# It is just a small %! Oh Really?



## Splitshot

> .......That being said I am all for fly guys having a stretch of river to themselves. Lots of rivers in Michigan to fish.


I have heard this rational for excluding bait fishermen many times but does that make it a valid argument to restrict bait fishermen?

Michigan is blessed with some fantastic trout waters, and the DNR has recognized 868 miles of those waters as extra special. Based on the current gear restricted waters, approximately 20% of those blue ribbon waters are already closed to bait fishermen with the promise that this is only the beginning..

Since we all pay for our right to fish all pubic waters, why should any group feel they should have any stretch of river for their exclusive use? The simple answer is they shouldnt! I have yet to meet any bait or lure fisherman who has a problem fishing or sharing the water with any other fishermen no matter how they fish.

In a subsequence thread, I will get more into the legal issues, but in the meantime it is important to understand that it is the responsibility of our DNR to look out for the best interest of the people of Michigan.

In that context below is the publically posted mission statement of out MDNR fisheries division.

The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan. 

Simple and straight forward! As a citizen residing in the state of Michigan, restricting me from using bait or lures in some public waters violates that mission statement in my opinion. 

Could it be that simple? The MDNR has the authority and obligation to make rules that protect our resources first and then to promote the optimum use of those resources for all of us. If so, how can restricting all bait fishermen from our most productive trout waters meet that goal?

Clearly fly only rules restrict much of the public notwithstanding the fact that anyone can fish those waters as long as they use a fly. Most of us dont fish just to fish, but to catch fish and if we are restricted from using the most productive legal methods, we most likely wont fish those areas, which everyone should know is the actual reason behind flies only and bait restricted areas!.

If as a citizen I have the same rights as all other citizens, then restricting me from even one mile of public waters is not acceptable. Therefor I strongly reject the idea that it is okay to give one group of citizens special privileges that are denied to other groups of citizens. It is discrimination and even a little discrimination is not acceptable.

Some have claimed that these rules are not discriminatory, but it is hard to reconcile that position with the definition which is; 

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group.

In the end, what rights do fly fishermen lose if the rules in question are repealed? The simple answer is they lose nothing. It is ironic that some fly fishermen claim that bait fishermen are greedy and selfish because we want to be treated equally, but that seems unlikely under the circumstances. 

If these special rules get changed, fly fishermen will still be able to fish all the public waters and not be penalized in any way or told how they must fish. They will simply have to share those publically owned waters with all the people who own them.

The other question and premise for this thread is the restricted areas are just a small percentage of our trout rivers. Lets examine that a little closer, starting with the Pere Marquette River. The heart of the PM starts very close to M-37 coincidently where the flies only area begins. The best wading, gravel, and trout waters have always existed in this section. To make them even better, beginning in the 1990's, almost a million dollars of public money was spent improving the habitat in that 7 mile stretch from 37 downstream to Gleasons Landing improving it so much that stocking was no longer necessary.

That section was one of my favorite places to fish back in the 50's and 60's because even then it was the most productive section to fish on the PM. Once it became flies only, the opportunity to catch fish was significantly reduced and like many others I spent far less time fishing this section because lots of us actually enjoy fishing more is we are catching fish. After 20 plus years of learning these waters, I started spending more time learning the waters below Gleasons Landing because my options on the flies only waters were severely diminished . I must add that at the time I believed the propaganda that these rules were helping protect the trout populations as did many others.

So over the next few decades, I spend a great deal of my limited fishing time learning the waters below Gleasons Landing. It takes a lot of time trying to figure out where the productive areas are and how to fish them and almost as much time figuring out how and where to access those waters. Although the lower waters were not as productive as the flies only waters, it was worth the effort. 

In 2010 against the recommendations of the DNR biologist responsible of the PM, the DNR Fisheries Division under the pressure of Rebecca Humphries added a little more than 10 miles of bait restrictions below Gleasons Landing. Implementing these bait restrictions was one of her last official acts before moving on to her new job at Ducks Unlimited, It is interesting to note that Trout Unlimited (the main force behind bait restrictions) was started near the Au Sable on the recommendation of the founder of Ducks Unlimited.

I have only fished the PM twice since the new rules and last year not even once. Honestly at my age I dont have another 20 years to learn yet another less productive section of the PM. Whenever I think about that I cant help thinking about the statement; Its only a small percentage of our rivers. Its not just me, but thousands of other fishermen are also denied and the worst part for me is not being able to share what I have learned with my grand kids. While there is still some decent water left it is mostly not wadeable, access is very difficult and fishing opportunities are significantly reduced.

Little Manistee:

Back in the fifties I used to ride my bike 10 miles to fish the best section of the Little Manistee between Spencers Bridge and Indian Bridge. Fortunately this section of river ran through state land. The next bridge downstream is Indian Bridge and except for my property the Indian Clab, a private club consisting of lawyers, judges and other professional members owned the land below Indian Bridge almost down to Johnsons Bridge.

In 1965 I got drafted and spent the next 2 years in Germany serving my country. When I returned I entered college and got married in my senior year. Sometime during that period, the State of Michigan traded the marginal trout waters below Indian Bridge owned by the Indian Club for the best section of the river below Spencers Bridge which previously belonged to the public. The DNR changed the rules many times but the big change was to make it flies only. Another consideration in this seedy deal was the club would allow the public access. The story I heard was some kids tossed a picnic table into the river and the club decided to close public access because they felt it was necessary to protect the river.

For the last 20+ years I have owned a cabin which for the last 4 years retired to on the Little Manistee immediately below the Indian Clubs property. It is still perhaps the best brown trout river in the state, but in all the years I have lived here, I have never taken my kids or any of my grand kids trout fishing even though I know it to have lots of fish. Those of you who know me have read many of the stories I have posted over the years about fishing with my grand kids along with pictures of some of their great trout.

The reason I havent taken them fishing the river in front of my house is because young kids dont have the skill, or patience to catch trout on a fly and considering how seldom trout take flies, opportunities for youngsters to catch are greatly diminished. In spite of my best efforts, not all my grand kids have fishing first on their list of things to do and I believe fishing would be lower on that list if I started them out fly fishing. Kids get bored easily and it only occurred to me recently that I hadnt taken any of them fishing just out the back door.

The Indian Club has also influenced the Little Manistee Watershed Conservation Council not to remove the fallen trees adjacent to their property because they dont want the trees removed which adds even more difficulties in even floating the river.

There are 3 rivers within 40 or so miles where I can fish and have a fair chance to catch a wild trout. The Pine, The Little Manistee and the PM. 

On much of the Pine you need a permit from the federal forestry to access the river by water craft, which are often difficult to acquire. Two years ago I drove to Baldwin in early June and there were no permits available on the Pine until late August because the federal forestry officials arbitrarily decide how many people can use their landings and then allot 80% of those permits to the canoe liveries. In another post I will explain how this is also not legal.

Fishing the Pine on foot is allowed, but to reach the best areas you need to be a mountain goat. Certain times of the year I used to fish flies on the Little Manistee and the Pine, but since I had a knee replacement a few years ago it has become arduous for me to wade.

On the PM as stated there are now over 17 miles of the very best that river has to offer and as a result many of the people who used to fish above Rainbow Rapids have crowded into the lower river.

Remember as quoted in the first sentence of this post; That being said I am all for fly guys having a stretch of river to themselves. Lots of rivers in Michigan to fish.

I know this is already a longer read than I had anticipated, but I feel it is important to continue. In reality all of us who fish the west side of the state are lucky compared to those who fish anywhere around the Grayling area.

Since my great uncle and avid trout fisherman started me trout fishing in the late 40's around the Fife Lake area where he was born and raised I was lucky enough to learn trout fishing on the Boardman river, some small area streams but mostly the Big Manistee river. Although there are trout throughout the system, mostly because or planting, the best trout fishing section is found 7 miles W of Grayling is from M-72 downstream to the CCC Bridge near Sharon. Guess what section of the Big Manistee is flies only? You guessed it, that same 15 miles of river. Now since the new bait restrictions an additional nine miles upstream have bait restrictions and included are reduced limits.

Drive just a couple of miles East of Grayling where the Au Sable river reaches a size large enough for canoes and bait fishing is not allowed for the next 17 miles. Not surprisingly this is the very heart of the Au Sable mainstream. That leaves about 10 miles of the mainstream of the Au Sable open to all fishermen before the river reaches Mio Pond. Below Mio Pond, bait restrictions begin again for the next 14 miles and only because this area is known for trophy brown trout. Of course the number of trout one can keep is also reduced. Below this point the Au Sable water temperatures make it a marginal trout river. 

Not to worry though as there are two other famous trout rivers in the area. The first is the S. Branch of the Au Sable river which is famous for the Mason Tract. Chase Bridge is where the S. Branch really comes into its own. Before Chase Bridge, there is lots of private club land and access is limited. Unquestionably the best trout waters on the S. Branch are from Chase Bridge 15+ miles until it enters the Au Sable Main Stream. Surprise, the first 4.3 miles downstream from Chase Bridge are flies only, no kill and the balance of the 15+ miles is just flies only. 

Well thank goodness there is still the N. Branch of the Au Sable another one of our historically world famous trout river. Like the S. Branch, the heart of the N. Branch begins at what is known as the sheep ranch some 20 miles north the Au Sable main branch. Dont bother looking it up, the entire 20 miles is flies only, but again fly fishermen say, it is only a tiny fraction of Michigan rivers!

From Kalkaska to Gaylord, to 14 miles W of Mio to Lake City that small percentage equals 90+ miles of the best trout waters in Michigan. There are a few other rivers like the Piegon, Black and Sturgeon, in that area, but surprise the best 4 miles of the Black and the best 5 miles of the Piegon have bait restrictions too. For me the Sturgeon is about 120 miles and it is a tricky river to float and foot access is difficult and it is not easy to wade. Add to that traffic noise from Hwy.75 takes away from that deep woods experience, but it is still on the list.

If you have taken the time to read this, it should be clear that the premise that it is only a small percentage of rivers misleading at best. When you consider that these are all public waters everyone should be able to fish using all legal methods and take into account all the DNR biologist say bait restrictions have little if any impact on our fisheries these rules need to be repealed.

When gear restrictions were applied to the first 100 miles and people used the same self serving argument that its only 100 miles. Well now it is 212 miles and many are proclaiming that this is just the beginning. The question is, can bait restrictions be justified because it is just a small percentage of our public waters?

In my opinion is the answer is NO! These rules cannot be justified under the obligation the DNR publically proclaims to be their mission statement or any other good reason. No group should be able to claim special privileges to any public resources we all own collectively ever. 

If you think bait restrictions can be justified based on it is only a small percentage of our public waters, I welcome your rational. I think a lot of people see no problem with bait restrictions because they might not fish those areas, dont think it is a big deal or just think it sounds like a generous thing to do. 

It is a big deal to fight for your rights as once they are gone it is much harder to get them back. It took me years to understand the consequences of these special considerations not just for me, but for my kids and grand kids and for the future of our sport.

Some day as our access to resources decline, our professionals will have to make difficult decisions to protect those resources and if we dont start getting involved our future access to more of our public resources will be lost to special interests, corporate interests or otherwise taken from us for environmental reasons.

If there were any truth to past claims that something was necessary to protect our fish stocks why would we protect them by choosing winners and losers? If pressure from legal sport fishermen ever becames a threat, why not just lower the limits or create other rules that treat all people fairly instead of giving special rights to groups like fly fishermen?


----------



## fishinDon

Well said Ray, here's a link to a post about the same topic:
http://glfsa.org/2011/a-small-amount


----------



## REG

Great read, Ray! With respect to discriminatory practice, we often hear that everyone is welcome, you just need to use a fly (or artificial lure). I wonder what those people would say if the situation was reversed? In fact, in a way, some of the arguments I see against chumming are exactly that.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Excellent post Ray.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Once again another very well presented opinion of facts. As I have repeatedly said, these fish (primarily) are not even Indigenous to our state. They are put here to be caught by the people that pay for them. Not some of the poeple, all the people. They are not paying more!.(if they really had the money they'de not be fishing Michigan) Perhaps it is time to push for a much-much-much higher license fees to fish these sacred fish in these sacred waters. 

Obviously the miniscule amount ''we" pay in fees is inadeqaute for being allowed to fish for these fish of fishes, perhaps "they " would feel better about it if they paid a proportionate amount to be allowed to fish the waters set aside for them and their non-Indiginous prey.


Apparently these fish do not do well in this state and need much care and attention to even sustain a fishable population. Perhaps not allowing fishing at all would be proper, after all these precious non-Indiginous fishes may be endngered in this state.


----------



## swampswede

Great post Ray.


----------



## toto

Spot on Ray, we've discussed this very topic numerous times and as you know, I agree wholeheartedly.

There is one more point to be made. Yes the mission statement of the DNR is generally for the citizens of Michigan, but it also protects out of staters, such as myself now too. You see, once I buy a license for fishing in Michigan, I am afforded the same rights as any citizen. Therefore I am to uphold the same rules and regualations as if I were a citizen of Michigan.


----------



## broncbuster2

Was that where Jim Dexter's jaw dropped?:yikes::lol:


----------



## Shoeman

Great post Ray!

I also think they should drop the APR's, gay marriage ban, open carry and all helmet laws.

Life's to short to limit anyone from life's simple pleasures and/or rights. Kill them all, be killed and live in sin... Lol

I'm with you! Hope it all pans out. All the crap about chumming, C&R, Guides, Flies Only left such a bad taste in my mouth that I could care less about trout fishing or spending a dime up north!

I attribute most of those feelings do to the politics involved while enjoying the sport. You guys can have them, either in a pan, or toss them back. It's just not that important. 

Once someone labels me for carrying a long rod, it's time to let it go!


----------



## Ranger Ray

Spot on Ray.

Funny how the gear restrictions on the Black River stayed even though the study showed they made no difference. 

How does one group earn the right to something held in public trust for all?


----------



## wintrrun

Ranger Ray said:


> How does one group earn the right to something held in public trust for all?


 

By lobbying.
Its how all special interest groups sway decisions wether a minority or majority.
In the case of Gear Restrictions, special interest fly groups have been polishing knobs without much opposition for quite along time.
Times change. 
The dnr and nrc are starting to see the avg joe show up and put his two cents in.
This next round of GR's will be interesting to say the least.


----------



## Bluegill_Bass_Basher

I think it's the police departments jobs to look into the best interests for Michiganders... DNR,natural resources...only fly or artificial zones are for the fishes best interests, the DNR put laws in to protect fish and game, not make it easier for people to potentially destroy or damage a fishery...and there are still plenty of fine waters to trout fish with bait...I'm not the most seasoned trout fisherman...I fish fly and bait...I prefer bait, and I have fished only fly zones with a fly, those waters were the holy waters of the Ausable... I think those waters and other waters alike deserve to be only artificials...to many deep hooking problems with bait


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## REG

Shoeman said:


> I attribute most of those feelings do to the politics involved while enjoying the sport. You guys can have them, either in a pan, or toss them back. It's just not that important.
> 
> Once someone labels me for carrying a long rod, it's time to let it go!


You know, odd as it may sound, it starts to get where I feel that way too, especially with the politics stuff. I fight those feelings, but it starts making fishing panfish, bass or anything else for that matter a much simpler, less stressed affair.

However, some sources say that each one of us will be replaced by two other people that will likely spend more money.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Bluegill_Bass_Basher said:


> I think it's the police departments jobs to look into the best interests for Michiganders... DNR,natural resources...only fly or artificial zones are for the fishes best interests, the DNR put laws in to protect fish and game, not make it easier for people to potentially destroy or damage a fishery...and there are still plenty of fine waters to trout fish with bait...I'm not the most seasoned trout fisherman...I fish fly and bait...I prefer bait, and I have fished only fly zones with a fly, those waters were the holy waters of the Ausable... I think those waters and other waters alike deserve to be only artificials...to many deep hooking problems with bait
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Wholy Waters.... where 120 years ago not one Trout existed.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

It's Spring in Michigan. Otherwise known as spawning steelhead "rip em and strip em" season.

Well, except on the catch & release only waters of the Pere Marquette River and the Little Manistee River. On those rivers the fish actually MIGHT just have a chance to successfully spawn...

Y'all can keep complaining "there's no proof that egg harvesting reduces fish populations." However, sportsmen realize that the resource should be given the best chance to allow for natural reproduction.

But that's "elitist" and you can't tell us what to do! It's the "public trust"!

Exactly. The State is entrusted with responsibility for protecting natural resources. Catch and release does just that.

Well, then, what about flies only. That is "elitist"!

No. There is a rationale basis for allowing a single, unweighted fly on shallow streams like the PM, the Holy Waters, etc. It's to reduce fish mortality. And it is working.

See the below quotes.

Good day, tight lines and throw them back.

I fish Alaska every year and nobody credible fishes bait there. Why? Because it isn't very sporting. Nor is it sporting to kill trophy fish. 

This bruiser went back in the water and this year I hope to get a rainbow as big and have a good chance.

Splitshot, you have your opinion and I have mine. You can try and have me banned from the site for stating my opinion and if that happens, so be it. At least it will be based on advocating catch & release which used to be a cornerstone of the trout fishing ethos. But who needs a sporting ethos when there is a cast iron skillet and butter.

They're not just fish - they are the basis of the sport we love and deserve more respect than to be sliced open for their skein or roe. My opinion.


----------



## scooter_trasher

wintrrun said:


> By lobbying.
> Its how all special interest groups sway decisions wether a minority or majority.
> In the case of Gear Restrictions, special interest fly groups have been polishing knobs without much opposition for quite along time.
> Times change.
> The dnr and nrc are starting to see the avg joe show up and put his two cents in.
> This next round of GR's will be interesting to say the least.


 Thats one way to get the water back, another would be protest, like nice little summer tube flotillas, with fly swatters, being loud and obnoxious, if ya got the numbers and it matters use the numbers, join the jerks find out who they are, set up protests in from there homes & places of employment, watch them start minding there own business


----------



## METTLEFISH

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> It's Spring in Michigan. Otherwise known as spawning steelhead "rip em and strip em" season.
> 
> Well, except on the catch & release only waters of the Pere Marquette River and the Little Manistee River. On those rivers the fish actually MIGHT just have a chance to successfully spawn...
> 
> Y'all can keep complaining "there's no proof that egg harvesting reduces fish populations." However, sportsmen realize that the resource should be given the best chance to allow for natural reproduction.
> 
> But that's "elitist" and you can't tell us what to do! It's the "public trust"!
> 
> Exactly. The State is entrusted with responsibility for protecting natural resources. Catch and release does just that.
> 
> Well, then, what about flies only. That is "elitist"!
> 
> No. There is a rationale basis for allowing a single, unweighted fly on shallow streams like the PM, the Holy Waters, etc. It's to reduce fish mortality. And it is working.
> 
> See the below quotes.
> 
> Good day, tight lines and throw them back.
> 
> I fish Alaska every year and nobody credible fishes bait there. Why? Because it isn't very sporting. Nor is it sporting to kill trophy fish.
> 
> This bruiser went back in the water and this year I hope to get a rainbow as big and have a good chance.
> 
> Splitshot, you have your opinion and I have mine. You can try and have me banned from the site for stating my opinion and if that happens, so be it. At least it will be based on advocating catch & release which used to be a cornerstone of the trout fishing ethos. But who needs a sporting ethos when there is a cast iron skillet and butter.
> 
> They're not just fish - they are the basis of the sport we love and deserve more respect than to be sliced open for their skein or roe. My opinion.


Not a bad Char there!... good thing you put him back TO DIE. There is not one thing natural about Trout and Salmon in Michigan my friend! That will never change.

P.S. Removing that adult fish this spring or fall makes room for any "natural" production that occurs. There must be ample food or the succesful spawn is for not. Removing adult fish is a must.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

METTLEFISH said:


> Not a bad Char there!... good thing you put him back TO DIE. There is not one thing natural about Trout and Salmon in Michigan my friend! That will never change.
> 
> P.S. Removing that adult fish this spring or fall makes room for any "natural" production that occurs. There must be ample food or the succesful spawn is for not. Removing adult fish is a must.


The char was released to spawn and add its superior genes back into the gene pool.

Mettlefish, your anti conservation stance makes no sense, scientifically or logically.

Kill the spawners so there is better natural reproduction? Catch and kill folks will say anything to justify their position.

:banghead3


----------



## METTLEFISH

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> The char was released to spawn and add its superior genes back into the gene pool.
> 
> Mettlefish, your anti conservation stance makes no sense, scientifically or logically.
> 
> Kill the spawners so there is better natural reproduction? Catch and kill folks will say anything to justify their position.
> 
> :banghead3


I really had higher expectations of your knowledge of fishes. From the size of that Char, I don't beieve his genes to be superior. What makes you think so?


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

scooter_trasher said:


> Thats one way to get the water back, another would be protest, like nice little summer tube flotillas, with fly swatters, being loud and obnoxious, if ya got the numbers and it matters use the numbers, join the jerks find out who they are, set up protests in from there homes & places of employment, watch them start minding there own business


That already happens on the PM and White.

_They're_ in canoes. And they have just as much right to the river as you and me. Plus sometimes they're in bikinis.


----------



## wintrrun

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> I fish Alaska every year and nobody credible fishes bait there. Why? Because it isn't very sporting. Nor is it sporting to kill trophy fish.


 
Take the blinders off, Oh Yeah.
Your embarrasing yourself.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

wintrrun said:


> Take the blinders off, Oh Yeah.
> Your embarrasing yourself.


Some people would think not knowing how to spell the contracted form of "you are" as in "_you're" _while trying to point out a fault in another would be embarrassing.

That's the "catch and kill" mentality. You are right, no matter what, so say whatever you want.


----------



## outfishin_

Catch and Release people preach like no others.... quite tired of it. I am also tired of hearing the Flies only crowd preach. What gives either one of these groups the right segregate public waters from any sportsman of this state? The Elitist attitude towards bait fisherman is absurd and complete BS. Stating that someone using bait isn't a sportsman is like saying people who only catch and release/ or flies only are vegetarians and are scared of worms. 

The last trout meal I had ( 4 years ago)... I thank a C/R jerk. Who was so hell bent on me throwing my catch back because HE said so. I shocked the heck out of him when I smacked the fishes head on the side of the canoe then placed it in my cooler. He threatened me and called me every name in the book. That's the mentality of most CR/Flies only people I run into. Hunting and fishing is turning in BS politics to the point there will be no wanting to deal with the head ache in the future.


----------



## mondrella

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> The char was released to spawn and add its superior genes back into the gene pool.
> 
> Mettlefish, your anti conservation stance makes no sense, scientifically or logically.
> 
> Kill the spawners so there is better natural reproduction? Catch and kill folks will say anything to justify their position.
> 
> :banghead3


There is nothing wrong with the harvest of fish for the table. In fact one of the greatest conservationlist Aldo Leopold had no problems with the taking a meal of trout or other natural resources as long as done properly. Believe it or not you could harvest every steelhead or that spawns in the PM and there would still be plenty of fish come back to do their thing in that system every year. The numbers of fish that enter the feeder streams of that system is incredible. There would still be fish to catch. The thought that you need every fish capable of spawning to spawn is crazy. The system can only support so many. Say a system can support 200000 fish to hatch and smolt. Now you have 10000000 hatch. Now there is a quick depletion of food for them. This leads to slower than normal growth a die off often lowering the number of survivors less than the optimum numbers and those are now a step behind in the growth and struggle and do not meet optimum potential. It is a double edged sword. Now all these migratory fish hamper the growth of the resident fish and recruitment. Our rivers are not the sterile environment of Alaska rivers. The first step is to truly educate yourself.


----------



## wintrrun

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Some people would think not knowing how to spell the contracted form of "you are" as in "_you're" _while trying to point out a fault in another would be embarrassing.
> 
> That's the "catch and kill" mentality. You are right, no matter what, so say whatever you want.


 

I would say i am sorry but i don't care, as grammatical errors will happen again.
You talk alot about the evil mentalities yet the only thing becoming apparent is your mentality.
I don't care how you fish or what you practice as long as you do it legally.
The biggest problem i see now a days with gear regs is most take a stance because its what they want, not what they need.
The talk about how minimizing mortality and increasing natural reproduction by gear restrictions does not amount to a hill of beans when you need habitat and water quality to achieve it.
Maybe we should be outlawing flies on a river like the Betsie w/ a natural Chinook Run? That method alone counts for more wild fish raked and raped off redds without a chance of ever enhancing the gene pool.
Credible fisherman don't need them.


----------



## kzoofisher

The argument that it is "only a small percentage" is terrible. The mortality argument is by far the best. The DNR denied that fishing mortality has any effect on trout populations in 2010, but after thoroughly reviewing all its studies on UP brook trout it changed that position just two years later. Will be interesting to see what the studies show in another few years. The arguments here that fishing mortality has no effect (or is even necessary!) are behind the times and contrary to science.


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> The argument that it is "only a small percentage" is terrible. The mortality argument is by far the best. The DNR denied that fishing mortality has any effect on trout populations in 2010, but after thoroughly reviewing all its studies on UP brook trout it changed that position just two years later. Will be interesting to see what the studies show in another few years. The arguments here that fishing mortality has no effect (or is even necessary!) are behind the times and contrary to science.


For anyone to say that release/death ratios are not part of the eqation is rediculous. That said, humans have been fishing for millenium without solely whiping out any specie of fish in Micihgan. So a few Brook Trout succumbed to the effect of being caught & released. 

Perhaps those fish should of been kept and utilized, or perhaps the Angler that was practicing C&R should of used common sense. Hopefully C&R Anglers are well read, and therefore realize that there is a death to release ratio involved with what they are doing. Even if death did not come to those particular fishes that were released, Mr. Otter, Bald Eagle & Mother Nature do on occasion come calling and those fish will pass naturally, making room for the next generation. 

Mother Nature makes room for the next generation, she knows what she is doing. If only we Humans would stop believing we know best.


----------



## fsutroutbum

It's Spring in Michigan. Otherwise known as spawning steelhead "rip em and strip em" season.

Well, except on the catch & release only waters of the Pere Marquette River and the Little Manistee River. On those rivers the fish actually MIGHT just have a chance to successfully spawn...

Y'all can keep complaining "there's no proof that egg harvesting reduces fish populations." However, sportsmen realize that the resource should be given the best chance to allow for natural reproduction.

But that's "elitist" and you can't tell us what to do! It's the "public trust"!

Exactly. The State is entrusted with responsibility for protecting natural resources. Catch and release does just that.

Well, then, what about flies only. That is "elitist"!

No. There is a rationale basis for allowing a single, unweighted fly on shallow streams like the PM, the Holy Waters, etc. It's to reduce fish mortality. And it is working.

See the below quotes.

Good day, tight lines and throw them back.

I fish Alaska every year and nobody credible fishes bait there. Why? Because it isn't very sporting. Nor is it sporting to kill trophy fish. 

This bruiser went back in the water and this year I hope to get a rainbow as big and have a good chance.

Splitshot, you have your opinion and I have mine. You can try and have me banned from the site for stating my opinion and if that happens, so be it. At least it will be based on advocating catch & release which used to be a cornerstone of the trout fishing ethos. But who needs a sporting ethos when there is a cast iron skillet and butter.

They're not just fish - they are the basis of the sport we love and deserve more respect than to be sliced open for their skein or roe. My opinion. 

Spot on Paul


----------



## METTLEFISH

tro·phy 
/&#712;tr&#333;f&#275;/ 


Noun

A cup or other decorative object awarded as a prize for a victory or success.
A souvenir of an achievement, esp. a part of an animal taken when hunting.
Synonyms
prize - spoil - booty

P.S. Proper Grammar is of utmost importance.


----------



## MERGANZER

Just a quick question. If you dont want any restrictions on gear would you be open to spearing and bowfishing on these waters as well?

Just a thought

Ganzer


----------



## METTLEFISH

If that was directed towards me here's my answer. I personally do not spear or bow fish. I believe it removes specimens that on occasion are outside the legal requirements, the deal can not be reversed. Also I believe it removes fair chase from the equation. I have had many follow ups from large Northerns Etc. , they live to play the game again. 

It is an effective way of harvesting meat - no doubt. It requires skill as well. I equate it to snagging, no choice of take on the fish's part. I have no desire to make it illegal. You fish or spear your way... I'll fish or spear my way.


----------



## Shoeman

Just as predictable as the first robin, here come the fly-bashing threads.

Like mentioned for the last 5-10 years, I don't know anyone on this site that advocates these rules and/or was critical in having them placed into the rule book.

Yet some members prefer to drive a wedge into our community by labeling guys that would rather fish the long rod as snaggers. Give it up!

So what if Paul would rather C&R. It's his right! Why should he be forced to kill his catch? 

Go change the rules, go to your meetings, use the bait forum you guys have and quit stirring the pot. 

We did not start these Flies Only sections! 

Seems quite comical that quite a few only use this site to preach and rarily add anything useful or try to help another member.


----------



## riverman

Some folks really need to take the blinders off and realize that the tiny piece of pie they so relish, is just that, tiny. If you feel so strong advocate your beliefs where these fish spend the bulk of thier life growing to adults. But before you start chirping, you might want to read this latest release. If it doesn't sober you up, nothing will, and go on living in your fantasy world.
http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2012LakeMichiganPreyfish.pdf


----------



## METTLEFISH

Hmmm.... well I don't see any post of people directing him to keep fish. That is his choice. Please do not ask me to release what I catch, that is my choice within the law. If he were not so righteous in his beleifes I may introduce him to a friends wife, whom happens to be Chief of Coastal Fisheries in Alaska. Then he would not have a chance at a ten pound Rainbow... his arm's would be tired from catching them.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

METTLEFISH said:


> Hmmm.... well I don't see any post of people directing him to keep fish. That is his choice. Please do not ask me to release what I catch, that is my choice within the law. If he were not so righteous in his beleifes I may introduce him to a friends wife, whom happens to be Chief of Coastal Fisheries in Alaska. Then he would not have a chance at a ten pound Rainbow... his arm's would be tired from catching them.


Mettlefish, nobody kills trophy size rainbows in AK. They're prized. They're the basis for a massive fishing tourism economy in Bristol Bay.


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> The argument that it is "only a small percentage" is terrible. The mortality argument is by far the best. The DNR denied that fishing mortality has any effect on trout populations in 2010, but after thoroughly reviewing all its studies on UP brook trout it changed that position just two years later. Will be interesting to see what the studies show in another few years. The arguments here that fishing mortality has no effect (or is even necessary!) are behind the times and contrary to science.


Kzoo - Let me start by saying that I reply to your posts because I believe you to be open minded and that you will likely read/research and post based on the information and beliefs that you have formed from assimilating that information. I respect your opinion, even if I do not always agree, and value the civil dialogue we have regarding these issues. It helps me to understand someone who may not share the same set of social norms that I do regarding our fishery, but I believe cares just as deeply about our fishery and understanding the science that makes it go.

With that, I believe you are correct and incorrect at the same time here, let me explain. Sport fishing does indeed have an impact on the (immediate) fishery. I go fishing today, catch a 2 keeper sized trout, keep both of them for dinner. They are forever gone from the stream for the rest of the season. That has an impact on the sport-fishery for the rest of that season by the simple subtraction of 2 adult fish that I can't catch tomorrow. 

However, the reason the DNR stated that sport fishing has no negative effect on the fish *biologically* goes back to exactly what Mondrella posted above. There are more than enough adults that still spawn to saturate the river's ability to rear young based on habitat and available food regardless if I removed those 2, 20, 200, 2000 fish or not. It takes very, very few adult fish to spawn successfully to saturate the system with juveniles.

Read the first couple pages of this research article if you are interested in the relationship of adult spawners to progeny (no relationship was found) and how too many progeny essentially equals high compensatory mortality because the habitat and available food can't support the over-abundance of fry, so the same number, limited by habitat/food survive year over year:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/g/genpub/aag2862.1746.001/4?page=root;rgn=full+text;size=100;view=image

Again, back to you point, I agree that there is an immedate effect on the fishery, even if it's small, due to sport fishing. Whatever we catch/keep or accidentally kill is no longer around to be caught. However, at no time are we in danger of over-fishing to the point that there won't be enough adults spawning to ensure there are more fish for next year. IMO, that's the difference between the immediate impact and the biological impact of sport fishing.

If you want more trout, you need more suitable habitat/food for fry survival to adulthood...I've yet to see a study that called out adult spawners as the limiting factor.

Don


----------



## fishinDon

riverman said:


> Some folks really need to take the blinders off and realize that the tiny piece of pie they so relish, is just that, tiny. If you feel so strong advocate your beliefs where these fish spend the bulk of thier life growing to adults. But before you start chirping, you might want to read this latest release. If it doesn't sober you up, nothing will, and go on living in your fantasy world.
> http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2012LakeMichiganPreyfish.pdf


Correct Riverman, that was indeed sobering and a big reminder why we should cease with splinter issues and spend more effort on big picture problems like the fact that a potential crash of the Lake Michigan fishery is becoming increasingly more likely (one year class of Alewives makes up almost all of the bait fish in the whole lake). 

Doesn't matter what gear you use or what the limit is when there aren't any fish to catch. :sad:


----------



## METTLEFISH

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Mettlefish, nobody kills trophy size rainbows in AK. They're prized. They're the basis for a massive fishing tourism economy in Bristol Bay.


Hundreds of thousands of Native peoples catch, kill & consume them.


----------



## METTLEFISH

fishinDon said:


> Correct Riverman, that was indeed sobering and a big reminder why we should cease with splinter issues and spend more effort on big picture problems like the fact that a potential crash of the Lake Michigan fishery is becoming increasingly more likely (one year class of Alewives makes up almost all of the bait fish in the whole lake).
> 
> Doesn't matter what gear you use or what the limit is when there aren't any fish to catch. :sad:


The time to enhance the fertility of Lk. Michigan is upon us.


----------



## Chromedoggy

I personally advocate catch and release to protect the poor trout, but you better not threaten my right to kill fetuses for sport.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Chromedoggy said:


> I personally advocate catch and release to protect the poor trout, but you better not threaten my right to kill fetuses for sport.


Why descriminate the wealthy Trout?


----------



## fsutroutbum

As I read the arguments against gear restrictions I am prompted to ask the question, "Who among you supports the APR?" To me it is not logical to support on and not the other.

Also then I would assume that many here are against the new regulation on the taking of muskies. 

Personally I find spearing, snagging and chumming to abhorrent practices. I don't have a problem with setting aside certain waters, nor do I have a problem with those who may keep a few for the pan. I do have a problem with folks that need to kill their limit every time out and then throw them away due to freezer burn. 

Myself I would like to see the state use more slot limits.


----------



## Shoeman

I agree with some/most of Ray's yearly summary, but still believe that certain sections require some restraint when keeping fish. 

That again falls on deaf ears since trout are considered a renewable resource. Allow bait, allow limits and let the games begin...

Most of the best waters throughout this country have restrictions in the form of slots, C&R and bait. Most have learned to enjoy it and maybe even found that fish of a life time in such restricted waters.

To beat each other up over something that reaches world wide in some really prolific waters and perpetuate Ill feelings right here on this board just for the few that believe it discriminates sounds selfish. 

Add our marginal water, lousy plants, ****** economy, a budget that's in the toilet and we have a recipe for marginal fishing. Is it so hard to fathom that some areas could use some protection? 

Again (for the 18th time) Mio! Temps in the 80's in Summer, yet it allows some of the biggest browns through protection. It used to be 2 a day over 15 or 16" no bait and it still works. There's some real monsters in there!

Change that for what? A free-for-all?

Come on.... 

Florida will close the snook season for 2 years at the drop of a hat, yet here low water, lousy forage, overfishing should allow every form fishing because of discrimination...LOL

This probably echo's numerous posts on my end. The DNR seems to dig in their heels, I can't see any change in the near future and yet it comes up several times on this board only to turn into name calling, strikes, members dropping out and again the proverbial wedge into like-minded sportsmen!

Go some place else and sell your wares. Tired of being called an idiot for fishing nymphs when I could really clean house using worms. Maybe I don't want to clean house (or fish), maybe I just want to try some of my creations with a bead or leaded at the shank. 

Then you have guys like Broncbuster who reminds me like that Cartoon with that little dog jumping over the larger dog. "Yeah ok Ray lets do that!" Nothing to add but confrontation!

Please! I fished with your son when all of a sudden I hear this whirr over my head. A Panther Martin on a fly rod? :lol:

The Salmon snagging keeps coming up. The leader used to bring guys for an annual event for just that. I was there. You guys might might as well stop that crap!

All of us gave up that technique after realizing what we were doing. For a while it was glorified by the guides on the PM, yet it keeps perpetuating itself.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Where is anyone saying it will be an absolute free for all? I doubt much would even change. People are going to do illegal crap regardless. I too am sick and tired of the name calling and sterotypes on both sides. This is where I stand on all the issues. I oppose flies and artifical only, I support set limits and slot limits and no kill if is biologically sound, I practice nearly exclusive C&R, I do not chum, I fly and gear fish. I suppose I am in the middle ground here since I do not fish bait, I do keep a trout here and there but do not want to be limited as to what I use to fish, where ever. I know the next round of this nonsense will take place on the Boardman. I can walk to the river and plan to with my daughter when she is old enough. I hope that she will be able to catch her first trout with a Barbie pole and a night crawler as most kids do. What is really being accomplished with GRs?


----------



## Trout King

i filleted 2 trophy browns one 22" and one 23" in the same day last yr. they were both delicious. how do you FEEL about that? I took a 24" from the same stream for the wall. Oddly i released a half dozen 20+ from the same stream last year. do i FEEL bad? nope, i understand biology, unlike a lot of peoplr who over FEEL things.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trout King

some people will never understand biology and will continue to base everything on emotions...i gave up trying to help people like oh yeah and the like tp understand because they will blindly ignore biological facts. im happy i dont have to travel to alaska or any other destination to feel like i can succeed in catching a trophy fish. michigan has a lot of trophy fish, but most are not in gr water. you cant hoard trophy fish, and biologically the gr waters is no better or worse with the restrictions, thus, why is it a necessity to have a private playground for fly guys? yes i have fished the pm in restricted waters yrs ago w my spinning rod. i was judged by flyrodders. nice to know my 3 yr old isnt welcomed by most if he cant cast a flyrod.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## METTLEFISH

shoeman said:


> i agree with some/most of ray's yearly summary, but still believe that certain sections require some restraint when keeping fish.
> 
> That again falls on deaf ears since trout are considered a renewable resource. Allow bait, allow limits and let the games begin...
> 
> Most of the best waters throughout this country have restrictions in the form of slots, c&r and bait. Most have learned to enjoy it and maybe even found that fish of a life time in such restricted waters.
> 
> To beat each other up over something that reaches world wide in some really prolific waters and perpetuate ill feelings right here on this board just for the few that believe it discriminates sounds selfish.
> 
> Add our marginal water, lousy plants, ****** economy, a budget that's in the toilet and we have a recipe for marginal fishing. Is it so hard to fathom that some areas could use some protection?
> 
> Again (for the 18th time) mio! Temps in the 80's in summer, yet it allows some of the biggest browns through protection. It used to be 2 a day over 15 or 16" no bait and it still works. There's some real monsters in there!
> 
> Change that for what? A free-for-all?
> 
> Come on....
> 
> Florida will close the snook season for 2 years at the drop of a hat, yet here low water, lousy forage, overfishing should allow every form fishing because of discrimination...lol
> 
> this probably echo's numerous posts on my end. The dnr seems to dig in their heels, i can't see any change in the near future and yet it comes up several times on this board only to turn into name calling, strikes, members dropping out and again the proverbial wedge into like-minded sportsmen!
> 
> Go some place else and sell your wares. Tired of being called an idiot for fishing nymphs when i could really clean house using worms. Maybe i don't want to clean house (or fish), maybe i just want to try some of my creations with a bead or leaded at the shank.
> 
> Then you have guys like broncbuster who reminds me like that cartoon with that little dog jumping over the larger dog. "yeah ok ray lets do that!" nothing to add but confrontation!
> 
> Please! I fished with your son when all of a sudden i hear this whirr over my head. A panther martin on a fly rod? :lol:
> 
> The salmon snagging keeps coming up. The leader used to bring guys for an annual event for just that. I was there. You guys might might as well stop that crap!
> 
> All of us gave up that technique after realizing what we were doing. For a while it was glorified by the guides on the pm, yet it keeps perpetuating itself.


ding ding ding!... We have a winner!...

equal protection under the law!

P.S. Those monsters taste terrible!


----------



## DReihl9896

kzoofisher said:


> The argument that it is "only a small percentage" is terrible. The mortality argument is by far the best. The DNR denied that fishing mortality has any effect on trout populations in 2010, but after thoroughly reviewing all its studies on UP brook trout it changed that position just two years later. Will be interesting to see what the studies show in another few years. The arguments here that fishing mortality has no effect (or is even necessary!) are behind the times and contrary to science.


 
Kzoo, is there a link you could share that points to this change of position where the DNR now says that fishing mortality is detrimental to UP Brook trout? I actually have agreed with you at least partially in the past in that I didn't think the most recent studies were as conclusive as some claim and that angling _could_ have _some_ effect (though I think that effect would be more related to age/size structure of the population as opposed to carrying capacity). However, I've also been under the impression that the reversal by the DNR from their proposal to raise limits (prior to their next flip flop to try the regs on five streams on a trial basis) was more due to the fact that they just didn't find that there was as much public support for it as they had thought as opposed to coming from a thorough review of their own studies.


----------



## kzoofisher

Trout King said:


> i filleted 2 trophy browns one 22" and one 23" in the same day last yr. they were both delicious. how do you FEEL about that? I took a 24" from the same stream for the wall. Oddly i released a half dozen 20+ from the same stream last year. do i FEEL bad? nope, i understand biology, unlike a lot of peoplr who over FEEL things.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sounds like a great stream. What's the name of it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FishmastaZERO

I'm starting a new campaign ....SAVE THE WORMS use a fly .....had to add that lol 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## scooter_trasher

For catch & release artificial only would be far less intrusive on fishing privileges than fly only and would serve the same purpose, unless of course the purpose is to exclude all but fly fisherman, even at that, one can still fly fish with spin gear,or bait-caster,or center-pin, as or even more effectively than with a fly rod, that is the reason so many fly fisherman have gone to chuck & duck, regardless nothing is getting accomplished arguing over it on these boards, if someone wants a rule change the thing to do is get some others behind you and apply pressure to the proper authorities, that is how the fly only guys grabbed the best water for themselves.


----------



## scooter_trasher

FishmastaZERO said:


> I'm starting a new campaign ....SAVE THE WORMS use a fly .....had to add that lol
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


 From the Daily caller
As environmentalists and politicians fret about man-made Global Warming, they may be ignoring another culprit: earthworms. According to a new study by an international team of researchers, earthworms could be contributing to global warming.
The study looked at results from 237 separate experiments from published stories to explore earthworms role in affecting global warming.
Our results suggest that although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions, according to the studys abstract.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/06/study-earthworms-may-contribute-to-global-warming/#ixzz2Om9jWNis​


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> Sounds like a great stream. What's the name of it?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You know where it is, I've seen you on it!


----------



## FishmastaZERO

All this topic will ever be is a giant pissing match ...no ones side will be happy until either the "worm dunkers" get their fly's only waters back ..... My answer would simply be LEARN TO FLY FISH and u can fish those places u used to back in nam... Its really not that hard ...

when I lived in Missouri I found a creek that has had a self sustaining population of wild McCloud strain rainbows, (is GR) for the whole length until it dumps into the James..flies and artificial only and only one fish may be kept over 20in ..now with that said I bet most of you guys would prolly start a pissing match over that...

now what I did was open my mind to fly fishing and I found something that I absolutely love ...wayyyy too much the old lady says ...but to be realistic the rules will most likely stay same .

But I guess what I'm getting at is why people can't just be more open to different thing ...... Just like life you don't always get what you want I guess
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## FishmastaZERO

scooter_trasher said:


> From the Daily caller
> As environmentalists and politicians fret about man-made Global Warming, they may be ignoring another culprit: earthworms. According to a new study by an international team of researchers, earthworms could be contributing to global warming.
> The study looked at results from 237 separate experiments from published stories to explore earthworms role in affecting global warming.
> Our results suggest that although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions, according to the studys abstract.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/06/study-earthworms-may-contribute-to-global-warming/#ixzz2Om9jWNis​


DEATH TO ALL CRAWLERS!







If you've seen these culprits please contact fishmastaZERO for proper disposal 
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## troutguy26

FishmastaZERO said:


> DEATH TO ALL CRAWLERS!


Via big brown trout!


----------



## METTLEFISH

FishmastaZERO said:


> All this topic will ever be is a giant pissing match ...no ones side will be happy until either the "worm dunkers" get their fly's only waters back ..... My answer would simply be LEARN TO FLY FISH and u can fish those places u used to back in nam... Its really not that hard ...
> 
> when I lived in Missouri I found a creek that has had a self sustaining population of wild McCloud strain rainbows, (is GR) for the whole length until it dumps into the James..flies and artificial only and only one fish may be kept over 20in ..now with that said I bet most of you guys would prolly start a pissing match over that...
> 
> now what I did was open my mind to fly fishing and I found something that I absolutely love ...wayyyy too much the old lady says ...but to be realistic the rules will most likely stay same .
> 
> But I guess what I'm getting at is why people can't just be more open to different thing ...... Just like life you don't always get what you want I guess
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I personally do not care for socialist / dictatorships. This is America. Equall protection under the law! Also I believe that flies catch the heck out of the fish, perhaps they should be restricted as well, it's not real difficult to fool a fish with something that looks similar to a real food item. 

The real issue is funds being utilized for a specific group that is descriminating against an entire group that pays the same amount of money as the guys that get special treatment. Not to mention the fact that many fish die after swimming away!


----------



## broncbuster2

Take all the shots at me you want Shoeman...
When its all gone, Then it will be my turn


----------



## mondrella

Shoeman said:


> I agree with some/most of Ray's yearly summary, but still believe that certain sections require some restraint when keeping fish.
> 
> That again falls on deaf ears since trout are considered a renewable resource. Allow bait, allow limits and let the games begin...
> 
> Most of the best waters throughout this country have restrictions in the form of slots, C&R and bait. Most have learned to enjoy it and maybe even found that fish of a life time in such restricted waters.
> 
> To beat each other up over something that reaches world wide in some really prolific waters and perpetuate Ill feelings right here on this board just for the few that believe it discriminates sounds selfish.
> 
> Add our marginal water, lousy plants, ****** economy, a budget that's in the toilet and we have a recipe for marginal fishing. Is it so hard to fathom that some areas could use some protection?
> 
> Again (for the 18th time) Mio! Temps in the 80's in Summer, yet it allows some of the biggest browns through protection. It used to be 2 a day over 15 or 16" no bait and it still works. There's some real monsters in there!
> 
> Change that for what? A free-for-all?
> 
> Come on....
> 
> Florida will close the snook season for 2 years at the drop of a hat, yet here low water, lousy forage, overfishing should allow every form fishing because of discrimination...LOL
> 
> This probably echo's numerous posts on my end. The DNR seems to dig in their heels, I can't see any change in the near future and yet it comes up several times on this board only to turn into name calling, strikes, members dropping out and again the proverbial wedge into like-minded sportsmen!
> 
> Go some place else and sell your wares. Tired of being called an idiot for fishing nymphs when I could really clean house using worms. Maybe I don't want to clean house (or fish), maybe I just want to try some of my creations with a bead or leaded at the shank.
> 
> Then you have guys like Broncbuster who reminds me like that Cartoon with that little dog jumping over the larger dog. "Yeah ok Ray lets do that!" Nothing to add but confrontation!
> 
> Please! I fished with your son when all of a sudden I hear this whirr over my head. A Panther Martin on a fly rod? :lol:
> 
> The Salmon snagging keeps coming up. The leader used to bring guys for an annual event for just that. I was there. You guys might might as well stop that crap!
> 
> All of us gave up that technique after realizing what we were doing. For a while it was glorified by the guides on the PM, yet it keeps perpetuating itself.


Shoeman if want to fish flies go for it! I never have had a problem with someone choosing what they want to fish with and where. Why should someone else have a problem with what I fish with? We have had the discussion multiple times about your thought on slots and trophy regs and there is no need to rehash them. More power to you for choosing the long rod over a spin cast. I do recall a time you backed the idea of lowering the size limit on the Mo farther downstream so the public utilize the harvest of those planted trout. Do you now feel that was wrong?


----------



## scooter_trasher

"LEARN TO FLY FISH "

Nothing will ever get accomplished arguing on a forum, with that said the head of the DNR is not an elected post, it is a political appointment, politicians are like water in that they prefer the path of least Resistance, therefore the fight will be won or lost in Lansing not here.


----------



## Ranger Ray

METTLEFISH said:


> I agree kzoo. His assertion is bewildering. Now you can even possess a spear along a Trout stream legally. I can CCW or open carry a gun along these streams as well. Doesn't mean I intend harm to someone. Carrying baits and hooks does not prove intent.


You can not possess a spear along a trout stream.

As far as the other question:



> 10. Pere Marquette River (Lake County) from M-37 Bridge to Gleason&#8217;s Landing (T17N, R13W, S18): open season all year; only artificial
> flies may be used; it is unlawful to use or possess live bait, dead or preserved bait, organic or processed food, or scented material on
> any of the waters or on shore; daily harvest limit is zero (0) fish. Possession of trout or salmon is prohibited in no-kill areas regardless
> of where caught, except: for children under the age of 12-years old, the possession limit shall be one (1) fish, the minimum size limit
> shall be 8 inches and the maximum size limit shall be 12 inches. Fish less than 8 inches or greater than 12 inches must be released.


----------



## toto

My point wasn't whether or not they are native or not, the point was the conservation ethos is decided here by what's right to protect the resource, not for what people may or may not want. Being native or not is not the argument here.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Ranger, you may want to read the new rules.... specifically Pg. 9.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> You can not possess a spear along a trout stream.


Sure you can, it's legal on a couple dozen or so
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## METTLEFISH

toto said:


> My point wasn't whether or not they are native or not, the point was the conservation ethos is decided here by what's right to protect the resource, not for what people may or may not want. Being native or not is not the argument here.


The need for the DNR fisheries to re-plant the system indicates the resource does not flourish in these waters. The fish are paid for, planted, and fisheries studies are needed to even have a limited fishery. This is by any definition a put and take fishery. The whole fishery is dependent on stocking. 

Even in the waters were they do reproduce the numbers not substantial enough nor are they doing well enough to produce quality fish without heavy regulation. Perhaps if such high regulation is needed there should be no angling for them at all. Then all the anglers would know how it feels to be left out of all the fun....


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Sure you can, it's legal on a couple dozen or so
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


OK I see it changed on some, so I will agree with the couple dozen. They sure didn't make it clear on the rest.

Hmm interesting I just noticed they changed the criteria of 0 limit fish waters as stated in my previous post to "all gear restricted waters."



> On all streams managed under gear restrictions, it shall be unlawful to use or possess live
> bait,dead or preserved bait, organic or processed food, or scented material on any of the waters
> or on shore. Gear Restricted Streams are indicated in red color on maps which are available
> online at michigan.gov/fishingguide.


----------



## mondrella

Read what the definition of a artificial fly is. It has always been illegal to possess anything but these on fly only water. I don't see where that has changed. I asked once if it was. Legal to have a plug with nohooks on it just to turn fish. I was informed by the law division it would be illegal the way the law was wrote because it had a bill to dive. The rules have always been in the past that to even posses lures in the fly only water as illegal. Now there is this little gray area that you guys are trying to play. Still to be in possession of fish where I am talking would be illegal no matter what even if harvested in a legal body of water. It shows truely how weak your stand and beliefs are on this issue. 
So the wording has changed slightly in 2013. Fly only is fly only plan and simple.


----------



## METTLEFISH

mondrella said:


> Read what the definition of a artificial fly is. It has always been illegal to possess anything but these on fly only water. I don't see where that has changed. I asked once if it was. Legal to have a plug with nohooks on it just to turn fish. I was informed by the law division it would be illegal the way the law was wrote because it had a bill to dive. The rules have always been in the past that to even posses lures in the fly only water as illegal. Now there is this little gray area that you guys are trying to play. Still to be in possession of fish where I am talking would be illegal no matter what even if harvested in a legal body of water. It shows truely how weak your stand and beliefs are on this issue.
> So the wording has changed slightly in 2013. Fly only is fly only plan and simple.


 You also can only use three rods in those waters, yet I could carry 6 if I so wanted. I can tie 3 of them on my line (s) and have a total of 6 hooks or "flies'' yet I can carry 600 of them if I so choose.

P.S. I can tie Deer hair diver... would that be illegal by that definition?


----------



## toto

mettle, I think you may be mis understanding my position. I am against any fly only, or restricted fishing unless for conservation issues. Therefore the scientific evidence needs to be there that the fishing area in question needs protection. This evidence should include the viability of actually having a decent fishery in that given area. The science would include things such as habitat, water temp and/or any other thing needed to obtain a quality fishing environment. Just to have a segregated area just because a chosen few want it isn't within the pervue of the DNR, and shouldn't be.


----------



## METTLEFISH

I understand. I am just so sick of the whole thing. If these fish should not be fished for then stop fishing by any method or stop the entire program. It's become rediculous.


----------



## toto

Now there's something I can agree with, glad we are on the same page.


----------

