# Trout Stream Regulations Meetings



## M. Tonello

FYI-See below. Hopefully many of you can make it to these meetings.
Mark


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2010

Contacts: Todd Grischke 517-373-6762, Christian LeSage 517-241-3624 or Mary Dettloff 517-335-3014


DNRE to Hold Statewide Public Meetings on Proposed Changes to Trout Regulations

The Department of Natural Resource and Environment is planning a series of statewide public meetings on proposed changes to trout fishing regulations to give anglers a chance to provide input on the draft plan.

A copy of the draft plan is available online to review at www.michigan.gov/dnrfishing under Angler Information. 

A year ago, the DNREs Fisheries Division presented a proposal to the public for modifying regulations governing fishing for trout on Michigans streams. After extensive public solicitation for response to the proposals, a decision was made in the fall of 2009 to move forward only with combining existing Type 5, 6, and 7 streams into a new Gear Restricted Waters category.

In January 2010, the DNRE again solicited public comment on what streams might be proposed for inclusion in the Gear Restricted Waters category. Subsequent to that comment period, a draft proposal has been developed with the help of the Fisheries Divisions Coldwater Committee. The draft proposal is now ready for public review, and the public is invited to learn about the draft proposal and provide comment through a set of public meetings around Michigan. 

After reviewing the comments gathered during the public review meetings, recommendations will be incorporated into Fisheries Order 200. The order will then be presented for information at the September meeting of the Natural Resources Commission. Any changes to Fisheries Order 200 that are approved by the DNRE Director in the fall of 2010 will take effect on April 1, 2011. 

The schedule of public meetings is:

Southern Lake Huron Management Unit:

- 7 p.m. Tuesday, June 8, at the Bay City State Recreation Area Visitors Center, 3585 State Park Dr., Bay City

Northern Lake Huron Management Unit:

- 7 p.m. Tuesday, June 8, at the Crawford Au Sable Primary School Cafeteria, 306 Plum St., Grayling
- 7 p.m. Wednesday, June 9, at the Mio Community Center, 305 East 9th Street, Mio
- 7 p.m. Thursday, June 10, at the Northland Sportsmans Club, Old Alba Road, Gaylord

Eastern Lake Superior Management Unit:

- 7 p.m. Wednesday, June 10 at the Newberry Public Library , 700 Newberry Ave., Newberry

Western Lake Superior Management Unit:

- 7 p.m. (Eastern) Tuesday, June 22, at the Negaunee Township Hall, 42 M-35, Negaunee
-6 p.m. (Central) Thursday, June 24, at Gogebic Community College, E4946 Jackson St., Ironwood.


Lake Erie Management Unit:

- 7 p.m. Wednesday, June 23, at the Rochester City Hall Auditorium, 1000 Rochester Hills Dr., Rochester Hills


Northern Lake Michigan Management Unit

- 6 p.m. Wednesday, June 16, at the Dickinson County Library, 401 Iron Mountain St., Iron Mountain.
- 6 p.m. Tuesday, June 22, at the Escanaba DNRE Pocket Park, 2401 12th Ave. North, Escanaba

Central Lake Michigan Management Unit:

- 7 p.m. Monday, June 7, at the Bitely Conservation Club, 12016 Woodbridge (M-37) in Bitely.
- 7 p.m. Tuesday, June 8, at the Crawford Au Sable Primary School Cafeteria, 306 Plum St., Grayling.
- 7 p.m.Thursday, June 10, at the Carl T. Johnson Hunting and Fishing Center, 6093 E. M-115, Cadillac

Southern Lake Michigan Management Unit:

- 7 p.m. Wednesday, June 9, at the Wolf Lake Fish Hatchery Interpretive Center, 34270 CR 652, Mattawan
- 7 p.m. Thursday, June 24, at the Maud Preston Memorial Library, 500 Market St., St. Joseph.


The DNRE is committed to the conservation, protection, management and accessible use of the states environment, natural resources and related economic interests for current and future generations. For more information, go to www.michigan.gov/dnre. 

###


----------



## NELP Help

At first blush, I notice a lot of "well, gear restrictions and type 2 designations really haven't shown to have helped make bigger trout BUT..."

language. In particular on pages 77-78 (a section of Black River in NELP) it states the above (in so many words) yet turns right around and says the gear restrictions will remain in place on a 4-mile stretch. 

I don't CARE, as I don't fish that particular stretch...just pointing out the nonsensical logic. 

If gear restrictions aren't doing what they claim to do, lift the damn things so people can at least catch trout in those stretches without having to own hundreds of dollars in fly-fishing gear. 

Just because you CAN add new gear restriction water doesn't mean you should. There are a lot of things I CAN do that would end up being stupid. So I don't do them. Know what I mean? 

Thanks.


----------



## Whit1

Thanks for the news Mark. 

It would be easier if there was somewhere that the list of streams that are *new to having gear restricted* could be found without having to wade through the entire document.


----------



## R_T

These are the ones i found. It may not be a complete list as i did a quick scan. I also included the page numbers so you can read all the info.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pg 23
Unit: NLMMU
County: Iron
Waterbody: *Cooks Run*
Segment(s): From the headwaters to the confluence with the South Branch of Paint
River (13.5 miles) & from Federal Forest Highway 16 downstream to the
confluence with the South Branch of Paint River (4.5 miles)
Entry No: 301 & 302
Requested by: Internal review (Type 2) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that the current Type 2 water regulations for*
*the 5-mile reach from Federal Forest Highway 16 downstream to the confluence*
*with the South Branch of the Paint River be changed to the following gear restricted*
*regulations.*
&#8226; *Artificial lures only*
&#8226; *Open and possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30 for*
*BKT, BNT, and ATS: other species all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits:*
o *Brook trout 8 inches*
o *Brown trout 12 inches*
o *Rainbow trout 10 inches*
&#8226; *Creel limit 5 with no more than 3 fish 15 inches or larger*
*
Pg 28*
Unit: NLMMU
County: Gogebic & Iron
Waterbody: *South Branch of the Paint River*
Segment(s): From US Highway 2 (T44N, R38W, Sec 24) downstream to Gibbs City
(T44N, R35W, Sec 8) (29.1 miles); From the confluence with Cooks Run
(T44N, R36 W, Sec 28) downstream to the confluence with the N.B. of
the Paint River (T44N, R35W, Sec 8) (11.0 miles); and from the
Headwaters (T44N, R37W, Sec 34) downstream to the confluence with
the N.B. of the Paint River (T44N, R35W, Sec 8) (33 miles).
Entry No: 303, 304 & 306
Requested by: Internal review (Type 2) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that the current Type 2 regulations for the 10*
*mile stream segment from the mouth of Cooks Run downstream to the confluence*
*with the North Branch of the Paint River be changed to the following gear restricted*
*regulations.*
&#8226; *Artificial lures only*
&#8226; *Open and possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30 for*
*BKT, BNT, and ATS: other species all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits:*
o *Brook trout 8 inches*
o *Brown trout 12 inches*
o *Rainbow trout 10 inches*
&#8226; *Creel limit 5 with no more than 3 fish 15 inches or larger*
*
Pg. 32 -33*
Unit: NLMMU
County: Delta
Waterbody: *Escanaba River*
Segment(s): Boney Falls Dam (T41N, R21W, Sec 2) downstream to County Road 519
(T41N, R23W, Sec 2) (7.0 miles); Boney Falls Dam (T41N, R21W, Sec 2)
downstream to Burnt Camp PAS (T40N, R23W, Sec 6) (8.2 miles); Boney
Falls Dam (T41N, R21W, Sec 2) downstream to Silver Creek (T40N,
R23W, Sec 11) (14.2 miles).
- 33 -
Entry No: 312, 313, and 314
Requested by: Internal review (currently gear restricted) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that the 14.2 mile stream segment be considered*
*for gear restricted regulations.*
&#8226; *Artificial lures only*
&#8226; *Open season: all year*
&#8226; *Open and possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30 for*
*BKT, BNT, and ATS: other species all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits:*
o *Brook trout 10 inches*
o *Brown trout 12 inches*
o *All other trout and salmon species 10 inches*
&#8226; *Creel limit 2 fish*
*
Pg. 34-35*
Unit: CLMMU
County: Lake
Waterbody: *Pere Marquette River*
Segment(s): From the M-37 Bridge to Gleason&#8217;s Landing (8.5 Miles)
Entry No: 401
Requested by: Internal review (currently gear restricted) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that current gear restrictions be retained on this*
*stream segment.*
&#8226; *Artificial flies only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Catch and release only*
*
Pg.39-40*
Unit: CLMMU
County: Lake
Waterbody: *Little Manistee River*
Segment(s): Spencers Bridge (T19N, R13W, Sec 5) downstream to Johnson&#8217;s Bridge
(T20N, R14W, Sec 24) (7.5 miles)
Entry No: 402
Requested by: Internal review (currently gear restricted) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear*
*restricted regulations.*
&#8226; *Flies only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Possession season: Last Saturday in April-September 30 for BKT, BNT, and*
*ATS, other species open all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits*
o *Brook trout 7 inches*
o *Rainbow trout 10 inches*
o *Brown trout 15 inches*
&#8226; *Daily harvest limit 2 fish*
*
Pg.43*
Unit: CLMMU
County: Kalkaska
Waterbody: *Manistee River*
Segment(s): M-72 to CCC Bridge (16.7 miles)
Entry No: 403
Requested by: Internal review (currently gear restricted) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear*
*restricted regulations.*
&#8226; *Flies only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Possession season: Last Saturday in April-September 30 for BKT, BNT, and*
*ATS, other species open all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits*
o *Brook trout 7 inches*
o *Rainbow trout 10 inches*
o *Brown trout 15 inches*
&#8226; *Daily harvest limit 2 fish*
*
Pg. 69*
Unit: NLHMU
County: Crawford
Waterbody: *South Branch Au Sable River*
Segment(s): Lower Highbanks to confluence with the mainstem Au Sable River (11.5
miles)
Entry No: 622, 623, & 647
Requested by: Internal review (currently gear restricted) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear*
*restricted regulations. NLHMU recommends the following gear restricted*
*regulations for this segment.*
&#8226; *Flies only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30 for BKT, BNT,*
*and ATS: other species all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits:*
*a. Brook trout 7 inches*
*b. Rainbow trout 10 inches*
*c. Brown trout 18 inches*
&#8226; *Creel limit 2 trout, but no more than 1 trout over 18 inches*
*
Pg. 70*
Unit: NLHMU
County: Crawford
Waterbody: *North Branch Au Sable River*
Segment(s): Sheep Ranch to Confluence with the mainstem of the Au Sable River
(20.7 miles)
Entry No: 619, 620, 621, and 648
Requested by: Internal review (currently gear restricted) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear*
*restricted regulations. NLHMU recommends the following gear restricted*
*regulations for this segment.*
&#8226; *Flies only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30 for BKT, BNT,*
*and ATS: other species all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits:*
*a. Brook trout 7 inches*
*b. Rainbow trout 10 inches*
*c. Brown trout 18 inches*
&#8226; *Creel limit 2 trout, but no more than 1 trout over 18 inches*
*
Pg. 71*
Unit: NLHMU
County: Crawford
Waterbody: *Au Sable River*
Segment(s): Wakeley Bridge to McMasters Bridge (8.0 miles)
Entry No: 615, 616, & 641
Requested by: Internal review (Type 2) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear*
*restricted regulations.*
&#8226; *Artificial lures only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30 for BKT, BNT,*
*and ATS: other species all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits:*
*a. Brook trout 7 inches*
*b. Rainbow trout 10 inches*
*c. Brown trout 18 inches*
&#8226; *Creel limit 2 trout, but no more than 1 trout over 18 inches*
*
Pg 73*
Unit: NLHMU
County: Oscoda
Waterbody: *Au Sable River*
Segment(s): Power lines below Mio (T26N, R3E, Sec 7) to McKinley Bridge (T26N,
R4E, Sec 15) (15.0 miles)
Entry No: 602, 603, 606, 607, 614, 649 & 650
Requested by: Internal review (current research waters) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear*
*restricted regulations. We recommend the following regulations for this reach:*
&#8226; *Artificial lures only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30 for BKT, BNT,*
*and ATS: other species all year*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits:*
*a. Brook trout 7 inches*
*b. Rainbow trout 10 inches*
*c. Brown trout 18 inches*
&#8226; *Creel limit 2 trout, but no more than 1 trout over 18 inches*
*
Pg.75*
Unit: NLHMU
County: Crawford
Waterbody: *Au Sable River*
Segment(s): From Burton&#8217;s Landing to Wakeley Bridge (9.0 miles)
Entry No: 604, 645
Requested by: Internal review (currently gear restricted) and Public
*Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear*
*restricted regulations. (Open year round, no kill, artificial flies only).*
*
Pg.77*
Unit: NLHMU
County: Otsego & Montmorency
Waterbody: *Black River*
Segment(s): Tin Shanty Road Bridge (T32N, R1W, Sec 35) to Town Corner Lake
stairs (T32N, R1E, Sec 31) (4.1 miles); Town Corner Lake stairs (T32N,
R1E, Sec 31) downstream to Tower Dam (Length unknown)
Entry No: 629, 651 & 639
Requested by: Internal review (current research waters) and public
*Recommendation: We recommend continuation of the artificial lures only gear*
*restriction for the stream segment from Tin Shanty Road Bridge to Town Corner*
*Lake stairs. Our recommended regulation is:*
&#8226; *Artificial lures only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30*
&#8226; *Minimum size limits:*
*a. Brook trout 10 inches*
*b. Brown trout 8 inches and rainbow trout 10 inches*
&#8226; *Creel limit 2 trout*
*
Pg.80*
Unit: LEMU
County: Wayne
Waterbody: *Johnson Creek*
Segment(s): From Napier Road to the confluence with the Rouge River (6.0 miles)
Entry No: 801
Requested by: Internal review (currently gear restricted)
*Recommendation: We recommend that current gear restricted regulations be*
*retained. We recommend the following regulations:*
&#8226; *Artificial lures only*
&#8226; *Open season: All year*
&#8226; *Possession season: The last Saturday in April-September 30*
&#8226; *Minimum size limit: 12 inches for brown trout (other trout species are not*
*found here)*
&#8226; *Creel limit 2 trout*
*
Pg.80*
Unit: LEMU
County: Oakland
Waterbody: *Paint Creek*
Segment(s): From Silver Bell Road to Tienken Road (3.7 miles)
Entry No: 802
Requested by: Public
*Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear*
*restricted regulations. We recommend the following:*
&#8226; *Artificial lures only*
&#8226; *Open season and possession season; last Saturday in April - September 30.*
&#8226; *10 inch MSL for all trout species*
&#8226; *Creel limit of 2 trout*


----------



## Fishbone

Waders are filling up......... PDF document?, PFFFFFFF document? 

:chillin:


----------



## thousandcasts

This is definitely something that needs to be watched, since from what I've heard, the guides, the PM watershed council and some chamber of commerce's are really pushing hard and heavy to make the PM flies only from M-37 all the way down to Walhalla. Not good. 

This is definitely a time to make your voices heard.


----------



## [email protected]

thousandcasts said:


> This is definitely something that needs to be watched, since from what I've heard, the guides, the PM watershed council and some chamber of commerce's are really pushing hard and heavy to make the PM flies only from M-37 all the way down to Walhalla. Not good.
> 
> This is definitely a time to make your voices heard.


Actually, there is a push by "some of the above mentioned" to make it artificial only all the way to Walhalla, not flies only, (I think some wanted flies only extended to Bowman's) but that being said... In my opinion that would also be "not good" and I did go on record as voting against it at the last MRGA meeting. (I wouldn't mind lower creel limits on Trout & Steelhead however, but that's another thing...) 

I'm 99% certain there will be no change to the PM regulations, they've pretty much already said so and there is already a big uprising against any. I know they don't want to do anything that causes to much controversy...

_Steve_


----------



## TSS Caddis

[email protected] said:


> Actually, there is a push by "some of the above mentioned" to make it artificial only all the way to Walhalla, not flies only,


Steve, what is their rationale to justify wanting it changed to artificial?


----------



## NELP Help

Lol...I'm glad I don't fish the Au Sable...looks like the powers-that-be is going to get the gumbmint to lock the entire dam river up as gear restricted.


----------



## [email protected]

TSS Caddis said:


> Steve, what is their rationale to justify wanting it changed to artificial?


Man... TMI for me to try and go over here, suffice it to say I'll be staying out of this one and am just fine with the status quo.

_Steve_


----------



## TSS Caddis

[email protected] said:


> Man... TMI for me to try and go over here, suffice it to say I'll be staying out of this one and am just fine with the status quo.
> 
> _Steve_


I've already heard the history, so it was a loaded question anyway:lol:


----------



## mondrella

It amazes me any of these regs. are even being considered and still going to be implemented when studies have shown there is no benefit to them at all. These social and economical factors being used to keep these laws in place are very flawed. The guides and chamber of commerce should be touting the fact that such rules are not need to maintian these fisheries. It goes to show how good our streams are. 

Like I have stated many times before Habitat is the only thing that will increase the numbers and size of fish in these systems. We should push harder for those things to be happening. 

I would love to see a $5 habitat stamp put in place on are license. That has to be spent on habitat improvements.


----------



## DANN09

It might be fair to the MAJORITY to have a bait only section. I'll bett some are grinding thier teeth on that one.


----------



## Steve

The proposed regulations might eliminate some of the bait containers found along Paint Creek.


----------



## wolvron

Steve said:


> The proposed regulations might eliminate some of the bait containers found along Paint Creek.


 
they will also bring out the best fly(snaggers)fisherman


----------



## Ranger Ray

Steve said:


> The proposed regulations might eliminate some of the bait containers found along Paint Creek.


Just think how beautiful the streams and rivers would be if we stopped all humans from using them.


----------



## Mitch

Steve said:


> The proposed regulations might eliminate some of the bait containers found along Paint Creek.


Was that a serious comment? A "laughing" or "winking" smilie would have been nice. Otherwise, that ranks right up there with the dumbest rationale I've ever read on these forums.

Just sayin'...

Mitch


----------



## toto

Since I don't live in Michigan any longer, I probably don't have much a voice in this. But I will say this, as I've said all along, it just smacks of segregation if you don't have equal amount of "bait only" waters. Just sayin.....


----------



## Steve

Mitch said:


> Was that a serious comment? A "laughing" or "winking" smilie would have been nice. Otherwise, that ranks right up there with the dumbest rationale I've ever read on these forums.
> 
> Just sayin'...
> 
> Mitch



I'm sure the property owners along there (which for full disclosure I will say I am not) don't think it's dumb.


----------



## foxfire69

If it ain't broke...don't fix it!! Why can't we just leave well enough alone! Just sayin!


----------



## Maverick1

Hello again everyone...

Been following the threads for several days.. Looks like everyone seems to be in favor of slot and/or creel limits... bait or no bait. Is that a fair statement? 

I've seen this type of management work in several different fisheries and it still allows everyone to enjoy the resource. Why didn't / doesn't someone propose this to the DNR. Keep in mind you would need to provide supporting evidence and facts. But most fisherman can agree on a particular form of management then I'm pretty sure the DNR would have to listen.


----------



## Direwolf

TSS Caddis said:


> How does eliminating bait in the lower river impact the health of the river?
> 
> How does no-kill impact the health of the upper?
> 
> How does flies only impact the health of the upper?
> 
> 
> It's great that it appears Steve is not supporting this. I don't know John. I am curious how any of the above is best for the river. Seems more like all the above is what is best for guiding.



Having differing opinions on the matter and different ideas of what they think will improve the river doesn't imply that they do or don't care about the health of the river, they just see it differently. The simple fact that they can agree to disagree and still run a business together shows a lot of integrity in my opinion. If get to know either of them you will quickly learn that the both care. The river clean-ups twice a year that they host shows that... but I am sure people can spin that other ways if they want too as well.

Like I said, just my 2 cents.


----------



## REG

Maverick1 said:


> Hello again everyone...
> 
> Been following the threads for several days.. Looks like everyone seems to be in favor of slot and/or creel limits... bait or no bait. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> I've seen this type of management work in several different fisheries and it still allows everyone to enjoy the resource. Why didn't / doesn't someone propose this to the DNR. Keep in mind you would need to provide supporting evidence and facts. But most fisherman can agree on a particular form of management then I'm pretty sure the DNR would have to listen.


Ohhh, I bet the DNR had received plenty of recommendations to do just that in the initial gathering of love letters, I know I did. But...was that what they were looking for?? Based on the attached draft that started this discussion, it does not appear so.

Relative to your statement, _" Looks like everyone seems to be in favor of slot and/or creel limits... "_ Those are in place already. If changing those is what you are asking, in my mind, I would like to know the biologic necessity for doing so.


----------



## thousandcasts

Maverick1 said:


> Hello again everyone...
> 
> Been following the threads for several days.. Looks like everyone seems to be in favor of slot and/or creel limits... bait or no bait. Is that a fair statement?


No, most people that aren't fly guides are in favor of leaving things just the way they are. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. 

Give 'em more restricted regs, then the next thing you know they'll want rivers re-named after them and statues erected in their honor at their bend of choice.


----------



## Ranger Ray

toto said:


> RR, if we are using social issues as an excuse for these new regs, I am in a conundrum there. The term social issues, is for the benefit of all. Lets look at the administration for one minute, don't they social issues quite a lot, and in fact, have the opinion that those that have should give those that don't?? If thats the idea behind this social science, then I find it exactly opposite as to what social is all about. In this case its reversed, and those that have, would like to take from those that don't have, and that, is just not right. Not that I believe in socialism, or social science, or social issues as described, but this whole issue runs counter to any social thinking.


I agree with your thinking on "benefit for all". It seems like such a simple concept. The conundrum comes into play when the DNR uses meetings (social) to try and represent all, when in fact the attendees are heavily skewed toward one specific ideology. Splitshot has a interesting story of just such a scenario. Hopefully he will come on and relate the story.


----------



## Whit1

Ranger Ray said:


> I agree with your thinking on "benefit for all". It seems like such a simple concept. The conundrum comes into play when the DNR uses meetings (social) to try and represent all, when in fact *the attendees are heavily skewed toward one specific ideology.* Splitshot has a interesting story of just such a scenario. Hopefully he will come on and relate the story.


Not to beat this horse, but that is *exactly* what happened with the makeup of the workgroup that pondered gear reg changes. In baseball it's called a "shutout". In this case it was a preconceived and preordained "shutout".


----------



## CHUCK n BUCK

Everyone keeps talking about creel and slot limits. Don't we already have creel and slot limits on the PM? What is the regs below the flies only? 5 fish with no more than 3 over 15? Hope they keep it as is.


----------



## rockman

All this talk about the PM but I'm surprised the proposed season change on the Little Manistee hasn't been pointed out. Opening the season all year on the flies only section certainly caters to a very small group of people as the vast majority of this section is privately owned by a club.


----------



## thousandcasts

I should've went to Bitely since that meeting sounded like it'd be more up my alley as far as arguing with some fly guys is concerned.  

We went to the meeting in Cadillac last night and it was a pretty tame crowd--maybe 30 people or so. I'd say the vast majority of them were against more special regs. Only one person spoke in favor of added regs on the PM, everyone else including a couple guides were against added regs and basically said leave things the way they are on all the rivers. 

So, obviously the added regs contingent did everything they could to stack the deck in Bitely.


----------



## Wellston

RAD FISH said:


> : Steve in this day and age of bad economy your business partner made a huge mistake by get involved with this in favor of MORE gear restrictions on the PM. One things for damn sure your not going to gain any business from this and most likely lose a ton.


Depends on who you&#8217;re asking! You&#8217;re not speaking for everyone.
Jim


----------



## RAD FISH

Wellston said:


> Depends on who youre asking! Youre not speaking for everyone.
> Jim



:: Very true and I was not trying to. But I don't see any way they will gain business if it was to happen. Like Steve has said it most likely won't happen anyways. To be a business owner and upset even one patiently customer is not god at all.


----------



## Splitshot

I dont think SR-Mechead was childish at all. I know bob personally and he is a long time honorable sportsman who I have great respect for personally. I was one of the people Bob was speaking to outside the meeting. I dont care if John spoke for himself, for BBT or the guides association He is not an employee, but an owner of BBT and his personal opinion is to not allow bait fishing from Gleasons Landing to Walhalla over 25 miles of river. Not only is he personally against it, he spoke out against bait fishing to the DNR in an effort to get them to restrict me and other bait fisherman from using bait on that stretch of river.

It seems very hypocritical since BBT makes money selling bait. Besides that John claimed he only wanted to protect the fishery. If he would have read the DNR report he would have understood that restricting bait would not do that. In the report the DNR clearly states over and over and over that; Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.

If you believe the DNR and the science, showing that restricting bait will not protect the fishery. please tell me what is the real reasons John wants to restrict me from using bait? Instead of being childish, it seems reasonable for all bait fishermen not to support a company when one of the owners is trying to stop them from using a legitimate method to catch trout.

I agree that you guys are well liked in the community and that you do much to protect and keep the river clean. I have recommended your guide service often and I have also spent a considerable amount of money on tackle at BBT when I know I could have purchased those things elsewhere for less money. I believe in supporting local companies who support me. From a personal point of view it was a mistake for John to support the elimination of bait on the PM but be clear I am only speaking for myself.


----------



## Whit1

Splitshot said:


> In the report the DNR clearly states over and over and over that; &#8220;*Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.&#8221;*
> 
> If you believe the DNR and the science, showing that restricting bait will not protect the fishery, please tell me what is the real reasons John wants to restrict me from using bait? Instead of being childish, it seems reasonable for all bait fishermen not to support a company when one of the owners is trying to stop them from using a legitimate method to catch trout.


That is a salient question Ray asks. Here's a possible answer from the MDNRE's Facebook page that I posted in the other thread about these new gear restrictions. These are social issues rather than biological ones.

_Below is a copy/paste from the MDNRE's Facebook page and it comes from the direct from the MDNRE's overseer of the page. It has long been said that gear regs fall into the "social" catagory of reasoning for putting them in place. Several of us have been saying this for many years. Here's some confirmation of this truism. So much for basing these new regs on "sound" science other than social science.

"Two additional sections of the Au Sable were deemed suitable for gear restrictions, meeting many of the physical, biological and social criteria used for evaluation. *One of the key criteria is social.* We have heard a lot of comments proposing gear restrictions on these sections, and very few opposed. The comments of the public are very important in the determination of what waters to include in the gear-restricted category."

Please, I am not lambasting the MDNRE or the person who responds to inquiries on their Facebook page. They are doing a job and it can be a thankless at times. _


----------



## Splitshot

They state the same thing in the report if you read it carefully. There are two problems, first the DNR can&#8217;t justify these special regulations from a scientific point of view and that is clear from the statements they make in this report and second they do not define what they mean by social. For sure it affects a small socially influential group in a very positive way but at the same time it affects the majority of fishermen in a very negative way. It appears because that social group is not vocal, they have no voice.

I attended three meetings one in Baldwin one in Grayling and one in Cadillac. I was writing a post about those meetings and I will finish it and post it here. It is very clear that there are 3 main groups who are for gear restriction. Property owners, those who profit from exploiting our public waters and those who are philosophically driven. After the Grayling meeting one guy said you are a very brave man to come to this meeting and say what you did and a TU person thanked me for voicing my point of view even though he was in support of the gear restrictions. For obvious reasons I didn&#8217;t stick around long. When I went to the Cadillac meeting I asked the DNR biologist how many people spoke out against the proposed gear regulations as I got there an hour late and he told me only one person. I asked if it was me and he said yes. Lol Below are my comments.

At the Baldwin meeting every guide that spoke either proclaimed his great love and desire to protect the river or that their only concern was to make it better. In my opinion this is just an attempt to divert the argument or chance the subject.

It was as if none of them read the DNR report. Over and over the DNR states that; *&#8220;Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.&#8221;*The above is a direct quote from the report issued by the DNR and it should raise the question. If gear restrictions do nothing to protect the fishery, why do guides, property owners and purist fly fishermen want gear restrictions? In other words what is the real motive?

The goal of fishing is different for different for different people. For some it is more important to catch a fish on a fly than it is to catch a fish. For them fishing is a philosophy with strict rules and morals. They live by cliches like the one Henry David Thoreau once spoke; "Many go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." and of course the stalwart of fly-fishermen made this famous quote Lee Wulff "Game fish are too valuable to only be caught once." 

Then there are the majority of fishermen who fish for the love of the sport and because they want to catch fish. Most of us have no problem with people fly fishing or lure fishing, but when they start trying to change the rules in an effort to convert us to their way of thinking it is time to speak up about it or they will just continue to lose more of our best waters.

For those who think it is no big deal because they only want 1% of our rivers probably haven&#8217;t considered that we have only 834 miles of blue ribbon waters where the trout are plentiful, there is adequate access and the trout grow bigger than average. The first 100 miles the equals only one half of one percent of our 20,000 of trout rivers and streams but 12% of the best blue ribbon waters in our state. Add another 112 miles and they will control over 25% of the best rivers in our state.

And do you think it will stop there? Not a chance. I attended the meeting in Bitely and more than half the people were against more gear restrictions on the PM and the other half mostly guides were in favor of the gear restrictions. Since every guide I heard speak stated that they were only interested in protecting the river even though the DNR clearly stated fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations their motive must be something different. Profits perhaps?

The meeting I attended the next night in Grayling was totally different. Although there were a lot of guides and members of TU supporting more flies only no kill regulations, the other 100 of so people were the ideologues. Dedicated to the proposition that more flies only was not their right and privilege but spoke out that their goal was to get much more flies only water. One guy suggested they start a campaign to acquire another 500 miles. Another demanded that since the legislature awarded another 112 miles of gear restricted waters that the DNR implement those 112 to flies only immediately. Not one person spoke out against the new stricter regulation if you exclude my comments.

When I suggested that since we already had a hundred miles of flies only, a reasonable person might think 100 miles of NO FLIES allowed might be in order especially since it meets the definition of gear restrictions. I kind of expected jeers and boos, but their only response was laughter. Not loud boisterous laughter, but kind of a polite laughter like you have non chance Mr.riff raff.

Fly fishing began out of frustration of bait fishermen who were frustrated that at certain times because they couldn&#8217;t catch those trout that were clearly feeding on the surface using there time honored live bait methods. They finally figured out that the trout were feeding on hatching insects and fly fishing was born. Fly fishing began as another method or tool to fool the trout and has since been perverted by some fishermen through the philosophy I talked about earlier.

Most of the fishermen I fish because they like to catch fish. It is a pretty simple concept and most of them think that fly fishing is a great way to catch them. The good fishermen have learned to use all legal methods to achieve their goal. Many like me are quick to get out our fly rods whenever we encounter a hatch. When the fish are aggressive and feeding we revert to our spinners and plugs and take advantage of these short windows.

When the fish are neutral and neither aggressive or feeding we revert to those methods used before fly fishing was invented and try to finesse the trout with a live offering. Not that an expert nymph fisherman or expert lure fisherman couldn&#8217;t still entice a few trout, but pickings would be slim. I haven&#8217;t posted any fishing reports on this site this year for my own personal reasons, but I am going to discuss a fishing experience a couple of days ago to illiterate my point.

So Wednesday I fished with what I consider to be an outstanding fisherman and lives in close proximity to the river in question. Over the years we have shared fishing stories and our great reverence to trout rivers and fishing. We fished about 12 hours. The weather was perfect and we practically had the river to ourselves and caught well over 50 trout half of which were between 12 to 18 inches. Although we saw a few flies hatch, we saw very few fish rise.

My partner stuck with plugs most of the day and ended up with a few fish, but it was not a plug day even though we both had some good fish follow our lures. Since I experiment all the time, I quickly went to my new and improved finesse bait technique I have been fine tuning over the years and it really paid off. I posted a few pictures in my gallery.

The whole point of even discussing this is if we couldn&#8217;t have used live bait on Wednesday, fishing wise it would have not been the same great experience. I agree that any day on the water is better than a day at work etc. etc, but the main reason I fish is to feel that tug at the end of my rod and to listen to my drag sing. In the end we kept a few fish for the table and released well over 80% of the fish we caught.

I can&#8217;t help it if you still want to stay ignorant and continue to believe that you are protecting the fishery by excluding bait fishing but that is a reality problem you have to resolve on your own.


I also attended the Cadillac meeting and they couldn&#8217;t have been more different. There were some well spoken fisherman at this meeting including Joe B. Thousandcasts, Rob from Pappy&#8217;s on M55, Mondrella and a most of the other attendees. Only one person spoke out in favor of no bait on the PM. 

If you believe that fly fishermen should have special privileges and exclusive rights to our best most productive trout waters or if you believe that guides who profit from our public resource have your best interests at heart and believe that they only want to protect the resource by eliminating bait, don&#8217;t write any letters to Kelly Smith, Jim Dexter or any of your local fish biologists. 

At this time it couldn&#8217;t be more clear that each individual comment will help and all you have to say is you don&#8217;t want any more gear restricted waters and Every letter or e-mail counts. This is Jim Dexter&#8217;s e-mail address [email protected]


----------



## SR-Mechead

Splitshot said:


> I dont think SR-Mechead was childish at all. I know bob personally and he is a long time honorable sportsman who I have great respect for personally. I was one of the people Bob was speaking to outside the meeting. I dont care if John spoke for himself, for BBT or the guides association He is not an employee, but an owner of BBT and his personal opinion is to not allow bait fishing from Gleasons Landing to Walhalla over 25 miles of river. Not only is he personally against it, he spoke out against bait fishing to the DNR in an effort to get them to restrict me and other bait fisherman from using bait on that stretch of river.
> 
> It seems very hypocritical since BBT makes money selling bait. Besides that John claimed he only wanted to protect the fishery. If he would have read the DNR report he would have understood that restricting bait would not do that. In the report the DNR clearly states over and over and over that; Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.
> 
> If you believe the DNR and the science, showing that restricting bait will not protect the fishery. please tell me what is the real reasons John wants to restrict me from using bait? Instead of being childish, it seems reasonable for all bait fishermen not to support a company when one of the owners is trying to stop them from using a legitimate method to catch trout.
> 
> I agree that you guys are well liked in the community and that you do much to protect and keep the river clean. I have recommended your guide service often and I have also spent a considerable amount of money on tackle at BBT when I know I could have purchased those things elsewhere for less money. I believe in supporting local companies who support me. From a personal point of view it was a mistake for John to support the elimination of bait on the PM but be clear I am only speaking for myself.


 Thank you splitshot and all the other's for your support 
I just cannot believe that a a owner of of a sporting goods shop would even say something at a meeting that would split the sportsmen from one an other .
Bob


----------



## Whit1

That's a great post Ray. 

I didn't make a meeting, but have voiced my deep concern over this issue to the powers that be. One thing dazzles me and that is, if I had to surmise, it would be that most of those in favor...or opposed for that matter...to any new gear restrictions have voiced strong opposition to governmental interfernence in our lives. Perhaps some of them are also Tea Party members or advocates. Yet they readily even gleefully and with vigor want a governmental agency to step in with restrictions. If these restrictions would improve trout populations then there might be a point...............BUT THEY DO NOT! This appears to be another of those all too many Fishing Myths and Legends.

12% of our present Blue Ribbon Trout Streams?? and it will jump to 25%? Now there's food for thought.


----------



## brookies101

Splitshot said:


> When I suggested that since we already had a hundred miles of flies only, a reasonable person might think 100 miles of NO FLIES allowed might be in order especially since it meets the definition of gear restrictions. I kind of expected jeers and boos, but their only response was laughter. Not loud boisterous laughter, but kind of a polite laughter like you have non chance Mr.riff raff.


That whole post was awesome, no way in hell i could have put it better myself. But the above comment is what i think of everytime this situation pops into my mind. Seems like a trivial thought in between all the other info (scientific and not) that has been passed around, but that suggestion in the social context that this all pertains to was an awesome proposal to be thrown into the open. kudos for getting that out there, especially being in front of everone and the laughter


----------



## Shoeman

Just like Ray predicted almost 10 years ago :SHOCKED:

Wow, where did time go? Well here it is in black and white and the movement from the "vocal" ones (the ones that stand to gain monetarily or benefit from less traffic) are gaining support, all in the name of (social) science :lol:

I guess just because you make money rowing a boat it makes you an expert on given watersheds in the eyes of the decision makers. Not once have their motives been challenged, until now. This being said, Ray's comment(s) drew laughter. Funny how?

I'd still like to see some type of media get involved. MOOD, MUCC, Newspapers, ect. After all, these restrictions involve more than guides and landowners. The general angling public is kept in the dark until after the fact.

Once again it's swept under the rug, just like it was when the original worm bill passed.

Hey, I love flyfishing, but I also fish with "baitdunkers" on a regular basis. It would be a shame if some of these guys would not be able to enjoy the resource using their prefered method, or even go out with me at all, because of their equipment.


----------



## Whit1

Shoeman said:


> I'd still like to see some type of media get involved. MOOD, MUCC, Newspapers, ect. After all, these restrictions involve more than guides and landowners. The general angling public is kept in the dark until after the fact.
> 
> Once again it's swept under the rug, just like it was when the original worm bill passed.


MUCC is out of touch with the average, Joe or Jane angler who might wish to use bait. They represent a group of "conservation" clubs. All of these clubs have "special interests" and meetings are attended by those members who are, no negative intended, who are passionate about their "interest". MUCC never has and never will truly represent the majority of Michigan's hunting and fishing sportsmen and women.

In order to change their "policy" in support or against a particular item the member clubs who attend MUCC's annual convention must approve such a policy change by a 2/3's (or roughly) majority. Even if the majority of MUCC's member clubs approve such a change unless the "vote" is over that 2/3's (or roughly) threshold the organization will not change there policy. On top of this, when a majority of the clubs do approve a policy change and that threshold has not been reached MUCC's reps will not mention the fact that to the governing bodies...NRA for instance...to whom they speak.


----------



## Shoeman

So that's what they meant when they told me that the original worm bill didn't meet their criteria. 

Nice!


----------



## J-Lee

Thanks Ray, for attending the meetings, your voice in this is appreciated. I guess money talks and science walks.


----------



## [email protected]

Thought I would give this thread a quick glance this morning and then quickly discovered that it has grown into one of those that I don't have the time or the patience to read all the post since my last report so, I won't, I'll just say this and then promise myself to never look at any of this again or, give it another thought... 

It is very obvious that everyone here has already formed an "opinion" on the subject of gear restrictions and/or BBT and there is no real point in trying to change those opinions. I'll just respect them for what they are, your opinions.

To me, the whole thing is very simple, the DNR asked for opinions and everyone who really cares one way or another gave theirs. Mine happens to be the same as their current recommendation, no further gear restriction on the PM, others have a different one. 

All my friends and colleagues know very well how I feel, but luckily, they are mature enough to respect that as my opinion and still remain my friends since most of them have a differing one.

Side note: Wouldn't it be ironic if all the guys I agree with on the subject (Like, most of the people here.) hated on me and then I lost all my long time friends as well for agreeing with the guys that are hatin' on me! :yikes: Talk about a lose, lose situation... 

Anyway, I digress, I honestly don't care how or why anyone came about their "opinion" (physical, biological, social or selfish.) because that's all it is, it is an opinion and it is one that was asked for. I guess I'm just different because I was raised to respect everyone's opinion and, oddly enough, I do. I just can't find it in me to go hate on anyone for having one, be it different than mine or not. 

In short, so I can get on with being done here. We all know what opinions are like, but it doesn't mean we have to act like one... 

I'm sure this will work out the way most people here, including myself want it to and if I see you I see you, if I don't I don't. Either way all I've got is a friendly smile, a wave and a "good luck" to all of you. 

Now I'll be the childish one and take the easy way since I find I usually don't have time for all the different forums I visit anyway... I'm out here, thanks for 9+ years and 961 "mostly" fun post. Almost made a thousand! 

Tight lines all,
_Steve_


----------



## Ranger Ray

Here we have perfect examples of what "managing socially" creates. It divides us sportsmen. It is a frickin bigger danger to our sports than any anti could ever hope for. This is how I see this whole scenario should be handled. *&#8220;Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations."* So let it be written, so let it be done. End of story. We gave the NRC the power to manage by sound scientific means. DO IT!


----------



## wiggle wart

Everyone can complain about low numbers of salmon and steelhead in the rivers all they want. Did you ever stop and think think about how many thousands of salmon and steelhead get caught out in the big lake? People on the big lake could care less how many fish go in their coolers. I know some river guides personally that are catch and release in the river,but when they go out with there buddies on lake michigan its slaughter time.


----------



## brookies101

i remember pier fishing manistee during the middle of august last season and thinking that exact same thing. How many boats went by me with monsterous coolers waiting to be filled with bunches of fish. After fishing that morning i went to the cleaning station to see if i could manage to round up some skein/spawn for the next trip up. I looked in the dumpster while i waited for the fish cleaner to bring me out some skein he had saved in his cooler. It is just an absolute slaughter out there that time of year. Kind of sickening


----------



## Bull Market

Ranger Ray said:


> Here we have perfect examples of what "managing socially" creates. It divides us sportsmen. It is a frickin bigger danger to our sports than any anti could ever hope for.


"Social Resource Management" is a reality here in Michigan. If you don't believe that, just look at the deer regulations and seasons . . . handicapped hunt, disabled veterans hunt, youth hunt, muzzle loader hunt . . . etc.

Whether or not social trout stream management "divides us sportsmen" really depends on how the party that deems itself harmed decides to react and vocalize about the situation. Obviously, using the DNRE's own explanations, gear restrictions obviously don't hurt the resource (and in some instances actually help the resource), so they decided to provide some accommodations to meet obvious and growing societal expectations. For their own mental well-being, the bait fishing crowd and catch-and-keep folks ought to come to grips with the fact that they'll be losing a little bit more control of the resource. 

Currently, there are only 3 river segments (totaling what? 25 miles?) that are designated "no kill fly fishing only". I would suggest that by the time dust settles on this issue, there will (AND SHOULD) be more. Out of 19,000 river miles of trout streams in this state, I think we can find a couple more for the C&R advocate.

No matter how this turns out, treat each other and their opinions with respect and civility. Don't give the "anti" crowd any more ammunition.


----------



## kwcharne

If you want your voice to be heard, show up to the meetings. I just posted this in a baiting thread but the same thing holds true here. The minority voice is the one being heard right now, and by minority I mean the people who want all rivers to be flies only. The minority speaks out more, and in cases such as this, the minority has more means to have their voice heard. Eventually, the minority complains enough that the majority has to comply. Show me evidence where having flies only sections will improve populations. For some reason fly fishermen have this stigma of being elitist fisherman, where anglers that use bait are just poor fisherman who rape the rivers of all fish. Why cant people just be happy of the way they fish, and leave everyone else alone?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Bull Market said:


> "Social Resource Management" is a reality here in Michigan. If you don't believe that, just look at the deer regulations and seasons . . . handicapped hunt, disabled veterans hunt, youth hunt, muzzle loader hunt . . . etc.
> 
> Whether or not social trout stream management "divides us sportsmen" really depends on how the party that deems itself harmed decides to react and vocalize about the situation. Obviously, using the DNRE's own explanations, gear restrictions obviously don't hurt the resource (and in some instances actually help the resource), so they decided to provide some accommodations to meet obvious and growing societal expectations. For their own mental well-being, the bait fishing crowd and catch-and-keep folks ought to come to grips with the fact that they'll be losing a little bit more control of the resource.
> 
> Currently, there are only 3 river segments (totaling what? 25 miles?) that are designated "no kill fly fishing only". I would suggest that by the time dust settles on this issue, there will (AND SHOULD) be more. Out of 19,000 river miles of trout streams in this state, I think we can find a couple more for the C&R advocate.
> 
> No matter how this turns out, treat each other and their opinions with respect and civility. Don't give the "anti" crowd any more ammunition.





Bull Market said:


> "Social Resource Management" is a reality here in Michigan. If you don't believe that, just look at the deer regulations and seasons . . . handicapped hunt, disabled veterans hunt, youth hunt, muzzle loader hunt . . . etc..


I always like when the deer hunting scenario is brought in to compare "social management." Getting a little deeper in to social management, yes there will always be some. Start times, seasons etc.. It should never be used to have someone "lose" anything. If someone has to "lose" anything it should be done by sound scientific management. Is there anyone losing in your hunting scenario? Seasons are created to equalize and appease all hunting gear types, however when dealing with fishing and migratory fish, well it doesn't work so good. I don&#8217;t see gun only sections of the Manistee forest where only gun hunters are allowed and not bow hunters. I can&#8217;t believe people even try to compare the two. Oh let me say, because someone will throw this in to try to justify someone &#8220;losing&#8221; a right and try to compare where rifles are not allowed because of social reasons. Its called safety. Here is one of those social regulations that make sense. So you see its all how you want to apply &#8220;social management.&#8221; 


Bull Market said:


> Whether or not social trout stream management "divides us sportsmen" really depends on how the party that deems itself harmed decides to react and vocalize about the situation. Obviously, using the DNRE's own explanations, gear restrictions obviously don't hurt the resource (and in some instances actually help the resource), so they decided to provide some accommodations to meet obvious and growing societal expectations. For their own mental well-being, the bait fishing crowd and catch-and-keep folks ought to come to grips with the fact that they'll be losing a little bit more control of the resource.


&#8220;Lose&#8221; I think its the most drastic &#8220;harm&#8221; one can inflict on sportsman. Because a restriction doesn't harm a resource is a reason for someone to &#8220;lose&#8221; to accommodate a small segment of fishermen? I like that spin. Its the very reason we should not have someone have to &#8220;lose.&#8221; Oh and to the contrary, I think you will find that the DNR is for the first time starting to hear more from the bait fishermen. So I think the bait fishermen are coming to grips, but its with how the game is played in our new &#8220;social regulations&#8221; system. I will never come to grips with &#8220;losing&#8221; any of my fishing rights, when there is absolutely no sound scientific reason for it.



Bull Market said:


> Currently, there are only 3 river segments (totaling what? 25 miles?) that are designated "no kill fly fishing only". I would suggest that by the time dust settles on this issue, there will (AND SHOULD) be more. Out of 19,000 river miles of trout streams in this state, I think we can find a couple more for the C&R advocate.
> No matter how this turns out, treat each other and their opinions with respect and civility. Don't give the "anti" crowd any more ammunition.


Again we hear the .5% argument. Seeing how quantity seems to be a talking point for the fly fishermen over quality in this argument, maybe we should start rotating some of these miles. So next year lets make the flies only on the PM from Scottville to Ludington. May even be a gain in mileage. After all its not about premium waters. Yeah right. There is only like 834 miles of prime trout water, 12% is already flies only. Can you show the studies done on these waters that would deem the necessity for someone to &#8220;lose&#8221; their right to chose the gear they fish with on this stretch? 

C&R is not a issue with any bait fishermen as far as I know. If the DNR ever does a study that says to sustain a stream system it is necessary, I think 99% of the bait fishermen would be on-board. But you see that would be sound scientific management not social.

*&#8220;Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.&#8221;

**&#8220;Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.&#8221;

**&#8220;Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.&#8221;
*

Is all I see for arguments from the gear restriction group are red hearings thrown out there hoping some stick. Its why scientifically nothing is being shown to refute the DNR, just the same old talking points of .5% and the future. I will not come to grips with a minority having a majority &#8220;lose&#8221; anything when there is absolutely no reason or other ways to achieve a result if deemed even necessary. Any fly fishermen is welcome to fish with me anytime on any water. I hold no prejudice against the sport. But if you start trying to sell gear restricted water to me, I will tell you like I think. Without any scientific reason, its a selfish undertaking. If the shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## REG

Bull Market, carrying out your interpretation and logic of the DNRE's "explanation", so does no fishing or perhaps limiting angling opportunities hurt/enhance the resource, at face value. Your statement of "the bait fishing crowd and catch/ keep folks need to come to grips...", infers, by this statement, you don't mind the creation and enhancement of social stratification among anglers. This statement of yours needs to be contrasted with the DNR's actual statement that was quoted by Splitshot and Ranger Ray. Especially since there is a lack of clear biologic/scientific benefit that was widely disseminated to the general angling public as a pretext to this whole process, which I really loathe at this point.

I am sure the vast majority of individuals here have no problem respecting others opinions. What is at issue here is the imposition of those opinions/special interests upon all trout/salmonid anglers through bureaucratic manipulation.
The DNR very obviously did not raise this issue out of the clear blue sky. 

I will acknowledge the fact that the groups and associations promoting additional gear restrictions are considerably better organized and savvy in forwarding their agenda. However, it is also clear here who's interest they have at heart, and please don't tug on the psuedo-conservation strings, the limited benefit has already been stated. I think these organizations need to consider the amount of pushback seen so far that is coming from the unorganized and unaffiliated individuals stepping up in opposition may represent the tip of the iceberg as far as the general angling public goes. As Ranger Ray already stated, I can't see the polarization and acrimony they are creating as a positive thing. For, if they keep marginalizing anglers and creating resentment towards themselves, they may also find they may be limiting their support.


----------



## mondrella

Bull Market said:


> "Social Resource Management" is a reality here in Michigan. If you don't believe that, just look at the deer regulations and seasons . . . handicapped hunt, disabled veterans hunt, youth hunt, muzzle loader hunt . . . etc.
> 
> Whether or not social trout stream management "divides us sportsmen" really depends on how the party that deems itself harmed decides to react and vocalize about the situation. Obviously, using the DNRE's own explanations, gear restrictions obviously don't hurt the resource (and in some instances actually help the resource), so they decided to provide some accommodations to meet obvious and growing societal expectations. For their own mental well-being, the bait fishing crowd and catch-and-keep folks ought to come to grips with the fact that they'll be losing a little bit more control of the resource.
> 
> Currently, there are only 3 river segments (totaling what? 25 miles?) that are designated "no kill fly fishing only". I would suggest that by the time dust settles on this issue, there will (AND SHOULD) be more. Out of 19,000 river miles of trout streams in this state, I think we can find a couple more for the C&R advocate.
> 
> No matter how this turns out, treat each other and their opinions with respect and civility. Don't give the "anti" crowd any more ammunition.


 Why should I allow the minority group in this state make the rules. This will hurt our sport more than anything. Young people are near immpossible to get involved in the outdoors. These young people have a better understanding of what and whys than any group in History. I have four young children and to see how they look and see things. They educate themselves they want to know the whys and have facts to back up thier thoughts. 
Putting rules in place that do no good except segergate us as a group they will not be part of. We as a society have spent the past 50 years trying to eliminate this sort of behavior. The future of our sport will turn its back on it and us in the big fight because of our own actions. 

I went to the meeting in Cadillac. Take a look at who put together the model for what streams should be considered and what criteriea must be met to be considered. The Idea is to take the best water in the state from all fisherman and give it to a few. Why not take a stream that has poor trout fishing say like the flat river and make it fly only and give back the LIL' Man. 
I voiced my thoughts on the little Man and all should. This was allowed to be Fly Only water by the DNR with the fact that the INDIAN CLUB would allow public access. They agreed after a few years they decided to revoke on thier end of the deal. So should the DNR. It no longer meets the criteria for gear restricted water. 

Why don't we add the 2.3 miles of the Baldwin river from Wagon wheel down into the No kill water for the General public. I cannot get off the river at green cottage and be legal with a fish in my cooler when I float this section of river. The only that can are the land owners. So in effect we have made an other section of Private water in this State. 
Wake up and take the right stand folks this will be the life and death of trout fishing in this state.


----------



## Whit1

*&#8220;Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.&#8221;*

Two questions:

What is it about the above statement, by the MDNRE, that those who harbor a "special interest" in seeing more gear regs applied to some of the best trout fishing waters in the state don't understand?

When, at the public meetings over this issue, a speaker from the audience says that new gear regs will help "save the fishery", "enhance trout populations" and other such nonsense, do the powers that be opening and repeatedly refute this myth with the simple statement above?

Did any of you who were in attendence hear this happen?

If not why not?


----------



## thousandcasts

> Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.
> 
> Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.
> 
> Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.


I think this needs to be repeated at least 1000 times since it's obvious that some people refuse to see the absolute science that's right in front of their faces.

Then again, not gonna name names, but when you dig around, it's not hard to figure out that this whole PM thing is driven by one fly guide who's pissed that he can't get a federal launch permit, so why no selfishly make the whole PM gear restricted so he can still advertise a "quality" fishing experience by getting rid of the "riff raff" as he's allegedly said on many occasions?


----------



## Ranger Ray

One thing for sure, the percentage of people viewing this forum has increased 4 times.  Awful lot of guests. :lol:


----------



## Bull Market

Least we forget fellas, allowing ANYONE to take ANY fish out of our waters is SOCIAL resource management, not biological or scientific management. 

If the DNRE was strictly concerned with protecting the fishery resource the entire state would be no-kill, no fishing, at all. Their only concern would be in protecting water quality. That would certainly maximize the resource and allow the greatest opportunity for survival for mink, otter, osprey and eagles.

If they were to allow any form of fishing, bringing in proven scientific evidence to support their decision, the entire state would be "flies only, no kill." Scientific studies prove over and over again, that bait fishing has the highest degree of hooking mortality for released fish, spinners and spoons next, and fly fishing has the lowest. 

Be careful about demanding a purely scientific approach to fisheries management . . . you might end up with what you ask for.


----------



## mondrella

Bull Market said:


> Least we forget fellas, allowing ANYONE to take ANY fish out of our waters is SOCIAL resource management, not biological or scientific management.
> 
> If the DNRE was strictly concerned with protecting the fishery resource the entire state would be no-kill, no fishing, at all. Their only concern would be in protecting water quality. That would certainly maximize the resource and allow the greatest opportunity for survival for mink, otter, osprey and eagles.
> 
> If they were to allow any form of fishing, bringing in proven scientific evidence to support their decision, the entire state would be "flies only, no kill." Scientific studies prove over and over again, that bait fishing has the highest degree of hooking mortality for released fish, spinners and spoons next, and fly fishing has the lowest.
> 
> Be careful about demanding a purely scientific approach to fisheries management . . . you might end up with what you ask for.


That is a flawed way to look at it. To start with roughly 50% of trout die in a stream each year. The harvest of fish seem to be from this 50%. There is no evidence that fishing has any negative effect on overall populations when sound creel limits are in place. 
Trout are a renewable resource PERIOD when proper management is used. 
Don't try to twist the real information that exist. 
Admit these regs are for selfish reasons only. There is nothing that supports thier existance.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Bull Market said:


> Least we forget fellas, allowing ANYONE to take ANY fish out of our waters is SOCIAL resource management, not biological or scientific management.
> 
> If the DNRE was strictly concerned with protecting the fishery resource the entire state would be no-kill, no fishing, at all. Their only concern would be in protecting water quality. That would certainly maximize the resource and allow the greatest opportunity for survival for mink, otter, osprey and eagles.
> 
> If they were to allow any form of fishing, bringing in proven scientific evidence to support their decision, the entire state would be "flies only, no kill." Scientific studies prove over and over again, that bait fishing has the highest degree of hooking mortality for released fish, spinners and spoons next, and fly fishing has the lowest.
> 
> Be careful about demanding a purely scientific approach to fisheries management . . . you might end up with what you ask for.





Bull Market said:


> Least we forget fellas, allowing ANYONE to take ANY fish out of our waters is SOCIAL resource management, not biological or scientific management.


Is sustenance a social issue? Enjoyment? Just because they are both social, don't confuse them as being equally important. "Anyone" vs fly fishermen, see the difference? 


Bull Market said:


> If they were to allow any form of fishing, bringing in proven scientific evidence to support their decision, the entire state would be "flies only, no kill." Scientific studies prove over and over again, that bait fishing has the highest degree of hooking mortality for released fish, spinners and spoons next, and fly fishing has the lowest.


So what if bait fishing kills more fish? What is it relevant to? Obviously not the sustainability of our fisheries. Why do we know this:
*&#8220;Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.&#8221;*




Bull Market said:


> Be careful about demanding a purely scientific approach to fisheries management . . . you might end up with what you ask for.


You forget who here is trying to change the system. The bait fishermen just want things left alone. It is the fly fishermen who are using the &#8220;bait kill more fish&#8221; red herring. It is the fly fishermen that disrupts the social management for &#8220;anyone&#8221; for the benefit of a few. It is the fly fishermen who is trying to use the insignificant science that bait kills more fish to get the regulations changed. Nice reverse psychology. Funny you put the significance at the fly fishing mortality rate. And yes, be careful what you wish for or we will end up like Norway, were you have a limit and no size. You catch your limit, you are done. Whether you choose to keep them or not. Ah Utopia. Isn't it grand.


----------



## REG

Bull Market said:


> Least we forget fellas, allowing ANYONE to take ANY fish out of our waters is SOCIAL resource management, not biological or scientific management.
> 
> If the DNRE was strictly concerned with protecting the fishery resource the entire state would be no-kill, no fishing, at all. Their only concern would be in protecting water quality. That would certainly maximize the resource and allow the greatest opportunity for survival for mink, otter, osprey and eagles.
> 
> If they were to allow any form of fishing, bringing in proven scientific evidence to support their decision, the entire state would be "flies only, no kill." Scientific studies prove over and over again, that bait fishing has the highest degree of hooking mortality for released fish, spinners and spoons next, and fly fishing has the lowest.
> 
> Be careful about demanding a purely scientific approach to fisheries management . . . you might end up with what you ask for.


Is the scientific literature that overwhelming regarding mortality for all trout and salmon? Did these studies control all variables? And if so, were the waters similar or the same as the waters in MI? And lastly, why is the DNR saying &#8220;Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.&#8221; ? Do you think they ignore the scientific evidence when making statement like that?

As it relates to your account of the scientific literature, why wasn't single/barbless hooks ever proposed as a "gear restriction"?

The literature I have read relates increased mortality in released trout to many things, including gut hooked fish. I don't fish much for stream trout, but in the course of steelhead fishing I hook a fair share of them. As I mainly float fish, I rarely, if ever, have any trout or steelhead that are gut hooked. So, by your statement, how is it that I, and others fishing like me, are killing a higher percentage of trout than fly fishermen? I am very interested to know what science support that question, especially considering I many times use fly hooks for my bait. 

On another note, I wonder how issues like this affect an individual's choice in partaking in fly fishing? I was thinking of posting this question up as a poll, but it probably would, at best, get zapped.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Ranger Ray... I really like the comment you made about the views on this thread going up majorly. 

I am in favor of the restriction on the stream in my area but please understand that this stream is not the quality fishery that the PM, the Little Man, or the Au Sable is. The small section of restricted water on the stream down here should be used as a test program. Maybe it will help our fishery, maybe it won't. I think a couple of seasons of restrictions on our creek is worth seeing if it helps. If it doesn't throw out the restrictions and go back to the way it was. 

The one positive thing I see coming out of all of this is the vast public awareness to the issues. Perhaps this is the catalyst we needed (as a state of sportsmen) to get everyone involved in the management issues instead of just the previously organized groups like TU.

I am a TU member and support the habitat improvement efforts they have put forth over the years. But I argee with almost everyone here that the agenda of taking public water and essentially making it "private" for fly fishermen is not the way to manage anything.

Truth is the MDNRE asked for public comment on these new regulation proposals and they just might be getting more than they asked for. The voice of the average fisherman is finally coming out and that, in my eyes, is a great thing.


----------



## Bulletproof

Gear restrictions are a *joke* and discriminatory at best.

If you're seriously concerned at keeping the fishery 'healthy'; whatever that means, you have to look at:

1. Habitat/water quality--biomass.

and maybe....

2. Creel/Slot Limits--which would be contingent on management objectives.

Rivers/streams that 'kickass', whether here in MI or outwest in Montana/Idaho, didn't get that way because of the gear restrictions and certainly wouldn't become worse without them. They 'kickass' because of their water quality and biomass levels. End of story.


----------



## Bull Market

I've enjoyed the conversation, fellas. However, this will probably be my last post on the subject.



Bulletproof said:


> Rivers/streams that 'kickass', whether here in MI or outwest in Montana/Idaho, didn't get that way because of the gear restrictions and certainly wouldn't become worse without them. They 'kickass' because of their water quality and biomass levels. End of story.


BRAVO! Truer words were never spoken. Thanks for the reinforcement.

This whole issue of fly fishing only or other gear restrictions is a SOCIAL resource management issue and not a biological one. It is illegal to take trout with your hands, dip nets, hoop nets, etc., NOT because of the mortality issue, but because of SOCIAL reasons. 

Rather than beating a drum and chanting:

*Fishing mortality is only a small component of total annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations.*

You stand a much better chance of success in swaying the DNRE by coming up with a convincing argument that gear restrictions and C&R are not valid social concerns. The DNRE recognizes them to be legitimate social concerns, and are willing to develop management alternatives to accomodate them.

The only way you will win the "biology" argument, is by becoming vocal and obnoxious in expressing your dissatisfaction with their recommendations. Unfortunately, the DNRE seems to be prone to retreat when confronted with that sort of rhetoric. Of course, the "antis" would love to see that happen.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Bull Market

The two statements co-exist, side-by-side without any contradiction. Especially in the smaller size classes, gear restrictions (under most circumstances) have virtually no impact on population dynamics. 

Lets say a certain stream section holds 1,000 SIX-inch trout. But, due to the characteristics of water fertility, prime lies, aquatic insects, etc. etc., the holding capacity of the stream is only 400 trout in the EIGHT-inch size. During that growing season, nature has to find some way to eliminate 600 individuals to prevent them from recruiting into the next larger size class. It could use mink, osprey, cormorants, a large predatory brown trout, or just plain old starvation.

Along comes a fly fisherman and catches and releases a 6-inch brown, which survives. Nature must still find a way to eliminate 600 individuals. The fly fisherman didnt have any impact on natures mission. 

The bait fisherman, as scientific studies demonstrate, has a MUCH high mortality rate when releasing fish they dont intend to keep. Lets say during the course of the growing season, bait fishermen account for the death of 150 under-sized fish that were released after being caught. Nature still has to find a way to eliminate another 450 individuals, because the stream carrying capacity for 8-inch trout has not yet been accomplished . . . bring in the cormorants, otter, etc. to complete the task.

So, bait fishermen DO, in fact, have a much higher mortality rate when it comes to C&R, but their choice of gear doesnt necessarily (under most circumstances) impact the population dynamics. 

My whole reason in elaborating, is to (again) make the point, that bait fishermen are not even involved in the same debate at this point. Bait fishermen keep chanting the no impact on population mantra. Heres a newsflash: The DNRE is not increasing gear-restricted stream miles due to any biological reason. They are doing it to meet SOCIAL needs and concerns. If bait fishermen want to have an impact on the debate, they need to figure out what those social needs are, then convince the DNRE that those needs are either irrelevant, or can be met in some fashion other than increasing gear-restricted stream miles.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Whit1

Bull Market said:


> I've enjoyed the conversation, fellas. However, this will probably be my last post on the subject.


Ya see Larry, ya really do love us even with our "baiting" commentary....ya just can't resist.....:lol:


----------



## mondrella

Bull Market said:


> The two statements co-exist, side-by-side without any contradiction. Especially in the smaller size classes, gear restrictions (under most circumstances) have virtually no impact on population dynamics.
> 
> Lets say a certain stream section holds 1,000 SIX-inch trout. But, due to the characteristics of water fertility, prime lies, aquatic insects, etc. etc., the holding capacity of the stream is only 400 trout in the EIGHT-inch size. During that growing season, nature has to find some way to eliminate 600 individuals to prevent them from recruiting into the next larger size class. It could use mink, osprey, cormorants, a large predatory brown trout, or just plain old starvation.
> 
> Along comes a fly fisherman and catches and releases a 6-inch brown, which survives. Nature must still find a way to eliminate 600 individuals. The fly fisherman didnt have any impact on natures mission.
> 
> The bait fisherman, as scientific studies demonstrate, has a MUCH high mortality rate when releasing fish they dont intend to keep. Lets say during the course of the growing season, bait fishermen account for the death of 150 under-sized fish that were released after being caught. Nature still has to find a way to eliminate another 450 individuals, because the stream carrying capacity for 8-inch trout has not yet been accomplished . . . bring in the cormorants, otter, etc. to complete the task.
> 
> So, bait fishermen DO, in fact, have a much higher mortality rate when it comes to C&R, but their choice of gear doesnt necessarily (under most circumstances) impact the population dynamics.
> 
> My whole reason in elaborating, is to (again) make the point, that bait fishermen are not even involved in the same debate at this point. Bait fishermen keep chanting the no impact on population mantra. Heres a newsflash: The DNRE is not increasing gear-restricted stream miles due to any biological reason. They are doing it to meet SOCIAL needs and concerns. If bait fishermen want to have an impact on the debate, they need to figure out what those social needs are, then convince the DNRE that those needs are either irrelevant, or can be met in some fashion other than increasing gear-restricted stream miles.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Who says there is a social need for these regs maybe 2% ofthe trout fishing population. Seems kind of irrelevant in the big picture when most don't need them to fish.

As far as bait fishing having a higher hooking mortality. Find me one study that the hook was set when a bite occurred. Everyone I have ever found waits for the fish to swallow the bait. These studies are not very accurate. 
I deep hook a much higher percentage of fish using artificials than bait. In fact Last night I had 3 browns 14 to 19" engulf a Dryfly to the point it was in the gills. 
The few trout fisherman that fish bait and wait to a fish swallows a livebait are more than likely the very small majority. All I have fished with and been around don't mess around on the strike.


----------



## Bull Market

Whit1 said:


> Ya see Larry, ya really do love us even with our "baiting" commentary....ya just can't resist.....:lol:


You're right, Whit. That's why I threw in the "probably" word. Just in case I couldn't help myself. Regards.


----------



## mondrella

BTW, Who is really trying to BULLY people around?

I am leaning towards the minority on this issue. 

Why are they only interested in the very best of the best sections of trout water in this State?


----------



## Ranger Ray

mondrella said:


> BTW, Who is really trying to BULLY people around?
> 
> I am leaning towards the minority on this issue.
> 
> Why are they only interested in the very best of the best sections of trout water in this State?


Hey! Its called "Social needs." :lol:


----------



## thousandcasts

I was out fishing the local river with my sons today and after taking the following pic, I couldn't help but think, "Damn...I miss the good old days when fishing was all about just having a smile on your face." 










*&^% gear restrictions.


----------



## Whit1

thousandcasts said:


> I was out fishing the local river with my sons today and after taking the following pic, I couldn't help but think, "Damn...I miss the good old days when fishing was all about just having a smile on your face."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *&^% gear restrictions.


That's what it's all about and this comes from a guy who holds upland stream trout in high esteem.

That's a nice cat' by the way. How do they eat from there? I recognize that run by the way and used to fish it back in the '60s and caught a wide variety of fish from there.


----------



## Fish Eye

*Anglers, others take bait on what's right -- and wrong -- about Michigan's gear restrictions*

*Published: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 7:10 AM Updated: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 3:57 PM*








*Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press *









Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids PressCritics of the DNRE plan want gear restrictions for another 31 miles of the Pere Marquette River, while others don't want them at all. 
BITELY -- More than 90 people showed up at the town conservation club Monday night. They came to hear about proposed changes to trout stream regulations.

It could well have been a raucous event. But this gathering of anglers, guides, outfitters and bait and tackle retailers was well-behaved.

The meeting was no less interesting for its restraint. The discussions highlighted areas of concern that need attention.

*The forum was one of 15 public meetings* scheduled by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. The subject is the current draft proposal to add gear restrictions to 45 additional stream miles -- meaning live bait fishing would be prohibited. Only artificial flies and lures would be allowed.

The state has 105 miles of river with gear restrictions. Michigan has 36,000 miles of stream, 20,000 of which support trout. In 2002, the Legislature passed a law that gave the DNR the authority to designate up to 212 miles with gear restrictions. The agency finally is filling out some of those miles.

DNRE staff, with the input of outside fishing groups, chose 45 miles for gear restrictions out of 1,300 miles nominated by the public.

The Pere Marquette River wasnt on the go list. Its why everyone was at the meeting.

Gear restrictions can be quite controversial, said Todd Kalish, a DNRE fish habitat biologist who led the meeting.

He wasnt kidding.

Fishing guides and the Ludington and Scottville Chamber of Commerce wanted gear restrictions for another 31 miles of the Pere Marquette mainstream, from Gleasons Landing to Walhalla. Bait anglers and area bait and tackle store owners didnt want them at all.

DNRE staff said the lower river didnt meet the criteria to get them. The upper 8 1/2 miles from M-37 to Gleasons Landing would continue to have gear restrictions and remain no-kill and flies-only. Other segments simply had their classifications tweaked.

The issue here isnt brown trout or brook trout, state fisheries chief Kelly Smith said after the meeting. Its about steelhead and salmon. We heard more about steelhead here than anywhere else. A lot of what I heard was, Go to a one-fish limit. If thats the case, we dont need gear restrictions.

The stream review process selected stream segments where restrictions would improve trout fishing. The draft report, subject to change after the public meetings, found that anglers on the Pere Marquette target steelhead and salmon more than trout. Those who fish trout largely release their legal fish, according to DNRE census data and observations. That results in fewer brown trout dying from hooking than natural causes.

Or does it? 

DNRE staff said that night they have little scientific data about the lower river fishery.

Proponents argued that requiring flies, spinners and plugs would reduce hooking mortality compared to live bait.

John Karakashian, president of the *Michigan River Guides Association*, said his group supports the local initiative to extend those rules to Walhalla.

Critics, on the other hand, expressed anti-guide sentiment. They complained about hogging the river and commercializing the fishery, that the regular Joe would be shut out by gear restrictions, along with his kids, and that the economy would suffer. Local bait and tackle shops also opposed.

Then there were matters of civility. Dorothy Schramm, founder of *Flygirls of Michigan *and a well-respected fly fishing instructor from Pentwater, favored gear restrictions on the lower river to help reduce mortality and improve the fishing experience.

Ive introduced over 1,000 women to the sport of fly fishing, Schramm said. We find were much more comfortable and feel safer fishing where there are gear restrictions.

What we find in the flies water is manners and less swearing. Down there, its the F-word every other word. There is trash in the parking lots. They build fires anywhere, and its an awful experience.

Schramm said the DNRE needs to do something about it and acknowledged that law enforcement funding is tight.

Smith Schramm's assertion, but questioned its appropriateness.

There is some truth to it. (Gear restrictions) would modify behavior and who goes there, but is that how we should use them? he asked.

The answer, of course, is not black and white. Gear restrictions have been used to create a certain type of fishing experience -- with the hope of growing bigger trout. The AuSable North Branch is a good example. But slob behavior is a matter for the constable rather than the tackle rule book.

*ARE YOU ON TWITTER?*








Follow Howard Meyerson at *twitter.com/HMeyerson*​Communities concerned about their business and image might need to find a way to pitch in or help pay for more law enforcement. Everyone will benefit.

Meanwhile, responsible bait anglers should have a place where they can fish, too, on the PM -- at least until compelling scientific evidence shows otherwise


----------



## Whit1

Fish Eye said:


> &#8220;I&#8217;ve introduced over 1,000 women to the sport of fly fishing,&#8221; Schramm said. &#8220;We find we&#8217;re much more comfortable and feel safer fishing where there are gear restrictions.
> 
> &#8220;What we find in the flies water is manners and less swearing. Down there, it&#8217;s the F-word every other word. There is trash in the parking lots. They build fires anywhere, and it&#8217;s an awful experience.&#8221;


So now I find that besides being a bully, raper of the waters, greedy keeper of trout, devastator of the fish, I'm now a crude, insensitive, mouther of foul words as well as illegal fire builder and perhaps, the killer of Smokey the Bear............:lol: That would also include you Ray.....both of you........Steve....George...T'casts, TSS ad infinitum. Cads are us all ain't wee! :lol:

Me thinks the lady is confusing snaggers with trout anglers. Here's their website: http://www.flygirls.ws/


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Whit1 said:


> So now I find that besides being a bully, raper of the waters, greedy keeper of trout, devastator of the fish, I'm now a crude, insensitive, mouther of foul words as well as illegal fire builder and perhaps, the killer of Smokey the Bear............:lol: That would also include you Ray.....both of you........Steve....George...T'casts, TSS ad infinitum. Cads are us all ain't wee! :lol:
> 
> Me thinks the lady is confusing snaggers with trout anglers. Here's their website: http://www.flygirls.ws/


I thought that the "trout bullies" blog was funny but this lady nearly made me bust a gut laughing! Any normal person would think she is a nut job. You feel safer on flies only water? Common. Or like the above mentioned blog stated there are less opportunity for fly fishermen. Fly anglers can fish 100% of the water they choose to do so on. Do these people think that crap doesn't smell or something? Yikes. 

I am a very novice fly tosser and this lady must have never fished near me because when my fly gets caught in a up in the trees, and it always does, f-bombs tend to fly. I have kept up with this thread and stayed out but my god this elitist is just too much. This is coming from someone who fishes all methods and does practice c&r 99% of the time. Since gear restrictions are not going I would like to see the fly only water changed to artificial lure/flies, barbless, single pointed hooks. But what do I know because I bait fish still so I must be dangerous according to that old woman.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Fish Eye said:


> What we find in the flies water is manners and less swearing. Down there, its the F-word every other word.


Un F'ing believable.


----------



## TSS Caddis

thousandcasts said:


> I was out fishing the local river with my sons today and after taking the following pic, I couldn't help but think, "Damn...I miss the good old days when fishing was all about just having a smile on your face."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *&^% gear restrictions.


:lol: The one on the left is like his Dad in soooo many ways


----------



## Whit1

TSS Caddis said:


> :lol: The one on the left is like his Dad in soooo many ways


 
OH MY!!!!! :yikes:


----------



## Ranger Ray

When you don't have sound scientific evidence on your side, you throw out all the red herrings you can and hope they stick. 

Interesting that the Scottville Chamber is in favor of restrictions. I would estimate the majority of the Scottville population are bait fishermen. Must be a member that is a fly fishermen. I guess the clowns have taken over. :lol: Well I need to get busy writing another letter I see. There are 5 of us that probably spend a couple thousand dollars a year each there. Not anymore. Do I address it, attention Bozo?


----------



## diztortion

I don't feel safer on the gear restricted waters. I feel like the fly guys might beat me up!


----------



## REG

Ranger Ray said:


> When you don't have sound scientific evidence on your side, you throw out all the red herrings you can and hope they stick.
> 
> Interesting that the Scottville Chamber is in favor of restrictions. I would estimate the majority of the Scottville population are bait fishermen. Must be a member that is a fly fishermen. I guess the clowns have taken over. :lol: Well I need to get busy writing another letter I see. There are 5 of us that probably spend a couple thousand dollars a year each there. Not anymore. Do I address it, attention Bozo?


Hmmm, can't wait for the replies on how much they value our business, just bring a fly rod with you next time.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Ranger Ray said:


> When you don't have sound scientific evidence on your side, you throw out all the red herrings you can and hope they stick.
> 
> Interesting that the Scottville Chamber is in favor of restrictions. I would estimate the majority of the Scottville population are bait fishermen. Must be a member that is a fly fishermen. I guess the clowns have taken over. :lol: Well I need to get busy writing another letter I see. There are 5 of us that probably spend a couple thousand dollars a year each there. Not anymore. Do I address it, attention Bozo?


I think they took the bait on that by getting rid of bait it would clear out the "riff raff" and fisherman with deeper pockets would start using the area more and spending $$$.


----------



## SR-Mechead

Ranger Ray said:


> When you don't have sound scientific evidence on your side, you throw out all the red herrings you can and hope they stick.
> 
> Interesting that the Scottville Chamber is in favor of restrictions. I would estimate the majority of the Scottville population are bait fishermen. Must be a member that is a fly fishermen. I guess the clowns have taken over. :lol: Well I need to get busy writing another letter I see. There are 5 of us that probably spend a couple thousand dollars a year each there. Not anymore. Do I address it, attention Bozo?


Good post Ray ,but why wouldn't the Scottville Chamber be in favor. 
They would pick up a lot of business from the bait fisherman and Baldwin would be the loser. why would you even go to Baldwin if you were fishing bait and wanted to fish the PM.
Bob


----------



## TSS Caddis

SR-Mechead said:


> Good post Ray ,but why wouldn't the Scottville Chamber be in favor.
> They would pick up a lot of business from the bait fisherman and Baldwin would be the loser. why would you even go to Baldwin if you were fishing bait and wanted to fish the PM.
> Bob


Brandy, cigars and Orvis Endorsed t-shirts


----------



## Fish Eye

As long as we're talking gear restrictions, how about a leader length restriction like NY state? What kind of ruse do these "fly fisherman" want us to buy into? BTW, one of my buddy's wife attended the Fly Girl's Salmon floss-n-snag weekend school. Dorothy sure trained these women to get those Salmon. Chuck-n-Duck is proof gear restriction does not equate to sportsmanship. Of course, this isn't an issue of gender, as Hank's Hooligans so adeptly demonstrated in their MUCC video story last year. What is so satisfying about foul hooking a half dead Salmon on a number 12 fly?

As for small trout mortality on live bait, small barbless circle hooks and proper handling is the answer.


----------



## thousandcasts

TSS Caddis said:


> :lol: The one on the left is like his Dad in soooo many ways


Yep.  I guess you could say I'm just riff raff raising more riff raff since not only do the boys like helping me cure skein and tie up spawn bags, but we've got four worm farms going with about 1000 night crawlers right now since they LOVE going out night crawler hunting every night. 

Yep, I reckon the apples don't fall far from riff raff tree, huh? :lol:


----------



## TSS Caddis

If we started charging a per user access fee and dividing the money between the guides, they'd start screaming to repeal all restrictions since it limits access so quick it would make your head spin.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Hey guys... I've tried to stay as much out of this thread as possible but I just found something that I find pretty interesting.

The quote that has been used on this thread from the special regulations proposal is incorrect and has been taken way out of context. Here is the actual quotel...

"*If* fishing mortality is only a small component of total
annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing
mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations. *However, gear restrictions may be*​*appropriate for streams with low natural mortality of trout and intense fishing pressure.*"

Please notice that the word IF has been deleted from every post that this quote is being used and the following sentence does not even exist in the thread anywhere. 

I am with all of you that additional regulations on the PM are not the way to go. There has to be a better way to manage this river, if that is what we are truly looking to do. However, mis-representing what is written in the original proposal to rally the troops is not the way to go. 

Not trying to start anything other than clear up what I seen was missed. KEEP THE PM THE WAY IT IS!


----------



## fishinDon

In support of keeping the PM "the way it is," the DNR states this in the Gear Restriction Review:

_"Fish population estimates were available for 23 years between 1973 and 2009 for the Type 7 section of the Pere Marquette River. These data provide no evidence that gear and harvest limits have improved brown trout population abundance or size structure.

However, because of the long history and popularity of gear restrictions on the M-37 to Gleasons Landing section of river we recommend that these regulations continue."​_
That's a lot of years of Flies only/no kill on a river with some of the best growth rates in the state (Browns at age two more than 2" larger than mean) and we've noticed no difference in trout population abundance or size. The DNR admits it doesn't help, but leaves it in place 'cause it's "popular."

Draw your own conclusions. It all adds up to a pretty big IF to me.


----------



## Splitshot

Bull Market said:


> Least we forget fellas, allowing ANYONE to take ANY fish out of our waters is SOCIAL resource management, not biological or scientific management.
> 
> If the DNRE was strictly concerned with protecting the fishery resource the entire state would be no-kill, no fishing, at all. Their only concern would be in protecting water quality. That would certainly maximize the resource and allow the greatest opportunity for survival for mink, otter, osprey and eagles.
> 
> If they were to allow any form of fishing, bringing in proven scientific evidence to support their decision, the entire state would be "flies only, no kill." Scientific studies prove over and over again, that bait fishing has the highest degree of hooking mortality for released fish, spinners and spoons next, and fly fishing has the lowest.
> 
> I've enjoyed the conversation, fellas. However, this will probably be my last post on the subject..







Bull Market said:


> Be careful about demanding a purely scientific approach to fisheries management . . . you might end up with what you ask for.



Bull Market, you don&#8217;t get it and you probably never will. Protecting the fishery does not mean protecting every fish in the river, but managing it in such a way that it remains sustainable which means of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged. Our DNR is charged with this task and is why they set seasons, bag limits to meet those goals. 

As far as trout are concerned every fish biologist knows that nature produces excess fish and through their studies know that about half of them die naturally every year.

Fisheries sets the rules to insure sustainability but also to placate some demands made upon them through lobbying and politics

To answer your other question, most of us definitely want a purely scientific approach to fisheries management. Social management when applied to fish and wildlife is an oxymoron. Many of us are tired of the special rules meant to appease the desires of small groups of people who surely feel entitled to our best trout waters.

Flies only advocates got the first hundred miles of our best rivers through backroom politics with perhaps the exception of the North Branch of the Au Sable. There were many people that opposed, but were steam rolled because of their lack of organization.

The modern fisherman practices conservation whenever he releases fish he does not plan on utilizing and it matters not if he or she is a fly fisherman, bait fisherman or lure fisherman.. How some of you twisted this into meaning that only moral fishermen must release every trout continues to be a mystery to me.

Conservation is a good thing, but some of you guys have taken it to the extreme. All of your reasons are based on emotion and you resent it when people on the other side of the argument use facts to support their position. When you say stupid things like be careful what you ask for when regarding scientific management, I must remind you that we already did that in 1996 when the people of the state of Michigan passed proposal G.

Many of us who are proficient with all methods of fishing know fly fishing is easier and much less challenging then bait fishing. Most get confused about this issue because for the amount of time spent fly fishing fewer fish are brought to hand. I asked one of my die hard fly fishing partners what he thought of casting night crawlers the next time he was &#8220;HEX&#8221; fishing. He looked at me a little quizzically and then said that would be a stupid thing to do. Exactly I said and what do you think I&#8217;m thinking when you beating the water to a froth and the fish are feeding on the bottom.

The real challenge of fly fishing isn&#8217;t catching trout, but finding fish that are rising. When you find rising fish, you already know two things, first that they are feeding and second exactly where they are feeding. If you then pay a little attention to what the fish are feeding on, most of the time you only need a close facsimile of the insect, make a half hearted cast and it is usually fish on. You can call it challenging all you want, but as you now realize I have a different of opinion. By the way I have caught many nice trout during the hex. I contend when you find a good hatch I could catch trout with a cane pole, some 30 lb and a chicken wing. That may be a little overstated lol but you get the point.

The dirty little secret that most die hard fly fishermen know about is that without no kill, all the easy fish will be quickly caught out and the chances of being able fantasize or maybe hallucinate that you are Paul Maclean the character played by Brad Pitt in the movie &#8220;A River Runs Through It&#8221; would be greatly diminished. Like people some fish are pretty dumb (easy) and can be caught over and over day after day and without them many fly fishermen would be lost. 

That&#8217;s why they parrot cliches&#8217; like a fish is to valuable to catch only once. Sharing trout is a wonderful tradition of trout fishermen. Why not share some of your trout with friends and family as another one will soon take his place. Trout are a renewable resource. We have been catching trout on bait for hundreds of years and because of the efforts of those in the DNR the fishing today is better than it ever was. This is prima facie evidence and is self evident especially when combined with the scientific evidence supplied by those charged with the protection of our fishery.

Most of you guys who support flies only would never even consider fishing at one of those pay by the inch trout ponds so you get together make up a lot of lies, like no kill will protect the fishery and try to push off social science as legitimate management. I know you feel in your gut you are doing the right thing, but your opinions can be dispelled by facts. Facts many of you will never acknowledge.

By the way the only reason the DNR even considers these social rules is because of political pressure. Quid pro quo, cronyism etc.. Don&#8217;t believe me, call up any fish biologist in the DNR and ask them if they prefer to manage our fisheries by social science or by biological science.

For ten years I have been asking the question publically; &#8220;Please give me just one good reason we should have any flies only waters at all.&#8221; What good does flies only or artificial only rules do? It does create opportunity for a small special interest group, but takes opportunity away from the majority of fishermen, especially when the dollars to manage those waters mostly come from that majority.

Up until now most of us were content to let you have the first 100 miles but as my friend Shoeman said 10 years ago I predicated that you would be back for more. So here you are back at the public troughs again trying to justify why you should have more exclusive rights to the best trout fishing waters Michigan has to offer. 

Like I said, most bait fishermen didn&#8217;t give much thought to the first 100 miles and didn&#8217;t even try to dissect your reasoning because most of us are pretty easy going. Bait fishermen are just starting to wake up to the threat. If you get this 112 miles, you will be back for more as one person stated at the Grayling meeting for another 500 miles.

Nobody wants to say it, but the reason you need flies only no kill is because without these special rules many of you would have great difficulty catching a trout. I wouldn&#8217;t even be surprised if you guys didn&#8217;t put in pellet feeding machines, (well camouflaged of course) and started to tie up pellet flies then proudly list your catch on the Gate&#8217;s lodge website. 

There is no scientific reason for flies only, no compelling societal reason for flies only but many good reasons to do away with these elitist rules so everyone who pays for their trout stamp can share all of our trout waters using their preferred method of fishing equally. I also think that if we really examine the DNR studies it is very possible that creel limits could be increased.

The worm is turning and we are just starting to get organized. Some of the people on our side of the argument are already thinking about repealing the flies only rule through another referendum. Just so you know, when I first brought this issue up about ten years ago in my very first post it was me against and about 50 for flies only. I am proud of the responses of many of the current members and of the fact that a majority now are seeing things the same way I do and the trend is growing.

Don&#8217;t feel shy. If you think you have a compelling reason for any flies only give it your best shot. Caddis blew some of them up and I will answer one I haven&#8217;t seen yet in this thread. Economics! When people bring up the idea that out of town fly guys bring more money into the community, first I have to ask what that is based on. I am aware that studies show fly fishermen as a group are better educated and earn more than the average fisherman, but how does that convert into dollars for the local community.

More importantly does anyone think we should be managing our rivers for the benefit of local communities or for the average fisherman who pay for the fishery through their taxes and their trout stamps. Do we want the DNR to manage our fisheries based on what is best for the resource and then what is best for our citizens or should our tax dollars and license dollars be spent to cater to the wishes of well to do out of state fishermen, guide services and local businesses? The answers seem pretty clear to me.

I think it would make a big difference if some of the members here start sending e-mails to their local district biologist or to Jim Dexter at the DNR [email protected]. It really doesn&#8217;t matter if you attended any meeting or not. I believe the DNR could care less what anyone said including me. All they did was basically tally how many were for more gear restrictions and how many were opposed. 

It would be great if some of you guys from the east side of the state sent e-mails opposing gear restrictions. Remember a trophy fishery can be managed with size limits just like the Little Manistee. The size limit is 15" and the limit is 3 fish. This definition will work on any stream or river where all fishermen are granted equal access. If a 15" limit is imposed on streams or rivers where there is not exceptional growth or marginal trout rivers and streams the trophy rule is equivalent to no kill.

The Muskegon river is a perfect example of trophy rules resulting in a no kill fishery. If a majority of fish planted can&#8217;t make it through the summer because of high water temperatures and they mostly die before they reach the 15" limit, it might as well be no kill. The same holds true for small cold water streams where the trout don&#8217;t produce many 15" fish because of slow growth rates as a result of low levels of food. That is why in most streams are type one and a 10" limit.

I am a fly fisherman who does not require special regulations or other crutches in order to catch trout on a fly. I prefer to catch trout in waters where all the easy fish are not protected and I don&#8217;t make any excuses if I don&#8217;t catch any. I believe in conservation and the scientific protection of our fishery and I fish for one simple reason, I like to feel the tug of a nice trout at the end of my line.


----------



## toto

Right on Ray. I will say this about this issue. It needs to be understood that the DNR, or rather the Dept. of Conservation in its infancy, has also been part of any Administrative Procedures Act. It was then , and it is now. What I know about this APA is, it is part of your state constitution for all pratical purposes. 

What the APA says about the DNR is that the Governor has say so concerning DNR matters only on the heirarchy of the DNR. Combined with the NRC, they will determine who is going to run this dept, etc. however, no where in the APA can you find where the governor of anyone else in legislature has any say about wildlife issues, therefore, as with all things legal, if it doesn't spell it out in the law, it doesn't exist. This stuff will never get resolved until someone, purposely, fishes in these areas, and gets busted, therefore setting up a test case, and if they are smart enough they'd win easily. Segregation, therefore discrimination were resolved in Brown vs. Board of Education in the U.S. Supreme court. This is what it is here, plain and simple, and it needs to stop.


----------



## Whit1

By the way here's a list of the organizations that had serious input/representation on the workgroup that came up with the streams that have been selected for gear regs.

Michigan United Conservation Clubs
Michigan Resource Stewards
Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman's Association
Michigan River Guides Association
Trout Unlimited
Pere Marquette Watershed Council 
Anglers of the AuSable
Federation of Fly Fishers
AuSable Big Water Preservation Society


----------



## Queequeg

The Downstream Drift said:


> Hey guys... I've tried to stay as much out of this thread as possible but I just found something that I find pretty interesting.
> 
> The quote that has been used on this thread from the special regulations proposal is incorrect and has been taken way out of context. Here is the actual quotel...
> 
> "*If* fishing mortality is only a small component of total
> annual mortality (as in most Michigan streams), gear restrictions instituted to reduce fishing
> mortality will not noticeably affect trout populations. *However, gear restrictions may be*​*appropriate for streams with low natural mortality of trout and intense fishing pressure.*"
> 
> Please notice that the word IF has been deleted from every post that this quote is being used and the following sentence does not even exist in the thread anywhere.
> 
> I am with all of you that additional regulations on the PM are not the way to go. There has to be a better way to manage this river, if that is what we are truly looking to do. However, mis-representing what is written in the original proposal to rally the troops is not the way to go.
> 
> Not trying to start anything other than clear up what I seen was missed. KEEP THE PM THE WAY IT IS!


I find this accurate quote to be much more revealing than the shaved down version being used in several threads. Personally I'm in favor of no kill zones (regardless of gear), in certain stretches of rivers. The PM has a healthy trout population for a number of reasons (habitat, water quality, spawning grounds, and mortality rate). I can understand the frustration for that some cannot fish certain stretches, and I understand that some groups want "their" river. 

But for me, at the end of the day, I want more no kill stretches regardless of gear. From an economical standpoint the state cannot continue to stock fish (they're broke) and anglers can't assume that taking every fish they catch can continue with the state as broke as they are. I know this won't fly at all (no pun intended) but if the state, fly guys, bait chuckers, and spinner tossers are serious about _improving_ fishing quality (not maintaing but improving) then no kill along with river quality measures are the way to go. 

This won't happen, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.


----------



## Ranger Ray

The Downstream Drift said:


> The quote that has been used on this thread from the special regulations proposal is incorrect and has been taken way out of context. Here is the actual quotel...


No its not. What you are quoting is the basis and criteria that was used in setting up the DNR's study. What everyone was quoting was the actual findings. It was the DNR that took the "if" out of the statement based on their research. Repeatedly! Where you are now trying to inject the statement, is incorrect.


----------



## Queequeg

I read the MDNR's findings again and did not find that exact quote minus the "if." Could be that I missed it.

Also, one issue that is ignored in this debate are the three criteria that are generally used in gear restrictions:
-To enforce principles of fair chase by assuring that fish are captured individually and with sufficient difficulty; 
-To prevent the spread of bait species into waters where they may be undesirable; 
-To reduce mortality of fish that may not be legally harvested.

According to the DNR, these are the three reasons why gear restrictions are generally used. The first, fair chase, certainly makes some sense. As a spin fisherman and a fly guy, I can tell you that I can catch twice as many fish on a spin setup (bait or lures) than on flies. Thus, the argument that some rivers may be set up for flies only so that fish are "captured individually with sufficient difficulty" seems to make sense.

Regardless, none of the DNR's regulations suggest no kill zone regardless of gear, which is what I would push for. The no kill sections that I fish always tend to have more and bigger fish. I do not think this is because of gear restrictions, I feel this is because, well, people put the fish back to be caught another day. Let the stream determine the carrying capacity, not the human and we'll find that the bigger stronger fish will carry their genetics onto future generations. If we can eliminate or reduce stocking I think we're all for the better. Stocked fish are genetically weak, tend to be stupid, and diminish the gene pool. Let's let the natives reproduce at higher rates, save the state some money and catch stronger, smarter, healthier generations of fish using whatever gear we want that doesn't kill the fish.


----------



## Whit1

Queequeg said:


> -To enforce principles of fair chase by assuring that fish are captured individually and with sufficient difficulty;


 
So let me get this straight, if I can. There should be a "sufficient difficulty" in catching fish, correct? Let's take a look at this. 

Fishing nightcrawlers in a stream that is colored by a heavy rain can be less "difficult" IF one knows what they're doing and many trout anglers don't. So using nightcrawlers when the stream is high and colored should be illegal.

Using nightcrawlers in the middle of the day is a tough way to catch trout if the stream is low and clear. The degree of difficulty would thusly be increased significantly. In that case it would be legal to use them.

Fishing at night during the hex hatch can result in catching more and much larger trout. The degree of difficulty is lessened to a great degree. Because of this it would be illegal to use a hex pattern at night during the hex hatch.

Catch and release supposedly provides more trout for anglers. This, it seems would make cathcing trout in streams with said regulation easier....less difficult. According to the criteria that you...and the MDNR?....have put forth this should be "illegal".

Several years ago I was flyfishing at night on a local stream. It was mid-summer and I was using a #14 Adams. There was no really obvious hatch and the trout were not recently planted fish. I was catching trout on just about every cast. Most were 10" and under with a few that went to about 14". It was easy. Under the criteria of catching trout should be difficult fishing at night under those conditions should have been illegal.

If trout fishing should be "difficult" then, it seems, those, including yourself, who tout such a line should be fishing marginal trout waters and pushing for gear regs on those streams rather than doing all you can, including the spread of myths, to keep trout populations high so the fish may be caught more often by more anglers. Of course those streams are, for the most part, Blue Ribbon Trout Streams rather than marginal waters.

I guess maybe I'm missing something here , but that concept sounds exactly like one put forth by those opposed to crossbow inclusion over the past few years.


----------



## Queequeg

I'm only quoting the three reason why regulations have been used, according to the dnr. Not one of the three reasons they propose state that gear results in mortality rate. Many on this site have suggested that the DNR was using the mortality rate as a reason; they are not. 

As to the Blue Ribbon Streams, what makes them blue ribbon? The Ausable was decimated decades ago due to habitat destruction. Now it is a blue ribbon stream. It also happens to be no kill (in the most productive sections). This is the crux of my argument. No kill = more fish. That cannot be disputed. *I don't care about gear restrictions. Use a harpoon, as long as you don't kill the fish. * I'm arguing for no kill regardless of gear. 

The comment pertaining to flies being "difficult" is a personal observation. It is not scientific. Again, my point in citing the three reasons the DNR uses for gear restrictions is to point out that *mortality rate is NOT a factor* so we need to stop talking about it. But, the DNR will never say "you cannot keep fish" because I think there would be a bigger uproar than there is about gear restrictions. 

My argument is simple: limit stocking programs by implementing no kill sections regardless of gear. The DNR is broke. The state is broke. They will look to cut programs. Stocking is on the list. If we continue to take fish from marginal streams or highly productive streams odds are there will less fish. Less fish and less quality fish makes anglers unhappy.


----------



## TSS Caddis

fishinDon said:


> In support of keeping the PM "the way it is," the DNR states this in the Gear Restriction Review:
> 
> _"Fish population estimates were available for 23 years between 1973 and 2009 for the Type 7 section of the Pere Marquette River. These data provide no evidence that gear and harvest limits have improved brown trout population abundance or size structure.
> 
> However, because of the long history and popularity of gear restrictions on the M-37 to Gleasons Landing section of river we recommend that these regulations continue."​_
> That's a lot of years of Flies only/no kill on a river with some of the best growth rates in the state (Browns at age two more than 2" larger than mean) and we've noticed no difference in trout population abundance or size. The DNR admits it doesn't help, but leaves it in place 'cause it's "popular."
> 
> Draw your own conclusions. It all adds up to a pretty big IF to me.


The funny thing is, IMO, most of the larger browns in the flies water never even get caught, so a lot of good it does the people fishing it.


----------



## Whit1

Queequeg said:


> I'm only quoting the three reason why regulations have been used, according to the dnr. .


It seems, to this reader at least, that you used the quote in discussing if not defending, your stand on this issue.





Queequeg said:


> Not one of the three reasons they propose state that gear results in mortality rate. Many on this site have suggested that the DNR was using the mortality rate as a reason; they are not. .


"Many on this site".....??? I don't know what you've been reading, but the vast majority of posters who are opposed to gear restrictions have done no such thing. We've stated, over and over, that the MDNR recognizes that gear restrictions will not improve trout populations in streams where they are applied. Maybe you haven't noticed the oft repeated times and emboldened in some cases that we've used the direct quote from the MDNR which says so.



Queequeg said:


> The comment pertaining to flies being "difficult" is a personal observation. It is not scientific.


Let's see if I get this correctly. You actually believe that there's a chance that a scientific study would show that using a hex pattern during a hex hatch is NOT the most effective way to catch trout? If so then I suggest you join the all too populated ranks of those who apply for grant money in order to prove the obvious.



Queequeg said:


> Again, my point in citing the three reasons the DNR uses for gear restrictions is to point out that *mortality rate is NOT a factor* so we need to stop talking about it. But, the DNR will never say "you cannot keep fish" because I think there would be a bigger uproar than there is about gear restrictions.


See Above (It seems that you are trying to put that particular pair of waders (pun intended) on the wrong feet.



Queequeg said:


> My argument is simple: limit stocking programs by implementing no kill sections regardless of gear. The DNR is broke. The state is broke. They will look to cut programs. Stocking is on the list. If we continue to take fish from marginal streams or highly productive streams odds are there will less fish. Less fish and less quality fish makes anglers unhappy.


I love this one. Perhaps you'd better do some research before making such a comment.

*Here's the stocking report* for the past ten years on the Au Sable River (Crawford County): (Note the stockings are by private parties under MDNR permit rather than the state stocking of fish.
http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/default.asp. This is the Flies Only waters of the Au Sable by the way.

The South Br. of the Au Sable is not stocked.

Au Sable River (Oscoda County) Stocking Data
http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/default.asp

Yes, the state does stock these waters. Expect for the research area the river is open to all tackle. As for as No Kill in stocked waters I'll ask, who pays for this? I purchase a trout stamp and fishing license. If no kill is desired because of a river being stocked then I suggest a permit system, for pay, be worked out. The funding for stocking then can come from those who are pushing for No Kill. As for me I'd prefer my license/stamp dollar would be put to trout stream habitat improvement, especially sand abatement projects.

Your mention above of "If we continue to take fish from marginal streams or highly productive streams odds are there will less fish" is ludicrous. Marginal trout streams are not and never have been a "target" for Flies Only, Lures Only, and No Kill advocates.


----------



## TSS Caddis

CS49707 said:


> There is something to be said about bait fishermen--even those doing catch-and-release and using barbless hooks--making fly fishermen and guides look foolish.
> 
> Experienced it this past spring. I fished BEHIND a fly fisherman and cleaned up. CLEANED. UP. He didn't have a single strike the entire day.
> 
> And there's the problem that no one wants to talk about and no one wants to admit. It's "popular" (re: above posts) because these guides don't risk being made to look like fools in front of their clients when there's no bait fishermen around.
> 
> That's the reality.


To quote a well known guide last fall: "I have a 2 fish limit when fishing with clients. Someone pops two fish in front of me and we move". BTW, this was a non-fly guide.

I've heard it many, many times when being around fly fishing guides with clients "oh, he's fishing bait though" :lol: Then they try to explain to their clients how bait fishing is bad.

Fishing near fly guides I've also heard all to often when salmon are around "it's a subtle take. If you feel any bump set the hook keeping your rod tip low with a down stream sweep."


----------



## Whit1

Here's the stocking data from the PM. None of the stocked fish are put in the Flies Only section below M37. Of course, fish that do survive move up and downstream.

http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/default.asp

The Little Manistee R. is not stocked.


----------



## turtlehead

Whit1 said:


> I love this one. Perhaps you'd better do some research before making such a comment.
> 
> *Here's the stocking report* for the past ten years on the Au Sable River (Crawford County): (Note the stockings are by private parties under MDNR permit rather than the state stocking of fish.
> http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/default.asp. This is the Flies Only waters of the Au Sable by the way.
> 
> The South Br. of the Au Sable is not stocked.
> 
> Au Sable River (Oscoda County) Stocking Data
> [URL]http://www.michigandnr.com/fishstock/default.asp [/URL]


I did the search for Crawford Co. going back 10 years, and there is no data on fish being stocked in the No Kill, which is Burton's to Wakeley. 

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Private Pond[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 02W 02)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Brook trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]4/22/2005[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]40[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]10.16[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Private Pond[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 02W 02)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Brown trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]4/22/2005[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]520[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]10.16[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]GRAYLING PARK [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 03W 07)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]7/3/2003[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]500[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]12[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Private Pond[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 02W 02)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]5/3/2004[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]200[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]11.176[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]oxytetracycline[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]GRAYLING PARK [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 03W 07)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]7/3/2004[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]500[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]12.192[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Private Pond[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 02W 02)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]4/22/2005[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]470[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]10.16[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]GRAYLING PARK [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 03W 07)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]7/3/2005[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]500[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]12.192[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]GRAYLING PARK [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 03W 07)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]7/3/2006[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]500[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]12.192[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]GRAYLING PARK [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 03W 07)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]7/3/2007 3:46:00 PM[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]500[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]12.192[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]GRAYLING PARK [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 03W 07)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]7/3/2008 11:09:00 AM[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]500[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]12.192[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Crawford[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Au Sable River[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]GRAYLING PARK [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2](26N 03W 07)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Rainbow trout [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]7/3/2009 4:52:00 PM[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]500[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]12.192[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]Private Plant (under permit)[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]none[/SIZE]

I'm not sure what a private pond on the Au Sable is, but neither the pond nor Grayling Park is in the No Kill Flies Only reach.

The North Branch is not stocked either. (Crawford and Otsego Co.) 

There is no stocking at all in any of the No Kill water in this state.


----------



## Queequeg

Your mention above of "If we continue to take fish from marginal streams or highly productive streams odds are there will less fish" is ludicrous. Marginal trout streams are not and never have been a "target" for Flies Only, Lures Only, and No Kill advocates.[/QUOTE]

That is my point. These streams should be no kill...that is the point. Marginal streams are marginal, thus to make them LESS marginal they should be no kill...meaning there would be more fish...because they aren't killed...and stay in the stream...

This is what I've been arguing. And to my knowledge, no kill zones in MI are not stocked.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Queequeg said:


> Your mention above of "If we continue to take fish from marginal streams or highly productive streams odds are there will less fish" is ludicrous. Marginal trout streams are not and never have been a "target" for Flies Only, Lures Only, and No Kill advocates
> That is my point. These streams should be no kill...that is the point. Marginal streams are marginal, thus to make them LESS marginal they should be no kill...meaning there would be more fish...because they aren't killed...and stay in the stream...
> 
> This is what I've been arguing. And to my knowledge, no kill zones in MI are not stocked.


The Muskegon below Croton is considered marginal. If you stopped stocking, most fish would disappear in a year. You'd still have some that made it, but as a trout fishery it would be in serious peril. Marginal streams need stocking since due to warm water there is a large die off every year.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Hey guys... I found something interesting today. It is a study that supports what several of you have said over and over in this thread.

*Trout Hooking Mortality Research*

*Robert B. DuBois*
Research Scientist, EIM
_&_
*Kurt E. Kuklinski*
Fishery Research Biologist
Dept. of Wildlife Conservation,
Fisheries Research Laboratory, Norman OK
_&_
*Richard R. Dubielzig*
Veterinary Educator
UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine
Fishery regulations on trout streams must be tailored to support management objectives for those fisheries. Management decisions about regulations should be based on sound scientific data demonstrating that the regulation in question will produce the biological gain desired. Managers of stream trout fisheries must often make regulatory decisions based on incomplete or contradictory information, and if these regulations do not produce the anticipated biological advantages, agency credibility can suffer. Unnecessary regulations that restrict angling opportunities without producing biological gains can be particularly damaging, especially in the current national situation of stagnant or declining license sales in most states. Two regulatory concepts that currently suffer from inadequate information concern the putative benefits on post-release survival of barbless hooks versus conventional hook having barbs, and the restriction of baitfishing from some special regulation fisheries because of the possibility of excessive post-release mortality. The purpose of this study was to fill critical information gaps in the fisheries literature concerning barbed versus barbless hooks when bait fishing and spinner fishing, and to test an active
baitfishing technique that could substantially reduce post-release mortality.

*Objectives:*
1. To determine rates of mortality of wild stream brook trout and brown trout caught using an active baitfishing technique.
2. To determine if mortality, sublethal injury, ease of release and capture efficiency differed between barbed and barbless baited hooks.
3. To determine if mortality, sublethal injury, and capture efficiency differed between treble-hook and single-hook spinners having either barbed or barbless hooks.

Bait fishing component &#8211; Mortality by 72 h (2 to 7%), anatomical hooking locations, and eye damage (5% of captures) of brook trout did not differ between hook types. However, those brook trout that were deeply hooked were more likely to die when barbed hooks were used. Mortality and eye damage of brown trout were similarly low, but sample sizes were insufficient to test between hook types. Neither hooking efficiency, frequency of escape after hooking, nor the mean amounts of time that fish were held out of water for unhooking differed significantly between hook types. Active bait fishing resulted in levels of post-release mortality that were substantially lower than those often reported in bait fishing mortality studies. 

Spinner fishing component - Mortality of rainbow trout, brown trout, and brook trout was low (< 4%) and did not differ among species. Hook types did not differ significantly in mortality, anatomical hooking locations, or eye damage of rainbow trout or brown trout. Cases of severe eye damage occurred to about 10% of trout landed (range 2 to 13% depending on species), with brown trout being least susceptible. Jaw injuries were found on about 6% of the catch. Barbed hooks hooked and held more trout than barbless hooks and treble hooks hooked and held more trout than single hooks. Barbless single hooks were quicker to remove than the other hook types, but the difference was insufficient to reduce mortality. Our results do not indicate a biological advantage with the use of single- or barbless-hook spinners when wild stream trout will be released.
.
*Management Applications:*
1. If fisheries managers can successfully educate the angling public about the benefits of active bait fishing, post-release mortality can be greatly reduced when bait is used.
2. Bait fishing may be having less negative impact on wild stream trout fisheries than previously thought because earlier studies have tended to overestimate baitfishing mortality and because evidence suggests that some anglers are already fishing actively.
3. Barbed hook restrictions are generally unnecessary (biologically ineffective at reducing post-release mortality) when stream trout are caught with bait or spinners. However, in bait fisheries where rates of deep hooking are
substantially higher than those we measured, barbless hooks may reduce mortality.
4. Anglers fishing with barbless and single-hook spinners can expect to land fewer trout per hour (i.e. experience reduced angling quality) than if conventional barbed treble-hook spinners are used.


This is the type of study that the "old fly guys" in TU need to acknowledge. Like Maverick said earlier, alot of the younger TU guys are open to additional research that will prove things either effective or not. It is the "old fly guys" (for the most part) that are stuck in their ways and not interested in a view point or scientific proof other than what they were previously told that have caused such an uprising among all of us sportmen.

Again, I agree with you guys for the most part. Leave the regs like they are unless the circumstance is majorly different from the norm, which most of these cases are not. Protect the habitat first and foremost. It is what will make the most impact.


----------



## mondrella

Maverick1 said:


> Originally Posted by *REG*
> _- I *hate* the fact that *this issue has worked to divide many of us. It has polarized factions like nothing else could, and has pitted sportsman against each other who probably are in agreement on issues over 90% of the time. *This is especially ashame in the sense that, of all the issues facing this fishery at this time, we are forced to deal with something that even the DNRE acknowledges has very little positive biologic effect. I hate the resentment and hard feelings this whole thing has created so far that will take some time, if ever, to reconcile. If there is anything positive to come out of this, maybe, just maybe, reasonable people can get together to focus on what's truly important and forever leave this nonsense behind._
> 
> _While it may be true that we have been divided on the issue, we are all united in protecting the resource. Look at all the positive things that have come out of these discussions over the last several weeks..._
> 
> _Stream Restoration needs priority_
> _Scientific Reasoning and Knowldge to protect the fishery (by both sides)_
> _Passionate People who care about their resources._
> 
> _If we cut through the BS (On both sides) at the end of the day we all want a better fishery. I will personally say that my opinion has changed dramatically since the beginning of this thread. I still support some additional regs (as a test study) where I think it may make a difference in SE Michigan, but I am with you guys as far as the PM, MO and other NW river regs. Before I had a different opinion, not a fly only opinion, but my conservation ideas were misled and through this post I can admit that I've changed my mind. So thanks for the wealth of information and persistance. _
> 
> _One more comment before I go... with regard to TU being outdated in their vision and principals. NOT ALL OF US ARE LIKE THAT! I don't mean to get so passionate about the subject, however many of us like Downstream and I are trying to ensure that TU members (especially in our specific chapter) keep in mind that TU is supposed to be a conseration group. Yes traditionally it has been dominated by fly guys, and yes many of the campaigns are geared around that...no arguement. But there are some of us "younger" members who rely on science and fact to base our opinions and we are open to other ideas on conservation and fisheries management. Don't label us all please. (and shhhhh... you have to keep this really hush hush.... some times I use bait)_


_

I hope you voice your opinions to the right people. We need to also push to remove the regs put in place that do not work. Maybe you and DD can help show the true evidence for our trout streams and together we can make a difference improving streams.

As a side note I have fished the Paint about 12 times in the last 3 years. When my job takes me over that way. I really doubt these regs will help that fishery other than possibly lessen the pressure. I found it a decent fishery landing a good number of fish the best a 15" + brown. Truely the big problem is all the negative runoff. I doubt very much you will see a change._


----------



## Splitshot

Queequeg,

Just because someone doesnt agree with you doesnt mean they hate you. Recently we had another member make the same claim but disagreement is not hate. Some people want to frame this debate as just a difference of opinion. While that is true, we still need to reconcile these issues somehow. How about using logic and facts.

On a complex issue like this we will probably never be 100% sure, but so far we have the overwhelming body of evidence and science on our side. I want to fish the best sections of rivers using the best method to catch trout, especially the flies only section of the Little Manistee like I did back in the sixties when I was in high school when that section of river ran through federal land. 

How did the Indian Club get the Feds, the DNR and or the State to trade a marginal section of river for the best section of river perhaps in the state. When I asked, no one seems to know. I spent 4 hours at the DNR Cadillac office several years ago looking through the files trying to figure it out, but the records were poorly filed.

What I was able to figure out was part of the deal for the exchange to the Indian Club was a public access at Spencer and Indian Bridge and the Indian Club would allow anglers by foot to use their access roads if they would also designate that section flies only. A few years later someone tossed a picnic table into the river and the Indian Club stopped public access because of abuse of the river. (Their words!)

I have never been happy about a bunch of doctors and lawyers using their influence to steal this prime water from me and all the other fishermen who dont fish with flies or the kids who might have taken their first trophy brown trout there or the older guys who cant physically wade far enough upstream to get to the good fishing.

I have also known for a long time that these special regulations did nothing to foster or protect the fishery but was somewhat okay with the first 100 miles probably because I didnt think I could change it. Now this special group wants more and well beyond the 212 miles and at the meeting in Grayling some expressed their true goals of much more flies only no kill waters. Now that the DNR clearly states that these rules protects nothing, does not foster conservation and that all fishing has no noticable inpact on the numbers and size of the trout it is clear they have no merit so now they have turned to claiming there are social benefits to these restrictive rules.. Could someone please define what the social benefits are and to who the beneficiaries are?

Other food for thought. If the rules have no benefits why does the DNR only consider the best waters with the best trout potential for the gear restrictions and why do they call these waters Quality waters . Makes me think they get the main course and I get the leftovers. If what fly fishermen do is quality fishing what does that make me when I bait fish? I already know what they think, I just wonder if the DNR agrees as they are using the terms. I have the same problem with Quality deer management by the way.

Lots of people believe things deeply and hold them as truths. When truths are challenged and reasonable answers are not evident some people just disappear. I give you a lot of credit Queequeg. In ten years here only three or four people have taken the bait (pun intended) and responded to my fly fishing is easier or please provide me one good reason we should have any no kill or flies only.

I feel pretty confident about it because every professional in the field and every person I know who fly fishes have been asked the same question didnt provide an answer. I had a very good friend from West Branch who has fly fished all his life and spent his career working for the DNR who gave me the best answer and the most honest one. He said there was no good scientific reason or social benefit to anyone but a small group but he said: I like it!

You made about as good a try as anyone. I wish more people had your guts. This issue is a very important one and we can only resolve it if both sides engage in the discussion. I dont know if someone mentioned it, but my very first post on this site was about this very issue. At the time I was outnumbered at least 50 to one. Since then I have spent a great deal of time thinking about it and talking about it. While there are still plenty of people who dont agree, most dont respond openly these days and there is a growing number who see these rules for what they are and the consequences of not speaking up about it. 

I was sure I hit a hot button at the Grayling meeting when I said; Since this meeting is about gear restrictions and we already have over a hundred miles of flies only, I recommend that we have 100 miles of no flies allowed. From the response I got, I felt some people were offended and I hope they were, because that is the way I feel when Im told not only cant I fish some of the very best waters with bait, in fact I am not even allowed to possess any bait while on Quality Water!

It used to be okay for me to put in at the Green Cabin on the PM and fly fish to Gleasons landing and then bait fish from Gleasons Landing to Bowmans Bridge but because someone who hates the very idea of bait anywhere near this holy water they got the DNR to change the rule which now makes me guilty of breaking the law if I have one worm or wax worm stored in the bottom of my cooler. Perhaps some of the people who seemed indignant at that meeting when I suggested no flies allowed might understand how me and many other bait fisherman feel when the shoe is put on the other foot.

I also understand your sarcasm and while I know it seems intuitive that always releasing fish helps protect the fishery and is thoughtful to other fishermen and seems to foster conservation the facts seem to show otherwise. I think sometimes that is what traps us, we think we know and because of pride, embarrassment or whatever it is difficult to admit we might be wrong.

Ten years down the road and we are still divided on this issue but many of my friends and members many I dont know personally have given this issue plenty of thought and guys like Ranger Ray, Mondrella, Toto, Whit, Dan09, Shoeman, Essox and many others have come to the same conclusion. We dont need any more of these gear restriction regulation, or no kill. We need scientific management and do what is right for the fishery. 

Many people dont like debates like this because they think it divides us and it may for the short run but I think it is important to discuss the issues and is an important reason for this site. We cannot resolve differences if we dont talk about them. It is much worse if you just let them fester and to the people who say; Why cant we just get along? The answer is because we cant give up our values for the sake of getting along. Healthy debate is a good thing.

I joined TU after I met Rich Bowman a past executive director after he explained that 40% of the TU membership were made up of non fly fishermen and that their main purpose was restoring and building trout habitat. He said TU was not interested in flies only or no kill and if there was any more push for flies only they would only support it on trout water that was not prime so they could show what habitat improvement could produce. I joined TU for that reason, but quickly found the members did not reflect what Rich had told me and I let my membership lapse. In all TUs materials I never saw one reference in a positive way to either lure or bait fishermen.



BIG "D";3224834 said:


> TU was started on the banks of a certain michigan stream. Maybe some of you bait guys can try to start a BU, Bait Unlimited. Then you can start doing some stream projects and lobbying in Lansing to.


As for this biased comment, Big D has no idea how much work non fly fishermen do on rivers all over the state.

I spent 5 years as a director of the Little Manistee Conservation Council and met many of the people who live on the Little Manistee. Most are not exclusively fly fishermen in fact most members dont fly fish at all. Many of the individuals who work on restoration projects dont even fish. They truely do it to help restore the rivers and if that helps the trout even better.

I have belonged to other organizations like the Lake County Property Owners Association and they do lots of good projects but some of their members think that because they spend a couple of weekends or more on river projects they are entitled to fly fishing rights forever as do some TU members. On the one hand TU says they are only interested in the trout and then guys like Big D make ignorant statements and prove they are not altruistic but really expect something in return for their efforts.

The more comments I read like this the more confident I am that the real reason for flies only no kill is to protect the dumb fish. A few of the people who take up fly fishing catch a couple of fish on a fly and they become artificial, moralistic, self righteous contemptuous do goobers.

I fished Paint Creek a couple of times and will never go there again. If I lived in the area I probably would, but after I fished there, I truly feel blessed. They plant lots of trout in Paint Creek and it is located close to thousands of fisherman and women. By imposing these special regulations which do nothing to protect the trout and even though it has some natural reproduction it is a basically a put and take fishery. Mondrella said all these regulations do is limit the number of fishermen to a select few. Typical, we all contribute to the trout planted in our rivers and then some people want to exclude a majority of them. With the limited opportunities in Oakland County and surrounding areas this little gem should not even be considered for gear restrictions.


----------



## Troutlord1

The shop that was in Grand Traverse Resort moved out of there and into downtown Traverse a few years ago.
How does a fly shops location have any impact on the issue at hand??


----------



## Queequeg

Splitshot, thanks for your comments. You and I, and probably most people on this forum, agree more than we disagree. 

The special regs are no doubt discriminatory and it seems only fair to have any new regs take this fact into account.


----------



## REG

Here is another blog entry by Mark Dahlquist that you might find interesting.
In the reproduced article, note the reference to the Au Sable River:
http://markdahlquist.blogspot.com/2010/02/sometimes-killing-few-fish-can-improve.html
______________________________________________________________

Additionally, here is a link to another study which notes no signficant change in the structure of trout population between more restrictive vs less restrictive regulations:
http://www.wisconsintu.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7BShpllXd88=&tabid=58&mid=372


It would be interesting to see comparative data such as above for some MI trout streams, especially those with special regs.


----------



## Splitshot

Reg,

Thanks for taking the time to research this issue. It seems that all the science and facts are coming from a bunch of bait dunkers. Who would have figured?

Professor Dahlquist made some very interesting comments and observations especially the one about the city of Grayling and the fish hatchery stopping the discharge of effluent into the river. As I recall, the social scientists insisted that they test and every septic system on the river to make sure it was up to code.

The main catalyst behind implementing the new standards were of course the same social minded guys who believe no kill protects the fishery. As the size of the fish declined in the holy waters our little special social group started looking for answers. Guess what their conclusion was. Glen Shepard the publisher of the North Woods Call printed an article accusing bait fishermen of sneaking into the holy waters at night and catching and removing the large fish. 

Finally after several failed attempts at catching the bait fishermen in the act, they hired a scientist to investigate the phenomenon. Turns out they did it themselves because they just knew the effluent was harmful. Last I heard they were dumping tons of leaves collected in Grayling and dumping them in the upper river to compensate. 

If you believe something hard enough it must be true. It is interesting how quiet the flies only no kill advocates are now. I havent seen even one rebuttal from any of the guides either. You would think someone would step forward and defend their position. It is becoming clearer and clearer what fraud has been going on and the next step is to start pushing for repeal of some of these most egregious rules, in not all of them.

Actually the most egregious rule is the no kill on the PM. It is the only section of any river in our state that doesnt allow the harvest of salmon and steelhead. This rule was put into effect when there was a meeting in Baldwin and a majority of people at the meeting voted in favor of no kill. Most of the people at the meeting were local guides and businessmen.

These meetings to voice opinions are nice, but how many people from Grand Rapids have the time after work to drive three hours to get to a meeting that starts at 7 PM in Grayling I have suggested before that the DNR set up a forum similar to Michigan-sportsman on the Internet and only allow comments about trout issues to those who purchased a valid trout stamp. Then every sportsman and woman could voice their opinion and the DNR could answer valid questions. At the end of the discussion we could all vote just like we do on Michigan Sprotsman polls and the DNR would at least have a better picture of what fishermen wanted. It would be similar to one man, one vote. What a novel idea.


----------



## Queequeg

The catch and release debate is inconclusive. I've read at least five studies for and against C&R. It seems much more stream specific/species specific and no one study will resolve this issue. The DNR nationwide seems to be more or less in support of C&R in special cases, not in favor of it in others. Maryland, Ohio, Maine, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Montana DNR have posted articles suggesting that in some cases C&R is a benefit to the overall fishery. Likewise, these same states suggest that harvesting fish of a certain size limit is good for trout growth. 

In short, if you look for statistics to prove your point you'll find them with relative ease. Took me 15 minutes.


----------



## rockman

Splitshot said:


> Reg,
> 
> "an article accusing bait fishermen of sneaking into the holy waters at night and catching and removing the large fish."
> 
> Eric Sharp basically made the same accusation in his article last week in the Free Press by stating... "Some of the biggest trout I see caught on streams each year, brown trout that stretch 23-26 inches, are taken by people whom I suspect are poaching with live minnows in flies-only and other gear-restricted waters."


----------



## Whit1

Queequeg said:


> In short, if you look for statistics to prove your point you'll find them with relative ease. Took me 15 minutes.


 
Absolutely correct. 

One of the things about science/studies that causes problems is that many studies are specific to a certain, in this case, stream or similar streams in an area and they do not necessariy apply to streams in other sections of the country or of a state.

Another problem can be found in what is the stated purpose of the "study". At best it must be nonspecific as to the purpose. Using the Scientific Method a study begins with a question. There's quite a difference between:
_"How do trout mortality rates differ between bait, hardware and flies?"_

and...........

_"Does bait fishing kill more trout than bait or hardware fishing?"_

There are subtle, but important differences.

Another factor involves the methodology of a study and the bait debate...pun intended....offers an excellent example. Is it a part of the methodology of the study to attempt to remove the hook from deeply hooked trout? This can be a big difference in the results.

While I didn't document/file the details, a few years ago, when the bait/flies/hardware discussion was again running, I did some online research of various studies (like Q mentions above they are easy to find). I contacted.....through email addresses that were included in the online version of the study......the principals involved. I asked whether or not they attempted to remove the hook from fish that were deeply hooked. The response short. The bottom line was...and I quote..."Of course we tried to remove the hook."

Despite what many of us....pro and antibaiters, Flies Only, Flies Only/Lures Only, C&R, C&K (keep), etc. would want things are not as simple as one might seem.

I haven't mention that a study may be biased determined by who conducts said study. Would bait anglers give any credence to a study/studies supported and funded by TU or Fly Anglers of the Au Sable? I think not and.........no offense intended....rightfully so.

I'd give an example of a pro baiting trout angling organization, but there don't seem to be any. I am not "picking on" TU.


----------



## TUCKER

Whits quote-"I'd give an example of a pro baiting trout angling organization, but there don't seem to be any"

Not yet anyways!


----------



## REG

Whit1 said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> One of the things about science/studies that causes problems is that many studies are specific to a certain, in this case, stream or similar streams in an area and they do not necessariy apply to streams in other sections of the country or of a state.
> 
> Another problem can be found in what is the stated purpose of the "study". At best it must be nonspecific as to the purpose. Using the Scientific Method a study begins with a question. There's quite a difference between:
> _"How do trout mortality rates differ between bait, hardware and flies?"_
> 
> and...........
> 
> _"Does bait fishing kill more trout than bait or hardware fishing?"_
> 
> There are subtle, but important differences.
> 
> Another factor involves the methodology of a study and the bait debate...pun intended....offers an excellent example. Is it a part of the methodology of the study to attempt to remove the hook from deeply hooked trout? This can be a big difference in the results.
> 
> While I didn't document/file the details, a few years ago, when the bait/flies/hardware discussion was again running, I did some online research of various studies (like Q mentions above they are easy to find). I contacted.....through email addresses that were included in the online version of the study......the principals involved. I asked whether or not they attempted to remove the hook from fish that were deeply hooked. The response short. The bottom line was...and I quote..."Of course we tried to remove the hook."
> 
> Despite what many of us....pro and antibaiters, Flies Only, Flies Only/Lures Only, C&R, C&K (keep), etc. would want things are not as simple as one might seem.
> 
> I haven't mention that a study may be biased determined by who conducts said study. Would bait anglers give any credence to a study/studies supported and funded by TU or Fly Anglers of the Au Sable? I think not and.........no offense intended....rightfully so.
> 
> I'd give an example of a pro baiting trout angling organization, but there don't seem to be any. I am not "picking on" TU.


I am finding that studies are available, but, unless you have an AFS (American Fisheries Society) subscription, full text articles may not be available. Moreover, DNR's perform many internal studies/assessments that do not get into the fisheries literature and may not show up on Google searches. Going into this whole issue, it may have helped for the DNRE to at least have background references available so everyone can start on the same footing.

As far as a pro bait trout angling organization, their existence may be transparent as typically many angling organizations do not discriminate based on gear choices. A few organizations I can think of off the top of my head would be Ohio Central Basin Steelheaders, Northwest Indiana Steelheaders and Illinois Steelheaders. Each of these organizations have individuals who are exclusive flyfishermen.

As noted before, even TU chapters have some individuals who are bait anglers and their constituency varies widely. Heck, some years back, I gave a presentation on bait methods for steelhead at a TU chapter meeting and they were a pretty receptive bunch. This contrasts with the most local TU to my home, which, when I belonged to TU, appeared pretty well fixated on fly only.

Whit, it is pretty interesting that one of the studies (Prairie River WI reg changes) has a TU link.

Going into this, my assumption was that the evidence would be very clear in favor of catch and release, or at least, very restrictive regulations, in terms of greatest potential for increased size and populations of fish. What I have learned is that in many cases this is not so. Very surprising and enlightening for this catch and release angler. But, as the saying goes, if I held the same opinion that I had ten years ago, what would I have learned?


----------



## toto

Not that they are a "pro baiting" organization, but I would think the Michigan Steelhead and Salmon fishermans association would be pretty close. 

Earlier someone said something about the stream improvements done by TU, and thats true, but how much of that was done outside flies only areas? I'd be curious about that answer.


----------



## Whit1

toto said:


> Earlier someone said something about the stream improvements done by TU, and thats true, but how much of that was done outside flies only areas? I'd be curious about that answer.


I know of one that was, at least, in the planning stages. It was a small feeder stream (nursery stream) that fed into a larger river. The larger river was not and is not being proposed for gear restrictions.


----------



## toto

I wasn't sure if there was or not, glad to see there was at least one stream that done.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Splitshot said:


> These meetings to voice opinions are nice, but how many people from Grand Rapids have the time after work to drive three hours to get to a meeting that starts at 7 PM in Grayling I have suggested before that the DNR set up a forum similar to Michigan-sportsman on the Internet and only allow comments about trout issues to those who purchased a valid trout stamp. Then every sportsman and woman could voice their opinion and the DNR could answer valid questions. At the end of the discussion we could all vote just like we do on Michigan Sprotsman polls and the DNR would at least have a better picture of what fishermen wanted. It would be similar to one man, one vote. What a novel idea.


Ray, it is the same with Waterfowl issues. A special interest group lobbies for a change, if a public meeting is held, the special interest group are well aware of them and mobilize their members. The average guy doesn't hear boo about it until the new reg is put in place. It seems the DNRE and NRC etc... decison makers have a hard to wrapping their heads around how it works. If it was deer, public meeting notices would be scattered toward the 4 corners of the earth, but not so much with trout regs. Poor guy shows up to fish the lower PM this fall and may see a no bait sign, figure that he didn't have say so what can you do, when in fact he could have voiced his opinion if there was a better way to get the average guy in the loop.

What I find really funny is that by belonging to FFF or TU these orgs feel that your membership means they can speak for you. Are they polling their members, or is the board deciding? I think we know the answer. With waterfowl regs, they just implemented a new one that was pushed for by one very small group and MDHA supported. MDHA posted a poll on their website where the majority of the members that voted did not want the reg that was being proposed. Funny that MDHA went the opposite way and took the stance to support it. So much for these groups representing their members.

Maybe the DNR should have mailing lists for people that want to be kept informed.


----------



## diztortion

TSS Caddis said:


> Maybe the DNR should have mailing lists for people that want to be kept informed.


I couldn't agree more with you. They should include an option to be informed of any change, regardless of species or wild life practice.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I say we start a organization. We can call it Trout Limited. Why? Because we are limited in the river waters we are able to fish. LOL.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Splitshot

Good one Ray lol.

I just lost a lot of respect for Eric Sharp, but isnt that the way it goes. Howard Meyerson outdoor writer for the Grand Rapids Press wrote an article where he considered the Muskegon River perhaps the best trout river in the country. He wrote it after a free trip down the river with world famous guide Matt Supinski.

I assume the trip was planned shortly after the stocking truck left as Howard caught around 100 trout on a fly, but no keepers. Amazing! I also heard that he was fly fishing and using the famous downstream cast and strip up. I think that cast is called the trick a planter cast. I admit I am not a fan of Mr. Meyerson ever since he wrote that the only reason I spoke out against the trophy regulations that did not work on the Muskegon that I must be because I couldnt wait to stock up on the planted trout.

Queequeg,

I almost thought you were beginning to think objectively. No problem. If the science on any stream or river in Michigan shows that no kill will protect the fishery, myself and all the bait fishermen and women I know would support them. One of the big problems is the guys like you who are on the other side cant make the same claim when the science shows otherwise. Please read the report the DNR posted and you will see that none of our rivers have a situation where the biologist think no kill would be an appropriate rule. There might be a political or social reason, but were talking real science.

Hooking mortality in Michigan streams and river has no noticeable impact on the fishery. The hooking mortality from all the trout kept by fishermen from all methods and those killed by C&R advocates as well. Fishing mortality in Michigan all together has no noticeable effect on trout numbers. That fact matters except to a few guys who cant fish unless the river is full of easy fish.

Another thing bothers me about the hooking mortality studies from bait fishermen. In the studies as Whit pointed out the anglers did not set the hook until they were sure the fish swallowed the hook. To me that makes the study biased. Yesterday was the first time this I had a fish hooked deep so I simply cut the line. Id say 99%+ of the fish I catch are hooked in the tip of the fishes jaw when using bait. I have more fish swallow my flies especially if Im fly fishing rivers that have small steelhead in them. In fact I dont fly fish my home river, the Little Manistee because of all the aggressive little steelhead with the exception of hoppers in late July and August. I guess Im just trying to protect the steelhead?

Good suggestion Tucker, I think it is time to form a fishing organization that looks out for the rights of all fishermen. As much as I find lobbying distasteful, it appears to be an important way to protect our rights especially if you fish trout with bait. There are many other issues as well, like access to lakes and rivers. I dont understand why at some public bridges access is not allowed. Remember Torch Lake where the county road ended at the lake and access was denied? The DNR has been trying for years to put a modern launch on Crystal Lake in Beulah but the property owners have successfully stopped its construction. It is very difficult if not impossible to launch anything but a small boat from the existing ramp and you cant even do that if the wind is out of the west.

I remember what Tom Rozich now retired fish biologist Cadillac office said to me when they changed the rule to No Kill after a Baldwin meeting. He said you should have attended the meeting where about 20 people made that decision. I told him I didnt think I had to be there because I thought that he was there looking out for me. How naive! 

There are lots of other issues that affect fishermen all over the state and we need to at least have a voice. Anyway some of us are giving the idea strong consideration. I for one am getting tired of a few folks getting discriminatory rules like those in the Grayling area because 100 people support the rules. I think meetings are okay, but not the fact that this very small percentage has this large influence. I for one would NOT be interested in a bait only organization but I do advocate one that was open to all and would allow the entire membership a voice.

I was told MUCC was interested in such an approach, but it doesnt look as though that is going to happen and with the good old boys system of management it is no wonder they are losing membership. I realize it is difficult to change the current structure even if that change would have had a very positive effect and allow each member to feel as though they had a voice.

Anyway Gene it is a good idea and if we had any success, I dont see why we wouldnt expand and allow other outdoor sports as well. One thing for sure is in 2009 the state sold 1,322,154 fishing licenses and of those 302,879 were all species so why would we allow 100 people to make the decisions for all in Grayling or even the 542 or so letters, e-mails or phone calls to make the policy on a river that is held in the public trust for all of the citizens of Michigan. Much has been made of the only .05 percentage of our rivers the special interest groups want for their personal use when the 542 requests equals only .0018 of the 302,897 persons who purchased an all species license in 2009 and only .0004 of the 1,322.154 persons who purchased a fishing license..

If you think about it, in some ways these little meetings set are just an excuse to ignore good science and justify political pressure. What else could it be? It should be science first to manage our fisheries and then other considerations, even social ones if they are non discriminatory.


----------



## TSS Caddis

diztortion said:


> I couldn't agree more with you. They should include an option to be informed of any change, regardless of species or wild life practice.


Yep. I get ping'd by the DNR every year to buy a turkey license, bear points etc...

Why not if you buy an all species license online you are added to a mailing list of changes that impact salmon/trout fishing.


----------



## riverman

Nighttimer said:


> Before I add my .02, I think flies only waters are lame. A specific fishery should be protected by creel or size limits and catch and keep season adjustments, not tackle limits.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Please send your view Nighttimer. Thanks. 

[email protected].


----------



## Splitshot

Pretty close Nighttimer. I dont accept the ignorance label in this case. In a previous post I said I only made three casts for trout last year with a fly for the very reason you state, they dont expose themselves on the surface very often, but when they do, it is the easiest way to catch them. The ignorant ones are those who keep fishing for trout on the surface that other 99.95% of the time.

Nymph fishing is indeed more challenging and the good nymph fishermen I know catch fair numbers compared to what I catch on bait for the reasons you stated, smell, movement and real. Your right about a good fisherman fishes the best technique. Seldom it is with dry flies, quite often with lures, but most often with bait. I appreciate the challenge with nymphs, wet flies and streamers, but as I have stated often I fish because I like to catch trout. I think the real challenge is figuring out how to catch them not catching them using the least intelligent method.

There are times when the trout will take nothing and is why opening day, on the best stretch of river I know, I caught only one legal trout. On that day I made the statement; A day fishing even if you dont catch a fish is better than a day in the office. I know all the cliches but given a choice, I would rather catch a boat load trout.

Anyway while I admit that I am often ignorant, but in this case I plead innocent. By the way I figured out how to set up my pictures like the ones in your gallery which I recommend everyone check out. Not only do you catch some nice fish on a fly, but you take some great pictures as well. I am envious. Indeed we do seem to have some things in common as I suggest all of us fishermen do. The only people I have a problem with are those who want to keep me off some of the best waters in the state and for no good reason I can think of except greed.

Your right about all the dumb fish being caught in most waters. In the no kill waters they are released to be caught again and again which is why it is a dirty little secret. If you could keep the easy fish it would be much more difficult to catch a trout and the no kill crowd knows that. If they really believed dry fly fishing was more challenging they would accept the challenge of fishing water where all methods could be used. I just think you missed my point.

Tight lines!


----------



## Paaat

swampswede said:


> Raising 4 kids I do not have the time or the money for several hundred dollars of fly fishing outfitting nor do I drive a $40.000 SUV. ( I will be sure to park as far away as I can from your Land Rover with my Pontiac, I promise)


Seriously? I fly fish. I drive a Hyundai, and use a rod I bought from a flea-market. I also believe that most people posting in this thread aren't hoity toity either.


----------



## Splitshot

It is easy to sterotype people and while fly fishermen as a group are higher up on the economic scale, it does not mean that they are less passionate or care less about other fishermen. Of course there are a few, but the point of this thread is to let the DNR know about how you feel about special regulations that favor one particular small group of fishermen.

Since flies only is one of those regulations it is mostly fly fishermen who support them, but most fly fishermen don't. Shoeman is the perfect example. He is in that higher economic bracket and buys the best equipement but is a great guy to fish with and can hold his own with bait, fly or whatever. I don't want to put words in Ralf's mouth, but he spends most of his time fishing very public easy access waters and the number and size of trout he catches on a fly would surprise many of you.

It is easy to start calling people names and grouping them into little boxes, but it serves no purpose although I have been guilty myself. Most people I know are against any more special regulations that exclude any class of fishermen or women. Between now and August is an important time to let the DNR know about how you feel, either way.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Very well said Splitshot! I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Shoeman

Here's little tidbit about a fabulous trout fishery down south.

The White in Arkansas. For years the AFGC had "special regs" for 2 sections that included C&R and "single hook", barbless and no bait. Granted one can change a spinner and make it single hook/barbless, but let's face it, kinda sounds like flies only, no kill

Looks like this was reversed to include multible hooks, but remains barbless

New 2010 Arkansas Game & Fish Commission regulations for Rim Shoals Catch & Release Area, Bull Shoals Catch & Release Area, the Bull Shoals Seasonal Brown Trout Catch & Release Area, and Norfork Catch & Release Area "artificial flies or lures with multiple-point hooks are now allowed, as long as all hooking points are barbless." 

Weird, eh?  :lol:

Wonder who lobbied those efforts?


----------



## swampswede

Paaat said:


> Seriously? I fly fish. I drive a Hyundai, and use a rod I bought from a flea-market. I also believe that most people posting in this thread aren't hoity toity either.


Yeah, I was just spouting off. I hate to group and stereotype and that is precisely what I did. My rant added nothing to this informative conversation. Time to move along...


----------



## TUCKER

Unlike some of the trout I catch, this thread just doesn't die. It is filled with some terrific info that opened my eyes even more to the fact that the gear restriction idea should just go away.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

I think it is safe to say that "most" gear restriction should go away. Restrictions such as fly-only are not effective. Studies have proven this. We have talked it through and some of you guys have brought me to the light, so to speak.

I do believe that there are some restrictions that are currently in place that we must keep to help prevent illegal activity on our rivers. The ones that come to mind are hook gap sizes and illegally weighted hooks. 

While this has not been the topic of this thread I think it is important to realize that gear restrictions that help prevent illegal activity need to be in place. BUT... gear restrictions that prevent the legal angler from enjoying the sport are not needed.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

I am curious as to what you guys would suggest for Paint Creek. It is the trout stream in question here in southeast Michigan.

Here are some of the facts...

Paint Creek is located in the most populated watershed in the state. Despite it's environmental issues due to the heavily urbanized area, this creek remains cold throughout the year from the various feeder creeks, the influx of ground water into the system, and a bottom draw from the lake at it's headwaters. Through a temperature study being conducted over the last couple of seasons, this creek has acceptable temps for brown trout survival. For the most part, the habitat is good throughout the creek. There are plenty of deep holes and surrounding spawning gravel. From the history of benthic surveys aquired we have a consistant food source in the creek, including caddis, various mayflys, and stoneflies. Trout in the Paint are above state average for year two fish. Habitat on the river should improve even more over the next couple of years due the removal of an old dam. (this project is about 99% a go)

The entire creek is about 14 miles worth of water. The proposed regulations were for 3.5 miles of river, artifical only, 10" size limit, and a 2 fish a day creel limit.

Through this thread I have learned that the atifical only doesn't make alot of sense and I have been stressing this with the TU groups involved in making the proposal. I have learned though that the strain of trout planted in the creek does not reach spawning age until they are 12.8" in size. It is my thoughts that if the goals of these restrictions are to protect the natural reproduction in the creek the size limit should be moved up, possibly 14". The creel limit doesn't bother me, as I rarely see people taking fish home with them.

Sorry the explaintion was so long, but I wonder what management practices you guys would suggest for this creek. I know it hard to give suggestions if you haven't been on the creek but you guys seem to be coming up with some great points and I am curious how you would improve this fishery.


----------



## Splitshot

Shoeman said:


> Here's little tidbit about a fabulous trout fishery down south.
> 
> The White in Arkansas. For years the AFGC had "special regs" for 2 sections that included C&R and "single hook", barbless and no bait. Granted one can change a spinner and make it single hook/barbless, but let's face it, kinda sounds like flies only, no kill
> 
> Looks like this was reversed to include multiple hooks, but remains barbless
> 
> New 2010 Arkansas Game & Fish Commission regulations for Rim Shoals Catch & Release Area, Bull Shoals Catch & Release Area, the Bull Shoals Seasonal Brown Trout Catch & Release Area, and Norfork Catch & Release Area "artificial flies or lures with multiple-point hooks are now allowed, as long as all hooking points are barbless."
> 
> Weird, eh?  :lol:
> 
> Wonder who lobbied those efforts?


The best fly fisherman by far that I know lives in PA. His name is Jan and his life has been fly fishing. He has a library in his home full of books about fishing and fly fishing. He is recently retired Pennsylvania conservation officer and has worked diligently to improve PA trout waters.

Several years ago the DNR in PA decided that flies only was not fair to the other fishermen and women and went to repeal the law and they failed. When I asked Jan who was for going to artificials said PA waters were much different than MI waters. Most of their flies only are located on private waters and the fly guys organized and went to the private land owners and told them that the evil bait and lure guys would decimate their property if this rule passed.

Many of the private land owners told the state of PA that if the flies only rule was changed, they would not allow any fishing on their property. The DNR felt that more opportunity would be lost overall if the flies only rule was rescinded and is the reason it stands today.

In some of our National parks, there were some flies only but most of them are now artificial lures only. Last time I was out west actually Yellowstone a fly fisherman seeing me cast a small spinner told me the river I was fishing was flies only. I showed him the regulations and he stomped off, obviously angry.

In southern states like Kentucky, Arkansas and Tennessee they are revisiting flies only as more of their citizens are bait fishermen and the fly lobby isnt as strong as it is here. As more and more fishermen come to understand that no kill does nothing to protect the fishery as almost all the trout die every 4 years anyway it makes perfect sense to utilize some of them. Flies only has always been a rule for a certain class of people and as more people understand the much of the best trout fishery is not available to them and the rush to get more of the best waters for themselves, the easy going regular fishermen and women will start standing up. In the past these rule were passed quietly and with little decent, but with the internet times are changing.



The Downstream Drift said:


> I am curious as to what you guys would suggest for Paint Creek. It is the trout stream in question here in southeast Michigan.
> 
> Here are some of the facts...
> 
> Paint Creek is located in the most populated watershed in the state. Despite it's environmental issues due to the heavily urbanized area, this creek remains cold throughout the year from the various feeder creeks, the influx of ground water into the system, and a bottom draw from the lake at it's headwaters. Through a temperature study being conducted over the last couple of seasons, this creek has acceptable temps for brown trout survival. For the most part, the habitat is good throughout the creek. There are plenty of deep holes and surrounding spawning gravel. From the history of benthic surveys aquired we have a consistant food source in the creek, including caddis, various mayflys, and stoneflies. Trout in the Paint are above state average for year two fish. Habitat on the river should improve even more over the next couple of years due the removal of an old dam. (this project is about 99% a go)
> 
> The entire creek is about 14 miles worth of water. The proposed regulations were for 3.5 miles of river, artifical only, 10" size limit, and a 2 fish a day creel limit.
> 
> Through this thread I have learned that the atifical only doesn't make alot of sense and I have been stressing this with the TU groups involved in making the proposal. I have learned though that the strain of trout planted in the creek does not reach spawning age until they are 12.8" in size. It is my thoughts that if the goals of these restrictions are to protect the natural reproduction in the creek the size limit should be moved up, possibly 14". The creel limit doesn't bother me, as I rarely see people taking fish home with them.
> 
> Sorry the explaintion was so long, but I wonder what management practices you guys would suggest for this creek. I know it hard to give suggestions if you haven't been on the creek but you guys seem to be coming up with some great points and I am curious how you would improve this fishery.


Even though I think I know a lot about trout and trout fishing I am not a fish biologist and would not argue any scientific conclusion they make. I might question them, but just for clarification. 

Having said that however I think that just because Paint Creek is in one of the most populated areas it is even more important to not make restrictive rules.

Here is what the DNR says about Paint Creek

Unit: LEMU
County: Oakland
Waterbody: Paint Creek
Segment(s): From Silver Bell Road to Tienken Road (3.7 miles)
Entry No: 802
Requested by: Public
Recommendation: We recommend that this stream segment be considered for gear
restricted regulations. We recommend the following:
 Artificial lures only
 Open season and possession season; last Saturday in April - September 30.
 10 inch MSL for all trout species
 Creel limit of 2 trout
Paint Creek is the best trout fishery in LEMU. The primary species sought by anglers is brown trout, and they are the species targeted by the proposed regulations. Naturally reproduced brown trout in Paint Creek grow well with 2-year-old fish averaging more than an inch larger than the Michigan average for trout streams. In some years stocked yearling trout are quite small and subsequently are smaller than the state average size at
age 2. No data are available on natural mortality rates or fishing mortality rates.

Although Paint Creek flows through an urban area, there is abundant assured public access. The area from Silverbell to Tienken roads has high quality habitat and is long enough (3.5 miles) for the regulations to be effective, yet limits the area of gear restricted fishing.

This stream reach meets some of the criteria for selection of trout stream that are good candidates for gear restrictions such as good growth rates, assured public access, *and strong social support for gear restricted regulations.*
Since they have no data about mortality and fishing mortality rates, I think this rule change is politically motivated. Without the data my opinion is they should have made the assumption that natural and fishing mortality rates were low like all the other rivers they have data on shows.

The fact that fisheries plants trout in this creek tells me they want to improve the fishery beyond the normal carrying capacity of the stream. I dont know about the spawning age and strain you mentioned, but if what you said was accurate it would be one factor in making the decision. The fact that they have a 10" limit and they plant the creek they feel most fish dont make it to 12" let alone 14". Remember the more trout they plant, the less food there is for each fish and if they didnt plant it at all, the number of fish available to be caught might be so low that most people would stop fishing.

Since there are very few streams in that part of the state that can sustain trout it makes sense to me that they manage it so the most people have an opportunity to catch trout and take a few home for dinner. I remember fishing this creek shortly after the season opened several years ago, and I found it very difficult to catch fish. Where I did fish, there was not much habitat at least the kind of habitat I am used to fishing. I even saw some trout in the open which is very unusual for me. 

While one time fishing means very little and is just antidotal I think the scientific decisions should be made by the experts in the DNR.


----------



## mondrella

The Downstream Drift said:


> I am curious as to what you guys would suggest for Paint Creek. It is the trout stream in question here in southeast Michigan.
> 
> Here are some of the facts...
> 
> Paint Creek is located in the most populated watershed in the state. Despite it's environmental issues due to the heavily urbanized area, this creek remains cold throughout the year from the various feeder creeks, the influx of ground water into the system, and a bottom draw from the lake at it's headwaters. Through a temperature study being conducted over the last couple of seasons, this creek has acceptable temps for brown trout survival. For the most part, the habitat is good throughout the creek. There are plenty of deep holes and surrounding spawning gravel. From the history of benthic surveys aquired we have a consistant food source in the creek, including caddis, various mayflys, and stoneflies. Trout in the Paint are above state average for year two fish. Habitat on the river should improve even more over the next couple of years due the removal of an old dam. (this project is about 99% a go)
> 
> The entire creek is about 14 miles worth of water. The proposed regulations were for 3.5 miles of river, artifical only, 10" size limit, and a 2 fish a day creel limit.
> 
> Through this thread I have learned that the atifical only doesn't make alot of sense and I have been stressing this with the TU groups involved in making the proposal. I have learned though that the strain of trout planted in the creek does not reach spawning age until they are 12.8" in size. It is my thoughts that if the goals of these restrictions are to protect the natural reproduction in the creek the size limit should be moved up, possibly 14". The creel limit doesn't bother me, as I rarely see people taking fish home with them.
> 
> Sorry the explaintion was so long, but I wonder what management practices you guys would suggest for this creek. I know it hard to give suggestions if you haven't been on the creek but you guys seem to be coming up with some great points and I am curious how you would improve this fishery.


By what the DNR biologist have stated in thier I have to agree with Ray. Seems to be more of a social push for this to happen than biological need to improve the fishery. 
I question the size length of 12.8 for fish to spawn. It is very possible however. Age from the studies I have seen seems to be the most important factor in spawning. Say age 2 is when they start spawning and those fish are that size great. In many populations in small streams it may be a 6" that at 2 starts to spawn. Some may not spawn to maybe 3 years of age. Some reach maturity sooner than others. 
I have fished the Paint about a dozen times. I have caught fish. I say manage more on creel limits. If they think 2 fish harvest will improve and maintain the fishery I am all for it. If due to natural mortality a 5 fish limit will still have no effect make it that. Carry capacity is what needs to be weighed. If the stream can hold 50LBs of trout to a acre Should it be 50 1lb fish or 100 1/2lb fish. 

I have found that streams that hold true giant trout say fish 5lbs. and up seem to have lower numbers of fish. That is just my personal observations nothing Scientific about it.


----------



## Maverick1

I have been told from someone I would consider to be a very reliable source that the particular strain of Brown in paint creek does not breed until the reach an average of 12.8 inches. That being said, if we want to encourage natural reproduction, lets set a slot which protects the breeders. My suggestion would be a 2 fish limit and a slot fish (perfect dinner for 2). 2 fish over 14", and 1 fish and one with purchase of a bonus tag any fish over 12". 

My though would be it would protect the fish capable of natural reproduction and allow anglers the bonus of taking a third fish for a nominal fee. This fee would be collected and the funding would go directly into that watershed conservation budget. The intention would be to to use these funds for stocking and habitat improvements to allow larger fish to mature faster and improve natural reproduction in the stream. Either way I think we need to focus less on the fishing method and more on resources limiting factors... ie carrying capacity, slot sizes (to be studied and the appropriate lenth determination be scientically proven) and habit restoration. I know many of the groups do a great job of getting out doing their part, but funding always seems to be the issue. Maybe a simple optional bonus tag could make a difference.


----------



## Splitshot

Not that your idea doesnt have merit, but the bonus tag idea is not one I would like to see. Kind of like a toll on a road. If very few fish would live long enough to reach the 14" mark it would make Paint Creek a virtual no kill creek. If you read the report prepared by the DNR that is basically what they say about the 2 fish limit, one over 18" on the Au Sable. That is a sure way to reduce the number of fishermen on any river and that is the objective of certain groups.

The wild fish in Paint Creek have the greatest chance or survival and it doesnt take many spawning fish to populate the creek. Besides that you cant make the assumption that you or anyone can catch them all because they cant by legal means.

I would say the two fish limit is more than adequate to keep populations in check and actually I think the limit should be higher if the science supports it. On many rivers it is very clear that fish limits are set based on citizen pressure not on reality. Not to long ago the limit was 10 fish and that was before catch and release became so popular. If lowering the limit is done because of pressure it is a sad thing for our state.


----------



## Ranger Ray

> Although this reach of the Black River does not meet the criterion of low natural mortality rates, the opportunity for quality catch-and-release angling for brook trout after September 30th is popular among many anglers even though the artificial lures only restriction has not resulted in increased abundance of larger brook trout. This 4 mile section could be placed in gear restrictions strictly for *social reasons *and to allow for fishing all year.


Well, I think the DNR owes us a definition what &#8220;social reasons&#8221; is. Is it TU? Is it TU plus guides? Is it a vote of 90% of a room that represents 2% of all fishermen? What the hell is it? 

The above statement on the Black burns my butt. The study going on the Black was exactly to see what &#8220;gear restrictions&#8221; did for the overall health of the system. What did they find? It didn&#8217;t do anything. So lets quick change it for social reasons. What the hell are they? Popular? What is popular? A group of buddies that think alike? Shame on you DNR. Shame on my government. Proposal G said &#8220;sound scientific management.&#8221; Do I need to post it for you. That's the referendum, that's social reasoning, Proposal G! The only &#8220;social reason&#8221; that should be applied here, is the referendum of the people for our DNR to manage by sound scientific management. Do it!


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Well guys, I just returned from the public meeting for the Lake Erie Management Unit. This is the section that Paint Creek is in. I have to say that even though I personally called many people that are pro-bait none of them showed up to support their position. For a public forum this was very discouraging.

I did have a long conversation with our MDNRE fisheries biologist after the meeting and he helped to clarify a few things. I obviously won't quote him as he was speaking off the record with me. But I can say that from what he told me he was open to the proposal of sound scientific data before endorsing any gear restrictions. 

I made reference to the studies that baiting does not affect angling mortality and supported the concerns all of you have proven to me. The question I was asked though can be paraphrased as this... when were the bait fishing vs fly only studies done? Was it during normal flow levels when the stream was at its coldest so trout have the best survial rate? Or was it when the stream was low and warm when any fish caught would have a decreased survial rate? The studies I have read do not tell me this. I would imagine that these factors would affect the results of any study done.

Any clarification from anyone? Please help.


----------



## Maverick1

First of all, thanks for the constructive feedback. It seems before slots / size limits should be considered further studies need to be done on carrying capacity, spawning size and natural mortality rates of the waters in question. Won't disagree wth that one. 

I was at the meeting last night as well with DD and can say that there was no opposition from bait fisherman or anti-regualtion fisherman. I wrote on my card that (if you've been you can write your thoughts on a ballot or speak) that I was in agreement with most of the proposals with the exception of artificials only until sound evidence can be provided and analysed to support a mortality difference as a result fishing method. 

There was however some interesting points made with regard to regs in gerneral. Basically the statement was made that if only 10% of the fisherman did not abide by the regs whatever they may be, the intended effects of these would be null and void. This brought up the CO resource issue and I found out that these guys are WAY understaffed. 2 CO's for Oakland County. How can 2 CO's effectively cover that kind of water well. So, my question is how do we as sportman help the DNR protect whatever the regs are (current or changed) and ensure that our fishery gets managed to teh best of it's ability?

Glad I went, it was very educational.


----------



## mondrella

The Downstream Drift said:


> Well guys, I just returned from the public meeting for the Lake Erie Management Unit. This is the section that Paint Creek is in. I have to say that even though I personally called many people that are pro-bait none of them showed up to support their position. For a public forum this was very discouraging.
> 
> I did have a long conversation with our MDNRE fisheries biologist after the meeting and he helped to clarify a few things. I obviously won't quote him as he was speaking off the record with me. But I can say that from what he told me he was open to the proposal of sound scientific data before endorsing any gear restrictions.
> 
> I made reference to the studies that baiting does not affect angling mortality and supported the concerns all of you have proven to me. The question I was asked though can be paraphrased as this... when were the bait fishing vs fly only studies done? Was it during normal flow levels when the stream was at its coldest so trout have the best survial rate? Or was it when the stream was low and warm when any fish caught would have a decreased survial rate? The studies I have read do not tell me this. I would imagine that these factors would affect the results of any study done.
> 
> Any clarification from anyone? Please help.


Its to bad about the pro bait fisherman not taking the time out of thier normal schedules. I have noticed the same thing. They seem to think nothing will come of it I believe. They seem to think just because they can do it now they always will. Much like most people when it comes to politics. They just don't understand that ones existing rights must always be defended from a small group that knows once they limit ones liberties they can control what others say and do. Being lazy seems to be the new trend in this country and not taking the time to educate yourself about what is happening be it Natural resources, local goverment, state and federal politics. Most cannot even name thier township supervisor. Its sad really. 
As for the studies about water temps and such I believe from memory there is one from Colorado that gives that info. I lost many of the studies I had found when I had a computer crash. I lost a ton of info. Thanks to a good memory I can recall much of it. Due to limited time with work and the family and poor computer skills I just don't have the time to search for it. Maybe others can give a hand.


----------

