# Gear Restrictions and the powers that be!



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Since Thousandcasts is talking about compromise and making us aware of the fact he is now a power broker and in serious discussions with the DNRE including Kelly Smith and Jim Dexter we need to examine what is going on. Perhaps this discussion will give many of you who doubt the way politics work within the DNRE get done.

Mondrella, Fly Fisher, J Randall, Hutchens Guide service (Thousandcast) and Fishing Don attended the last NRC meeting and as a result were asked to meet in private with Mr. Dexter and Mr. Smith to discuss a compromise. They were asked not to mention the meeting to the rest of you because I suppose the details were to controversial or sensitive. This is the way they always do it.

Here is the history. The field staff was asked by Director Kelly Smith to examine the gear restriction issue from a scientific or biological point of view and when they issued the report for the PM they recommended no changes in gear restrictions and presented their finding to Mr. Smith and after review they were posted on the DNRE web-site. Meetings were then scheduled to get input from the general fishing public.

At the meeting in Baldwin a majority attending the meeting were against any further gear restrictions not even counting the 300 plus fishermen who signed Kings petition against further gear restrictions. Afterward everyone felt there would be no further gear restrictions on the PM. Then something happened. This part is speculation but further rumors suggest that partisans like Jim Boss and Dick Schwikert who was recently quoted as saying in the Grand Rapids Press that gear restrictions are "good because it moves the meat fishermen away from the upper part of the river." Schwikert said that during the salmon run in the fall and the steelhead run, "the people tend to be slobs." or people like them got state congressmen or senators to lobby the Director Becky Humphries to reexamine the recommendations.

For whatever reason we then began hearing rumors that some gear restrictions would indeed be imposed by the DNRE. Many of us were appalled by the actions of the DNRE as politics began to creep into the decision making process. After the last Natural Resource Commission meeting Michigan Sportsman members mentioned above were asked to meet with Director Smith in Traverse City. Hutch told me about the meeting and wanted me to attend but somehow did not communicate further about the meeting.

Since I have heard a full account of what went on by two of the members who were there and a little conformation from Director Smith. The compromise goes like this; the section of river from Gleasons to Bowman Bridge would be flies only no kill or that from Gleasons Landing to Upper Branch Bridge would be artificial lures only. That is no compromise to me. It is akin to saying you have a choice between giving up a arm and a leg or just your leg?

We all know that Hutch doesnt care about trout and is a self proclaimed egg whore spoke out against it because he fished that section with bait. They countered that they could recommend the use of bait from Sept 30 to the last Saturday in April to which both Thousandscast and Fly Fisher agreed. Thank you for throwing us under the bus guys. Hutch nothing personal and you have never pretended to be anything else. A couple of the others were against that compromise and Mr. Smith suggested another meeting. At this point it should be clear why Director Smith didnt want these negotiations known to the rest of the trout fishing community.

Lets see, Kelly Smith is a fly fisherman, Jim Dexter is a fly fishermen. Almost all those on the cold water committee whos recommendations Mr. Smith took to the public meetings are fly fishermen, guides except for MUCC and the Steelheaders and TU. I suspect the representative from the steelheaders is a fly fisherman and not a bait fisherman. I tried to contact Tony Hanson to find out if they polled their members or just estimated that 50% of their members supported the gear restrictions as they were quoted in the Sunday GR Press.

I wonder how the steelheaders would feel if the DNRE said all anglers in Lake Michigan from Ludington to Arcadia could only fly fish for steelhead. I know it sounds ridiculous but that is the way many of us feel about being excluded from the PM. I had a long conservation with the director of TU and he reiterated that TU was not a fly fishing organization but was involved in the meetings to provide expertise. Mr. Burroughs made some interesting comments like before they recommended gear restrictions all other avenues should be explored. He believe he has scientific studies that show fishing does affect the fishery and is going to provide clear concise easy to understand data for my prevue. He also thought that maybe they should have offered their data and input in the meetings leading up to the final decision, but not taken a public position after I explained a public position for gear restrictions disenfranchises 40% of the non fly fishing members.

Mr. Burroughs also felt that the use of bait during the salmon and steelhead season would have a more detrimental effect than during the regular trout fishing season because there are many more fishermen on the river during salmon and steelhead season and it is this mass of people that threaten the fishery. If what he says is accurate the decision to allow bait during the salmon season is a political one without regard to protecting anything. By the way it was Director Smith that suggested I contact Mr. Burroughs.

I talked to asked Mr. Smith on the telephone yesterday and asked him what the redeeming social value would be gained from more gear restrictions since his own field staff made their recommendation that no more gear restrictions were warranted. Mr. Smith countered that many others disagreed with the DNRE report especially the part that fishing has no noticeable impact on the fishery. I responded by saying that he couldnt possibly saying that some flies only advocates opinion carried the same weight as his own fish biologist? He countered by saying he didnt understand all the science but basically indicated their opinions were important..

Mr. Smith did concede that the flies only advocates were a small minority but told me that sometimes we have to meet the needs of the minority. I always thought we made concessions for minorities because of past discriminatory reasons not a group of rich white guys who want more of our best waters for themselves. How do they rate minority status other than they are a minority in numbers.

In the end Mr. Smith had no good reason in my opinion to support the new regulations. Personally I dont have a problem sharing our rivers with any legal fisherman or woman and I cant even guess why any fly fisherman or woman would have a problem sharing the water with me. Kelly Smith has no reason either, at least no good reason. In fact if you ask you wont even get a good reason why fly fishermen even want a flies only designation. 

Our own Mondrella called Kelly Smith and told him he could not accept the compromise Kelly Smith offered so I suppose Mr. Smith will rely on Fishing Don, Thousandcasts, Fly Fisher to speak for all bait fishermen and women in his recommendation to the NRC. In our converstaion Mr. Smith told me that nothing he could say would change my mind as I was an advocate against any gear restrictions. The truth is that is not accurate. All I wanted was one good compelling reason biological or social to justify the exclusion of tens of thousands of fishermen who will be disenfranchised from more of the best trout waters in our state. Most guys just fish because they love to catch trout and most to take a few home and eat . As one fish biologist told me the other day, you cant stockpile trout. Fifty percent of them die every year and in the end Mr. Smith and I finally agreed on something.

As much as this is abhorrent to me, reluctantly it might be the only way to fight against the special interest, and ideological groups until we can get back to someday allowing the DNR to manage our outdoor resources using sound management principles and with a minimum of political pressure.

We know politics is a big problem because many of the past leaders and professionals from the DNR formed an organization to promote and protect our natural resources scientifically and without politics. They are affiliated with MUCC and are called the Resource Stewards. Google them and read their mission statement. Even without political it is difficult to maintain integrity and is why I refer to them as the Resource Sellouts because as much as they tried they couldnt get past their fly fishing ethical mind set.

Just a reminder Dave Borgenson past DNR assistant fish director retired and current president of the Resource Stewards supported a ban on chumming because he stated fish eggs were a vector for (viral hemorrhagic septicemia) VHS and convinced the rest of the Sellouts to support it and finally convinced the DNRE to implement a law banning chumming. I called my friend Ned who is (was) on the Resource Stewards board to at least question Borgensons position. If chumming was really a threat to our fishery, then support a ban on all eggs not outlaw chumming but allow spawn bags. Ned is a fly fisherman and his ethics tell him chumming is wrong so he used the excuse that he was not a fish expert for not questioning the status quo. 

If they would have been honest and said we are against the practice of chumming because we dont feel it is ethical at least we could have had a debate. Truth is Dave Borgeson has been trying personally to get chumming banned for years, but with little success. To get his way he misused science as an excuse to further his ethical crusade and destroyed the reputation of the Resource Stewards. 

At this point I am not sure we have a chance to win this battle, but Ranger Ray and I are going to take our best shot at the next NRC meeting. Even if we lose, the war has just begun.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Sorry Ray, but that post is about 50% accurate at best.


----------



## MstrAngle (Feb 28, 2010)

Its crazy how people get together and fight over something that aint theirs to begin with!


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

I believe that gear restrictions should be on a science based, stream need only; nothing else. If it benefits the water and it's inhabitants, then that seems fair and logical. Doing it because it's "popular" with a select group of people should never be used as a factor to implement any regs. Some things seem to be getting a bit ridiculous as far as natural resources are concerned lately. It should be about the fishery, not the fishing.

I fish bait a lot, more then anything else. I throw plugs/hardware and drift flies as well. All my fishing is for my own fun/benefit, so whatever I feel like fishing on any given day is just my own choice at the time. I love hooking/fighting fish on fly tackle. I'll often use mono and a fly rig to drift skein/bags for kings or bags, waxies, crawlers for steelhead. I also run flies for steelhead, usually with a floating line though. I just drift small bugs and eggs in pockets and pools. I don't think of myself as a fly fisherman or even a "bait guy", I'm just a dude on the river who likes to fish. Thats how it should be, the guy fishing _chooses_ what he wants to fish with. It's all fun man, people get way to worked up and ridiculous about fishing these days.


----------



## foxfire69 (Sep 10, 2006)

Ditto! Well stated AS!


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

Ditto what AS said.... Its crazy how this whole thing has gotten so out of hand. I just wanna fish, thats all. Fly, spinner, rapala, worm, spawn, whatever it takes to fight a fish. 

I can almost guarantee that everyone starts out as worm dunkers, or bait fisherman. What causes people to change and be so single minded over time is still a mystery to me. And i dont think i'll ever get it


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

How did the group representing bait fishermen get picked? Was the meeting in violation of the open meetings act?


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

> guides except for MUCC and the Steelheaders


I am a member of Steelheaders. I would hope they didn't endorse fly's only water. Heck, no one in my chapter knew about the proposed regulations until I informed them. If the main body is endorsing them, I guess its time for me to drop out. I will be asking for the official stance next week.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

First off, Ray, *I did NOT attend any meetings*. Joe (*Phly Phisher*) would be the "guilty" party. Second, from my understanding, you are off base but thanks for pulling the false fire alarm to rally the troops. I am pleased that Steve, Don, and Joe have taken their time to try and work with the other sportsmans groups. Please leave my "handle" out of your rants.


----------



## Fishbone (Oct 10, 2008)

:chillin:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Flyfisher said:


> Second, from my understanding, you are off base but thanks for pulling the false fire alarm to rally the troops. I am pleased that Steve, Don, and Joe have taken their time to try and work with the other sportsmans groups. .


Exactly! I can't agree with you more Flyfisher. These guys deserve all the thanks we can give them. Thanks for stepping up to the plate here guys.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Let's get this clarified to allay any second guessing. FishinDon, Joe and John were asked to participate directly as a result of their participation in the October NRC meeting. At that meeting, in front of the NRC, they represented their opinions as a concerned fisherman, and a resident of MI. To my memory, from what I heard, in no way did they state they represented any organized group. Period. It seems to me the DNRE would desparately like to get some type of balance on the Coldwater Committee.
With that in mind, what chartered organization was out there representing the interests of MI gear/bait fishermen? Anyone? 

Ranger Ray, as you probably know, there was no representatives of MSSFA that had spoken at the October meeting. Since the original 5-5-10 draft the proposed gear regulations did not affect rivers that received lake run fish, I thought it logical they would not get involved. However, since the published 9-2-10 amended draft that now included the PM and hinted at more, I wanted to hear their stance on the matter. Keep in mind I am not a current member of MSSFA. However, despite this, I had expressly sent an email to the MSSFA BOD back in September asking for their opinion regarding the gear regulations. They wrote me back saying they had not taken a stance one way or another because there hadn't been too much (if any) concerns voiced by their membership. They requested my thoughts on the matter, to which I responded. Since my email, I have not heard back.

Please, let's not kick the guys that had made plenty of sacrifices and commitment to try and get things changed. Rather, if you are dissatisfied with what is being proposed, I would emphatically suggest getting out to the 11-4-10 NRC meeting, as Ranger Ray and Splitshot said they will be doing, and get what at this time will be your 3 minutes in. Let's keep this real, each one of us represents our own special interests. And until, if ever, there is an established organization out there to represent the interests of anglers who believe in unfettered access, don't look any further than the mirror if you don't like what's happening.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

REG said:


> Let's get this clarified to allay any second guessing. FishinDon, Joe and John were asked to participate directly as a result of their participation in the October NRC meeting.


This would be correct.



REG said:


> At that meeting, in front of the NRC, they represented their opinions as a concerned fisherman, and a resident of MI. To my memory, from what I heard, in no way did they state they represented any organized group.
> Period.


This is also correct.



REG said:


> It seems to me the DNRE would desparately like to get some type of balance on the Coldwater Committee.


I also believe this is correct.




REG said:


> With that in mind, what chartered organization was out there representing the interests of MI gear/bait fishermen? Anyone?


This is would be "There isn't any."



REG said:


> Please, let's not kick the guys that had made plenty of sacrifices and commitment to try and get things changed. Rather, if you are dissatisfied with what is being proposed, I would emphatically suggest getting out to the 11-4-10 NRC meeting, as Ranger Ray and Splitshot said they will be doing, and get what at this time will be your 3 minutes in. Let's keep this real, each one of us represents our own special interests. And until, if ever, there is an established organization out there to represent the interests of anglers who believe in unfettered access, don't look any further than the mirror if you don't like what's happening.


Absolutely!

When, in late summer, it became very apparent that some new gear regs were going to applied to the PM Fishdon, through these forums, began to organize a group that would attempt to fight new regs. Via PMs and email he contacted a large number of MS members asking if they'd like to join and help out. The response was encouraging, but yet disappointing. He never heard from almost 1/2 of those contacted including some who are now protesting a possible modification of the regs and who feel, apparently that the guys who were asked to be on the workgroup, are selling them down the river.........pun intended. 

The guys, all MS members, have decided to put in their time, effort, and yes money....travel expenses...to provide a voice for the trout angler who feel that gear regs are a detriment to the enjoyment of some of MI's top quality trout streams.

Over the past month+ FishingDon and T'casts have done the grunt work in putting together a group of anglers who have gotten the ear of the DNR. The DNR knows that science does not support the application of new gear regs and they also know that gear regs, including Flies Only do not do what their proponents claim and that includes the section of the Little Manistee R. that is dedicated to Flies Only.

The original workgroup consisted of
Michigan Resource Stewards (who, by the way, did NOT agree with the proposed regs on the PM)
*Michigan* Steelhead and Salmon Fisherman's Association
*Michigan River* Guides Association (naturally)
*Trout* Unlimited
*Pere Marquette* Watershed Council 
*Anglers *of the AuSable
*Federation of Fly Fishers* (of some bait anglers are "slobs" fame)
*AuSable Big* Water Preservation Society

If you haven't quessed I'll make it easy for you. Most of these groups are pro gear (some especially Flies Only) advocates.

Although they weren't represented on the above group you might as well toss in MUCC. They are a group representing sportsmen's and women's clubs throughout the state. "Bait Anglers of Michigan" is not in existance so that group is out as far as MUCC is concerned. MUCC has, apparently, spoken out in favor of the propopsed new gear regs. I have no idea how they did this. I don't know what their policy is concerning gear regs. Perhaps it's a blanket support of such regulations. Can you enlighten us on it Tony...if you're reading?

As for any "violation" of the open meetings act I had to chuckle out loud when I read this. The very same thing was said/asked two years ago......and in indignant anger.......about a group of guys and gals who were learning how to use the system in order to get the state to ease crossbow regulations (Don, again you see the parallels between these two issues that I spoke to you about....:lol.

An opportunity was offered, through FishinDon and T'casts to come together to fight the proposed new gear regs as well as those already in place. Some took the plunge to help out and others didn't. It is too late to get on the agenda at Nov.'s NRC meeting to have five minutes to speak, but you can try.

If you would like to speak at next week's NRC meeting I would urge you to email DebbieWhipple at: [email protected]. Tell her that you know it's too late to be on the list for five minutes, but if she could fit you in for that length of time you would appreciate it. Also tell her to what you will be speaking about and if five minutes can't be done then you'd like to have three minutes.

When speaking in front of the NRC........or any other noted "powers that be" I urge that you.
*Be prepared* and offer science in an organized manner without rambling on and on.......you'll see eyes glaze over if you do the latter.
*Speak from the heart *and without emotional anger, sarcasm, and indignation. If you choose to ignore this advice and speak with anger, sarcasm, condesending remarks, etc. you'll look like a fool to your listeners.
*Dress for the* occasion. While a suit and tie may be overdoing it a bit raggy jeans and a shirt.......like "just out of the backwoods" offers a poor first....and perhaps only....impression. Dress jeans, golf shirt and sportscoat makes for a nice, and calming, ensemble.
*You may include handouts* for the NRC members. Give these to Debbie before......along with a copy for her.......before the Public Comment portion of the meeting. Simple, to the point handouts that offer some of the science that opposes gear restrictions can be an effective way to add to what you say verbally.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> Mr. Burroughs made some interesting comments like before they recommended gear restrictions all other avenues should be explored. He believe he has scientific studies that show fishing does affect the fishery and is going to provide clear concise easy to understand data for my prevue. He also thought that maybe they should have offered their data and input in the meetings leading up to the final decision, but not taken a public position after I explained a public position for gear restrictions disenfranchises 40% of the non fly fishing members.
> 
> Mr. Burroughs also felt that the use of bait during the salmon and steelhead season would have a more detrimental effect than during the regular trout fishing season because there are many more fishermen on the river during salmon and steelhead season and it is this mass of people that threaten the fishery. If what he says is accurate the decision to allow bait during the salmon season is a political one without regard to protecting anything. By the way it was Director Smith that suggested I contact Mr. Burroughs.
> 
> ...



It is interesting, but not surprising Dr. Burroughs kicked that subject around. Does the figure 33% sound familiar? That was the percentage of trout mortality upon release by bait caught fish. That number was bandied about as gospel as preached from the pulpit to the NRC.

If that sounds familiar, then that seems to be the lynchpin to at least some of the biologic argument. In previous posts, Whit, DD, and myself, at minimum posted some studies that pretty much counter those figures. If anything, it should cast doubt on those inflated numbers as proven.

The studies that I have read observing higher mortality seemed to have a few commonalities...rainbow trout, power bait, and passive (forked stick) bait methods. Hook removal from gut hooked fish also spelled curtains for a high percentage, obviously. If you kick the stick out and have someone have the rod in their hand, the mortality rate goes down significantly. Also, by discarding with the "set the hook at the count of 5", you can also guess what happens to gut hooking.

The Brule River studies I believe best correlate with how I have seen most bait anglers in MI fish. They fished with worms for browns/brooks/rainbows in a stream with similar characteristics to the PM (rainbows likely were steelhead parr and smolts). With rod in hand (active baitfishing), guess what, mortality rates ranged from 2-7% (lowest in Brown Trout and higher for brooks) and that mortality rates also decreased as the size of fish got bigger, which is another point that gear regs are speculated to protect.

I know you steelhead fish. If higher hooking mortality is directly proportional to gut hooking, then how many trout/smolts do you figure you gut hook in the course of steelhead fishing? We set the hook the second we feel a bump or the float disappears as we know how quick steelhead can spit them back out. To the question, if your answer is like mine, it's probably close to zero also.

What I am pointing out are tools. Tools that you can use come 11-4. Use them, please. Got more too. Feel free to ask. 

Hearing what is in the quotations regarding the mass effect concerns, then pairing it with the points made by other gear reg proponents of how gear regs will put more people on the stream and money in everyone's pocket just puts a smirk on my face.

Lastly, another gear reg proponent point you may hear is the "me too" argument. That is, all of these states have gear restricted waters, why not us? I did some checking of a few state regulations. From what I can find in the fishing regulations, I could identify NO flys only water for the state of Montana and California, with it's 9 subspecies of rainbows and cutthroats, had one stream (Slinkard Creek). Yes these states had gear restrictions, but that was mostly hook type (single hook, barbless) or artificial lures, which includes flies. Moreover, in MT, Blue Ribbon trout streams that draw thousands of anglers each year, such as the Yellowstone, Bighorn, Gallatin, and Kootenai had NO gear restrictions, and others, such as the Flathead, had gear restrictions (artificials and maggots) only during the off season. In general, the impetus of gear restrictions for western waters was to protect trout types that were either endangered and/or vulnerable to fishing, ie Cutthroats as the good Dr. Behnke will point out, Bull Trout, and rainbows (perhaps recovering from the effects of Whirling's Disease) in select waters.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

All this over some damn non-native species, appalling...


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I have several concerns over this whole issue, I've stated them before, so I won't do so again. However, there is one point, that to me, doesn't make any sense at all. If the NRC is going to make recommendations based solely on SOCIAL science, do we even need biologists any longer? If that is so, as it appears to be, then the DNR could save quite a bit of money by eliminating biologists , and help balance the budget. I never did understand the theory of the NRC in the first place. How is it, that a committee is formed to give input and suggestions to the DNR on these issues, with no proven biological background, but only their feelings and desires?

Personally, and unfortunately, it appears the DNR/NRC has become nothing more than just another political entity, and to accomplish anything, it appears that we have to play politics with our wildlife. I commend those guys on the new cold water committee, at least they are giving it voice from our side, even though we all hate the politics side of it. The trouble is, the voices that make these decisions are the powers that be, we can only tried to persuade them other wise, and apparantly that is a difficult thing to do. Until, at some point, someone decides to institute a lawsuit for discrimination, this will never be solved, and will most likely become only worse. It should be noted that this is only the first step for these guys, and they trully want up to 500 miles of gear restricted waters, and if we don't make our voice heard now, we will forever be a mute sector of society.

And no boozer, it isn't about salmon, and steelhead, its about your right, my right, or any other law abiding persons right to fish, in ways that have alway been acceptable. This is clearly a way for those that have a social agenda in mind, to circumvent our rights. These rights are established not only the U.S. Constitution, but by the Constitution of the state of Michigan. We have the right to the pursuit of liberty (happiness), but we don't have the right exclude others, any others, to do so.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Are we really going to go down the road of who attended what, spent what, etc..? I think most involved have spent much time and effort on subject.



> When, in late summer, it became very apparent that some new gear regs were going to applied to the PM Fishdon, through these forums, began to organize a group that would attempt to fight new regs. Via PMs and email he contacted a large number of MS members asking if they'd like to join and help out. The response was encouraging, but yet disappointing. He never heard from almost 1/2 of those contacted including some who are now protesting a possible modification of the regs and who feel, apparently that the guys who were asked to be on the workgroup, are selling them down the river.........pun intended.


Well if the fact be known, it was a request to go on Don's email list so he could inform me of what Don was doing. Seeing how I was already involved, I figured I would hear anyway. Not exactly a call to rally.

Anyone involved should be applauded. Including those I vehemently disagree with. Its the American way. Don't confuse this with my right to disagree and engage in debate. Its so easy to just generalize "compromise" as a good thing. Well if someone makes a "compromise" to keep bait fishing on the 2.9 miles and in returns lets them make all of the Muskegon flies only. Don't expect me to pat that person on the back for "compromise". Get the point?

As far as Stealheaders, I know someone contacted our chapter President from TU and asked him to support the special regs. So I am curious to know if some chapters have. I know ours would actually be against it. Its one issue I have ignored but am going to try to get a answer on.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Boozer said:


> All this over some damn non-native species, appalling...


I am with you on that. Steelhead, salmon, browns etc.......who CARES??? They can stock them again, just like they did in the first place, but protect the brookies from the invasives.
Why we need any gear restriction on invasive species is beyond me. Hell, we shoot another invasive, carp with bows. It's just that to some people the trout and salmon are prettier and appeal their artistic side...


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

One mans trash, is another mans smile.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

ESOX said:


> I am with you on that. Steelhead, salmon, browns etc.......who CARES??? They can stock them again, just like they did in the first place, but protect the brookies from the invasives.
> Why we need any gear restriction on invasive species is beyond me. Hell, we shoot another invasive, carp with bows. It's just that to some people the trout and salmon are prettier and appeal their artistic side...


 It appears your use of implying steelhead, salmon and browns is just being vexacious and incorrect.
Here is some examples/definitions of invasive species:
http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/Index.cfm
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/Minn-ANS-program_228819_7.pdf


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Axiom, that definition does not intentionally exclude those that do not fly fish. But it opens the door for the thought process that Blue Ribbon water means fly fishing water. 

Truth be told, most of the 12,500 miles of trout water in the state can be fly fished. And the water that can't be fly fished easily probably can't be fished easily with a spinning rod either. Putting the definition on the Blue Ribbon water that includes "fly casting" sets the stage for a gear specific take over. And this is obviously wrong.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

I just talked to Splitshot on the phone for quite a little while. I told him that I appreciated his follow up post where he stated he supported us for stepping up, etc. 

He and I had a good conversation, and I think we both agree on quite a few things, however we'd don't agree on the best approach. We both understand this and everyone has to do what they feel is right.

Splitshot has said a few things in this thread about me personally, and as far as I can tell everything he said about me is true. 

I'm not hiding from anyone so if anyone wants to speak with me, I'll talk to you, just PM me and I'll make time to speak with you on the phone, same as I have with Splitshot, Ranger Ray and others. 

Splitshot and I are on the same page, except that we prefer a different approach, and that is encouraging.

Don


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Maybe if the gear restrictions go through we should join the fly fishing set. Large groups would be best, I am sure a few of us could mentor those who arent familar with the pm two fly rig. Dont be concerned if you dont have a fly rod, a spinning rod, or a casting rod, even a big lake trolling rod will work. Polorized glasses do seem to part of the dress code. Boats arent required but if you have a drift boat, dry fly boat, canoe, aluminum vee, hell if floats bring it. Dont bother to car pool we can park from gleasons to baldwin. Dont be shy, bring kids, dogs, inlaws, fireworks, alcohol, and especialy music. No one is being excluded, just the worms!


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

toto said:


> Shotgunner, the 500 mile number has been bandied about members of TU as their end goal.
> 
> Based on the way I'm reading your post, you are on the side of pro gear restrictions. If that is so, then give me some biological reason why you should be able to fish a certain area with certain gear, while I cannot using other gear.
> 
> Keep in mind this: If the gear restrictors have 212 miles set aside just for them, where is the 212 equal miles set up for bait fishermen/women??


Toto, is this part of a TU agenda or something quoted from the ranks of it's membership? First mention I've heard of it.. At one time I was a member but that has been many years gone by.. no insider intel here.

Downstream Drift; any elaboration? You appear to be the solitary representative for TU in the NW Rivers Forums. Thanks in advance for any comment.

Toto, you ask the same question that another fella, who may or may not be the moderator, asked me rapidly approaching a one year gone by. My answers still the same.



> From 01-26-1010; I'm still seeing this issue, as it boils down, into more concern about live bait use rather than gear restriction. I'm hickerbilly to the core, farm fed & raised, born on the farm but not fresh off the farm, still on the farm. I just happen to have added fishing flies to the program. The reason this happend was born out of envy for A LOT bigger trout that some people I knew were taking. That was my start. I'm no purist, still fish all methods.. and enjoy them.
> 
> To address your question, I'm not sure I understand 'flies only' waters. The only way they are 'flies only' is that you must fish a fly? Any essence of traditional fly fishing is lost without adhearing to some traditional guidelines.
> 
> ...



It's demeaning statements like below, along with other inaccuracies, that prompt me to reply. Facts I have no problem with.



A Board Member said:


> Bait fishing is all about fair chase and actually is number one when it comes to being ethical. We don't go throw night crawlers to line fish. Our fish bite


Only a percentage of fly fishermen are out there lining fish.. just as there is a percentage of gear guys perpetrating same. I have no clue of accurate percentage of either nor is there any way of obtaining them. It's depressing to even contemplate. Once again I'll employ my line _"either your *legitimate*.. or your not"_ regardless of gear.

As for the 'equal bait only 212' I've already posted in support of on this board multiple places.

Thanks for comments.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

In answer to your question, it was a random member, but I took as the underlying theme, but I could be wrong.

For a little more reading, and please try to show me where the legislature has any say over the fishing rules of this state, you can't find it, because it was in the original APA of 1925, and, as far as I can tell, has never been rescinded. 

MCL 324.99919 its a long read, but breaks down exactly how the DNR/NRC is suppossed to operate.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Shotgunner, while I haven't questioned the executive director of TU on this 500 miles idea I can tell you that within the four chapters I am involved with this number has never been mentioned. 

Earlier this year when the MDNRE asked for public suggestions on gear restricted waters the only number I heard was 212. This was the maxium number of miles we were told the state could regulate as gear restricted. Now the number of 212 was orginially supposed to only be 200 miles but there was a political issue surrounding Johnson Creek in Northville which added the extra 12 miles. (a goofy idea for a creek that is way to flashy to hold trout but thats for another debate)

I will ask the TU executives about this supposed 500 mile target the next time I speak with them. Maybe some of the members here that have spoke with Bryan Burroughs can shed some light on this? Has he indicated this desire for an eventual 500 miles in your conversations?

And yes, I seem to be the only one still holding onto my TU membership even though I strongly oppose some of the gear regulations being talked about. I see TU as an organization that has done so much physical conservation work around the state that I will not let this issue stop my membership. I am, however, very vocal on the fact that I oppose the PM regulations and will continue to be a voice inside of the organization. This, in my opinion, is the only way to get this group to start to use real data to support their positions instead of the old standby thoughts of elitist fly fishermen.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

As I said earlier, it wasn't a stance necessarily by TU, but rather at least by one individual, and its possible it was only said to get my goat, which it didn't.

My one question is this: Where does the legislature have the authority to make these decisions? Can't find anywhere where they can. In the original set up of the Department of Conservation, it was noted that the legislature would be hands off concerning these types of issues. Why? Because how much sense does it make for a legislator to make decisions concerning the welfare of wildlife, with working knowledge thereof??

We could take this discussion off on tangets, but that isn't really where we need to go, save those for another time. At this point in time, its about using bait, vs not using bait that is in play, and my stance stands, and will remain the same.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

The Downstream Drift said:


> Earlier this year when the MDNRE asked for public suggestions on gear restricted waters the only number I heard was 212.


That's only 212 miles too many. In the interest of fairness to all those who pay for trout stamps, wouldn't it seem appropriate to charge a daily fee to all those who utilize all these miles of blue ribbon gear restricted streams? After all they are getting a premium product compared to the lesser waters where heathen bait chuckers are allowed. Guides choosing to make a living on these reserved waters should also be paying a hefty licensing fee for utilizing the peoples resources for their own enrichment. (Actually they should be paying a hefty licensing fee no matter which of the peoples resources they utilizing). In this day and age of tight budgets it only makes sense. Then the money obtained from those two fees can be used for habitat improvement and stocking of the heathen waters.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

toto said:


> My one question is this: Where does the legislature have the authority to make these decisions? Can't find anywhere where they can. In the original set up of the Department of Conservation, it was noted that the legislature would be hands off concerning these types of issues. Why? Because how much sense does it make for a legislator to make decisions concerning the welfare of wildlife, with working knowledge thereof??


At the risk of sounding like I have no idea what I am talking about (which I risk fairly often) does the answer to your question not lie withing the Naural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (Act 451 of 1994)? I was under the assumption that this was what gave the MDNRE the 212 mile number. Perhaps I am wrong, as you and several others are far more well versed in the Michigan Compiled Laws than I am.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I have searched and search, and can find no where that says the legislature can dictate rules for hunting and fishing. The reason I got onto that is, it is spelled out in the MCL's that the DNR will be under the direction of the governor for management purposes only, that being, the head of the Department, and others with the management staff of the department. 

Having done more research, it appears to me that we lost that advantage when the NRC was created, coupled with the raiding of the Michigan Wildlife Trust Fund a few years ago. For a little history, at one time there were two trust funds, one was for the general operation of the DNR, and the other was Wildlife improvement only. The wildlife trust fund was, by law, hands off for the state of Michigan. Rep. Mead was one of the congressmen who drafted a bill to be able to transfer the wildlife monies to the general fund, and, voilla, the money disappeared. Once that happen, it was an easy manuever for the state legislature to start to dictate things such as this present conversation.

If you find the original APA from 1925, you will find that it was stated no legislative action to be taken by the legislature in terms of rules and regulations concerning the wildlife of Michigan.

I'll have to stop here, but maybe later I'll type some points of interest, which will be rehashing, but I think you'll see my point once I do that.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

The Downstream Drift said:


> Shotgunner, while I haven't questioned the executive director of TU on this 500 miles idea I can tell you that within the four chapters I am involved with this number has never been mentioned.
> 
> Earlier this year when the MDNRE asked for public suggestions on gear restricted waters the only number I heard was 212. This was the maxium number of miles we were told the state could regulate as gear restricted. Now the number of 212 was orginially supposed to only be 200 miles but there was a political issue surrounding Johnson Creek in Northville which added the extra 12 miles. (a goofy idea for a creek that is way to flashy to hold trout but thats for another debate)
> 
> ...


Hmmm, Bryan did talk to how they would very much like to avoid the legislature on issues such as this, so, in my mind,..well, I guess one can take that anyway they want. To my memory, he also did talk about how TU was going to be more active in the area of fisheries regulations.

I do agree very much with you regarding their projects, and also applaud their guardianship regarding mining, land and water usage, etc. If they would stop trying to curtail and/or otherwise marginalize the way I prefer to fish, I would have no problem signing up. Don't get me wrong, I can see gear restrictions for the Yellowstone, or trying to protect trout species that are very sensitive to angling efforts, ie cutthroats, or recovering rainbow populations that are just getting past the whirling disease disasters.

I remember back to the late '80's or early 90's where they were trying to attract a broader base. That effort seemed to get shelved by some of the rank and file members, many of who threatened to quit. The inference was pretty much like we can't have "those types" in our organization. Sad, but that's what I remember.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

plugger said:


> Maybe if the gear restrictions go through we should join the fly fishing set. Large groups would be best, I am sure a few of us could mentor those who arent familar with the pm two fly rig. Dont be concerned if you dont have a fly rod, a spinning rod, or a casting rod, even a big lake trolling rod will work. Polorized glasses do seem to part of the dress code. Boats arent required but if you have a drift boat, dry fly boat, canoe, aluminum vee, hell if floats bring it. Dont bother to car pool we can park from gleasons to baldwin. Dont be shy, bring kids, dogs, inlaws, fireworks, alcohol, and especialy music. No one is being excluded, just the worms!


I'll tell you what, all of this crap does not invoke positive motivation to get out there. Fall smallmouth, crappie and walters is starting to look better and better.

That said, anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before we start seeing "gear regs" proposed for smallmouth/coolwater species? Naw, that wouldn't happen.......:smile-mad


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Concerning the phrase/designation Blue Ribbon Trout Streams I was told, on the DNR's Facebook page where I brought it up, that the DNR no longer designates streams a Blue Ribbon. However that may be it is accurate to say that the only streams that advocates of gear restrictions target.........yes, "target" is the correct word.......are those that once carried the designation Blue Ribbon Trout Stream.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> yes, "target" is the correct word


Pesonally, I prefer "Covet".


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

> Social conflicts also occur across different stakeholder groups, e.g., when anti-angling movements, whose ethical underpinnings are reviewed above, lobby against C&R (Arlinghaus, 2005). For example, People for the Ethical Treatement of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) oppose C&R fishing, describing, along with some fish biologists (e.g., Balon, 2000), C&R as entertainment by torturing animals (Quinn, 2001). In Germany, the issue of C&R has created abundant social and legal conflicts, and anglers releasing trophy fish have been assessed monetary fines for cruelty to animals (Arlinghaus, 2007).


When the fly guys yell for all to unite in this fight, I will reply:

I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice fly's only water!


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Interesting quote relative to antifishing groups and C/R, Ray. Could you please give me a reference where to find that? I did make that point in a couple of emails regarding the social issue aspect , but your quote really puts some meat on that skeleton.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

REG said:


> Interesting quote relative to antifishing groups and C/R, Ray. Could you please give me a reference where to find that? I did make that point in a couple of emails regarding the social issue aspect , but your quote really puts some meat on that skeleton.



http://www.carleton.ca/fecpl/pdfs/Arlinghaus et al R fish sci.pdf


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

It is a interesting read to say the least.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Ranger Ray said:


> When the fly guys yell for all to unite in this fight, I will reply:
> 
> I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice fly's only water!


Ray, this may be a little off topic from the original discussion but I feel it needs to be said. We all know that there are organizations that will and are fighting for catch and release angling to stop. We know their motives for this and some of can find a slight degree of similarity in their views. With that being said, even on water that does not have a regulation to mandate C&R many anglers practice this type of recreation. 

The problem here arises when these organizations start the fight against C&R and the "fly guys" call for anglers to speak up. I would assume your response is made in jest, as I believe you understand the implication this sort of fight against any form of angling will have on the entire sport. We all know that if a movement was made to stop C&R and it was successful that these organizations would not stop there. It would be the first victory they would have in eliminating angling as a recreational activity period. 

This is a prime example of the divide the gear restriction issue has caused among Michigan's anglers. It is a nasty side effect of having two different parties wanting to have it "their way" when it comes to fishing. 

If, by chance, the issue of C&R would come up with organizations such as PETA I would hope that all of the anglers in the state would stand up and fight against it. While it may not seem apparent right now, we are all in this as Michigan anglers together. Hence the need for the in-fighting to stop and everyone have the same opportunities afforded to them.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

The Downstream Drift said:


> This is a prime example of the divide the gear restriction issue has caused among Michigan's anglers. It is a nasty side effect of having two different parties wanting to have it "their way" when it comes to fishing.


It was made to drive that exact point home. I don't think the "powers to be" are getting it.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Grass Shrimp,

Please read this again:
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3378848&postcount=12

Here's the deal. At the Oct 7th meeting there were 5 guys who spoke out against the proposed gear regs. Most of the guys who spoke out against the regs related to the Pere Marquette, period. They made a good account of themselves during and after the meeting in discussion with the good Dr.'s Smith and Dexter. As such, they were asked by Dr. Smith to discuss some type of solution for the PM with some of the other key people on the Coldwater Steering Committee. To my knowledge, though he also was not at the meeting, TC was asked essentially due to the Michigan River Anglers Association facebook page, when that was discussed by Don and Joe with Dr. Smith at the time of invite.

This is a general statement on my part here, and doesn't apply just to you, but I would suppose that anyone else who would have spoke up against the regs at the October meeting in a rationale and logical manner, and had been around to discuss the issue with the DNR fisheries admin likely would also have been asked to participate in whatever discussions took place.


So OK, if this "proposal" is indeed true, and you feel a bit cold by this, ask yourself if you would rather have Flys Only down to Bowman, perhaps Art's Only down to Upper Branch, or some other access area all year round. Because I will tell you that without involvement by the guys that are getting booted around here that is what you would have, period. And, just a guess, but if this proposal was getting some type of consideration, just by the fact this thing is getting airplay the way it is, I can see this thing sinking faster than the Titanic as we speak.

On another note on a side subject. Regarding the stated unclear boundry of Gleason's Landing, it wasn't the pro-gear reg public crowd making an issue out it, rather, it was the DNR Fisheries Admin saying it was vague. I think that in of it self is representative what we are up against.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> To my knowledge, though he also was not at the meeting, TC was asked essentially due to the Michigan River Anglers Association facebook page, when that was discussed by Don and Joe with Dr. Smith at the time of invite.


Since I was unable to make that meeting, I'd already had communications with Dr. Smith not only regarding the PM, but also other issues involving the anadromous fisheries. I was invited by Dr. Smith to join the Coldwater Steering Committee and gladly accepted. I am grateful for the opportunity to look at the big picture and be involved with others when it comes to discussing that future and how it pertains to our cold water fisheries. 

People are going to hurl stones and that's fine. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is, I suppose. Yes, I was part of the discussions involving the PM and in the case of that one river, it's a damned if I do, damned if I don't scenario. However, I'd rather be on the side of damned if I DO and be a part of the big picture involving our fisheries, than be on the side of damned if I DON'T and stay on the sidelines where my only voice is b****ing about stuff I don't understand on an internet forum.


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

Hutch, well put. Hope to see you at the clean up this weekend.


----------



## driftfisher (May 1, 2008)

So what 50% of splitshots original post was true and what was false?

What is the exact compromise if any that was discussed? 

I can't say thanks enough to the guys doing all the leg work on this very important issue, but a compromise does seem like slippery slope. 

This issue hits home for me because my son is a very dedicated fly fisher,
not to the point he wont chuck some spawn with his dad once in a while,
but any restriction that stops me from standing in stream fishing next to him because of the method I choose is a bad restriction.

Don't beat me up to bad but that is my opinion and I have written all the officials involved expressing the same, keep up the good fight.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> Since I was unable to make that meeting, I'd already had communications with Dr. Smith not only regarding the PM, but also other issues involving the anadromous fisheries. I was invited by Dr. Smith to join the Coldwater Steering Committee and gladly accepted. I am grateful for the opportunity to look at the big picture and be involved with others when it comes to discussing that future and how it pertains to our cold water fisheries.
> 
> .


Good! That's it. I think with TC's clarification, things should be crystal clear and hopefully we can all move on.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I was going to post this as a whole different thread, but I'll post it here even though it is quite long. Just try to read and comprehend where I'm coming from before jumping to any conclusions.

This issue, to me, is much more than a simple gear restriction issue, and I'm sure P.E.T.A. is loving the fact that we can't agree on this. What we have to do is examine just what the roots of this issue is about, and the legal aspects of this issue. I am, by no means an attorney, but it seems to me that some of this is pretty plain and simple.

Lets start with just who's water is it?? To back up a bit, it needs to be determined that the state of Michigan is really its citizens. The state of Michigan is not an individual, but rather an entity that is controlled by its people, or at least suppossed to be, therefore it would seem to me that the waters of this, or any other state, should be used by the people for whatever reason they wish, unless it harmless to others, which this subject is not.

This is one of those crossroads that seem to come along once in a while, and this gear regulation thing is one that can have lasting effects on our fishing for eons to come. Should we sit idly by and allow more and more of our waters to be restricted, we will never be able to stop the stone from rolling downhill. On this gear reg issue, who's to say it will stop at 212 mile? Once the criteria has been met, whats to stop our legislature from issuing more? As long as our legislature is allowed to dictate to the DNR/NRC what we should or shouldn't have, or do, or, in this case, how we should fish, it will continue to change at the whim of the powerful. We cannot allow social science to impede on our rights overall, the word that come to my mind is discrimination.

Have you ever read the definition of discrimination? Here it is according to every law book, and site I've looked it up on, this is from wikipedia:

Discrimination: A sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against an individual or a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to the other groups. The U.N. explains: Discriminatory behaviors take the many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection.

In taking the time to analyze the definition of discrimination, I think you'll see that what is going on is exactly that. Some members of this site have made mention of leaving garbage laying around, and generally making messes, as their excuse to condone gear restrictions. That is a classic example of the discriminatory mindset, and should not be used as a criteria for gear restrictions.

Another thing I found while looking up other things is this. In reading through part of the Michigan Administrative Acts, I stumbled onto something that takes a little more thought on this, and I believe supercedes the afore mentioned acts. In looking at michlaw.org I found where legislators have given back the rule making to the entities who are in charge of certain things, such as the DNR in making rules changes. Under the heading "Agency Adjudication", we find this statement: "In addition to legislative, or rule making authority, amongst the most important powers granted to agencies is adjudicative authority. The legislature has invested many agencies with the power to adjudicate disputes arising under a particular statute or under an agency's own rules, including enforcement matters. Providing agencies with adjudicative authority is motivated by the sound policy of performing uniform implementation of complicated regulations and taking advantage of expertise the agency has in dealing with subject matter at hand with its jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the courts have facilitated this policy through doctrines of "primary jurisdiction" and "exhaustion". The doctrine of primary jurisdiction posits that, even in a case where a circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction over a matter before an administrative agency, it will defer to the agency to adjudicate the matter".

I would seem to me, that if even the courts have taken a hands off approach to agencies with special expertise, and have devised doctrines for that specific purpose, wouldn't it seem prudent to say that the legislature is hands off as well? In fact, this creates a precedence to say just that.

Guys/gals, this is much more than just we can't use worms, its about our rights as citizens to use what we own. Now I'm not saying we should be able to use T.N.T. to go fishing, but we should have the right to use our waters in ways that have historically been acceptable, in this case to fishing. You can say that T.U. really cares about the fish, and I"m sure they do, but at the same time, you have to wonder what the real motivation is here? Frankly, things like this go on all the time, but it doesn't make it right. Hopefully, I've made my point perfectly clear on the issue as to why I'm so against it, and hopefully you'll at least give me cudos for saying so.

Another thing that may come into play, would be the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. This clause requires that persons under like circumstances be given equal protectin in the enjoyment of personal rights. Which again by extension,is the right to the pursuit of happiness, or actually liberty. Isn't fishing one way we look to a pursuit of happiness, a right if you will.

Of course, lets not forget contracts, this essay wouldn't be complete without the theory of contracts. Remember when you bought your license you signed on the bottom line. Ever wonder why that is, its because you are siging a contract, which in essence is saying you will abide by all the laws of the state, concerning, in this case fishing. Okay, thats fine, not a problem, but have you ever heard of a one way contract? Of course not, any contract is only a contract if there are two or more parties involved, otherwise what would be the point? So, now you may ask, who else is involved, well isn't the DNR involved in this contract? Whats there involvement in this contract? There are several things really, 1) enforcement 2) making sure that the best job is being done for the enjoyment of anglers who buy a license, and by that, I mean stocking, protecting habitat, etc. No where on any license have I seen it spelled out that a person who fly fishes only, has to pay extra for their license, nor have I seen anywhere where a fly fisher has to pay a fee to fish in their particular slice of heaven. They pay exactly what we pay, and equally we should receive the same treatment. If these stretches of rivers are to become some sort of hands off nervana for the average joe, than the DNR should not use our monies to enforce anything within those waters. In other words, if these fly anglers want waters all to themselves, then they should pay for the enforcement to protect these waters, and not use the average anglers license dollars for that enforcement. If these folks want elitism, then they should have it completely, not just what they want.

I'm done with my rant now, let the bashing begin.


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

no bashing from me toto... GREAT POST!!!!! I want to thank Don and TC, and the others that have spent so much time and energy working on this entire thing. I would love to be able to take a timeout from life and make the trip to the next meeting. If for nothing else, to just put another body on our side of the room, but I just can't do it right now. 

Thanks again guys, and give um HELL on thursday


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Wow! I don't really know what to say other than that. 

You bring up alot of interesting points here Toto. While I personally would not use the term discrimination, I understand the definition and can see how this issue is looked at as such. We have all read the posts of "meat eating slobs", "beer drinking fishermen", and "people who cause more litter than do anything good". You know as well as I do that those are myths (although somewhat true for a small amount of anglers who really don't deserve the name angler). This type of talk is simply profiling all bait fishermen into a category in which not everyone fits into. Lets face it, we all know a fly fisherman or two that is a slob on the river as well. But this is never brought up because he/she is fishing with the entire Orvis catalog at his disposal.

I would be willing to bet that the goal of organizations such as TU is not to discriminate or profile but to promote regulations that "enhance" the fishery. This, of course, can be contradicted by the statement made by the head of the Federation of Fly Fishers. Lets not fall back on that statement here as we can all agree that it was one of the dumbest things ever said in print. That one statement alone can lead this into the realm of a discrimination case. For that statement the opinions of that organization should be null and void, period.

You also bring up a great point about having to extend the licensing cost for areas of special regulations. This should be seriously looked at. If certain groups want water just for themselves then an extra fee should be assessed. Don't we already have to pay for a "Golden Ticket" to even park in most of these special regulation areas? Yes, I know there are areas outside of the special reg water that requires this ticket. (Mainly cause I was fined $75 for not having a "Golden Ticket" at Tayor Rd last fall) 

I guess my point in bringing up the "Golden Ticket" is that anglers, all anglers, that want to fish these areas of pristine water already have to pay for it. So what would be so wrong if we had to pay an additional cost to fish the sacred fly only water? I'm certain the MDNRE and the USFS would love to see an additional fee assessed here. And, honestly, I believe that in two seasons the amount of fishing in that "sacred water" would go down enough that the regulations would be seriously looked at for reversal.

Just a thought. But we all know where this is going. We know that we will not stop demanding our needs be met and neither will our opposition. Perhaps, once this is done, we start to lobby for an increased fee for fishing these "special" waters. Maybe the only way to change a broken way of thinking is to hit them where they will notice it. In their wallets.

Great post though Toto. You are always great at giving the proper research before saying anything. So guys, don't kill him for doing his homework.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Grass Shrimp said:


> Why do we have three people sitting on a panel having secret discussions with the D.N.R. about trout regs when they don't give a crap about trout regs.


Because they stepped to the plate, attended Oct.'s NRC meeting and spoke out against further gear restrictions. As I said earlier in this thread about 80 anglers who posted in these forums and who seemed to look negatively at gear regs were contacted about getting into the fight. About 1/2 choose to join in the effort. Those that did were kept abreast of the upcoming NRC meeting. Only a few choose to show up and speak. They did a great job and were then asked to join the workgroup. Question Asked/Question Answered



Grass Shrimp said:


> Their were plenty of people that wanted to be on the same panel that do care about trout regs. This arguement is mostly about resident trout regs.


But were they willing to attend Oct's NRC meeting and speak out in a manner that might induce the powers that be to ask for their participation? Apparently not.



Grass Shrimp said:


> I do not want someone who only cares about salmon telling the D.N.R that not being able to fish bait for trout during trout season is a fair compromise.
> 
> This just keeps getting better and better.


Ah yes, I see the behind the scenes "politicing" is going on......as usual.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

mondrella said:


> As mentioned I was asked to jion the Cold water committe along with I believe four others. As of the end of the meeting Jim Dexter, Kelley Smith and Todd Kalish(?) attended in TC one evening.
> Ray does have quite a few points right. We sat down and where hit with a proposal to ammend the PM section. From flies only to Bowmans bridge to Artificial only from April 1 to the Aug31 on browns and brookies from Gleasons to upper Branch NO KILL. The remainder of the year type four water with a early close on resident trout. This was totally unaccepteable. This was brilliant on thier part. Realizeing we were called in to try and get a compromise which I was willing to do at the time. We countered that offer in short order with way to sweet of deal for them now that I have taken the time to sit back and look at the whole thing. Our counter was artificial only from the last sat in April to August 31 for trout with a harvest of 2 fish 12" and up with only 1 18" or greater. I did not realize it was only 1 fish 18" and up or I would have never agreed to that deal. I thought it was 2 fish 12" min. This was for a section of water gleasons to Rainbow rapids. They countered this offer and after giving some thought to what we proposed and what they initially proposed I decided to not accept it. In fact the only proposal I would have supported was the one I agreed to at the meeting in TC. The only reason I would do that is I said at that time I would. I would keep my word even after realizing it was a stupid offer nad wrong. A man has to live by his word. The others have came to terms with the other members of the Coldwater commitee. This I guess will be made public come Monday. I wish I could break this to all of you at this time.
> 
> After taking the time to sit back and look at the proposals put forth it makes me believe even more many groups do not care about trout. They don't really care about protecting them from hooking mortality or harvest. It has more to do with thier Idealology and it is sad. Bait is supposedly the worst thing to use for trout. Yet here they are willing to allow bait use on a river during its heaviest fishing pressure. It just does not add up. Yes they are protecting them from it for 4 months out of the year. The river sees little pressure during that time other than the first 3 weeks of the season. It is all politics and disgusting.
> ...


Interesting tale. 

So the compromise is I lose 13 miles of fishing bait for trout, to be able to fish stealhead with spawn on the 2.9 originally recommended for gear restrictions? 

Whats in "your word." I like this bravado. If you give your word and later realize you made a mistake, are not you better to correct the mistake? Honesty and integrity trump "your word". Sounds like a reason for one to justify what he is about to do, even though he thinks its wrong. I will tell my kid that just connived with his brother to steal cookies from the jar, even though he knew he shouldn't, he was right in keeping his word to his brother, rather than stopping when he realized it was wrong. Get the point? I commend you for stepping up and doing what you felt in your heart was right. No matter what side of the issue, this holds true for all.

Oh and thanks for making the meetings. Who knew the fate of 13 miles of the PM was going to be decided on the fact one made the Oct's NRC meeting. I have to get these meetings figured out so I skip the ones that mean nothing. Kind of like getting the date of submitting your opposition to a regulation right. You have to know the date that is significant to start counting them. For some reason it doesn't start when they originally request them. Its a magical date. Silly humans.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Ranger Ray said:


> Oh and thanks for making the meetings. Who knew the fate of 13 miles of the PM was going to be decided on the fact one made the Oct's NRC meeting. I have to get these meetings figured out so I skip the ones that mean nothing. Kind of like getting the date of submitting your opposition to a regulation right. You have to know the date that is significant to start counting them. For some reason it doesn't start when they originally request them. Its a magical date. Silly humans.


Sorry Ray, but the one date to be at isn't magical. And its not a secret at all. To answer the question of which date it is simple... All of them. This is why TU and the other organized groups still have a voice in this arguement. 

If you and the rest of those who share you "no gear regulations" views would have sent in proposals for water to not restrict back in the early spring, attended the first public meetings (which you did), continued conversation throughout the process, AND attended all of the NRC meetings things would be different. While I realize how impossible this is with your working schedule, it is as equally difficult for most of the guys in the organized groups. Yet these groups made certain that there were representatives at each meeting. This speaks volumes to the MDNRE about the commitment to this issue.

I'm not saying at all that you or others that cannot attend these meetings are not commited to this issue. But really, who are you going to prom with? The girl that asks once and sends you little love notes or the girl who goes out of her way to make sure you know she wants to go with you? (I'm going to get blasted for that analogy:evil


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

The Downstream Drift said:


> Don't we already have to pay for a "Golden Ticket" to even park in most of these special regulation areas? Yes, I know there are areas outside of the special reg water that requires this ticket. (Mainly cause I was fined $75 for not having a "Golden Ticket" at Tayor Rd last fall) QUOTE]
> 
> DD, can you go over this? I am just curious where you need to pay to park on regulated waters? From time to time I fish serveral of the waters that are restricted such as N and S Branch of the Au Sable and the Holy Waters as well as below Mio. Are you talking about the State Park passes? I guess I am just not sure where I would need this "Golden Ticket" to park. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

The Downstream Drift said:


> Sorry Ray, but the one date to be at isn't magical. And its not a secret at all. To answer the question of which date it is simple... All of them. This is why TU and the other organized groups still have a voice in this arguement.
> 
> If you and the rest of those who share you &quot;no gear regulations&quot; views would have sent in proposals for water to not restrict back in the early spring, attended the first public meetings (which you did), continued conversation throughout the process, AND attended all of the NRC meetings things would be different. While I realize how impossible this is with your working schedule, it is as equally difficult for most of the guys in the organized groups. Yet these groups made certain that there were representatives at each meeting. This speaks volumes to the MDNRE about the commitment to this issue.
> 
> I'm not saying at all that you or others that cannot attend these meetings are not commited to this issue. But really, who are you going to prom with? The girl that asks once and sends you little love notes or the girl who goes out of her way to make sure you know she wants to go with you? (I'm going to get blasted for that analogy<img src="images/smilies/evil.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Evil" smilieid="17" class="inlineimg" />)


I believe there was people at all meetings representing my view. The issue is not who represents what view, its the issue of why and how
we got to this type of management for our resources and if it is good for the future of our sport.</p>
Posted via Mobile Device


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

I just wanted to speak up and say that I too am against the new regulations that are being proposed for the Pere Marquette River. I don&#8217;t see the sense of it.

Most of you have seen my past posts and know that I do support some regulation changes and even some fly fishing only stretches. But I don&#8217;t see the need for an increase of miles at this time. I do like the expanded season that is being proposed on proposed *artificial only stretches.
*
I personally would like to see slot limits introduced in Michigan. I also would like to see the banning of fishing without the pole in your hand on inland trout streams, as well as treble hooks on inland trout streams too.

After reading the many posts in this and other threads in regards to &#8220;Scientific data&#8221; I feel compelled to make my voice heard again.

I have no problem with the DNR regulating our water ways *to allow different uses and opportunities to the public*. I can&#8217;t imagine if the DNR had never regulated some lakes and river stretches for no-motors. I also can&#8217;t imagine what our opportunities and experiences would be like without the dozens of other designations that they have done without any science to back it up.

I&#8217;m all for the science. I enjoy learning about my quarries, their environments and how certain factors affect them. But, I also realize that *just because science doesn&#8217;t refute something it should not mean that we still should not implement change in order to have different uses of our resources. If science shows that change would or has had a negative impact then that should be addressed*.

Words like "raceist" and "discrimination" should play no part in all this IMO. They are not telling any individual that they can't use the states resources they are simply saying that there are rules on how you can use them. 
Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: Gear Reg Threads - Page 7 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=348946&page=7#ixzz1489b6lM1


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Boardman Brookies said:


> DD, can you go over this? I am just curious where you need to pay to park on regulated waters? From time to time I fish serveral of the waters that are restricted such as N and S Branch of the Au Sable and the Holy Waters as well as below Mio. Are you talking about the State Park passes? I guess I am just not sure where I would need this "Golden Ticket" to park. Thanks in advance!


The "Golden Ticket" I was referring to was the parking pass you need to park in the Federal Land along the PM. It is required to park at Taylor Rd and several other access sites. It is nothing more than an additional pass to park on federal land. Similiar to your state park pass but it is "Golden". And doesn't that make us feel even more special. 

I honestly don't know if there are any section of the Au Sauble that this is needed due to the fact that I try to stay away from that river as much as possible. Just as I try to stay out of the "fly only" water on the PM.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Toto, wonderful treatise. You put alot of cognition into that post and I appreciate the work you put into it. I agree with you, but for the sake of working through this, let me play the role of the devil's advocate, as these are actual counter argument statements I have heard. :evilsmile

_It is sad that some individuals feel they are discriminated against. And, nothing could be more wrong. All we are saying is to fish these waters, all you have to do is obey the regulations set forth and fish with a fly

Fishing is not a right, it is a privilege. Much like when driving the highways across the state, all an angler needs to do is to obey the regulations governing this privilege _

Hmmm, how do we counter this??? How does social science come into this equation? I will take a stab at this

OK, just a note here and let's not rag on Mr. Schramm any more. The Grand Rapids Press/Howard Myerson had already printed a retraction and stated the "slob" comment was made by Dick Swikert, past president of the Pere Marquette Watershed Council. But, the reason why I bring this up is, as much as it might it might be deemed his remarks were detestable, 
*he spoke what he thought was the truth.* I think this undercurrent of thought that Mr. Swikert spoke is one of the issues at the very heart of this matter. However, why do you think he was chastised and sanctioned by many in the fly fishing community? Because there is truth in that statement? Because he spoke what was perhaps at the very back of most of the minds of at least, some of the gear reg proponents? No, because his remarks can (and rightly so) be construed as prejudicial, which is a key component of just what you are talking about, discrimination. And folks, we just can't let that cat out of the bag.....

We hear about how they just want to protect the rivers and hooking mortality...on and on. For this issue, it's mostly all window dressing. I think the DNRE explained that already when they said that when they noted current regulations protect trout populations and there is little biologic necessity for these additional gear regs, period! We hear about how science will be shown to support getting youse trout killing, non skilled knuckle draggers out of parts oh, by the way, the very best parts of the river. I will contend, no, Mr. Swikert spoke to the heart of the matter. Webster's Dictionary defines Slob as: 1: a slovenly or boorish person 2: an ordinary person <just some poor slob> I hope you had time to read the article that Ranger Ray quoted and Esox posted the link to. Here is an excerpt from p. 82:
_The first reference to releasing fish in English literature appears in the ploughman
stories, beginning in the 15th century (Piers of Fulman, 1420, cited in Merwin, 1995). In
A Treatyse on Fysshynge wyth an Angle (originally written around 1420, but not published
until 1496), Dame Juliana Bernes2 argued for conservative harvest to protect the resource
(McDonald, 1963). But recreational fishing in those days was a gentleman&#8217;s sport, not
typical of the common people.
The plague of 1348 killed a third of the population in England. It followed hard on
the first decades of the little ice age, the decline of feudalism, and the advent of the cash
economy. Many of the serfs who had been forced off the land and into cities chose to return
to lives of farming and subsistent hunting and fishing in the largely empty countryside.
Qualification statutes were quickly imposed that prevented people who needed fish and
game as food from taking them. Hunting was reserved for the ruling class, specifically to
prevent peasants from returning to a subsistent lifestyle in a rural England with no fences,
few defined land holdings, and a greatly diminished population. In the new England of
the late Middle Ages, commoners&#8217; labor was needed for mills and farms. The Statute of
Laborers (1351) required commoners to work. They were not allowed to fish or hunt for
their food: &#8220;None shall hunt but which have sufficient living&#8221; (Lund, 1980, p. 8, 22). One
of the demands of the Peasants Revolt of 1381 was the return of the right to fish in the River
Ver (Herd, 2003).
About one hundred years later,Wynkyn deWorde, the publisher of the Treatyse, wrote
that the little work on fishing was published with the text on heraldry and falconry to
keep it out of the hands of &#8220;every idle person who would desire it&#8221; (McDonald, 1963).
When viewed against the historical background of depopulation and hardships and the
subsequent imposition of the qualification statutes for the taking of fish and game, these
early references to releasing fish and conservative harvest may well represent the origin of
the idea that releasing a portion of one&#8217;s catch was the mark of a gentleman._

Mrs. Schramm at the June Bitely meeting told us that flys only water provided for a safer and less vulgar enviroment, more gentlemenly, if you will. Jim Bos, at the October NRC meeting, did mention anglers are exhibit better behaviour on the Fly's Only section. Tell me, is this history repeating itself in some form??

Ever notice alot of fly anglers like to use phrase and quotes to offer their own personal guiding principles. One of the favorites that I see is this quote from that famous Norman MacLean novel.
_"In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing"
_
If this is so, I will ask this question, is the present situation regarding gear regulations an attempt at conversion or excommunication?

In a couple of days, the golden shield of science will be rolled out for display. This tome is anticipated to contain a multitude trials, studies, and systematic observations supporting the notion of worm slinging is bad for trout health. However, will it include all studies and be representative of all the science? Will it be presented without a hint of bias? Will we know any bias when we see it? Will it negate what some resource managers in this and other states have opined as their observations regarding trout populations and gear restrictions? We will see.


----------



## JB85 (Nov 2, 2010)

I would like to take a crack at this from a simplistic common sense standpoint. 

Flies only is discrimination....period. It does not matter whether fishing is a right or a privilege....if I am using an ethical legal method of fishing (i.e. crankbait) and I'm not allowed to fish a section of a public river with my legal ethical method, I am being discriminated against. 

A group of people want to add to the regs and increase discrimination????? The correct thing to would be to ELIMINATE the flies only sections of rivers, not add to them.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

On the thought of discrimination, I use that as a point of reference, due to the fact that these waters in question are owned by you, the citizen, and who should have exclusive right to use them? 

On another part of you post reg, you mentioned that MR. Swikert is the one who is talking about slobs, that isn't who I was referring to really, I was referring to people on this site, back when this was first talked about said the exact same things.

I'll paraphrase as to what one person said, "gear restrictions will help on the trash, and you won't see beer cans, and worm containers laying around." If I can find the original thread, I'll quote back on here again, but thats pretty much what was said, and no, I won't name names.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

REG said:


> Good! That's it. I think with TC's clarification, things should be crystal clear and hopefully we can all move on.


Yes, I intend to move on--right to the next item on the Coldwater Committee's 2011 agenda. You had five guys brought into this thing at the end of the process and put into a situation that was less than ideal. No one was going to walk away from this happy. What the DNR did was try and bring people to the table with the intent of getting both sides to communicate and maybe find some common ground. Agree or disagree, but all we could do was go into this with good faith and try to find that common ground and minimize the damage, so to speak. Nobody is popping champagne corks here and as for me throwing anyone under the bus, that's as big a flat out lie as it gets--see Don's post for that clarification. Joe (phlyphisher) and I could've walked away from this three weeks ago and been "satisfied"--that is if we were being selfish about it. But you know what--the other three guys weren't satisfied and Don busted his a** talking to this person, that person, etc and tried to get back as much as he could for the "trout people," so to speak. Joe and I supported the other three and even threw out some ideas that might effect the anadromous fishery guys, but help the trout guys get something more back in return. It's called politics and unfortuneatly, that's what we're dealing with here. Looking back, why would Joe and I have been so involved in the discussions regarding the Muskegon trout regs if all we cared about was "throwing people under the bus?" Those regs had nothing to do with salmon and steelhead, yet we were there to voice opposition and make it easier for people to harvest trout in a marginal watershed with a put and take fishery.

Here's a fact: Those other groups have had 25+ years of political clout when it comes to having a say in fisheries issues. Five new guys enter the discussion at the end of the process and any voice we have has been heard for all of two weeks. Does that sound like a situation where storming the gates and demanding this or that or else is going to be a productive method? No, the FACT is this: The DNR heard the opposition and in good faith, they reached out and said, let's go to the table and see if we can't get both sides to meet in the middle on this. 

Let's be real here--this whole thread did not start out as a discussion. It started out with one intent and that was to level personal attacks against certain parties-- with myself getting the brunt of it. 

So and so's "discussions" with Dr. Smith have been any but. They have been inflammatory tirades where he's thrown accusations and border line slander at everyone in the process. He's stated to one person within the work group that if we even tried to agree to a compromise he would rip us apart on these forums. When that's your approach, you shouldn't be shocked when you're not invited to the table. Yep--my phone went to hell and even my own mother had a hell of time getting ahold of me. It's a shame that by the time I did end up buying a new phone, it was apparent that person who was trying to reach me was beyond reasoning with and why on earth would I waste my minutes hearing a repeat of threats that if we agreed to compromise, he'd rip us apart on these forums? 

Personal attacks, tirades, accusations, threats--there's your leader...follow him. Meanwhile, I'm going to stand by the fact that we tried to do the best we could under the circumstances we were dealt and we discussed different things in the same good faith that the DNR intended it to be. If that leads to personal attacks against me as has already been the case, then so be it. 

We all have to make our choices. My choice is to work with the DNR, not against them.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

To be more accurate on what I said in the previous post, the bait container thing was said this way: "maybe these new regulations will help eliminate worm containers along Paint Creek,:

Hutch, you and I have never met face to face, probably a good thing, I'd scare you to death. All I can say is this: In any endeavor, no matter what it is, if you believe in it passionately, for whatever purposes, you fight for that. It wouldn't matter what side you were on in this issue, you WILL get bashed from someone. All I can say is fight the good fight, use it to learn something for the next time, and go on from there. 

I will for one thank you, and the others for your time, and efforts to this debate. At least we have someone at the table hearing whats really going on, and with reason stating why these regs should be left alone, or at least curtailed.


----------

