# Here is your new reg for you...



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

This was just sent to me. Didn't see this coming from 100 miles away. What a joke.

New proposals updated today:*http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/GearRestrictedWatersReview_332448_7.pdf

Pere Marquette River, (Lake County), Gleason&#8217;s Landing downstream to Bowman Bridge
Gear restriction:*artificial flies only
Fishing season:*open for the entire year*
Possession season:*closed for the entire year; EXCEPT that for children under the age of 12-years old the possession season is open for the entire year
Daily possession limit:*zero (0) trout and salmon; EXCEPT that for children under the age of 12-years old the daily possession limit shall be one (1) trout or salmon
Size limits:*not applicable; EXCEPT that for children under the age of 12-years old the*minimum size limit*shall be 8 inches and the*maximum size limit*shall be 12 inches for all species of trout and salmon
Mileage:*2.9 miles


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

This is a joke, right???


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

toto said:


> This is a joke, right???


I wish.

Don't worry, I'm sure it won't pass:lol::rant:


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> What a joke.


Well, there ya go. You just accurately summed up just about every fisheries salmon/steelhead/trout decision that's been made since Jim Dexter was put in the position he's in now. 

I can't wait to see the science that went into this one. Well, like every other "order" coming out of Plainwell and Lansing the last few years, I won't hold my breath waiting too long. 

It's a damn shame, because for years there was this period where anglers like myself supported and cooperated with the DNR and things seemed to be going in a direction that was positive. Well, apparently they prefer negative PR instead of cooperation because they've certainly done all they can do to drive a wedge between them and a lot of anglers out there. Count me in as one of them. I have nothing but respect for the field biologists and the law enforcement officials, but I'm done...don't count on me for any support, river watches, clean ups, etc. As far as I'm concerned, my level of support stops with the field biologists and techs that are out there busting their a**es and actually using science to make decisions.


----------



## TUNNY (Jun 20, 2007)

Not real familiar with the PM just fished it last week for the first time we fished east of the Dow bridge between it and Suttons landing where is the Gleason landing at upstream or down stream from Rt. 31 bridge


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Let's see, a kid can keep one trout or salmon if he's under 12 years old, ok, that's cool, kinda, but it has to be between 8 and 12 inches!!! Now I know the salmon and steelhead are getting smaller and smaller, but why don't they just type, absolutly no salmon or steelhead can be removed because this is "special water" for special people and one skinny 10 inch trout is enough junior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## phlyphisher (Aug 15, 2001)

Heres a link to the full proposal:
Final Proposal for Gear Restricted Stream Regulations in Michigan


----------



## jstrand (Jun 18, 2010)

I have a quick question, being relatively new to the sport this may be a stupid question, but im wondering if like most politics, whether it be federal government politics, state or local level, or even workplace politics, the higher ups make the decisions without input from us lowly peasants, and never seem to have a valid reason for their decisions. Im just curious if anglers have input that is taken into consideration, and when decisions are made if explanations are given.


----------



## Ron Matthews (Aug 10, 2006)

:yikes:
Wow!


----------



## cant_get_enough_fishing (Jun 8, 2009)

So basically from the flies only regulation, they are worried about there not being enough fish. Do they make these new regulations because bait fishing is more effective then fly fishing?


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

What I find more ominous is the wordsmithing that took place in this document. Gone are the itemized criteria and rationales from the first document, ostensibly because some of the points were easily countered.
Also lacking in the draft is a sense of balance regarding the statements made based on the DNR's proprietary data. No, this one is left more vague and open-ended and very much kicks the door open for more changes.

For example:
_The recommendations proposed in this document represent an ongoing commitment to improve
regulations that govern fishing for trout and salmon in rivers of the State, and to create diverse
fishing opportunities and experiences for anglers pursuing trout and salmon on the States rivers.
Following the completion of this process, the DNRE will continue its efforts to further refine
regulations for trout fishing in Michigan. Fisheries Division appreciates the input of everyone
involved in this process._

What bothers me is nothing is mentioned about making regulations to improve the fishery itself. Also what has become pointedly ominous is the deletion of exclusion criteria for streams that support potadromous runs.

Like I said a couple of days ago, we could propose different alternatives that maybe would have provided for more tangible improvements in the fishery, especially as it relates to steelhead and likely would be found more agreeable across the board. However, at least on a public forum like this, I feel very hesitant talking about it, lest some group would run with it to push these changes in addition to getting more gear regs shoved up our collective colons. 

Having said that, at least as far as what was being pushed hard for on the PM, my thanks goes out to many of you for your efforts, as I believe without your hard work, I am sure the gear restrictions on the PM would have gone down to lower branch or all the way to Walhalla. That said, the extra 3 miles appears to be just a waypoint for a short while.

I hate to say it, but the way this document is worded, it sounds like just the start of things.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

cant_get_enough_fishing said:


> So basically from the flies only regulation, they are worried about there not being enough fish. Do they make these new regulations because bait fishing is more effective then fly fishing?


In the previous draft, it was noted that 23 years of gear and fish possession limits did not demonstrate an increase in the size and population of brown trout in the flys only water. As far as bait fishing being more effective, that is variable depending on the species and season. In some cases, bait fishing may be the least effective.

This has more to do with groups that spurn baitfishing pushing their views upon all of us, at least as far as quality Blue Ribbon trout streams in the state.

In response to Jstrand's inquiry, all you need to do is to compare the original draft and this latest draft, and also read Splitshot's thread on PM Concerns in this forum. That should answer your question.


----------



## Reel_Screamer86 (Mar 22, 2007)

Ron Matthews said:


> :yikes:
> Wow!


 
There for a minute Ron i thought it was the AS ....:lol::lol: But we could'nt be so "lucky"....

I just would like to know what Steve @BBT thinks about this...to me it's BS...


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

riverman said:


> Let's see, a kid can keep one trout or salmon if he's under 12 years old, ok, that's cool, kinda, but it has to be between 8 and 12 inches!!! Now I know the salmon and steelhead are getting smaller and smaller, but why don't they just type, absolutly no salmon or steelhead can be removed because this is "special water" for special people and one skinny 10 inch trout is enough junior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That was already in effect this year on portions of the Au Sable and the F/O water of the PM

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_52261-234620--,00.html


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Good news! My pension fund just gained $100.00 a week. My boys are going to be bummed though. No small game, bow, or gun licenses for us this year. Tough decision, but if you want to regulate for the social minority, let the minority pay your healthcare, wage and pension. Good day.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

What a steaming pile of crap. This is one of my favorite stretches of the PM, and if this passes, will add this to yet another section of stream that I no longer fish. Which means I won't visit and patronize any of the areas businesses either.


----------



## Fish Eye (Mar 30, 2007)

Well, seems like it's time to revisit the Hank's Hooligan's floss-n-snag MOOD piece. When are people going to realize what a crock fly fishing is for steelhead/salmon in MI? (with the noteworthy exception of swinging/stripping)


----------



## salmo'dog (Aug 24, 2007)

Fish Eye said:


> When are people going to realize what a crock fly fishing is for steelhead/salmon in MI? (with the noteworthy exception of swinging/stripping)


Well said ! 

Example: While I am fishing holes and having success on a cloudy / overcast day having salmon slam on cranks / spinners, or spawn under a bobber, there will be a couple of boats come by that are stripping streamers at fish getting them to commit to a crushing hit that mimics that of a casting rod hit. OK, fishing is still good...UNTIL,

The chuck and duck style angler comes along and runs the line into as many fish as possible in the holes while doing that signature so called "hook set" at the end of each drift. Once that happens, say goodbye to the biting fish...your fun day has just ended, until that so called "angler" leaves, and a new pod of fish shows up.

I just love the mentality of a high percentage of people who fish who actually really believe that once salmon hit the rivers they stop biting!


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

I know the guys that did the Hank's Hooligan's video. It was honestly the worst display of "fly fishing" I have ever seen. These guys put a huge scar on the method of fishing that I primarily use. Funny how it doesn't matter what type of tackle that is used, there is always someone out there using it to snag fish. If these guys would have been ripping Thundersticks into the backs of salmon those of you that fish body baits legit would be very upset.

I used to shop at the fly shop these guys owned. Until I saw their video that is. I guess questioning why they went out of business isn't really a question. Nobody wants to give money to people who advocate illegal fishing activity.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

The Downstream Drift said:


> I know the guys that did the Hank's Hooligan's video. It was honestly the worst display of "fly fishing" I have ever seen. These guys put a huge scar on the method of fishing that I primarily use. Funny how it doesn't matter what type of tackle that is used, there is always someone out there using it to snag fish. If these guys would have been ripping Thundersticks into the backs of salmon those of you that fish body baits legit would be very upset.
> 
> I used to shop at the fly shop these guys owned. Until I saw their video that is. I guess questioning why they went out of business isn't really a question. Nobody wants to give money to people who advocate illegal fishing activity.


Very good post--nicely done.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Fishslayer5789 said:


> Was that the Michigan Out-of-Doors video shot on the PM within the last couple years? I remember watching that in complete shock, not understanding why they would ever have aired it anywhere for the public to see. It was pathetic. Are those the guys your are referring to that actually went out of business?!?:yikes:



http://www.michiganoutofdoorstv.com/shows.cfm?VideoID=49


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Well, since the fly guys up there already hate us lowly bait guys, let's give them a damn good reason to. From here on out, the answer is simple: Stringer the hell out of everything that bites a hook from Bowman's down to the lake. 

Legal sized brown or rainbow? Rope it up.

Salmon and steelhead? Rope those limits. 

There's some damn good sticks on this site, let's just show them how much damage we're capable of doing. Just like our fishing licenses allow us to do.

Mark my words, come next fall you're gonna see a First Annual Lower PM Slaughterfest thread pop up where on a designated weekend, we get as many gut chuckers as possible packed in that water below Custer and the name of the game will be limits, limits, limits. No, I'm not kidding. Three guys in a boat? Rope 15, two guys--rope 10, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Matter of fact, here's a pic a good friend of mine sent me of a* bobber 'n gut *slam fest they had on the PM this past Sunday. 

Nice Job, guys--helluva day and that's some damn fine ropin'!!!


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

:lol:

No wonder the upper is void of fish

Yeah, pretty embarassing for us (regular) flydunkers. Oh well, another reason to avoid the PM. Like the guides wasn't enough discouragement.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

TC, I recognize your anger with the issue. You and others (including myself) have the right to be very upset with the regs if they go through. Just remember though, the PM one of the very few rivers that we have natural reproduction of salmon. As a fishermen from Southeast Michigan I realize the importance of natural reproduction (mainly because we get no salmon reproduction down here). 

If everyone from Don's petition joined the slaughterfest weekend and stringered up a llimit of salmon there would be over 500 less salmon to reproduce. I know that is only a fraction of the total spawning population but it will impact things. 

Remember, I'm greatly opposed to the regulation changes on the PM. I used to enjoy stopping at Gleason's to stringer my last fresh king prior to heading home. If this goes through, I will not have that option anymore.

The goal here should be to take these issues out on those who can do something about it, not to take it out on one of the best fisheries in our state.


----------



## salmo'dog (Aug 24, 2007)

thousandcasts said:


> Well, since the fly guys up there already hate us lowly bait guys, let's give them a damn good reason to. From here on out, the answer is simple: Stringer the hell out of everything that bites a hook from Bowman's down to the lake.
> 
> Legal sized brown or rainbow? Rope it up.
> 
> ...


hutch, count me in..I'll fill your gas tank on the boat.Let me know when!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

I am all for gear restrictions "if needed", but if it's needed, make it no kill as well. You can snag/lift fish with fly gear just as easily as you can a spoon or a spinner. I do see restriciting gear and not allowing bait when needed. 

While I was in SE Alaksa, all the steelie streams there are no bait, single hook only. When they say no bait it means nothing with a scent. I don't remember ever hookinga fish any deeper than the tongue, which helps survival after release, especially if you take care of the fish during release. They didn't stock fish, all natural. 

I don't care how good you are with bait, eventually you hook fish deep, in places where it's only natural reproduction, every fish taken out or killed is one less that provides for the future, which is the case on a few rivers/streams here in Michigan. In rivers where it's a put and take fishery, which most of Michigan Salmon and steelies are, take em. 

I would have no issues with changing the Flies Only area to "A No Bait/No Kill", but to restrict it to just the fly guys, I see no solid evidence that flies kill fewer fish than hardware.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Great signature!

Want proof your dog loves you more than your wife/girlfriend. Lock them both in the trunk for an hour and see which which one is happy to see you when you open it.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Abel said:


> I would have no issues with changing the Flies Only area to "A No Bait/No Kill", but to restrict it to just the fly guys, I see no solid evidence that flies kill fewer fish than hardware.


Excellent point. "Gear restricted" water shouldn't exclude people that don't want to use flies. That being said, and not that I necessarily agree, "flies only" is not the same as "flyfishing only" in the sense that spinning, baitcasting, and float gear may be used. Maybe we should all tie up a bunch of glo-bugs and hit the fly water with anything but a fly rod/reel?


----------



## fishn' 4 life (Jul 24, 2005)

Flyfisher said:


> Excellent point. "Gear restricted" water shouldn't exclude people that don't want to use flies. That being said, and not that I necessarily agree, "flies only" is not the same as "flyfishing only" in the sense that spinning, baitcasting, and float gear may be used. Maybe we should all tie up a bunch of glo-bugs and hit the fly water with anything but a fly rod/reel?


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

Ya get 50 of us to hold up the stretch between 37 and the Cottage w/ Snoopy rods loaded w/ 50lb braided and double fly rigs. I say 2/0 globugs and and size 22 Stone fly. Those little Stones really annoy the kings on the beds

With the utmost sarcasim...


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Fish Eye said:


> Well, seems like it's time to revisit the Hank's Hooligan's floss-n-snag MOOD piece. When are people going to realize what a crock fly fishing is for steelhead/salmon in MI? (with the noteworthy exception of swinging/stripping)


huh? To paraphrase a guide "it's legit if you set the hook on the BUMP"


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Abel said:


> Ya get 50 of us to hold up the stretch between 37 and the Cottage w/ Snoopy rods loaded w/ 50lb braided and double fly rigs. I say 2/0 globugs and and size 22 Stone fly. Those little Stones really annoy the kings on the beds


If I am going to waste my time fishing kings on beds, its so I can kill one for the eggs and to cook the meat up for my dogs. I guess this would exclude the "no kill" areas.

I was picturing 20 or 30 of us running egg flies under bobbers with centerpins and baitcasters during the spring steelhead "run".


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

The Downstream Drift said:


> TC, I recognize your anger with the issue. You and others (including myself) have the right to be very upset with the regs if they go through. Just remember though, the PM one of the very few rivers that we have natural reproduction of salmon. As a fishermen from Southeast Michigan I realize the importance of natural reproduction (mainly because we get no salmon reproduction down here).
> 
> If everyone from Don's petition joined the slaughterfest weekend and stringered up a llimit of salmon there would be over 500 less salmon to reproduce. I know that is only a fraction of the total spawning population but it will impact things.
> 
> ...


Downstream,

It'd be more dead kings than that - although I'd have to take some gut/bobber classes from Hutch first.  

We're up to almost 140 signatures now! And that's all from people on one web site! I never posted this anyplace else (although I thought about it). And I stopped pressing weeks ago, yet the signatures keep trickling in...

Check it out:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/againstgearrestrictions/signatures?page=3

I think the true number of people opposed to this discriminatory crud is likely staggering. It's too bad we don't have an organization that represents the rest of us to get us organized/supported (read: money). Then we could bend some ears in Lansing, like the rest...

Anyone interested in Michigan Sportsmen For Science/Research in Regulations (MSSRR)? 

Don


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

Didn't Michigan have a Steelheaders Club? I remember when I joined Ohio's in the early 90's seeing MI Steelheaders Hats n such?


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Don,

That's great to hear. Last I remember seeing you were just over 100. That much support is very encouraging from just this one site. We obviously know there are far more people that support your petition than are just on this site.

Your thought of an organized group is a good one. Currently there is not really a group that supports the average fisherman with the power to bend the MDNRE like TU can. It would take awhile to get a group like this established but you have several guys on this site, including yourself, that have proven through various threads here to great advocates for this group.

The only thing I would suggest is that a newly formed group like this needs to be non-restrictive. Meaning guys like myself (open-minded flyfisherman) need to be included. Another group that promotes segregation is not the direction to go, in my opinion. I believe though that you and others here would be happy to mix in all forms of fishing as long as the thought process for regulations was based on real science.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Abel,

There are various Steelheaders groups around the state. The problem though is that most of them are mainly focused on the big lakes not the rivers. The group downstate that I sometimes work with is just starting working on a river group. It is encouraging to see them doing this but I doubt highly that the focus will ever reach 40% on rivers.


----------



## fishn' 4 life (Jul 24, 2005)

Flyfisher said:


> Excellent point. "Gear restricted" water shouldn't exclude people that don't want to use flies. That being said, and not that I necessarily agree, "flies only" is not the same as "flyfishing only" in the sense that spinning, baitcasting, and float gear may be used. Maybe we should all tie up a bunch of glo-bugs and hit the fly water with anything but a fly rod/reel?


Great idea. Should we recruit some yellow rodders too? Can you fish with a size 2 treble fly? 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

The Downstream Drift said:


> Don,
> 
> That's great to hear. Last I remember seeing you were just over 100. That much support is very encouraging from just this one site. We obviously know there are far more people that support your petition than are just on this site.
> 
> ...


That's exactly what my good friend Phlyphisher and I were talking about the other day. We have to somehow, get all of us who end up getting the shaft on these kinds of things, organized and develop a voice. Count me in, anytime, any place.


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

Wow, I figured this state w/ it's rep for steelies would have a couple river groups. I'm a member of TU, though not an active member, just donations out of my pay. I just started talking to a chapter president about working with them, but I'm by no means a Puritist, I love chucking bait on the pin. I want to help with stream restore, education, etc..... They definitally know about us getting involved on the issue and the uproar it's causing. They are pushing hard, just like us to get all the gear restriction supporters to do the same we are. I'm honestly for whichever is best for our fishery, just not "Fly Fishing Only" only.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

_I am a citizen concerned about the current proposal to turn the Pere Marquette River from Gleasons Landing to Bowman into flies only water.

Over the years I've had the opportunity to fish with various cold water biologists for the state and always enjoyed my time with them since they have always been very open to answering my questions from "why do jacks run the river in the fall", to "does flies only water have any biological impact on a river". I respect their opinions very much as I'm sure you do.

With my flies only question, the responses have always been that there is no benefit to flies only water, it is purely a social regulation. I have also ready many studies that support their stance. One such study states that since the current flies only stretch on the Pere Marquette from M37 to Gleasons was implemented, there has been no change to the trout population. This supports what I've been told.

When the trout regulations on the Muskegon between Thornapple and Henning came up for review a few years ago, I attended the public meeting to discuss. I found the DNR staff presenting to be very knowledgable and very prepared. All the information Jory and others gathered showed that a 15" size limit had no impact on the trout population in that stretch of the Muskegon, that combined with angler use hours is the reason they gave as to why that special regulation was being repealed. It was a great feeling to see our DNR in action, doing the studies, putting the time in and presenting a logical argument as to why the regulation was being repealed. Bascially DNR staff doing the job they were hired to do.

With the addtional Pere Marquette flies only proposal, has there been similar due diligence done as was done with Muskegon regulations to justify such a proposal? 

If there has been studies done to justify, can you provide me with them?

If there has not been studies done to justify, can you explain why such a proposal was made?_


Just sent. I'm curious how they could do such a great job on the Mo regs, but not back this proposal up with anything.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Flyfisher said:


> I think the constant harrassment of spawning fish by anglers in the gravel stretches has forced the fish to run up into the smaller tributaries to spawn. Steelhead have been in the PM since the late 1800's and the salmon since the late 1960's. But think about it, if the only fish successfully spawning are far up in the tribs, that's the nursery where they will return to for spawning. Personally, I haven't fished the PM in probably 5 or 6 years and that was always in the middle of winter. Its fairly overrated in my opinion given other waters produce just as well or better without all the additional angler pressure.


Fish have always ran up these small tribs. The thing that may have help keep the Steelhead in check on these small streams years ago was the illegal harvest of fish by locals I believe. Back then it was not uncommon to see 10 to 20 spears laying along the stream. Once the CO's cracked down on them. they quit poaching. There always was some steelhead smolt just not the numbers there is today. Also possibly maybe some enviromental changes are playing a role. Brown trout numbers however don't seem to have increased. This is just from my fishing experiences on these streams. Nothing truely Scientific. Maybe there is some other factor that led to demise of possibly the best trophy brook trout water in the LP.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

You'll find this hard to believe, but I've actually been emailing Kelly Smith back and forth about 3 times on this issue.

In the latest email, it is said that, yes social issues are taken into account, and that the legislature of Michigan has allowed the DNR to dictate up to 212 miles of rivers/streams for gear restrictions. Since when does the legislature know anything about wildlife and its resources?

Of course I told Kelly that just because they said you can dictate 212 miles for this, doesn't mean you have to. I will say, I have to give kudos to Kelly for emailing me this much (3 times) on this issue, who knows, perhaps I've finally said something that someone listened to. We'll see how it goes from here, and see if what I've said has any impact, although I have my doubts, but at least it was nice for a change that they responed they way they did.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

toto said:


> You'll find this hard to believe, but I've actually been emailing Kelly Smith back and forth about 3 times on this issue.
> 
> In the latest email, it is said that, yes social issues are taken into account, and that the legislature of Michigan has allowed the DNR to dictate up to 212 miles of rivers/streams for gear restrictions. Since when does the legislature know anything about wildlife and its resources?
> 
> Of course I told Kelly that just because they said you can dictate 212 miles for this, doesn't mean you have to. I will say, I have to give kudos to Kelly for emailing me this much (3 times) on this issue, who knows, perhaps I've finally said something that someone listened to. We'll see how it goes from here, and see if what I've said has any impact, although I have my doubts, but at least it was nice for a change that they responed they way they did.


My email remains unanswered


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

I have had no problems with communication with anyone I want in the Fisheries Division. Every one of them has been more than willing to answer my questions.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

mondrella said:


> I have had no problems with communication with anyone I want in the Fisheries Division. Every one of them has been more than willing to answer my questions.


They must not have liked what I said? What email address are you using?


----------



## Drisc13 (May 6, 2009)

TSS Caddis said:


> IMO, they knew they would propose this from the start and they knew they were going to pass this from the start. *I find holding public meetings just to give the illusion that they care what the public thinks on this issue insulting*. If you recall we posted about the flies only extension months ago and there was some good acting done by some to say "no, that is not on the table"
> 
> 
> 
> *Hell, if we are not going to make decisions based on science, just pull any idiot off the street to make these decisions*. Why make biologists get PHD's if all that education will be ignored? Find a political science major to make trout stream reg changes if all decisions will be political.


Exactly my opinion as well...politicians sticking their hands into things they have no clue about--and us wondering whose pocket they're in???


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

If regulating by "sound science" I agree. When regulating "socially" give me an elected official over an appointed one any day. At least that way when they regulate for personal benefits and that of their friends, you have some recourse.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> If regulating by "sound science" I agree. When regulating "socially" give me an elected official over an appointed one any day. At least that way when they regulate for personal benefits and that of their friends, you have some recourse.


Concerning the almost three year effort to get crossbow regs changed the ONLY "powers that be" that asked specific questions about the science of the issue, in a public hearing where testimony was offered, were legislators. I never heard any NRC member ask qustions that brought up the this issue and THEY are the ones tasked with doing so.

Does this mean that I want all of these decisions in the hands of the legislators? No, but I do want those whose responsibility to set these laws based on science to do so and I'm not talking about "social science", but rather hard science.

I'm sorry to say it, but you can just about bet the farm that these new regs will be approved by the NRC. The DNR does not support them with any enthusiasm because they know the science does not back what is being proposed.......and what is going to happen.......and they have, basically, stated so. This, IMO, is merely a bone that is being tossed to those who want to restrict the enjoyment of our Blue Ribbon trout waters to only those who fish and think lke they do. To the ears of this particular sportsman, given my experience over the years, this has an all to familiar ring to it.

They will be back and it is for that/those times that we must be prepared and ready to do battle (metaphorically rather than physically...I say this for the dimwits out there who can't decipher the difference.)


----------



## Ausable rat (Jun 14, 2006)

I'm not trying to be a smart a## here and I admit I came into to this discussion only recently, but where does it say that any of these regulations have to based on science? If you followed the science with regards to mortality you would ban all fishing. Wouldn't that provide the ultimate in reduction of mortality? By the way the Ausable fly shops, TU, and Anglers of the Ausable have all called for support from their followers and since this will probably be approved as an entire pakage, the Ausable river supporters will have enough numbers to effect the changes on the PM. There has been no comment on the North-Eastern rivers forum again giving the support to the fact that the Ausable supporters are going effect changes on the PM.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Ausable rat said:


> where does it say that any of these regulations have to based on science?


So, should they make decisions based on the whimsical beliefs of special interest groups?

The state has made previous regulatory decisions based on science and spend a great deal on time and money on the studies of our fisheries. 

As an example, their decision to increase salmon limits and reduce salmon plants was made after studies relating to the amount of available forage (primarily alewives) in Lake Michigan. The Muskegon River had regulations on size/possession limits that were repealed after it was determined, through studies, that the tightened regulations had little impact on the size/numbers of fish in a given stretch.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I believe its changed somewhat now, but at one time, the original Department of Conservation was set to be hands off by the legislature. It was set up to be run with the knowledge that DNR specialists are the ones who know the wildlife. This was in the Administrative Procedures Act of the time, somewhere around 1920 I think. If you really stop and think about it, that makes perfect sense.

As I said earlier, the DNR has been authorized to have 212 miles of streams/rivers gear restricted, and that is the argument being used by the fly fishing organizations, and others, who feel they are entitled to have some special areas only for them. If thats the case, they should be paying more money to the DNR, as it is right now, they pay the same for their licenses as we do who don't just fly fish. If they want to be in some special group, then pay for it. I'm hoping that my emails to Kelly Smith haven't fallen on deaf ears, and I'm confident they have not. Hopefully I explained my concerns enough that, at the very least, they will taken seriously, and with a little more thought on this, than orginally taken.

Say in the end, who really has the say as to what the DNR institutes? Is the DNR themselves, or do they have to follow the NRC's directives? If its the latter, than is just wrong in my humble opinion, as you have the tendency to have special interests involved that don't necessarily do anything to protect the wildlife in this state.


----------



## Grass Shrimp (Jun 16, 2004)

I've been spending way too much time thinking about this. My biggest point I will make is that I feel that bait and hardware fisherman are way more ethical when it comes too fishing the area rivers than most of the guides and/or clients. We do not need to line and snag fish with flies because we trick them into biting. Nothing to be ashamed of there. They bash us for keeping fish. Even if they wanted to keep them they couldn't because most of the fish aren't hooked in a legal place on the fishes body. These are the people that the D.N.R.E. are taking suggestions from for our fishery. What a joke! It shouldn't be the Michigan Rivers Guide Association. It should be the MAFNSRG ( Michigan Association of Floss N Snag River Guides). Still venting and still not happy. Gleasons and Bowmans are two places that people in wheelchairs can get down to the river and actually fish a little and they want to take that away. Go figure.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ausable rat said:


> I'm not trying to be a smart a## here and I admit I came into to this discussion only recently, *but where does it say that any of these regulations have to based on science?*


 
That would be Proposal G a ballot initiative as passed by MI voters in 1996

Michigan Proposal G (1996)

Michigan Proposal G, also known as the Referendum on PA 377 of 1996, Concerning the Management of the State's Wildlife Populations, was on the November 7, 1996 election ballot in Michigan. It passed, with 68.7% of voters in favor. 

*Text of the proposal
The language that appeared on the ballot: *

Proposal G is a referendum on Public Act 377 of 1996, which would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to grant the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state. *The amendment also would require the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable, to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game. *The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. (The NREPA defines "game" as any of 38 listed birds and mammals, including bear, deer, duck, geese, rabbit, pheasant, and ruffed and sharptailed grouse. Only the Michigan Legislature may designate a species of bird or mammal as "game." The term "principles of sound scientific management" is not defined in current or proposed law.) 

*Current Game Management* (Prior to the passage of Proposal G)

The Director of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) currently has the responsibility for managing the state's animals and, to fulfill that responsibility, may issue various types of orders, including orders to establish open seasons for taking game, to specify lawful methods of taking game, and to determine the criteria for the issuance of hunting licenses. The DNR prepares orders after comments from DNR field personnel and interested persons have been solicited and considered. An order must be on the DNR's agenda for at least one month before its consideration, and the DNR must provide an opportunity for public comment on the order. According to the DNR, public comment usually is taken at the monthly meetings of the Natural Resources Commission. 

The DNR currently manages game populations by establishing harvest quotas and species management zones, increasing or decreasing the number and types of hunting licenses issued, adjusting the duration of the hunting seasons, and using the enforcement and penalty provisions of the NREPA. 

Im*pact of Proposal G *

Prior to Executive Order 1991-31 of 1991, the Natural Resources Commission had the authority to establish policies concerning the taking of game. The executive order abolished the existing DNR and a number of agencies, commissions, and boards; created a new DNR; and vested in the director of the new DNR all of the authority of the abolished entities and the Natural Resources Commission. 

Passage of Proposal G would give the Natural Resources Commission the exclusive authority under the NREPA to establish policies for the taking of game.


----------



## turtlehead (Oct 26, 2004)

Whit1 said:


> The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. *(The NREPA defines "game" as any of 38 listed birds and mammals, including bear, deer, duck, geese, rabbit, pheasant, and ruffed and sharptailed grouse. Only the Michigan Legislature may designate a species of bird or mammal as "game."* The term "principles of sound scientific management" is not defined in current or proposed law.)


Note that this does not include fish species. If I recall, Prop G was placed on the ballot concerning issues regarding bear hunting. Definition of game as from Prop G (PA 377 of 1996) 
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28noewfbb0vzuzv245lktilr55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-324-40103

I'm not a hunter, but I voted yes on Prop G thinking it also included fish species. It wasn't until recently when I discovered it only pertains to birds and mammals, i.e. game. For better or worse however, Prop G has no bearing regarding the taking of fish or gear restrictions in the state of Michigan. 

What is interesting to me is while Prop G proposes scientific management for the taking of game, it specifically states that only the Legislature may designate what is considered game.

FWIW, I come out in support of gear restrictions, but only slightly. Because of these threads I have gone from a flies only stance to an artificials only position because of the arguments that some of you have presented. I take a similar position to that of Shoeman; I would like to see more reaches opened up to year round angling, combined with artificials only/no kill in the off season. As far as the new regs on the PM, I feel like it flies in the face of the original intent of overhauling the inland trout regs.

Another thing I have realized from this debate is that we are all our own special interest group. I applaud the effort for the bait/artificial crowd to get organized. The more people taking an active approach on our waters, the better it will be for fishing in the long run. While we may disagree on gear restrictions, I have a feeling that we are much closer on many other issues regarding trout fishing in Michigan.

Sincerely, 
A Fly Fisherman


----------

