# 82.5 miles Gear restrictions have been added



## MERGANZER

Whit1 said:


> Okay, fair enough. Now let's say no fly fishing in the rest of the streams. No? Thought so.
> 
> Ganzer fly only anglers can fish 100% of MI"s rivers, just like bait anglers. When it comes to gear restrictions they only want such regs on the very best of our trout waters. I've asked before and I'll ask again..........IF one of the purposes of gear restrictions, and especially flies only regs, is to "safe" trout then why aren't they applied to marginal trout streams. You have an excellent candidate not far from your property............the Big South Br. of the PM and also the White R.
> 
> The answer is obvious, gear reg proponents only want the very best, what used to be called Blue Ribbon Trout Streams (the designation is no longer used by our DNR). This also brings up one of the reasons for flies only water and that is the challenge of fly fishing....yes, I've gone from gear restrictions to flies only, but THAT is what the purist form of fly anger would really want, but know they can no longer get. If challenge is a part of the mix then by applying flies only...okay gear regs....to the Big South Br. of the PM would seem, to this trout angler, like it would offer a most challenging of challenges. It'll never happen of course.


 
Whit, I get what you are saying. I am not a huge flyfisherman and our property is on Blue ribbon stretches so I say LET THEM HAVE IT! I do not fish those sections because the same reason I dont fish Tippy. I refuse to deal with jerks when I am trying to relax on the river. Give them their area and let them congregate there. I catch my fair share of nice brookies browns and bows on our section as well as culverts and small creeks. And the beautiful thing it I never see another fisherman.

Good fishing

Ganzer


----------



## GVDocHoliday

wartfroggy said:


> These split seasons and slot limits that they will have on the restricted sections of the PM will be quite the treat to figure out. I expect there will be a bit of confusion the first year.


It's not very difficult to figure out. Especially if you know what stretch of stream you're on. You just need to know the date, and what your limits are for size and possession. 

I just read it. For the new PM section, the season we are currently in is Sept 30 through the Friday before the last Saturday in April. Which, if you look ahead, would know that it's April 29th. 

I know, based on reading, that I can only possess a single Rainbow trout during this time. We know the size minimum is 10" based on the fact that it's a type 4 stream. 

I don't need to know the restrictions for Apr 30th through Aug 31st until maybe a week before the season changes. If I were a fisherman, I'd have those few sentences memorized fairly easily especially if it meant not violating.


----------



## Benzie Rover

I don't have a dog in this fight (gear restrcitions) as I understand both arguements and believe they both have merit..... BUT, for all those folks that keep screaming that we need to manage according to 'scientific data'... which I do *entirely* support, how about this... why stop at gear regs, because honestly, if you want to manage according to scientific data and *not* according to *TRADITION*, let's get rid of the trout season! Keep it open 365! Now that's more fishing for everyone. And I have yet to see any scientific papers show that trout populations are actually better where we have our closed seasons vs. rivers that are open year around... the Lil M and PM fish surveys speak loudest to this point, IMO... yes, both have gear restricted sections, but as has been noted, the restrictions themselves do not result in a better fish population... a better fishing experience is an entirely different issue and I think that is what the fly dudes are really trying to say.... but back to my issue here... as has been said, and we'll keep saying it, it is ALL about the habitat... you need *both *instream stucture and sufficient water quality (for trout)... if you have both, you'll have trout whether your worm dunking or swinging streamers...

So, how about it anti-gear dudes, can you support no trout season so we can start fishing those big brownies all winter long??? I am for it, let's see who else wants to put science infront of tradition???

Moderator - feel free to switch this to a new stand alone thread if too far off topic...


----------



## Speyday

No trout season? Thats a good idea; and Im all for that, Benzie. 

I think this may have been in practice to let some time pass between when the trucks dumped them in, and to let them acclimate more. I don't think that kind of thing is necessary if you have "ready to stock" fish available more throughout the year, vs. all coming out of the oven (raceway) in March, but thats just me.


Whether one fishes with gear, bait, flys. The killing of fish, and the mis handling of fish one intends to release probably do more damage to populations vs. when and how they are fished to. I know of some fly guys who mishandle and kill fish, and plug guys who land them and release them smartly and cleanly.


----------



## bonefishbill

raisinrat said:


> Gear restrictions have been added to an additional 82.5 miles of streams
> 
> read more here.


I hope they double it next year--protect your resource--Michigan. You folks need to fix your deer herd next--by going to a one buck per year, and harvesting more does..


----------



## METTLEFISH

Hey guys... they can not make you use fly rods... only flies or artificial lures, what will they think when a drift boat with dodgers and flies or plugs runs through "their" water ?


----------



## Flyfisher

bonefishbill said:


> I hope they double it next year--protect your resource--Michigan. You folks need to fix your deer herd next--by going to a one buck per year, and harvesting more does..


Thanks for trolling through the thread, Bill. Perhaps you can elaborate on how these gear restrictions are "protecting the resource", as know one has offered up a compelling reason yet?


----------



## Whit1

bonefishbill said:


> I hope they double it next year--protect your resource--Michigan. You folks need to fix your deer herd next--by going to a one buck per year, and harvesting more does..



Let's hear all about how gear regs protect the resource. IF that is the reason than gear regs need to be applied to marginal trout waters. That's where the trout need to be "protected..........or isn't it...


----------



## diztortion

METTLEFISH said:


> Hey guys... they can not make you use fly rods... only flies or artificial lures, what will they think when a drift boat with dodgers and flies or plugs runs through "their" water ?


Take a crank and attach a fly via 18" leader behind it?


----------



## wartfroggy

METTLEFISH said:


> Hey guys... they can not make you use fly rods... only flies or artificial lures, what will they think when a drift boat with dodgers and flies or plugs runs through "their" water ?


 Running dodgers above rainbow rapids........?
Good luck with that Mettle


----------



## raisinrat

This has been an interesting read about everyone views on this topic. I once read that the Gear Restriction was placed on streams to protect trout.The thinking was that artificial lures/flies are less likely to hook the fish deep and could damage the fish. They said that live bait fishermen had a higher risk of hooking a fish deep and harming a fish.What I read said they wanted to place it on streams that had a history of producing larger fish and give them a chance to grow larger so that the avg angler would have a better chance at catching a trophy trout.They also hoped that this would help increase the amount of trout per mile of stream also.

So are some of you guys saying that this isn't working?

The thing I read was somewhere on the DNR site a few months back. I can't find it now. So I can't check on what my memory is saying on this topic.I have no dog in this race but I am finding it to be a inserting topic.


----------



## swampswede

Despite not having a "dog in the race" you continue to post information that has been common knowledge for months now. 

R-E-D-U-N-D-A-N-T


----------



## METTLEFISH

Just sayin !... however they do make micro dodgers to fit the bill.... as would a small spoon with a fly behing it. Why do we need to protect a specie that is not Indiginous to Michigan ?... Michigan HAS NO NATIVE TROUT OR SALMON !.


----------



## quest32a

raisinrat said:


> Umm you are not 100% accurate with that statement.Michigan does have native trout. Coastal Brookies and River Brookies come to mind right off the top of my head right away.


I think he was being technical. Even though we call them Brook trout and Lake Trout I believe they are technically Char.


----------



## raisinrat

quest32a said:


> I think he was being technical. Even though we call them Brook trout and Lake Trout I believe they are technically Char.


Yea your right I just looked at the Latin name.My mistake.


----------



## brookies101

quest32a said:


> I think he was being technical. Even though we call them Brook trout and Lake Trout I believe they are technically Char.


^true statement^
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## METTLEFISH

And I love those Char as if they were Trout or Salmon !....


----------



## fishinDon

raisinrat said:


> This has been an interesting read about everyone views on this topic. I once read that the Gear Restriction was placed on streams to protect trout.The thinking was that artificial lures/flies are less likely to hook the fish deep and could damage the fish. They said that live bait fishermen had a higher risk of hooking a fish deep and harming a fish.What I read said they wanted to place it on streams that had a history of producing larger fish and give them a chance to grow larger so that the avg angler would have a better chance at catching a trophy trout.They also hoped that this would help increase the amount of trout per mile of stream also.
> 
> So are some of you guys saying that this isn't working?
> 
> The thing I read was somewhere on the DNR site a few months back. I can't find it now. So I can't check on what my memory is saying on this topic.I have no dog in this race but I am finding it to be a inserting topic.


Read this - it's on the Black River, the exact same section we just put gear restrictions on:

Black River Special Regulations Research

Don


----------



## wartfroggy

That is a rather weak argument.


METTLEFISH said:


> Why do we need to protect a specie that is not Indiginous to Michigan ?... Michigan HAS NO NATIVE TROUT OR SALMON !.


 Well, neither are you, unless you are pure native american. But what difference does it make anyways? The grayling are gone, so we may as well have something in the rivers. The browns and rainbows may not be native, but they have been here longer than you or I. If you don't care about these nonidiginous species, why do you care if you can fish the river with worms or lures? This is not in defense of the new regulations, I just thought it was a terrible argument against it. While I can see where people are coming from on the native/nonnative thing...........it gets thrown around way too often. Nothing in this system is....or ever will be again, how it used to be before man started to change things.


----------



## Flyfisher

raisinrat said:


> This has been an interesting read about everyone views on this topic. I once read that the Gear Restriction was placed on streams to protect trout.The thinking was that artificial lures/flies are less likely to hook the fish deep and could damage the fish. They said that live bait fishermen had a higher risk of hooking a fish deep and harming a fish.What I read said they wanted to place it on streams that had a history of producing larger fish and give them a chance to grow larger so that the avg angler would have a better chance at catching a trophy trout.They also hoped that this would help increase the amount of trout per mile of stream also.
> 
> So are some of you guys saying that this isn't working?
> 
> The thing I read was somewhere on the DNR site a few months back. I can't find it now. So I can't check on what my memory is saying on this topic.I have no dog in this race but I am finding it to be a inserting topic.


Have you read any of the multiple pages of posts on this topic? You are quoting the rhetoric, not necessarily the facts.


----------



## -Axiom-

TC-fisherman said:


> fishing with bait is a human right?
> 
> Discrimination?
> 
> Well than it seems you guys have an airtight case to take this to court.
> 
> Please oh please do so.
> 
> 
> My suggestion is an act of civil disobediance. Let the DNR know that you are going to fish bait on restricted water (as some do already anyway), purposefully get a ticket, go to court.
> 
> Then tell the judge that your basic human rights are being being violated and it is pure discrimination that you can't fish how you want to. (make sure you bring a newspaper clipping from your favorite WI biologist as evidence)
> 
> and most importantly let me know when the court date is so i can show up to lmao at the judges reaction to that.



Just because it is the law doesn't make it fair or right, it's just the law.


----------



## fishinDon

TC-fisherman said:


> fishing with bait is a human right?
> 
> Discrimination?
> 
> Well than it seems you guys have an airtight case to take this to court.
> 
> Please oh please do so.
> 
> 
> My suggestion is an act of civil disobediance. Let the DNR know that you are going to fish bait on restricted water (as some do already anyway), purposefully get a ticket, go to court.
> 
> Then tell the judge that your basic human rights are being being violated and it is pure discrimination that you can't fish how you want to. (make sure you bring a newspaper clipping from your favorite WI biologist as evidence)
> 
> and most importantly let me know when the court date is so i can show up to lmao at the judges reaction to that.


Thanks for keeping it civil fellas! 

I see your point TC, but I respectfully disagree. I don't believe that any court dates will be necessary. The argument for these restrictions boils down to 3 things, biology, social considerations, and economics.

We already know that science is not there to support these regulations. Again, here's the link to the research done by the MI DNR on the research area of the Black River, same stretch just enrolled into gear restrictions, that will be published this year:

Black River Research Paper - Preliminary Results

Soon we'll also see beyond a shadow of a doubt that the social component is gone as the GLFSA organization grows every day. Do you know that after the final proposal for restrictions came out that the MI DNR received only 600 letters in support of gear restrictions (in spite of TU, FFF, and others openly soliciting support letters and emails with prizes, etc.)? 

It will not be long before the other 600 thousand All Species fishermen in this state get organized and make 600 emails look like a very small number.

That doesn't leave much to support their existence. Economics being the weakest of the three arguments by far, it simply boils down to picking winners and losers. I don't believe this is the business we should be in with our fish and game laws. Besides, it's pretty tough to sell economics on a remote stretch like the Black that I spoke of above. There's not a store, bait shop/fly shop or motel within 15-20 miles of the area, and there never will be because it's all state forest for miles and miles in every direction. Dirt roads and two tracks are the only improvements. I'm not sure where the money goes to or comes from in this scenario...maybe China gets it. 

You make think this is laughable, but 50 years ago TU probably sounded like a silly idea to everyone but a handful of people. 

There are ways to conserve all of our fish and game populations without restricting or limiting public access, and we aim to find them!
Don


----------



## doogie mac

To a guy whos been following this thread closely,and giving my opinion when i feel the need,I feel Dons words above pretty much sum up my beliefs.


----------



## TC-fisherman

fishinDon said:


> We already know that science is not there to support these regulations.


yes there is 



> We used those techniques to study the consequences of changing trout regulations on the Tomorrow River in Portage County and the Prairie River in Lincoln County. On the Tomorrow River, regulation had changed from a bag limit of 10 fish (five browns) over six inches, to a bag of one brook trout at least 10 inches long and a minimum size of 18 inches for brown trout. Artificial lures were required to reduce hooking mortality. Surveys were done nearly every year starting in 1988. Population estimates were averaged from 1988-91 before the regulations were put in place and compared to post-regulation years (1995-97) after waiting a few years for the populations to stabilize.
> 
> Brown trout showed an increase from 469 fish per mile to 709 fish per mile. Brook trout populations stayed about the same at 400 fish per mile, but the average size of both species improved. Brook trout over eight inches improved from 13 percent of the adult population to 21 percent. Brown trout over 12 inches increased from 5 percent to 20 percent, and brown trout over 18 inches increased tenfold from 0.3 fish per mile to three fish per mile.


http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm

plenty more "science" available.

every stream? No. Some Streams? yes

Discrimination? Limiting access? BS. 

_*Not a single person is denied the opportunity to fish any section of river open to the public. *_ 

are you going to fight to protect the "rights" of those that like to fish with spears or nets for trout?


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> Not a single person is denied the opportunity to fish any section of river open to the public.


Except those who choose not to fish flies, then, they are denied. Flies only _is_ open to anyone, who fishes with FLIES ONLY; what's so hard to understand about this not being discrimination? Without a biological reason to support restrictions, what's the point of them?

If they do not benefit the health/ecology of the stream, why put them there? As I stated in a post I later removed yesterday, you pro flies only guys just sink deeper and deeper into your hole of petty excuses with each one of these gear threads. You have no beneficial reason for the regs, just what you want to happen. Sorry you guys are in such denial, but the facts are facts, dood.


----------



## TC-fisherman

ausable_steelhead said:


> Except those who _choose _not to fish flies, then, they are denied. Flies only _is_ open to anyone, who fishes with FLIES ONLY; what's so hard to understand about this not being discrimination?


Okay Rosa, I guess you suffer the same discrimination as those who _choose_ to only ride an ATV and not walk down hiking trails, who _choose_ to only go in a powerboat and not a canoe on a non motorized lake, who_ choose_ to only use a bow for fishing and therefore can't fish for trout. 

Discrimination? :lol:


----------



## brookies101

ausable_steelhead said:


> what's so hard to understand about this not being discrimination?


Nothing, unless you simply don't want to understand



ausable_steelhead said:


> Without a biological reason to support restrictions, what's the point of them?


I have no clue. Only answer I keep reading is "learn to flyfish". Nothing associated with a biological stance



ausable_steelhead said:


> You have no beneficial reason for the regs, *just what you want to happen*. Sorry you guys are in such denial, but the facts are facts, dood.


The bold pretty much sum's it up. 

I typically stay out of threads discussing this issue because I get so frustrated reading the pro-gear restrictions point of view, but statements like this:

"are you going to fight to protect the "rights" of those that like to fish with spears or nets for trout?"

Really piss me off. Sounds like someone is bored and just wants to start trouble, whether they sound ridiculous or not


----------



## fishinDon

TC-fisherman said:


> yes there is
> 
> We used those techniques to study the consequences of changing trout regulations on the Tomorrow River in Portage County and the Prairie River in Lincoln County. On the Tomorrow River, regulation had changed from a bag limit of 10 fish (five browns) over six inches, to a bag of one brook trout at least 10 inches long and a minimum size of 18 inches for brown trout. Artificial lures were required to reduce hooking mortality. Surveys were done nearly every year starting in 1988. Population estimates were averaged from 1988-91 before the regulations were put in place and compared to post-regulation years (1995-97) after waiting a few years for the populations to stabilize.
> 
> Brown trout showed an increase from 469 fish per mile to 709 fish per mile. Brook trout populations stayed about the same at 400 fish per mile, but the average size of both species improved. Brook trout over eight inches improved from 13 percent of the adult population to 21 percent. Brown trout over 12 inches increased from 5 percent to 20 percent, and brown trout over 18 inches increased tenfold from 0.3 fish per mile to three fish per mile.
> 
> 
> http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/stories/2007/oct07/fishery.htm
> 
> plenty more "science" available.
> 
> every stream? No. Some Streams? yes
> 
> Discrimination? Limiting access? BS.
> 
> _*Not a single person is denied the opportunity to fish any section of river open to the public. *_
> 
> are you going to fight to protect the "rights" of those that like to fish with spears or nets for trout?


Thank you for posting that TC (the science part). I think you just help me make my case though. Notice they dropped the bag limit to one fish (from 10) and raised the size limits so high that it essentially amounts to C/R regs - especially for brown where they noticed the biggest change? 

That's the reason gear regs are almost always coupled with C/R (or greatly reduced bags and increased size limits), because gear regs on their own do zero. You need to pair them with reduced bags and increased size limits to see anything happen.

There's another study in Wisconsin that showed how they tinkered with the Lawrence river over like a 10 or 20 year period. 
Lawrence River Comprehensive Research

Here's a quote from that paper:

(1) Under the conditions of fishing pressure, catch, and trout densities that prevailed at Lawrence Creek, fly fishing had no uniquely beneficial biological effects that could be detected. Changes in standing crops, survival rates, reproduction and growth of the trout populations in the 2 fishing ziones appeared to be independent of the methods of angler harvest.

(2) In both zones hooking mortality inflicted on released trout was apparently compensated for by a decrease in mortality due to other causes. Summer mortality unaccounted for by trout harvested was not consistently higher in the any-lure (including bait) zone under the prevailing conditions of hooking and releaseing up to 50% of the trout population.

(3) Angling exploitation was similar in both fishing zones, averaging about 10% of the preseason population and ranging from 7-11% in the any-lure zone and 5-12% in the flies-only zone.​

I think that pretty much sums it up for me. Bait, Flies only, Artificals only, spears only, nets only. It doesn't matter if you couple it with C/R. You can stand there all day long with your spear or your net if your bag limit is zero, it won't be very interesting and it will have the same effect on the fish. 

If the goal is to change the trout population for the better, why not just tinker with bag limits and size limits? They do far more to the population than gear choice, and they do so without needlessly alienating entire user groups.

Don


----------



## MERGANZER

The discrimination argument isnt much of an arguument. Discrimination would be saying Splitshot can't fish here because he is a certain race, color, creed, age etc. fact is YOU CAN FISH the restricted waters. The only water you cant fish is non nav waters which makes op thousands of miles of trout water. Whay dont you fight to change that cause a lot of the PM and its tribs is non nav and has tremendous fishing.

Ganzer


----------



## toto

First of all TC, thanks for bringing up Prairie Creek, you just lost. The Prairie Creek issue was reversed in court, you know why, because the judge saw right through it, and realized that TU stuffed the ballot box in the beginning. Fact is, Prairie Creek has a high amount of trout per acre, and the gear regs were not required for protection of the fish.

Perhaps you need to do some more studying, you need to look at these following legal issues: Northwest Ordinance, Public Trust Doctrine, 14th amendment, in particular Equal Rights Issue within the 14th. Of course I could go on and on, but that right there will take a while.

Sooner or later, you guys will find that whats going on here isn't right, and it may not be legal. Whats it going to take, one of the DNR higher ups to go to jail, or lose their jobs due to unethical behavior of this? Believe me, this will get a lot uglier, before its over.

BTW Ganzer, the real fact is, Non nav waters don't take up hundreds of miles of rivers, in fact, in Michigan, not much at all. The last I read, there were on ly 3 streams in Michigan noted as non nav.


----------



## MERGANZER

90 percent of the small brookie streams are non nav waters. Sections of the little south PM are non nav waters. The culverts and small streams where I get most of my brookies are not deemed navigable waters. Thats some of the best fishing around but if its private you cannot fish it without tresspassing.

Ganzer


----------



## toto

You should do some research on these streams, they may, or may not be considered non nav. If they aren't on either list, they are considered nav. I tell you this, as not all streams in Michigan have been designated either way, and until they are, they are considered nav. The only way a river/stream can be designated either way is in the courts. It can't be done by the DNR, NRC, or anyone else, just the courts.


----------



## MERGANZER

Good luck tresspassing along a 3 foot wide stream then. Let me know how it works out when the DNR is writing you the ticket. I have done the research and our section of river is NON NAV. So i dont worry about it too much .

Ganzer


----------



## toto

Thats fine if this particular stream is on the list, I'm just saying, don't think that even a small stream like that is necessarily on the list of non nav. Hey, I'm only trying to help you out on this one, if you don't want my help, and refuse to learn the laws, I can't help you. You, my friend, are quickly falling under the old saying, "you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can 't make him think". If you don't want to do the research, and find out if its LEGALLY deemed non nav, then don't fish it.

you may want to look up the Gerhardt suit on the pine river for some resourceful material.

Here, let me help:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100207/SPORTS/2070341/-1/NEWSMAP

or this:http://www.smashwords.com/extreader...ht-to-fish-michigans-inland-lakes-and-streams


----------



## brookies101

A nav. water can also be a 3ft wide trout stream. Its defined as that simply because it can be used for recreational use. Although you wouldn't use it for anything recreational, a storm drain could even be described as a nav. water, because it discharges to a waterway that more than likely is navigable. This comes from the environmental reg. manager at DOW Chemical
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## brookies101

toto said:


> you may want to look up the Gerhardt suit on the pine river for some resourceful material.
> 
> Here, let me help:
> 
> http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100207/SPORTS/2070341/-1/NEWSMAP
> 
> or this:http://www.smashwords.com/extreader...ht-to-fish-michigans-inland-lakes-and-streams


Thanks for posting that toto. 

Rapanos vs. United States also has good discussion of the definition of a navigable waterway. Not directly related to fishing rights, but food for thought on that issue


----------



## Ranger Ray

fishinDon said:


> Thank you for posting that TC (the science part). I think you just help me make my case though. Notice they dropped the bag limit to one fish (from 10) and raised the size limits so high that it essentially amounts to C/R regs - especially for brown where they noticed the biggest change?
> 
> That's the reason gear regs are almost always coupled with C/R (or greatly reduced bags and increased size limits), because gear regs on their own do zero. You need to pair them with reduced bags and increased size limits to see anything happen.
> 
> There's another study in Wisconsin that showed how they tinkered with the Lawrence river over like a 10 or 20 year period.
> Lawrence River Comprehensive Research
> 
> Here's a quote from that paper:
> 
> (1) Under the conditions of fishing pressure, catch, and trout densities that prevailed at Lawrence Creek, fly fishing had no uniquely beneficial biological effects that could be detected. Changes in standing crops, survival rates, reproduction and growth of the trout populations in the 2 fishing ziones appeared to be independent of the methods of angler harvest.
> 
> (2) In both zones hooking mortality inflicted on released trout was apparently compensated for by a decrease in mortality due to other causes. Summer mortality unaccounted for by trout harvested was not consistently higher in the any-lure (including bait) zone under the prevailing conditions of hooking and releaseing up to 50% of the trout population.
> 
> (3) Angling exploitation was similar in both fishing zones, averaging about 10% of the preseason population and ranging from 7-11% in the any-lure zone and 5-12% in the flies-only zone.​
> 
> I think that pretty much sums it up for me. Bait, Flies only, Artificals only, spears only, nets only. It doesn't matter if you couple it with C/R. You can stand there all day long with your spear or your net if your bag limit is zero, it won't be very interesting and it will have the same effect on the fish.
> 
> If the goal is to change the trout population for the better, why not just tinker with bag limits and size limits? They do far more to the population than gear choice, and they do so without needlessly alienating entire user groups.
> 
> Don


Well stated Don. Looking forward to TC's response.

I will address the Prairie River scenario. Same issue, creel limit changes with habitat work. This river was already flies and artificial regs before the creel limit study. 


> On the Prairie River in Lincoln County, the regulation changed in 1993 from a 10-fish bag limit (five browns) over six inches, to a two-fish bag limit with only one brown trout over 20 inches and one brook trout over 14 inches. Trout population estimates were compared from two years (1985 and 1988) before the changes, to four different years (1995, 2004-06) after the regulation. Brook trout over 10 inches improved 840 percent, and brown trout of quality size (over 12, 14 and 16 inches) all increased over 100 percent. Some of these changes may be attributable to habitat improvements made in this stretch in 1985. Regardless, the habitat work and the regulations working together have greatly improved the size and numbers of trout in this stretch of stream.


Later they removed the artificial and fly's only water and allowed bait. Much to the doom and gloom cry of TU on allowing bait, we see the study shows little effect on fish population. Even shows a few more trophy fishy, imagine that. 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...2oH9DQ&usg=AFQjCNHGR1GvuzxOuoPjuJvy-xtpcT2FKw

So what would one conclude made the difference on the Prairie? 

A retired fish biologist that was involved in bringing the rivers back to health in Wisconsin has stated that the strain of wild fish they introduced had the most profound effect than anything else done for the trout fisheries in Wisconsin. But why would we believe a Biologist that was heavily involved in the fisheries?


----------



## Splitshot

Lets be honest, the only reason TC posts on these threads it seems is to try and provoke people he doesnt like..

About 4 years ago TC posted part of a study that made it seem like catch and release was good for the fishery on the Au Sable and we quickly learned that he just cut and pasted parts of the study that supported his contention. He neglected to post the conclusion of the study in question because it stated the opposite was true that catch and release on the Au Sable had no impact.

Here is what he said:


TC-fisherman said:


> Over the years there have been many instances of members posting that catch and release has no or minimal impact on a fishery. Members have gotten on their pulpits and shouted to the heavens that fishermen are greedy or don't know how to fish for advocating catch and release.
> 
> It is my contention that catch and release fishing improves a fishery. Here's some science to back that up:
> Quote:
> 1. The approach was to develop a general population dynamics model for addressing voluntary release and to use the model to study its impact on four fisheries with widely different characteristics of growth, mortality, and fishing: a brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) fishery in a small stream, a largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) fishery in a 400-ha reservoir, a brown trout (Salmo trutta) fishery in a 30-m-wide river, and a northern pike (Esox lucius) fishery in a typical lake. Results for all four fisheries were similar in showing that the voluntary release of fish can have a substantial impact on a fishery if more than 10% of the legal fish caught are released. By altering the effective fishing mortality rate, it caused changes in fishery statistics to occur even though fishing effort and catch rate remained constant.
> 
> In general, the condition of brown trout populations improved in the catch-and-release section but deteriorated in both control sections. Total abundance of brown trout increased significantly in the catch-and-release section and decreased significantly in the control sections. Relative to the control sections, total abundance in the catch-and-release section increased by from 41 % to 59%. Abundance of brown trout larger than 12 in did not change significantly in the catch-and-release section but decreased significantly in both control sections. Survival rates of brown trout did not change significantly in the catch-and-release section, but decreased significantly for age-1 and older fish in both control sections. Thus, the catch-and-release regulation produced a better population of larger trout than would have existed otherwise.
> just a sample of whats out there.
> 
> Does C & R make any difference in a "put and take" heavily stocked river or a salmon fishery. No it doesn't. But in other streams yes it does.


Then Quest32 responded


quest32a said:


> You seemed to pick and choose which sections you printed of the articles. Here is the conclusion of the second one.
> 
> Quote:
> We conclude that catch-and-re lease regulations had a positive impact on the brown trout population in the catch-and-release section, but "improvements" observed were modest. These improvements seem to take on a secondary importance considering the general decline observed in brown trout populations in the Au Sable River over the last 20 years. We should focus future research and management efforts on identifying and controlling, if possible, the factor(s) causing brown trout to decline. Based on our analysis, exploitation from fishing is not responsible for the general decline


How many times does he continue to misquote studies to support his emotional position. Personally I dont know because after the misrepresentation above who would trust anything he said?


----------



## Splitshot

MERGANZER said:


> 90 percent of the small brookie streams are non nav waters. Sections of the little south PM are non nav waters. The culverts and small streams where I get most of my brookies are not deemed navigable waters. Thats some of the best fishing around but if its private you cannot fish it without tresspassing.
> 
> Ganzer


Ganzer,

I don't mean to be harsh, but you keep making ignorant statements. Please do us all a favor and think before you post or at least do a little research before you start typing. I talked to the DNR today and they thought there were only 3 streams in MI that have been deemed by the courts to be non navigable and I will list them as soon as I receive the publication.

Streams and rivers are only designated navigable or non navigable by the courts or have no designation in which case you have as much right to assume they are navigable as not. You cannot be charged if you are in a stream fishing unless you gained access from private property. You may also walk along the bank on private property as long as you keep moving but can only fish while standing in the water.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Splitshot... Here are the three non-navigable rivers as provided by MDNRE's document. I also pasted in the handful of lakes that are non-navigable. 

*WATERS ADJUDICATED NON-NAVIGABLE BY THE
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT​STREAMS​*Little Portage River, St. Joseph County,
Mathewson v Hoffman, 77 Mich 420; 43 NW 879 (1889).
Sturgeon River, East Branch, Dickinson County, T42, 43, 44N R29, 28W
Keystone Lumber & Salt Co. v Jenkinson, 69 Mich 220; 37 NW 198 (1886).
Thread River, Genesee County,
Burroughs v Whitman, 59 Mich 279; 26 NW 491 (1886).​*LAKES​*Conover Lake, Newaygo County,
Putnam v Kinney, 248 Mich 410; 227 NW 741 (1929).
Prouse Lake, Leelanau County,
Manny v Prouse, 248 Mich 655; 227 NW 685 (1929).
Winan's Lake (Pleasant Lake), Livingston County,
Pleasant Lake Hills Corporation v Eppinger, 235 Mich 174; 209 NW 152 (1926).
Note: Recent public access to these lakes may alter non-navigable classification. A
comprehensive listing of all public boat launching areas is contained within the published​by the DNR Parks and Recreation Division

By reviewing this list and knowing that rivers not on this list are either deemed navigable or have no classification (which means they are navigable until the courts say yes or no) we can see that as anglers we have the right to fish most of the water in the state of Michigan.


----------



## toto

I suppose we could go through rights and all that, but what it boils down to is, does the data support it? Suppossedly they have data to prove their point, but no one has seen it, and we've asked for it. In some circles guys are using mortality studies, even though there may be some truth in them, the math is a little more complicated that it first appears, and thats been discussed elsewhere as well.

The bottom line is, if we have data to prove the conservation efforts are needed, then fine. But if the data proves otherwise, or there isn't any data, then it just shouldn't be considered. I apologize once more for letting myself get involved in the right of way issue, but it does point out a couple more things. 1) nav and non nav streams and the issues involved there, and 2) just how complicated water rights, and access rights issues are. There aren't very many attorneys around who are up to speed on water rights. But thats another topic.

The bottom line is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## motorcop1

bonefishbill said:


> I hope they double it next year--protect your resource--Michigan. You folks need to fix your deer herd next--by going to a one buck per year, and harvesting more does..


Why don't they double it in your back yard.....


----------



## Shoeman

While I have never endorsed gear regs, I always seem to stumble on comments regarding C&R in any form, creating a farm pond fishery and in turn dumb fish. If that's the case with this type of mentality, slots would once again divide sportsmen. 

That's where I need to put my chips on TU, even if their message appears to be extreme

Granted, we're all trout anglers and want a decent fishery, but you can't have it both ways. 

Protect the trout, or rape the resource. Bait already has bad reputation, add the entitlement of keeping trophies hiding behind current regulations is absurd, even if they feed your neighbors or their dog


----------



## fishinDon

Shoeman said:


> While I have never endorsed gear regs, I always seem to stumble on comments regarding C&R in any form, creating a farm pond fishery and in turn dumb fish. If that's the case with this type of mentality, slots would once again divide sportsmen.
> 
> That's where I need to put my chips on TU, even if their message appears to be extreme
> 
> Granted, we're all trout anglers and want a decent fishery, but you can't have it both ways.
> 
> Protect the trout, or rape the resource. Bait already has bad reputation, add the entitlement of keeping trophies hiding behind current regulations is absurd, even if they feed your neighbors or their dog


Hey Ralph, I'm just curious where this came from. I don't remember anyone preaching "kill big fish and feed them to the neighbor's dog." Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but can you at least explain? I'm lost...

I don't feel any sense of entitlement to anything. I just want our fishery mangaged by sound biological science.

I've spoken with Bryan Burroughs (TU E.D.) at length several times and he and I are on the same page on almost every issue regarding the management of our trout except he prefers gear restrictions and I don't.

I'm all for conservation and in some cases even protection of our trout - I just don't like gear restrctions because I feel they are unfair, and not supported by science. C/R is a separate management tool and discussion in my opinion, although they are often lumped together since our Gear Restrictions usually come packaged that way. 

I respect your choice to stick with TU, some of our GLFSA folks have done the same, because they'd like to see some changes in the "old" mindset at TU. That's fair, I think TU does a lot of great things for out trout and their habitats. I'd be a member if it weren't for the fact that I feel I'd be supporting their fight for more gear restrictions with my money.

Don


----------



## REG

fishinDon said:


> Hey Ralph, I'm just curious where this came from. I don't remember anyone preaching "kill big fish and feed them to the neighbor's dog." Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but can you at least explain? I'm lost...
> 
> I don't feel any sense of entitlement to anything. I just want our fishery mangaged by sound biological science.
> 
> I've spoken with Bryan Burroughs (TU E.D.) at length several times and he and I are on the same page on almost every issue regarding the management of our trout except he prefers gear restrictions and I don't.
> 
> I'm all for conservation and in some cases even protection of our trout - I just don't like gear restrctions because I feel they are unfair, and not supported by science. C/R is a separate management tool and discussion in my opinion, although they are often lumped together since our Gear Restrictions usually come packaged that way.
> 
> I respect your choice to stick with TU, some of our GLFSA folks have done the same, because they'd like to see some changes in the "old" mindset at TU. That's fair, I think TU does a lot of great things for out trout and their habitats. I'd be a member if it weren't for the fact that I feel I'd be supporting their fight for more gear restrictions with my money.
> 
> Don


Very well said and sums up my sentiments exactly. On this side of the pond, I know a few long standing TU members who expressed surprise and dissappointment that TU was so actively engaged in gear regulations. In thier words, "It's not what TU is supposed to be about".


----------



## Shoeman

Don't make me go there Don...

This board have been exposed to the Hook & Cook attitude for years. I'll dig them up if you think it will help your cause. 

Don't go there. Some think trout are canned corn......


----------



## toto

Question: Are these waters stocked by the DNR? I haven't looked, and I'm too lazy right now to look.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Shoeman said:


> While I have never endorsed gear regs, I always seem to stumble on comments regarding C&R in any form, creating a farm pond fishery and in turn dumb fish. If that's the case with this type of mentality, slots would once again divide sportsmen.
> 
> That's where I need to put my chips on TU, even if their message appears to be extreme
> 
> Granted, we're all trout anglers and want a decent fishery, but you can't have it both ways.
> 
> Protect the trout, or rape the resource. Bait already has bad reputation, add the entitlement of keeping trophies hiding behind current regulations is absurd, even if they feed your neighbors or their dog


How is bait a rape on resource? The biologists say the special regulations would make no difference. Like you I have fished the Muskegon, Pine, PM and many others for 38 years. I have not seen bait fishing have any effect on quality or quantity. Cycles have come and gone but the fish seem to survive. Add to that C&R is practiced by upward of 90% of the fishermen today and this "bait" fishing is a mole hill being made into a mountain.


----------



## Flyfisher

Shoeman said:


> While I have never endorsed gear regs, I always seem to stumble on comments regarding C&R in any form, creating a farm pond fishery and in turn dumb fish. If that's the case with this type of mentality, slots would once again divide sportsmen.
> 
> That's where I need to put my chips on TU, even if their message appears to be extreme
> 
> Granted, we're all trout anglers and want a decent fishery, but you can't have it both ways.
> 
> Protect the trout, or rape the resource. Bait already has bad reputation, add the entitlement of keeping trophies hiding behind current regulations is absurd, even if they feed your neighbors or their dog


I haven't knowingly killed a resident stream trout in as long as I can remember but because I fish bait I am raping the resource? You can't paint a picture like that with such a broad brush. You are doing the same type of generalizations that resulted in these misguided gear regulations in the first place. 

On second thought, perhaps your comments are of a more personal nature directed at certain people on this site?


----------



## Shoeman

Flyfisher said:


> On second thought, perhaps your comments are of a more personal nature directed at certain people on this site?


Not really directed toward anyone, it just seems like a mindset for quite a few.

Prime example is some old fart on the Mo. He's out every day, gets his limit and gives them away at the launch. WTH??? I don't think C&R ever enters his mind. OK, it is a put and take fishery, but why the greed? I can see someone that only fishes a few times a year taking his limit, but not guys that fish 3-5 days a week just to prove they can. It's a waste. 

First all of the flydunkers were bombarded with bad publicity, some even rediculed for C&R, our methods questioned, mostly because they weren't the most efficient and blamed for the movement. Then a little adjustment in the regs and all hell breaks loose. 

I guess if I used bait, I'd be pissed too, but look at the history and the sense of entitlement to keep ones limit, because the fishing guide says you can.

I guess I need to stay out of this forum.


----------



## REG

Shoeman said:


> Not really directed toward anyone, it just seems like a mindset for quite a few.
> 
> Prime example is some old fart on the Mo. He's out every day, gets his limit and gives them away at the launch. WTH??? I don't think C&R ever enters his mind. OK, it is a put and take fishery, but why the greed? I can see someone that only fishes a few times a year taking his limit, but not guys that fish 3-5 days a week just to prove they can. It's a waste.
> 
> First all of the flydunkers were bombarded with bad publicity, some even rediculed for C&R, our methods questioned, mostly because they weren't the most efficient and blamed for the movement. Then a little adjustment in the regs and all hell breaks loose.
> 
> I guess if I used bait, I'd be pissed too, but look at the history and the sense of entitlement to keep ones limit, because the fishing guide says you can.
> 
> I guess I need to stay out of this forum.


That would piss me off too since the possession limit is the same as the daily limit.


----------



## fishinDon

Shoeman said:


> Not really directed toward anyone, it just seems like a mindset for quite a few.
> 
> Prime example is some old fart on the Mo. He's out every day, gets his limit and gives them away at the launch. WTH??? I don't think C&R ever enters his mind. OK, it is a put and take fishery, but why the greed? I can see someone that only fishes a few times a year taking his limit, but not guys that fish 3-5 days a week just to prove they can. It's a waste.
> 
> First all of the flydunkers were bombarded with bad publicity, some even rediculed for C&R, our methods questioned, mostly because they weren't the most efficient and blamed for the movement. Then a little adjustment in the regs and all hell breaks loose.
> 
> I guess if I used bait, I'd be pissed too, but look at the history and the sense of entitlement to keep ones limit, because the fishing guide says you can.
> 
> *I guess I need to stay out of this forum*.


Just the opposite Ralph, thanks for explaining your point of view. It really helps to understand the comments. 

For me this is about gear restrictions, and gear restrictions only. 

Bag limits, size limits, C/R, whatever, are all separate subjects. I have my personal preferences on bag limits and size limits, but if the DNR believes that the bag limit needs to be 1 fish or 12 fish based on the science of the fishery (fishing pressure vs population structure) then I'm all for it. Bag limits effect every angler the same. So do size limits.

For the record, I read a research article on the Lawrence River in WI (I posted a link before) that summarized 10 or 15 years of research on that one stream and it concluded that bag limits are the second most effective tool in managing our trout, behind only size limits (since size limits effect every trout caught). I believe the combination of simply those two factors could manage our trout in every stream, river, whatever w/o the need for any gear restrictions. Maybe some of the few rivers in SE MI receive enough pressure that they would still suffer decreased angling opportunities with a properly adjusted bag/size limit vs pressure, but I'd be surprised to see that conclusion.

My goal in this is to inform the average angler, and to figure out a way to make rules that not only conserve our trout, but also include all groups of anglers. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, we are all in this together - like it or not.

Don


----------



## ESOX

Ralfs comments strike very close to home with me, and his line of thinking is precisely why I have been very quiet on the issue the past couple of months.It has come to me that a lot of the guys clamoring for no gear regs are the same accomplished fishermen that will shamelessly tell me that they never fish any stretch of river more than once a season. That's because a group of good meat anglers can totally rape a stretch of river, leaving it laying wimpering in it's banks devoid of any sizeable trout for a year. I get the impression their desire for no gear regulations is just to open up more miles of river for them to shamelessly pillage, ruining the opportunity for the hapless anglers fishing behind them for months. Greed, bragging rights, whatever the reason, it sucks. Until slot limits of bag limits are modified to keep the rivers from being pillaged, I will continue to have nothing to say. I don't like TU's approach, but theirs makes more sense to me than what goes on on many rivers.


----------



## MERGANZER

What you do with the fish once it is landed determines the mortality in most cases. Sometimes there is nothing you can do and we all hate watching that undersized trout go belly up 30 yards downstream but it happens. I fish flies, spinners and live bait. With live bait i typically cut the line and leave the hook to disslove if the fish has taken it deep so the fish will live. I do see alot of people that will want their hook back rather its laziness or whatever. I also see people land a trout and flop it on the bank in the sand and grass where it sits for a minute or two before they try to release it after all the slime has been dried or rubbed off. The mortality has little to do with fishing tackle or methods and more to do with how one deals withthe actual fish upon landing it IMHO. Now I will sit here and wait to get blasted by those who disagree.

ganzer


----------



## METTLEFISH

If the West Coast people would of protected "their" resource we would not have the Trout & Salmon we do... would "we" divy out our precious eggs or Fish ?... it's a put and take fishery with some wild production, no explosives... no spearing.... now go get em !

Anybody that has read recent S.T.S. issues knows that the Bilogists cant figure out what's what , consistantly.


----------



## toto

The only thing I can really say about this thread, or the gear regs in general is this: Apparantly we are all very passionate about our trout fishing, and fishing overall.

Frankly, I can see both sides of the issue, but the simple fact is, for now at least, it is what it is. Here we have the fly guys calling the bait guys greedy, and we have just the reverse. Who's right? In some, but not all cases, we both are. There are those who will fish everyday and get their limits without concern for the future, and there are those who practice C&R only, which is fine. I stand somewhere in the middle, by that, I'll keep a couple here and there, but not my limit everytime out, even if I do catch my limit. With all things in nature, there is a balancing point, and at some point we need to let the experts decide what is that balancing point. The experts in this case are the biologists of the state, those that are knowledgable about sustainability, and just how many fish a certain river can handle.

Its the same way with the deer population as well, there is a carrying point for all habitat. Can we help that along on our rivers/streams, yes we can, to a certain degree, but there still has to be an ample amount of forage for any animal to survive. To me, that should be the criteria for any rules and regulations, and only that. The problem is, when you have certain individuals get in front of a room of people and make statements such as "bait fishermen are slobs", then what would one expect? Do you think bait fishermen are going to take that lightly? The answer is no, and rightfully so. Those are the type of things that separate these issues, and its a shame. We all should care about our resources, and we should step back and allow the biologists to decide whats needed or not needed. 

The simple fact is this, we all deserve to have a fine trout fishery, but at the same time, we all need to have a voice in some of the decisions. For example, I am a firm believer that if we are to have 200 miles of restricted waters, the state should not plant fish in those areas. The reasoning, to me is simple, its tax monies, and license fees that pay for this, and we all pay the same license fees, and we all pay taxes, therefore it makes sense to me that these stockings should only be done in totally public waters. Either that, or, the restricted waters should have another source of income, such as I stated earlier that those fishing these areas, should pay a separate fee to fish there. That number is arbitrary at this point, but in example, if a person wants to fish a flies only section, go to a check in station and buy a seperate permit, there is no reason that I should pay for the trout in those waters, if I'm never going to use it.

The bottom is, this division amongst us is exactly what PETA and others want to see. They win, and we all lose, is that what you want? Shouldn't we all be fighting for what we believe without dividing us entirely? There has to be another way, or this could go in ways that one side, or the other, will not like. I like to call it unintended consequences, and those consequences can be rather far reaching, and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen necessarily, but at the same time, the name calling, and pointing fingers really needs to stop, and I'll be the first one to say I'm guilty to a degree as well, but it won't happen again. 

I am only trying to bring reason to the argument, and yes, I have my own opinions, and I'll keep them. But that opinion does not include the "raping" of the resource as others have called it, that too, is uncalled for.


Merganzer, you posted while I was typing this, but, and this will amaze you, I have to agree with you 100%. I'm not sure about the hook left though, I've read studies on that, and honestly, I can't remember what they said. But its better than trying to jerk the hook out and expecting the fish to survive, as in doing it that why, they won't. Surprise, but that was actually a good post.


----------



## fishinDon

ESOX said:


> Ralfs comments strike very close to home with me, and his line of thinking is precisely why I have been very quiet on the issue the past couple of months.It has come to me that a lot of the guys clamoring for no gear regs are the same accomplished fishermen that will shamelessly tell me that they never fish any stretch of river more than once a season. That's because a group of good meat anglers can totally rape a stretch of river, leaving it laying wimpering in it's banks devoid of any sizeable trout for a year. I get the impression their desire for no gear regulations is just to open up more miles of river for them to shamelessly pillage, ruining the opportunity for the hapless anglers fishing behind them for months. Greed, bragging rights, whatever the reason, it sucks. Until slot limits of bag limits are modified to keep the rivers from being pillaged, I will continue to have nothing to say. I don't like TU's approach, but theirs makes more sense to me than what goes on on many rivers.


Esox,
Thank you for your reply as well, it's good to know the concerns of some of the fly fishermen that are opposed to gear restrictions, but fearful of the harvest. A very valid talking point...so this brings me to my next question. What level, if any, are the fly guys comfortable with for a harvest? I only take a handful of fish each year - mostly brookies, but I'm just curious as to the general attitudes out there. 
Thanks,
Don


----------



## Shoeman

Don, I know some very good trout fishermen and to say that the Biologists have a handle on the population with set limits, seems hard to fathom, since these waters are not monitored on a regular basis. Take certain sections of the Middle Au Sable, although quite large, I'd bet my lucky hat that a handful of these proficient anglers could put a huge dent in the fish population in a months time.


----------



## doogie mac

fishinDon said:


> Esox,
> Thank you for your reply as well, it's good to know the concerns of some of the fly fishermen that are opposed to gear restrictions, but fearful of the harvest. A very valid talking point...so this brings me to my next question. What level, if any, are the fly guys comfortable with for a harvest? I only take a handful of fish each year - mostly brookies, but I'm just curious as to the general attitudes out there.
> Thanks,
> Don


 I'll keep a couple of brookies for the pan,but not too often.My opinion is you gotta practically eat them fresh,otherwise its a waste. Frozen brookies just doesnt do it for me. 
Thinking about putting my cast iron skillet in the back pouch of my vest opening day!!!:lol:


----------



## Ranger Ray

It has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with numbers. Lets get back to the facts.




> Dexter said the added flies-only water for the Pere Marquette was a compromise to address social-economic concerns rather than biological. He agrees that it is some of the best water in the state. DNRE staff initially said they would not recommend any gear restrictions for the river.
> 
> On the PM, there is no biological justification, Dexter said. We evaluate the biology and social and economic forces in place. If there is a strong biological reason do something to protect a population, we wont even ask peoples opinion, we will just do it. Thats our job


So we see, if its biological they won't even ask you what you think.


----------



## Flyfisher

Shoeman said:


> Prime example is some old fart on the Mo. He's out every day, gets his limit and gives them away at the launch. WTH??? I don't think C&R ever enters his mind. OK, it is a put and take fishery, but why the greed? I can see someone that only fishes a few times a year taking his limit, but not guys that fish 3-5 days a week just to prove they can. It's a waste.


As you probably already know, the Muskegon is a heavily stocked put and take stream with thermal pollution issues. While the new bubbler may mitigate some of the issues, looking at the temp charts tells me that the river still reaches lethal levels on a fairly regular basis over the summer. Sure, fish that find spring seeps, deep pools, cold tribs, or the aerated water near the dam do hold over but I would venture to guess that of the 100,000+ rainbow and brown trout that are stocked annually, more die of natural causes than on the stringer of that one angler. I also wonder about the fish that are caught and released during the warmer months? Do they survive the stress of being fought, handled, and released into 70+ degree water, or do they simply become turtle food? 

While I don't agree, at all, with keeping fish for the sole purpose of keeping fish this seems like an extreme instance with one individual. Again, not fair to lump the rest of baitfishermen in with a guy that appears to "rape the resource". 

As far as staying out of this forum, that is your choice. Its doubtful you will find many converts into the great sport of flyfishing. I've been there and done that over the last 20 years. I still fly fish but not with the same fervor I used to 10 years ago. I still mostly practice voluntary catch and release as well. And if given a choice between repealing "gear restrictions" as opposed to "no kill" regulations, I undoubtably would like to see "gear restrictions" go first. I say this in that I disagree with both but would much rather have fair and equal access to trout streams even if that means I have to release my fish. 

And to expand on a topic brought up here by another member. Why are there gear restrictions on the Au Sable River below Mio? There are more than 72,000 trout stocked there annually on a river like the Muskegon in that there is a dam and reservoir that significantly contributes to warming the river. The bubbler system is a small bandage on a gaping wound. Sure, I can agree on reduced creel limits if the system has been demonstrated to produce trophy fish, which I believe it does, but once again we are duped by the exclusion of bait.

Perhaps Toto is right, maybe special regulation (gear restricted) streams and rivers should require an additional "stamp" for license holders. If the state is going to stock 72,000 fish and restrict access to bait anglers, perhaps those anglers should pay a premium for the privilege to fish those special waters?


----------



## fishinDon

Shoeman said:


> Don, I know some very good trout fishermen and to say that the Biologists have a handle on the population with set limits, seems hard to fathom, since these waters are not monitored on a regular basis. Take certain sections of the Middle Au Sable, although quite large, I'd bet my lucky hat that a handful of these proficient anglers could put a huge dent in the fish population in a months time.


I think you are right Ralph, if a group of very proficient anglers made it their mission to "fish out" a stretch of river, they could probably do so over the course of a month, or at least in the summer season. By fish out, I mean that a pretty decent percentage of the legal sized trout would eventually be removed, which would then result in decreased angling "enjoyment" because most fisherman would have a very difficult time catching a legal sized trout. Of course this would be very high algling pressure on the system. 

That's why I think the bag limit and size limits on a given stream or river should very closely mirror angling pressure. Where pressure is high, size limits may need to be increased and bag limits may need to be lowered, where pressure is low, you could literally remove bag and size limits and it wouldn't matter. Bryan Burroughs actually raised this issue at the Coldwater Regs Meeting. 

The problem with this is knowing what the pressure is. The best way is obviously to do a creel survey on the stream in question. Of course those are expensive, and the DNR's funding is steadily decreasing. At this point we learned at the coldwater meeting that the DNR is only doing Creel Surveys on two "at large" rivers each year. Because the DNR is obligated to do creel surveys at a bunch of different ports due to the treaties signed in the 1800's. All of the DNR's resources are going to continued creel surveys at those ports to meet those obligations...

To further confound the issue, some Rivers, like the Mo or the Huron are essentially put and take fisheries (tons of stocking, very little survival), so you also have to consider that. 

Also, the DNR is under tremendous pressure to further simplify the trout regs, and in my scenario above, it would obviously result in at least as much complication as we have now if not more. 

My take away - the DNR has a difficult job. 

Point is, in an ideal world we'd know pressure and we could tailor regs to match it, in reality we won't know that in almost every case, so the DNR has to make best guesses based on the information they do have. It's not perfect science, but then science, by definition is never perfect, since you can never control every variable. You have to go with the best information available and make the best decision for the fish and the fishermen.

Don


----------



## fisheater

Hello, I just registered for GLFSA, I was also in the camp that figured flies only guys needed their own place, but now that more water is being added, I believe this is more of a social issue than biological.

I am glad to see an organization started that will do good work that is not dominated by the fly guys. I once helped out for a day on a TU project, and well I commend the dedication of these men, I disagreed with many of their views.

I have upset many fly fishermen over the years by keeping a limit of trout, but I do not get out very often for trout. I doubt I have killed and eaten more than 15 trout in any season, usually about 10. If I do that on 2 or 3 trips, rather than a dozen, what difference does that make? If the resource is not bountiful enough for me to take 10 trout, I do not believe the problem is fishing pressure. I do know that the condensending looks and speeches I get from fly guys is not appreciated.

I would also like to comment on the nav streams. I once waded a stream in Oakland Co. It was an exploratory mission. The fishing was not special, but as I rounded the bend two Oakland Co Deputies were waiting for me. They were planning on taking me to jail, not just giving me a ticket. I told them that I believed I was acting within my legal rights, but really did not want the expense and time of proving them. They let me on my way about twenty minutes later, advising me if I was ever on that water again, I would go to jail. I do know from radio conversation I heard, the complaintant was politically conected. The point I am making is unless one has the means and desire to push these issues in the courts, a little discreation will save a lot of problems.

I would like to finish by thanking the TU guys for all their work on stream improvement. I will respectfully disagree on tackle, but the work they have done for the resource has benefited all.

Sorry TU guys, one final question. Why is it alright for charter boats to target steelhead when they congregate, but if I want to keep one or two, I'm killing a resource??? It grinds me to no end, but maybe someone can tell me where my thinking is flawed


----------



## The Downstream Drift

fisheater said:


> Sorry TU guys, one final question. Why is it alright for charter boats to target steelhead when they congregate, but if I want to keep one or two, I'm killing a resource??? It grinds me to no end, but maybe someone can tell me where my thinking is flawed


Well, as one of the TU guys still left in these discussions I'll give you my own thoughts on this. Remember, these are my opinions, not TU as a whole. 

In my opinion the charter boats that stack up fish should be held to the same limits as the river river guys. And they should be looked at in the same regard as the river guys. But it happens all to often that a guy complains about someone killing a steelhead in a river but then goes out the next weekend and ropes up his limit with a charter. There seems to be a huge double standard here and it seems to occur alot on the rivers with very little (if any) natural reproduction.

Personally I would like to see our fisheries biologists work to help set some different regulations on our natural reproduction streams. Perhaps a closed season during the spawn. 

On the flip side of this though, rivers that see limited reproduction (i.e. the Clinton in my area) should not see any changes in creel limit. While I do not agree with the "put and take" fishery theory here, this is obviously a "put and grow" fishery. Natural reproduction does not occur in the Clinton until some fish make it all the way into Paint Creek. And those numbers are very low. Therefore, protecting spawning fish simply doesn't make sense if the fry will not survive the warm summer temps and low summer flow rates anyways.

I guess this really doesn't answer your question but, in my opinion, our fisheries biologist have set creel limits with biological science in mind. For the most part social science does not play into these regs. Because of this I believe that if the biologists thought the charters were hurting the populations they would change things. 

I find it to be a change is the ethics among steelhead fisherman. Today if you were to put a steelhead on a stringer 75% of the guys around you would look down on you for it. But 30 years ago those same 75% would have pushed you in the river for releasing the same fish. Isn't it funny how things change over time?


----------



## fisheater

Downstream, I am in your area, and your opinion on keeping steelies in the Clinton does matter to me. I am pretty sure stealie smolts were released in Auburn Hills last year. I base this on watching guys target small 4" to 6" rainbows in riffles last year, they had those bigger markings running down the center of the sides that I have associated with steelhead smolts (could be wrong there) I didn't see anything on the DNR website about rainbow releases, they are much smaller than what Auburn Hills releases.

I thought as water temps warmed these fish would drop downstream until they got to LSC. Please correct me if I am wrong. Am I correct in assuming that you would prefer I not keep steelhead on the Clinton? I have not fished it but twice for steelies, although about four years ago I did attempt to find pre-end of seasons walleye downstream of Ryan Rd. 

Judging from what I have read on this site, though the fish are present, the fishing is tough. Would keeping a couple damage what those of you that are working on this fishery, are trying to accomplish? I ask this with respect, although I do not post much, I do respect you based on your posts.

I will add here why I have the screen name fisheater. I am not a game hog, but for me keeping some fish for the table is a very important part of fishing. I fish one river that has an excellent SMB fishery, but I do not target them. I would rather catch the walleye and cats that I enjoy eating. I also release many of those fish, generally just enough for a meal. I have fished the upper Clinton many times for an hour or two for trout, without any intention of keeping fish. I don't have to kill to fish, but fishing for the table is important to me.


----------



## Shoeman

Quoting Don: The DNR has a difficult job

Yeah they do. The only downfall on pressured rivers without having the funds to monitor the fish population properly, they opted to use social science in order reduce pressure, instead of more C&R (but I'm sure that wasn't welcomed).

Who knows, perhaps we need to give them a chance and see if this works. It just might

Mio is a prime example. They get 80+ degrees every summer and the tubers take over, yet it's probably one of the best fisheries for big browns within our State. It has been under gear regs/reduced limit/size restriction since the late 70's


----------



## The Downstream Drift

fisheater said:


> Downstream, I am in your area, and your opinion on keeping steelies in the Clinton does matter to me. I am pretty sure stealie smolts were released in Auburn Hills last year. I base this on watching guys target small 4" to 6" rainbows in riffles last year, they had those bigger markings running down the center of the sides that I have associated with steelhead smolts (could be wrong there) I didn't see anything on the DNR website about rainbow releases, they are much smaller than what Auburn Hills releases.
> 
> I thought as water temps warmed these fish would drop downstream until they got to LSC. Please correct me if I am wrong. Am I correct in assuming that you would prefer I not keep steelhead on the Clinton? I have not fished it but twice for steelies, although about four years ago I did attempt to find pre-end of seasons walleye downstream of Ryan Rd.
> 
> Judging from what I have read on this site, though the fish are present, the fishing is tough. Would keeping a couple damage what those of you that are working on this fishery, are trying to accomplish? I ask this with respect, although I do not post much, I do respect you based on your posts.
> 
> I will add here why I have the screen name fisheater. I am not a game hog, but for me keeping some fish for the table is a very important part of fishing. I fish one river that has an excellent SMB fishery, but I do not target them. I would rather catch the walleye and cats that I enjoy eating. I also release many of those fish, generally just enough for a meal. I have fished the upper Clinton many times for an hour or two for trout, without any intention of keeping fish. I don't have to kill to fish, but fishing for the table is important to me.


There was a huge stocking of rainbow smolts in the Auburn Hills area in 2009 but I do not know of anything in 2010 other than the normal steelhead stocking. The fish planted in 2009 were 4.25" on average so you may still be seeing some of these smaller rainbows up there.

As for keeping fish on the Clinton, my views on this have changed alot over the years. I used to think that keeping fish really hurt the fishery we were trying to build and I too frowned upon people for taking fish out. But now that I have educated myself and worked for a couple of years with our fisheries biologist I realize that there is virtually no natural reproduction in the river. Therefore, playing the C&R game in hopes of building a fishery isn't realistic. At least not until the river can cool down and hold enough water throughout the summer to keep steelhead fry alive.

One thing that surprises me though (and I'm not fond of) is when a guys ropes up every hen he catches. This has nothing to do with the reproduction part of things but more the reaction the males will have when the hen gets pulled out. It never fails, every year I see a guy fishing a run with 8 fish in it, he catches the hen first, strings her up, and then complains about the river because there are no more fish left. IMO, C&R the hens for nothing more than an attractor for more males to come up. Seriously, you can't by bait that is that effective.


----------



## Whit1

The Downstream Drift said:


> The fish planted in 2009 were 4.25" on average so you may still be seeing some of these smaller rainbows up there.


I assume that you are speaking of rainbows that are planted with the hope they'll move downstream (smolt) and into LSC. This is confusing me a bit due to the fact that the DNR......as I've heard them state many times......like to have the rainbows...for steelhead...be at least 10" before planting. At 4" they are too young to smolt....move downstream into bigger (LSC or other Great Lake) where they'll grow into maturity.


----------



## Whit1

ESOX said:


> Ralfs comments strike very close to home with me, and his line of thinking is precisely why I have been very quiet on the issue the past couple of months.It has come to me that a lot of the guys clamoring for no gear regs are the same accomplished fishermen that will shamelessly tell me that they never fish any stretch of river more than once a season. That's because a group of good meat anglers can totally rape a stretch of river, leaving it laying wimpering in it's banks devoid of any sizeable trout for a year. I get the impression their desire for no gear regulations is just to open up more miles of river for them to shamelessly pillage, ruining the opportunity for the hapless anglers fishing behind them for months. Greed, bragging rights, whatever the reason, it sucks. Until slot limits of bag limits are modified to keep the rivers from being pillaged, I will continue to have nothing to say. I don't like TU's approach, but theirs makes more sense to me than what goes on on many rivers.



Paul, where in heavens name are you and Ralf coming up with this stuff, at least as far as many of us who are involved in this gear reg thing is concerned? It seems to fit right in into that ill conceived concept that bait angling just about guarantees a full creel at the end of the day. Simply put that idea is totally false and hugely misleading in the context of trout fishing, at least as I've known it for over a 1/2 century. In none of these threads have you guys read anyone saying they want to catch and keep every large fish they catch. We're speaking to and pointing our efforts at gear restrictions that limit....illegally we believe....the use of prime, Blue Ribbon trout waters...the use of certain sections of trout streams. 

We're not talking about a "put and take" fishery and a couple of us are old enough to have experienced that trout management program. We're talking about, basically wild trout that were not planted and if they were they've been in the stream long enough to adjust to their new surroundings. Those that don't are taken out in short order by a wide variety of predators.

As you know I've spend a lot of time in my trout fishing years.....having been at it since 1955......and I have not seen the pillaging that you, Ralf, and others are talking about. I'm not speaking of salmon and steelheads, but rather upland stream trout. This message of "pillaging" that you guys are speaking of is, pure and simple, BS and a major smokescreen that has been used over the years by those who would restrict angling that doesn't fit into their scheme of things.

I'm not speaking of a marginal trout water like the Muskegon so calm down Ralf :lol:, I am speaking of prime trout water that some would like to restrict only to those who choose to use a fishing method that fits into a certain niche. I've said many times that if those who would impose gear regs on trout streams by all means to it where it seems (and I use seems very loosely) they would do the most good and that is on marginal trout streams like the Muskegon, the Big South Br. of the PM, the White R. below White Cloud. Alas (I do enjoy opportunities to use this word...:lol:...that is NOT where those who push for gear regs want their restrictions applied.


----------



## Whit1

METTLEFISH said:


> If the West Coast people would of protected "their" resource we would not have the Trout & Salmon we do... would "we" divy out our precious eggs or Fish ?... it's a put and take fishery with some wild production, no explosives... no spearing.... now go get em !
> 
> Anybody that has read recent S.T.S. issues knows that the Bilogists cant figure out what's what , consistantly.



Once again young man you speak with little knowledge....unless I am misreading what you're saying and that is possible given how you worded your post. In bringing up the West Coast salmon and steelhead fishing the main culprit to reduced runs of fish are dams and not angling pressure, at least as it was before the dams were put into place.

In Michigan it isn't the dams that are the problem, with the possible exception of the Au Sable R. a fishery with which I'm not familiar. The Muskegon R., from its source all the way to Muskegon is a warm water stream and offers little in the way of trout habitat at least as it concerns brown and rainbow trout that are available for planting. Perhaps there is a strain of fish out there that can readily adapt to the warmer waters of that river; I don't know.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Whit1 said:


> I assume that you are speaking of rainbows that are planted with the hope they'll move downstream (smolt) and into LSC. This is confusing me a bit due to the fact that the DNR......as I've heard them state many times......like to have the rainbows...for steelhead...be at least 10" before planting. At 4" they are too young to smolt....move downstream into bigger (LSC or other Great Lake) where they'll grow into maturity.


Whit... The stocking I referenced here was actually an additional stocking of rainbows. These fish were actually leftover musky feed from the Wolf Lake Hatchery that would have "went to waste" due to the very limited number of musky in the hatchery that year. Our area's fisheries biologist had them put in the Clinton River watershed in two different locations. They were on average 4.25". These fish were not meant to be migratory fish. They have actually taken hold and some of the fish have responded quite well to the river. Even after last summer's extremely warm water temps they are still holding on. Who would have thought, a trout fishery in the main branch of the Clinton?

You mentioned the steelhead stocking being at least ten inches. I haven't heard of this before. Every year when we get our normal steelhead stocking the fish put in are all sub-legal fish. There might be the occasional 10" fish in there but it is rare. Most of them are between 6" and 8".


----------



## fisheater

Downstream, we do have a trout fishery on the mainstream Clinton. The state plants browns in two locations every year, they are planted just under 8" in length. I have caught browns up to 20" in length, and have released them also, as I believe these to be exceptional fish. The greater trouble in the upper Clinton, is that it is starved for water in July and August. I believe this is because of dams that control lake levels that feed the upper Clinton. The Oakland Co drain commissioner set these levels in the '50's and early '60's. There is a hole on the river where an underground culvert feeds the river that stacks with trout every early July when low water persists. These fish are slaughtered by local unskilled fishermen that wouldn't stand much chance of catching trout in normal conditions. I years with good water levels the rainbows stocked by the City of Auburn Hills are available all the way to the next planting. The past three years that has not been the case, although dilligent work can find rainbows down to the dam at Yates. I have encountered trout anglers that catch a rainbow in Rochester and believe these to be fish that have survived more than a season in the river, because it may be up to 16" long. This is most likely untrue as Auburn Hills plants about 700 rainbows yearly. This is a plant of 12' to 16" fish. This plant occurs the second weekend in June, right before the water level tends to drop. The State's brown plants are in early April, and I know that some of these fish do survive several seasons. I have reports from about the only guy I bump into, that outfishes me on an everytime basis, that there are an occassional brook trout in the system. This guy is a fish hog, keeps more than the limit, and knowledgable. While I wish he would get some ethics, I have no reason to believe he is lying about the brook trout. He claims to catch at least one a season, and thankfully even he releases these fish. The other problem with the upper Clinton is the storm run-off, which turns the river into a torrent, only to quickly fall after a storm event. The Clinton at one time is reported to have had a population of Crawford Trout (grayling) if the run-off, and the dams were eliminated, I believe it would be the jewel of Oakland Co, IMHO


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Fisheater... Let's move this conversation on the Clinton to PM's so that we do not continue to hi-jack this gear restriction thread.


----------



## toto

Fishin Don, help me if I'm wrong here, but by your above post, it appears to me that you have/are changing your mind on the gear regs issue. The issue is still the same as it was in the beginning, nothing has changed. Just tell me where you stand on the issue now, plainly, so we can all understand.


----------



## fishinDon

Nope, haven't changed my mind. Gear Restrictions - we don't need 'em. 

Limits, both size and bag, are separate discussion topics and need to be addressed as such.
Don


----------



## toto

Bag limits would be fine, size limits would be fine, I would still like to see the data though that anything else is needed. The bottom line is, we disagree one way or the other, there has to be some resolution to this argument, and it needs to be based on reality, not opinions or emotions.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Boy is this thread a study in the psychology of "social regulations." I think we have a DNR that thinks "social regulation" and bringing groups together is going to result in us getting along. Nothing can be further from the truth. Not because I say so, LOOK AT ALL THESE THREADS. HELLO! We will never all get along and see things the same. We never have been this divided because we weren't involved in the decisions, the DNR made them. Look at QDM and the deer issue, trappers and houndsmen. Now the spearing and fishing groups. What do all these contentious issues have in common, the introduction of "social regulations." I have been a member 8 years and I never would have in my wildest dreams thought I would see Whit and Shoeman at odds with each other over trout fishing. This is the danger of "social regulation." Is all I can do is repeat myself for the 100th time, stop it now, stop it before its to late. We will all be at each others throats before its over, mark my word. Go back to biology. You know, where "if its biological we wont even ask you." That gets no argument from me. Imagine that, no argument.


----------



## Shoeman

toto said:


> Fishin Don, help me if I'm wrong here, but by your above post, it appears to me that you have/are changing your mind on the gear regs issue. The issue is still the same as it was in the beginning, nothing has changed. Just tell me where you stand on the issue now, plainly, so we can all understand.


What are you worried? Don't you have grouper and snook issues down there? 

I can appreciate Don's way of looking at other view points without getting defensive. Pretty smart on his part if he will represent the masses in the future. There's more to trout fishing besides filling ice boxes

Some of you guys are getting very defensive. Almost like a paranoia.


----------



## Flyfisher

I've been saying this all along, *people need to separate *the gear restriction and size/bag limit issues. 

Unfortunately, the gear reg proponents and DNR often bundle the two as a package to further justify gear regs. Gear regs alone make little or no difference by themselves and are strictly a social regulation. Size/bag limits are a scientific management tool that can be used to mazimize a fishery based on its fishing pressure, carrying capacity, water quality and abundance of suitable habitat. As some have mentioned, there are remote rivers in Michigan that receive such little pressure that size/bag limits aren't even necessary to protect self-sustaining wild fisheries.


----------



## toto

Yeah ralf, there are problems with snook and grouper down here, the difference is, they are using science to dictate the changes. For example, at least over here, you can't keep snook, and its been that way for about a year now. The reason is, there was a huge die off last year due to the cold weather we had. As for the grouper, well thats a protection issue too, I'm not sure of the in and outs of it, but its for the protection of the species. Can't really tell you if they are doing well or not, and it depends on what species of grouper you mean. Are you talking goliath grouper, then yes they need some protection for a little while longer, but at this point they are looking at the condition of the fish, to see if its needed any longer.

I'm not paranoid in the least, I'm pretty happy with what I see this ending up to be, and time will tell the story.

This brings up something from the past, you (ralf) ridiculed me for wanting to protect the steelhead on the Platte. You're statement, quoting verbatim was, "toto is probably just trying to protect his own back yard" or something to that effect. Of course I was, and now you can see why, the steelhead numbers on the Platte are very low now, compared to what they were then, so I quess I was paranoid. In fact, the numbers are so low, beginning this spring, they will plant steel in the Platte, the first time in decades they've had to do that. Remember, the Platte was one of two rivers in Michigan that were known as indicator streams, and the indicators say they ain't doin too well. If thats paranoia, then so be it, but at least I stick to what I believe. I haven't used any selfish ideals to push my point, my point was, is, and will remain the fairness for every person who chooses to fish, and if the data can't prove that it needs to be overly protected,than it shouldn't be so. 

Mark my words, if this allowed to stand (new gear regs) the fly guys will push for more and more, and the use of spinners or hardware will eventually be overturned too. But hey, fly fishing is some sort of closeness to God, so if thats true, than by all means, fly fish away. As for me, I only want what I'm entitled to, and that isn't necessarily a limit of fish everyday, I can't use that much fish, and I know that. I couldn't even tell you how many trout, and steelhead I've caught and released over the years, but I can say its probably in the hundreds, maybe more, who cares, all I can say is its the majority.

Trust me ralf, we haven't begun to fight yet. But when we do, you'll be amazed, and I certainly hope you'll see our point to all of this. Let me ask you this, would you pay a special permit fee to fish these waters? Let me quess, you'll say no I wouldn't. Why not? Because you'll say there are lots of places to fish besides the flies only, or gear restricted waters, and that sir, is exactly the point.


----------



## Flyfisher

Shoeman said:


> damn this is ugly... :help:


And you keep adding fuel to the fire. Some of these comments are probably best served through email or PM. Once again, this thread has derailed.


----------



## toto

Yeah ralf it is ugly, and frankly I hate it. Read your PM and you'll suddenly see why I'm digging in my heels from Ft. Myers. I think I'll just back away from this one, I've said all I need to say.:sad:


----------



## Shoeman

No, there's too much truth in that.

Everyone reads these boards. Even the opposition. If a dose of reality like mine hits home, just think how the "others" feed on that


----------



## Ranger Ray

Everyone feeds on it. Everyone thinking they have "reality" on their side.


----------



## Shoeman

Flyfisher said:


> And you keep adding fuel to the fire. Some of these comments are probably best served through email or PM. Once again, this thread has derailed.


You're right. I deleted it.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Flyfisher... pick up a Websters...& inlighten yourself. When I am under the Bridge... I cast flies on a spinning reel. No flailing for me ! & I can fish all flies only water with a spinning reel.


----------



## toto

thank you ralf.


----------



## Flyfisher

METTLEFISH said:


> Flyfisher... pick up a Websters...& *inlighten* yourself.


:lol: Oh, the irony!



METTLEFISH said:


> When I am under the Bridge... I cast flies on a spinning reel. No flailing for me ! & I can fish all flies only water with a spinning reel.


Good for you! I have done the same with centerpin and baitcasting gear. And nobody denies your point. Fact is, there are places that bait, or even single hook artifical lures, cannot be used due to strictly to social regulations. In the big picture, mortality due to bait fishing is neglible when put in context with overall mortality due to other factors.


----------



## METTLEFISH

What about mortality studies when using lite line, even with flies. Playing fish beyond their capability to recover due to water temps. disolved oxygen & matabolism rates. Fish "played" in such a manor most often die, even though they swam off after release. These fish are put here to catch, not because their natal waters are forever gone and they face extinction. If I one day decide to be a "purist" I'll get in the horse drawn wagon and head west, use bamboo rods, wooden reels and horse hair lines with bone hooks. Our (all inclusive) license dollars pay for these fish, that anybody is descriminated against is wrong !


----------



## Flyfisher

METTLEFISH said:


> What about mortality studies when using lite line, even with flies. Playing fish beyond their capability to recover due to water temps. disolved oxygen & matabolism rates. Fish "played" in such a manor most often die, even though they swam off after release. These fish are put here to catch, not because their natal waters are forever gone and they face extinction. If I one day decide to be a "purist" I'll get in the horse drawn wagon and head west, use bamboo rods, wooden reels and horse hair lines with bone hooks. Our (all inclusive) license dollars pay for these fish, that anybody is descriminated against is wrong !


If I understand you correctly,you are opposed to gear restrictions? If so, why are you content simply using flies with your spinning tackle when bait could be ultimately more effective?


----------



## MERGANZER

I guess the point is, if you dont like it then go to the DNRE and the NRC and get meetings scheduled to change the regs. As the pro baiting people have done. I see it as a real unimportant thing due to all the miles of quality trout streams we have but at the same time if you change it so be it. I don't see why you can't but hey its up to you guys that are upset at this point. Good Luck in your efforts if you push hard enough things will change.

ganzer


----------

