# Do you support Gear Restrictions?



## Boardman Brookies

I know we do not need yet another thread about this but I am just curious if the MS members oppose or support GR's. I have stayed out of the debates for the most part recently and I know others have too. So here is a poll. Lets see the results.


----------



## tannhd

Sort of broad to just have yes and no as the choices. 

I dont support gear restrictions that limit the type of fishing (ie fly vs conventional), but other restrictions such as barbless hooks for instance have value on some waters imo. 

So I dont really know how to answer...

:16suspect


----------



## METTLEFISH

AGAINST

Gear restrictions fuel anti fishing groups and are discriminative and silly as the fsih are put here to be caught! Seasons, daily, seasonal limits & fair chase rules are necessary though they do little to stop over harvesting by those that do....


----------



## DFJISH

METTLEFISH said:


> AGAINST
> Gear restrictions fuel anti fishing groups and are discriminative and silly as the fsih are put here to be caught! Seasons, daily, seasonal limits & fair chase rules are necessary though they do little to stop over harvesting by those that do....


I agree. Animal rights groups must be high-fiving themselves that fishermen are doing exactly what they'd like to see done. We are becoming our own worst enemy.


----------



## kzoofisher

tannhd said:


> So I dont really know how to answer...
> 
> :16suspect


I would suggest answering yes and putting your specific acceptable criteria in a post. We could always have another poll about hook types after this one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Jeese, now we're "harvesting" fish too........will have to modify my signature

I like the gear restrictions, but would lose no sleep if they were eliminated.


----------



## tannhd

kzoofisher said:


> I would suggest answering yes and putting your specific acceptable criteria in a post. We could always have another poll about hook types after this one.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
I put no because I would support the complete removal of all gear restrictions over what is currently in place.


----------



## thousandcasts

tannhd said:


> Sort of broad to just have yes and no as the choices.
> 
> I dont support gear restrictions that limit the type of fishing (ie fly vs conventional), but other restrictions such as barbless hooks for instance have value on some waters imo.
> 
> So I dont really know how to answer...
> 
> :16suspect



Ah yes, the hook thing--that opens up a whole new can of worms. 

To put it as gentle as I can: *&^% that. 

Here's why: It might be a great idea for getting bait fishing back in some sections of trout water, but sooner or later some of these people who think a steelhead is on the same level as Jesus will be pushing for the same hook restrictions in salmon and steelhead water. 

I'll be damned if I'm going to start running circle hooks under a bobber or putting single hooks on my cranks and plugs. Hell...freakin'...no. 

As you can tell, the whole barbless/circle hook thing is a touchy subject with me. :lol:


----------



## swampswede

tannhd said:


> Sort of broad to just have yes and no as the choices.
> 
> I dont support gear restrictions that limit the type of fishing (ie fly vs conventional), but other restrictions such as barbless hooks for instance have value on some waters imo.
> 
> So I dont really know how to answer...
> 
> :16suspect


This is how I feel.


----------



## broncbuster2

NO......


----------



## brushbuster

yup


----------



## tannhd

thousandcasts said:


> Ah yes, the hook thing--that opens up a whole new can of worms.
> 
> To put it as gentle as I can: *&^% that.
> 
> Here's why: It might be a great idea for getting bait fishing back in some sections of trout water, but sooner or later some of these people who think a steelhead is on the same level as Jesus will be pushing for the same hook restrictions in salmon and steelhead water.
> 
> I'll be damned if I'm going to start running circle hooks under a bobber or putting single hooks on my cranks and plugs. Hell...freakin'...no.
> 
> As you can tell, the whole barbless/circle hook thing is a touchy subject with me. :lol:


But this would only be to replace the current flies only regs on the affected waters. I don't see the holy waters being opened to Alabama rigs, but I think there may be a middle ground with just changing the hooking mechanism rather than the actual bait.


----------



## REG

tannhd said:


> Sort of broad to just have yes and no as the choices.
> 
> I dont support gear restrictions that limit the type of fishing (ie fly vs conventional), but other restrictions such as barbless hooks for instance have value on some waters imo.


If it is part of a solution to this gear reg debacle that can be supported by a majority of all angling types for inland trout, then I'd be happy to consider it.


----------



## itchn2fish

NO.


----------



## Ranger Ray

My three boys said to put them down as no's.


----------



## Jackster1

*"No longer can a kid grab some worms and a pole and just go fish"*

"It's fo da chillins!" I always expect to hear this stuff from an entirely different group of people.

As a kid growing up in the city, far and away from streams, rivers and ponds we managed to go fishing. It involved a little work, ingenuity and maybe begging but fish we did. We would beg Dad or neighbors to take us or ride our bikes or even walk quite a ways to go fishing. Are our precious angels beneath that these days?
The above quotation reads like it came from that Republican politician who owned property near one of the special regs rivers and who thought it beneath one of his offspring to play within the rules set forth by commoners.
One of the main reasons I won't join this rally is simply becase the major ringleader used to chest-thump repeatedly about how he always caught larger and better fish anywhere But the special regs waters.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Jackster1 said:


> *"No longer can a kid grab some worms and a pole and just go fish"*
> 
> "It's fo da chillins!" I always expect to hear this stuff from an entirely different group of people.
> 
> As a kid growing up in the city, far and away from streams, rivers and ponds we managed to go fishing. It involved a little work, ingenuity and maybe begging but fish we did. We would beg Dad or neighbors to take us or ride our bikes or even walk quite a ways to go fishing. Are our precious angels beneath that these days?
> The above quotation reads like it came from that Republican politician who owned property near one of the special regs rivers and who thought it beneath one of his offspring to play within the rules set forth by commoners.
> One of the main reasons I won't join this rally is simply becase the major ringleader used to chest-thump repeatedly about how he always caught larger and better fish anywhere But the special regs waters.


Wow! Now I know why the DNR has decided to manage socially. Thats some pretty damning reasons for gear restrictions. A definite reason for removal of those that fish with bait from stretches of our rivers.  Welcome to "social management."


----------



## Jackster1

Even if 'social magement' wss part of the equation, is that a bad thing? If the demand is there for certain types of rules I would hope that those in authority listened.
There are restriction everywhere in life. Thank goodness for that other restriction, the navigable water rule, or we would all have a lot more to cry about... but then to your way of thinking that law should be changed because it discriminates against land owners and favors the relative few who wade or float through private land.


----------



## toto

What navigable water rule are you referring to?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Jackster thanking God for the rights of the people.


Jackster1 said:


> There are restriction everywhere in life. Thank goodness for that other restriction, the navigable water rule, or we would all have a lot more to cry about... but then to your way of thinking that law should be changed because it discriminates against land owners and favors the relative few who wade or float through private land.


Ranger Ray is for the rights of those to navigate our waters, based on constitutional rights, and social regulation by the legislative process, not a non elected entity of the state like the DNR. 

Jackster willing to take the rights of bait fishermen away because of a statement he didn't like.


Jackster1 said:


> One of the main reasons I won't join this rally is simply becase the major ringleader used to chest-thump repeatedly about how he always caught larger and better fish anywhere But the special regs waters.


Ranger Ray is for the rights of all to use all legal methods they choose 

So there we have it, ranger ray is for "we the people" in both scenarios, Jackster, not so much.


----------



## bronc72

Yes



Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Splitshot

Seems to be a little mis-understanding regarding what we mean by gear restrictions. For example, we are like most sportsmen are against snagging. Part of the justification for repealing snagging is all the snag hooks and heavy line fouls the rivers and creates a safety hazzard. 

We do not support a ban on the use of long leaders or double fly rigs that are used by some to facilitate snagging. The reason is both long leaders and double fly rigs are tactics used to legitimately catch fish and proposing a rule to restrict them punishes legitimate fishermen in an effort to enforce snagging which is already illegal.

We do not support the rule that excludes a weight used more than three inches below a hook because it punishes legal fishermen from using a productive drop shot rig or productive dry fly rig tied in front of a nymph or bead head. We are all against snagging, but to punish legal fishermen in an effort to stop snagging makes no sense and doesnt do much to stop snagging anyway.

We stand against flies only and rules that prohibit bait because there is no biological reason for them and primary purpose of these rules is to exclude a majority of legal fishermen from fishing some of our best public trout rivers. No one has ever even tried to rationally explain why one small group of fishermen should be granted special privileges to water while the majority of fishermen are denied. I know anyone can fish those waters if they use a fly, but most fishermen prefer the flexibility to use whatever legal method available because they go fishing to catch fish. According to the scientific data there is no downside to the fishery because of the use of bait. Besides why should one little group of fishermen dictate how others should be allowed to fish?

At the May 6 Coldwater Committee Meeting one of the MDNR biologist showed that flies only no kill rules havent improved the fishing in over 40 years and showed preliminary data that the new bait restrictions havent either. It appears the river is under used and the number of trout taken is pitifully low. It is no secret to many of us who used to fish those waters of that even before the new rules of this most likely outcome.

Back to snagging. Biologist Mark Tonello working with MDNR conservation officers presented a proposal that would eliminate a major snagging technique without punishing legal fishermen. It is simply to eliminate plain treble hooks not connected to a lure. The COs who work in the field believe it would eliminate a major snagging technique and make it easier to identify snaggers.

That doesnt solve the Turks Tickler problem, but helps eliminate a big part of the problem especially in smaller rivers where the ticklers arent as effective. There is only one purpose for using a straight treble hook even with a little piece of yarn tied to it on our trout and salmon rivers and one we would readily support. 

That doesnt make us a hypocrites because we support some gear restrictions as some supporters of bait restricted rules have implied. The idea that if one supports one gear restriction he must support all gear restrictions is not logical. And just to be clear, we do not support restrictions that discriminate against honest fishermen for no good biological reason, restrictions that punish honest fishermen in an effort to enforce other laws, or restrictions that provide special privileges to people because they feel that they somehow deserve special treatment.


----------



## broncbuster2

Did you get any copies of that data, Ray...
I would like to have that for my files....


----------



## toto

This isn't about snagging, never was. I can't figure out for the life of me why it keeps getting brought up that way. There is not one member of GLFSA that condones snagging in any form, period. This is only about access to water that should be fishable in any form that is an accepted practice in all other waters. Ray is spot on with his post, we've been around and around and the snagging thing has been brought up time and time again, and it just ain't so. Can't see why people try to deflect the debate, maybe because they have nothing else?


----------



## RUSTY 54

toto said:


> This isn't about snagging, never was. I can't figure out for the life of me why it keeps getting brought up that way. There is not one member of GLFSA that condones snagging in any form, period. This is only about access to water that should be fishable in any form that is an accepted practice in all other waters. Ray is spot on with his post, we've been around and around and the snagging thing has been brought up time and time again, and it just ain't so. Can't see why people try to deflect the debate, maybe because they have nothing else?[/QUOTE
> 
> The question that was asked is being answered. That's the problem with poll questions. One needs to be sure that the question is specific enough or you may get answers you didn't want. Poll questions can be written to be as neutral as possible or in a way that is leading i.e. "Have you stopped beating your wife? (yes/no)" This question asked simply, "do you support gear restrictions". Apparently, some folks do.
> 
> Polls are in the realm of social science, but everyone on this forum knows that social science isn't real science.


----------



## RobW

MERGANZER said:


> I find gear restrictions keep the arrogant ones concentrated in a smaller area and out of where I like to fish. That being said I can't wait to toss that brown thats in my fridge in the cast iron skillet tonight.
> 
> Ganzer- YES


 
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing legal snagging return to Tippy, that would concentrate those I'd prefer to avoid in a stretch where the mentality if not the legality persists anyway... I use a variety of methods, some I have more affinity for than others, but it's not a big deal to go to a stretch of water that works with how I want to fish that particular trip.


----------



## 6Speed

Yes. I support gear restrictions. Using a pink San Juan worm or a hot pink and pearl #5 countdown Rapala for trout fishing in Michigan is just plain wrong. We should respect the fish and be sensitive to their choices in life.

Thanks.


----------



## john decker

nope.to me its just another example of government controlling something they know nothing about.if a person wants to fly fish thats fine,their chose.but dont tell me that is the only way i can fish there.the whole fly anglers are better thing is a big boat load of crap.


----------

