# Whats the solution???



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

A lot of talk and debating about gear restricted waters in Michigan. Here is the question, what is the solution to this issue? As I have stated in the past I think the state should leave things as they are meaning the GR waters they have stay GR and NO NEW WATERS ADDED. That way the Fly guys have some areas with restricted harvest and restricted gear while the rest remains open to hardware and bait guys. What are your thoughts on what would be acceptable terms to live with so all types of fishermen although may not be completely happy they can get along? Input now please.

Ganzer


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

why should a certain group (since you are putting it that way) have access to themselves? why should they be given such special rights? our resources should be shared by all people who fish any legal method they choose. as someone who fishes with many types of tackle I find this whole issue a distraction from real world issues that are a larger, longer term threat to our fisheries. climate change, energy development, capitalism, etc.

the only water that should be flies only is the s. branch ausable through the mason tract, since (as I understand it) the land donation was accepted by the state under conditions that the water became flies only. I would not advocate future acquisitions with the same conditions however.

oh, the solution would be to remove the gr regs from all other waters where these agreements are not in place.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

I am looking for input on a solution both sides may be able to livce with like drop GR but make more sections no kill or ideas like that. Obviously, neither side will be completely happy unless they get it 100% thier way which I don't see happening but what would work in the middle somewhere?

Ganzer


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

In my opinion there should no flies only waters unless the fishery is in trouble from a biological standpoint. My reasoning is quite simple: It is the citizens water, not a select segment of society. We ALL pay for these waters in one way or another, be it in license fees, taxes, etc. As long as one is using an accepted form of fishing, there should be no gear restricted waters, by that I mean, let's not get off track and talk about TNT, nets, or whatever, that just detracts from the debate in my mind.

As for the Mason Tract, yeah that's a great stretch of water, but it was never for the land owners to even have that agreement, it isn't their water, period. The soil under the water MAY be owned by them but the running waters are owned by all citizens, not just riparian owners.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Im with toto.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Well I guess its obvious nobody wants to budge so I guess we will just continue to bang our heads against the wall. 

Ganzer


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Merg: Feel free to show us how the flies only guys such as yourself are "budging" or trying to work out a deal. "Keep it as is.." is far from an agreement deal. 

What could be done is stricter creel limits on some streams(instead of keeping 5 limits, maybe keepiong only 2 fish) in exchange for reducing flies only water and open up to say maybe....artificial only waters!! See how this works....:lol:


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

beer and nuts said:


> Merg: Feel free to show us how the flies only guys such as yourself are "budging" or trying to work out a deal. "Keep it as is.." is far from an agreement deal.
> 
> What could be done is stricter creel limits on some streams(instead of keeping 5 limits, maybe keepiong only 2 fish) in exchange for reducing flies only water and open up to say maybe....artificial only waters!! See how this works....:lol:


 
Hey, I am not a FLY guy. Most of my fishing is done drifting crawlers. I agree 100% with reduced creel limits and even increased size limits for that matter. I am just wonderign whats the common ground area between the two sides. As I have stated I fish mostly smaller stream with crawlers so I really don't get involved in it too much as I prefer to stay away from the fly stretch of the PM. I just wonder if there is a place in the middle.

Ganzer


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

MERGANZER said:


> Hey, I am not a FLY guy. Most of my fishing is done drifting crawlers. I agree 100% with reduced creel limits and even increased size limits for that matter. I am just wonderign whats the common ground area between the two sides. As I have stated I fish mostly smaller stream with crawlers so I really don't get involved in it too much as I prefer to stay away from the fly stretch of the PM. I just wonder if there is a place in the middle.
> 
> Ganzer


This is the closest you'll find to common ground. Some on both sides will never budge, but since the vast majority of trout are released (or selectively harvested) anyway, creel and size limits are where you'll find conversation starters... 

Biologically, I don't think we need any of it, but I realize (and so does the DNR & NRC) that this is not a biology issue - it's a social issue. Social issues largely require compromise. I posted a big write up on this about a year ago in this forum, you might look at it and see how it sits with your thoughts and ideas. Like any compromise, some liked it and some hated it. No skin off my back. 

Don


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

I think creel limits and size limits would go over with most people. Most fishermen I know want a limit of perch or eyes or gills for a fish fry but rarely want more than one trout at a time. Maybe this is where the enti fly only people need to focus efforts. No kill, increased size and lowered creel zones etc. You will never make everyone happy thats the fact.

Ganzer


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

The best solution for all involved is to grow the numbers of trout fisherman. To help ensure we always will have a quality fishery over the long term. The best way I believe to do that is to take a huge step in simplifying the trout regulations. Do away with GR water. Change the regulations across the board to type 1 waters along with type 4. On our put and take sections of river like the most the big man maybe have a type 3 water for LRB. A five fish limit like it is now forthe traditional trout season. Steel and LRB the 3 fish limit like now. 
That is more than fair. Our biologist have said we could possibly raise the limit to 20 fish and not hurt trout numbers with today's fisherman mentality. The drop from 10 to 5 was another social move.
Like I have said you would be amazed at the true numbers of trout out there if you could see them all.


----------



## fishman210 (Jan 10, 2008)

mondrella said:


> The best solution for all involved is to grow the numbers of trout fisherman. To help ensure we always will have a quality fishery over the long term. The best way I believe to do that is to take a huge step in simplifying the trout regulations. Do away with GR water. Change the regulations across the board to type 1 waters along with type 4. On our put and take sections of river like the most the big man maybe have a type 3 water for LRB. A five fish limit like it is now forthe traditional trout season. Steel and LRB the 3 fish limit like now.
> That is more than fair. Our biologist have said we could possibly raise the limit to 20 fish and not hurt trout numbers with today's fisherman mentality. The drop from 10 to 5 was another social move.
> Like I have said you would be amazed at the true numbers of trout out there if you could see them all.


I agree! Too bad we are separated by living and FAKE. Everyone should have equal opportunity!! We all pay the same price to walk the rivers. We should all be able to fish the same rivers alike!!! BUT, it's America and if u don't have money, U don't have as much say.....weather we like it or not, THAT'S HOW IT IS. Reminds me of school children gathered in a hall way, grouped up in their little "clicks". Some people never grow up! 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

mondrella said:


> The best solution for all involved is to grow the numbers of trout fisherman. To help ensure we always will have a quality fishery over the long term. The best way I believe to do that is to take a huge step in simplifying the trout regulations. Do away with GR water. Change the regulations across the board to type 1 waters along with type 4. On our put and take sections of river like the most the big man maybe have a type 3 water for LRB. A five fish limit like it is now forthe traditional trout season. Steel and LRB the 3 fish limit like now.
> That is more than fair. Our biologist have said we could possibly raise the limit to 20 fish and not hurt trout numbers with today's fisherman mentality. The drop from 10 to 5 was another social move.
> Like I have said you would be amazed at the true numbers of trout out there if you could see them all.


Wow best idea I have heard.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

mondrella said:


> The best solution for all involved is to grow the numbers of trout fisherman. To help ensure we always will have a quality fishery over the long term. The best way I believe to do that is to take a huge step in simplifying the trout regulations. Do away with GR water. Change the regulations across the board to type 1 waters along with type 4. On our put and take sections of river like the most the big man maybe have a type 3 water for LRB. A five fish limit like it is now forthe traditional trout season. Steel and LRB the 3 fish limit like now.
> That is more than fair. Our biologist have said we could possibly raise the limit to 20 fish and not hurt trout numbers with today's fisherman mentality. The drop from 10 to 5 was another social move.
> Like I have said you would be amazed at the true numbers of trout out there if you could see them all.


 I agree and I am 90% fly. There a lot of big trout out there and most of them are in the unrestricted waters.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

How many trout are in the Au Sable system? We can never even measure the amount. How about the PM? End GR's and open the rivers up. I fish both systems but fish the Boardman and mainly the Manistee and its tribs. Trout fishing is a dying sport. I rarely see an angler on the stream unless it is opening weekend. Over harvest is not an issue at all. I haven't hooked up a crawler in years, I sometimes take out the hardware but I really enjoy fly fishing now. Fly fishing is my primary means to fish now however I will never change my stance of GR's. If it is proven the fish are in so much peril of total destruction or collapse then ban fishing that system all together. I feel bad for the kids that could ride their bikes down to any GR river and soak some worms.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Here is an idea. They start a study now, then review it in 5 yrs, when things do not change in the new gr water they do a study on traditional gr water while allowing all bait/ lures. When they find nothing changed biologically yet again, they overturn all gr water and everyone is happy. Oh wait the ffo and cr sect still won't believe it and the state would maintain gr water for no reason but to keep the elitists happy.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Again, I'd like to see everyone happy on both sides but I don't see the flies only stufff going away. There is a great deal of Guides and individuals that would fight that thing like crazy and those stretches have become known worldwide for thier "fly fishing" opportunities. 

Ganzer


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

MERGANZER said:


> Again, I'd like to see everyone happy on both sides but I don't see the flies only stufff going away. There is a great deal of Guides and individuals that would fight that thing like crazy and those stretches have become known worldwide for thier "fly fishing" opportunities.
> 
> Ganzer


That is the problem, they pimp fisheries for the almighty dollar, but want to keep it ffo for their own benefit. They make money off of public resources, but don't want to share with thr public...a little morally/ethically wrong imo, but morals and ethics are objective.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

MERGANZER said:


> Again, I'd like to see everyone happy on both sides but I don't see the flies only stufff going away. There is a great deal of Guides and individuals that would fight that thing like crazy and those stretches have become known worldwide for thier "fly fishing" opportunities.
> 
> Ganzer


 Can you tell why they could not still be advertised as world class fly water?? Is it because they are to good to fish next to a bait fisherman? Many guides on the Mo advertise it as world class water. Which at certain times it fits that then some. One of the most diverse fisheries in the united states.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

mondrella said:


> Can you tell why they could not still be advertised as world class fly water?? Is it because they are to good to fish next to a bait fisherman? Many guides on the Mo advertise it as world class water. Which at certain times it fits that then some. One of the most diverse fisheries in the united states.


 
Its just my opinion. I don't care who I fish next to or what they are useing. I just think there is too much hype about the fly waters. I have fished it and didn't see any difference from the other stretches. Only difference is its shallower than a lot of waters downstream and it has some large gravel runs. There is water in baldwin that is better than the flies only water I'm telling ya.

Ganzer


----------

