# October 7th NRC Meeting Lansing - Gear Restrictions



## Randle (Nov 6, 2000)

Thanks Don and everyone else who attended and spoke at the meeting. I really think we made a difference and it would be great to have more people at the November meeting. I think the NRC had received so much support from the "organized" people...Trout Unlimited etc. that they really didnt expect much opposistion. When we all spoke against the restrictions I think many of the commisioners were surprised and several seemed to react as if they are on our side. Kind of a routing for the little guy type of thing.

I had sent emails to MUCC a couple weks ago asking that they step up and help fight against gear restrictions but never received any response back. I guess I know why now. I was a little ticked when I heard the MUCC rep on the side of restrictions.

Overall a very good meeting and the MS members who spoke did an outstanding job! Nice meeting you all.

John


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

It's great to see that you guys took the time out of your schedules to make it to this meeting. I think you may have surprised the NRC with your appearance there and the way you guys handled yourselves. While I wasn't there to witness your speaking time (it's monitoring season and I'm in the river working every day), I'm certain you guys did a great job.

I am curious though as to your impression of Brian Burroughs, TU Executive Director. I have met him several times and from what I have seen he is the right person to have in charge of this organization. He seems to be very down to earth and willing to listen to any point of view that has facts as a basis. It seems to me that he is on the right track by getting TU back to it's roots of focusing on the conservation of our rivers, not the fishing aspect like so many "old fly fishermen" are. 

I think it is these older, set-in-their-ways fly guys that are causing such a divide among anglers. Brian Burroughs seems like he has a different mind set than the stereotypical TU guy. This, in my opinion, is a very good thing for the organization and for Michigan trout and salmon anglers as a whole.

Just curious as to the thoughts you guys have on this. Please let's not make this a bash TU thing. Not my purpose with asking the question.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

The Downstream Drift said:


> It's great to see that you guys took the time out of your schedules to make it to this meeting. I think you may have surprised the NRC with your appearance there and the way you guys handled yourselves. While I wasn't there to witness your speaking time (it's monitoring season and I'm in the river working every day), I'm certain you guys did a great job.
> 
> I am curious though as to your impression of Brian Burroughs, TU Executive Director. I have met him several times and from what I have seen he is the right person to have in charge of this organization. He seems to be very down to earth and willing to listen to any point of view that has facts as a basis. It seems to me that he is on the right track by getting TU back to it's roots of focusing on the conservation of our rivers, not the fishing aspect like so many "old fly fishermen" are.
> 
> ...



I did not get the chance to talk to him personally to say what kind of person he is. What he told the NRC is what the groups wants. Would like to have a conversation with him sometime to see what kind of person he is.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Randle said:


> I had sent emails to MUCC a couple weks ago asking that they step up and help fight against gear restrictions but never received any response back. I guess I know why now. I was a little ticked when I heard the MUCC rep on the side of restrictions.
> John


MUCC is an organization of clubs and it is the clubs that hold the power over policy. Those clubs are in it for their own reasons and NOT for the interest of those, who for a variety of reasons, do not belong to clubs and if they do they are not as active as the diehard stalwarts. MUCC is said to represent the sportsmen and women of Michigan and that is a myth. What they represent are the sportsmen and women in Michigan who belong to a club.

Quite frankly, and I'm speaking with some experience, they look after what they deem as their best interests. If those interests mean that others will have fewer opportunities and choices to partake in the outdoors so be it. That is not a goal worthy of being on their agenda.

MUCC's stand on gear regs did not surprise me in the least. What would have shocked me is if they would have come out against any more regs.


----------



## Randle (Nov 6, 2000)

Whit, I tend to agree after what I saw Thursday.

Downstreamdrift, I am not sure which one Brian was but I would say all of the Trout Unlimited people were very professional and cordial. I spoke to a couple and though we disagreed on this topic, they seemed like good guys. I was not very happy when one of the pro restriction people (Not a TU guy) stated that gear restricted areas would lead to better "conduct and etiquette" for the river. I took that a little personally . He had no statistics from a C.O to back this up and I would like to call him on this. I think etiquette and conduct is more an issue of the individual and not what he/she uses for bait. Ticked me off to say the least.


----------



## centerpin (Jun 13, 2009)

I dont agree with flies only regulations, or increasing the water with those narrow regulations either. Regulations should be inclusive and not divisive. Regulations should seek to protect the resource as much as possible while including as many people as possible in them. 

But in places like British Columbia and Alaska where there are gear restrictions they try to be as inclusive as possible like single hook artificial only. This means guys can run pink worms under floats, spinners, spoons and even plugs with single hooks. Then the fly guys are also covered. My point is that *if* your are going to go with quality regulations then at least avoid flies only and make it as inclusive as possible. In this regard Canada and Alaska got it right, whether or not you agree with quality regs in the first place. 

Personally I don't think gear matters but more creel limits. I see guys all the time consistently fish out river stretches under the 3 fish a day rule, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday all 3 fish days, That's what bothers me the flat out greed our current structure allows. 

There are many unmentionable streams that cannot support this system, instead of looking at each stream individually we haphazardly apply all rules to most of our waters. 

If human greed is allowed any wiggle room it makes it mark and destroys what once was enjoyed by the many for the personal gratification of the few. This is why gear is really meaningless in the end. 

The Michigan Grayling was not destroyed by fly fisherman or conventional anglers individually it was destroyed by all, the loggers, anglers, and commercial fisherman. We Michiganders still don't get it do we.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

The Downstream Drift said:


> It's great to see that you guys took the time out of your schedules to make it to this meeting. I think you may have surprised the NRC with your appearance there and the way you guys handled yourselves. While I wasn't there to witness your speaking time (it's monitoring season and I'm in the river working every day), I'm certain you guys did a great job.
> 
> I am curious though as to your impression of Brian Burroughs, TU Executive Director. I have met him several times and from what I have seen he is the right person to have in charge of this organization. He seems to be very down to earth and willing to listen to any point of view that has facts as a basis. It seems to me that he is on the right track by getting TU back to it's roots of focusing on the conservation of our rivers, not the fishing aspect like so many "old fly fishermen" are.
> 
> ...


Bryan certainly is earning his keep and was everything you would want from a person in his position. He is extremely polished, and does a great job of getting his message across. Like you said, he does appear very approachable, and has a low key style. He also states how much he wants to work with other groups openly to achieve more concensus. However, if you listen closely, some of what he is saying also conveys messages on several levels and you must listen quite carefully. In summary and not surprisingly, I did not find what he was saying in essence any different from the other representatives advocating gear regs.

For example, he took a ride down the elevator with myself and two commissioners after the meeting. He certainly was briefly gracious towards our position, and start discussing some of the complexities involved with these regulation. At this, he did dominate the conversation. He then started to tell the story of some of the older people who live along some of the gear restricted water of the AuSable and how they don't fish much anymore because they are put off by the crowds in those flies only section and somehow on a personal level would like to see these elders get back out fishing again.

Slick.

In his address to the NRC, from what I remember (feel free to add and/or correct me, guys) after he stated how much TU would like to avoid these issues going through legislative means, and how the Coldwater Steering Committee (CSC) worked hard because of they felt so limited by (I think it's) AO 213 that mandated the additional gear regulation mileage. He also discussed how CSC was successful in beginning to simplify the regulations, and in his opinion, would like to see the trout regs get down to 3 or more desirably 2 classifications. I also remember he stated while TU traditionally avoided fisheries regulations issues in the past, he stated that TU now will become more active in this area. He stated TU achieved a strategic initiative insomuch as they don't want to be considered resource stakeholders, but become full partners of the DNRE. To this end, he thanked the DNRE for appointing TU to the newly formed Coolwater Steering Committee. In certain instances, TU does support selective harvest, such as 1 brown of 18" and 1 brook of 10" (Standard TU recommendation, it appears). Lastly he did indicate TU will be back next meeting with comprehensive gear restriction recommendations with significant support from the fisheries literature. He stated he had been working with TU's fisheries biologist for over 50 hours in development of their strategic proposal on this issue. Also stated was TU is looking to update the economic impact of trout fisheries (A more universal economic impact statement similar to the Northstar report for the Driftless Area).

DD, do you know what Dr. Burroughs has his doctorate in?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

REG said:


> However, if you listen closely, some of what he is saying also conveys messages on several levels and you must listen quite carefully. In summary and not surprisingly, I did not find what he was saying in essence any different from the other representatives advocating gear regs.


"Listen closely", that indeed is a must.



REG said:


> In his address to the NRC, from what I remember (feel free to add and/or correct me, guys) after he stated how much TU would like to avoid these issues going through legislative means......


*EXCEPT*........when it fits the needs of TU's agenda and that would be the legislature passing a bill stating that 212 additional miles of gear regs could be put in place. You can bet the farm that TU was heavily involved in promoting that little piece of legislation.




REG said:


> TU now will become more active in this area. He stated TU achieved a strategic initiative insomuch as they don't want to be considered resource stakeholders, but become full partners of the DNRE. To this end, he thanked the DNRE for appointing TU to the newly formed Coolwater Steering Committee........... Lastly he did indicate TU will be back next meeting with comprehensive gear restriction recommendations with significant support from the fisheries literature.


TU is garnering much more influence and indeed they "will be back" and by this I'm not only referring to the next NRC meeting, but rather ones down the road. With the comment by Jim Dexter about how the DNR recieved, via email, etc., so much support for the new gear regs and that is one of the main basis for implementing them they now have a roadmap for moving new streams and stretches into "gear regulation" water.

Having moved into the area of age where I'm closer to 70 than to 60 I realize that my days of trout fishing do indeed have limits. Certainly that won't arrive for several years, but they will indeed arrive. This fight......and it is a fight and will get to be moreso in the future......for the right to use bait on MI's trout waters will involve more and more of our Blue Ribbon trout waters. This is something you younger lads need to get into.

By the way I'd urge those of you who attend NRC meetings on this issue to take notes. They will come in handy. It is also wise to identify both supporters of your issue and those who are opposed and get to know them......both sides.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> OK, why don't you just give away my whole plan for Nov. 4th. :lol:


I'd recommend that anyone on Facebook ask their friends to friend that Facebook page. The more friends on there the more Steve represents.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Don,
Can you post the email addresses for the state contacts here?
Thanks!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

TSS Caddis said:


> I'd recommend that anyone on Facebook ask their friends to friend that Facebook page. The more friends on there the more Steve represents.


TSS Caddis is absolutely correct. I might have "founded" the page so to speak, but I have Joe (phlyphisher) and Don (FishinDon) as administrators of the page along with myself. Here's the link for anyone interested: 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php...gan-River-Anglers-Association/153441484686528


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Someone should contact Steve Helinski and see if he would use the MS name to back you. That would add the weight off the member count of this site, which would far outweigh any TU of FFF member representation.

Currently 43,185 MS members.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

For those of you that responded to my question on Bryan Burroughs, TU Executive Director, I have some answers.

Reg, Bryan sent me a copy of his resume today. Here is his educational background...

Ph.D., Fisheries Science; December 2006
Michigan State University - summa cum laude
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, East Lansing, MI

M.S., Fisheries Science, December 2003
Michigan State University  summa cum laude
Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, East Lansing, MI

B.S., Biology: Ecological & Evolutionary, May 2000
University of New Hampshire - magna cum laude​Durham, NH

Mondrella, in response to your comment about wanting to meet with Bryan sometime to discuss this issue I will share the email he sent me...

"We got involved, not because we had an agenda and initiated this, but because the DNRE field biologist pushed changes to the regs that were not supported by science. The truth is that they have done very very very little formal evaluation of any of the regulations (general or gear-restricted), anywhere in MI. They on many many occasions had made interpretations or claims with none or sloppy data to support it, and sometimes counter to what the data indicate. I can give tons of examples. Thats why TU got involved  because recommendations were being made that did not cut mustard by the science-based standard. Then we stayed involved.

I could probably talk for hours about any aspect of this stuff, including the biological. The reason these streams made it to be recommended, despite some of them not originally being recommended by the field biologists, is that they were not correct, and upon detailed discussions, following the criteria in FO 213, the candidates passed the criteria  even though several biologist had originally felt they didnt. If they could have supported those claims with any science  they would not have been recommended. If some of these guys really want to discuss this stuff  Ill make the time to meet. But I want to have a serious, respectful, comprehensive and open-minded conversation  not just an exchange of emotional rhetoric (e.g., TU is wealthy powerful flyfishing elitists with an agenda to exclude people  ((we are actually none of those adjectives)."

Now I know some of you might take this and pick it apart thus bashing TU again. Remember though that Bryan is willing to take the time to sit down with us and discuss this very important issue. I personally think that says alot about his commitment to our state's fisheries and the concerns of all anglers in the state, not just fly fishermen.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Step 1: Please explain the process T.U. took to come to the position of supporting additional flies only water on the PM?

Don't need to meet.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Randle said:


> Whit, I tend to agree after what I saw Thursday.
> 
> Downstreamdrift, I am not sure which one Brian was but I would say all of the Trout Unlimited people were very professional and cordial. I spoke to a couple and though we disagreed on this topic, they seemed like good guys. I was not very happy when one of the pro restriction people (Not a TU guy) stated that gear restricted areas would lead to better "conduct and etiquette" for the river. I took that a little personally . He had no statistics from a C.O to back this up and I would like to call him on this. I think etiquette and conduct is more an issue of the individual and not what he/she uses for bait. Ticked me off to say the least.



I believe Jim Boss, from the PM Watershed council is the one that made that comment. And I have to agree with you, that nothing turned me off more at that meeting than that. 
Don


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

TSS Caddis said:


> Step 1: Please explain the process T.U. took to come to the position of supporting additional flies only water on the PM?


I tend to agree, given that its contradictory to what was said in the email response regarding decisions being made without scientific data to support it.

With the Rogue River near Rockford becoming part of TU's _Home Rivers Initiative_, I have to wonder if we'll eventually see a push for special regulations?

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/10/rogue_river_getting_extra_love.html


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Caddis,

Questions like this should be addressed to Bryan directly. I cannot (and simply shouldn't) speak on behalf of anyone in TU. Going to the Michigan TU website will give you plenty of contact information to ask these questions. 

Remember though, as Whit has stated many times before, if emails or phone calls are made in a negative way you may not get the best results. The people at the top of these organizations want to hear from those of us that are concerned with the issues but they want a conversation, not a rant.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Flyfisher said:


> Don,
> Can you post the email addresses for the state contacts here?
> Thanks!


Since the folks in the DNR are people too, I would prefer to refrain from posting their email addresses online. I'm a computer programmer by trade, and I know what that does to your junk mail. 

That said, I will do this...

Link to every person in the Fisheries Division contact info:
http://www.mi.gov/documents/FisheriesDiv_142504_7.htm

Link to the Natural Resource Commission (all commissioners, and take note that Teresa Gloden, former admin to NRC has transferred, her replacement is Debbie Whipple):
http://www.mi.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-39002_11862-26986--,00.html


Hope that helps,
Don


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

The Downstream Drift said:


> For those of you that responded to my question on Bryan Burroughs, TU Executive Director, I have some answers.
> 
> Reg, Bryan sent me a copy of his resume today. Here is his educational background...
> 
> ...


That TU response is so full of s*** it's not even funny. There have been multiple studies done and the science has been presented many times to show that gear restrictions have little or no effect on resident trout fisheries here in Michigan.

As for DNR biologists pushing for special regs...that's the best response I've heard yet since it's complete and total B.S. 

Hell, I'm offended that this guy would say the data is sloppy or this and that. Guys like Mark Tonello and Jay Wesley and other biologists WORK THEIR A**ES OFF on shocking, creel studies, you name it. To say their work is sloppy or innaccurate is an insult to anyone who has half a brain. Like Caddis said--there's no need to meet.


----------



## The Downstream Drift (Feb 27, 2010)

Well, I guess I would have expected that response from Steve. With a guy that speaks from the heart so well I would expect nothing less. (Which is a good thing, not a negative statement.)

I can say though that if we use the example of the date collected here in Southeast Michigan on Paint Creek the data is actually kind of "sloppy". Maybe "sloppy" isn't the best word here, but since the last fish survey was completed eight years ago and then another just prior to the final gear restriction proposal coming out it seems like there could be some holes in the data.

Now don't get me wrong. I work with our MDNRE fisheries biologist down here often and he is a very busy, deticated guy. Like all of our fisheries biologists he takes his position very seriously and goes the extra mile with everything. But... he is pulled so many different ways within his area that he simply doesn't have the time to complete fish surveys on our only trout stream down here more than he already does.

So with this in mind, there may be holes in the data due to extended periods of time between data collections. I am curious as to how many times in the last ten years the fly only water on the PM has been surveyed. Does anyone here know? My guess would be that it has not been done every year therefore an accurate trend hasn't exactly been established.

Just a thought. Don't kill me for thinking. :lol:


----------

