# war against the average on the P.M.



## duckhunter88 (Oct 19, 2006)

I just got off the phone with the fisheries biologist in charge of the PM and he told me about how the elitist, the guides, the Lake chamber commerce, and Trout Unlimited went about and had the guidlines changed from gleasons to raindow. Thanks, alot for decideing how i should fish. For the rest of you averge joes like myself i just want you to know that there not done either there plan is to make it artifical lures all the way down to Walhalla. I will never give my money to Trout Unlimited 
ever again. I will also not give my money to any sportshop or store in baldwin who seems to think that my money doesn't spend the same as the elitist. I'm gonna be starting a petition to get the guides changed back to how they were so if your with me let me know and if your an elitist some day I hope to meet you so i can give you the big middle finger.


----------



## BrikTan (Nov 1, 2008)

amen brotha!


----------



## duckhunter88 (Oct 19, 2006)

If you feel the same way as I do shoot me a pm and I can pass along the name and number of the fisheries guy that we need to talk to to get the law changed. This river is for everyone to use. :evil::evil:


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

duckhunter88 said:


> If you feel the same way as I do shoot me a pm and I can pass along the name and number of the fisheries guy that we need to talk to to get the law changed. This river is for everyone to use. :evil::evil:


We've been at this (against gear restrictions) for about a year now and we are organized now (as of this winter). We've been to NRC meetings in Lansing and a few of us have been invited to sit on the cold water regulations committee as a result of our interest.

Come join us and have a voice: www.glfsa.org

Click the forum link to sign up!

Don


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yes, please join www.glfsa.org and help us out. This is one way you can fight.


----------



## duckhunter88 (Oct 19, 2006)

Thanks Don I just signed up, I would like to help to fight this if there is something that I can do. I think that's what makes me the maddest is that there is NO biological reason for a gear restrication in that area. That comes straight for the DNR biologist that covers the PM river.


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

duckhunter88;
I would be interested in the name and phone # for that biologist, i am working on something and maybe he could help us out.
Could you send it to [email protected]

Thanks in advance
Jerry


----------



## Steelman (May 24, 2004)

It's not just big corporations that are ruining our country. Every little economic interest that sees $$ for them to the exclusion of the rights of citizens pushes them their agenda to the max. They don't give a **** about your frustration in being deprived of fishing in the way your daddy taught you. These bastards are out for their advantage and if you relax for a minute they will own the river bottoms and you will not be allowed to fish at all.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

This again?

After all the pain and suffering of even addressing this issue in the first place, I can pretty much bet that when someone mentions more gear restrictions for the PM, nobody outside of maybe five delusional guides is even gonna want to touch that subject. 

Next, what's on the books is on the books...for now. The DNR has made it clear that they work on five year plans and they're gonna see how this works and maybe, MAYBE revisit it at the end of that five year period. 

Everybody had at least a year to speak up, join in, protest, whatever. Complaining about the end result now makes about as much sense as telling a dead guy to be careful. 

Absolutely--Join the org that Don provided the link for. I'm sure there will be many battles that need to be fought down the road and there's always strength in numbers.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> This again?
> 
> After all the pain and suffering of even addressing this issue in the first place, I can pretty much bet that when someone mentions more gear restrictions for the PM, nobody outside of maybe five delusional guides is even gonna want to touch that subject.
> 
> ...


Hey Hutch,
I agree with a couple of your points, especially the fact that people had an opportunity to speak out in the past. But I think the other half of this is that some people are just now finding out about the new regulations, which means they never had an opportunity to speak out. 

If it takes 5 years, it takes 5 years. But the DNR has said they will review it then and I plan to do everything I can to hold them to their word on that. I also know that by 5 years from now we will be organized...

Like Hutch said - strength in numbers, more strength in ORGANIZED numbers.
Please join us if you feel like duckhunter88 and many of the rest of us.

And thanks to those of you who just recently joined!

Don


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

> We are establishing a process in this organization that allows all members to have a voice. In fact it is the members who will give our organization life. We need to work together and while we are still building our web-site, we have already established forums for members to inform us of incidents where some individual or group has coerced, lobbied or convinced our DNR to enact restrictive rules to keep the public from accessing public lands or waters.


If you're talking about such waters as the PM, you should at least speak accurately. The new regs do nothing to impact any previous legal access to the PM, only how you can fish once you get there.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

2PawsRiver said:


> If you're talking about such waters as the PM, you should at least speak accurately. The new regs do nothing to impact any previous legal access to the PM, only how you can fish once you get there.


Technically, they do...

If you fish bait, your access has been limited, period...

Now if you could still have bait in your possession once you entered said area, your way of thinking would be correct, however you cannot, so access has indeed been limited to anglers who previously fished or have the desire to currently fish bait in that section of river...


----------



## duckhunter88 (Oct 19, 2006)

Sorry to disappoint you thousandcast, but I didn't have a voice on the issue. My fishing buddies and I found out when we went and bought our licenses. Our group that comes over to the PM every year for trout camp didn't know anything about some trying to buy the regulation change! Which is exactly what happened. In today's age of attack's from anti hunting and fishing group it is pretty upsetting to know that there are divisons between fishing groups and conservation groups,.I.E. Trout Unlimited. Michigan is supposed to manage the natural rescources of this state by using scientific evidence not about who you know and how much money you have.

Jason


----------



## J-Lee (Jul 11, 2000)

duckhunter,
There are many folks that are finding it out, as they read their regulations guides. People that fish the P.M., the Black, Au Sable are seeing this for the first time. I know people that have fished bait for 3 generations, on the Main branch of the Ausable, that won't be able to do it from Wakely to McMasters Bridge anymore. I hope they are as mad as you and decide to join glfsa, then tell their friends to join.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

There is no technically to it, the new regulations only govern how are you can fish and have nothing to do with access. Access applies to many things not just fishing. 

While I have no problem with the new regulations, and they're not the regulations I would've put in place.

If I were king, if you wanted to wade and fish on Michigan's trout streams, you have to park 1 mile away and walk in. If you're using a boat, you have to carry it or pull it the last hundred yards before you get to the water. There will of course be some exceptions for handicapped fishermen.

Fish however you want and you can bet anybody that there appreciates being there


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

2PawsRiver said:


> There is no technically to it, the new regulations only govern how are you can fish and have nothing to do with access. Access applies to many things not just fishing.
> 
> While I have no problem with the new regulations, and they're not the regulations I would've put in place.
> 
> ...


They govern that an angler possessing bait cannot access the river, to me "which I admit is my opinion" that is limiting access to many anglers who wouldn't fish any other way.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

2PawsRiver said:


> If I were king, if you wanted to wade and fish on Michigan's trout streams, you have to park 1 mile away and walk in. If you're using a boat, you have to carry it or pull it the last hundred yards before you get to the water. There will of course be some exceptions for handicapped fishermen.
> 
> Fish however you want and you can bet anybody that there appreciates being there


Hey 2Paws - 

I get the point of your post, which is essentially that it would be great if everyone who used the resource was a steward....I agree, I'm a huge fan of stewardship! I spend plenty of time teaching the value of stewardship to my children every time we are out.

That said, I believe we should be encouraging participation in our sport, not putting up barriers. When a couple percent less fishing and hunting licenses are being sold each and every year you have to wonder what the future holds for the outdoor sports we love.

I can walk 1 mile (both ways), no problem. My dad, who's 62 this year, can probably still make a mile hike, although it's not nearly as easy for him, now make it a mile both ways and we're putting up a barrier that he most likely can't overcome. He's not handicapped, just a bum foot and couple bad knees...

Likewise, I fish with my kids quite a bit, they are 8 and 4. My 8 year old could probably make the hike, the 4 year old, no way. Kids have a short attention span, I wonder how many times I would hear, "how much further to the river?" with a rule like this.  I wonder if my kids would opt to stay home with mom and play wii the next time...

A recent creel study on a WI trout stream turned up 5 kids age 16 and under who were fishing in a gear restricted area over the course of the entire summer survey. Kids were out of school and exactly 5 of them went fishing. 

Maybe I'm too sensitive to this stuff due to my young children and aging father...but do we really need to make it harder for people to get out and enjoy the outdoors?
Don


----------



## duckhunter88 (Oct 19, 2006)

Well said Don


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

Actually it wasn't based on stewardship, but on my observation that the quality of people you meet when you get there is almost always proportionate (I think I spelled that right) to the amount of effort it took to get there.

My views on the rights or wants to do something as it relates to the outdoors are not popular, common and are form a 
different thread. Fear not for I doubt I will be king of anything, other then my castle.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

They probably won't like it too much when I decide to go to the flies water next spring with my spinning gear and bobber fish with egg flies. Thinking about bringing a pile of friends with me too. Next thing you know they will want "Fly Rods Only" water.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Boozer said:


> Anytime you put "special" regulations on a section of river, many people automatically assume it's a "special" piece of water and better than the rest, so they tend to fish those areas more heavily, simple human nature...


Hey Boozer,

While your point is 100% valid, I think he's actually referring to the opposite effect - Rainbow to Sulak is right below the restricted section. More than 50% of the best water on the PM is now locked up in gear restrictions, so the bait fishermen are stacked up in the remaining area below. 

Don


----------



## CHUCK n BUCK (Apr 6, 2004)

Ok that makes sense...they have been "pushed" into a smaller area where they can fish with what they want.


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

Chuck, forgot to add, that unless you can get a permit to float, trout fishing is extremely tuff. Wadeable water is reserved for guys with flies as they need the room and wadeability. All us other guys are all 10 foot tall and have no issues crossing the water around Sulak


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

fishinDon said:


> Hey Boozer,
> 
> While your point is 100% valid, I think he's actually referring to the opposite effect - Rainbow to Sulak is right below the restricted section. More than 50% of the best water on the PM is now locked up in gear restrictions, so the bait fishermen are stacked up in the remaining area below.
> 
> Don


Got ya! I guess I misunderstood what he was asking, but never even thought about that part of the whole ordeal which you mentioned! Such a lame ordeal...


----------



## carsonr2 (Jan 15, 2009)

TK,

I agree the mid-size to smaller fish are definitely the better eating, I don't keep large fish either, but plenty of people do. 

They should drop the gear restrictions, but keep the slot limits. I personally would like as many pigs as possible in the pm.

CnB,

Yeah the fishing in MI is pretty awesome. NC isn't bad though, I'll do better in numbers down here on a remote wild stream than MI. Of course they only average 8-9".:lol:


----------



## duckhunter88 (Oct 19, 2006)

What Don said is what I was meaning to say. There were boats and guys fishing on every corner. I understand that it is opening day, but this was awful.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Boozer said:


> I remember a certain guide on the PM chewing me out years ago for fishing a float rod/reel in the flies only water.
> 
> I was using a bead head hackle jig with no scent or bait.
> 
> ...


 Way to rip into them Boozer. I am 100 percent against catering to a specific type of fishing on a designated section of river. If anyone is ticketed they need to fight the ticket all of the way to the US Supreme Court.


----------



## muddy waters (Apr 14, 2002)

So where do guys like me fall in? I fly fish exclusively but can't stand fishing the fly water. There's just too many people and boats. I love the lower stretches and would rather fish another river than deal with folks rowing over my hole all day. 

Oh, and I can't stand elitist snobs. When I hear fellow fly guys talk down to bait fishermen I stick up for you guys. If they want their own "special" place they can have it. If you haven't noticed there is plenty of great water in this state.

Don't be ignorant and judge me because I have a fly rod in my hand. Just sayin'.

Play nice


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

muddy waters said:


> So where do guys like me fall in? I fly fish exclusively but can't stand fishing the fly water. There's just too many people and boats. I love the lower stretches and would rather fish another river than deal with folks rowing over my hole all day.
> 
> Oh, and I can't stand elitist snobs. When I hear fellow fly guys talk down to bait fishermen I stick up for you guys. If they want their own "special" place they can have it. If you haven't noticed there is plenty of great water in this state.
> 
> ...


I'd say you could have a beer with me anyday. You are the type fly fisherman I can get along with. You have the right idea about it being everyones water. I think the crowding of "flie only water" is the fact that people who fly fish have the impression that it is the best water they can fish (true in some instances). 

Check out GLFSA...we need a few of you fly fisherman on our side against the elitists.


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

hey man, I'll have a beer with ya. You're right in line with most of us that don't need our own special play area to catch fish.


----------



## muddy waters (Apr 14, 2002)

Trout King said:


> I'd say you could have a beer with me anyday. You are the type fly fisherman I can get along with. You have the right idea about it being everyones water. I think the crowding of "flie only water" is the fact that people who fly fish have the impression that it is the best water they can fish (true in some instances).
> 
> Check out GLFSA...we need a few of you fly fisherman on our side against the elitists.





Abel said:


> hey man, I'll have a beer with ya. You're right in line with most of us that don't need our own special play area to catch fish.



Thanks fellas, I like beer Happy fishing


----------



## Progress (Feb 6, 2009)

Just being the devils advocate here, but doesn't there need to be some regulation to our fishing techniques? If we could all fish "any damn way we please" the next thing you know we would have guys out there spearing or chucking big treble hooks with no bait at all. Again, I'm not in favor of the new rules either but there has to be a happy medium. I think the bottom line here is that one group's interest beat another group's interest to the bargaining table. My point is if you are surprised that there are people out there trying to change your way of life only to benefit theirs then you're head is stuck in the sand. Or more likely you are like most and wait until it is too late, then decide to bitch. I commend Don on his efforts for taking the lead, but to the rest of us, if something is REALLY important to you, be involved and let your voice be heard during the process. Fish on!

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## sweet tree (Apr 30, 2006)

I would say most fly fishermen disagree with gear restrictions while having a more "carch and release" mentaility. 

Sadly, there is a strong VOCAL minority that has the DNR's ear on this issue.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

Trout King said:


> Check out GLFSA...we need a few of you fly fisherman on our side against the elitists.


 
Frankly, I'm about sick of the elitist term. I'm a member of GLFSA, I'm not strictly a fly fisherman, but when I'm on the C&R waters thats what I do. If I'm back home, you are just as likely to find me with worms and bobber with my son, or spinning gear stalking some small streams.... Or god, maybe even a fly rod.:yikes:

Last Sunday you would have found me rowing a drift boat from 37 to Green.

Every time I those "elitists bastages". It turns a middle of the road person off. I know alot of those "elitists", they are not everything you want to make them out as.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Here lies the problem. The DNR declares certain sections of river as flies only they may or may not be the best fishing spots or the easiest to wade. They may be close to home for some fishermen forcing them to drive way out of the way to fish. The fly fishermen do not have limitations on any river or stream in the whole state. When was the last time a section of river was designated "worms only" or "spinners only". The fly fishermen do not pay any more for their fishing license than I do or you do so why is the DNR catering to them? That would be like taking a section of prime state or federal land and saying only ************** can hunt here. If I was not 300 miles away I would push my luck with the issue at hand and go spinner tossing.I believe that if I got a ticket I could beat the DNR in court.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

FISHMANMARK said:


> Frankly, I'm about sick of the elitist term. I'm a member of GLFSA, I'm not strictly a fly fisherman, but when I'm on the C&R waters thats what I do. If I'm back home, you are just as likely to find me with worms and bobber with my son, or spinning gear stalking some small streams.... Or god, maybe even a fly rod.:yikes:
> 
> Last Sunday you would have found me rowing a drift boat from 37 to Green.
> 
> Every time I those "elitists bastages". It turns a middle of the road person off. I know alot of those "elitists", they are not everything you want to make them out as.


Couldn't agree more. I know people are frustrated on both sides, but labeling folks on either side with derogatory terms only serves to degrade your argument. It changes a logical debate into an emotional one. Once both sides are working off emotion, no one is listening. 

For Example: Go to the bar after work, drink 6 or 8 beers, then come home and tell your wife she looks a little "heavy" in those jeans. Even if you have a valid point, you're not going to win that argument! 

For the record neither I, nor GLFSA, recommend you try above example. 

Don


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

When I was first invited to fish the flies only section I took that as an opportunity to learn to fly fish.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

fishinDon said:


> Couldn't agree more. I know people are frustrated on both sides, but labeling folks on either side with derogatory terms only serves to degrade your argument. It changes a logical debate into an emotional one. Once both sides are working off emotion, no one is listening.
> 
> For Example: Go to the bar after work, drink 6 or 8 beers, then come home and tell your wife she looks a little "heavy" in those jeans. Even if you have a valid point, you're not going to win that argument!
> 
> ...


 
I slap her on the ass and say "your next, chubby":yikes:


Great point on the "emotional" argument. I see a "bait / no bait, QDM / meat hunter division.... and I don't think it will end up well. My 2 cents.


----------



## bchez (Jan 19, 2010)

There was an excellent arcticle in Field and Stream of Outdoor life, where the current fishing column writer was retiring and wrote about not being a fishing snob and just fish. I'm also one of the guys that don't judge. I will use a flyrod or my spinning rod for steelies or salmon, or any kind of fish it depends on what I feel like using and If people don't like it... move along because I'm not there to listen to there griping. 
______________________________________
There's No Head Like..._ STEELHEAD !!! _


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Yep, it's nice being just a fisherman.


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

That's good. Your organization is fortunate to have someone like you spearheading this cause. Good luck to you.


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

Boozer said:


> No offense, but don't you think the DNR stating it isn't necessary and will not make any improvements to the fishery is enough?
> 
> I mean the last time I checked, owning a fly shop or being a fly fishing guide does not make you an expert on managing a fishery.
> 
> These regulations are being pushed for one reason, certain individuals want more water to themselves "don't we all", but the fact of the matter is these are public resources and no one group or person is entitled to have them all to themselves.


No offense taken. I'm just a fence sitter that wants to know more.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

tannhd said:


> No offense taken. I'm just a fence sitter that wants to know more.


That's the way to be!

Check out the GLFSA website man, just a insane amount of great information.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

The more I read that don posts makes me even more happier I joined. Truely knows his stuff and is commited. Hats off to ya


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Im a fly guy and i fish all waters. I have nothing against those that use bait. I guess it is what it is. Join a group and fight for yuor rights or buy a fly rig.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

Brushbuster


----------



## kwcharne (Jan 8, 2008)

Im going to chime in and say I cannot stand all the different groups trying to change the regulations to benefit themselves. Gear regulations, baiting, APR's, all are very small groups of people that want things to be done their way to benefit themselves and themselves only. The current topic that gear restrictions will improve a fishery is ridiculous, just ask the DNR.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

I am both a fly and worm dunker. I have no problem with anyone and often wish with fly only or worm only people. The thing I see wrong is that rivers are having regs put on them that the dnr and others feel are right when that may not be the case. And not to mention when one perticular favorite river of mine recently went artificial a lot of local people and shop owners who sell both fly and worm gear wrote numerous letters to the dnr and the response was basically the decision is already made sorry.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

kwcharne said:


> Im going to chime in and say I cannot stand all the different groups trying to change the regulations to benefit themselves. Gear regulations, baiting, APR's, all are very small groups of people that want things to be done their way to benefit themselves and themselves only. The current topic that gear restrictions will improve a fishery is ridiculous, just ask the DNR.


Like it or not but lobbyist and special interest groups have been around for quite some time and will remain.Remember, strength in numbers. If your not involved get involved.


----------

