean, its only 20% of the water. Fair?


 I'm just going to take the advice from the bottom of your post and stop arguing with you.


----------



## Ranger Ray

jm77 said:


> I'm just going to take the advice from the bottom of your post and stop arguing with you.


I was kind of looking forward to a scientific fact based conversation from you. Oh well, its your choice.


----------



## Rzr

From: http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index....r_restric.html 
"...On the the PM, there is no biological justification,&#8221; Dexter said. &#8220;We evaluate the biology and *social* and economic forces in place. If there is a strong biological reason do something to protect a population, *we won&#8217;t even ask people&#8217;s opinion, we will just do it. That&#8217;s our job*..."

When your employee comes into your office, states the above...and you (the owner) immediately decide that the best method of solving YOUR problem is to allow _him_ to handle it on a 'social' basis without consulting anybody (especially you) and maybe a self-interested vendor?...you're a fool.

Take that same employee with a vendor (lobbyist/non-profit) and _allow_ the two of them to work together behind a closed curtain that even _you_ can't pull back? 

Quit crying to anybody but yourself.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Obviously kzoo, you didn't read the article I linked. It says right in there what Dexter stated. He said, and I quote, "there is no biological reason for these changes, as if there were, they wouldn't need public input. These are social issues". Maybe not an exact word for word quote, but thats what the head guy in DNR fisheries said about it. What are we suppossed to believe based on that statement alone. Heres the problem with you kzoo, you are debating on emotions and only emotions. Thats fine that you have these emotions, but they aren't fact, and fact is the only thing that can be properly debated on this issue. The facts are there, you need to take your blinders off and see it, that is of course if you care to see it.


Ha, I think you are projecting. If you can't separate your emotions out to get the meaning of this bit of text, I really have to question all of your vaunted research. Here is the Dexter quote:



> On the PM, there is no biological justification, Dexter said. We evaluate the biology and social and economic forces in place. If there is a strong biological reason do something to protect a population, we wont even ask peoples opinion, we will just do it. Thats our job.....
> 
> But if there is no biological reason, it becomes mostly a social issue, and we cant please everyone. A lot of people feel this is discriminatory. We say it isnt. You can still fish every mile of water in the state that is open to the public.


Pretty clear really, if a proposal is at least neutral in its effect on a population then the DNR will look to the public to help decide how a resource should be managed. If the proposal is harmful it will not be considered. If the resource is in trouble the DNR will act on its own or possibly seek public input on corrective options, e.g. the current salmon stocking proposals. Fisheries is managing the whole state this way not just trout and fly water. Look at the brook trout, pike and musky surveys; pure social proposals because the populations are healthy and the DNR wants to serve the public better. I applaud that. You appear to read everything through a filter that converts anything to *facts* that support your desired outcome.


----------



## jm77

Ranger Ray said:


> I was kind of looking forward to a scientific fact based conversation from you. Oh well, its your choice.


 I don't have any science. I just think fishing for trout with live bait results in more dead undersized trout than other methods. At least that was my experience with fishing worms. I don't necessarily think we need flies only water but I do think that no-kill regulations vastly improve those stretches of water, and even if it's not intentional, live bait results in a fair amount of fish being killed.


----------



## Ranger Ray

jm77 said:


> I don't have any science. I just think fishing for trout with live bait results in more dead undersized trout than other methods. At least that was my experience with fishing worms. I don't necessarily think we need flies only water but I do think that no-kill regulations vastly improve those stretches of water, and even if it's not intentional, live bait results in a fair amount of fish being killed.


What if the biology said those extra fish being killed, are in the whole scheme of things, irrelevant? Should we stop bait fishing, just on the science, "bait kills more fish"? What is an acceptable amount? All methods kill fish.


----------



## toto

Get the meaning of it, how plain can it be??? He states clearly there is no biological reasoning for it, and that its social. What don't I understand about that??

Heres a quote I received from an attorney about the Public Trust Doctrine in Michigan and what he believes is the answer:

"assuming that the DNR's fishing regulations are baosed on reasonable science or legitimate management objectives, I would say yes, these regulations would be consistent with the PTD. The PTD doesn't require that all public waters be equally open to unrestricted fishing or public access. Reasonable regulations desigened to manage and protect the fisheries resources and related habitat and to promote legitimate management objectives are certainly permissible, if not required for the state to be carrying out its public trust responsiblities. If, however, the state is promoting a type of fishing activity that is very restrictive in nautre and required to protect the fisheries resource, and is catering to an "elite" segment of the population, then this may be unreasonable under the PTD because it would be unduly restricting the publics right to have access to navigable waters and related fishery resources."

I won't quote the attorney as I don't have permission to do so, but this guy is an authority on the subject, and in fact teaches it in law school.


----------



## fishinlk

> *ausable riverboat wrote:*
> You have no idea what is going on here in Michigan you are 100% wrong you need to stay in Ohio


 You have no idea what you are talking about sir. I grew up in Saginaw and over my 49 years I've spent more time in the woods and waters of MI than many that I have met that spout off about how much they know about "what is going on up there". While I live down here I still spend plenty of time up there both fishing and hunting, I lived up there for the first 17 yeas of my life. I could move back up there but then I'd be taking one of the few jobs there are up there. There is a reason I have almost 90k miles on my 2008 Silverado while driving my wife's car to work most of the time.... I may live down here but my heart is still in MI. have a nice day..... 

Don, 

Interesting survey on the Black. There was lots of good info there but some of the lapses in surveys raise some questions as well. The lack of surveys prior to the 2006 spike left me with some questions on trends that might have been missed. It's too bad as results for some of those periods could have helped make the case one way or the other. 

Given that huge population spike of larger fish in 2006 it would be interesting to know what the populations were the year before. It would also be interesting to go back and correlate things like weather over those summers to see if you had cool wet summers that may have kept fisherman in-doors more or if there a hot dry spell that may have resulted in increased mortality. Angling hours per section would also be interesting. We've seen how special regs areas will sometimes attract additional anglers because it's concluded that the fishing will be better there. So while the limits may have been reduced you could have had more hours on the river keeping the same percentage of fish per angler resulting in the population drop the next year.

It's all speculation without the complete picture. The real test would be to do the same type of study that would speak to ALL of these factors with finite numbers.


----------



## fishinlk

> *Ranger Ray wrote:*
> The size of fish have improved on my favorite stream also, and its not fly's only, imagine that. However, it has cycled back and forth on size in the thirty years I have fished it, so I am sure I will see a fluctuation in size in the future


 I never said_ anything _about fly only water. Just size restrictions.


----------



## Roger That

Personally attack eachother all you want. Denying someone the right to fish sections of rivers with a lawful method of fishing is unjust. 
And for the record, i do not bait fish trout.


----------



## centerpin

For me it comes down to choice, I should have the choice to use any legal fishing method that still meets the requirements of protecting the fishery.

As far as i am concerned all flies only water could be turned into single hook barbless artificial only and keep the no kill regulations where historically used. That would be a start i think.

Single hook barbless artificial only regulations still meet the criteria of protecting a fishery while still allowing a more democratic approach to anglers. Float fishing, spinners, spoons, jigs, flies and more!

Fly fishing and conventional methods have been moving closer and closer over the years not further apart. It makes no sense to keep these regulations when modern conventional techniques using artificial lures do as much or LESS damage than many fly methods.

Have any of you ever seen a kelly galloup streamer? what does more damage that or a micro lead head jig? 

You can still protect the fishery while allowing choice to modern anglers of all kinds. That should be the main thrust behind the changes.


----------



## centerpin

Also the definition of what is a "fly" is different in other waters in other states and countries. 

With single hook barbless artificial only regulations, you have an easier, streamlined regulation that is easier to enforce for the CO's and easier to explain to visiting anglers and the public.


----------



## Trout King

There are some very good posters in this thread and I'm impressed in the way some have gone about it not turning it into a flame fest. Most of the debating has been rational and less emotional, which is much more healthy. 

Anyway to me the GLFSA is more about supporting equality in opportunity and access for everyone. Right now, the main issue is special regulations. It seems that most people are painting the organization as a bait only, anti-fly group. I think it is just this way because removing GR water somehow threatens some fly fisherman, but why? Is it really about protecting the resource? There is a lot of evidence out there that shows that there is no biological reason for GR water. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that more trophy trout are taken each year from water that is marginal (as Quest was dabbling into) than all of the GR water. Would it be fair if only bait or harware guys could fish that? I would hope that the GLFSA would stand up for the fly fisherman if somehow there was a law saying that fly fishing wasn't allowed in certain waters. I truly believe and hope that the GLFSA would, since that is why I joined, and it is about ensuring equal access and opportunities for all based on real biological data. There are fly fisherman that don't have problems with removing GR, there seem to be a few still holding onto the idea that GR water really protects the fish (though evidence shows it doesn't in MOST cases), my question is why? If fly people want the GR water and fly water because that is just what they want and how they want it they could at least be honest and admit it is a bit selfish, but it seems in my opinion they have to hold on to arguments which don't fit the actual data. 

On top of all of it, honestly I don't care if I ever step foot in the GR water, I've never really fished those areas even before the newest GR waters expanded. I just think it is a public resource that should be open to everyone no matter what the method they choose as long as it doesn't harm the fishery biologically. Anyway, less than a week before the opener, good luck to all no matter the method you employ or what side of the fence you are on on the issue.


----------



## kzoofisher

> Get the meaning of it, how plain can it be??? He states clearly there is no biological reasoning for it, and that its social. What don't I understand about that?


You don't get that all rules have a social component and when any rule does not negatively impact a resource there is only the social component left to judge it on. Your beloved PTD is a social rule, a long standing one but still social. Look at the words. Public. Trust. Doctrine. No biology, no ecological diversity just the for the good of society. 
As Don noted in another thread all rules have a social component and the best thing for the fish is not to have fishing at all. But we have fishing because society thinks it is good. What is the biological reason to have sport fishing? None. Commercial fishing? None. Society has been judging methods of take for a long time now, you might call it "fair chase", and has slowly but surely limited methods that are deemed too indiscriminate or too whatever.

Your attorney friend wrote to you why your case is so weak but you missed it.



> "If, however, the state is promoting a type of fishing activity that is very restrictive in nautre and required to protect the fisheries resource, and is catering to an "elite" segment of the population, then this may be unreasonable under the PTD because it would be unduly restricting the publics right to have access to navigable waters and related fishery resources."


Notice the word "elite". You are going to have to prove in court that fly fishing is out of the reach of the common man like it was in the 1920's. The attorneys for the defense are going to show a $100 fly rod and $100 bass rod, a $2 fly and $20 swimbait, a $100 canoe and a $30,000 Nitro. They are going to whip out the DNR studies that show how much money all anglers spend per trip and what a drop in the bucket gear is compared to that. They are going to quote the DNR studies that show increased participation at campgrounds along GR stretches. In short they are going to show the "elitist" charge to be complete bunk and without that you haven't got a leg to stand on. Take Don's advice and go for a "compromise" while you still have some standing to negotiate.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Or he could just show the DNR already ruled flies only was not based on sound science and therefore at one time eliminated it based on the PTD. :lol:


----------



## toto

It isn't MY beloved Public Trust Doctrine, its mine and yours, and everyone elses. I won't go into the history of it, just wasting time to do so, anyways, the word PUBLIC is the key word, and the public is again, you, me and everyone else. Basically what I'm saying is, if the science (biological) doesn't dictate these rules and regulations, than the PUBLIC has the right to fish it. I know, you'll say the public has the right to fish it, but only with certain equipment, and thats the rub. The DNR can, and must make sure that the conservation issue is upheld, and if the studies don't show that these fish are needing any protection, than by extension, the rules don't need to be changed. Of course, it would be stupid to think one could use a net or seine, that would disrupt the conservation aspect of the fishery, but to eliminate bait fishing because it feels good for a certain segment of societies ego, thats just wrong, period.

BTW, Don can trumpet compromise all he wants, I'm not going for a compromise.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ray and toto,

You are both letting your emotions do the reading for you. As stated by toto's lawyer and as found in the case against Mershon's rule if there is no biological need AND the rules create too great a barrier to participation then the rule violates the PTD. The cost of using gear other than bait is not prohibitive, as fly gear was in the '20s, so the rules will stand up in court.

As for the PTD being public *YES, OF COURSE*, that is why it is a _social_ _consideration_ and not a biological one. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this argument is not social vs. biological it is social vs. social. The DNR is taking the wants of the public into account and trying to serve its constituents better instead of doing whatever it wanted as was the case years ago. I say good for them and let the public speak for what they want.

It is hard for me to post from work so I will have to check back this evening. Have a nice day.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Trout King said:


> Anyway to me the GLFSA is more about supporting equality in opportunity and access for everyone.


Please point out any streams that you or anyone are denied access to. Of course this has only been pointed out about a million times already but somehow fishing with bait is considered by some to be an inalienable right.




Trout King said:


> There is a lot of evidence out there that shows that there is no biological reason for GR water.



There is also a lot of evidence that there are biogical reasons for GR. Use a search function. This "debate" has been happening for years on this site. Use the search function. Or better yet research outside this site. Alot of intelligent people no longer post on this site because of the attacks. This is the only site I know where I've seen someone who posted about C&Ring their fish be attacked. You could post study after study and its dismissed by the bait crowd for one reason or another. 



Trout King said:


> It seems that most people are painting the organization as a bait only, anti-fly group


All you have to do is read the posts of GLFSA members here. They paint themselves.



Trout King said:


> If fly people want the GR water and fly water because that is just what they want and how they want it they could at least be honest and admit it is a bit selfish


Selfish??? No one from GLFSA is anti gear regs because they want to fish bait wherever they want? Is that selfish? Those that feel the need to limit out everytime they go fishing, they are not being selfish when they 
rail against C&R. GMAFB


----------



## fishinlk

> Well, there you have it. People from either side of the bridge can get along.


NOOOOO!!!!!


----------



## Trout King

fishinlk said:


> NOOOOO!!!!!


exactly nobody said we can't get along. this thread has been a civil debate. i will talk trout fishing with anyone anytime no matter what method they choose, unless a pompous better than thou attitude emerges, that goes for people who fish all methods. happy trouting! two more days
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kzoofisher

> That's what started this whole thing. The DNR is limited in how many miles they can designate. They were maxed out, someone greased the system and the DNR was granted X amount of additional miles that they didn't ask for in the first place. Then they got their hands slapped for dragging their feet in applying the additional miles and they had to waste time and money going through a process that they didn't even want in the first place.


This is partly true. I've will say it every time this comes up, the *fly groups* didn't start it. That might not seem to matter much but there is something to learn from it. The original fight in the '70s and '80s was so exhausting and bitter that there was no desire to go through it again. Even the group that was created out of that battle, Anglers of the Au Sable, had other priorities and never tried to increase GR water. Then in 1999? the senator from Bay City decided he wanted his grand kids to be able to keep fish on the Holy Water and sponsored a bill to change the GR law. In the fight that followed the senator got his way and the GR water got doubled. I ask you, how many kids 12 and under have you ever seen keeping fish in a no-kill stretch? Doubling the GR water was clearly a much better outcome for the GR guys with a very tiny trade-off. The lesson here is that David can beat Goliath, but that happened because Goliath was arrogant and unprepared and David had God on his side. Before David there were a lot of Israelites who didn't fare so well. In this case Goliath has been preparing for challenges to the GR law since 2000 with its own biological studies, the DNR's biological studies, economic studies and political action. 

I know that there are some very committed and sincere people on the anti-GR side and they are going to fight as hard as they can to eliminate GR. I just think that the prospect of what Goliath may walk away with (no limit to GR water?) should be made clear. You can kick a sleeping dog to make him move, just don't be too surprised if he takes a chunk out of your leg. This isn't a threat, it is a reminder of the realities of starting a fight.


----------



## swampbuck

fishinDon said:


> We are at roughly 180 of 212 used. There's some left for the boardman. :sad:


Do they use actual river miles or some sort of straight line measurement to determine the boundarys.

Planning to take my crawlers out for a swim in the Ausable, for the opener.......As long as my busted elbow will allow it.:sad:


----------



## riverman

centerpin said:


> I can understand the feelings regarding the recent changes, I felt that way as well. It really messed up my perceptions of the water affected, as I learned to trout fish on many of them.
> 
> Changing the flies only water to single hook barbless artificial only would be a great first step, and really a big change. The amount of choices to the average angler would effectively double instantly. Spinners, spoons, plugs, jigs all now become available. Spinners are some of the highest selling lures in the world. Look the sales of mepps spinners.
> 
> The fact of the matter is you would immediately have other types of anglers starting to set foot into the previous flies only waters if this change happened. How on earth could this be not good enough?
> 
> I just don't understand how possible big change in the right direction is ignored completely all because of one single technique. This change would be easier to argue, and create a wave of momentum that the flies only guys would find hard to reverse.
> 
> There is a strong precedent for single hook barbless artificial only regulations world wide especially in British Columbia, Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest. They have already had this conversation that we are now having. This fact alone would make it easier to argue for and harder for the fly guys to argue against.
> 
> How can you be against a change that is more inclusive and is completely in the right direction of many here.?


This should have been the "right" way for the state to adopt quality trout water years ago. They missed the boat, they know they did, and until someone with some big balls in Lansing suggest changes to the current way.................................................................................


----------



## itchn2fish

Ranger Ray said:


> There was a compromise on the PM? I use bait to fish browns and rainbows, I lost. Where is the compromise?


 Exactly. Look at the Trout regs map, for instance, of the LSBPM; it looks like a foreign flag. A kid can no longer dig some worms and grab a rod and go fish for trout. One has to practically be a lawyer & a cartographer to decipher which stretches have which rules; IMO is KISS.


----------



## thousandcasts

kzoofisher said:


> This is partly true. I've will say it every time this comes up, the *fly groups* didn't start it. That might not seem to matter much but there is something to learn from it. The original fight in the '70s and '80s was so exhausting and bitter that there was no desire to go through it again. Even the group that was created out of that battle, Anglers of the Au Sable, had other priorities and never tried to increase GR water. Then in 1999? the senator from Bay City decided he wanted his grand kids to be able to keep fish on the Holy Water and sponsored a bill to change the GR law. In the fight that followed the senator got his way and the GR water got doubled. I ask you, how many kids 12 and under have you ever seen keeping fish in a no-kill stretch? Doubling the GR water was clearly a much better outcome for the GR guys with a very tiny trade-off. The lesson here is that David can beat Goliath, but that happened because Goliath was arrogant and unprepared and David had God on his side. Before David there were a lot of Israelites who didn't fare so well. In this case Goliath has been preparing for challenges to the GR law since 2000 with its own biological studies, the DNR's biological studies, economic studies and political action.
> 
> I know that there are some very committed and sincere people on the anti-GR side and they are going to fight as hard as they can to eliminate GR. I just think that the prospect of what Goliath may walk away with (no limit to GR water?) should be made clear. You can kick a sleeping dog to make him move, just don't be too surprised if he takes a chunk out of your leg. This isn't a threat, it is a reminder of the realities of starting a fight.


I didn't say anything about who did what. I said someone greased the system...and that's exactly what happened. The DNR didn't want the added mileage...someone else did. It was forced on them. 

My point wasn't to single out any specific demographic, quite the opposite actually-- I was simply giving an example of why the DNR should be a seperate, self contained entity that the legislature on up has no power over.


----------



## toto

Give it time hutch and you'll find out exactly who greased the system, and who recieved the grease. Thats all I'll say about that for now.


----------



## mondrella

rcleofly said:


> The holy waters is the best section of trout stream in the state. Reason being is the regulations. The section of the Pm from M37 to gleasons is getting better and better by the day. Reason being is the regulations. I'm sorry but I fish side by side with my best friend who is a crawler using trout eating fool. I on the other hand practice catch and release and fly fish only. He kills fish like crazy. For starters he eats them, witch fine I guess. But, so many of the fish he doesn't keep end up belly up. The fight is harder on them. The hook is normally way in the fishes belly. Idk I normally stay out of these topics. But, give it a brake. There is 10 times more open to whatever water in the state the there is restricted water. Get over it. There would be no holy waters if we lifted the restrictions. It would get ruined.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


This is not even close to accurate. Sorry, to inform you the regs have little to no effect on the quality of fish in these sections of rivers. Our own DNR has done the studies to support this fact.The reason these waters have the fish and size of fish they do is HABITAT. The fly only water of the PM is in the most fisher freindly section of the the river with the perfect composition to grow trout. Take a look at the gravel belt that runs thru this part of the river. Kinda odd it coincides with the same vein of the the lil' man. Gear restrictions have little to no positive effect. Guess what every minute in this state many of our rivers continue to heal themselves and become more and more conducive to growing more and larger trout. The mantra of gear restriction works maybe out west where conditions are different but take the time to look into the PM river assessment. It will back up what I have just shared. YET MANY OF YOU HAVE MADE UP YOUR MIND AND ARE UNWILLING TO LISTEN TO SOME OF THE BEST BIOLOGIST IN THE COUNTRY.


----------



## Benzie Rover

Don - Thank you for the comments, look forward to your thoughts. 

Indeed, the Boardman River issues are coming to a head. I myself have actually, stunningly, switched sides on the up-stream passage issue, but separate issue for another post. In regards to gear regs though, the Boardman below Sabin is a perfect example of a fishery that is seriously hurting with the blanket classification system. It is listed as type 3, meaning you can keep browns all year. And, there is a regular contingent of people that go down there with that goal all fall and spring, when they can not target them elsewhere. Do I care how they fish for them? NO, not at all, but, this stretch of the Boardman is well known (documented) to be very challenged in terms of natural reproduction. There is simply very little to no gravel. And what there is become totally excavated by fall salmon, winter coho and then spring steelies... so browns stand very low chances. Add to it, the fisheries folks simply refuse to plant this stretch (or any of the Boardman for that matter, but again different issue there). So, this stretch has poor reproduction, BUT, now has year-round harvest going on, since they instituted the type 3 regs that is. Previously it was an April 1 opener, which helped some, but anyway... My point is, this stretch is a perfect example of how a reproductively challenged section of the river that has some trophy trout potential (but very poor younger year class representation in the population surveys) could seriously benefit from C and R with*zero *bag limits on browns. It simply can not afford to continue losing 3 fish limits of 16-20 browns all fall, winter and spring. Long time fisherman of this stretch will tell you it sucks now compared to even 10 years ago, but I guess we all tend to say that about nearly every fishery up here now that I think about it. 

When I fish streamers in 'flies only' water, I am usually throwing something the size of a small mammal, often with HUGE hook that could possibly 'brain' a small trout. This is the norm for the fly guys out for trophy trout. Fly's only does not prevent injury to fish and often, modern fly recipes call for large flies with huge hooks. Modern fly fishing is all about internet machismo and 'ripping lips' and 'poppin pigs' these days. This over-marketed, over-funded segment of our angling world, which I take part in, have to admit that I do love to fly fish, has no right to insert itself as a management tool, only an angling choice. 

In terms of gear restrictions, my opinion is that it should called 'bait-restrictions' and have nothing to do with ones gear. Use a freaking stick and string for all I care. My feeling is that no-bait fisheries offer a different angling opportunity. In my opinion, there are less educated fish and often more opportunistic chances in a no-bait fishery. Trout become educated quickly and many fisheries can shut off unless you have a very skillfully presented live-bait rig. If a particular stream or stream section never has bait, then the fish will simply not be caught during some conditions (low/clear often) where bait out shines all else, thus this fishery experiences less angler education (and to some degree less angler mortality), thus, I feel they offer a better opportunity for the fisherman willing to learn how to use artificial lures. Again, irregardless of whether the lure is on a $500 fly rod or end of a maple branch with scrap line tied off the end. I feel that current maximum limit on 'fly-only' water mileage would be an appropriate max for 'no-bait' mileage, btw. 

In summary, as an angler, I vastly prefer having access to a few, limited, no-bait fisheries, but no gear restrictions anywhere. We shall see how this shakes out in 5 years. 

However, I will continue to insist that this State have biologically-accurate bag limits tied to a rivers carrying capacity. More quality habitat is the answer in the looooong run, but in the short term- we need to reduce or prevent harvest of stocks with limited or un-successful spawning to produce better fishing.


----------



## Fowlersduckhunter

this discussion/debate/argument whatever ya wanna call it is exactly why you dont see more people, including me, getting into trout stream fishing. Way too many complicated, stupid rules. :rant: This is why i fish walleyes, perch, pike etc. which have basic regulatiuons, and stick to lake fishing salmon and trout. So much easier. And people wonder why were losing kids that enjoy hunting and fishing. Maybe its the regulations that keep parents from taking their kids out??? :idea:


----------

