# On Muskegon River



## Mike (Nov 26, 2000)

Thanks Sean. I have power point, if you find it send it over. 

Mike


----------



## quix20 (Jan 14, 2001)

mike i found it, i need you email address though. shoot me a pm here or there with it and i will get it out to you asap. it is quite large and will take some time to send/recieve.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> i dont know for sure what caused the size limit to go up when it did. if i understand correctly it was lobbied by the guides and other interest groups to see if the mo would be that trophy fishery we are all looking for. the dnr agreed to do it for a short time, and then see the results after that time period had elapsed. i dont know what the time period was or is though.


Right...there was a lobby for the 15" size limit and they succeeded in getting it implemented for a certain amount of time, at which time, it would be reviewed as to it's viablity. That time expired in 2003 and when the first public meeting was held, that same lobby group made enough noise about flawed data and that it wasn't a long enough timeframe that the DNR agreed to gather more data for another year and see if the results were any different, which they weren't. Data indicates that of the larger fish taken in the Mo, most are being caught between Croton and Thornapple--the 10" water. With even more data gathered, the 2004 meeting showed that the size limits are not driving the fishery. Basically, fish are getting into the 12 to 14" range and then vanishing--save for the few that survive longer and get into the larger 16" plus range. Of those fish, they're mostly brown trout and they're survivng because they've staked a claim around some sort of thermal refuge and as is their nature, can be down right vicious in protecting it for themselves. That's why you tend to see that the larger fish are brown trout and not rainbows, for the most part although there are a few dandy bows to be had in that river.

As for the previous post that said something about people making the most noise get their way, that is absolutely correct. Why do you think the PM went from being flies only with a one fish limit to flies only/no kill. That wasn't even part of the equation when they re-did the trout regs a few years ago, but a lobby group made enough noise to get there own unique regulation passed. I could go on about how nonsensical a flies only regulation is, but that's not the point of this. The point is that if certain lobby groups can ignore data, embellish certain fish sizes and successfully keep a regulation that only benefits their specific user group in that it segregates sections of water for them, where does it end? Yeah, I'm pretty much a spawn tosser, but I have nothing against fly fishing as I do quite a bit of it during that two month span when the Kings are in the river and I know quite a few "fly guys" that are open to all kinds of angling. I am, however, 100% anti "Fly's Only" because, aside from the fact that there is no scientific data that shows that it's a viable management tool, it segregates for one specific user group. I've also noticed that if you give the flies only lobby an inch, they'll try to take a mile. 5 miles of fly's only water becomes 7, then those 7 miles become no kill...wait a minute, a new bill just passed and now there's 112 more miles of quality water designations available? Well, hell yeah...let's make 'em fly's only boys! Meanwhile, more water gets taken away from the general public...the same people who buy the exact same license as the flies only guys, yet there is no water set aside for them--do you see worms only water or spawn only water? Hell, the DNR and NRC had to establish a strict criteria for the new 112 miles of quality water just to keep the special interest lobbies from beating down there door! I really don't keep a lot of fish and release 95% of the salmon, trout and steelhead I catch, but that doesn't mean that I support a mandated catch n release restricition nor should my personal practices deter anyone else from keeping as many fish as the law allows. For the most part, I truly believe that the majority of the support for the 15" size limit has nothing to do with the development of a trophy fishery, rather there are other motives behind it.

I guess it's like the hunters having to deal with the anti's in that any little victory for either side is a big one in that it could have a severe domino effect on other things. The trouble is, at least the hunters can unite for one cause....try that with a fishing issue. Ha! Most of the time, the enemy is living under our own roof, so to speak.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

As an outside observer looking in, based on most of all that was said regarding the Muskegon trout fishery, at any of the meetings, did anyone bring up having a slot limit as a management tool? For example, have a slot limit of 15" to, let's arbitrarily say 26" or so, or just say any trout over 15". Make that a 1 fish limit? This way it would allow for an equitable stocker harvest, but afford some protection for the limited number of trophy fish?

I know that anadromous fish would complicate a reg like that, so let's say that reg takes effect from May 1 to October 1, give or take a few weeks.

But then Steve states, " _For the most part, I truly believe that the majority of the support for the 15" size limit has nothing to do with the development of a trophy fishery, rather there are other motives behind it._"
Yup, that says alot.

With that in mind, I would be very curious to see if the slot option was ever explored, if anyone backed it, who didn't, and why?


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

A slot limit of some sort has been suggested at these meetings, as have other options. The trouble with that is it would require an entirely new typing or classification into the regs and with everything, would result in a bunch of red tape. Basically, all the DNR has to work with as far as regulating the Mo is concerned, are the seven types or classifications for trout regs. Of those seven, only the types 3 and 4 really apply to that watershed. 

If you get into types 5,6,7 you're dealing with artificials only regulations. types 1 & 2 would put a season on the Mo (Last Saturday in April until the end of September or the extended season which opens on April 1st) either way, then you're dealing with a closure of the fishery for several months. So at this point, it's either a type 3 reg which has a 15" size limit or a type 4 reg which is 10". There's nothing in the current regs that would allow for a slot limit. If that were implemented, they'd have to create a Type 8 classification that only applies to that watershed and as I understand it, re-evaluating the different types of regs is not something that they intend to do in the near future.

Personally, if it were possible to implement, I'd support a slot limit provided it allowed for the harvest of the smaller trout up to a certain size and it didn't interfere with the anadromous fishery. The problem is, how would you discern between a 20" stream rainbow and a 20" migratory steelhead? A lot of people view the smaller steelhead as "a good eating fish", so a number of those tend to get harvested. Sure, most of the guys who fish on a regular basis could tell the difference, but I'd hate to see a novice get popped for keeping what he believes is a small steelie and it turns out to be a stream rainbow that falls into the slot range. But yeah, if there were a plausible way to implement a slot limit that allows some of the larger fish to continue to grow larger and it makes sense for everyone involved, I'd probably support that. As for who supported the idea of a slot limit at the meetings, I'm not sure. There was some head nodding when it was suggested, but it wasn't overwhelming by any stretch of the imagination. I think some of the anglers/guides who's intentions for the river were of a positive nature and truly in the best interest of the resource, thought it might be a good idea. I mean, it would benefit establishing some sort of trophy fishery--but then you have those who want that 15" size limit because it keeps the baiter/fish keeping crowd above thornapple, so even then a slot idea is going to meet with resistance. 

Right now, there's just a lot of fish that make it to 12 to 14" and then they vanish, die, whatever they're gone after that. At the expense, dollar wise, of that planting program, I just think we (the angling community that pays for it) would get more for the money if those fish (the 12 to 14") were easier to harvest...and the only way to do that is to have a 10" size limit for the entire river.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

One of the big things we need to keep in mind is that the Muskegon is a "Marginal" trout water. Repeat after me "Marginal". I don't know how many people I've heard rave that it is one of the premier trout waters in the country, or if the regs changed it would be the best...yada....yada...yada. Again repeat after me, "Marginal".

Guides in general, or at least on the Mo, seem to live their lives with blinders on. Most work about 1/4 of the days they claim to, most claim to be crushing the 15" trout, but aren't measuring them, most claim lot's of 10lb+ steelhead without weighing them, most at the meeting were mad that surveys did not encompass 100% of the guides but was actually a random sampling. Go figure, that the DNR might want to provide a fishery that benefits the masses????

They all think they inherintly know more about the fishery then anyone else because of the title "guide". If I had a dollar for every conversation that I've had with a "Guide" where I decided to be nice and offer an honest report of how I was doing and they left thinking I was full of it. This happens with Blackwood all the time  How could it be that they were skunked that day on winter fish and you were pushing the 30 fish mark with less time on the water????? Dare there be "non-guides" that might actually have a better handle on that river system? TC's witnessed me chum the heck out of most holes on that river, and let me tell you, after working a hole with a 1/4 gallon of salmon eggs on a weekly basis for months at a time, you eventually get to know very well what is in there and none of them are choked with 15" bows. The biggest rainbow I've seen caught was a true 23" fish that was showed to Sputnik who admitted that he's never put one on the boat that big. Most of the bows by this winter will be around 12", and will be proclaimed to be 15" by most who catch them( we call any fish around 12" a Steelhead Site 20") Most of the 15"+ fish you catch are browns and going over the 20" mark on those is pretty darn difficult. 

As an example I must tell the story of a respected guide friend of mine that came to fish with me one winter. He was purely a fly guide and after taking a beating by the spawn guides on his home river finally realized that he might be missing out. When we met at the launch he was putting his fly rod together. I asked what are you doing? He replied that he'd use till I embarassed him. Well, it took 15 minutes and 4 hookups to make one of the top fly guides in the state ask me to show him how to fish spawn  The point being, there is always someone better at the game then you think. Many of the guides on the Mo could use a lesson in this.

As far as TC making fun of me by lumping me in with Sputnik, well if there was a goofy looking guy in the front of the boat smoking like a mad man that had a humble look on his face because his buddy Gene gave him a whooping that day, it probably was me :lol:


----------



## phlyphisher (Aug 15, 2001)

I like the story that one of the DNR guys told us after the Mo reg meeting about one of the guides insisting that he could show the DNR all kinds of 15"+ trout.

The official agrees, and the guide takes him out on a trophy trout trip. A few minutes into the trip, the guide hooks and lands a rainbow, plops it in front of the DNR guy and says, "There you go -- there's your 15 inch bow."

That was impressive until the DNR guy whips out the ruler -- it measured 11.5" and it was the largest one that either of them caught all day. 

Like others have already said, the conditions on the Mo are not conducive to it being a prolific trophy trout stream, nor will it ever be unless something is done about the late-summer temperature problems. Just like every other dammed river on the west side of the state, you just cannot grow trophy trout in 75 degree water that doesn't cool off at night.


----------



## Bucket-Back (Feb 8, 2004)

What about the "Guides" fishin the holes in front of private residences?Should I give them the same courtesy as on the "Pond"?If I can hit U with a sinker U R 2 close?,Can the riverfront owners fish in front of their homes without having to deal with the "Drift Boasts",I realize they earn their keep this way but will be vocal at next meeting,which will be my first.I learned a lot about the "New-Way-To-Go" Rats over the years,there are a few places "bait-chunkers" can fish successfully from shore and the "Drift-Boasts" tell me to get out of the way?This happens a few miles below Croton Dam.Not all Drift Boats do this but it does give me a bad opinion of the "Guides" in that area!I wonder if they follow the wader's around to find the fish?If it's a productive hole who has the right to hang?


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Well, I guess I will throw a little more fuel on the fire....first off, I fish with one of the guides that offered to take the DNR officials out for a day. Apparently, NONE of the DNR folks could find time in their schedules to fish with this particular guide, who is in his 60's and has fished the Mo in excess of 30 years.

Second, I have witnessed this particular guide catch NUMEROUS rainbows and browns in excess of 15" on a daily basis in certain sections between Thornapple and Henning. Big fish also eat small things under the surface when properly presented! 

The big fish are not everywhere in the river but tend to concentrate in certain areas (not necessarily "cold-water sanctuaries") throughout the year. I rowed the boat while my friend caught a "measured" 19" rainbow on a streamer this past June. We also hooked numerous "holdovers" that day.

Granted, some of the guide "banter" is nothing more than BS (particularly from Sputnik), I still support the 15" limit from Thornapple to Henning. There is plenty of food and refuge for these fish to holdover, if they are not victims of angler mortality.

Madison or Bighorn, the Muskegon is NOT...BUT it does support some substantial fish for those that know how to catch them.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Flyfisher said:


> There is plenty of food and refuge for these fish to holdover


I'd tend to agree with that but I think the ingredient that is missing is cold water.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Flyfisher,
I agree about there being some great fish in the river. The thing is to be honest with you a 19" bow really is nothing special. It is a good fish. If the Mo was capable of growing big trout by this time with the amount of food in the river there would be plenty of 10+lb bows and browns. Guess what there is not that many there. Now there are a few resident browns pushing that but bows there is not. Now you start planting 250,000 trout a year in the system to maintian the fishery and only 1% of them make it over the 16" mark. If the regs don't change I personally will start encouraging the DNR to completly cease planting trout below croton. I know of other rivers that fall into the same criteria as the Mo as marginal water. Divide those fish up and plant 3 or 4 of them with the trout. Then we will see how well the guides can survive. Right now they need to wake up. They are basically riding a goverment handout that the rest of us have helped pay for. I would rather see a family come into a landing with a mess of 12" for the table and use the money being put into the river as to watch it disolve. I for one would want a much better return on a investment that large than 1%.


----------



## Mike (Nov 26, 2000)

> I personally will start encouraging the DNR to completly cease planting trout below croton. I know of other rivers that fall into the same criteria as the Mo as marginal water. Divide those fish up and plant 3 or 4 of them with the trout. Then we will see how well the guides can survive


So, it's only guides fishing below Croton? I think we should stop stocking all those small streams. I mean, I don't like fishing them, so no one else should either, right?

Mike


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Mike, I guess I was not to clear. I have no problem fishing the Mo. In fact you will probably be hard pressed to find a average fisherman that knows it as well as me. I cut my teeth trout fishing the water below croton. Not every time down the river but most I get 1 or 2 fish over 16". My issue is the fact that it is one of the most expensive stocking programs in the state. The returns are well below what they should be. To me that is wasteful. Right now the DNR has the oppurtunity to improve those returns and not to do it is a waste of yours and my money that could be put to better use elsewhere. Be it in stocking brookies in small streams to walleyes in inland lakes. Why should just a select few benifit from the current regs? Like I have said before it will be hard to convince the number crunchers the plants are still needed when the returns are not there. I would be just trying to help them stop the bleeding.


----------



## Randle (Nov 6, 2000)

Several years ago I heard that the MO was going to be a bottom draw type dam that would solve the warm water issue. What is the story on that?


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Many guides and fly fishermen want to keep the 15" limit because the current rule reduces the number of fishermen and that works out good for these groups. They dont keep fish anyway and besides, if the rule changes, there would be less easy fish for the next sport. I have fished the Muskegon much longer than the sage guide you mentioned and all I can say is that means nothing.

I am also aware that there are a few places that hold bigger trout, but you are mistaken about the cold water. Perhaps it is warm on the surface, but if trout are making it through the summer, there are cooler water temperatures on the bottom.

I fished one such section way down form Henning on Sunday. Surface temperatures were 72 degrees already and this year overall water temperatures are lower than normal. This section holds bigger trout also but that is because there is ground water or springs keeping the bottom cooler. Cooler water is denser or heavier than warm water that is down to 39 degrees or so and pools in deep holes where trout can live even when surface temperatures are higher.

Trout dont exist in waters that stay above 70 degrees for any length of time and that is not going to change for eons if ever.

The issue isnt if one or two experts that know the river intimately can catch some trout over 15" but it is about what the average guy catches. Im just guessing but from my experience way over 90% of the water below Thornapple does not meet the conditions for trophy trout. Plenty of cover yes, plenty of food, yes, plenty of areas of year round cold water to sustain trout, no!

Because of the regulations hundreds of thousands of trout are not being utilized for table fare because they dont make it through the summer because the Muskegon river is a marginal trout river at best. Great for spring and fall steelhead, brown trout and salmon just like the Grand River, but a trout river, it is not! In the real trout rivers one almost never catches rock bass, crappie, perch, walleye or bluegills. In most trout rivers, it is even unusual to catch smallmouth bass. Stocking hundreds of thousands of trout just so a few guides can make a living and play with the fish stinks. It is selfish and self serving.

The fish biologist were pretty sure from the start that this experiment wouldnt work, but did it because of all the pressure from special interest groups. The data is conclusive that the Muskegon River currently is not a candidate for a trophy trout fishery. So instead of being grateful that they even tried this experiment these same people are pointing their finger at the DNR and calling them the bad guys.

Personally your attitude is one I see from many enlightened fishermen. I find your statement; Madison or Bighorn, the Muskegon is NOT...BUT it does support some substantial fish for those that know how to catch them. to be arrogant, pretentious, and overbearing. But I suppose if you a superior fisherman its okay!

Bottom line this is all about money and fly fishing. Some fly fishermen want to catch fish but wont lower themselves to put a worm on their hook. I dont give a rip if that is the way they want to fish, but to try to use influence to change the rules so they can catch a fish on a fly is not fishing in my book. 

I grow weary of the challenge of fly fishing. If that is true than a truly enlighten fly fisherman would never fish in a trout pond or a no kill area. The real challenge is to catch fish on a fly in an area where the fish are enlighten by the worm dunkers who understand the value of a tasty trout dinner. And just so you know please dont release any fish for me, Ill catch my own.


----------



## Mike (Nov 26, 2000)

At least you don't rely on stereotypes Ray. 

Mike


----------



## phlyphisher (Aug 15, 2001)

Whether or not the Muskegon has enough food is not the question. As with a lot of tailwaters, they are very productive. However, food will not make trophy trout. If that were the case, every little trickle would be great for trout. It just doesn't happen that way. 

True, there are a few select areas that have cold water seeps or an influx of cooler tributary flows, but those proportionately small areas will not support the whole system. All of this bickering about "potential" trophy trout water is mute until there is a bottom draw in place and the temperature is more condicive for trout.

Just like you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, you can't make a trophy trout stream out of a warm tailwater river. Even though we all want there to be scads of 20+ inch trout, science shows that it just cannot happen under our current conditions. Therefore, why not make use of them for what they were designed for -- catching and eating. 

The Mo is not put and grow -- it's put and take.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Mike,

I have noticed that you have been very cynical lately. Instead of insightful posts that express an opinion you seem to seem to know what the writers motives are and simply make little one line sarcastic personal remarks. 

If you have a real opinion about this issue, why dont you tell us what your opinion is and add something constructive to the discussion? Thanks!


----------



## Mike (Nov 26, 2000)

Because being opinionated and cynical is waaaay more fun.  :yikes:  Besides, we've beat this to death around here, what's more to add? It's a very good fishery within 45 minutes to an hour of GR. I'm sure everyone has an idea of where that money could better be spent. Walleye guys would rather have more 'eyes, or how about more muskies or steelhead or salmon? I'm not going to lose any sleep over the regs. I'm happy to follow the rules and keep fishing. 

My retorts come from these debates consistantly being turned into a bait vs. fly debate. I realize some of you feel the need to be on the offensive to insure no more flies only water is added. I've got no more problem with that, but trivializing others catches doesn't make me want to join the cause. 



> The real challenge is to catch fish on a fly in an area where the fish are enlighten by the worm dunkers


Whatever. I'll leave the enlightenment crap to those worried about their souls (from a guilty conscience maybe?). lol I'm going fishin'. C'ya.  

Mike


----------



## Old Steelhead Dude (Jan 5, 2003)

> Bottom line this is all about money and fly fishing. Some fly fishermen want to catch fish but wont lower themselves to put a worm on their hook. I dont give a rip if that is the way they want to fish, but to try to use influence to change the rules so they can catch a fish on a fly is not fishing in my book.


That is the most arrogant statement I have seen you make yet split shot
I fly fish water that's open to all means of fishing and hold no hard feeling against Bait dunkers fishing the same water.
Slot limits are put in place so fishermen have the opportunity to catch fish bigger than the minumen league size. And Catch and release water is only about 2% of all trout water in this state.
Why should all the trout water in the state be without regulations?
Do you believe its too hard for you to learn to play by the new rules?
Is it all about killing and eating all the fish you can catch, or do you have any other problems besides jealously of the fly-fishing regulations that are eating at your ars?

OSD.


----------



## Old Steelhead Dude (Jan 5, 2003)

I wont speak to the specifics of the Muskegon River because I am not that familiar with that river system, but I will give you reasons why there should be a decent amount of water reserved for fly fishing.
As with any sport people pursue theres a challenge, and the greater the challenge the more fun and rewarding the sport becomes.
As a effort fisherman to compete against the fish in a more challenging way some waters were set aside for fly-fishing (a more challenging way of fishing) 
And just as with any sport you cant have people playing the sport by different sets of rules and be on the same playing field.
Just as ethical bait fisherman would not want someone fishing next him someone thats snagging fish.
You will have to go back and check about who started this thread because I have no recollection of what you are talk about.



> Who was it that brought up a hypothetical trout fishing scenario and then felt to compelled to explain why all the answers people gave were not correct. When people stopped answering you pleaded for more opinions so I posted an answer to which you never replied. I still remember it and your personal comments show me that you do too.


As far as a special group wanting to catch fish the easy way, I would say you have your logic turned on its head It is bait fisherman who want to catch the easy fish

Regards
OSD.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

OSD,
I don't quite get your answer to Splitshots question. I think you need to answer it a little clearer. So your saying we also need to make the upper boardman bait only and the Pine artificials only. To say fly-fishing is more challenging is a little ludicruis if you ask me. It would not make much sense to be bouncing bottom with a crawler during the hex hatch or any other major hatch. To rely on a single method of fishing to catch fish is like a cert. Mech. only having the tools of the average household to fix a car. Fishing is about adjusting to conditions be it bait during the middle of the day when there is limited trout activity and one has to bounce it off thier nose. To placing a trico in the right spot to get a fish to commit. 
Lets face it fly only water caters specifically to a small percentage of anglers on public water belonging to everyone. If is is for sound management practices those same waters would be open to artificials only. The reason thier not is some flyguy would get miffed to see me fishing water behind him with a #13 rapala and slamming the 22"+ trout that he could not get to even chase a large streamer. Why because a streamer is missing on of the important cues the rapala is not. Trust me it happened this year on the lower PM.


----------



## stealydawn (Mar 21, 2004)

sure looks similar to what we are seeing in pollotics right now. It's all about special interest groups, speaking up and trying to empower there position through numbers. I agree with thousandcast in that the only way to change the situation is to either eliminate live bait, or to tilt the earth and create another ice age. :lol: :lol:


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

I agree 110% with TC. The end result is that by forcing their "will" on others, the resulting resentment causes unnecessary divisions among anglers. This can and will act detrimentally when larger issues need to be confronted. Additionally, this discrimatory behavior actually inhibits further growth in the popularity of fly fishing, as it turns off alot of anglers who might otherwise find it enjoyable.

For anyone who had enjoyed the Muskegon before it was hyped as the "greatest tailwater trout fishery east of the Mississippi and west of the Delaware", tell me, what segment of the angling community did that come from? Do rivers and river experiences become a casualty of fly fishing's rise in popularity and hype? You decide.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

So it is more challenging to catch a trout on a fly in a flies only section where no trout can be harvested as opposed to a section of river where anyone can fish using any method and keep up to their legal limit. Sounds like good reasoning to me.

I have fished with my fly rod many times where people were fishing with other methods and I had no problem. Likewise I fish with several of my friends where I use bait and they fly fish and we have no problem. By the way, I have no problem sharing the water with fly fishermen or any other legal fisherman. If the person got their first I will honor that and either fish behind them or go the other way.

If your preferred method is fly fishing you can fish where ever you want, but I cant use my preferred method of fishing in currently over 100 miles of the best rivers in our state. That is soon to be 200 miles.

Since I use all methods and you just fly fish, I am probably better able to answer the question of which method is more challenging. You may catch more fish on bait than flies, but it is because the fish feed on live bait more often. I am not surprised though, many fly fishermen confuse that with the sport being more difficult.


Like Mondrella said if you want a challenge, fish nightcrawlers on the bottom during the hex hatch. I raised that question to more than one fly fisherman and most of them think that would be stupid unless they catch the fact that it is a loaded question. So while you are beating the water to a froth when the fish are feeding on worms on the bottom like after a rain, you can call that challenging if you want, but dont be surprised is some worm dunkers just shake their heads in amazement. 

You can stick with your good reason if you want to, but Im not buying it. Care to try again.


----------



## Old Steelhead Dude (Jan 5, 2003)

Fly fishing doesnt exclude you from fishing the water
You just need to follow the rules of the new game
And yes a more challenging one.
Most of the objection is coming from people who if they took the time to learn to fly-fish would be sold on the idea. 
Dont get me wrong I dont believe all water should be flies only.
Just a good golfers look for more challenging courses 
Good fisherman will need more challenge also.

Regards
OSD.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

Yeah OSD, but if it is about a challenge, one could always challenge oneself without forcing others to take on the same challenge. If currently restricted waters were open to bait and fly fishing, it would not prevent a person from challenging themselves by chucking dry flies at fish that were feeding on crayfish.

Like I can play from the Blue tees and you can play the pro golds if you want.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

OSD,

I can see you just dont get my drift. I have been fly fishing for over 40 years and I love to fly fish although these days I prefer to fish dry flies. The only time I do it though is when I see trout rising. By the way, I would never insist that you bait fish or only or spinner fish because I think you would enjoy it like me or because I believe it to be more challenging. That would be selfish.

Flies only water does not exclude me from fly fishing, but it excludes me from fishing other legal ways I might prefer, like bait or lures. Define a good fisherman, please.

You did give me one idea though, I think it would be much more challenging if I went brook trout fishing and used my 9 iron. Sorry.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Perhaps this thread should be split into two. One about a debate on the merits of a 15" limit on parts of the MO and one about fly fishing vs other means.???


----------



## Mitch (Jan 10, 2003)

Old Steelhead Dude said:


> Good fisherman will need more challenge also.


I, as well as others here I'm sure, take that remark as a kick in the balls. Typical for the type as I see it.

I too would like your definition of a "good fisherman". You lead us to believe that all "good fishermen" are flyfishermen? 

No one asked me but here's my definition of a "good fisherman". A good fisherman does what it takes to catch fish. He can, and does, adjust techniques to match the conditions and scenarios. 

Mitch


----------



## MPsteelheader (May 2, 2000)

as far as purism in angling...

if it catches fish why knock it???

why is that an issue? alot of times fishing on the MO the residents i catch are so leary and picky you can only get a strike on skein spawn or wax worms. i am truly honest when i say this, i dont limit myself to one technique to catch fish. truthfully you can't because your limiting yourself as an angler. if they change the regs. on trout on the MO im all for the 15" size limit. hell, i wish they'd do statewide. but as far as changing to PM "style" regs. it is only gonna attract more "tea party on the drift boat" anglers and we all know what happens with that. everybody should be able to choose what techniques they use to catch these species. it's our right as anglers of the sport. what should be the course of action here is the un doing of P.E.T.A. trying to undo the right to hunt and fish in the united states all together. why nit pick about fish that can barely survive the summer and are STOCKED there anyways. I just dont see any arguement here. if everyone is so worried about their "spots" being more and more occupied every year you should realize its bound to happen. this sport becomes more and more popular every year. thats where you need to worry, not about the numbers of fish that the dnr stocks or survives. 

eh my 2 cents

cya on the river


----------



## Old Steelhead Dude (Jan 5, 2003)

> Yeah OSD, but if it is about a challenge, one could always challenge oneself without forcing others to take on the same challenge.


I never have forced others to do anything I just play by the rules of the water I am fishing.



> No one asked me but here's my definition of a "good fisherman". A good fisherman does what it takes to catch fish. He can, and does, adjust techniques to match the conditions and scenarios.


I agree, but like I said before in this post I always play by the rules.
if you are unhappy with the rules call your congressman and organize your group to lobby the state goverment,
You could call the group (bait unlimited) :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Nuf said
OSD.


----------



## SA ULTRA MAG (Nov 7, 2001)

Just do like I do......fish fly's only water with bait, problem solved....LOL. :yikes:  :SHOCKED: 

I'm joking. I have nothing against fly dunkers other than some of their attitudes.


----------



## MPsteelheader (May 2, 2000)

OSD...

i hate to say this but fly fishing isn't that challenging...

the technicality in the sport/art is in the fly tying aspect of it...

the funny thing is...

where i fish around here i've seen "the purists" put on wax worms and spawn sacs on their flys just to catch fish...

AND one more thing...

the MO is classified as SECOND QUALITY COLD WATER...meaning its a MARGINAL TROUT STREAM at best...the river's mainstay is kings and thats all there is to it...

the only natural reproduction suitable for steelhead/trout survival is located in bigelow creek...

so whats really the arguement here...

both browns and bows in the state of michigan are NOT natural fish...

they're exotics brought in through the DNR for us as ANGLERS to broaden our angling horizons...

why aren't you guys complaining about the drastic drop in brook trout populations across the state???

or better yet GRAYLING...us as civilization wiped the species out in the state of michigan...

stop nit picking how someone should fish more like you...because quite frankly every "REAL" angler learns something new from each of their peers...and thats what makes you a good fisherman...

cya on the river...

mark


----------



## stealydawn (Mar 21, 2004)

The people who either can't learn or do not want to "fly fish", can always use a clear bubble with a fly behind it. You can use any kind of rod and reel, can't you?. It's easier to cast and at times may be even better under certain circumstances. Like drifting through holes were a fly caster could not possibly cast a fly in, just drift the bobber/fly combo down into the hole. :fish2:


----------



## MPsteelheader (May 2, 2000)

or even a modern drift setup to swing the fly as well


----------



## Neapolis (Apr 22, 2000)

Changes next year on the mighty MO. Water slide to be installed at Croton dam. Special regulations Thornapple to Newaygo. Boobs in Tubes only. Size limits also, C cup to Hennings, D from Hennings to Newaygo DNR launch. Topless only to Andersons. You guys have been too worked up for way too long on this topic.  I would let you in on some other regs being discussed, but the librarian at the Newaygo library might give me my third strike. :sad:


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Now those are some "special regs" we can all live with

Good one, Dale :lol:


----------



## tangleknot (Oct 8, 2001)

Looks like we'll be taking the boat at Anderson's from now on! :bouncy: :bouncy:


----------



## newfishy (Jul 28, 2004)

Hey,
All this regs. stuff is over my head, but I do have some questions about fishing on the river. I'll be puting in at Evret (?) stopping at Paris and then the following day going to Hersey. I've done a lot of fly fishing in Colorado, but none in the midwest unless you count the Chicago River (actually pretty fun)). I'll aslo be bringing the basic rod and lures. The question is can any of you suggest the type of flies or lures to bring?


----------

