# Two trout streams could see lure change



## Hamilton Reef

Two trout streams could see lure change

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2008/05/two_trout_streams_could_see_lu.html

05/02/08 by Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press

Anglers on two west Michigan trout streams may find themselves using only artificial lures in 2010 or later, if an idea being considered by DNR Fisheries staff moves ahead.

State biologists are evaluating the Coldwater River in Barry and Kent Count and Dowagiac Creek in Cass County for quality fishing regulations. The rules would restrict anglers to artificial lures with the idea of growing larger fish.

"We'd like to hear what anglers think," said Jay Wesley, the DNR fisheries supervisor for southwest Michigan.

In order to qualify for quality fishing regulations, each must meet certain primary criteria. That includes the following:

 The fishery has to be dominated by trout.

 Two-year-old trout have to meet or exceed the state average size of 9 inches.

 Natural mortality rates have to be fairly low.

 Fishing mortality has to be fairly low.

Wesley said the trout in both streams exceed the statewide 9-inch average by an inch or two. Both show excellent growth rates.

Also of concern is a requirement that river segments are a minimum of two miles long and have public access.

Fisheries officials also want to hear what non-trout anglers or bait fishermen have to say.

"The reason the Coldwater and Dowagiac come up is because they have a big following among fly anglers," Wesley said. "This year we want to gather data and get feedback."

Fly fisherman Paul Eberhart of Freeport, says he thinks the proposal is a good idea. He'd prefer no-kill regulations, but doubts that those would ever be accepted. Eberhart lives 200 yards from the Coldwater River.

"I've been pushing for this for years," he said. "I would like to see the river catch and release."

Wesley is contemplating the upper Coldwater for the regulations, but says which segment has not been determined.

"Dowagiac Creek is all privately owned, but one owner along it is supportive and he has created a small park where anglers can get access to the river," he said.

"Of all of the trout streams in southern Michigan where we might use these regulations, these two always come up in my mind."

In 2002, the Michigan legislature gave the Michigan DNR permission to use fishing gear restrictions on up to 212 total miles of trout stream. Michigan currently has 112 miles designated around the state.

To comment on the possibility of adding quality fishing regulations to portions of the Coldwater River and Dowagiac Creek, contact Jay Wesley at (269) 685-6851.


----------



## thousandcasts

> "The reason the Coldwater and Dowagiac come up is because they have a big following among fly anglers," Wesley said.


So *&^%ing what. I know a lot of water that has a big following among bait fishermen and they don't get their own special regs.


----------



## Blaketrout

> So *&^%ing what. I know a lot of water that has a big following among bait fishermen and they don't get their own special regs.




Special regs suck. 



> He'd prefer no-kill regulations,


On a stocked southern Michigan trout stream??  This is begining to sound like the Muskegon fiasco part II.


----------



## axisgear

Brown trout[salmo trutta] are NOT native! Special regulate THAT!!!!!!:evilsmile They don't even taste that good!


----------



## Moss_835

I am sure I am a dying breed of sportsman here in Michigan. I hunt and fish when ever possible, what I harvest I eat. I don't have to catch or shoot a limit, but to stop at the Coldwater after work and bring a couple of trout home every week is something I do. I have nothing against fly fishing, and do throw hardware often, but with limited time good old "garden hackle" works on a regular basis for me. 
If you want to do the C & R thing, fish with flies only....you have places already where you can do such. Why force your style of fishing on me??

Moss


----------



## vando45

Blaketrout said:


> Special regs suck.
> 
> 
> 
> On a stocked southern Michigan trout stream??  This is begining to sound like the Muskegon fiasco part II.



Most of the browns I catch in the Coldwater are wild fish.


----------



## everlast1

Every stream, creek, river in the state that holds WILD trout should be C & R period. I dont think its too many years away


----------



## Blaketrout

vando45 said:


> Most of the browns I catch in the Coldwater are wild fish.



I never said that there are no wild fish in the Coldwater. My point was if everyone that buys an all species fishing license should be able to fish (and keep if they choose) the fish that they initially payed for. If Special regs are put in place it would only be fair that the trout destined for the Coldwater be planted in other streams without restrictive regulations.


----------



## TSS Caddis

everlast1 said:


> Every stream, creek, river in the state that holds WILD trout should be C & R period. I dont think its too many years away


Then we should stop shooting ducks because they can't be released.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I wonder if any of our state biologists have done a study on the effects of dividing sportsmen with laws that seem to favor one group or the other? Anyone? Anyone? You keep losing license sales and we wonder why. How about we split license expenditures up by category. Those that want to fish artificial only and those that don't care. Then if license sales are say 20% artificial and 80% anything, the artificial area gets 20% of the money for improvements, stocking, etc.... on their water. The anything go group gets 80% of the money. We can tag the fish red for artificial only and green for anything goes. If you are a artificial fisherman and catch a green tagged fish you owe the anything goes group $2.00 and vise a versa. That way we can make sure that all things are fair. :lol:


----------



## TSS Caddis

Ranger Ray said:


> I wonder if any of our state biologists have done a study on the effects of dividing sportsmen with laws that seem to favor one group or the other? Anyone? Anyone? You keep losing license sales and we wonder why. How about we split license expenditures up by category. Those that want to fish artificial only and those that don't care. Then if license sales are say 20% artificial and 80% anything, the artificial area gets 20% of the money for improvements, stocking, etc.... on their water. The anything go group gets 80% of the money. We can tag the fish red for artificial only and green for anything goes. If you are a artificial fisherman and catch a green tagged fish you owe the anything goes group $2.00 and vise a versa. That way we can make sure that all things are fair. :lol:


And the 20% are not allowed to fish artificials on the other 80%


----------



## Ultra-Light

> Fisheries officials also want to hear what non-trout anglers or bait fishermen have to say.


Translation = Bait fisherman have no say.


----------



## everlast1

I dont have anything against bait fishing just not in certain rivers. How many bait fisherman have donated money or time for habitat restoration or legal battles for our trout streams ?? They need to be regulated. If you dont like it Michigan has thousands of lakes you can fish with bait until your hearts content.


----------



## BIGSP

I am not quite sure where I stand on this issue but, one thing I would like to see is a reduction in limits during spawning time.

I talked with an old timer a few weeks ago who always has a stringer full of steelhead. He claims he had 90 fish in his freezer last year. This year he only has 45. We fish a fairly small river and there is no way that taking 90 fish out of a river that small doesn't have an effect on the population.

Why do they close the season on browns, bass, walleye, pike etc during their spawing times? Yet in these times of tight budgets and less fish being planted, we can keep 3 hens everday during their spawning time.

Don't get me wrong I have no problem with someone keeping a fish here and there for dinner but, do you need 3? Wouldn't 1 fish limit from March through April make more sense?


----------



## TSS Caddis

everlast1 said:


> I dont have anything against bait fishing just not in certain rivers. How many bait fisherman have donated money or time for habitat restoration or legal battles for our trout streams ?? They need to be regulated. If you dont like it Michigan has thousands of lakes you can fish with bait until your hearts content.


Every piece of water in this state can be fly fished. We segrate more water for other groups.


----------



## wildcoy73

everlast1 said:


> I dont have anything against bait fishing just not in certain rivers. How many bait fisherman have donated money or time for habitat restoration or legal battles for our trout streams ?? They need to be regulated. If you dont like it Michigan has thousands of lakes you can fish with bait until your hearts content.


I may bust your bubble but a lot of bait fisherman have put in time and money to improve michigan fishing. I can fish both ways, and often will in the same day. I have spent my time in the water picking up trash and improving the water i fish.
Spent years down in Texas and found out that the state had a better way to control weeds in the lake, but like Michigan they had a budget that would allow them to operate the machine to do this, but did not budget the funds to buy the machine. So what do i do? I get with ray scott and we do everything we can and the great sportsman of Texas bought this machine for Texas. And we did not fight with each other, we even had non fishing group donate to this cause


----------



## Blaketrout

> I dont have anything against bait fishing just not in certain rivers. How many bait fisherman have donated money or time for habitat restoration or legal battles for our trout streams ??


Theres a hell of a lot trout streams in this state. The few that get the press with their expensive habitat projects only make up maybe 5% of the streams in Michigan, more than likely less than that. In the meantime there's a lot of dedicated trout fisherman, even bait guys, that quietly steward the streams they fish. Just because you don't read about it in the papers doesn't mean no one is doing anything.


----------



## Ranger Ray

everlast1 said:


> I dont have anything against bait fishing just not in certain rivers. How many bait fisherman have donated money or time for habitat restoration or legal battles for our trout streams ?? They need to be regulated. If you dont like it Michigan has thousands of lakes you can fish with bait until your hearts content.


Oops! Appears some people besides the almighty you, put time and money into their sport. So because you worked on a stretch of river are we now to assume it is yours to keep other fellow fisherman off it if they do not use the same methods? It is this kind of pompous BS that we have come to expect from some organizations. Just a bait fisherman buying a license is contributing to the fishery. Take away all the bait fisherman's funds that go to the DNR and you wouldn't have a fishery. Absolutely some streams need regulation and this should be done with equality like c and r but not to benefit one group. At that point it becomes favoritism, plain and simple. 

Oh my grandfather said while working the CCC he worked on about every river in this state, please stay off.


----------



## Oldgrandman

everlast1 said:


> I dont have anything against bait fishing just not in certain rivers. How many bait fisherman have donated money or time for habitat restoration or legal battles for our trout streams ?? They need to be regulated. If you dont like it Michigan has thousands of lakes you can fish with bait until your hearts content.


I know a some bait guys who are members of hunting/fishing/conservation clubs and subscribe to MUCC magizine, etc. These orgs. help out in many ways. Even planting trout(& other fish) into streams(also lakes) for everyone to pursue. The only good special regulations are those that benefit the fishery, not specific groups of anglers IMHO. On public waters that is...


----------



## buckhunter14

I have never seen a sign posted:

"BAIT FISHERMAN ONLY... FLY and SPINNER FISHERMAN WILL BE PROSECUTED"


Have you?


----------



## TSS Caddis

buckhunter14 said:


> I have never seen a sign posted:
> 
> "BAIT FISHERMAN ONLY... FLY and SPINNER FISHERMAN WILL BE PROSECUTED"
> 
> 
> Have you?


No, and even though I fly fish for trout, if you made them I'd put one up in my yard:lol:

Either that or a sign that quotes Hutch "Lakers are Gay":lol:


----------



## everlast1

Like I said I dont have anything against bait fisherman. Isnt it funny how some people refer to flyfisherman as pompous. Yet you rarely here a flyfisherman comment about illiterate bait fisherman. Instead of whining why dont you add the miles of river in this state and then subtract the amount of C&R flies only water  The C&R guys are vastly under represented which this state needs to address. Nobody is saying you cant fish, you just have to fish with flies. Dont like it go somewhere else. And caddis while its true I cant put waterfowl, grouse, or woodcock back I would if I could, like I can with trout. They like trout are worth way more to me alive than on my table.


----------



## Ultra-Light

> Yet you rarely here a flyfisherman comment about illiterate bait fisherman.


How is it bait fisherman are illiterate?


----------



## thousandcasts

> Isnt it funny how some people refer to flyfisherman as pompous.


Well, when that demographic is visibly represented by the Sputnick's, Schmidtlet's and Fish Whisperer's of the world, then you get what you get as far as generalized stereotypes.



> Nobody is saying you cant fish, you just have to fish with flies. Dont like it go somewhere else.


To quote Caddis: "Every bit of water in this state is flies only if that's the way you want to fish it." 

Just like every bit of water is bait only if that's the way...oh...oops, wait a minute...guess that isn't the case is it?


----------



## jimmy johans

I floated Au sable april 22 from Grayling to Gates Lodge.
I spinner fish in summer and could not fish on this trip due to date. 
We had a great float until we hit the "fly fishing water" 
a couple guy nice but the majority scowled at me and wife. 
One guy shook his head and turned his back on us. I wanted so bad to bang paddle and rock kayak. I vow to make 5 extra trips down fly zone just to muck with those guys.


----------



## TSS Caddis

everlast1 said:


> Instead of whining why dont you add the miles of river in this state and then subtract the amount of C&R flies only water  The C&R guys are vastly under represented which this state needs to address.


This is not about proportional representation by a demographic's want's. It's about making decisions based on science.

Again, no water in this state excludes fly fishing. Why do we need special flies only water? Most of the best trout fishing in the state IMO is in water open to kill and bait.

BTW, how does having a river open to bait fishing hinder fly fishing? What is the benefit of fly only water? None as far as I can see.


----------



## Tim Huizenga

I am pretty sure that the coldwater river gets killed off from time for carp and such to time so i'd say the majority of the fish are planters.


----------



## Ranger Ray

everlast1 said:


> Like I said I dont have anything against bait fisherman. Isnt it funny how some people refer to flyfisherman as pompous. Yet you rarely here a flyfisherman comment about illiterate bait fisherman. Instead of whining why dont you add the miles of river in this state and then subtract the amount of C&R flies only water  The C&R guys are vastly under represented which this state needs to address. Nobody is saying you cant fish, you just have to fish with flies. Dont like it go somewhere else. And caddis while its true I cant put waterfowl, grouse, or woodcock back I would if I could, like I can with trout. They like trout are worth way more to me alive than on my table.


Was not calling all fly fisherman pompous. I am also a fly fisherman, and we are not all pompous. If the shoe fits wear it. Maybe if you don't like it, you need to go somewhere else.


----------



## everlast1

TSS Caddis said:


> This is not about proportional representation by a demographic's want's. It's about making decisions based on science.
> 
> Again, no water in this state excludes fly fishing. Why do we need special flies only water? Most of the best trout fishing in the state IMO is in water open to kill and bait.
> 
> BTW, how does having a river open to bait fishing hinder fly fishing? What is the benefit of fly only water? None as far as I can see.


:lol::lol::lol: Thats funny. How many wild trout per mile in C&R water versus general regs. I'm talking about rivers with natural reproduction. I could care less about rivers that are planted. At the rate this state is going there wont be any hatcheries. Thats why we need more C&R in rivers that support wild trout. Its not a flyfishing baitfishing issue. Its a scientific quality fishing issue.


----------



## Ranger Ray

everlast1 said:


> :lol::lol::lol: Thats funny. How many wild trout per mile in C&R water versus general regs. I'm talking about rivers with natural reproduction. I could care less about rivers that are planted. At the rate this state is going there wont be any hatcheries. Thats why we need more C&R in rivers that support wild trout. Its not a flyfishing baitfishing issue. Its a scientific quality fishing issue.


So make it catch and release without the artificial stipulation. Is there scientific studies that show spinners kill less fish then a single hook with live bait? Somehow I must have missed these scientific studies.


----------



## thousandcasts

I've got a hell of a deal right here: 

Give the fly guys their 200 miles of Flies Only water on marginal areas like the Coldwater, Dowagiac, etc and in exchange, give us bait fishermen 100 miles of river where we don't have to see a boat load of guys ripping 1 ounce slinkies and 10' long two fly rigs thru every steelhead redd that's active or not. Since they can't redd rip within that 100 miles, we'll also be spared the "release those fish so they can spawn" rhetoric that constantly gets posted. I'm reasonably sure that if they're not getting harrassed by the above mentioned rig night and day, we'll see a pretty good increase in successful spawners. Just a guess. 

200 miles of flies only for 100 miles of no flies + no self congratulating internet posts allowed. Sounds like a deal to me!


----------



## Kory

Ranger Ray said:


> So make it catch and release without the artificial stipulation. Is there scientific studies that show spinners kill less fish then a single hook with live bait? Somehow I must have missed these scientific studies.


Precisely, I think if they REALLY wanted to make a difference they would come up with a slot limit or something, if their TRUE intentions are to make for a better BIG fish fishery as stated.

I am no expert, but to me I just can't see how artificials only while keeping the same creel limits will make that big of a difference. I also just don't think it's fair for publicly stocked public water to have regulations that split anglers up in protecting them.

As someone already stated we need to be united not split up even more...

I also don't see how it is right to take away a guys right who has fished a stretch of water ethically for 20 years with bait away from him.

Just my thoughts on the matter for what there worth...


----------



## BeWild

thousandcasts said:


> I've got a hell of a deal right here:
> 
> Give the fly guys their 200 miles of Flies Only water on marginal areas like the Coldwater, Dowagiac, etc and in exchange, give us bait fishermen 100 miles of river where we don't have to see a boat load of guys ripping 1 ounce slinkies and 10' long two fly rigs thru every steelhead redd that's active or not. Since they can't redd rip within that 100 miles, we'll also be spared the "release those fish so they can spawn" rhetoric that constantly gets posted. I'm reasonably sure that if they're not getting harrassed by the above mentioned rig night and day, we'll see a pretty good increase in successful spawners. Just a guess.
> 
> 200 miles of flies only for 100 miles of no flies + no self congratulating internet posts allowed. Sounds like a deal to me!


HAHAHA, great idea. I see no reason for the exclusivity of fly fisherman to take over certain rivers where C&R could be practiced through the use of bait. I know plenty of fly fisherman who keep what they catch. Fly fishing does not automatically translate into a higher enlightenment in regards to fishing ethics.


----------



## Kory

*Got this reply back from Jay Wesley....*

_Kory,

Thank you for your concerns.
Please understand that the purpose of the article was to test the waters if you will. We (DNR) are constantly asked by anglers to create unique opportunities to attract people to our resources. We have legal ability to increase special regulation waters by another 100 miles in Michigan, so I was just sending up a test balloon to see what people think. The Coldwater and Dowagiac rivers meet the criteria for this regulation; however, the decision depends on public support. As you stated, this could attract a lot of anglers from Chicago to fish Southwest Michigan. Isn't this what we want? To attract people to our resources to help support our economy? Obviously, we will not pursue the idea if there is not local angler support, but it would be nice to attract outside money to the area and provide our own anglers some unique opportunities.
The only biological reason to do this is to reduce hooking mortality. If hooking mortality is decreased, there may be more potential to have more and larger trout in this section. Socially, I see that this is a divided issue based on the negative responses and name calling from both sides already.
Again, we are just asking for opinion. If it looked like everyone was in favor and saw the value of this, we would pursue it.
Thanks again for your input.
Jay_


----------



## thousandcasts

> As you stated, this could attract a lot of anglers from Chicago to fish Southwest Michigan. Isn't this what we want?


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that not too many guys go out for a peaceful day of fishing and think, "Damn...we gotta get more guys up from Chicago to fish our waters!" 

If someone that doesn't own a bait shop is saying that, then they need to open their windows when they're cooking up their meth, cuz the fumes have gotten to them. Hellooooooooo, has anyone besides me noticed how much more crowded the rivers have been getting over the last few years?


----------



## Kory

thousandcasts said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that not too many guys go out for a peaceful day of fishing and think, "Damn...we gotta get more guys up from Chicago to fish our waters!"
> 
> If someone that doesn't own a bait shop is saying that, then they need to open their windows when they're cooking up their meth, cuz the fumes have gotten to them. Hellooooooooo, has anyone besides me noticed how much more crowded the rivers have been getting over the last few years?


My comments were focused towards the fact I don't see why on earth you would want to bring a massive amount of people crashing down on a 10'-15' wide stream and cause all the negative biological impacts that would follow. Such as litter/pollution and stream degradation caused by careless wading... This article alone has already boosted the pressure on that stream 10 fold I would be willing to bet. I feel it would do more damage both socially and biologically than it would do good, but that is just my humble opinion and input. I will leave it up to the experts to decide and live with whatever they say. I don't even fish there really anyway, just hate to see such a beautiful fragile place get trashed... At some point you have to draw the line on trying to help the economy and helping to sustain the health of a fragile resource, I do know that, but how to do it, well if I knew that I would be rich.

I do think if I ever heard one of my buddies say that TC I would immediately slap the living daylights out of them:lol:...


----------



## thousandcasts

Kory said:


> My comments were focused towards the fact I don't see why on earth you would want to bring a massive amount of people crashing down on a 10'-15' wide stream and cause all the negative biological impacts that would follow. Such as litter/pollution and stream degradation caused by careless wading... This article alone has already boosted the pressure on that stream 10 fold. I feel it would do more damage both socially and biologically than it would do good, but that is just my humble opinion and input. I will leave it up to the experts to decide and live with whatever they say. I don't even fish there really anyway, just hate to see such a beautiful fragile place get trashed... At some point you have to draw the line on trying to help the economy and helping to sustain the health of a fragile resource, I do know that, but how to do it, well if I knew that I would be rich.
> 
> I do think if I ever heard one of my buddies say that TC I would immediately slap the living daylights out of them:lol:...


I see we're in complete agreement. In fact, I'll let you slap the living daylights out of a couple of my buddies just "because." No real reason other than "just because." Enjoy! :lol:


----------



## wyldkat49766

everlast1 said:


> Like I said I dont have anything against bait fisherman. Isnt it funny how some people refer to flyfisherman as pompous. Yet you rarely here a flyfisherman comment about illiterate bait fisherman. Instead of whining why dont you add the miles of river in this state and then subtract the amount of C&R flies only water  The C&R guys are vastly under represented which this state needs to address. Nobody is saying you cant fish, you just have to fish with flies. Dont like it go somewhere else. And caddis while its true I cant put waterfowl, grouse, or woodcock back I would if I could, like I can with trout. They like trout are worth way more to me alive than on my table.


Well then they should sell licenses that are ONLY for C & R or all species. I pay for my all species and as long as I follow the law, I will fish how I like. If you only want to C & R, that is fine by me. Just don't make me fish how YOU do.

Also, we almost always carry an empty shopping bag with us and collect up the trash and stuff we see laying around. Oddly enough, we also see lures and other fishing stuff that is NOT baiting related left along the water. So maybe you just want us to clean up after the fishermen that only fish like we do? Or would you rather we clean it all up? Oh and if you want, we can start a thread with "I cleaned up ____ today. I'll take my cookie now". 

Many more of us clean up the areas around and in the lakes, rivers, and streams and don't get noticed, so what. We do it for the protection of our fishing grounds and the fish, not for being noticed. (Oops did I type that out loud? My bad.)


----------



## Ultra-Light

everlast1 said:


> The C&R guys are vastly under represented which this state needs to address.


C&R guys vastly represent themselves with free will in choosing to catch & release any species of fish, on any given watershed, at any given time.


----------



## TC-fisherman

thousandcasts said:


> 200 miles of flies only for 100 miles of no flies + no self congratulating internet posts allowed. Sounds like a deal to me!


Great Idea! You can start by making No flies areas below tippy and every other dam in the state. 

But i think the "no self congratulating internet posts allowed" in these sections is going to be a little bit harder.


----------



## Splitshot

Thanks Nighttimer

I just heard some rumors and didn't hear the specifics. I only fished that stretch once in recent years about three years ago.

No kill might be the worst special regulation. The studies show that in no kill waters, brown trout get smaller. This also sounds like a special special regulation.

When they made the PM no kill, the locals felt the one fish limit was okay, but under the new regulations it had to be no kill or two fish so they went with no kill. Now these special regulations don't fit the mold, perhaps that means they can change the PM back to one fish.

Very interesting.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Interesting! From the Pigeon River Concept For Management:


> *
> Aquatic Resources​*The fundamental objective for management of aquatic resources will be to protect and enhance
> those aquatic species most suited to the habitat types available within the Pigeon River Country.
> Because of the relatively stable flows and cool summer water temperatures, the key species of
> fish in area streams have been brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout, with the Black River
> and tributaries known almost exclusively for brook trout fishing. Fisheries management
> strategies will continue to focus primarily on these species of fish, and the habitats upon which
> they depend, in the future. Historically, general, statewide regulations for trout fishing have
> been applied to the streams in the Pigeon River Country. It is recommended that the fishing
> regulations on the Pigeon River, the Upper Black River, and the Sturgeon River be reviewed to
> ensure the most appropriate regulations are in place on each stream. Review and
> consideration of changes to the regulatory classification of a stream, or section thereof that is
> managed for trout will be determined using the guidance documented in Fisheries Order 213,
> ​_Criteria for selection of trout streams with gear restrictions regulations_.​


Whats up with that?


----------



## Fishndude

I grew up fishing the Holy Water of the Ausable for Trout. I learned to cast a fly from Cal Gates - Rusty's Father. I have had many great and enjoyable days and nights flyfishing for Trout, and have caught plenty of nice fish in my life. I have heard of a group of flyfishing elitists who are so enthralled with the holiness of Trout that they clip the HOOK off. They tie a fly, but clip the hook. To them, getting a Trout to bite is the ultimate thrill, and they feel that the fish should not even be fought. 

So for everyone who feels that it is right to restrict certain rivers and streams, or parts of rivers and streams, to artificial-only fishing; why not just restrict them to fishing with clipped-off hooks? That would ensure that no fish are actually harmed by the fishing, and every single fish which takes would stay in the resource unharmed. No more gills hooked. No more gut hooked fish. If that meant that that almost nobody would fish those rivers and stretches, then all the better - for the fish!! Imagine the thrill of fishing the Hex Hatch and not being sure whether the fish actually took your offering for a split second, because you couldn't see it happen, and of course you wouldn't be able to tell by the pull on your line. Why, you could imagine GIANT fish at every take, and how they might have fought if you were uncouth enough to use a real hook. As a bonus, you would only have to retie a leader when it got too short from changing flies - a real tackle saver. This makes complete and total sense, if you put it into the context of the arguments which have been made to support the restrictions being debated on this post. Anyone who doesn't agree with this idea CANNOT support any type of restrictions, whatsoever. If you support any restrictions, this is the *only logical next step,* based on your arguments. 

FWIW, I mostly fish for Steelhead anymore, and rarely fish for Trout. I like to feel BIG fish pull on my line, and challenge me to land them. But I still sometimes trek through the woods, and plunk little creeks and streams in search of beautiful Trouties. I use flies, and spinners, and lures, and bait. I would use marshmallows and corn if that was the deal for where I was fishing. I release almost all Trout I catch, except for the planters at Tippy dam - those Browns just taste great, being all fat from eating crayfish and minnows. And I have shown my daughters the beauty of 6" wild Brook Trout, and explained how cool and valuable they are to have; and how fortunate we are to be able to see and catch them. I honestly feel that seeing a wild Brook Trout might make an atheist believe in God. We are glad for being able to catch them using any method we choose. For that reason I have not introduced my girls to the waters I grew up loving to fish. They do not need to be exposed to the kind of attitudes which caused those restrictions to occur; because fishing bigotry is what it really is. Bigotry of any kind sucks. But you should see my girl's faces when a raging Steelhead is ripping line off their reels, while their IMX rods (built for spinning from those great flyrod blanks) are bent to the cork..........And yes, they also have actual IMX flyrods and reels. So far they just like catching Bluegills and Bass with them. That is fine. Perhaps one day they will be flyfishing extemists who clip off their hooks, so they can just enjoy the thrill of getting the fish to strike; but I doubt it.


----------



## Splitshot

Fishndude,

Excellent post. Had I not already typed the following, I might have typed a lot less. Lol

Ray,

It is obvious that the assault on our trout streams and rivers has begun again in earnest. If I read this report correctly, The Black River, The Pigeon River and The Sturgeon River will also have special regulations. This accounts for an additional 140 miles of prime water that will be unavailable to the general public.

I used to fish with the guy who wrote the last Pigeon River plan as a young forester. Because of his dedication and professionalism he worked his way up through the ranks to become the number one field boss for the entire state before he took an early retirement.

Currently he is a member of the Resource Stewards connected with MUCC. The reason the Resource Stewards was formed was because they were tired of all the political BS within the DNR and decided to be a voice for science. When they started out, the only members were only retired DNR specialist. Since then I believe they opened their ranks to anyone who wants to join.

When Mr. Borgenson was elected the Resource Steward president he made the proposal to stop chumming and still allow the use of spawn bags based on his ethical point of view. When I became aware of their plan, I called my friend and explained how that would go against everything Resource Stewards claimed they were for.

If you go to the Resource Stewards web-site you can read the following; The Stewards strongly oppose at every turn the politicization of resource management, or decisions based on unscientific principles, and are a respected and outspoken voice on behalf of the long-term use and conservation of Michigan's natural resources.

My friend is a fly fishermen and in my opinion is somewhat blinded by the fly. On the one hand he agreed with me that flies only sections of rivers were social programs with no scientific basis but he still liked the fact that they were there. During our phone conversation he could offer no logical reason to ban chum and not ban spawn and said he would ask about it at the nest Resource Stewards meeting in Clare.

We all know the Resource Sellouts adopted the proposal and advocated it to the DNR and the DNR bought into the ban as well. All of you who are aware of the issue know how lame it is.

As many of you have seen on this thread that some fly fishermen are blind to issues that relate to fly fishermen. They assume that only fly fishermen care about the well being of our trout, because there are flies only sections in other states they think that is a legitimate reason we should have them in Michigan, they believe because more fish die caught on bait it justifies flies only, they dont think flies only is discriminatory because any one who wants to can just pick up a fly rod and join them.

Of course many of them are complaining that there is not enough fly water because some of the streams are sometimes overcrowded. That naturally proves there is a demand for more flies only water. I personally wouldnt be so cynical if I have not seen how the system is biased toward fly fishing. Even the Resource Stewards who are fed up with politics and want to be seen as scientist, who are tired with guys like K. L. Cool still fail when it comes to fly fishing regulations. Glen Shepard editor of the North Woods Call who states in every copy of his magazine that there is only one side to any outdoor issue and that is natures is in the tank when it comes to fly fishing.

These guys who are blinded by the fly dont see flies only and now lures only as anything but a good thing. They are indifferent to the plight of the majority of fishermen who dont fish with lures or flies or to guys who want to use the best method at a given time to catch trout. They think that enlightenment by direct intuition is more valid than hard science and while some will admit that flies only or artificial lures only is not fair they kind of ignore that reality because they somehow feel it is for the greater good.

We have plenty of members that fly fish that dont see it that way like Shoeman, Essox and Sa Ultra Mag just to name a few. Fox, TC Fisherman and others will not look at the reality and face the issue head on, because they have always seen fly fishing for trout as a positive force. For that reason they can not or will not see the other side of this issue and is at least one explanation for the obvious rationalization.

I believe that many of the past regulations made in the past would not have been adopted had some of the regular fishermen and women spoken out against the bias of those decisions. In their defense, most of them were not aware of how the rules were being made. This thread is proof that things are changing and the only way to stop these unfair rules is to speak out against them. It is up to us!


----------



## thousandcasts

> We all know the Resource Sellouts adopted the proposal and advocated it to the DNR and the DNR bought into the ban as well. All of you who are aware of the issue know how lame it is.


Lame is not the word I use to describe it. I'm still pissed as all hell over that one. :rant:


----------



## Creek-Chub

Fishndude said:


> If you support any restrictions, this is the *only logical next step,* based on your arguments.


I beg to differ. If we Trout and Steelhead fishermen would only follow the lead of the more upper-class Bass fishermen and use Gulp, fishing without a hook wouldn't be a problem. Them thar' trout wouldn't think of letting go...


----------



## Ranger Ray

Good posts!

I am reading that report the same way Ray. They are using these designations to pass laws that discriminate against certain groups in the name of environmentalism. Another example would be Pictured Rocks new designation. In the name of environmentalism and this new push for no human footprint to be left, bear hunters with dogs will not be able to hunt the property. That is if I am reading it right. 

I once looked to and supported organizations like MUCC, NRA, Steelheaders, TU and sports-fisherman for the betterment of our sport as a whole. Nothing wrong with focusing on specific goals but if you aren't also focused toward the big picture, those that are, will take away what little you have. I think one of those organizations understands this well and is using it to their gain. I for one think it is time to start another organization that welcomes all fisherman. One that does not seek to promote one type of fishing but all types. May not go anywhere but at least one can say they tried. May just start a non profit for that purpose.

There is a organization that claims a higher morality by promoting not killing fish or hurting them, PETA. Not so sure they haven't taken jobs within our DNR and NRC. You will hear you are a whiner but that is good because as we are witnessing, those that are whining the loudest are getting their way. It is the American way. 

Remember! If you don't want to fish around a bunch of damn fishermen, don't fish a dam.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Note that the resource stewards organization sold out thier prime headwater trout waters to Nestle Ice Mountain Company, they support privatization of "public trust" waters that the headwaters depend on, they support the killing of trout on behalf of the Nestle Company, and they support the Senate legislative loopholes to allow export of the Great Lakes to the South West states. If they support killing of trout for their corporate profits does that count as defacto hooking mortality? Dead trout for Nestle Company or dead trout with hook buried in the gut is still dead trout. Kind of ironic for a group that claims to care about the welfare of their special fly trout waters with special regulations.


----------



## Whit1

Whit1 said:


> As for spinners being easier on fish I seriously question that concept when treble hooks are used which is what the vast majority of spinner tossers use. I've outright killed more small trout using a spinner than I did using bait over my half century of trout angling.


I was mowing the lawn last night when this part of my post above came to mind. It is poorly worded. Because I've used bait in my trout fishing years far more than spinners I should have said that on a per capita basis I've killed more small trout on spinners than with bait. I'm speaking of fish less than ten inches in length. The smaller fish seem to engulf the spinner w/treble hook and that treble hook is tough to remove without fatally injuring the fish.

When bait fishing and releasing fish that are deeply hooked I'd suggest:
*Don't *try to remove the hook.
*Cut the line* off and release the fish quickly. Using a nail clipper will allow you to cut the line off close to the hook's eye.

This will lessen fish mortality somewhat. It won't eliminate it completely, but rather lessen it.

This again brings up the question of why special regulations are, for the most part, put on the "blue-ribbon" areas of trout streams where natural reproduction is the norm rather than areas (and streams) that are classified as marginal trout water. It would seem logical to me that special regs, including C&R areas would be better suited to save trout in these marginal streams.


----------



## TC-fisherman

kinda of odd that this thread was about a proposal to allow only artificial lures, once again artificial lures, on a stream based on the higher mortality of another certain kind of fishing. Instead it turns into a bunch of angry rants against organizations, clubs, DNR, specific people, types of fisherman.

Seems like there are some hate filled people with unresolved issues who could probably benefit from some kind of mental therapy.........may I suggest flyfishing its very soothing.


----------



## Ranger Ray

TC-fisherman said:


> kinda of odd that this thread was about a proposal to allow only artificial lures, once again artificial lures, on a stream based on the higher mortality of another certain kind of fishing. Instead it turns into a bunch of angry rants against organizations, clubs, DNR, specific people, types of fisherman.
> 
> Seems like there are some hate filled people with unresolved issues who could probably benefit from some kind of mental therapy.........may I suggest flyfishing its very soothing.


Last I checked, people that seek a solution that benefits the few would be in that hate category before those that seek a solution to benefit all. But then again, I haven't reached that moral plane that can reason such a twist. Oh and the last two people that treated me badly on the river were two fly fishermen. One made the comment he wasn't catching anything because of the damn bait fishermen. I think his comment was focused at me. Appears fly fishing is not as soothing to some as it is to you. :lol:


----------



## thousandcasts

> Seems like there are some hate filled people with unresolved issues who could probably benefit from some kind of mental therapy.........may I suggest flyfishing its very soothing.


Ya know, most of us could care less how someone chooses to find enjoyment in the outdoors. I have nothing against fly fishing per se...if a guy is so into it that he wants to throw a live chicken out there, go for it. Knock yourself out. 

However, until fly fishermen (not all, but the ones who make the most noise) learn to just enjoy themselves and quit trying to make the entire state their personal playground, we're gonna have issues. 

The next time one of the Dave Borgenson's of the world thinks about whining and pushing for some retarded form of regulation, he really should just step back, pour himself a nice hot cup of shut the **** up and enjoy what he does without trying to dictate what's best for everybody else. 

Until that happens, there's gonna be a line in the sand between bait and fly fishermen.


----------



## Shoeman

I remember trying to get MUCC to take a stance, but for some silly reason it didn't fit their criteria.

Not sure who can be contacted to reverse any of these rules. Appearantly TU likes them and the DNR is along for the ride.

Personally, like I stated before, I could care less if someone fishes Powerbait, worms, whatever, but to say that bait has the same mortality as artificals doesn't sit right with me. My dad and neighbor are prime examples. Both have fished for a combined total of 100 years and they can't detect a bite to save their ass. A good portion of their catch ends up with swallowed hooks. Fine if you're going to keep the fish, but the shorts are mostly disfigured and belly-side up by the time they "try" to get their hook back. 

Another prime example is fishing with spinners/Raps among 8" planters. Neapolis and I have fished the Muskegon for many, many years and after a float a few years back he decided to pinch his barbs after many fish ended up bleeding and sporting torn mouths.

Having fished with a few guys that have taken baitfishing to another level, swallowed hooks aren't an issue, but with many it is. I highly doubt that any of these new regs will be reversed. As a matter of fact, it's only going to get worse. Out West many river systems are micro-managed as to season and method. Kingfisher (Marc) called me shortly after moving to Washington State and described the confusing nature of their trout/salmon program. Some rivers have a short season, some stretches can't be fished at all, some have split seasons and many are restricted to flies only and even barbless. 

Perhaps those designations are based on science since there's a huge drive to maintain a "wild fish" population, or it might be another attempt at limiting the "general public" from utilizing the resource. Who knows, but so far Michigan is way behind the 8 ball when it comes to managing our trout program. Stockings like the ones they pulled a couple of years back are a prime example. Planting 4-6" fish in marginal waters knowing those fish would never survive to see the 10" limit. I guess it looks good on paper seeing that they planted 200.000 fish. 

If these new regs will give us a better fishery, I'd be for it, but I doubt it will help without adding further restrictions like slots and closures of prime spawning grounds during the spawning season. And we all know that will never happen without an uproar from the guides and the tourism industry.

In the future I see more C&R water and more restrictions as to method. I guess if one chooses to fish bait they'll have to stick to perch, gills and roughfish. I saw this coming with the Worm Bill, when noone with the power wanted to step in and try to lobby against it.

Does this affect me? Nope! I can keep up with the baitfishermen throwing stuff I tie and not have to wait for the baitshop to open, worry about keeping it alive and getting my hands dirty :lol: , but that was done by choice and not shoved down my throat.

You guys can type away until your fingers bleed. It won't make a difference posting it on here. Send your thoughts to Lansing, contact your reps, the DNR, NRC, the media, or anyone willing to listen and make changes in the opposite direction of where it's heading now.

Good Luck


----------



## Ranger Ray

I agree Shoeman that things more then likely will only get worse and the reversal of any regs is probably not going to happen. If it comes to fly fishing and artificial only, I always enjoyed them as much as other methods and will continue. I also think that once we have turned fishing in to a C&R sport, the argument of the anti will grow. It is where this will take us that bothers me. I doubt we will see it in our day but our kids will. Nothing wrong with putting up a fight though.


----------



## Fox

Splitshot,
Nice call out.
Honestly, I don't care one way how other fish. I'm much more in support of instituting slot limits and bag limits based on each water sheds ability to sustain a population. Waters that rely on stocking I don't believe should have restrictive limits. Those that have greater natural reproduction should, to allow those waters to maximize their potential. As for gear restrictions, I fish many waters that are and many that are not and do well in either case. My concerns are this: 1: Waste, take what you want (within the law) but use what you take. 
2: Put your sweat where your mouth is. step up to the plate and do some work on our waters. Maybe not through an organization, do it on your own. Take the family down to a river and do a clean up.
3: Flyfishermen being blamed as the root of all evil.
4: Groups like TU getting blasted for the poor management of our waters.


----------



## Ultra-Light

Shoeman said:


> Another prime example is fishing with spinners/Raps among 8" planters. Neapolis and I have fished the Muskegon for many, many years and after a float a few years back he decided to pinch his barbs after many fish ended up bleeding and sporting torn mouths.


This is why my entire spinner, plug, rapala, or (Anything else that came with a treble hook) collection, I removed the stock treble hooks, & replaced them with single barbless hooks. Using single hook setups might give me a little bit less chance of landing a fish, but I feel somewhat relieved that I have caused less considerable fish damage with a single hook, opposed to using anything with a treble hook.

I have never really been too fond of treble hooks. Treble hooks indeed do cause far more fish damage, than using a single hook. If there was to be any type of 'gear restriction', treble hooks would be #1 on my list as 'tackle gear' not to be used for any type of fishing.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Fox said:


> Splitshot,
> Nice call out.
> Honestly, I don't care one way how other fish. I'm much more in support of instituting slot limits and bag limits based on each water sheds ability to sustain a population. Waters that rely on stocking I don't believe should have restrictive limits. Those that have greater natural reproduction should, to allow those waters to maximize their potential. As for gear restrictions, I fish many waters that are and many that are not and do well in either case. My concerns are this: 1: Waste, take what you want (within the law) but use what you take.
> 2: Put your sweat where your mouth is. step up to the plate and do some work on our waters. Maybe not through an organization, do it on your own. Take the family down to a river and do a clean up.
> 3: Flyfishermen being blamed as the root of all evil.
> 4: Groups like TU getting blasted for the poor management of our waters.


I agree with everything you said except the last two. Fly fishermen are not the root of all evil obviously. There is however a percentage of fly fishermen that seek to push their agenda. In talking about it, of course this fact is going to brought up. Just like if we were to talk about the garbage on the rivers, with all the bait containers etc.., it is inevitable that we talk about the slob percentage of bait fishermen, they exist. I don't understand your 4th point. TU has done good things as for our rivers and I believe most have agreed. When it comes to pushing for regulated waters, its where we differ. We will all lose in the end if we do not seek to fight for our rights as a whole.


----------



## Whit1

TC-fisherman said:


> kinda of odd that this thread was about a proposal to allow only artificial lures, once again artificial lures, on a stream based on the higher mortality of another certain kind of fishing. Instead it turns into a bunch of angry rants against organizations, clubs, DNR, specific people, types of fisherman.
> 
> Seems like there are some hate filled people with unresolved issues who could probably benefit from some kind of mental therapy.........may I suggest flyfishing its very soothing.


 
There really isn't any anger on my part and if you think that was a "rant", well, you haven't seen a real rant........:lol:

All this is a discussion of an issue on which various sides happen to disagree. The discussion has been civil. measured, and within the bounds of reasonable debate.

As for "fly fishermen being the root of all evil" the same shoe has been tossed at bait anglers by fly anglers. Am I saying "all", not in any way, but the unfortunate truth is that as sportsman this issue is one that we continue to allow us to be divided.


----------



## TSS Caddis

If I only had a dollar for every fly fisherman(including myself) that I've heard blame bait fisherman for their lack of success during a given day Like I mentioned, I've done the same:lol:

Really, IMO "non-Flyfisherman" get a much worse rap from fly fisherman than the other way around. No fish on gravel to fish to? Bait guys roped them up. Only catching planters? Bait guys roped them up. Dead fish on the bank? Bait guy milked it and threw it on shore etc...

What really hits home for me is what I think Ranger Ray was eluding to in a previous post. Anti's already don't want fishing. Further restrictions like C&R only help their argument to end all fishing.

Like most, if decisions are based on science I can go along and play nice since fly fishing is my perferred method of trout fishing. As Splitshot pointed out, you would be very hard pressed though to find a single biologist in the DNR that see's flies only stretches as anything but a social tool. So IMO, if any flyfisherman is for using science to manage rivers, they by default should be against fly water. I dare say that if we ever took water like the Pyle water and it was made bait or hardware only and exclude fly fisherman, Schmidt would fall over dead. This is no different of an argument then lobbying for fly, or any other special reg water.

Fly fisherman are NOT the root of all evil, but the vocal minority of them are.


----------



## Shoeman

TSS Caddis said:


> Schmidt would fall over dead.


LMAO

I'm still trying to figure out who does all the lobbying for these designations? I have never been approached about "jumping on the Flies-Only Bandwagon"
by either TU or through any flyshop.

Guides?????


----------



## Ultra-Light

Shoeman said:


> LMAO
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out who does all the lobbying for these designations? I have never been approached about "jumping on the Flies-Only Bandwagon"
> by either TU or through any flyshop.
> 
> * Guides*?????


That about sums it up....... :lol:


----------



## TSS Caddis

Shoeman said:


> LMAO
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out who does all the lobbying for these designations? I have never been approached about "jumping on the Flies-Only Bandwagon"
> by either TU or through any flyshop.
> 
> Guides?????


The Masons:lol:


----------



## everlast1

Never paid much attention because as stated in other posts dont have anything against bait/hardware fisherman. But I have to say after reading posts on this site its clear to me that bait/hardware and fly guys dont care much for each other or their methods and will never get along. Which makes more fly only N/K water even more important and needed regardless of scientific data or river stewardship. Fact of the matter is blue ribbon streams that SUPPORT WILD TROUT need regulation. No one is excluded just the method of taking fish. Not trying to offend anyone but its no secret that flyfisherman as a GROUP are more educated and and have a higher net worth than other GROUPS. If you've got a problem with it, thats what it is, your problem.


----------



## Ultra-Light

everlast1 said:


> Not trying to offend anyone but its no secret that flyfisherman as a GROUP are more educated and and have a higher net worth than other GROUPS. If you've got a problem with it, thats what it is, your problem.


----------



## brookid

everlast1 said:


> Not trying to offend anyone but its no secret that flyfisherman as a GROUP are more educated and and have a higher net worth than other GROUPS. If you've got a problem with it, thats what it is, your problem.


I'm sure where to even begin... (and i'm a die hard fly fisherman)


----------



## Mitch

everlast1 said:


> Not trying to offend anyone but its no secret that flyfisherman as a GROUP are more educated and and have a higher net worth than other GROUPS.



Ding, Ding, Ding.... Finally an honest answer.

That's what we should do, base gear regulations on the user's inteligence and bank accounts! That's the pompous assinine attitude that this is all about.


----------



## TSS Caddis

everlast1 said:


> Which makes more fly only N/K water even more important and needed regardless of scientific data or river stewardship.












Par for the course with everlast. Typically those with money only bring it up if they have self worth issues. And those without money only act like they have it because of self worth issues. Hmmm, wonder what this case is.


----------



## Ranger Ray

everlast1 said:


> no secret that flyfisherman as a GROUP are more educated and and have a higher net worth than other GROUPS.


So do our politicians. Look what thats got us. :lol:


----------



## thousandcasts

> Not trying to offend anyone but its no secret that flyfisherman as a GROUP are more educated and and have a higher net worth than other GROUPS. If you've got a problem with it, thats what it is, your problem.


New Mastercard river salmon fishing commercial: 

Nice Juicy gob of salmon skein: Free at any cleaning station.

Bobbers, hooks, sinkers, line: $50

St. Croix Wild River 10'6" M action baitcasting rod with Shimano Cardiff reel: $300

*Never* Having to ask, "Is it in the mouth???": PRICELESS.


----------



## Splitshot

Ralf,

Planting trout in rivers like the Muskegon that will die from high temperatures before they reach legal size is an absolute inane policy. 

I have asked that question to several fish biologist and the only answer I got was that some federal regulation is behind it. Actually I dont believe that, but who knows. Fish biologist dont have total control over the hatcheries although they do work together in some areas. I think they raise the trout over a specific time and if the streams that supply fresh water to the hatcheries run to cold, the fish feed less and dont grow as fast. If that happens and their time is up, I think they plant them no matter what size they are.

I say again, I dont know this and I am just speculating. In any case it would be nice to get a straight answer.

Good scientific studies are universal and known by fisheries specialist across the country. If there were any scientific basis for flies only sections or rivers they would be shouted across the country. 

Fishndude called it bigotry and I call it discrimination and in polite circles these rules are called social regulations. In the past most fishermens attitudes have been that since it is only 100 miles, no big deal. With this new 110 mile law, and an understanding of how some of the existing fly water came to be, people are concerned as to where it will end. I for one am concerned about the rivers in the Pigeon River country having a gear regulation. Easy to see since it is just north of the preponderance of fly water in our state.

Ralf, Ill name a few of the groups who lobby for special regulations. Number one is Rusty Gates and his friends. There are many guides like Supinski, Schmidt, some Over Endorsed guides in Baldwin, The Indian Club, the PM Watershed, and some members of TU just to name a few. It is easy to figure, just look at where all the special regulation waters are and connect the dots. It is pretty simple.

All of us accept the fact that fish released by bait fishermen have a higher mortality rate than fish released on lures and flies. As mentioned in the study TC posted and the post Wildcatwick made, the mortality rate is much higher when fishing an unattended bait rod.

If you include that type of bait fishing and the rate was 30% or higher I could see that as a problem. First however I think that kind of bottom fishing is the least productive way at least in streams and rivers to catch trout and secondly from my experience guys that fish that way arent releasing to many legal trout. When or if they get their limit, they usually quit fishing go home. Again the question is are the fish that die after being released material. In other words does that loss threaten any fishery?

I say again the data is there. If after a hundred years bait fishing within the legal limits set by professionals to protect the fishery and the fishery is as good as it has ever been, even better in some instances what more evidence is needed.

Fox,

I was talking about attitude. I dont need you to talk down to me and tell me not to waste fish or what to put my sweat where my mouth is because I have probably done more than you ever will. The point is you assume only fly fishermen are being blamed and blasted for poor management. Good call since I have stated twice that TU probably does more than any other group to improve habitat on our trout rivers.

Everlast,


everlast1 said:


> Never paid much attention because as stated in other posts dont have anything against bait/hardware fisherman. But I have to say after reading posts on this site its clear to me that bait/hardware and fly guys dont care much for each other or their methods and will never get along. Which makes more fly only N/K water even more important and needed regardless of scientific data or river stewardship. Fact of the matter is blue ribbon streams that SUPPORT WILD TROUT need regulation. No one is excluded just the method of taking fish. Not trying to offend anyone but its no secret that flyfisherman as a GROUP are more educated and and have a higher net worth than other GROUPS. If you've got a problem with it, thats what it is, your problem.


I dont even know where to begin. What about guys like me and Ranger Ray who fish all methods, we seem to get along okay! We also get along with lure fishermen and fly fishermen. Hell we even get along with Thousandcasts. He might be a little zany, but he is the real deal just like most of the members here. Id say the people that dont like me dont like my personality and could care less how I fish and I feel the same about some of them. No we cant all just get along, at least not in the real world.


You start your post by saying you dont care how I fish than prove that your really do. Your attitude that we need more fly only water regardless of scientific data is just absurd. Since I fish mostly rivers that support wild trout I would be first to agree that they need to be protected. And guess what, there are regulations in place that protect them and is one of the main reasons the fishery is doing so good. I find it interesting that the guys who cant see or wont see that flies only is discriminatory are making ridiculous, sometime ludicrous and highly emotional rationalizations trying to defend an idea that cannot be defended. You need to read what I wrote about our highways and the $90,000.00 autos.


----------



## Fox

Splitshot,
You're so sensitive, don't take everything personally. My concerns I posted were broad concerns, not directed soley at you. I commend anyone that holds themselves to higher standards, i.e. only taking what they can use and not nessecarily their limit everytime out, getting involved in improvement projects and so on. 
How can one not assume others, like yourself, don't blame flyfishermen when this thread rapidly deteriorated from a overall gear restriction to flies only talk?
I also like the first line of your post, you're right the Muskegon is only good for planters and a few smallies


----------



## WILDCATWICK

> If you include that type of bait fishing and the rate was 30% or higher I could see that as a problem. First however I think that kind of bottom fishing is the least productive way at least in streams and rivers to catch trout and secondly from my experience guys that fish that way arent releasing to many legal trout. When or if they get their limit, they usually quit fishing go home. Again the question is are the fish that die after being released material. In other words does that loss threaten any fishery?


Again, there are plenty of people who fish using that method. Not everyone is a professional or cares to fish any other way. They maybe planning on keeping what they catch but that will result in problems if what they are catching are trout that are under size of the legal limit....which often are the most gullible and susceptible to these methods. I have seen this often done at night and on some streams it appears to be a problem.

The laws are made for the common and average. Not for all the experts.

I'm wondering if there are states that have reversed their decision on fly only or artificials only because they found evidence that it had a negative effect or did not make the improvements that they were hoping for. Anyone?


----------



## Splitshot

Okay Fox,

Heres the deal. Do you think that flies only sections discriminate against people who choose to fish with something other than flies?

I fly fish and I think they do. I believe like some others that special privileges for special groups causes people to think they are special. We are all fishermen. I dont want any special privileges and I want what is best to protect the fishery. I also believe that nature produces excess wild fish and believe it is okay to keep some if you plan to make good use of them.

I have asked the question over a hundred times; Please give me one good reason that we should have any flies only waters? Why does any group think they deserve 1 mile 100 miles or 210 miles of the best water in the state just for their use. 

Unlike some fly fishermen I fish to catch fish. If I go to the Holy Waters and the river is dark and high, I know that fishing flies will not be the best method to achieve my goal. Perhaps bait is the best method or lures. On fly water I have no choice. For some people it is more important to catch a fish on a fly than it is to catch a fish. I have no problem with that, but to most of us that is a matter of choice and that is all we want. If we told you that you could only fish the best waters in the state with bait Im sure you would feel the same way. It is all a matter of perspective.

Wildcat,

Yes they will catch some of the smaller more susceptible easy fish, but I could make the same case for fly fishermen. They are more apt to catch the smaller fish on flies for the same reason. These smaller fish are in the largest age group and can stand a higher mortality. I dont know the real numbers, but I would not be surprised if there were hundreds of 6 to 8 inch fish for every 18" or 20" fish. So based on that assessment, perhaps we should outlaw fly fishing.

I think that would be silly even if it were true. As Ray says, we are all fishermen and if we stick together we will be much more able to defend our sport against those who want to stop all of us. The same goes for hunters as well. I have nothing against fly fishermen only those who feel they are entitled to more of our good trout water for themselves. It is pretty simple.

I know for a fact that in PA they decided to change all the fly only waters to artificial lures only as an effort to insure fairness. My good friend and retired CO and ardent fly fisherman was one who was spearheading this rule change because he and many within the department felt it was the right thing to do. 

It was defeated by fly fishermen who told landowners that their land would be run over by low life bait fishermen who would trash their lands (or something like that). Since much of the streams in PA are private and many landowners told the DNR that they would close off their lands if this rule was changed, the DNR felt that they would lose more fishing opportunities for the public if they implemented this rule change, so they decided not to pursue it.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

> Yes they will catch some of the smaller more susceptible easy fish, but I could make the same case for fly fishermen. They are more apt to catch the smaller fish on flies for the same reason. These smaller fish are in the largest age group and can stand a higher mortality. I dont know the real numbers, but I would not be surprised if there were hundreds of 6 to 8 inch fish for every 18" or 20" fish. So based on that assessment, perhaps we should outlaw fly fishing.


I'll say I've agreed with you for the most part until you made this statement. Not a very good assessment at all. 

Anyone with a state that repealed?


----------



## Ultra-Light

Fox said:


> How can one not assume others, like yourself, don't blame flyfishermen when this thread rapidly deteriorated from a overall gear restriction to flies only talk?





Hamilton Reef said:


> Two trout streams could see lure change
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2008/05/two_trout_streams_could_see_lu.html
> 
> 05/02/08 by Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press
> 
> Anglers on two west Michigan trout streams may find themselves using only artificial lures in 2010 or later, if an idea being considered by DNR Fisheries staff moves ahead.
> 
> State biologists are evaluating the Coldwater River in Barry and Kent Count and Dowagiac Creek in Cass County for quality fishing regulations. *The rules would restrict anglers to artificial lures with the idea of growing larger fish*.
> 
> "We'd like to hear what anglers think," said Jay Wesley, the DNR fisheries supervisor for southwest Michigan.
> 
> In order to qualify for quality fishing regulations, each must meet certain primary criteria. That includes the following:
> 
>  The fishery has to be dominated by trout.
> 
>  Two-year-old trout have to meet or exceed the state average size of 9 inches.
> 
>  Natural mortality rates have to be fairly low.
> 
>  Fishing mortality has to be fairly low.
> 
> Wesley said the trout in both streams exceed the statewide 9-inch average by an inch or two. Both show excellent growth rates.
> 
> Also of concern is a requirement that river segments are a minimum of two miles long and have public access.
> 
> * Fisheries officials also want to hear what non-trout anglers or bait fishermen have to say.*
> 
> * "The reason the Coldwater and Dowagiac come up is because they have a big following among fly anglers," Wesley said. *"This year we want to gather data and get feedback."
> 
> Fly fisherman Paul Eberhart of Freeport, says he thinks the proposal is a good idea. He'd prefer no-kill regulations, but doubts that those would ever be accepted. Eberhart lives 200 yards from the Coldwater River.
> 
> "I've been pushing for this for years," he said. "I would like to see the river catch and release."
> 
> Wesley is contemplating the upper Coldwater for the regulations, but says which segment has not been determined.
> 
> "Dowagiac Creek is all privately owned, but one owner along it is supportive and he has created a small park where anglers can get access to the river," he said.
> 
> "Of all of the trout streams in southern Michigan where we might use these regulations, these two always come up in my mind."
> 
> In 2002, the Michigan legislature gave the Michigan DNR permission to use fishing gear restrictions on up to 212 total miles of trout stream. Michigan currently has 112 miles designated around the state.
> 
> To comment on the possibility of adding quality fishing regulations to portions of the Coldwater River and Dowagiac Creek, contact Jay Wesley at (269) 685-6851.


It is obvious to some as to why this thread rapidly deteriorated into a 'flies only' talk. :chillin:


----------



## Splitshot

Ultra-light,

Actually I see flies only and lures only as pretty much the same thing as they both restrict all fishermen from using their prefered method, but your point is well taken it is the flyfishermen who are pushing for lures only.

Wildcat,

If you don't agree with my opinion fine, but at least have the courtesy to explain why.


----------



## thousandcasts

Here's a thought: 

The fly anglers will scream foul when a bait fisherman keeps a female steelhead for the eggs--because it's killing a fish.

Yet, how many squirrels are sacrificed every year for the greater high of the fly? 

Either way, something dies, right?


----------



## Ultra-Light

Splitshot said:


> Ultra-light,
> 
> Actually I see flies only and lures only as pretty much the same thing as they both restrict all fishermen from using their prefered method, but your point is well taken it is *the flyfishermen who are pushing for lures only.*


If this is the case... My next question would be to you, what defines or dictates the difference between a lure & a fly?


----------



## Fox

Show me some evidence of any particular group pushing these reg changes, please.


----------



## Ranger Ray

A search of only this thread produced two. Last I checked fly fishermen are a group.



> Fly fisherman Paul Eberhart of Freeport, says he thinks the proposal is a good idea. He'd prefer no-kill regulations, but doubts that those would ever be accepted. Eberhart lives 200 yards from the Coldwater River.
> 
> "I've been pushing for this for years," he said. "I would like to see the river catch and release."





> several of us who are fly-fishing members of the Little Elkhart Chapter of Trout Unlimited elected to keep a joint fishing log.
> 
> But within a few weeks, everyone agreed the fishery exceeded the most optimistic expectations. Crowds of anglers on the catch-and-release waters were nonexistent.
> 
> It can be viewed as a moral advance, reflecting man&#8217;s increasing concern over the welfare of our fish and wildlife. As the late Aldo Leopold remarked three-quarters of a century ago, &#8220;For one species to care about another marks a giant step forward in moral evolution.&#8221;
> 
> So, those of us who fish for trout, and who fought for enactment of catch-and-release regulations,


Federation of fly fishermen.


> In the early 1960s, respected leaders of the FFF realized that to preserve quality of fishing in our streams could be met with an unprecedented idea called &#8220;Catch and Release&#8221;. The public balked and but slowly realized that the practice of catch and release was a useful management tool to provide better fishing for the future. Nowadays &#8211; catch and release is a way of life and a fishing ethic that we do without even blinking an eye. The FFF still remains the leader on this subject of why, how and when.


----------

