# Restriction proposal



## swampbuck

This came up in a pop-up ad, Proposing more restrictions on the AuSable.

*MIO TROUT REGS*

_*ASBWPA Nominates 14 Miles of
Trophy Water for No Kill on Brown Trout*_
*http://www.asbwpa.org/Mio_Trout_Regulations.html*​


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> This came up in a pop-up ad, Proposing more restrictions on the AuSable.
> 
> *MIO TROUT REGS*old news from 2009 or 2010. Doubt you hear anything from these groups for a few years.
> 
> That's from 2009 or 2010. Doubt there will be any mention of expanding GR water from these groups before 2014 at the earlist and then it will depend a lot on the general climate.
> 
> _*ASBWPA Nominates 14 Miles of
> Trophy Water for No Kill on Brown Trout*_
> *http://www.asbwpa.org/Mio_Trout_Regulations.html*​


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kzoofisher

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thousandcasts

If that's an older thing, then anyone was free to nominate whatever they wanted. If it didn't fit the criteria, then the DNR tossed it out for the most part. 

I'm not aware of any further items of this nature on the coldwater agenda and if it were, I can assure you that there would be more than a couple guys, myself included, voting a very clear and concise, "&^%$ NO"


----------



## swampbuck

Strange that if its old news it would come up as a pop up ad this morning.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> Strange that if its old news it would come up as a pop up ad this morning.


 Nothing ever really goes away on the internet. Site mentions Type 7 streams which went away with the last rule changes
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thousandcasts

swampbuck said:


> Strange that if its old news it would come up as a pop up ad this morning.


Well, the only trout related reg issue that I've seen on the agenda is the brook trout limit change from five fish to 10 fish. That was discussed last year and it's now out there for public comment. 

Anything else would go through the same process and I don't think anyone in the committee wants to even hear about more river restrictions at this point. I would say that's one of those, "we're not gonna go there," type subjects for all involved. :lol:


----------



## toto

I think Dexter said he wouldn't re-visit the gear regs issue again for 5 years, so its now what 4 more years??? We'll see what happens then if not before.


----------



## thousandcasts

toto said:


> I think Dexter said he wouldn't re-visit the gear regs issue again for 5 years, so its now what 4 more years??? We'll see what happens then if not before.


Exactly, so I guess I'm confused as to why there's two to three new threads popping up each week that serve no purpose right now other than to keep alive a pissing contest between pro reg guys and anti reg guys. 

One should know which direction I lean toward more so than the other, but c'mon...


----------



## fishinlk

> Exactly, so I guess I'm confused as to why there's two to three new threads popping up each week that serve no purpose right now other than to keep alive a pissing contest between pro reg guys and anti reg guys.


Pretty simple, it's all about keeping visibility to "the cause". Only problem is some of them do as much harm to it as the others do good.


----------



## plugger

Might be a "trouts unlimited thing"!


----------



## fishinlk

lol


----------



## Ranger Ray

thousandcasts said:


> Exactly, so I guess I'm confused as to why there's two to three new threads popping up each week that serve no purpose right now other than to keep alive a pissing contest between pro reg guys and anti reg guys.
> 
> One should know which direction I lean toward more so than the other, but c'mon...


Something tells me you wouldn't be confused if the subject that just got pushed through the DNR based on an ideology was, no planting of steelhead or salmon for several years. Are we to believe thousandcasts would post his point once and be done? Twice? How many times is correct, when one sees the wrong in the decisions being made?


----------



## toto

We know that the DNR/NRC doesn't want to hear it for 4 more years, but that doesn't stop us, nor should it stop anyone from trying to voice what they believe is right. We, on the anti reg side, know we probably have a long fight on our hands, but at the same time we can't just forget it until the time comes.


----------



## swampswede

Stumbled upon this proposal from the Anglers of The Au Sable for an even bigger slice of GR/ flies only pie. looks like it is a few years old and may be common knowledge amongst you guys but still it remains infuriating. 

http://www.ausableanglers.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3526


----------



## Benzie Rover

What's with the blanket 'Anit-Reg' movement? I understand that it is mostly meant as short-hand terminology for the 'anti-gear-restriction' but there seems to be a very fine line on how much, if any regulation is desired by this crowd... so, I ask all all those so fervently fighting the fight against any regulation of their angling technique... Do you want any regs?

Seriously though, wouldn't it really help the 'anti-reg' movement if there was at least some concise set of regulations that you did agree to? OR, are there no such regs? Would the 'give me worms or give me death' crowd be just as happy if I was to start utilizing my cast net to pick up a quick limit of legal trout when I don't have time after work, before the kids soccer practice, so I too have fish for dinner? I would never take more than my limit, so, what's the difference? And low and behold, a cast net has zero hooking mortality! Albeit, some handling stress, but nothing is perfect. And of course, this is assuming we do keep min size limits and bag limits intact... if we want to shed those, then please state your intention. Where is the line?

Or how about converting that old Honda generator into a small stream shocker and letting me really have some fun!? While I love matching the hatch as much as any die-hard fly pursuit with my own hand tied creations, I have to admit I also get a big rush from hitting the juice and watching a pool light up with flashes and seeing fish coming out from every nook and cranny... netting like mad and having bucket full in minutes... now I admit this would be a pretty impactful way of obtaining a catch, but hey, if we're talking NO rules, then... let's talk no rules... If done correctly, you can return maybe 90% of your catch relatively unharmed...

So, Anit-guys, it is FULLY understood what you will not stand for, BUT, what, if anything, do you want for rules? Proposing solutions is part of the equation folks. I just wanted to point out that it would seriously help the debate if people that flatly reject regulations would at least occasionally propose which ones they do support.


----------



## toto

I think this is a more comprehensive list of gear regs nominations from what started this thread. As an addition to my above post, one of the key reasons for this debate to keep coming up is this, well actually its two reasons:

1) There are those of us who don't feel these regs are needed, or perhaps even legal.

2) We also realize that if we stay silent on this issue, the DNR/NRC and the fly orgainzations such as TU, Anglers of the Ausable, Fly Fishing Federation, Pere Marquette Watershed Council, and the above group, will push for more and more water to be gear restricted. In a perfect world for these groups it will all become flies only. In fact, I know that one person on our side of the issue that went to one of the first meetings. Actually it was pretty brave on his part, as these orginal meetings were dominated by fly guys. During this meeting, there were members of some of the above groups who stated they don't intend to stop at the 212 miles now legislatively slated for gear regs. So the question is, where does it all stop? In my mind, it never should have happened in the first place, including what happened in the 1950's.


----------



## thousandcasts

Ranger Ray said:


> Something tells me you wouldn't be confused if the subject that just got pushed through the DNR based on an ideology was, no planting of steelhead or salmon for several years. Are we to believe thousandcasts would post his point once and be done? Twice? How many times is correct, when one sees the wrong in the decisions being made?


Well, what you described is something that was put on the table here and now. 

You know what side of the fence I'm on, but...and I mean this with all respect...nothing positive is coming out of these threads right now. That's all I'm saying. 

I look at it this way: If you're gonna work up a number six on somebody, is it better to keep announcing it ahead of time or is it better to say nothing and then when you finally do come into town a whuppin' and a shootin' they have no answer for it? 

Of course you don't ignore the issue...you have to keep it in the public eye. BUT, even though I'm definitely on the anti gear restrictions side of things, I still sit back and think, "some of these guys need to have a muzzle put on 'em cuz they're certainly not helping anything." 

Obviously you and Split and Toto make some great points and valid arguments, but if I'm an outsider and on the fence and reading these threads, the valid arguments are getting over shadowed by others. 

That's it...my only point of concern. I'm as hot headed as they come and when it comes to certain issues I have to balance that fine line between thinking something and posting something. Sometimes I fail and post exactly what I'm thinking while being "all fired up," so to speak. Me doing that hurts more than it helps. Make sense?


----------



## Splitshot

Benzie, 

Your post doesnt deserve a reply, but Ill answer anyway. We fully support the regulations our MDNR fish biologist have determined that protect and preserve our fisheries and are fair to all fishermen. We do not support rules that give special rights to some fishermen just because they feel entitled especially if those rules were not supported by our MDNR field biologist.	

We also strongly support the MDNR Fisheries mission statement.

Since I answered your questions, perhaps you could please explain one good reasons we should have any fly only waters or bait restricted waters?


----------



## thousandcasts

Splitshot said:


> Since I answered your questions, perhaps you could please explain one good reasons we should have any fly only waters or bait restricted waters?


And the correct and simple answer is: Because it's sounds better than using a worm. 

Here's a great quote:

_By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise._ -- Adolf Hitler


----------

