# Trophy justification?



## Splitshot

The original justification for flies only rules and bait restrictions was the theory that these rules helped protect our trout fisheries. When the biology rebuked these claims, secondary justifications and contentions were proffered including bait restrictions only applied to a small percentage of public waters, some groups deserve a quality experience, restrictions would help reduce other violations, a higher mortality of fish released by bait fishermen damaged the fishery, litter would be reduced, and the most famous one that restricting bait would keep slobs off our public river.

Certainly there are some that still believe some or all of the talking points to justify bait restrictions, but most people see or are beginning to see that those claims are based on greed, selfishness, entitlement, philosophy, ideology or an erroneous understanding of facts. In the last year or so, another defense of bait restrictions has emerged suggesting that if bait restrictions are not maintained that our trophy fishery would collapse. 

Over 50 years ago a very successful business man explained to me that fear was a useful way to motivate a prospective client to make a decision. He said; The fear of loss is greater than the desire to win! In this case the hope is the fear of losing our trophy fishery will persuade some fishermen to support special regulations. That strategy clearly worked in the fight to increase brook trout limits in the UP from 5 fish to 10 fish.

That logic is why I started the thread about Trout Unlimited and why I felt they were part of the problem. Over their history TU build a strong conservation reputation for their rehabilitation efforts on trout streams and rivers all over the country. Like many organizations, a shift in leadership in the last couple of decades caused some in TU to use that legacy to promote an ideology of preservation and support for regulations that favor fly fishermen at the expense of other fisherman. 

Im not suggesting they are the only organization responsible, but certainly the most influential. 
The fact that we have 212 miles of bait restrictions including 100 miles of flies only waters with either No Kill regulations or severely reduced limits support those contentions. Even those in the DNR supporting these regulations agree that the bait restrictions and lower limits do little or nothing to improve our trout fishery.

In recent years, the MDNR under political pressure has substituted ballot box biology for sound scientific principles in managing our trout fishery. This new principle of giving the public what it wants explains why TU has committed $88,000.00 for a survey to determine what trout fishermen really want. TU says the only reason they are funding the survey is because the MDNR cant afford it, but that is an unlikely reason when that $88,000.00 could provide much more stream habitat improvement which TU claims is their only mission. 

Perhaps it is only coincidence that this unbiased survey will be will be completed just before the current bait restrictions are up for review. The MSU economist conducting the survey assured us the survey would be unbiased even though he and the TU executive director spent many hours together designing the survey. I have confidence that the economist is honest and Im sure the questions will be written in a fair way, but the results of what the survey is looking for taints the results in my opinion.

In light of recent decisions like the bait restriction rule on the PM and mandatory antler restrictions show how the results of surveys carry more weight than sound science. I plan to discuss this tactic in more detail in a later thread, so Ill try to concentrate on the on the trophy tactic in this thread.

So what factors are necessary to produce trophies? Good genetics, generous quantities of nutritious food, good cover for protection, proper climate and the right mix of minerals. For trophy trout ph, water hardness, alkalinity, water temperatures and oxygen levels must be maintained within known limits for success.

We know this because trophy trout are raised successfully with this formula in every trout hatchery in Michigan and in many private ponds, streams and rivers all over the country. Raising trophy trout in all rivers or various sections of rivers doesnt happen because one, several of many of the criteria listed above are not present, not because bait fishermen kill off all the little trout before they reach trophy proportions like some contend. 

If we want more trophy trout, we need to improve the habitat on those rivers that can support trout year round because we know improving the habitat works if done correctly. TU is the expert in habitat rehabilitation but also knows the chances to catch a trophy trout increases quicker if fishing access is denied to a majority of fishermen, and that is exactly what TU and some groups of fly fishermen have succeeded in accomplishing through the political process and at the expense of all other groups. 

They say no one is denied access, but if you reduce the number of legal methods one can use, the number and/or size of the fish one can harvest, fishermen who dont fly fish or who like to keep fish for the table will choose to fish waters with less restrictions. In the end the results are the same and is evidence that was the goal in the first place. As further support of that contention, our MDNR biologist have often stated these special rules are not necessary to protect our trout and only benefit the special interest groups at the expense of all other fishermen on public waters.

I hate to say this, but without support from partisan public officials, these rules would never pass the smell test. Also, most of us are aware that MDNR budgets have been slim in the last few years. So slim in fact that the number of summer creel census data collectors have been reduced because of lack of funds.

Consider that three years ago when budgets were at their lowest, the DNR obtained a public grant of $300,000.00 to helicopter in trees to improve the habitat of the Holy Waters section of the Au Sable river. Budgets are still tight today, but this year similar habitat improvements are planned for the South Branch of the Au Sable River and also for the North Branch of the Au Sable River. If you dont know what those three rivers or sections of rivers have in common, Ill tell you. They are all flies only which means if you dont choose to fly fish or you want to keep trout for the table you cant fish there.

These rivers have always been great trout fisheries and most listed as Blue Ribbon waters. I support the idea of improving the habitat, but wonder if that money could have been better spent on projects that benefit all of us instead of just those who choose to fly fish. To me it is a clear example of special treatment for special people and supports the conclusion that there must be some bias support within our DNR.

Without scientific support and with the understanding that public support is paramount in keeping this special advantage on public waters their campaign has changed to attack bait fishermen as greedy meat fishermen with no regard to the well being of the trout, and in this instance trophy trout. Sound familiar? If not go read some of the mandatory antler restriction threads.

It would be nice if every trout fisherman could catch a 20" stream trout every time out, but that can only happen if we raised the trout under hatchery conditions, especially since the trout dont live long enough to afford even one bad year. Besides if we could manage our streams and rivers to achieve that goal, a 20" stream trout most likely a 20" stream trout wouldnt be considered a trophy.

We all know trout fishing could be much better, but it would take a drastic change in the political climate and lots of money. Since that is not likely to happen soon, when some people dont succeed in the outdoors the way they think they should they look for avenues. If those goals can only be realized through political means even if it means at the expense of the common fisherman, it makes little difference especially if it for the Greater Good!

If Quality regulations which they are often referred to define fly fishing and Quality waters are applied to waters where only fly fishing is allowed, it shouldnt be a surprise that some fly fishermen feel superior and therefore more entitled. According to law however, public waters belong to all of us and public officials are obligated to treat us all equally in managing them. At least that is the way I see it and is why myself along with a growing number of others continue to speak out against this growing trend.

When Dr. Kelly Smith was fisheries chief, I asked him how the regulations got changed to flies only from M72 to Yellow Trees in 2000 a very excellent trout fishery and how some of the local fishermen must have reacted. He said there were a lot of upset fishermen, but eventually they just went away. I suppose that is the strategy with these issues as well and perhaps that strategy will win again as apathy and indifference clearly are most difficult to overcome.


----------



## Steelee

First of all, thanks for bringing these issues to light. I am 100% behind the efforts to base fishery decisions on science, not politics. Second, there should be equal stream access for everyone. Pay your $28 and have at it. Someone pays $28 and gets privledges not available to someone else that pays their $28 is not the American way. Third, I am a TU member, and not in agreement with all their policies, but I agree with some. I hesitate using the broad brush that you use in describing TU as pretty bad folks. My personal belief is that we have groups of wealthy landowners in restricted areas who want us slobs off "their" water too. I could tell you a story about a caretaker at the Flint Rainbow Club on the PM trying to chase me off with a shotgun, but I digress. There is plenty of wealth and political power in the Indian Club, Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club, and landowners on the banks of restricted waters.

As you suggest, the current methodology for raising trophy trout, is to attempt to restrict access. It has worked in the past, but I believe this strategy is now being challenged and not rubber stamped.

I believe the answer to improving trophy trout are a combination of the other factors you mention-food, water temperature, and survival conditions and I cannot believe that TU or anybody else has not suggested it. The solution is easy. Hold Consumers Energy to their agreement signed 14 years ago to stop thermal pollution on the Mo and other dams such as Tippy and Foote.

Consumers to drill wells for water (ala Nestle) at each dam site with the capacity of 1000 cfs of 55 degree water. Mix it with 33 degree natural flow in winter and 78 degree flow in summer say at Croton. The result would be yearround temps between 45 and 65 degrees. You would still get all the nutrients from Croton Pond and ideal temps for miles below Croton. Consumers has all the electricity for the pumps right there at the dam.

Maybe my idea is pie in the sky. I am certainly no expert. But trying to improve growing conditions for the fish beats these restriction efforts.

Regards


----------



## toto

Good post Ray, and everything you and I have talked about is in there.

The bottom line, there is trully no justification for these regs based on science, this is only a feel good rule and a way to try to raise ones ego. The problem seems to be that if I can't catch a trophy fish, there must not be any. The problem is, that simply isn't true, there are trophy fish in those stretches of water it's just a matter of figuring out how to catch them.

What needs to be understood is that you cannot stockpile fish, and you will never be able to have all the fish of trophy proportions, whatever you dictate to be "trophy". I have said before in other threads, the trophy is basically a matter of what constitutes a trophy, and no one can trully determine that.

As for making the dams on these rivers bottom draw, which is what you are talking about, it would work, but only slightly. The issue is the water on the upside of the dam isn't deep enough to cool the water down to any significant extent, these are NOT the big resevoirs as they have in the south. If you fish any of the big dams down south with bottom draw capabilities you would see and feel a big difference between there and in Michigan. For example, look at a few of the rivers in Tennessee, that water is really cold, and when they generate, it gets even colder. Why? Because the water on the upside of the dams in the south are generally well over 100 feet deep and in a couple of cases twice that in depth. We all know that colder water is one aspect of growing trophy fish. That is one of the things that I think a lot of guys get confused with, they want a trophy fishery like some of the southern rivers, but the reality is it can't happen.

As I have said before, a trophy to one, is not a trophy to someone else. In that previous post I mentioned that maybe I've had a particularly hard week for one reason or another, and the fact that I can get out at the end of the week and maybe catch a 10" brookie is trophy enough for me. For those few hours all the problems from the previous week just melt away, and sometimes they never return. It's just a chance to get away and relax, and shouldn't that be trophy enough at times???


----------



## tannhd

concur


----------



## Burksee

Wow, some powerful stuff and good writing! 

And here when I hit "new posts" to see what was going on I thought the title "trophy justifacation" was just another APR thread! :yikes: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jatc

toto said:


> Good post Ray, and everything you and I have talked about is in there.
> 
> The bottom line, there is trully no justification for these regs based on science, this is only a feel good rule and a way to try to raise ones ego. The problem seems to be that if I can't catch a trophy fish, there must not be any. The problem is, that simply isn't true, there are trophy fish in those stretches of water it's just a matter of figuring out how to catch them.
> 
> What needs to be understood is that you cannot stockpile fish, and you will never be able to have all the fish of trophy proportions, whatever you dictate to be "trophy". I have said before in other threads, the trophy is basically a matter of what constitutes a trophy, and no one can trully determine that.
> 
> As for making the dams on these rivers bottom draw, which is what you are talking about, it would work, but only slightly. The issue is the water on the upside of the dam isn't deep enough to cool the water down to any significant extent, these are NOT the big resevoirs as they have in the south. If you fish any of the big dams down south with bottom draw capabilities you would see and feel a big difference between there and in Michigan. For example, look at a few of the rivers in Tennessee, that water is really cold, and when they generate, it gets even colder. Why? Because the water on the upside of the dams in the south are generally well over 100 feet deep and in a couple of cases twice that in depth. We all know that colder water is one aspect of growing trophy fish. That is one of the things that I think a lot of guys get confused with, they want a trophy fishery like some of the southern rivers, but the reality is it can't happen.
> 
> As I have said before, a trophy to one, is not a trophy to someone else. In that previous post I mentioned that maybe I've had a particularly hard week for one reason or another, and the fact that I can get out at the end of the week and maybe catch a 10" brookie is trophy enough for me. For those few hours all the problems from the previous week just melt away, and sometimes they never return. It's just a chance to get away and relax, and shouldn't that be trophy enough at times???



Actually reread Steele's post. He is not talking about a "bottom draw" hydro dam, which we know won't affect the temps much. He is talking about drilling a well that can be pumped at a rate of 1000cfs and mixed with the river water at the turbine. Interesting thought as that water would be between 52 and 55 degrees. I have no clue if it is a viable option or not, but still thought provoking none the less.


----------



## itchn2fish

Great thread. Very well put.


----------



## toto

I probably missed that, but if it were feasible, why not??


----------



## mondrella

Ray you nailed it. I am not the best fisherman out there yet I catch plenty of trophy size trout. I worked hard to get as good as I am at catching those quality fish. It is about putting in the effort. I don't need special rules to do it. 95% of the big fish I catch come from type 1 waters. There are more big fish around than people think. With the numbers I catch it is proof. 
It is like my brother and deer hunting. The guy pics out the buck he wants early in august and come deer season. He only hunts for that deer and is 80% successful in getting that deer. He don't need special rules to get big deer he just does it. Take him nearly anywhere and in a week he can be on a big deer and have a very good shot at putting it on the ground. He hunts like I fish. We don't need special rules to up are odds. We put the effort in to being successful.


----------



## REG

1000 cfs is a heck of lot of water. Look at the MO when it's running a 1000 and that's how much water would needed to come from wells.


----------



## mondrella

The Mo is what it is. Even without the dams it would be the same. It is a cool water fishery not a cold water. I live above the dams. Today the water is pushing 70 already. The money spent to do such a thing would be better spent on tribs that do naturally support trout. The idea of pulling more water from our aquifers make me cringe for something so selfish as to try and change a river from what it is.


----------



## DFJISH

Wow. It sounds like trout fishing and deer hunting are both experiencing the exact same issues and might be going in the same direction.....more restrictions and fewer choices. My position has always been that the DNR/NRC _*should not*_ solicit input from the public or special interest groups in setting policy and establishing regulations. As long as the DNR/NRC considers such input, money and appeasment will a part of their decision-making. How can that be in the best interests _of the resource?_ :sad:


----------



## toto

Exactly DF, but we have to keep our voices heard, and hopefully change the ways things are done.


----------



## DReihl9896

DFJISH said:


> Wow. It sounds like trout fishing and deer hunting are both experiencing the exact same issues and might be going in the same direction.....more restrictions and fewer choices. *My position has always been that the DNR/NRC should not solicit input from the public or special interest groups in setting policy and establishing regulations.* As long as the DNR/NRC considers such input, money and appeasment will a part of their decision-making. How can that be in the best interests _of the resource?_ :sad:


This is where you lose me. Why should input from the public not be solicited when managing something that belongs to the public? I understand that sound science has to rule the day when determining whether resource goals with strong public sentiment are viable or not and resource managers also need to keep the big picture in mind too (for example, considering concerns such as mondella's from a few posts ago as to whether the benefits of creating another cold water fishery out of one that was previously a cool water fishery is worth the potential risks of drawing from our aquifers). I also get the frustration when regulations are passed in spite of what the science says and that seemingly favor small vocal minorities. However, to completely take the will of the public out of decision making involving what is supposed to be held in public trust, seems like a gross overreaction.


----------



## toto

Actually D, maybe not. Look at the salmon fishery. The people knew something should be done, but no one knew what to do exactly. It was decided to plant salmon and the rest is history. Of course I wonder if the fishery would be the same had they done what was orginally talked about, do you know the DNR's first thought was trying to plant stripped bass? Would it have created the fishing juggernaut we have today? Maybe, but I doubt it. The salmon idea was brought up by Howard Tanner and it seemed to work out pretty well. The public has shown in this case that they are emotional about what they want, but not realistic in all cases.

Another great example is the Platte Lake Improvement Association and the suit against the DNR. This whole thing was because the people who lived and had cottages on Big Platte Lake basically wanted a swimming pool for a lake. Over time a significant amount of weed growth started to happen and a study was done to determine what was causing it. Part of the problem was the septic systems were leaching into the lake thereby injecting a fairly high amount of phophorous (p) into the lake, especially when you take into account of the amount of cabins and houses on the lake. The PLIA blamed the DNR fish hatchery for the problem as they assumed that the DNR was injected an even high amount of (p) into the system. Over a period of about 10 years this thing went on and in the end it was finally determined that of the nearly 2400# of (p) entering the lake everyday, that roughly 400# was from the the fish hatchery. Once that was determined to be fact, the lawsuit was finalized and the Platte River is the fishery that it is today, based on the outcome of that suit.

You are probably wondering why I bring this up: Pretty simple really, it show's that emotions, and money can dictate just what the DNR does. Prior to this suit, the salmon came up river by the thousands, today, that number is limited to still thousands, but it's about a 10th of what it used to be, and all because a group of wealthy individuals wanted to have a large swimming pool, but didn't want to believe that they could, in fact, be the problem. In this case the DNR was trying to do their job in conjunction with the DEQ, or EPA whoever it was at the time, but were basically handcuffed by the property owners, and all because they didn't want to replace their septic systems.

In the end, this highlights just what people really want from the DNR regardless of what is good for the environment or hunting and fishing. It's just like trout stocking, and we'll use the MO as an example. I don't know that much about the MO but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of water that is ever going to be a pristine trout water, it's too warm or whatever the reason is, but I've read enough about it that's the opinion of most.

What should really have people upset right now is the habitat restoration project that is scheduled to be done on the North and South Branch of the Ausable. Couple of questions come to mind on that, 1) who's paying for it? The last time this was done the cost was over $300,000, and 2) why would the money be spent on a water that is basically shut off to those who choose not to fly fish, for one reason or another. If this is being funded by private monies, whose is it? IF it's being funded by DNR funds, or from grants, that's public funds and shouldn't be used for flies only waters. They should only be used for waters that TOTALLY inclusive, places such as the Betsie for example or pick your river, but never should public funds be used for a project that doesn't affect the GENERAL PUBLIC.


----------



## DReihl9896

toto said:


> Actually D, maybe not. Look at the salmon fishery. The people knew something should be done, but no one knew what to do exactly. It was decided to plant salmon and the rest is history. Of course I wonder if the fishery would be the same had they done what was orginally talked about, do you know the DNR's first thought was trying to plant stripped bass? Would it have created the fishing juggernaut we have today? Maybe, but I doubt it. The salmon idea was brought up by Howard Tanner and it seemed to work out pretty well. The public has shown in this case that they are emotional about what they want, but not realistic in all cases.
> 
> Another great example is the Platte Lake Improvement Association and the suit against the DNR. This whole thing was because the people who lived and had cottages on Big Platte Lake basically wanted a swimming pool for a lake. Over time a significant amount of weed growth started to happen and a study was done to determine what was causing it. Part of the problem was the septic systems were leaching into the lake thereby injecting a fairly high amount of phophorous (p) into the lake, especially when you take into account of the amount of cabins and houses on the lake. The PLIA blamed the DNR fish hatchery for the problem as they assumed that the DNR was injected an even high amount of (p) into the system. Over a period of about 10 years this thing went on and in the end it was finally determined that of the nearly 2400# of (p) entering the lake everyday, that roughly 400# was from the the fish hatchery. Once that was determined to be fact, the lawsuit was finalized and the Platte River is the fishery that it is today, based on the outcome of that suit.
> 
> You are probably wondering why I bring this up: Pretty simple really, it show's that emotions, and money can dictate just what the DNR does. Prior to this suit, the salmon came up river by the thousands, today, that number is limited to still thousands, but it's about a 10th of what it used to be, and all because a group of wealthy individuals wanted to have a large swimming pool, but didn't want to believe that they could, in fact, be the problem. In this case the DNR was trying to do their job in conjunction with the DEQ, or EPA whoever it was at the time, but were basically handcuffed by the property owners, and all because they didn't want to replace their septic systems.
> 
> In the end, this highlights just what people really want from the DNR regardless of what is good for the environment or hunting and fishing. It's just like trout stocking, and we'll use the MO as an example. I don't know that much about the MO but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of water that is ever going to be a pristine trout water, it's too warm or whatever the reason is, but I've read enough about it that's the opinion of most.
> 
> What should really have people upset right now is the habitat restoration project that is scheduled to be done on the North and South Branch of the Ausable. Couple of questions come to mind on that, 1) who's paying for it? The last time this was done the cost was over $300,000, and 2) why would the money be spent on a water that is basically shut off to those who choose not to fly fish, for one reason or another. If this is being funded by private monies, whose is it? IF it's being funded by DNR funds, or from grants, that's public funds and shouldn't be used for flies only waters. They should only be used for waters that TOTALLY inclusive, places such as the Betsie for example or pick your river, but never should public funds be used for a project that doesn't affect the GENERAL PUBLIC.


Toto, all good points, but they illustrate the pitfalls of using public sentiment as the sole means of decision making, which I was not advocating for at all. I was only cautioning against the other extreme, that public opinion should not be consulted at all.


----------



## DFJISH

The DNR/NRC personnel have everything it requires..training, knowledge, experience, etc.) to manage our resources wisely. There are probably a very few in the public at large who are similarly qualfied to offer sound scientific input. Beyond that, in spite of the concept that the resources belong to *all* of the people, most people are myopic about _what *THEY* want_ with little or no regard for it's effects on the recource or the environment. I don't intend to hijack this thread so all I'll say is that the recent approval of APR's by the NRC is a prime example of how a well-funded and organized special interest group is capable of directing DNR/NRC management decisions. 
I am fully aware that my .02 is worth less than .01 on this issue, but IMO as long as they DNR/NRC solicits public input _AND USES IT TO MAKE REGULATIONS TO APPEASE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE_, our fish and game managemeent programs will directly impacted by those who have the most money and make the moist noise.


----------



## DReihl9896

DFJISH said:


> The DNR/NRC personnel have everything it requires..training, knowledge, experience, etc.) to manage our resources wisely. There are probably a very few in the public at large who are similarly qualfied to offer sound scientific input. Beyond that, in spite of the concept that the resources belong to *all* of the people, most people are myopic about _what *THEY* want_ with little or no regard for it's effects on the recource or the environment. I don't intend to hijack this thread so all I'll say is that the recent approval of APR's by the NRC is a prime example of how a well-funded and organized special interest group is capable of directing DNR/NRC management decisions.
> I am fully aware that my .02 is worth less than .01 on this issue, but IMO as long as they DNR/NRC solicits public input _AND USES IT TO MAKE REGULATIONS TO APPEASE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE_, our fish and game managemeent programs will directly impacted by those who have the most money and make the moist noise.


 Couldn't the same be said of nearly all matters of public policy, including general elections? Is the answer to exclude the public from all public concerns? Does the fact that many tend to be "myopic" in their views, change the fact that things held in public trust belong to the public? 

Science certainly should guide decision making in regards to our natural, but by it's very nature it is limited in that it is only a body of knowledge and does not in itself make decisions. Sure in some cases, the science makes a really strong case for one course of action over another, but there are also times when the science allows for several viable options. Then it becomes a judgment call. I guess I don't understand why you would trust such judgment calls solely to a small group of individuals (who believe it or not, also bring certain biases and agendas to the table) who you also feel lack the intelligence to determine whether public input has value in a certain decision or not.


----------



## o_mykiss

I'd just like to point out that fisheries managers are tasked with managing the resource with the long-term interest of the public in mind. 

This requires gauging what the interest of the public actually is. In the past, most management decisions were made by professionals without much input from the public. That obviously has changed, and now public input is sought, and balances are attempted to be made. 

Obviously, there is great interest in gear restrictions, and trophy fishing, but also in wide access. I for one think that the DNR does a pretty good job of balancing such demanding and often conflicting issues. I like that there's a mix of regulations on trout streams. I fish with bait, with artificials, and also fly fish. I appreciate catch and release but also like to eat fish. 

I've never felt like I was inhibited by doing anything I wanted because of onerous restrictions. But that's just my opinion. I think it's great that folks want to get involved with the management process, regardless of their values. 

But keep in mind that gear restrictions are often much more about human values rather than biological reasons. As well they should be - values are a huge part of fisheries management.


----------



## toto

mykiss, you would be correct, to a point. There is a fine line of when the public input is looked for, and what is reality. In this case, the reality is the Public Trust Doctrine exists, and it's there for a reason.

You also have to remember that the original Department of Conservation was to be hands off by our legislature and that was dictated in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1921 ( I think that's the right year, but somewhere in that time frame). The reason for that was the idea that the fish and wildlife should be left to the experts, and not some bureaucrat who knows nothing about fish and wildlife and what it takes to maintain them. The biggest problem with the DNR isn't just the deep pockets, but also the legislature who is making dictating decisions for the DNR and the NRC. I often wonder about the NRC as well, do they trully have the right perspective on the issues, or are they being highjacked by the deep pockets? Don't know the answer to that. All I do know is, the natural resources of this state, or any state for that matter, is for ALL people to enjoy and whenever you read anything it is always said as the GENERAL PUBLIC, which means ALL of us, period. Things like the above mentioned lawsuits cost the DNR a ton of money to fight and it detracts and steals money from the DNR that could be used for more fish and wildlife issues overall such as hiring more CO's, or maybe even having money for habitat improvement projects in all of our rivers.


----------



## broncbuster2

You also have to remember that the original Department of Conservation was to be hands off by our legislature and that was dictated in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1921 ( I think that's the right year, but somewhere in that time frame).

I would like to read that, if you could send me a link Toto


----------



## toto

If I can find it again I'll gladly send it over. One thing to remember is that the APA is changed from time to time, and over time the DNR has been dictated to by the legislature which is not against the APA as it stands.


----------



## wintrrun

o_mykiss said:


> I'd just like to point out that fisheries managers are tasked with managing the resource with the long-term interest of the public in mind.
> 
> This requires gauging what the interest of the public actually is. In the past, most management decisions were made by professionals without much input from the public. That obviously has changed, and now public input is sought, and balances are attempted to be made.
> 
> Obviously, there is great interest in gear restrictions, and trophy fishing, but also in wide access. I for one think that the DNR does a pretty good job of balancing such demanding and often conflicting issues. I like that there's a mix of regulations on trout streams. I fish with bait, with artificials, and also fly fish. I appreciate catch and release but also like to eat fish.
> 
> I've never felt like I was inhibited by doing anything I wanted because of onerous restrictions. But that's just my opinion. I think it's great that folks want to get involved with the management process, regardless of their values.
> 
> But keep in mind that gear restrictions are often much more about human values rather than biological reasons. As well they should be - values are a huge part of fisheries management.


 

I would agree but I have a problem with the legislature mandating and giving our resources away.
Politicians are not biologists they are merely used car salesman that are looking for a nice retirement package at our expense.


----------



## Benzie Rover

toto said:


> Actually D, maybe not. Look at the salmon fishery. The people knew something should be done, but no one knew what to do exactly. It was decided to plant salmon and the rest is history. Of course I wonder if the fishery would be the same had they done what was orginally talked about, do you know the DNR's first thought was trying to plant stripped bass? Would it have created the fishing juggernaut we have today? Maybe, but I doubt it. The salmon idea was brought up by Howard Tanner and it seemed to work out pretty well. The public has shown in this case that they are emotional about what they want, but not realistic in all cases.
> 
> Another great example is the Platte Lake Improvement Association and the suit against the DNR. This whole thing was because the people who lived and had cottages on Big Platte Lake basically wanted a swimming pool for a lake. Over time a significant amount of weed growth started to happen and a study was done to determine what was causing it. Part of the problem was the septic systems were leaching into the lake thereby injecting a fairly high amount of phophorous (p) into the lake, especially when you take into account of the amount of cabins and houses on the lake. The PLIA blamed the DNR fish hatchery for the problem as they assumed that the DNR was injected an even high amount of (p) into the system. Over a period of about 10 years this thing went on and in the end it was finally determined that of the nearly 2400# of (p) entering the lake everyday, that roughly 400# was from the the fish hatchery. Once that was determined to be fact, the lawsuit was finalized and the Platte River is the fishery that it is today, based on the outcome of that suit.
> 
> You are probably wondering why I bring this up: Pretty simple really, it show's that emotions, and money can dictate just what the DNR does. Prior to this suit, the salmon came up river by the thousands, today, that number is limited to still thousands, but it's about a 10th of what it used to be, and all because a group of wealthy individuals wanted to have a large swimming pool, but didn't want to believe that they could, in fact, be the problem. In this case the DNR was trying to do their job in conjunction with the DEQ, or EPA whoever it was at the time, but were basically handcuffed by the property owners, and all because they didn't want to replace their septic systems.
> 
> In the end, this highlights just what people really want from the DNR regardless of what is good for the environment or hunting and fishing. It's just like trout stocking, and we'll use the MO as an example. I don't know that much about the MO but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of water that is ever going to be a pristine trout water, it's too warm or whatever the reason is, but I've read enough about it that's the opinion of most.
> 
> What should really have people upset right now is the habitat restoration project that is scheduled to be done on the North and South Branch of the Ausable. Couple of questions come to mind on that, 1) who's paying for it? The last time this was done the cost was over $300,000, and 2) why would the money be spent on a water that is basically shut off to those who choose not to fly fish, for one reason or another. If this is being funded by private monies, whose is it? IF it's being funded by DNR funds, or from grants, that's public funds and shouldn't be used for flies only waters. They should only be used for waters that TOTALLY inclusive, places such as the Betsie for example or pick your river, but never should public funds be used for a project that doesn't affect the GENERAL PUBLIC.


Toto- I've bonded with you in the past over our common experiences fishing the lower platte back in the good days and I respect a lot of your views, but I am sorry to say your facts on the PLIA lawsuit, the amount of P entering the river from the hatchery and several other issues are *simply false*. And to use that as a prime example of how a small, vocal group had their way with the govt at the demise of the general public is likewise, with no merit. Please tell me, what harm was done to the public by cleaning up Platte Lake? How much did you fish Platte lake during the 70s and early 80s when it would 'white out' every summer? Do you actually think that stopping the phosphorus pollution (that was on the level equivalent to the worst of SE michigan euthrophic lakes, btw) was some 'insider job that screwed Joe Public'? And please explain 'swimming pool'?!?!? Was wanting a lake that fits within the Clean Water Act really asking for a 'swimming pool'!?!?Seriously a stunning ommision or lack of facts here. 

Are you also aware the DNR has fully recognized the problem and completely remedied it!?!? The Hatchery currently has ZERO net phosphorus production. Why!?!? concerned, vocal, science savy citizens ultimatley were able to get actual water quality science at the forefront of hatchery managment decisions. Have you read the sign posted at the hatchey gates lately? It explains the whole debacle that occured, the 'whiting' events that used to occur in platte lake when I was kid, all of it. The hatchery WAS a major pollutor. But again, it is no longer so. Why?? Because of sound science! The DNR had no idea how much P they were putting in, nor did they care, until some folks in the lake wanted to get our smallmouth fishery back and stop experiencing summer phosphorus loads that rivaled the worst SE michigan lakes!!! (please see the data if you don't believe - the numbers don't lie). Platte Lake had an average P concentration of around 12mg/l before the PLIA took action, we are now down close to 8, with the goal being 6.4. NO other similar lakes in our region are above 8 mg/l. 

Further more, the # of coho passed upstream now is again, based on sound science. The phosphorus load from those salmon is not insignificant. Furthermore, are you aware that the DNR has not even been able to pass the full 30k in several of the years over the last decade or so because the returns have been so poor? And this despite having a higher coho stocking density, as compared to river size, than any other system I am aware of. If you know of another 100 cfs river getting nearly 750K yo-yo smolts annually, show me. 

In summary, please find another example to fit your arguement as the PLIA and the Platte Lake phosphorus issue are one of the best examples of citizen groups working together to stop a major point-source pollution issue AND cooperatively work with them, now at least, to make the facility a model in fishery managment. Again, the current waste water treatment techniques that have resulted in zero net P loads that we have had the last couple years are the direct result of the PLIA folks working hand in hand with the DNR hatchery folks cooperatively to utilize sound water quality science. 

I will finish by saying the water quality data is quite availible and there have been several peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that have been written about the Platte River and Platte Lake phosphorus issue (mostly by Dr. Ray Canale). Please let me konw if you need any references to the copious amount of published literature on this important issue. Thank you, Matt


----------



## Boozer

Steelee said:


> First of all, thanks for bringing these issues to light. I am 100% behind the efforts to base fishery decisions on science, not politics. Second, there should be equal stream access for everyone. Pay your $28 and have at it. Someone pays $28 and gets privledges not available to someone else that pays their $28 is not the American way. Third, I am a TU member, and not in agreement with all their policies, but I agree with some. I hesitate using the broad brush that you use in describing TU as pretty bad folks. My personal belief is that we have groups of wealthy landowners in restricted areas who want us slobs off "their" water too. I could tell you a story about a caretaker at the Flint Rainbow Club on the PM trying to chase me off with a shotgun, but I digress. There is plenty of wealth and political power in the Indian Club, Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club, and landowners on the banks of restricted waters.
> 
> As you suggest, the current methodology for raising trophy trout, is to attempt to restrict access. It has worked in the past, but I believe this strategy is now being challenged and not rubber stamped.
> 
> I believe the answer to improving trophy trout are a combination of the other factors you mention-food, water temperature, and survival conditions and I cannot believe that TU or anybody else has not suggested it. The solution is easy. Hold Consumers Energy to their agreement signed 14 years ago to stop thermal pollution on the Mo and other dams such as Tippy and Foote.
> 
> Consumers to drill wells for water (ala Nestle) at each dam site with the capacity of 1000 cfs of 55 degree water. Mix it with 33 degree natural flow in winter and 78 degree flow in summer say at Croton. The result would be yearround temps between 45 and 65 degrees. You would still get all the nutrients from Croton Pond and ideal temps for miles below Croton. Consumers has all the electricity for the pumps right there at the dam.
> 
> Maybe my idea is pie in the sky. I am certainly no expert. But trying to improve growing conditions for the fish beats these restriction efforts.
> 
> Regards


Your plan misses one massive thing...

You are playing God in a series of ecosystems to promote the health of NON-NATIVE SPECIES!!!!

MORE IMPORTANLY, WOULD INEVITABLY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NATIVE SPECIES!!!!


----------



## toto

You can twist the numbers any way you like, but it was Dr. Spencer who quoted the numbers. It was said at the time the DNR was responsible for slightly more 400 lbs of P coming into the system from the DNR hatchery. It was also said there were 2400lbs. coming into the system everyday, which brought me to the question of where is the other 2000lbs coming from. In the artilcle that Dr Spencer put in the Benzie County Record Patriot, sorry can't remember the date, it was stated that studies were also done concerning the amount of P from fertilizers etc. In that study it was stated that roughly 50 lbs coming from each lawn that used fertilizer, of course Dr. Spencer refuted those numbers as being erroneous. I don't know how long you were involved in this mess, but I can tell you this, if you dispute my numbers, perhaps you should contact Jim Van Der Mass (sic?) from Michigan Steelheaders. As for the swimming pool statement, that was one made by a certain DNR Central Lake Michigan biologist at the time.

Did you know that the DNR had several million dollars set aside for the hatchery prior to the end of the PLIA suit?? I'm not sure who is telling the actual numbers here, but I would suggest you get with Dr. Spencer, if he is still alive and ask him, he was head of PLIA at the time. All I can say is I found it rather interesting that after his article in the local rag paper, the suit was finally settled within just a couple months. One thing you should realize, things like this I don't fudge the numbers, they were stated by those in the know, and they just didn't make sense at the time, therefore an argreement was made. Had the thing gone to court and the DNR lost, the hatchey would not exist today.

http://www.platte-lake.org/Canale_WEF_Manuscript.pdf

I can't be sure but you and I may be talking about 2 different periods on time as well. If you look at the link I provided you can see that at one point the numbers were astonomical, then there is a period of time where the numbers are below 500, which is the same period of time I am speaking of, as that's the period of testing that Dr. Spencer used. Pretty easy to see the misunderstanding on this stuff when you read this.

You will also notice in the article link that a lot of the problems were caused by the building going on up stream, as far as Lake Ann. I'm glad they are cleaning up Platte Lake, it's a good thing, never said it wasn't, but here is the same type of problem that exists all the time, two people disagreeing while using two sets of numbers. In the end, I'll stick with my numbers, and you can stick with yours, as you can see we are both right, oddly enough.

Probably a late edit here, but I went back and read your post. While you would be correct on some points you brought up, the simple fact is, and still is, just where is the rest of the (P) coming from? I'm not saying the DNR was innocent here, they weren't but at the time of the writings from Spencer it was just wrong and stupid numbers posted by him. Look, I hope the Platte Lake comes back to it's old self, but until you can get rid of the other (P) that is coming into the lake, you are probably looking at Platte Lake will be for a long time. Just do me one favor and take the time to read the article I posted a link to. I happen to know Ron Harrison pretty well, he's one of the guys who did the study. When he did his work for this study he was astounded by the amount of (P) in the river upstream from the hatchery which should tell you there is a much bigger issue than than hatchery, and yes particularly now, but I am talking about a certain point in time. If you would really know the history of this you would also know that the septic systems were in question as well, and no one that had property there was interested in putting in new systems, especially the way the DEQ wanted them to be, just too expensive. So, yes the DNR was wrong, but what do to about the rest of it???


----------



## toto

Getting back to the original meaning of this thread, I still think that assuming we could have all trout of trophy proportions, or what we think of them as trophies today, there will come a point where they aren't considered trophies anymore, and then what? What I'm saying is, if in todays fishery a 20" brown is the criteria for a trophy, and all the browns are 20", will it still be a trophy, or do we then have to raise the bar to 25"? If that were all true, which could never happen in the first place, do we go through all of this again???? See what I mean, it's a never ending battle, and we continue to around and around and where it stops no one knows.


----------



## o_mykiss

I think a trophy is entirely subjective. To some anglers, a 15 inch brown is a trophy. To others that fish often and fish well, in blue-ribbon waters, 25 inches might be the cutoff. 

Heck, it can even vary for the same angler, depending on body of water fished and the equipment used. Different streams have different carrying capacities and differing capability of producing large trout, so a trophy in one stream might be just a decent fish in another. 

Then you have lake-run versus stream trout. And on a dry fly an a 3-weight or a spinner on an ultralight versus a crankbait with a baitcaster, just to name one example - I'm know I'm way more excited to catch a 15 inch fish on light tackle out of a small stream than I would be with an x-rap on 10 pound test out of the Au Sable Mainstream, for example. 

Just don't think you can paint this with as wide of a brush as you're trying to, Toto


----------



## toto

not really, just trying to make a point in regards to gear restricted waters. I do see your point however but I'm afraid that some on the trophy advocates don't seem to break it down the way you did. Just to make it clear, you would be absolutely right that some streams just aren't going to produce 25" fish for one reason or another. So then we get to the discussion of defining "trophy". Just what is the defination of trophy, as you said, a 15" fish is a trophy to some, while a 25"er is a trophy to others, and in some cases, just the fact of getting out at all is trophy enough.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I have fished many streams and rivers throughout Michigan and have caught numerous trophy trout. Trout do not get big being stupid, much like deer. Plain and simple big trout are like big bucks they do not come easy. Fly only waters do not produce trout that are any bigger or better than any other waters. Only about 2 percent of the fishermen can catch nice sized river trout on a regular basis. Being in the right place at the right time with the right lure or bait is half of the game. If Michigan had slot limits it would improve the trophy trout fishing. From my experience the trout that live to be trophys is about 2 percent of the population. If you are fortunate to fish on waters that do not get much fishing pressure the number of trophy trout increases but probably never over 10 percent.


----------



## Splitshot

Steelee,

Most of the members of TU I know are decent people who care about the places that trout live. They are not looking for special rights, are not elitists, ideologues or selfish, but based on the facts, it pretty hard to deny the involvement of some influential TU members.

You are correct about the power and influence of other groups as I well know. My property begins where the Indian Club property ends and I could almost write a book listing all the special rules that apply or have applied to the section of river that flow between their current holdings.

How a trophy is defined as Toto stated is subjective and individual in general and the discussion of how we can increase the number of trophy trout is important too, but my motive here is to expose the lies the supporters of bait restrictions have been using about how our trophy fishery might disappear or be seriously damaged is we remove those restrictions.

Without any scientific basis to support bait restrictions their only chance to maintain MDNR support is through public support by the very fishermen who these rules discriminate against. 

The other big problem working against the average fishermen is that some in leadership positions within the state have been complicate in defending these rules so convincing them to change direction as we already know, wont be an easy task. 



o_mykiss said:


> I'd just like to point out that fisheries managers are tasked with managing the resource with the long-term interest of the public in mind.
> 
> This requires gauging what the interest of the public actually is. In the past, most management decisions were made by professionals without much input from the public. That obviously has changed, and now public input is sought, and balances are attempted to be made.
> 
> Obviously, there is great interest in gear restrictions, and trophy fishing, but also in wide access. I for one think that the DNR does a pretty good job of balancing such demanding and often conflicting issues. I like that there's a mix of regulations on trout streams. I fish with bait, with artificials, and also fly fish. I appreciate catch and release but also like to eat fish.
> 
> I've never felt like I was inhibited by doing anything I wanted because of onerous restrictions. But that's just my opinion. I think it's great that folks want to get involved with the management process, regardless of their values.
> 
> But keep in mind that gear restrictions are often much more about human values rather than biological reasons. As well they should be - values are a huge part of fisheries management.


I have no problem with the DNR seeking input from the public and tempering their decisions based on that input.	O_mykiss I also understand that you have never felt inhibited because of onerous restrictions, but you lose me with this statement:


o_mykiss said:


> But keep in mind that gear restrictions are often much more about human values rather than biological reasons. As well they should be - values are a huge part of fisheries management.


If I am not allowed to use bait because bait is morally repulsive to the human values of some fly fishermen without any biological basis that rule is unfair and discriminatory. Do what you want on private waters, but as a citizen I expect to be treated fairly when it comes to our natural public heritage. Since members of the MDNR are public employees and obligated to treat all citizens fairly, the excuse to grant of special privileges based on human values or providing a diverse opportunity is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to any fair minded person.

So if the DNR is wanting some public input about how many coho vs king salmon to plant that is one thing, but to use that input as justification to support giving some groups extra rights not granted to other public groups is unacceptable. Besides that class of rules violate the new PA 21, the defined public mission statement of the DNR and the Public Trust Doctrine.

Making the argument that all rules have a social aspect as a rational for discrimination is akin to making the argument that a cat has whiskers and a fox has whiskers, therefore a cat is a fox. 

Likewise changing the discussion from using the fear of losing our trophy trout fishery to justify bait restrictions to a discussion about what defines a trophy trout and how we can manage for them is fine for another thread, but all it does here is clouds the real issue of treating all citizens equally.


----------



## midwestfisherman

> If I am not allowed to use bait because bait is morally repulsive to the human values of some fly fishermen without any biological basis that rule is unfair and discriminatory. Do what you want on private waters, but as a citizen I expect to be treated fairly when it comes to our natural public heritage. Since members of the MDNR are public employees and obligated to treat all citizens fairly, the excuse to grant of special privileges based on human values or providing a diverse opportunity is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to any fair minded person.


This paragraph pretty much sums up the entire issue!


----------



## o_mykiss

I'm just curious Splitshot, what's your feeling on other fishing methods? Using your arguments, shouldn't I be able to use a cast net for trout? How about a seine? Trotline? As long as I'm following bag limits, which have been set using science, shouldn't I be able to use any method I want? Am I being discriminated against because I can't use a trotline on a trout stream?


----------



## troutguy26

^ this has been beaten to death already.


----------



## wintrrun

o_mykiss said:


> I'm just curious Splitshot, what's your feeling on other fishing methods? Using your arguments, shouldn't I be able to use a cast net for trout? How about a seine? Trotline? As long as I'm following bag limits, which have been set using science, shouldn't I be able to use any method I want? Am I being discriminated against because I can't use a trotline on a trout stream?



Setting a trotline on a trout stream?
Why not your rights to fish with explosives or controlled use of chemicals?


----------



## surfcaster

I keep telling myself to stay out of these topics, but I do see some understanding of whats really going on behind the close doors of politics, probally too little too late...

First off, with OUR numbers dwindeling every year, and the obvious less impact that WE as a group are having on the ecological system. How is it that we keep being told that WE are taking too much, killing too many, and doing too much harm? I don't see shoulder to shoulder fishing hardly anywhere anymore. Most places that where popular hardly see the fishing pressure they used too.

So we can take the "too much pressure" argument and toss it....The only pressure I get is from yahoos on jet ski's and dumb boaters

The policies will continue to favor what ever group or groups donate the most money and spend the most time hob knobbing with the politicians and their appointed. If you don't golf, the odds of your idea being listen too by the powers at hand, are slim to none.

If you cannot afford to buy a BIG boat, with slip fees and gas, thousands on fly gear, Charters, Lodges and all the other things people with money consider "enjoying the sport" then your opinion will not ever count. Only the people that make millions off this sport count, mom and pop shops can eat it. Just like deer bait, god help you if you wanted to make a little money selling carrots, your not as important as the guy who has the planting and feed plot company. And since the numbers of people activly pursuing these sports are going down, every nickle and dime they can funnel to what "they" want is so important it requires forcing bad management practices down everybodies throats. But hey, more for the rich if everybody is home playing x box.

Shore bound anglers have and will always have a second class citizenship tag on them. Unless they are sporting the right patches and matching outfits. I've been to parks where only fly fising was allowed, yet saw as many dead fish there as any kids derby at the local trout pond. Yet all the TU guys high fiving their successful day C&Ring...So the guys with the then I should be able to use dynamite or cast nets toung in cheek arguments? You might as well because anyone that knows fishing, knows you fly only guys hook and kill more fish then any group, even with C&R only practices. I know, I know, it swam away ALWAYS means it lived...pffffttt 

I've been involved with all types of policies and political orginizations in more then one state and its always the same crap. Those that can pay, get what they want, those that just want to fish, get forgotten. Until they stop showing up at the mom and pop stores and cheapo cabins, then they blame bad economics or gas prices. NO, the prohibitive cost of tackle and gear to fish and not bring home fish killed this state. Like centerpinning, yeah looks fun, but I refuse to add yet another three hundred dollar reel to the mix. Most people who used to fish wouldn't go if they couldn't find what they needed at Kmart.I bet there are lots of small shops and resturant people that sure do miss salmon snagging. Can I ask , why is snagging salmon still a crime? Is it because it appears messy, brutal, and not politically correct? Or because the elite like their rivers empty in the fall, when most trout streams are closed (another unfouded season dumbness, like all the seasons opening on the same day...Dumb dumb dumb...) Anyway isn't trout easier to release in cold water? wouldn't having the winter open and the summer closed make oh so much more sense? Sense is the first thing tossed when it comes to natural resource management. I think some people need reminding that forcing a steel hook through a fish, weither its in the mouth or not is going to kill fish in the long run, and if you don't want to see dead fish, take up bird watching or something....

Stop thinking C&R is a cure all, its a bandaid on a major artery bleed. Think they will ever take back the C&R bass season, even though I KNOW FOR SURE it hurts fish in this state? But because its popular in some other state Michigan MUST jump on the band wagon, like it did to cater to drop shotting, really? Meanwhile Senkos kill more bass in this state then anything but NO ONE has EVER suggested to limit its use or ban them.

The REAL reason, is the same for tubing, campining and other recreation activities that where populare because ANYONE could go and have a good time, snobs don't want just anybody next to them. It makes their waders feel dirty or something...Ya we can talk numbers and research all you want, seems fisheries biologist are as reliable and buyable as weathermen...You see it in everyday life where those people don't want those other people to exist, let alone catch "their" fish on their" river.

So no matter what MDNR and its buddies tell ya its going to do, or wants to do, only trust what path the money will follow, because if you think with todays management scheme its going to be any different then think again. Its all about how to limit you from using it while still making the biggest dollar.

Anything I guess to make us believe that we are not living in a superfund state that has barely enough resourses to protect the native species, let alone all these non natives that are supposedly adding so much to an economy where all I see is more cost, less local economic advantages, and more and more elitism. Remember catch and release regulations are PETA's best friend, because without harvesting, to most people fishing seems just cruel. 

If you use a fishing rod, your a recreational fisherman. Period. We all need to come together on this stuff soon or the people that don't care for us, WILL target ALL OF US. I've seen enough over the years to know its coming, we pose too much in the way of a liability to the system, and if no one is fishing anymore that will open up the resources once again to commercial harvesting. Crazy? Everyone thought I was crazy when I said they are going to try to take away live bait. Seems ol Walt needs to sell more crawlers to afford a golf outting or two...

You would think that with all the restrictions on the PM it would be the world best trout destination, I think its had long enough with the stupid laws that don't work. Obviously some one must of forgot to tell the fish.

Want more and bigger fish? ....My suggestion is slink around the shadows, stay out of the elitist way, let them believe they are right and keep doing what you do. The State can barley keep the lights on, do you really think most places see any enforcement? Only in the brightly lit, popular places that I don't want to go to anyway....


----------



## johnnysmallgame

Did someone from Rochester Hills just play the class warfare card?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Hills,_Michigan

Rochester Hills is an affluent city in northeast Oakland County of the U.S. state of Michigan.
The median income for a household in the city was $152,034, and the median income for a family was $187,268.


----------



## wintrrun

johnnysmallgame said:


> Did someone from Rochester Hills just play the class warfare card?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Hills,_Michigan
> 
> Rochester Hills is an affluent city in northeast Oakland County of the U.S. state of Michigan.
> The median income for a household in the city was $152,034, and the median income for a family was $187,268.


 

The resident MS troll out for his Monday night troll.
How much does your wife make johnny with you staying home and watching the kids?:evilsmile


----------



## johnnysmallgame

wintrrun said:


> The resident MS troll out for his Monday night troll.
> How much does your wife make johnny with you staying home and watching the kids?:evilsmile


Dozens.


----------



## Ranger Ray

johnnysmallgame said:


> Did someone from Rochester Hills just play the class warfare card?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Hills,_Michigan
> 
> Rochester Hills is an affluent city in northeast Oakland County of the U.S. state of Michigan.
> The median income for a household in the city was $152,034, and the median income for a family was $187,268.


You can be rich and not an elitist. Just like you can be educated and still dumb.


----------



## surfcaster

Think poor people can't live near rich folk? LOrdy LOrdy Who so ever would wash their windows....How about I was raised around fishing and know how important it is to not forget how I got here. Want kids to put down the x box and pills? Get them fishing early, the messy parts are what kids love, playing in worms, squishing minnows, seeing what on the inside of fish you brought home to eat. You can't just jump in later as a grown up and make up for those experinces. 

As I said, I avoid these topics usualy, but recently while fishing local waters have run into my fair share of elitist that felt they had to say something. 

"If you want to eat fish go to a store and buy it"

Said a TU member to a little kid that was wondering why he was being scolded for wanting to keep a fish. If a 5 year old looks at you like your an alien, just maybe....

"Guys not wearing waders aren't from around here"

Yeah and guys wearing waders on a 90 degree day like to be in fashion shows more then fish.

"They shouldn't allow people that aren't locals fish here"

Said the rich guy that brought his kids to a tiny spot and couldn't find a place to park. He then hooked them all up with walleye worm rigs (unwieghted) and night crawlers on artificial only water.

"The river is closed to fishing today"

Yeah, that one burned me, I know its for the kids, but stringing fences across a navigatable water, then chasing out people from a public park so your group can spread its influence, seems very elitist to me. Not to mention against some of the very first and defining laws of this land. He didn't know how to respond when I whipped out the DNR hand book and asked him to show me where the river was closed today..


----------



## wintrrun

Surfcaster,
Pay little attention to JohnnyNoGame.
He's just here trolling for the online entertainment value it gives his offline personality.


----------



## fishinlk

This whole thread has been beaten to death..... 



> If I am not allowed to use bait because bait is morally repulsive to the human values of some fly fishermen without any biological basis that rule is unfair and discriminatory. Do what you want on private waters, but as a citizen I expect to be treated fairly when it comes to our natural public heritage. Since members of the MDNR are public employees and obligated to treat all citizens fairly, the excuse to grant of special privileges based on human values or providing a diverse opportunity is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to any fair minded person.
> 
> This paragraph pretty much sums up the entire issue!


Yep, and you can compare the veiws with this to the difference between those of us who like to hunt grouse over a good dog and the guy who ground swats them on the 2 track... All legal but not necassarily agreed upon.


----------



## Ranger Ray

A better comparison is, lets ban hunting over dogs for grouse on our best grouse land. Why? Because its to effective and kills more birds. A bird is to beautiful to flush just once. Plus we need to advance the age structure.


----------



## jatc

Ranger Ray said:


> A better comparison is, lets ban hunting over dogs for grouse on our best grouse land. Why? Because its to effective and kills more birds. A bird is to beautiful to flush just once. Plus we need to advance the age structure.



Banning dogs would only protect 47% of the six-month old birds. We'd probably have to look at a minimum wing span measurement first.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I have to laugh at you there surfcaster. Sure not everyone has $30000 boats to go fishing but that does not limit your ability to catch big fish in Michigan. I am looking at some mounted trout that I have on my office wall. The funny thing is that not a one of them was caught in a boat. I have caught numerous trophy salmon in my lifetime very few of the really big ones were caught in a boat. You are not a second class citizen because you don't have a boat. I have caught many trophy steelhead standing on a sheet of ice. I am guessing that you either need to relocate to a better fishing area or try different fishing techniques. I wish you better luck. Wherever I fish the DNR does not cater to me, in fact I wish that they would do a better job of it in some places. I don't talk to politicians about fishing or where the DNR should plant fish. There are plenty of big fish out there and you can get them by fishing from shore.


----------



## The Downstream Drift

Surfcaster... You have to be kidding, right?

I usually stay away from this part of the forum and most of the members here know why. However, your statements about elitists "stringing a fence across the river" are way off base. Let's get the truth out there for everyone. The City of Auburn Hills plants between 700 to 1000 hatchery raised rainbow trout in a river that will not support these fish on a long term basis in an effort to get kids involved in the sport of fishing. These fish are put in a 150 yard public park, are stocked on a Friday afternoon and the kids fishing derby (an annual event) happens first thing the next morning. There are over 150 kids each year that participate in this event, most of whom are there to catch their first trout.

Now, how is it elitist for the City of Auburn Hills to request you to leave these fish for the kids and then openly fish for them after the derby is over? You put in your own post that it should be about getting the kids out there fishing, however you are upset that city workers asked you to wait to fish a marginal trout stream for hatchery fish until after the derby is over to catch the hatchery fish meant for the kid's program? Really? 

Perhaps now that the truth comes out some of the other members here will think differently on this issue. Maybe not. But from what I have seen of the crew here they would be willing to not fish hatchery fish on marginal water that will not sustain rainbow trout throughout the season for 24 hours if it meant over 100 KIDS getting their first shot at a trout the next morning.

Just saying...


----------



## toto

I would agree with you DD.


----------



## Splitshot

o_mykiss said:


> I'm just curious Splitshot, what's your feeling on other fishing methods? Using your arguments, shouldn't I be able to use a cast net for trout? How about a seine? Trotline? As long as I'm following bag limits, which have been set using science, shouldn't I be able to use any method I want? Am I being discriminated against because I can't use a trotline on a trout stream?



This is the definition of discrimination; 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. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.

Define the group or perceived group that isnt allowed to use a trot line, seine net, explosives, chemicals or electricity on a trout stream? Since every citizen is treated equally and cannot use a any of these methods on a trout stream, there is no discrimination.

On the other hand, fly fishermen are allowed opportunities not available to bait fishermen on public waters. Explain why they should have these special privileges? The Public Trust Doctrine exists to prevent those kinds of abuses and to protect our natural heritage for the public. It was so important to our founders that statehood could not be achieved without accepting the PTD obligation.

Under the PTD, the state is obligated and has authority to manage our fish and wildlife for their protection, but is not allowed to make rules if those rules simply limit public participation. Since bait restrictions do nothing to protect our fishery and do limit public participation, they are not allowed.



fishinlk said:


> This whole thread has been beaten to death.....
> 
> Yep, and you can compare the veiws with this to the difference between those of us who like to hunt grouse over a good dog and the guy who ground swats them on the 2 track... All legal but not necassarily agreed upon.


From your prospective Lance, I understand why you feel this thread has been beaten to death. If you had your way, we would be making rules based on cliches like A fish is to valuable to be caught only once or your famous scientific observation that trophy trout dont exist because bait dunkers crop them all off before they have a chance to get big.

I understand the frustration of you and guys like OH Yeah have because your arent catching the kind of fish you think you deserve to catch. It is much easier to blame lowly bait fishermen than it is to accept the fact that you have not learned enough about fishing to catch them yet. Add that to your moral indignity based on your ideology and it explains why you support exclusive rights and privileges to waters for yourself at the expense of the rest of us.


Many of us have invested years exploring, fishing and unlocking the secrets on these waters you and a small minority has now denied us from fishing, unless of course we accept your demand that we fish the way you want us to fish.

If a large majority of bait fishermen got together and pushed the DNR to ban fly fishing on any public waters, I would stand against that rule for the same reason I am against rules you support. And by the way, this playground logic that I must be for any rule if I oppose special rights for fly fishermen is pretty silly. Think about it!


----------



## fishinlk

> I understand the frustration of you and guys like OH Yeah have because your aren&#8217;t catching the kind of fish you think you deserve to catch. It is much easier to blame lowly bait fishermen than it is to accept the fact that you have not learned enough about fishing to catch them yet. Add that to your moral indignity based on your ideology and it explains why you support exclusive rights and privileges to waters for yourself at the expense of the rest of us.



OK Ray, JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE. I've not said anything in YEARS about bait dunkers specifically being the one's to crop at a certain size. What I had said it that that there number of larger fish gets reduced with most getting cropped off at smaller legal sizes(paraphrasing my statement). This applies to ANY method of catching. My view still stands on this one and modified size limits and creel limits are my prefereed answers. I think in over 30 years I've managed to learn a little something on the rivers up there and I do catch good fish. Heck you and I have been discussing stuff on here for OVER 10 years alone.... 

Don't paint me as a rookie that can't catch fish that's looking for a hand out of easy fish to back a desire for a change in regs. The fact is the regs for creel limits work on the streams with "gear restrictions" (NOTE I did not say fly only.....). Very good fisheries can be GREAT fisheries, what's wrong with that?


----------



## Splitshot

fishinlk said:


> OK Ray, JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE. I've not said anything in YEARS about bait dunkers specifically being the one's to crop at a certain size. What I had said it that that there number of larger fish gets reduced with most getting cropped off at smaller legal sizes(paraphrasing my statement). This applies to ANY method of catching. My view still stands on this one and modified size limits and creel limits are my prefereed answers. I think in over 30 years I've managed to learn a little something on the rivers up there and I do catch good fish. Heck you and I have been discussing stuff on here for OVER 10 years alone....
> 
> Don't paint me as a rookie that can't catch fish that's looking for a hand out of easy fish to back a desire for a change in regs. The fact is the regs for creel limits work on the streams with "gear restrictions" (NOTE I did not say fly only.....). Very good fisheries can be GREAT fisheries, what's wrong with that?



From the thread Is TU the real problem post 206 is you want the full context.


fishinlk said:


> .........................TURN THE PAGE FORWARD to the past couple years after some changes in size limits on the upper river. NOW the converations goes more like this from him: "I got 2 or 3 keepers and that was it, wish they wouldn't have changed the regs or I would have had my limit!". _*Now why do you think that is??? Could it be that the fish aren't being cropped off at 8" anymore?? *_Angling pressure DOES impact a stream and this delusion that some have about "not stock piling fish" and "avg. life expectancy is only 3 yrs so we should just keep them anyway" is just BS. So now we are seeing more fish reach a decent breeding size?? Maybe we could actually see more self sustaining fisheries?? The short sightedness of guys amazes me.


Lance, 

You are correct, you did not use the term bait dunkers in the post I was referring to as can be seen in the above quote. By the way, can you show me where I called you a rookie? I can see how you might draw that conclusion, just like I did with my bait dunker comment.

I started this thread to illustrate that gear restriction advocates are trying to justify bait restrictions by claiming lower creel limits along with gear restrictions are producing great fisheries. Below is a statement you made earlier this year Lance.



fishinlk said:


> .....Could it be that the fish aren't being cropped off at 8" anymore?? [/B][/I]Angling pressure DOES impact a stream and this delusion that some have about "not stock piling fish" and "avg. life expectancy is only 3 yrs so we should just keep them anyway" is just BS. So now we are seeing more fish reach a decent breeding size?? Maybe we could actually see more self sustaining fisheries?? The short sightedness of guys amazes me.


No one can argue that when one fish is removed from a stream there is an impact and as the angling pressure increases the impact increases. The problem with your anecdotal story about the old man and other conclusion that it is just BS that life expectancy is only 3 years you cant stockpile fish so we should just keep them are wrong.

The DNR trout biologists have stated; Shocking records and testing of thousands of trout in MI trout streams show extremely small numbers of fish over 3 years of age. It is therefore a fact that you cannot stockpile trout. Those biologists have stated after years of collecting data and study that angling pressure has no noticeable effect on out trout fisheries in Michigan.

The reason you are seeing more decent sized trout in Flies only waters (no data on gear restricted waters yet) is because most of us are not allowed to fish those waters unless we fish the way you demand we should fish and the fact that vast amounts of public money is being spent to improve the habitats of those protected waters.

You call us shortsighted because we want the same rights on public waters that you enjoy as a fly fisherman when you are the one trying to distort the facts to make it look as though our fight for equal rights infringes on you. 

Today you made this statement.


fishinlk said:


> ......The fact is the regs for creel limits work on the streams with "gear restrictions" (NOTE I did not say fly only.....). Very good fisheries can be GREAT fisheries, what's wrong with that?


The answer to Whats wrong with that? is; Apparently you know more than the DNR biologists who are on record stating the facts show that gear restrictions do not work and have been on record from the beginning saying they are just social regulations. 

Lance when are you going to address the real issue I keep raising that gear restrictions reduce pressure so you can enjoy a quality experience only by denying the rest of us from fishing some of our best public waters the way we like to fish? 

The reason I mentioned OH Yeah in my last post is because for the second time this week he has challenged me on this thread only to have those threads deleted. Whats up with that, could it be you are beginning to see how weak your arguments are? Really Oh Yeah, I have no hard feelings, and If you really want answers to the questions you raised, send me a PM and Ill answer them.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Splitshot, I don't really have much to do with this anti fly fishing website anymore. 

In my opinion, there is essentially no skill required to catch fish with bait. Organizations like the Indian Club use their financial and political clout to allow for catch and release waters so there is some effort to prevent those who don't have the self restraint to release trout to at least be legally required to do so on the best waters.

I know. You think that is tyrannical. Nothing is more tyrannical, however, than unsportingly using bait to catch and kill a trophy fish whose gene stock is then forever lost.

Ban me from this primarily anti fly fishing website. I don't care. I've made about $20,000 in the past couple of years from referrals from this site but I'd rather not have to endure the whining resentment that you and the rest of your anti fly fishing, anti catch and release followers have for those who believe in self restraint from killing trout. 

The Indian Club and Trout Unlimited will in my opinion always have more clout than you, your organization and your unenlightened "kill Em and grill Em" followers. Congratulations on being like the Ted Nugent of trout fishing. Like Ted Nugent, in my opinion, your influence is limited to being a blowhard.


----------



## fishinlk

Ray, your efforts to twist and turn never cease to amaze....



> By the way, can you show me where I called you a rookie?


That was strongly insinuated with this comment:


> It is much easier to blame lowly bait fishermen than it is to accept the fact that you have not learned enough about fishing to catch them yet


You're splitting hairs to defend it.




> The reason you are seeing more decent sized trout in Flies only waters (no data on gear restricted waters yet) is because most of us are not allowed to fish those waters unless we fish the way you demand we should fish and the fact that vast amounts of public money is being spent to improve the habitats of those protected waters.


Sorry charlie, You are ASSuming that I'm fishing flies only water. I am not, it's gear restricted water. It's probably been 4 or 5 years since I fished an FFO water in MI. AND YES the fishing has improved and you and that's the opinion of everyone I've spoken with that fishes the river, regardless of tackle. 

I don't think gear restrictions reduce angling pressure at all. In a lot of cases it increases it. The key is the creel restrictions and that it helps the stream hold up better to the high traffic it receives. It's nothing to do with "reducing angling pressure to create a quality experience" as you try to paint this whole picture. Increased angling pressure does not have to result in decreased quality of fishing. You can permit limited harvest and maintain the quality experience. Some of your favorite waters would not hold up as well as they do if they had the fishing traffic of the Ausable or Manistee and people kept fish out of the the way you suggest people should be able to.


The two following quotes of the opionins negate one another on your stance on the success or failure of gear/creel restrictions.



> Apparently you know more than the DNR biologists who are on record stating the facts show that gear restrictions do not work and have been on record from the beginning saying they are just social regulations.





> The reason you are seeing more decent sized trout in Flies only waters *(no data on gear restricted waters yet)* is


So to me this is nothing more than other "OPINIONS" on the subject that are no better than mine or any of those of other fisherman that I've spoken to that fish these recently changed waters over the past 5 years. 

The guys I hang with up there have been fishing the river for much, much, much longer than the 38 years I've been fishing up there_ and to a man _they will say that the fishing has improved as the regulations have changed including the most recent changes. These are guys that like trout for breakfast too. These guys catch good fish. Back when it was open water and now that it's gear restricted... makes no difference.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

FUNNY HOW THIS VERY WEBSITE HAS AN ARTICLE LAUDING THE GEAR RESTRICTIONS ON THE LITTLE MANISTEE SO HATED BY SPLITSHOT

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/logs/little_manistee.htm

From that article:

The Little Manistee river may be smaller than it's big brother, but it should not be ignored by anyone "out for trout".

Between Spencer and Johnson's bridges the water has been designated as flies only with special creel and size limits as well. My fishing has been limited exclusively to this area and the special restrictions keep the fish population at levels where fun can be had almost any night.


----------



## Trout King

fishinlk said:


> Ray, your efforts to twist and turn never cease to amaze....
> 
> 
> 
> That was strongly insinuated with this comment:
> 
> You're splitting hairs to defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry charlie, You are ASSuming that I'm fishing flies only water. I am not, it's gear restricted water. It's probably been 4 or 5 years since I fished an FFO water in MI. AND YES the fishing has improved and you and that's the opinion of everyone I've spoken with that fishes the river, regardless of tackle.
> Prove it is better....biological studies seem to disagree.
> 
> I don't think gear restrictions reduce angling pressure at all. In a lot of cases it increases it. The key is the creel restrictions and that it helps the stream hold up better to the high traffic it receives. It's nothing to do with "reducing angling pressure to create a quality experience" as you try to paint this whole picture. Increased angling pressure does not have to result in decreased quality of fishing. You can permit limited harvest and maintain the quality experience. Some of your favorite waters would not hold up as well as they do if they had the fishing traffic of the Ausable or Manistee and people kept fish out of the the way you suggest people should be able to.
> 
> 
> The two following quotes of the opionins negate one another on your stance on the success or failure of gear/creel restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to me this is nothing more than other "OPINIONS" on the subject that are no better than mine or any of those of other fisherman that I've spoken to that fish these recently changed waters over the past 5 years.
> 
> The guys I hang with up there have been fishing the river for much, much, much longer than the 38 years I've been fishing up there_ and to a man _they will say that the fishing has improved as the regulations have changed including the most recent changes. These are guys that like trout for breakfast too. These guys catch good fish. Back when it was open water and now that it's gear restricted... makes no difference.


Prove gr water is better....biology seems to disagree.


----------



## Trout King

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> FUNNY HOW THIS VERY WEBSITE HAS AN ARTICLE LAUDING THE GEAR RESTRICTIONS ON THE LITTLE MANISTEE SO HATED BY SPLITSHOT
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/logs/little_manistee.htm
> 
> From that article:
> 
> The Little Manistee river may be smaller than it's big brother, but it should not be ignored by anyone "out for trout".
> 
> Between Spencer and Johnson's bridges the water has been designated as flies only with special creel and size limits as well. My fishing has been limited exclusively to this area and the special restrictions keep the fish population at levels where fun can be had almost any night.


Not biologically sound. Ive caught more trophy and more trout in MI than I can count in unrestricted water. Its the persob w the rod not the water. Not to mention the best habitat in mi is now gr. Good job catching fish out of a ranch (same as deer hunting) lol. You should br proud thinking you need special privelages in order to catch a fish.


----------



## Trout King

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Splitshot, I don't really have much to do with this anti fly fishing website anymore.
> 
> In my opinion, there is essentially no skill required to catch fish with bait. Organizations like the Indian Club use their financial and political clout to allow for catch and release waters so there is some effort to prevent those who don't have the self restraint to release trout to at least be legally required to do so on the best waters.
> 
> I know. You think that is tyrannical. Nothing is more tyrannical, however, than unsportingly using bait to catch and kill a trophy fish whose gene stock is then forever lost.
> 
> Ban me from this primarily anti fly fishing website. I don't care. I've made about $20,000 in the past couple of years from referrals from this site but I'd rather not have to endure the whining resentment that you and the rest of your anti fly fishing, anti catch and release followers have for those who believe in self restraint from killing trout.
> 
> The Indian Club and Trout Unlimited will in my opinion always have more clout than you, your organization and your unenlightened "kill Em and grill Em" followers. Congratulations on being like the Ted Nugent of trout fishing. Like Ted Nugent, in my opinion, your influence is limited to being a blowhard.


You want to be banned...again? Btw fly fishing takes about the same skill as bait or hardware. If you don't think so ill lay down 1000 bucks and challenge you to a fly/bait/hardware tournament. 500 for most inches 500 for most fish. Btw I do know how to fly fish...it is not any more challenging to catch fish w my fly rod imo


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Alex, 

I don't view fishing as the competitive sport you apparently do and would never spend a day in your presence. That's why catch and release laws exist because not everyone has to self validate by dragging home a stringer of dead trout. Also, aren't you raising a small child? You'd be better off paying down your student loan or setting up a college fund for your child than betting $1,000. Like I said, though, some people don't have self restraint. 

Instead of wagering $1,000 in a childish "fish off", I'm going to pay the $1,250 to join Trout Unlimited as a lifetime member to do my part to protect and preserve coldwater fisheries. 

You should check out www.tu.org ; they're actually actively working to preserve and enhance trout fishing across North America. Splitshot's group is doing no such thing. Who is at the forefront of www.savebristolbay.org ? Trout Unlimited, commercial fishing and the fly fishing based guides of SW Alaska. There is no bait fishing ethos of conservation and that's reflected by this Gear Restrictions forum.


----------



## fishinlk

> *Trout King *wrote: Prove gr water is better....biology seems to disagree. ]


 Not yet it doesn't even splitshot said:



> (no data on gear restricted waters yet)


You'e jumping the gun.


----------



## Trout King

Actually the data from previous studies, including the PM does show that fo no kill makes the size/polulation no better (I would link it but I am on my phone).

Paul,
I only threw the wager out there because I knew you would decline, but mostly to draw a reaction, which you continue to show your true colors. I am happy you are concerned with my finances. My son is now 3, I own my own house along with 40 acres, am ahead in my student loans, and have ample savings. 
TU does and has done good things, unfortunately too many guys like you have signed on. Fishing is not a competition for me either. I do not need to kill fish and I release far more trout than I keep. What is wrong in your opinion with killing trout? I am sure it is a selfish reason if you were truthful. If you knew me you would know I am far from anti-flyfishing. I am anti GR though. I am also interested in knowing why fly fishing is iyo is far superior? Be truthful...
One more thing, you wouldn't want to spend a day with me? Why? Is it because we disagree on issues online? Do you know me personally? Why did you attempt to befriend me on facebook not too long ago? 
Ok Paul, dig deep down and if you could answer many of my questions honestly I would be amused by the answers I am sure. 

Ps bringing up someones personal life (which you failed at your attempted attack) in a debate or on a forum is very "childish".


----------



## fishinlk

Except I wasn't talking about no kill. 

The discussion was trout populations in FFO versus gear restricted waters. 

I'm not arguing that there are not large fish in the open reg waters, the point is that it can be better with the "right" regs in place. The criteria/need for how the regs are applied would be directly related to the pressure the river receives. A river with high pressure/traffic will require more protection. The idea isn't to reduce anglers but to maintain a stable thriving population of fish with a good age/size structure. Too many fish being caught and kept can reduce the quality of fish available. 

Pretty straight forward.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Trout King said:


> Actually the data from previous studies, including the PM does show that fo no kill makes the size/polulation no better (I would link it but I am on my phone).
> 
> Paul,
> I only threw the wager out there because I knew you would decline, but mostly to draw a reaction, which you continue to show your true colors. I am happy you are concerned with my finances. My son is now 3, I own my own house along with 40 acres, am ahead in my student loans, and have ample savings.
> TU does and has done good things, unfortunately too many guys like you have signed on. Fishing is not a competition for me either. I do not need to kill fish and I release far more trout than I keep. What is wrong in your opinion with killing trout? I am sure it is a selfish reason if you were truthful. If you knew me you would know I am far from anti-flyfishing. I am anti GR though. I am also interested in knowing why fly fishing is iyo is far superior? Be truthful...
> One more thing, you wouldn't want to spend a day with me? Why? Is it because we disagree on issues online? Do you know me personally? Why did you attempt to befriend me on facebook not too long ago?
> Ok Paul, dig deep down and if you could answer many of my questions honestly I would be amused by the answers I am sure.
> 
> Ps bringing up someones personal life (which you failed at your attempted attack) in a debate or on a forum is very "childish".


Hi Alex,

You're the one taking the personal swings. I was offering advice. I don't know any sensible people who would wager $1,000 on an internet chat room, especially anyone raising a 3 year old.

As for the glfsa, it does zero to promote conservation and does zero to enhance stream conditions.

You're right. Other than knowing that you are quite strident in your posts about your catching and killing of trout and the fact that killing steelhead for spawn to use as catfish bait is something you bragged about last year, I don't know much about you. Some time ago you posted your Facebook page information and asked people to look at your page when you were talking about getting engaged to a girl who you thought is going to be a great step mom to your 3 year old son. I did send you a Facebook friends request thinking that would be a way to get to know you better. I have gotten to know several other MS members better through Facebook. However, just as you have stated that you think I should be banned from MS for opposing the catch and kill everywhere goals of the glfsa, you also declined the Facebook friends request which was my attempt to see if there was more to you than your being a perpetual braggart. Based on what I have seen in your self absorbed posts on MS, I suspect that a day on the water with you would be as tiresome as Splitshot's broken record opposition to the conservation reflected by catch & release waters.

In my opinion, you would be better served to become active and involved with Trout Unlimited than the glfsa. TU is actually working to improve the quality of trout fishing in Michigan and in North America. The same cannot be said of Splitshot's group. 

Anyway, I am obviously not exercising self restraint by wasting time in this anti conservation, anti "Gear Restrictions" forum.

Here's the thread where you posted your FB page. I say this in all sincerity - I hope the engagement worked out for you because there is nothing better than having a spouse who works with you to make both of your dreams come true. I wouldn't have been able to achieve what I have done in the past 5 years without my wife's tremendous help and support. 

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=436483


----------



## Trout King

Paul,
The fact is if I met you on the river I'm sure each of us would be cordial, and probably even be able to have a nice chat. I have no quelms with fly fishing. I haven't done it in a few years, but I do have some experience. 
As for me being a braggart I honestly say I do not undrrstand. I haven't posted a report in over a year on trout fishing. I choose to show my pictures on facebookc where my friends can se them. If you could point me to a post where I was bragging please do. Yes spawn is the most effective catfish bait, but I would never solely harvest a steelhead just for eggs. I prefer adiposed fish to catfish, but neither are more "special" than the other. Most of my comments in those battles was to prove emotions some have overpower common sense and are the basis for rediculous arguments. Clearly it still striking an emotion. I suppose we just don't see eye to eye, but that doesn't mean I look down my nose at you as a person. I am sure if we ever meet on the river it will probably be a nice chat.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Trout King said:


> Paul,
> The fact is if I met you on the river I'm sure each of us would be cordial, and probably even be able to have a nice chat. I have no quelms with fly fishing. I haven't done it in a few years, but I do have some experience.
> As for me being a braggart I honestly say I do not undrrstand. I haven't posted a report in over a year on trout fishing. I choose to show my pictures on facebookc where my friends can se them. If you could point me to a post where I was bragging please do. Yes spawn is the most effective catfish bait, but I would never solely harvest a steelhead just for eggs. I prefer adiposed fish to catfish, but neither are more "special" than the other. Most of my comments in those battles was to prove emotions some have overpower common sense and are the basis for rediculous arguments. Clearly it still striking an emotion. I suppose we just don't see eye to eye, but that doesn't mean I look down my nose at you as a person. I am sure if we ever meet on the river it will probably be a nice chat.


Alex, best wishes to you. I don't get out too much but if you see a tall, pasty looking guy in a Patagonia vest and a yellow baseball hat with a sockeye salmon on it(my lucky hat) fly fishing the White, Little Manistee or PM, chances are that's me. Please say hi. 

Tight lines.


----------



## Trout King

I will be on the pm tomorrow just below the gr water at upper branch feel free to come fish. Im sure we could have an interesting debate and fun fishing. I will probably be bait fishing (a rarity for me on trout).


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Trout King said:


> I will be on the pm tomorrow just below the gr water at upper branch feel free to come fish. Im sure we could have an interesting debate and fun fishing. I will probably be bait fishing (a rarity for me on trout).


I have a bunch of appointments tomorrow but appreciate the offer very much.

I fished Muskegon Lake with a friend on Friday and threw everything from bass popper flies to half ounce Little Cleos with only a white perch and an 8 lb sheephead to show for 5 hours on the water. My friend is from South Carolina and kept the sheephead that I caught. He was convinced that because it's a drum, it must be as delicious as the drum he catches back home. I have to ask him if it was any good because that reasoning seems plausible but is contrary to everything I was told about sheephead. :lol:

A day on the PM actually catching game fish, with worms or whatever, would be a nice change.


----------



## Trout King

fishinlk said:


> Except I wasn't talking about no kill.
> 
> The discussion was trout populations in FFO versus gear restricted waters.
> 
> I'm not arguing that there are not large fish in the open reg waters, the point is that it can be better with the "right" regs in place. The criteria/need for how the regs are applied would be directly related to the pressure the river receives. A river with high pressure/traffic will require more protection. The idea isn't to reduce anglers but to maintain a stable thriving population of fish with a good age/size structure. Too many fish being caught and kept can reduce the quality of fish available.
> 
> Pretty straight forward.


I don't necessarily agree with that. With appriximately 50% mortality each year there is no way to grow and retain a big population of large fish. In my studies on fisheries the best example I can give is a pyramid. Large fish on top working the way down. If a large fish istaken It wikk be gone until the next year, but due to comcompetition being gone another fish will survive to take its place. Each year the pyramid has different fish, but ultimately stays the same.


----------



## mondrella

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Splitshot, I don't really have much to do with this anti fly fishing website anymore.
> 
> In my opinion, there is essentially no skill required to catch fish with bait. Organizations like the Indian Club use their financial and political clout to allow for catch and release waters so there is some effort to prevent those who don't have the self restraint to release trout to at least be legally required to do so on the best waters.
> 
> I know. You think that is tyrannical. Nothing is more tyrannical, however, than unsportingly using bait to catch and kill a trophy fish whose gene stock is then forever lost.
> 
> Ban me from this primarily anti fly fishing website. I don't care. I've made about $20,000 in the past couple of years from referrals from this site but I'd rather not have to endure the whining resentment that you and the rest of your anti fly fishing, anti catch and release followers have for those who believe in self restraint from killing trout.
> 
> The Indian Club and Trout Unlimited will in my opinion always have more clout than you, your organization and your unenlightened "kill Em and grill Em" followers. Congratulations on being like the Ted Nugent of trout fishing. Like Ted Nugent, in my opinion, your influence is limited to being a blowhard.


Have you bait fished? By your comments it surely seems like you do not have a clue. As a fisherman who fishes all methods from bait to fly and everything in between it sounds like you don't. I use to enjoy mousing tremendously. Then I had a enlightening moment. One afternoon on the lake. I went to a river I often moused and found a deadly method that I have not seen or heard of another person doing. I cut my teeth trout fishing hardware then fly. Now trying to master bait fishing. It is not as easy as you make it sound. In fact it is a true art to make bait fishing as deadly as you and some others make it sound. I have watched numerous bait fisherman struggle to catch trout. While I was having a decent day at catching fish. It is all about the finer adjustments most miss including fly fisherman. Constant adjustment is needed to be successful at catching fish. 
This over protection of trout is not doing the fishing community any good. In the great lakes region people fishing trout are declining. This is not a good thing. Trout are a renewable resource.
I don't agree at all that the restrictions on these waters have improved the fisheries they are on. It is the habitat improvements that have done the things to create the bigger and more fish that exist. I know of two streams on the top of my head that if 1/3 the money spent on the fly only water of pm seen in habitat improvement there would be more and larger fish than the PM ever could produce. Why??? It has THE LITTLE THINGS needed to grow big trout that most do not realize are needed. Improved cover and gravel instead of the couple dozen 24+ trout I know these waters give up each year it would be in dozens upon dozens of them with a couple dozen 30" fish instead of the 1 or 2 that show up a year. It is habitat that creates trophy trout. I have spent a lot of time studying trout and their make up to be a better trout fisherman. I have never hired a guide to fish with though I could easily afford to do so. Instead I put the effort into experimenting at what works to put a bend in a rod. At times it is bait.Hardware will always give me a couple fine fish. The fly has its time and place. A real fisherman knows when to use what to catch a fish. If it was not about catching fish when fishing you should get the same enjoyment casting in the yard dropping your fly in a coffee cup.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Mondrella, there are many monster browns to be had in the flies water. They don't come easy and fall mainly to night time fishing such as the hex or to mousing.

Gear restrictions are working on the PM and on the Holy Waters. Those trophy waters keep people coming back year after year.

You glfsa guys say the science favors killing fish yet you never offer any science to back up that claim. You also ignored the point that the glfsa does zero with respect to fishery enhancement and improvement while Trout Unlimited is championing trout stream preservation & improvement.

Essentially your group feels that fisheries management is against the public trust while failing to concede that all trout fishing in the lower peninsula was artificially created. If the fishery was artificially created, which it was through the stocking of rainbows and brown trout (and I believe that brook trout were not native to the lower peninsula), then it should be managed by the State. That is what gear regulation achieves.

Your group should hire lawyers to sue to get gear restrictions thrown out. I am pretty sure that if that case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court it would be found that there is a rational basis for the gear restrictions and that they do not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. However, unlike Trout Unlimited, the glfsa isn't actually raising money to achieve their objectives. It's just a lot of complaining.

So, you guys can hire Constitutional Law attorneys and challenge the existing regulations as being "discriminatory" which would for purposes of litigation boil down to an Equal Protection challenge. Or, instead, y'all can just endlessly complain about them in here.

I suspect that it would cost about $100,000 in attorney fees to judicially challenge the law to whichever court renders final judgment after appeals have been extinguished. Have at it...


----------



## wintrrun

MS is an anti flyfishing site?
You always got the drake message board romper room, oh yeah. 

Sent from my LG-LG855 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## mondrella

I never said there was not big trout in the gr waters. There always has been. Even before the regs were put in place. The numbers and studies recently done on the pm don't lie. There was multiple of control rivers in this study. All type 1 waters. The study shows the odds of catching a large trout are actually better on one of these rivers. Please name one trout stream section open to all methods of fishing that mile for mile has had the same public monies dollar for dollar spent to improve habitat as the Ausable or pm. 
Glfsa is a infant organization yet. There have been no dues required to join. Last year there was a river cleanup on the pm. I even had my four children there. The small section of bank we covered produced 2 garbage bags of trash. Like any new group it takes time and education of the public so concerns this group addresses now and in the future have public backing. As of now this group is functioning solely on volunteers. Personally I would like to see that path stay the course. Thus hopefully adding to its credentials in the future as looking out for the public interest. TU did not become the power it us today over night neither did the IBEW but both are here to stay and have a voice that is heard.
I know first hand what kind of fish the pm holds. You all think the fly water holds the largest trout. You just keep thinking that. I will admit it holds great numbers of respectable fish. For a hog brown I will fish elsewhere. I will go longer between fish but the odds its bigger than any in the fly water is to great to of odds to bet against.


----------



## Boozer

When you say public money was spent on the Holy Waters and or PM...

Are you talking about habitat improvements to the surrounding areas or specifically money spent on the river itself to increase Trout habitat?

Is there any studies regarding number of users to those watersheds "not just anglers" in comparison to other watersheds and a comparison of how much public money was spent per visitor in comparison to other watersheds?

The reason I ask this is, if the MDNR split up money by enhancing the areas which see the most recreational use, wouldn't that make pretty good sense?


----------



## MERGANZER

I find it laughable when people say bait fishing requires no skill. From tiny brookie streams to large rivers there is skill required when using bait. You have to read the water and get the bait to where the fish are. You have to get it under the logs where the broookies are holed up etc. I have seen many people "bait" fishing that were completely inept and left the stream very frustrated after tying hook after hook after hook on cause they couldn't avoid the snags and brush. All methods of fishing require a certainn level of skill and all fishermen fish for different reasons. I enjoy lures, bait and flies. They are all a great deal of fun but it depends on what I want out of the fishing that day. Do I want to cover water fast? Then I take spinners. Do I want want to enjoy watching the fish rise? Then flies it is. Do I want to take my time and and hunt for the trout? Then it is crawlers and an aberdeen hook. All in what you want that day.

Ganzer


----------



## toto

boozer, I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but if I'm right you are asking if the DNR should spread out the public funds. In answer to that, yes they should. As for where it is spent it should depend on the intended use or rather what the money will be spent on. For example, a few years ago a grant of $300,000 was issued for flying in trees for the flies only waters on the Ausable branches. TU and the DNR applied for this grant, which on the surface is a good thing, however where did that grant money come from? It's public money. No different than if the DNR themselves paid for habitat improvement, bank erosion measures, or anything of that ilk, it's public money. My argument would be, if you are using public funds, than it should be for any waters that need assistance whether it's the above instances, or whatever. Now I'm sure the argument will be, "well TU applied for the grant they should decide where this work is done", maybe, maybe not. IF TU is trully a cold water habitat restoration group, then why is the money being spent in only flies only waters, or bait restricted waters? To me that smacks in the face of hypocrisy. That isn't to say that TU hasn't done things for other waters too, but not that much. In fact, I am of the opinion that no trout should be stocked into gear restricted waters of Michigan, period. It is public funds that pays for these fish, and it should only be spent on all inclusive areas. 

As a case in point, in Virginia there was a case where property owners sued so that people couldn't fish a two miles stretch of the Jackson River. This case is a little different due to how the Virginia laws are written concerning high water marks, in fact they use low water marks and therefore the courts found they had the right to stop people from fishing that stretch. Anyways, prior to that, the Virginia DNR would stock trout in that river, but once that happened, they stopped, which they should. If the GENERAL PUBLIC does not have the right to use these waters, then public funds should dry up. 

Having said all that, and assuming I am right on your question, public funds should be spread out evenly wherever it is needed.


----------



## Splitshot

Lance,

I wasnt trying to twist your words, and I concur with the inconsistency of the two of my quotes you highlighted in your post.


fishinlk said:


> So to me this is nothing more than other "OPINIONS" on the subject that are no better than mine or any of those of other fisherman that I've spoken to that fish these recently changed waters over the past 5 years.


If we were basing rules on experience and opinions, I have much more experience than you and probably the other guys you wrote about as well. My opinions along with the opinions of fishermen you know or I know are based on observations that may be valid and useful, but not based on science so not proven valid in fact.
We can ask a hundred fishermen and get a hundred different opinions, but the best information comes from the people who are trained, obligated and responsible for managing our fish and wildlife for the optimum use of all of the citizens of Michigan.

Those experts are on record saying that bait restrictions have no noticeable effect on our fishery. So if my choice is your opinion or the experts opinion, guess who Im going to support? The chief of fishery is on record stating that bait restrictions are not based on biology but on social considerations. They have documented that these restrictions reduce participation. In the end, I base my objections on the established scientific DNR studies as well as the Public Trust Doctrine, the DNR mission statement and the new PA 21. 

The DNR also sets creel limits and size limits based on science and a conservative estimate of excess fish. In all the bait restricted waters size and creel limits were determined by social politics. and in 2000 when the limit for trout was reduced from 10 to 5 it was based again on social political pressure.

In the end your opinion that reducing creel limits, increased size limits and bait restrictions conflict with the best available science, not my opinions. Myself and members of the GLFSA support rules based on our DNR biologists, fairness and the law.

Lance, why have you never address the discrimination issue and why people like me should not be able to fish some of the best public waters the way we chose like you do? It seems you justify these discriminatory bait restrictions because you believe it will improve the fishery. 



fishinlk said:


> ..............I'm not arguing that there are not large fish in the open reg waters, the point is that it can be better with the "right" regs in place. The criteria/need for how the regs are applied would be directly related to the pressure the river receives. A river with high pressure/traffic will require more protection. The idea isn't to reduce anglers but to maintain a stable thriving population of fish with a good age/size structure. Too many fish being caught and kept can reduce the quality of fish available.
> Pretty straight forward.


Im assuming that No Kill and bait restrictions are right regulations in your opinion even if some people will be locked out. Who gets to make the subjective decision when the pressure is to high? The way we see it is everyone should get an equal chance to fish and when the pressure get to high it will stabilize on its own. If harvest is allowed, the easy fish get taken out first and as many of the other fish become educated they will become more difficult to catch and fishermen will seek other places to fish. It has always been that way. In the end keeping people out through discriminatory restrictive rules is not acceptable, moral or legal and according to the experts doesnt work anyway.

OH YEAH!!!,

Clearly you have some deep feelings about these issues, but to be clear, I have never sought to have you banned. I dont feel there is any point in responding to your vitiate, scornful personal attacks but if you ever want an honest debate based on facts, I would be happy to engage.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Splitshot, 

Why don't you invest in a legal battle to champion your cause? 

Because your side doesn't have the facts or law to prevail in overturning the "flies only" laws as being "discriminatory" as you claim? 

Start a PAC and have your supporters like Mondrella, Trout King, Wartfroggy, Merganzer, toto, Roger That, etc. contribute to the PAC. You might be able to retain a lawyer for $10,000 or less to handle the case in the trial court. 

Maybe your side will win. 

Otherwise, I see the glfsa as little more than a broken record. You think you're on the winning side and you want to prove your case? Then take it to court to have the "discriminatory" gear restriction laws judicially abrogated. Otherwise, all you're doing in my opinion is whining without taking any real action to effect change.


----------



## Waz_51

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Splitshot,
> 
> Why don't you invest in a legal battle to champion your cause?
> 
> Because your side doesn't have the facts or law to prevail in overturning the "flies only" laws as being "discriminatory" as you claim?
> 
> Start a PAC and have your supporters like Mondrella, Trout King, Wartfroggy, Merganzer, toto, Roger That, etc. contribute to the PAC. You might be able to retain a lawyer for $10,000 or less to handle the case in the trial court.
> 
> Maybe your side will win.
> 
> Otherwise, I see the glfsa as little more than a broken record. You think you're on the winning side and you want to prove your case? Then take it to court to have the "discriminatory" gear restriction laws judicially abrogated. Otherwise, all you're doing in my opinion is whining without taking any real action to effect change.


You might wanna be careful what you wish for! I have nothing against fly fisherman at all but to act like your form of fishing is somehow superior to any other is simply laughable, at best...fishing is fishing no matter how you do it!


----------



## Waz_51

And if anybody thinks that there should be fly only sections of certain rivers or streams, there should be an equal amount of comparable stream/river for bait/lure fisherman only!


----------



## Jimbos

Waz_51 said:


> And if anybody thinks that there should be fly only sections of certain rivers or streams, there should be an equal amount of comparable stream/river for bait/lure fisherman only!


It's all an extension of the me, me, me, society, and really it's very sad seeing that it encompasses a sport that provides an outlet to the hustle and bustle of everyday life.

4-5 years a go I had to give up fishing areas that had turned into combat fishing and the all for me mentality for a more leisurely pursuit and mindset of if I catch a couple, nice, if I get skunked then it's "wow, look at the sunrise". Getting "mine" is no longer important, and I've learned to avoid the crowds.

What completely sickened me and was the final straw was a tournament boat almost running over a father and son getting back to a weigh in. It opened my eyes.

These constant arguments amongst fishermen and hunters is so very sad.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Jimbos said:


> These constant arguments amongst fishermen and hunters is so very sad.


That pretty much sums it all up....


----------



## fishinlk

So Ray....... 
- 
I spoke the the tenure of the guys I'm fishing with that you wrote off that they likely didn't have your experience.

- 
I point out that I'm not the Fly Only poster child that you keep trying to paint me as to keep fueling the backing for the gear restrictions fight

- 
I restate my stance on the benifits of creel restrictions after you acknowledge that the you mispoke on the fact that the studies aren't in yet on the success of the size creel restrictions(not talking C+R just just size and numbers)

- 
*LASTLY -* I clearly spell out my my stance on the "discrimination issue" that you throw up stating that I've not spoken to in the past.(and while I've gone on the record here and now AGAIN I'm sure you'll throw up in the future  ) Providing a very clear analagy in terms of other rules that we all abide by and nobody considers discrimination.


Ray,
After all of this I hear nothing but crickets..... no acknowledgment of my providing the answers that you asked for or anything....... I post something that to me gave you exactly the answers and clarification that you asked for. I would have thought that I at least deserved an acknowledgement, even if it's not what you wanted to hear and debunked some of the peices that you keep trying to paint on me and those that I associate with......

I guess my analogy of the discimination was too accurate with the application of mainstream society rules that you don't want to see it hand around as it may damage your arguments on gear restrictions as it pertains to "artificials only".


----------



## fishinlk

> It is funny how gear restrictions are placed on the most wadable streams in Michigan. I know its hard to believe, but these two sections of water have alsways been "trophy" waters without restrictions, heck make sure you include the Mason Tract as well.


 Probably because the most wadeable waters are the ones that get the most traffic and in turn need the most protection...... In the past tighter creel limits were always tied to FFO water, with the addition of artificals only it give the MDNR more tools to use with out limiting it to fly fishing. Seems easy enough and you can use the Rapalas or spinners or what ever.... My daughter caught her first wild trout in the Manistee on a sassy shad when she was 6..... worked out just fine.. She's 14 now and loves wading for trout and she didn't loose interest because she didn't bring home a stringer of fish and I've never had to deal with gut hooked fish because of fishing for trout with worms when she wouldn't have had the skills to do it properly.  It's all about how the adults develop the expectations for their children.


----------



## Splitshot

fishinlk said:


> So Ray.......
> -
> I spoke the the tenure of the guys I'm fishing with that you wrote off that they likely didn't have your experience.
> 
> -
> I point out that I'm not the Fly Only poster child that you keep trying to paint me as to keep fueling the backing for the gear restrictions fight
> 
> -
> I restate my stance on the benifits of creel restrictions after you acknowledge that the you mispoke on the fact that the studies aren't in yet on the success of the size creel restrictions(not talking C+R just just size and numbers)
> 
> -
> *LASTLY -* I clearly spell out my my stance on the "discrimination issue" that you throw up stating that I've not spoken to in the past.(and while I've gone on the record here and now AGAIN I'm sure you'll throw up in the future  ) Providing a very clear analagy in terms of other rules that we all abide by and nobody considers discrimination.
> 
> 
> Ray,
> After all of this I hear nothing but crickets..... no acknowledgment of my providing the answers that you asked for or anything....... I post something that to me gave you exactly the answers and clarification that you asked for. I would have thought that I at least deserved an acknowledgement, even if it's not what you wanted to hear and debunked some of the peices that you keep trying to paint on me and those that I associate with......
> 
> I guess my analogy of the discimination was too accurate with the application of mainstream society rules that you don't want to see it hand around as it may damage your arguments on gear restrictions as it pertains to "artificials only".


Your friends experience. Irrelevant! My experience. Irrelevant! The fact that you are not just a fly fisherman. Irrelevant! 

Your conclusion that flies only water rules are not discriminatory because I am not denied access as long as I use a fly cannot be reconciled with the definition of discrimination.
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. 

Group 1. Fly fishermen. Group 2. Bait fishermen. Fly fishermen are able to fish all public waters the way they prefer. Bait fishermen are not allowed to fish many miles of those same waters the way they prefer.

Because there is no scientific imperative to restrict bait from being used in those public waters under the Public Trust Doctrine it is not allowed. Even the state does not have the authority to make rules if the rule simply limits public participation because it violates the obligation to protect the interest of all its citizens.

Creating a trophy fishery is not protecting our fishery from its demise, and it is certainly not a justification for limiting my rights to fish the way I prefer or the rights of any other citizen from using other legally acceptable methods.

All the data made public by our MDNR biologist show that the fishery in all the flies only waters studied over the years have changed little when compared to waters open to all legal fishing methods. The scientific conclusion of our MDNR field biologists is legal sport fishing has little if any effect on our trout fishery. No noticeable effect is the way they described it in the reports they submitted to fishery chief Kelly Smith. Dr. Smith ignored the recommendations of his field staff because of political pressure in answer to my direct question that was witnessed.

Most people who go trout fishing want to catch trout. Many people will not fish flies only waters because they are smart enough to realize that using a fly with a bubble and a spinning rod are not likely to help them reach their expectations. Many people will not fish no kill waters because they like to eat trout and since the rule doesnt allow them to kill the trout they catch they stay away. These rules clearly limit participation even if people chose themselves.

I have addressed these points many times before, so now that I havent rushed to my computer to redress them again, you wrongly assume your analogy of the discrimination was too accurate and I must not have an answer to your analogy. Allowing artificial lures is no different than just allowing flies as they both discriminate against bait fishermen.

If you want to believe rules that take away the rights of many fishermen can be justified because those restrictive rules will result in a few more big trout or because they dont restrict participation of Michigan citizens, Im sure by now nothing I can say will change your thinking. I find the fact that you once agreed with me about flies only, yet somehow allowing other artificial lures is somehow different, and is difficult for a logical person to reconcile. The heart wants what the heart wants.

If it is okay to mandate the use of a fly on public waters and a fly is a piece of equipment, why not mandate the use of other equipment designed exclusively for fly fishing. If you accept that rule, why not allow only high end fly fishing equipment. At what point would you decide the rule was discriminatory, or would you ever? Based on your definition no discrimination exists because all you would have to do is purchase an i.e. Orvis bamboo rod or other approved gear to qualify for admission to fish these public waters. 



fishinlk said:


> Probably because the most wadeable waters are the ones that get the most traffic and in turn need the most protection...... In the past tighter creel limits were always tied to FFO water, with the addition of artificals only it give the MDNR more tools to use with out limiting it to fly fishing. Seems easy enough and you can use the Rapalas or spinners or what ever.... My daughter caught her first wild trout in the Manistee on a sassy shad when she was 6..... worked out just fine.. She's 14 now and loves wading for trout and she didn't loose interest because she didn't bring home a stringer of fish and I've never had to deal with gut hooked fish because of fishing for trout with worms when she wouldn't have had the skills to do it properly.  It's all about how the adults develop the expectations for their children.


You state your conclusion as if it were a fact! Where did anyone ever conclude that the most wadeable water gets the most traffic and in turn needs the most protection. If it is true that the flies only waters get fished often, how do you conclude it is because it is the most wadeable. I say it is because the businesses like the Gates Lodge, are pimping out the Au sable in every fly magazine they can. If your statement were true, why are the flies only waters of the LM lightly fished? Those waters are very wadeable and in my opinion better fishing than the Au sable and I believe supported by shocking data which can be found on the MDNR web-site if you choose to look for it. Between my wife and I we have seen only one pair of fishermen where we live all year.



fishinlk said:


> .....It's all about how the adults develop the expectations for their children.


 If only everyone would see the world like you Lance , the world would be such a better place! Wow!


----------



## Benzie Rover

beer and nuts said:


> It is funny how gear restrictions are placed on the most wadable streams in Michigan. I know its hard to believe, but these two sections of water have alsways been "trophy" waters without restrictions, heck make sure you include the Mason Tract as well.
> 
> While most compare the "worm" fishing to the "fly" fishing...can we start to include the spinner and rapala fishin into the equation...Oh Yeah...have you ever fished these two type of lures....no doubt in my mind accruate casting to be productive of rapalas is 2x hard than fly fishing. I frankly look at fly fisherman, fising restricted waters as fisherman that can't throw lures!:lol:


Wadable streams - you've clearly never smallmouth fished the Chippewa or Pine rivers - in terms of wadable streams, not much better than those and they are great fisheries. The list of wadable trout streams goes on and on as well. Most of the entire platte and betsie systems are just as 'wadable' as the PM fly-only, when you know where to go. This is simply not a good arguement. 

Lure fishing - I completely agree, this is a skill and does take talent, but not more than fly fishing effectively. I make my own spinners and that can be fun from time to time. A good lure fisherman will out fish all other strategies for average size, but nothing will beat crawlers or spawn for numbers of trout, if that's your goal. Bait will always rule. Period. 

I fly fish because it's the most enjoyable way to catch fish IMO, but I can bounce a floater bag, back troll a hot-n-tot or swing a panther martin with the best of 'em son!


----------



## Benzie Rover

Ranger Ray said:


> You have preservation confused with conservation. Most ideologues do. We are for the DNR biologists using sound science and the PTD to manage our game. Its simple, and its law.


Ray - It is you that has misinterpreted conservation and preservation of resources. Preservationists are not fly fisherman, or fisherman of any sort. True preservation management prohibits recreational activities that impact the resource it intends to preserve. Fly fishing has a well acknowledged impact to the resource. Whether it is purposeful harvest or catch and release, fly fishing imparts plenty of impact on trout fisheries. I do not know of any reasonable fly fisherman that would pretend to be preservationists as we all kill fish from time to time when we stick 'em with hooks. Purpsosely or not, it happens and we accept that. Some of us choose release most of our trout, but I enjoy pan fried brookies as much as the next dude from time to time. Some folks eat every one they can. But no one that pursues a fish with a rod and hook is a preservationist. 

Now how we best conserve these resources is truly the debate. I believe in habitat protection and reduced creel limits as I've stated time and time again. I believe this through extensive time on the stream as a fisherman and scientist with a backpack shocker as well as copious research of relevant scientific literature and MDNR fisheries status reports. You have differing views. Many others here do as well. I respect that. But we are both conservationists.


----------



## beer and nuts

The best and most wadable streams around here are targeted for special regs(read fly fishing only).


> Probably because the most wadeable waters are the ones that get the most traffic and in turn need the most protection......


 No problems with regulating heavy usage trout streams with limited creels, but funny how the around these parts, fly fishing only is "tied" with it. No science to it, all politics.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Benzie Rover said:


> Ray - It is you that has misinterpreted conservation and preservation of resources. Preservationists are not fly fisherman, or fisherman of any sort. True preservation management prohibits recreational activities that impact the resource it intends to preserve. Fly fishing has a well acknowledged impact to the resource. Whether it is purposeful harvest or catch and release, fly fishing imparts plenty of impact on trout fisheries. I do not know of any reasonable fly fisherman that would pretend to be preservationists as we all kill fish from time to time when we stick 'em with hooks. Purpsosely or not, it happens and we accept that. Some of us choose release most of our trout, but I enjoy pan fried brookies as much as the next dude from time to time. Some folks eat every one they can. But no one that pursues a fish with a rod and hook is a preservationist.
> 
> Now how we best conserve these resources is truly the debate. I believe in habitat protection and reduced creel limits as I've stated time and time again. I believe this through extensive time on the stream as a fisherman and scientist with a backpack shocker as well as copious research of relevant scientific literature and MDNR fisheries status reports. You have differing views. Many others here do as well. I respect that. But we are both conservationists.


I did? :lol: Maybe it is you who misinterpreted out of context. Let us look at what my statement was in context to.



Oh Yeah said:


> I will add that it's stunning that so many here scorn conservation.





Ranger Ray said:


> You have preservation confused with conservation.


Is all I am stating there is we scorn preservation, not conservation. Conservation = the wise sustainable use of resources. Who scorns the wise, sustainable use of our resources? Not I. But I will add the wise sustainable use of resources has not only always included a recreation and sporting venue, but a consumptive one also. I would hate to see the money available to our DNR if we were to take all the license money from the consumptive fishermen out of the equation through all these years. 

I guess I see nowhere that I am accusing fly fishermen in general as being preservationists. However there are certainly those that push a preservationist mindset. Lets look at one:



Oh Yeah said:


> *In my opinion*, there is essentially no skill required to catch fish with bait. Organizations like the Indian Club use their financial and political clout to allow for catch and release waters so there is some effort *to prevent those who don't have the self restraint to release trout to at least be legally required to do so on the best waters*.


Preservationist = Keeping safe free from harm. Already knowing the meaning of conservation and the above void of scientific reasoning, the bold letters are closer to displaying what? A conservation mindset? Preservationist mindset? The fact that by definition Oh Yeah can't be a preservationist is true, because he kills fish just by the fact he fishes, but he can still push a preservationist mindset. 

Do I think all fly fishermen have a preservationist mindset? No. I would say there are more conservationist than not, but I have no illusion as to what philosophy is pushing gear restrictions.


----------



## Ranger Ray

fishinlk said:


> So Ray.......
> Ray,
> After all of this I hear nothing but crickets..... no acknowledgment of my providing the answers that you asked for or anything....... I post something that to me gave you exactly the answers and clarification that you asked for. I would have thought that I at least deserved an acknowledgement, even if it's not what you wanted to hear and debunked some of the peices that you keep trying to paint on me and those that I associate with......
> 
> I guess my analogy of the discimination was too accurate with the application of mainstream society rules that you don't want to see it hand around as it may damage your arguments on gear restrictions as it pertains to "artificials only".





Ray said:


> Your friends experience. Irrelevant! My experience. Irrelevant! The fact that you are not just a fly fisherman. Irrelevant!
> 
> Your conclusion that flies only water rules are not discriminatory because I am not denied access as long as I use a fly cannot be reconciled with the definition of discrimination.
> 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.
> 
> Group 1. Fly fishermen. Group 2. Bait fishermen. Fly fishermen are able to fish all public waters the way they prefer. Bait fishermen are not allowed to fish many miles of those same waters the way they prefer.
> 
> Because there is no scientific imperative to restrict bait from being used in those public waters under the Public Trust Doctrine it is not allowed. Even the state does not have the authority to make rules if the rule simply limits public participation because it violates the obligation to protect the interest of all its citizens.
> 
> Creating a trophy fishery is not protecting our fishery from its demise, and it is certainly not a justification for limiting my rights to fish the way I prefer or the rights of any other citizen from using other legally acceptable methods.
> 
> All the data made public by our MDNR biologist show that the fishery in all the flies only waters studied over the years have changed little when compared to waters open to all legal fishing methods. The scientific conclusion of our MDNR field biologists is legal sport fishing has little if any effect on our trout fishery. No noticeable effect is the way they described it in the reports they submitted to fishery chief Kelly Smith. Dr. Smith ignored the recommendations of his field staff because of political pressure in answer to my direct question that was witnessed.
> 
> Most people who go trout fishing want to catch trout. Many people will not fish flies only waters because they are smart enough to realize that using a fly with a bubble and a spinning rod are not likely to help them reach their expectations. Many people will not fish no kill waters because they like to eat trout and since the rule doesnt allow them to kill the trout they catch they stay away. These rules clearly limit participation even if people chose themselves.
> 
> I have addressed these points many times before, so now that I havent rushed to my computer to redress them again, you wrongly assume your analogy of the discrimination was too accurate and I must not have an answer to your analogy. Allowing artificial lures is no different than just allowing flies as they both discriminate against bait fishermen.
> 
> If you want to believe rules that take away the rights of many fishermen can be justified because those restrictive rules will result in a few more big trout or because they dont restrict participation of Michigan citizens, Im sure by now nothing I can say will change your thinking. I find the fact that you once agreed with me about flies only, yet somehow allowing other artificial lures is somehow different, and is difficult for a logical person to reconcile. The heart wants what the heart wants.
> 
> If it is okay to mandate the use of a fly on public waters and a fly is a piece of equipment, why not mandate the use of other equipment designed exclusively for fly fishing. If you accept that rule, why not allow only high end fly fishing equipment. At what point would you decide the rule was discriminatory, or would you ever? Based on your definition no discrimination exists because all you would have to do is purchase an i.e. Orvis bamboo rod or other approved gear to qualify for admission to fish these public waters.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by fishinlk View Post
> Probably because the most wadeable waters are the ones that get the most traffic and in turn need the most protection...... In the past tighter creel limits were always tied to FFO water, with the addition of artificals only it give the MDNR more tools to use with out limiting it to fly fishing. Seems easy enough and you can use the Rapalas or spinners or what ever.... My daughter caught her first wild trout in the Manistee on a sassy shad when she was 6..... worked out just fine.. She's 14 now and loves wading for trout and she didn't loose interest because she didn't bring home a stringer of fish and I've never had to deal with gut hooked fish because of fishing for trout with worms when she wouldn't have had the skills to do it properly. It's all about how the adults develop the expectations for their children.
> You state your conclusion as if it were a fact! Where did anyone ever conclude that the most wadeable water gets the most traffic and in turn needs the most protection. If it is true that the flies only waters get fished often, how do you conclude it is because it is the most wadeable. I say it is because the businesses like the Gates Lodge, are pimping out the Au sable in every fly magazine they can. If your statement were true, why are the flies only waters of the LM lightly fished? Those waters are very wadeable and in my opinion better fishing than the Au sable and I believe supported by shocking data which can be found on the MDNR web-site if you choose to look for it. Between my wife and I we have seen only one pair of fishermen where we live all year.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by fishinlk View Post
> .....It's all about how the adults develop the expectations for their children.
> If only everyone would see the world like you Lance , the world would be such a better place! Wow!


I hear crickets. :lol:


----------



## MERGANZER

Ragardless of your feelings on gear restrictions, I believe there is enough flies only water out there now and I don't think we need anymore. That being said it is not discrimination at all. Nobody said you can't fish that water but if you do there are different rules to fish it. Wild game and fish laws differ everywhere. There are bowhunting only areas is that discrimination? NO. There are waterfown quotas in areas, is that discrimination? NO. There are creel limits and size limits, is that discrimination? NO. Fact is we are all able to take part in the sports we enjoy. We just have to follow the laws the way they are written regardless of why or how they are written.

Now go fish!

ganzer


----------



## toto

It is the why that is in question for the most part. In answer to that, it was the DNR themselves who stated this was a social issue, and that stands against the public trust doctrine. I'm not aware of where you are talking about bow hunting areas only, but perhaps they are for safety reasons?? Not sure of that answer, there are also areas where shotguns can be used but not rifles, again a safety issue.

The public trust doctrine states the "general public" not an exclusive segment of the public. Why should the general public pay for resources they aren't allowed to use, unless some segment of society says we can, but only if done their way?? It is the citizens waters, property or whatever, not some small segment of society. Just like the new APR's, why should someone own a couple of hundred acres of land, and then be told what deer he can shoot? Who's paying the taxes on that land, is it the state? NO. Why should one have to pay to stock fish when they can't use them unless of course they fly fish?? What of the person who for whatever reason can't physically fly fish, or one who can't afford the equipment be dictated to fly fish???


It has been metioned several times the definition of discrimination, and it would appear that this is exactly what is going on here. I'm sure you will say the DNR doesn't stock flies only waters, but they do, in a backdoor kind of way. For example, there is a sportsmans club in Fife Lake that raises and stocks trout into the Big Man flies only waters, and the question is, where do they get thier fish? Well they get them from the DNR, in this way the DNR can say hey we didn't stock them, but they know exactly what is going on. 

Somehow, someway, the idea of the public trust doctrine needs to be understood and relied on just as it was intended to be. If the people of the state of Michigan has entrusted the DNR to take care of our natural resources, you cannot dictate which segment can use them, and who cannot. The ONLY dictates should be due to biological reasons, or science if you will that should dictate any rules or regulations pertaining to how, how many, and what size, and that includes ALL of our natural resources, period. To do otherwise only invites animosity, and of biases in our management of our natural resources.


----------



## MERGANZER

toto said:


> It is the why that is in question for the most part. In answer to that, it was the DNR themselves who stated this was a social issue, and that stands against the public trust doctrine. I'm not aware of where you are talking about bow hunting areas only, but perhaps they are for safety reasons?? Not sure of that answer, there are also areas where shotguns can be used but not rifles, again a safety issue.
> 
> The public trust doctrine states the "general public" not an exclusive segment of the public. Why should the general public pay for resources they aren't allowed to use, unless some segment of society says we can, but only if done their way?? It is the citizens waters, property or whatever, not some small segment of society. Just like the new APR's, why should someone own a couple of hundred acres of land, and then be told what deer he can shoot? Who's paying the taxes on that land, is it the state? NO. Why should one have to pay to stock fish when they can't use them unless of course they fly fish?? What of the person who for whatever reason can't physically fly fish, or one who can't afford the equipment be dictated to fly fish???
> 
> 
> It has been metioned several times the definition of discrimination, and it would appear that this is exactly what is going on here. I'm sure you will say the DNR doesn't stock flies only waters, but they do, in a backdoor kind of way. For example, there is a sportsmans club in Fife Lake that raises and stocks trout into the Big Man flies only waters, and the question is, where do they get thier fish? Well they get them from the DNR, in this way the DNR can say hey we didn't stock them, but they know exactly what is going on.
> 
> Somehow, someway, the idea of the public trust doctrine needs to be understood and relied on just as it was intended to be. If the people of the state of Michigan has entrusted the DNR to take care of our natural resources, you cannot dictate which segment can use them, and who cannot. The ONLY dictates should be due to biological reasons, or science if you will that should dictate any rules or regulations pertaining to how, how many, and what size, and that includes ALL of our natural resources, period. To do otherwise only invites animosity, and of biases in our management of our natural resources.


 
Red Oak area was not sure if it still is archery times only.

Airport areas archery only.

Suburbs often archery only. Is that based on science?

Rifle zone/ shotgun zone= discrimination? NO.

So by your logic, if you own 100 acres should be able to shoot catch and trap as you wish whenever you want? What is the science of rifle during rut? Why can't I use a rifle during muzzleloader season in zone 3? Discrimination? NO. There are rules for fishing, hunting, trapping, driving etc. Why can't my 10 year old drive to school if I buy him a car? Discrimination? It's not discrimination if you are allowed to take place in the activity. Nobody said this is flies only section of the river unless your name is toto. You can fly fish if you want acces to that stream, bowhunt during archery seasons, muzzleload during black powder just as everyone else can. As far as planting fish privately the DNR requires proper permits and if its funded privately, go grab a fly rod and get after them.

Good fishing

Ganzer


----------



## Boozer

MERGANZER said:


> Red Oak area was not sure if it still is archery times only.
> 
> Airport areas archery only.
> 
> Suburbs often archery only. Is that based on science?
> 
> Rifle zone/ shotgun zone= discrimination? NO.
> 
> So by your logic, if you own 100 acres should be able to shoot catch and trap as you wish whenever you want? What is the science of rifle during rut? Why can't I use a rifle during muzzleloader season in zone 3? Discrimination? NO. There are rules for fishing, hunting, trapping, driving etc. Why can't my 10 year old drive to school if I buy him a car? Discrimination? It's not discrimination if you are allowed to take place in the activity. Nobody said this is flies only section of the river unless your name is toto. You can fly fish if you want acces to that stream, bowhunt during archery seasons, muzzleload during black powder just as everyone else can. As far as planting fish privately the DNR requires proper permits and if its funded privately, go grab a fly rod and get after them.
> 
> Good fishing
> 
> Ganzer


Actually, it is based on science, it's based on the science of the trajectory and flight abilities of bullets, vs arrows...

It's also based on science why that 10 year old cant drive, he isn't developed enough mentally yet...

Your logic is also flawed as nobody here is debating regulations put forth by BIOLOGISTS, what they are debating is the fact that BIOLOGISTS state that flies only gives no real benefits yet a small interest group still was able to get the rules passed, that is what people have an issue with....


----------



## MERGANZER

Boozer said:


> Actually, it is based on science, it's based on the science of the trajectory and flight abilities of bullets, vs arrows...
> 
> It's also based on science why that 10 year old cant drive, he isn't developed enough mentally yet...
> 
> Your logic is also flawed as nobody here is debating regulations put forth by BIOLOGISTS, what they are debating is the fact that BIOLOGISTS state that flies only gives no real benefits yet a small interest group still was able to get the rules passed, that is what people have an issue with....


 
So scientifically my .300 win mag sends projectiles differently during deer season then it does the rest of the season? Cause I can shoot woodchuck, coyotes etc when its not deer season.

THATS IT! DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VARMINT HUNTERS!!!!

Ganzer


----------



## toto

Suburbs, based on science, no just commone sense, do you want someone running around your neighborhood shooting a rifle or shotgun??

Airports, I think recent events pretty much covers why you can't hunt with a rifle or shotgun. In fact, most airport property is not huntable at all. As far as different season for deer hunting, makes some sense too, if you were to be able to hunt year round with a rifle, how many deer would be left?? Have no problem with archery season, rifle seasons, or muzzle loaders. Just like I have no problem with trout seasons either, different topic altogether. 

This is where your argument fails, and shows just how you are trying to twist things: rifle zone/shotgun zone = discrimination NO, thats not what I said, in fact I said it makes sense in some cases due to safety issues. Why would you think it's okay to hunt in a high population area?? No one said if you own 100 acres you shoud be able to hunt, shoot or trap as you wish, so stop trying to twist my words, it won't work and only lessens your argument even further. What I did say is, if I pay taxes on 200 acres or whatever, I should have the right to shoot a spikehorn if I wish, not a doe as they use doe permits based on ascertained deer populations, and that by the way, is science.

To talk about why a 10 year old should be allowed to drive or not, again just shows your desperation, thanks for pointing out to all of us a 10 year old shouldn't drive, but based on what I see, I think I'd rather have a 10 year old drive than some that I see. The bottom line, you apparantly see nothing wrong with this "takings" issue and those that can should take from those that can't, or don't want. As long as things are the way you see them in nirvana, everything will be fine. But then again, this ain't nirvana is it??


----------



## MERGANZER

toto said:


> Suburbs, based on science, no just commone sense, do you want someone running around your neighborhood shooting a rifle or shotgun??
> 
> Airports, I think recent events pretty much covers why you can't hunt with a rifle or shotgun. In fact, most airport property is not huntable at all. As far as different season for deer hunting, makes some sense too, if you were to be able to hunt year round with a rifle, how many deer would be left?? Have no problem with archery season, rifle seasons, or muzzle loaders. Just like I have no problem with trout seasons either, different topic altogether.
> 
> This is where your argument fails, and shows just how you are trying to twist things: rifle zone/shotgun zone = discrimination NO, thats not what I said, in fact I said it makes sense in some cases due to safety issues. Why would you think it's okay to hunt in a high population area?? No one said if you own 100 acres you shoud be able to hunt, shoot or trap as you wish, so stop trying to twist my words, it won't work and only lessens your argument even further. What I did say is, if I pay taxes on 200 acres or whatever, I should have the right to shoot a spikehorn if I wish, not a doe as they use doe permits based on ascertained deer populations, and that by the way, is science.
> 
> To talk about why a 10 year old should be allowed to drive or not, again just shows your desperation, thanks for pointing out to all of us a 10 year old shouldn't drive, but based on what I see, I think I'd rather have a 10 year old drive than some that I see. The bottom line, you apparantly see nothing wrong with this "takings" issue and those that can should take from those that can't, or don't want. As long as things are the way you see them in nirvana, everything will be fine. But then again, this ain't nirvana is it??


 
My examples while over the top still make the point there are laws for everything. You owning 200 acres does not allow you to decide what a legal buck is or isnt. Based on your argument the rifle/ shotgun zone is discrimination. What if someone can't affford a shotgun "as you said what if they can't afford a flyrod". Michigan has over 20,000 miles of trout water not including lakes and the great lakes and Field and Stream ranked Michigan the #1 state for fly fishing. That kinda brings in some pretty decent revenue. I am sure you can find a trout or two in 20,000 miles don't ya think?

Ganzer


----------



## MERGANZER

The bottom line, you apparantly see nothing wrong with this "takings" issue and those that can should take from those that can't, or don't want. As long as things are the way you see them in nirvana, everything will be fine. But then again, this ain't nirvana is it?? 
__________________


Again, I very rarely fly fish and when I do I avoid flies only areas. I don't like dealing with the guides or many of the fishermen. I have state before we have flies only sections now. Leave them along and do not add anymore. But you may want to look at potential losses when you cut out flies only and the banks become littered with bait containers etc. My family owns land on the pm "not flies only" and we have to go pick up the beer cans worm and spawn containers etc. every year. look at the facts.


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/DNR_Governors_flyer_374144_7.pdf

Ganzer


----------



## Boozer

MERGANZER said:


> My examples while over the top still make the point there are laws for everything. You owning 200 acres does not allow you to decide what a legal buck is or isnt. Based on your argument the rifle/ shotgun zone is discrimination. What if someone can't affford a shotgun "as you said what if they can't afford a flyrod". Michigan has over 20,000 miles of trout water not including lakes and the great lakes and Field and Stream ranked Michigan the #1 state for fly fishing. That kinda brings in some pretty decent revenue. I am sure you can find a trout or two in 20,000 miles don't ya think?
> 
> Ganzer


Field & Stream didn't rank Michigan #1, ONE AUTHOR did...

However, that just proves my point... Michigan was ranked by that author number one because of the multitude of quality angling opportunities this state has to offer, not any one species...

We have those quality angling opportunities largely because of the MDNR Fisheries Biologists tasked with ensuring they stay that way. Clearly they are doing a pretty good job, are they not?

So why do you have an issue with people getting upset when a small interest group ignores those exact same biologists recommendations and goes around them to get laws passed that are not in the best interest of the fish or the public, only their small minority of people, mainly made up of guides and people who virtually never fish stand to gain.

I'm all for capitalism and those who work hard getting what they want, but NOT when it comes to the public's property and it excludes that public with little to no benefits for the resource...

My main issue is, anglers are not the enemy here and these debates are dividing anglers when there is corporate America and a multitude of other things doing things out there which put our fisheries at risk much much more, many are so blinded by the fact they think their way is the better way, they forget to watch out for those real threats...

As for your comments about trash, that right there tells me you don't fish much!!! Let me tell ya man, any rivers with a decent amount of use "whether that's tubers, anglers, canoes, etc..." ALL have trash buddy!!! EVEN FLIES ONLY WATER. I am soooo sick of hearing about bait containers, while you may not see them in flies only water, you see just as much trash...

Trash is trash is it not?


----------



## toto

First of all, someone on here mentioned fly shops closing in the Mio area, only one reason for that I suppose, revenue. I fail to see the revenue expenditures from these fly fishermen you mention. I would also suppose that most of those would already have a good stock of flies, lines, rods, and the rest of the paraphanlia associated with fly fishing, so therefore, they probably don't support the local fly shop all that much. Do some of them do fine, yep, but not all. As for beer cans etc, I wonder how much of that is coming from the "true fisherman" even if they do use bait, and how much comes from the occasional fisherman, read that as canoeists? I would bet more the latter than the previous. Litter is disgusting, can't argue that, but it's the world we live in. If you were to catch someone doing so, turn them in, if it's the canoers, turn them in as well. All I'm saying is, don't paint the bait fisher with such a broad brush, even though you may believe we are doing the same with fly fishers, but I will say there are a lot of fly fishers that are of the same mind set as us. I know for a fact that 3 of us who are most vocal against the gear regs, also fly fish occasionally.


----------



## MERGANZER

Boozer said:


> Field & Stream didn't rank Michigan #1, ONE AUTHOR did...
> 
> However, that just proves my point... Michigan was ranked by that author number one because of the multitude of quality angling opportunities this state has to offer, not any one species...
> 
> We have those quality angling opportunities largely because of the MDNR Fisheries Biologists tasked with ensuring they stay that way. Clearly they are doing a pretty good job, are they not?
> 
> So why do you have an issue with people getting upset when a small interest group ignores those exact same biologists recommendations and goes around them to get laws passed that are not in the best interest of the fish or the public, only their small minority of people, mainly made up of guides and people who virtually never fish stand to gain.
> 
> I'm all for capitalism and those who work hard getting what they want, but NOT when it comes to the public's property and it excludes that public with little to no benefits for the resource...


 
It's simply somestretches of river set aside for those who fly fish. These sections bring in a ton of money as they are "acclaimed fly water" I fish up by Baldwin and that stretch isn't any better then most of the other up there its simply a stretch where the guides run like crazy and its a bucketlist destination to people throughout the world as are stretches of the Au Sable. As I said DON'T ADD ANYMORE and I am okay with it. If you take it away now after all these years isn't that just as bad. Let them have their playpen it free's up a lot of water they avoid. No different then the gun hunters who get soi mad at the bow season length but don't take up bowhunting. Its not discrimination what my big point.

Ganzer


----------



## MERGANZER

toto said:


> First of all, someone on here mentioned fly shops closing in the Mio area, only one reason for that I suppose, revenue. I fail to see the revenue expenditures from these fly fishermen you mention. I would also suppose that most of those would already have a good stock of flies, lines, rods, and the rest of the paraphanlia associated with fly fishing, so therefore, they probably don't support the local fly shop all that much. Do some of them do fine, yep, but not all. As for beer cans etc, I wonder how much of that is coming from the "true fisherman" even if they do use bait, and how much comes from the occasional fisherman, read that as canoeists? I would bet more the latter than the previous. Litter is disgusting, can't argue that, but it's the world we live in. If you were to catch someone doing so, turn them in, if it's the canoers, turn them in as well. All I'm saying is, don't paint the bait fisher with such a broad brush, even though you may believe we are doing the same with fly fishers, but I will say there are a lot of fly fishers that are of the same mind set as us. I know for a fact that 3 of us who are most vocal against the gear regs, also fly fish occasionally.


 
Im not painting anyone with a wide brush. I fish mostly with crawlers, then spinners and then in the summer I fish flies. The trash can't come from canoeists because its the little south and difficult to navigate in fact "non-navigable" technicall tresspassing but we don't say anything unless we see them dropping trash etc. I am not trying to fight I just think I would fight with you if they wanted to add stretches but for now I guess I feel let them have some of thier own. Anyhow good debate have a good night gentlemen. Pick up tomorrow.

Ganzer


----------



## Boozer

MERGANZER said:


> It's simply somestretches of river set aside for those who fly fish. These sections bring in a ton of money as they are "acclaimed fly water" I fish up by Baldwin and that stretch isn't any better then most of the other up there its simply a stretch where the guides run like crazy and its a bucketlist destination to people throughout the world as are stretches of the Au Sable. As I said DON'T ADD ANYMORE and I am okay with it. If you take it away now after all these years isn't that just as bad. Let them have their playpen it free's up a lot of water they avoid. No different then the gun hunters who get soi mad at the bow season length but don't take up bowhunting. Its not discrimination what my big point.
> 
> Ganzer


I can agree that I really could care less about there being some fly fishing only areas, really "fly fishing" isn't what I have the issue with, heck I fly fish a LOT.

My issues arise with one thing, we spend tax payers money to employ our fisheries biologists, whom lets face it, are underpaid and over-worked in many ways, especially in comparison to many other "state" jobs.

So we have these for the most part, very qualified people working for us, whom obviously largely do so because they love what they do and genuinely care about the resources. Obviously when you consider the quality of fishing we have in Michigan, they are doing their jobs well...

Then a small group comes in with less knowledge than these biologists, and with an agenda...

Then, the state allows their own employees to be ignored so these small interest groups get their way?

Seems like a very slippery slope if you ask me...


----------



## Boozer

Also...

The reason those stretches bring money is due to clever marketing...

You can do the same exact thing with non flies only water too...

Look at what has been done to the Mo...


----------



## -Axiom-

Regarding all the damn beer cans.
I never see people fishing a stretch of river I frequent, there are plenty of tubers & canoes though.
There are lots of beer cans in the river, not as many as the Platte but jeez man...

I pull some out on every trip but there is *so many* and most are not retrievable without diving.


----------



## MERGANZER

-Axiom- said:


> Regarding all the damn beer cans.
> I never see people fishing a stretch of river I frequent, there are plenty of tubers & canoes though.
> There are lots of beer cans in the river, not as many as the Platte but jeez man...
> 
> I pull some out on every trip but there is *so many* and most are not retrievable without diving.


 
I agree I have fished the main branch PM and have seen cans flowing down the river obviously due to a conoe flipping and dumping them all in. I also try to retrieve as many as possible every trip and try to take out any other trash that I can. Cans containers and wadds of fishing line.


----------



## Splitshot

Benzie Rover said:


> ..............But no one that pursues a fish with a rod and hook is a preservationist.
> 
> Now how we best conserve these resources is truly the debate. I believe in habitat protection and reduced creel limits as I've stated time and time again................. But we are both conservationists.


Sorry Rover, while conservationists believe in habitat protection, they do not believe in reduced creel limits unless those creel limits are based on sound science. 

Conservationists view the environment or our trout fishery in this case as having instrumental value that can be of help to people, and generally accept Gifford Pinchot's notion of sustainable yield based on scientific principles that man can harvest some forest, animal or fish products from a natural environment on a regular basis without compromising the long-health of the ecosystem.

Preservationists view trout fisheries as having intrinsic value that should be preserved by making as little change to it as possible. 

Our MDNR biologists support the conservationist view by setting conservative limits based on the best scientific and historical data in conjunction with their formal training and experience in the best interest of all of us.

Sometimes their hard work is ignored and replaced based on the use of political leverage and that evidence can be found on the MDNR web-site by reading the actual MDNR biologists reports regarding bait restrictions.

The most dogmatic preservationists disciples kneel at the alter of guys like Lee Wulff for his inspired utterance that a trout is to valuable to be caught only once. On the TU web-site under philosophy you will find statements like; Trout fishing isnt just fishing for trout! It is fishing for sport not food! One should limit their kill instead of killing their limit! It is subscribing to the proposition that what is good for the trout is good for the trout fisherman and that managing the trout for the trout rather than for the fisherman is fundamental to the solution of our trout problems.............! While some of those cliches might sound like words of wisdom, they are based on ideology, not logic or facts.

While both conservationists and preservationists believe in habitat restoration, rules that protect our fisheries including the wise management of our trout fishery, we part company with those who try to overprotect those resources by pushing for reduced creel limits, no kill areas and other special rules based on Chicken Little theories and we especially object to rules that give fly fishermen special fishing rights not afforded to everyone based on gut feelings and philosophy instead of sound biological science. 


Our opinions as you call them are supported by law and the sound science provided by our MDNR field biologists. When you say you have spent many hours with a shocker on your back, and you have read copious scientific papers and yet you still support reduced creel limits, that our MDNR biologists dont support, I think your might be giving yourself a little to much credit. 



MERGANZER said:


> Ragardless of your feelings on gear restrictions, I believe there is enough flies only water out there now and I don't think we need anymore. That being said it is not discrimination at all. Nobody said you can't fish that water but if you do there are different rules to fish it. Wild game and fish laws differ everywhere. There are bowhunting only areas is that discrimination? NO. There are waterfown quotas in areas, is that discrimination? NO. There are creel limits and size limits, is that discrimination? NO. Fact is we are all able to take part in the sports we enjoy. We just have to follow the laws the way they are written regardless of why or how they are written.
> 
> Now go fish!
> 
> ganzer


Ganzer,

It is difficult having a discussion without having the same understanding of certain words. For example, 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.

Group 1. Fly fishermen. Group 2. Bait fishermen. Fly fishermen are able to fish all public waters the way they prefer. Bait fishermen are not allowed to fish many miles of those same waters the way they prefer.

Because laws are different doesnt make them discriminatory. Bow hunting is allowed in certain areas based on safety considerations. If the rule allowed hunters use traditional equipment but not compound or cross bows that would be discrimination. Creel limits, size limits, based on sound biological science in the management of those resources and that are fair to all citizens are allowed. 

Rules that are not fair or are not based on sound biological science or result in reducing opportunities for some citizens at the expense or other citizens are not allowed.

When you say; We just have to follow the laws the way they are written regardless of why or how they are written. I believe you are mistaken. What if a law violates our U.S. Constitution, are you obligated to just follow that law? Suppose your city council passes a law that states you can not speak out against anyone on the city council or that you are not allowed to own a gun, or you are must not venture outside your property after 9 PM only because that is what they decided was best for you?

We have shown you the Public Trust Doctrine, we have defined discrimination, we have logically defended our positions and yet you say; Ragardless of your feelings on gear restrictions, I believe there is enough flies only water out there now and I don't think we need anymore. Please explain why what we have now is okay and explain why you would be against more flies only waters? On what grounds would you object? If it is okay to have one mile of public water designated as flies only, on what grounds would you object if the MDNR decided that only fly fishing was allowed on all trout waters?

We say if there is no scientific imperative, it does nothing to protect our fishery then there is no reason to exclude bait fishermen or fishermen using any other legally accepted method on public waters and no citizen should be denied. It is much more than simply setting aside some waters for those who fly fish. As a citizen I should have as much right to fish as they do. Likewise there would be no good reason for a rule that stipulates you must use live bait on some public waters as a condition to fish there! 

Without flies only rules, fly fishermen would still be allowed to fish, just like they are currently allowed to fish all other public waters. The State of Michigan has an obligation to protect our natural resources for all the citizens of Michigan under the PTD not for the money the state can bring in if they cater to well to do fly fishermen from all over the world. We welcome them to Michigan, but if they decide not to come because we wont cater to them, so be it.


----------



## Shlayer

I don't usually wander into this area, but this looks fun! :evil:

So lets be clear on this. Our supreme court has determined that any local government can establish restrictions on Free Speech regarding time, place, and manner. There are limits on these restrictions that generally say they have to be rationally related (a lot more jazz to it than that but that's the basic idea) but restrictions on how, when, and where you can express free speech are legal in many ways. These restrictions can be made even regarding public property...even rivers. You can look it up on wiki if you are bored. This right to free speech is recognized as one of our most important and inviolable rights. Considering all that, you think you have a right to fish in a river however you want? Come on guys. 

A court's analysis of your argument is going to go like this: So there is a statute that says you can use the river to travel and the state can't stop you or charge you. So, there is a common law concept (which has been debated) which basically says a state holds the public resources in trust for people legally in the US. This obligates the state to protect the resource. They do this by licensing people to use it, regulating the methods that people use to fish on rivers (for example nets, TNT, guns, poison, etc are forbidden), and educating people. 

Now, like I said the law has to be rationally related to goals that are justified. The law will not have to be based on science ("all hail science!"). All the state has to show is that someone could rationally believe that the law will further the goals. They don't need to proove it is the best way. They don't need to prove it will be better than any other way. They just need to show a rational basis. How about this for a rational basis: fewer people will voluntarily use the river! No one is being prevented from using it. The state isn't blocking people from using it for travel, or charging for its use. They aren't even saying you can't walk down it with a can of worms and a fishing pole. They are just saying you can't use that worm to fish. If you are trying to argue that based on that 1970s Native American case fishing rights were included in that Northwest document I would say you are sorely mistaken. That case stresses that the Native Americans thought they were getting fishing rights and due to an old treaty with the UK we had to give them what they thought they were getting. 

Given all this, the willingness of the courts to allow time, place, and manner restrictions, the imperative that the state protect these rivers and fisheries, and the fact that no one class is prevented from using the area...just the guy that wants to insist on using it with a certain type of fishing pole...or a net...or TNT. I really wouldn't hold you breath waiting on a court to overturn this law. If some lawyer tells you otherwise, he's just excited to take your money. 

Now, instead of making attempts to overturn the law in court, if you really believe what you are saying then go change public opinion. This BS claim that it's "illegal" to restrict gear usage while fishing doesn't help you. Go out and get studies done proving your point. Make efforts to meet with and befriend the representatives that create the restrictions. Talk to media. If you are standing in a stadium full of a discordant orchestra of sound there are a few ways to be heard. speak into someones ear--kinda like talking to the guy that makes the rules. Get a bullhorn--Kinda like spending money on advertising. Start a chant--kinda like changing popular opinion or just getting people to voice it. Yelling really loud is just going to get you red in the face and worn out. Expecting everyone else to STFU is just going to piss you off when no one does. 

The other advise I have for you is to get involved in TU and attempt to make some change to them. These people aren't the elitist jerks you are making them out to be. Maybe you had a bad experience with some of them, but for the most part they are good guys. Yes there is a heavy fly fishing influence...because that's classic trout fishing and a lot of the romanticism surrounding trout comes from fly fishing and it attracts people to the sport. The best way to affect policy in these groups is to jump into it and get involved. Even if you aren't happy with part of their goals they are still doing good things. 

Your post got me a bit riled up. You want to use the connotations of the the word discrimination, without having a situation that justifies it. You are not being persecuted for the color of your skin. You are not being prevented from practicing your religion. You are not being told who you can marry. You are not being prevented from expressing your political preferences. Discrimination is not in and of itself a bad thing. For example you might have discriminating tastes--often a compliment. This is not discrimination in the sense you attempt to use the word, it is restriction. Okay, you don't like restrictions. You sound like a small government Libertarian or a T Party type guy (not that I care really). Its okay to argue and attempt to change people's minds, but this stuff about being discriminated against, its got to go. Take your arguments about science (All hail "Science!") and try to change people's minds. The discrimination stuff and the legal argument aren't going anywhere. 

Frankly, I do some fly fishing, I do some bait fishing, and I do some lure fishing. I don't give a crap about what type of fishing others do. Some times I'll be in a boat with a bait fisherman and a lure fisherman with my fly rod. Why do we have these fly only sections? A vocal group of people that were willing to put their time and money behind the idea fought for it. Don't like it, argue your points to people that can make a difference (its rare that online forums make any difference). Making ad hominems against other people, Trout Unlimited, lawyers, the government, and anyone that disagrees with you is the fastest way for me to write you off as a crazy. 

Science (all hail "Science!") includes social sciences like psychology and sociology. Perhaps a scientific study regarding the psychology of bait fishermen and fly fishermen would be in order. Want to prove bait fishermen treat the river with the same reverence as fly fishermen (litter less, make efforts to prevent overfishing, follow restrictions more accurately)? Psychology! Or is it only Biology that you believe is science? Constantly repeating Science (all hail "Science!") is the answer is counter productive. Science is the process of studying things. It is not an answer to everything. You can have studies done, you can ask scientists to evaluate the results of an action, and you can make guesses yourself. Unfortunately, saying science supports something means you are making a ton of assumptions. You assume the scientific principle you are using is based unbiased studies. You assume the conditions matched up everywhere. You assume the statistical math was done right. You assume sample size was big enough. It is a good tool, but it is far from infallible. Remember the recent battle with wolves...er anti-wolf hunting activists. We (hunters) started out repeating "Science based harvest to balance is the way to go!" By the end of the most recent debate, the Antis had started saying it's not science based! You could find studies to support whatever you want, just ask the tobacco companies. One day I'm told science has created this wonderful harmless calorie free sweetener, the next I'm told it will make me fatter and give me cancer. 

You are interchanging all hail "Science!" statements with just ask the COs and DNR people. These are appeals to authority, of course a logical fallacy. Back it up dude. Where are the links? Where are the studies? I just hear a bunch of "this dude told me." I don't know who these people are.

Like I said, I don't really care. You just hit some nerves with your argument style. No need to eviscerate me in fiction, I'm probably not checking back in lol.


----------



## MERGANZER

Splitshot said:


> Sorry Rover, while conservationists believe in habitat protection, they do not believe in reduced creel limits unless those creel limits are based on sound science.
> 
> Conservationists view the environment or our trout fishery in this case as having instrumental value that can be of help to people, and generally accept Gifford Pinchot's notion of sustainable yield based on scientific principles that man can harvest some forest, animal or fish products from a natural environment on a regular basis without compromising the long-health of the ecosystem.
> 
> Preservationists view trout fisheries as having intrinsic value that should be preserved by making as little change to it as possible.
> 
> Our MDNR biologists support the conservationist view by setting conservative limits based on the best scientific and historical data in conjunction with their formal training and experience in the best interest of all of us.
> 
> Sometimes their hard work is ignored and replaced based on the use of political leverage and that evidence can be found on the MDNR web-site by reading the actual MDNR biologists reports regarding bait restrictions.
> 
> The most dogmatic preservationists disciples kneel at the alter of guys like Lee Wulff for his inspired utterance that a trout is to valuable to be caught only once. On the TU web-site under philosophy you will find statements like; Trout fishing isnt just fishing for trout! It is fishing for sport not food! One should limit their kill instead of killing their limit! It is subscribing to the proposition that what is good for the trout is good for the trout fisherman and that managing the trout for the trout rather than for the fisherman is fundamental to the solution of our trout problems.............! While some of those cliches might sound like words of wisdom, they are based on ideology, not logic or facts.
> 
> While both conservationists and preservationists believe in habitat restoration, rules that protect our fisheries including the wise management of our trout fishery, we part company with those who try to overprotect those resources by pushing for reduced creel limits, no kill areas and other special rules based on Chicken Little theories and we especially object to rules that give fly fishermen special fishing rights not afforded to everyone based on gut feelings and philosophy instead of sound biological science.
> 
> 
> Our opinions as you call them are supported by law and the sound science provided by our MDNR field biologists. When you say you have spent many hours with a shocker on your back, and you have read copious scientific papers and yet you still support reduced creel limits, that our MDNR biologists dont support, I think your might be giving yourself a little to much credit.
> 
> 
> 
> Ganzer,
> 
> It is difficult having a discussion without having the same understanding of certain words. For example, 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.
> 
> Group 1. Fly fishermen. Group 2. Bait fishermen. Fly fishermen are able to fish all public waters the way they prefer. Bait fishermen are not allowed to fish many miles of those same waters the way they prefer.
> 
> Because laws are different doesnt make them discriminatory. Bow hunting is allowed in certain areas based on safety considerations. If the rule allowed hunters use traditional equipment but not compound or cross bows that would be discrimination. Creel limits, size limits, based on sound biological science in the management of those resources and that are fair to all citizens are allowed.
> 
> Rules that are not fair or are not based on sound biological science or result in reducing opportunities for some citizens at the expense or other citizens are not allowed.
> 
> When you say; We just have to follow the laws the way they are written regardless of why or how they are written. I believe you are mistaken. What if a law violates our U.S. Constitution, are you obligated to just follow that law? Suppose your city council passes a law that states you can not speak out against anyone on the city council or that you are not allowed to own a gun, or you are must not venture outside your property after 9 PM only because that is what they decided was best for you?
> 
> We have shown you the Public Trust Doctrine, we have defined discrimination, we have logically defended our positions and yet you say; Ragardless of your feelings on gear restrictions, I believe there is enough flies only water out there now and I don't think we need anymore. Please explain why what we have now is okay and explain why you would be against more flies only waters? On what grounds would you object? If it is okay to have one mile of public water designated as flies only, on what grounds would you object if the MDNR decided that only fly fishing was allowed on all trout waters?
> 
> We say if there is no scientific imperative, it does nothing to protect our fishery then there is no reason to exclude bait fishermen or fishermen using any other legally accepted method on public waters and no citizen should be denied. It is much more than simply setting aside some waters for those who fly fish. As a citizen I should have as much right to fish as they do. Likewise there would be no good reason for a rule that stipulates you must use live bait on some public waters as a condition to fish there!
> 
> Without flies only rules, fly fishermen would still be allowed to fish, just like they are currently allowed to fish all other public waters. The State of Michigan has an obligation to protect our natural resources for all the citizens of Michigan under the PTD not for the money the state can bring in if they cater to well to do fly fishermen from all over the world. We welcome them to Michigan, but if they decide not to come because we wont cater to them, so be it.


 
One, yes you do have to follow the laws as they are written or you suffer the consequences. Two, IT IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!!! If you want to fish those waters, pick up a flyrod and go fish them. It doesn't say Splitshot cannot fish this stretch of river. that would be discrimination. You're just mad cause many areas are no kill areas and thats what you love to do is thump your chest on how many trout you can kill every year.

ganzer


----------



## beer and nuts

Its the same reasoning and arguement my Dad heard 30 plus years ago, when he fought TU on the Mason Tract when they tried to limit alum canoe business, tried to limit the landings, tried to do about anything and everything to get that water was secluded to only the fly fisherman. They got their flies only and creel limits. The amount of money flies only brings in JUST BECAUSE its flies only is very limited and limited to a few businesses. If it wasn't flies only but still had a conservative creel limit, would those same "customers" and "guides" still survive? Yes! Alot of the guides fish non flies only waters...so that aruguement is weak at best.

The funny part is: fly guys have more water to fish than any other type of fishing and they still want more special regs for themselves. Its ridiculous and purest form of selfishness.


----------



## Trout King

MERGANZER said:


> One, yes you do have to follow the laws as they are written or you suffer the consequences. Two, IT IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!!! If you want to fish those waters, pick up a flyrod and go fish them. It doesn't say Splitshot cannot fish this stretch of river. that would be discrimination. You're just mad cause many areas are no kill areas and thats what you love to do is thump your chest on how many trout you can kill every year.
> 
> ganzer


I have yet to see him or anyone else in this sight chest thumping about how many trout they kill. Absurdity and emotion...typical response.


----------



## mondrella

MERGANZER said:


> One, yes you do have to follow the laws as they are written or you suffer the consequences. Two, IT IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!!! If you want to fish those waters, pick up a flyrod and go fish them. It doesn't say Splitshot cannot fish this stretch of river. that would be discrimination. You're just mad cause many areas are no kill areas and thats what you love to do is thump your chest on how many trout you can kill every year.
> 
> ganzer


 I have read many of your post. The question I have for you is..
Is there to distinct groups of fisherman. Flyfisherman and bait fisherman? From your previous post I would have to say you have made that distinction many times in the past. 
As for saying splitshot wants to be able to thump his chest because he kills so many trout is a assanine comment. I have fished with him for years. He is one of the most selective people I have fished with. He selects the fish he wishes to harvest with care. To make acomment like that makes you sound very jealous of his ability to catch fish.


----------



## MERGANZER

mondrella said:


> I have read many of your post. The question I have for you is..
> Is there to distinct groups of fisherman. Flyfisherman and bait fisherman? From your previous post I would have to say you have made that distinction many times in the past.
> As for saying splitshot wants to be able to thump his chest because he kills so many trout is a assanine comment. I have fished with him for years. He is one of the most selective people I have fished with. He selects the fish he wishes to harvest with care. To make acomment like that makes you sound very jealous of his ability to catch fish.


 
Jealous??? AHAHAHAHAHa go a ways back and he had a thread where he bragged about keeping and eating hundreds of trout from one river in the summer. I don't get why all the fuss. it's not as if they are saying all trout water is GR water. Then I would understand the emotion. The PM and the AS are world wide known rivers and thier fly water is on many peoples bucket lists and they do bring in revenue to hotels, restaurants, fly shops gas stations etc.

Ganzer


----------



## Trout King

MERGANZER said:


> Jealous??? AHAHAHAHAHa go a ways back and he had a thread where he bragged about keeping and eating hundreds of trout from one river in the summer. I don't get why all the fuss. it's not as if they are saying all trout water is GR water. Then I would understand the emotion. The PM and the AS are world wide known rivers and thier fly water is on many peoples bucket lists and they do bring in revenue to hotels, restaurants, fly shops gas stations etc.
> 
> Ganzer


So people wouldn't come fish if it wasn't flies only?


----------



## MERGANZER

Trout King said:


> So people wouldn't come fish if it wasn't flies only?


 
For whatever reason many big fly fishermen seem to think that the flies only water isd sacred and must be the best fishing around. I don't know why but that has been my experience when talking to people. I fish the PM. I refuse to fish the flies only just because I have run into many unfriendly types so I stay away not because its flies only just experience. People would still fish it of course 
.

Ganzer


----------



## mondrella

MERGANZER said:


> Jealous??? AHAHAHAHAHa go a ways back and he had a thread where he bragged about keeping and eating hundreds of trout from one river in the summer. I don't get why all the fuss. it's not as if they are saying all trout water is GR water. Then I would understand the emotion. The PM and the AS are world wide known rivers and thier fly water is on many peoples bucket lists and they do bring in revenue to hotels, restaurants, fly shops gas stations etc.
> 
> Ganzer


So what if he did keep hundreds of trout out of a river in a year? I think I know which one it would be. I have fisehed it only 7 times this year and have caught close to 300 legal size trout and 16 of them ha bcame home to the frying pan. I have had 75 fish days. I don't count a trout unless it is of legal size. The last time I fished with splitshot we caught 9 legal trout out of a hole about the size of a living room. My daughter caught one lost another and we missed 3 or 4 that just to slow on the hook set. 
Say he kept 300 trout over a season there. Fishing it regularly a guy could easy hit 1500 trout in a season. Then there are thousands you cannot even get a bait to or pass over to fish more likely spots. 

The reason it is on someone's bucket list's is because a select few have pimped the river out to make a dollar on a public resource now want more exclusiveness to protect their cash cow. 

It makes no sense you would see the issue about banning all bait across the board. Then you would be on this side the fence?? If our biologist would back that to protect the resource because it was needed we would have their back. That is not the case. Let's take some of the most productive waters in the state and set them aside for a select few. Hmm what do you call that???


----------



## TheSpinner

always wondered why fly anglers want the water to themselves.

They berate worm and spin anglers.

I have heard a speaker once tell his audience :

You guys need to take off your training wheels and quit using worms and spinners. He said worms and spinners are for old people and the infirm.

I know why they want separation from the the worm and spin guys.

These neanderthals out fish the honorable fly boyz and it hurts too bad to see.


----------



## quack head

I didn't read every post/pg in this thread but I did read slipknots initial post. I just wanted to address the statement that our trout waters are not sufficient enough to grow large "20 inch" trout with out rearing the in ponds first. In this study it is shown that the particular section of the Ausable is able to grow "trophy" size trout. Although after reading the results of the study it's further convinced me the section of river in the study is a put and take fishery. (Ouch It really hurt to say that.) Any who, Hope I didn't misread the og post. Not trying to flame the thread. Just wanted to put the info out. You probably read this already any how.

studhttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2007-22_225164_7.pdfy


----------



## Trout King

quack head said:


> I didn't read every post/pg in this thread but I did read slipknots initial post. I just wanted to address the statement that our trout waters are not sufficient enough to grow large "20 inch" trout with out rearing the in ponds first. In this study it is shown that the particular section of the Ausable is able to grow "trophy" size trout. Although after reading the results of the study it's further convinced me the section of river in the study is a put and take fishery. (Ouch It really hurt to say that.) Any who, Hope I didn't misread the og post. Not trying to flame the thread. Just wanted to put the info out. You probably read this already any how.
> 
> studhttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2007-22_225164_7.pdfy


That is not entirely true. I have caught wild 20 inch trout in streams that haven't been planted in decades. None of these streams are gear restricted...imagine that.


----------



## -Axiom-

A little something I found today about a river & its beer cans.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/07/muskegon_river_cleanup_nets_th.html


----------



## Boardman Brookies

-Axiom- said:


> A little something I found today about a river & its beer cans.
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/07/muskegon_river_cleanup_nets_th.html


That is absolutely disgusting.


----------



## REG

And not a single worm container?


----------



## Trout King

I can agree with what don said. Last two times I fished I could see many fish. I fished a heavy traffic area sunday and saw at least a dozen 15-20 inch fish. One spotted was around 25. I didnt even look in the jams. Theb upstream I brushed against a jam and the biggest resident brown have encountered 30" + possibly. I have never caught a 20" in the stream in the high or low pressure area, bait or lures. Then tuesday I fished another high pressure stream especially for steelhead. I spotted 3 fish in the same hole from 18-22 inches. I have caught a lot of big browns from this stream but most incidently in the winter steelheading w spawn. There are big browns in a lot of streams most will never be caught imo of course.


----------



## troutguy26

Trout King said:


> There are big browns in a lot of streams most will never be caught imo of course.


Couldn't agree more. 

No matter what you chase there will always be the ones who will never give in.


----------



## mondrella

quack head said:


> I cant argue that the average life span of the average trout is three years. but Pg 22 of this pdf study shows trout can and do live past three yrs of age and really begin to put on weight at around three y/o http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2007-22_225164_7.pdf
> 
> But, take a look at the number of fish and the size and YEAR that are also on this chart. And to suggest that we should be hooking a lot of "trophy" fish if creel limits g/r are in place is silly. Large dominant browns are generally nocturnal. most people fish during the day. Large browns are also territorial and have a home range, and feeding range. They don't pod up with other large trout. And to be honest most people just don't know how to fish for large trout. I'm sure you know this.
> 
> No, most trout do not reach 20 inches in three years.
> 
> If I was able to chuck meat in the Trophy Waters I would be wacking and stacking 20+ all day an that section. How can I be so confident in that statement? Snorkeling, I have donned mask and snorkel and could not believe what I saw in the holes. Holy poop.



It is not the gear restrictions that created those big fish. It is the habitat. If a stream that holds trout you would be surprised and amazed at the size and numbers of fish. Take the river I learned to trout fish. Locals talk about the steelhead they catch in it. I have to laugh to myself. There is no physical way a steelhead can make it in this river. Heck they are not even lake run fish. Giant river bows this river gets so warm it is like bath water right now yet still holds bows and browns you measure in pounds not inches. You can take any stream and find huge trout and numbers if conditions are right. Be it food sources water quality. Again it comes to habitat. If bait fishing is so detrimental to trout it should be banned statewide but that is not the case. When you look at the studies you would see how flawed the GR logic is. It don't work to create big fish. Maybe in some environments but not any that have been found in this state.


----------



## Shlayer

Ranger Ray said:


> If "sound science" is not being used, the case would be the state is not following its own constitution. Keep in mind, the state itself has stated, fly's only water is not based on science.


So this is where you need to go in your arguments, and you have a legitimate chance to overturn these laws in court. You still need to drop the "discrimination junk," and the public trust doctrine doesn't do you much good because ultimately it allows the state to regulate this with a rational basis as explained earlier. Where you are actually making this arguement from is not the state constitution, the PTD, or the NWO, it's the new statute. I was originally thinking that only applied to hunting but a re-read reveals a later section:

Michigan Compiled Laws 324.48703a: "The commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of fish in this state. The commission shall, to the greatest extent practicable, utilize principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of fish."

It just slipped my mind and all this stuff about the PTD etc was camouflaging it. You need to file a lawsuit in state court claiming that this fly only restriction doesn't mesh with "principles of sound scientific management" (not just science that's too broad). I'm not 100% sure that will be enough though because the statute qualifies itself to say "the greatest extent practicable." So theoretically the state could argue that this doesn't jive with scientific management, but because of the benefit we get from land deeded to us with the condition that this restriction be in place we believe it is a reasonable trade off. (I'm just assuming the recitation that people exchanged property rights for this restriction being is place is accurate.) Or in otherwords our ability to do this other stuff with these rights we got in the trade make it better for sound scientific management, even though this minor restriction isn't perfect. Also, you will either need admissions by the state and DNR that these are not sound scientific restrictions or you will need completely overwhelming evidence. If the state takes the position that they do make sense considering scientific management, you will really need a rock solid case. 

Again the US Constitution, the State Constitution, the Northwest Ordinance, the Public Trust Doctrine, Discrimination, and Water Rights have nothing to say about this regulation directly. This new statute is where it is at. Sad to say but my previous concerns relating to questionable science may get in the way. You will likely run into scientific management experts on both sides of the issue whether due to their compensation package or legitimate beliefs. Tobacco company reference inserted here. 

Regarding the mens rea reference, no specific state of mind is required to find someone guilty of violating a speed limit. If you were traveling too fast you get a ticket. Similarly, the dude the CO sees using worms doesn't have to intend to use worms, if the worm is on his hook he is guilty. Even if it was by some act of god that the worm hooked itself while he was jigging. These are called strict liability crimes, no mental state required. Mental state is required to prove more serious crimes like murder. With tax crimes the media might say, "he says he didn't know." Or the guy might say "I didn't mean to" in some part of his testimony, but generally cheating your taxes does not require a mental state just the fact that it occurred. These are attempts to get pity in strict liability crimes, not legal defenses. 

I do understand about your claims relating to rights not being given away, but you have to realize that giving them away involves them going to someone else. These "rights" are still held by the state, they can curtail the use of this area as long as the "rights" as you want to call them are not vested in someone and taken from the state.


----------



## toto

Points well taken, and sensible. In your opinion, would an article in the newspaper where the chief of fisheries stated this isn't a biological issue but rather a social issue suffice?? I think we are pretty much understanding of what is going on here, it's just another case of those with, are using their power to get what they want, there is no other way to see it.

What I would like to know for certain is just where you stand on this issue shlayer, for or against, just curious I guess. As with a lot of things, all I really know is something stinks to high heaven, and I trully feel it's just plain wrong.


----------



## Shlayer

I don't think there is anything inherently or morally wrong with the situation. Restrictions on gear that can be used legally are inevitable its just a balancing act to draw the line. Your criticism of people using "influence" to sway the policy is excessive. People are supposed to speak out and get involved in the process, that's the nature of constitutionally limited republics. Legally speaking you might be able to challenge the restriction based on the new statute. 

I don't know enough about trout management to take a position on the effectiveness of the restriction.

As for the statements in the paper, it may or may not be enough. What you really want is the State to answer Requests to Admit during the lawsuit stating that they admit it--that would end the debate. Statements in the paper could be used as evidence, but it isn't determinative.


----------



## toto

Yes you are right on people voicing their opinions, and that's the way representative govenment is suppossed to work. Maybe I'm just a throwback or something, but I hate it when money talks, even though I know it's reality. I do believe you are correct on the new law and it's wording, and that may be one way to correct things. I also don't know how long, or how much you have followed this debate (I'll call it that for lack of a better word), but the problem has been some of the attitudes of those on the pro side, as well as some of the things that have been said by those on the pro side in public meetings no less. That's as much of the problem as anything else. I will give you props that you have brought some insightful reasoning into this, and I for one thank you for a slighly different perspective on this. This fight won't go away as there is just too much wrong with it, frankly.


----------



## Splitshot

Shlayer said:


> I don't usually wander into this area, but this looks fun! :evil:


My first question is; Are you having fun yet? I hope so!

Thanks for all your advice, especially your advice about how we should deal with this issue. I apologize if my style upsets you Shlayer, but that is not my problem, is it? In your first post you accused me of ad hominem attacks against other people and then you call me crazy and that I sound like a small government Libertarian or a T Party type guy (not that I care really). Shlayer, a person who attacks someone personally instead of his position describes an ad hominem attack. 

You also stated;


Shlayer said:


> No need to eviscerate me in fiction, I'm probably not checking back in lol.


Yet you continue to return? Actually I dont mind and the only reason I quoted you is to explain why I might question some of your reasoning. I wish I had time to answer all your statements and if you have a specific question ask me directly and I will answer. In this post I will try to answer some of your statements I dont agree with.



Shlayer said:


> Its okay to argue and attempt to change people's minds, but this stuff about being discriminated against, its got to go.


I realize that bait fishermen are not in a protected class but that is why I provided a definition of discrimination. Under that definition it clearly is discrimination.

You stated;....


Shlayer said:


> They don't need to prove it will be better than any other way. They just need to show a rational basis. How about this for a rational basis: fewer people will voluntarily use the river! No one is being prevented from using it. The state isn't blocking people from using it for travel, or charging for its use. They aren't even saying you can't walk down it with a can of worms and a fishing pole. They are just saying you can't use that worm to fish. Okay, you don't like restrictions......


Before I answer this statement, there are a couple of things you need to educate yourself about the Public Trust Doctrine. First, the document exists to protect the rights to access public lands and waters and the reasonable use of the resources they provide. The state of Michigan has a solemn obligation to protect the public interest in those resources. This obligation cannot be ignored by lawmakers and that premise has been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The state of Michigan also has an obligation to manage those resources in the best interest of the public which means the state has the authority to make the rules regarding that management. However the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that rules that simply limit public participation are not allowed. They dont say the state must use science in the management, but science provides facts that can be used to rationalize if the effect of the rule is to protect the public interests or reduce public participation.

That is why we support the mission statement of the MDNR fishery division which states; 
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. and the new MI PA 21becasue they both reinforce what the PTD states.

The Court has also allowed rules that expand public opportunities of the PTD to our natural heritage, so to answer some of the points in your statement, you are correct in saying that the MDNR does not have to show a rule is the best way to protect or manage the resource in question. We also agree with your statement referring to rules that restrict bait ;


Shlayer said:


> .....How about this for a rational basis: fewer people will voluntarily use the river!


 Exactly Shlayer we are in agreement, bait restriction rules limit public participation.

Under the PTD, MI PA 21 and the public mission statement of those charged with protecting the public interest, bait restriction rules fail. In one of your statement where you call me dude you demanded proof. It is not my job to do research for people especially when they use straw dog arguments to defend a position but next time you get bored at work, call a MDNR field fish biologist and ask him to point you in the right direction or look it up the information on the MDNR web-site. Our MDNR biologies made the statements hat bait restrictions have no noticeable effect on our trout fisheries in Michigan. In fact they state sport fishing has no noticeable effect on our trout populations.

As Toto stated, the current MDNR fishery chief has stated that bait restriction rules are not based on science but are social rules. Based on the best science of those who are charged with the obligation of managing our natural heritage in the best interest of all of the public, the only rational for bait restrictions is to limit public use. I know you said you only got involved in this issue for the fun of it, but we would appreciate it if you would try to be more factual in future posts. Since you inferred you were a lawyer, and facts matter in a court of law, a little more effort might be in order. You made a lot of assumptions about this issue, like inferring that flies only rules, or bait restrictions are justified because they somehow protect our fishery or even your statement:


Shlayer said:


> The state isn't blocking people from using it for travel, or charging for its use. They aren't even saying you can't walk down it with a can of worms and a fishing pole.


 If you would have read the rules you would find that you are not allowed to have worms or any lure in your possession in flies only sections. Those bias studies you claim we use were provided by our MDNR and Im pretty sure they are the ones that matter.

And just so you wont have to start from scratch, one of my sources is located at http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/mi-law.htm




fishinlk said:


> Ray,
> 
> You're comment stating
> An interesting reply to a situation when you haven't been able to successfully discredit and/or squash feed back contrary to your own. If all of this time everyone's opinions were irrelevant why would you constantly go to so much trouble to discredit and downplay the responses of those with a different view? I guess the value of experience and opinions are applied as a matter of convenience.....


I have many of my own opinions, but regarding how our rules are made, the only ones that count are those of our MDNR and those conclusions are what we support in our endeavor bring fairness back to all the fishermen in Michigan. If those conclusion discredit or downplay opinions like yours your arguments are not with us.

Lance, do you really think that by saying that in your opinion all fishermen are considered one group discrimination does not exist? You also conclude that we choose to paint a picture that divides fishermen because we want to restore fairness within the fishing community? Wasnt it fly fishing groups who felt bait fishermen were not worthy to fish on certain public waters? It wasnt right when they pushed for the first 100 miles, but with no real complaints, they felt embolden and pushed for another 112 miles and pushed harder for rule application even on waters with lots of public resistance. Now that some of us are seeking redress, you want to blame us for this divide? Next youll say, why cant we all just get along?


I know this question is getting old Lance, but can you provide one good reason that fishermen who prefer to fish with bait should be denied access to public waters unless they use a piece of equipment mandated by some people only because they believe it is proper. That water belongs to all the citizens of Michigan, so why should fly fishermen be given exclusive use of these waters, especially when there is no evidence that bait fishing harms the fishery?



fishinlk said:


> .......And with this huge mix of fisherman the majority of fisherman have been migrating towards limiting their take on their own and it's clearly a minority that feels the need to be able to keep their 5 fish limit where ever they fish.
> 
> Another piece of this is where you say that the idea is to "create a trophy fishery" via creel restrictions. I tend to view this as "restoring trophy fisheries. Members here harp on the study saying that most fish don't make it past 3 yrs old so why not keep them. Enough of this logic already! People thrive for a wild/natural wilderness experience and will travel far and wide to get this. They go to little fished streams in the UP, out west, or canada and they wouldn't be going if they were catching a bunch of wild 10" fish. There going and catching "big fish" and they didn't create the fishery by the regs. The fisheries just were never damaged by over fishing due to the fact they were difficult to access. Our streams can be restored to high quality fisheries by creel restrictions while allowing fisherman all the access to the water they are used to.
> 
> Here's a question that I honestly don't know the answer to. How much "Fly only" water has been added in the past 5 years? loosely based on my review of the streams it seems like most of the restrictions added have been "artificials only" and these accompany the creel restrictions equally.


Unbelievable Lance! First, no one has to explain why they need to keep a limit of fish if that is what they choose to do and your attempt judge them is elitist. You keep saying that creel limits are the answer to producing or restoring more trophy fish with no evidence from any MDNR fish biologist. Their research and data show just the opposite. In 2000, special interest groups pressured the DNR politically to reduce creel limits from 10 trout daily to 5 trout daily and subsequent research and data provided no evidence to support your premise that we now have more trophy trout as a result of that rule. In years that more trophy trout are present the experts conclude it is because of natural conditions, not bait restrictions, reduced fishing pressure or reduced creel limits. Again that is why I said that your gut feelings, my gut feelings, TUs gut feelings should not be used to manage our fisheries and even though our MDNR biologists are not perfect, our fisheries will be the best served if we rely on their training, education, experience and duty to the public. 

Your question about how much water has been added for fly fishermen is equal to the amount of water that is now bait restricted. No it is not Fly Only water, but for those who buy into the TU philosophy restricting bait is the next best thing.


----------



## Shlayer

I had a long reply prepared responding to all 12 or so of your statements, but I'm not going to post it. I posted enough free suggestions. If you read them in detail and study up on the legal process for challenging a law you will understand my points. Your reply shows you fail to understand them now, and I'm okay with that. For the record, I don't represent anyone involved, and none of the advice I have given should be construed to be legal advice or relied upon as legal advice, it was just a fun thought exercise. 

Lol at your statement about "facts." I was discussing the nature of the legal system, not the merits of your science argument. Similarly, this will rarely be considered when you pull up websites like the "source" you provide. 

btw saying when you argue a certain way I write you off as crazy is not an ad hominem because it specifically relates to your argument not you.  Similarly being a T Party person or Libertarian isn't an ad hominem either, I think both groups have some good arguments and I tend to agree with small government arguments which is what I referenced in that statement. That statement was just a side note from my internal commentary.


----------



## Splitshot

Shlayer

Trying to communicate with someone you have never met can be very difficult. Based on your first post, forgive me for misunderstanding that you were just trying to help us. I can see from a lawyers point of view why you might think every argument I made would be ones we would present in a court of law and why you responded regarding the nature of the legal system.

We are very interested in resolving this issue without a legal battle, but it doesnt mean it is not an option. In the event that there is no reasonable solution and we chose the legal option, we would certainly rely on the legal representatives we chose to make sure the facts are presented using proper protocols.

By the way, I did read each of your posts and then read them again before posting this reply and some of the information you provided could be very helpful and we appreciate your efforts.

Words have meaning and those in the legal profession rely on them more than most professions. So just from my point of view and forgive me for being mentally naive and ignorant, and this is just a minor point, but if you would have said; when you argue a certain way I write your arguments off as crazy instead of saying when you argue a certain way I write you off as crazy I might have agreed with your conclusion. 

I would also agree that being a T Party person or Libertarian isn't an ad hominem unless the person reading the statement in context thought you were using the terms T Party and Libertarian as pejoratives. 

I too had written responses to some of your statements, but wont post them either. Sorry I didnt see you as and advocate and for the record, we dont represent any special interest group either. Unless of course you feel that average citizens could be defined as a special interest group. We see no good reason either scientific or social for rules that reduce public participation on public waters and if you dont agree with the word discrimination, how about unfair, biased or prejudiced? That is a rhetorical question so there is no need to reply.

I knew the National Rivers Organization and there opinions wouldnt be accepted as a source in a court of law, but they list many of the U. S. Supreme Court Decisions that might be considered by a judge. So in the end, perception has much to do with how one views the meaning of the written word and again I accept your clarifications.


----------



## fishinlk

Ray you're cracking me up!

You're asking me to speak to questions saying I've not provided an answer to yet AGAIN, but now you're doing it the same theread as I previously posted it! Just goes to show how futile and closed minded these arguements are. kind of sad really. 

Here it is from Post #87



> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Lance, why have you never address the discrimination issue and why people like me should not be able to fish some of the best public waters the way we chose like you do? It seems you justify these discriminatory bait restrictions because you believe it will improve the fishery
> 
> .
> 
> Ray I have a addressed it and you choose to ignore it because you don't agree with the comparison. Even though a very small water is gear restricted here it is again.
> 
> Gear restrictions is not stopping anyone from fishing any place. I've seen guys fly fishing with a spinning rod during the hex hatch. It only stops you from fishing somewhere if you refuse to adapt to the rules. Your arguments equate to those that would be someone crying about not being able to ride their bycle on the I75. Nobody is stopping you from driving up 75 but you need to adapt and drive car......





> Unbelievable Lance! First, no one has to explain why they need to keep a limit of fish if that is what they choose to do and your attempt judge them is elitist.


 I have no problem with people keeping fish, what I have a problem with is that people feel that they should have this right on any given piece of water that they choose no matter what. I don't care how they're fishing whether it's worms or flies. There are rivers that should have limits to manage the fishery for a high quality fishery with a properly distributed age class of fish. Pretty simple. 



> In years that more trophy trout are present the experts conclude it is because of natural conditions, not bait restrictions, reduced fishing pressure or reduced creel limits.


 Earlier in this thread you stated that the studies on the reduced creel limits/size limits are still in progress, so are you applying an old DNR theory based on older regulations to back a statement because it's convenient or are you just assuming nobody will notice.


----------



## mondrella

fishinlk said:


> Ray you're cracking me up!
> 
> You're asking me to speak to questions saying I've not provided an answer to yet AGAIN, but now you're doing it the same theread as I previously posted it! Just goes to show how futile and closed minded these arguements are. kind of sad really.
> 
> Here it is from Post #87
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people keeping fish, what I have a problem with is that people feel that they should have this right on any given piece of water that they choose no matter what. I don't care how they're fishing whether it's worms or flies. There are rivers that should have limits to manage the fishery for a high quality fishery with a properly distributed age class of fish. Pretty simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier in this thread you stated that the studies on the reduced creel limits/size limits are still in progress, so are you applying an old DNR theory based on older regulations to back a statement because it's convenient or are you just assuming nobody will notice.


 There are numerous studies in the MDNR archives that back Rays statement up if you would look. One of the latest is the pm river assessment. Search their site and you will find them. In the past I would take the time to do it for you but maybe if you find it yourself you will really take the time to read it. 
So its right then to take the most productive type waters where trout reproduce well great survival and restrict the fishing? Yet on a marginal stream other than below Mio it is not needed? The only reason Mio is GR is for those lining their pockets and the groups over there. Take a look at a map of the GR water it is sickening to see how much of the Ausable is under those regulations. Guess the few businesses that have survived over there won't be complaining since a lot of them are closed or going to. Take a look at Baldwin since 2010 yep great economic development decision since that will be your next argument for it. If you actually look up and read the studies out there by O'Neil did the pm and Zorn has done one on the flow and how much it affects trout survival.


----------



## fishinlk

Thank you, I'll go look for some of those studies you mentioned and see what turns up. 

I'm not playing the economic card in this. As far as I'm concerned that's secondary. I'm looking for a healthy fishery with naturally occuring age structure. 

As far as any shops or such failing and pointing it as that special reg waters aren't an economic boom. Nothing is right now up there. I don't care where it is. When I made my first trip north this summer I was surprised how light the traffic was again this year until was told that gas prices the week before had been over $4 a gallon. The economy is the snake that's biting the businesses up there not the lack of interest in fishing. I see it everywhere when I come up and since you live up there I'm sure you see it too. Se let's just paint this with an even brush and not blame the businesses having trouble due to the lack of interest in the trophy waters.


----------



## fishinDon

fishinlk said:


> Thank you, I'll go look for some of those studies you mentioned and see what turns up.
> 
> I'm not playing the economic card in this. As far as I'm concerned that's secondary. I'm looking for a healthy fishery with naturally occuring age structure.
> 
> As far as any shops or such failing and pointing it as that special reg waters aren't an economic boom. Nothing is right now up there. I don't care where it is. When I made my first trip north this summer I was surprised how light the traffic was again this year until was told that gas prices the week before had been over $4 a gallon. The economy is the snake that's biting the businesses up there not the lack of interest in fishing. I see it everywhere when I come up and since you live up there I'm sure you see it too. Se let's just paint this with an even brush and not blame the businesses having trouble due to the lack of interest in the trophy waters.


Just like Regulations can't trump habitat (or lack of it), they can't beat the economy either...


----------



## toto

Could you explain what a trophy fishery is????


----------



## MERGANZER

toto said:


> Could you explain what a trophy fishery is????


 
Apparently it's only found in the fliies only sections of Michigan because no nice fish come from any other sections of our streams.

Ganzer


----------



## toto

It's just that everyone keeps saying trophy fishery, but no one has said what that is, at least no yet.


----------



## MERGANZER

toto said:


> It's just that everyone keeps saying trophy fishery, but no one has said what that is, at least no yet.


 
I have no idea what it means either.

Ganzer


----------



## fishinlk

Wow, talk about reading something into a statement. Just because I pointed out that there are economic issues affecting all businesses up there it's turned into me saying that the only Flo only waters are trophy waters?? No wonder we've got issues here..... I've never once said that Trophy areas are specific to Fly Only and the state doesn't either. 


There are also "trophy regs" on artificials only areas. Right now there is not a mechanism in place to apply them to area that are open to bait. Everyone complains about the complexity of the regs so I think I think the state just ops to tie the trophy regs to the stream classification for artificials only to keep it simple. Unfortunately I think those regs on ANY water open to bait fishing would be met with the equal vengance seen on the battle against Flies and Artificials only.


----------



## fishinlk

Oh and I use it because that's the "label" that's been applied by the state to any place that they apply the 18" rule set on browns.


----------



## mondrella

MERGANZER said:


> I don't see what that matters unless you think I am lying. I am not lying and I have nothing to gain by doing so. If you look at a fishing guide from a few years back it isn't difficult to decifer what stretch it is. The point is though they made a decision without even as much as talking to property owners along that stretch who fish it every year to find out if the regulations helped or didnt impact the river. They had increased the size to keep fish. That did help and we began to catch more large browns in particular. Then they lowered it back after several years. I would have welcomed the opportunity to speak to the fisheries people and tell them what the regulation had done to improve the fishing.
> 
> Ganzer


 I know that section of water probably better than 90 percent of the land owners along the stretch you are talking about. I fished it before during and after. For 5 years I fished portions of it at least 3 nights a week during the reg changes. I would have to agree with the DNR. Fish size and numbers did not change much. If at all. What I saw more than anything was just a slight change in habitat. Be it depth change cover gained or lost the better fish shift positions within the stream. There is not a chance I have not fished in front of your place at least 100 times over the years. In fact the fishing has been very good in that section for the past 3 years. In fact it has been on my way home now for the past 4 months and I have to say it is fishing way above average for itself this year. I have taken tons of **** from a few land owners in there saying it is not navigable water. I informed them it is and if they would like to challenge it call the law. Seems to shut them up for a short time.


----------



## mondrella

To take your word or mine is not the way to do it. The data they collected is.


----------



## itchn2fish

fishinlk said:


> itchn2fish Quick question on the brown trout grayling relationship. Were you referring the browns being the demise of the orginal grayling or the re-introduction effort? Just wondering...


I meant this: De-forestation, Habitat-loss, habitat destruction, the scouring of the streams, erosion of the roll-aways and other stream-bank areas, etc, were the main, key causes of the of Michigan grayling extinction. Our rivers were once cold, tree-lined, deep, and narrow. They are now warmer, less tree-lined, shallow and wide.
But browns were introduced way before the grayling were gone. The brown preyed heavily on the grayling, and wiped out any remaining grayling. It was this _combination_ of events that led to the demise of the grayling.
IMO, if browns had never been introduced at all in to Michigan streams, then enough grayling may have been able to survive the habitat alteration and might still be around today, who knows?
Browns still continue to be planted in waters of the UP & LP where brookies are present. I think that this is a grave mistake given that browns are known to be voracious predators, and surely eat a lot of brookies. IMO, in these waters, every legal brown caught, no matter the size, should be retained and eaten, period.


----------



## MERGANZER

mondrella said:


> To take your word or mine is not the way to do it. The data they collected is.


 
We spoke to them (DNR) and they said they hadn't done anything to collect data from that stretch. If they had I wouldn't question it so much. They were in there this year. They called and asked if we would allow them access for vehicles etc. and we welcomed them as we would like them to get as much data as possible. As far ass navigability is concerned, you can find info to support either side the C.O. told us that one of the issues is access site. The bridge is not a "legal" access site and if we called the vehicles could be towed and or ticketed. Not a big deal as we don't ask people to leave unless they are littering etc.

Ganzer


----------



## Splitshot

fishinDon said:


> Lance,..............
> 
> While I think we can toss all the gear restrictions out the window, I am not against a reduced creel limit, as it affects every kind of fisherman equally. I am against non-scientifically based applications of rules/laws that do nothing to the fishery, but "feel good" for certain segments (and likewise don't "feel good" for others).


Good points Don, except reduced creel limits reduce dont affect every kind of fishermen equally. Good deal for trophy fishermen maybe, but not so good for the fisherman who like to eat trout.



fishinDon said:


> I think you could make a case that there are a handful of streams in MI that see enough pressure to warrant a reduced creel limit for trout, as the pressure and harvest they see may actually make a measurable impact to the numbers of "decent" sized trout available to be caught. Most of those streams are near population centers and the Au Sable (marketing works).
> 
> The recent creel assessment on the PM showed that it is clearly not a river that is benefiting from the reduced creel limits/no kill/gear restricted regulations, so I agree with the area biologist who looked at that creel survey and the last 40 years of shocking data to conclude that we should lift all the restrictions on the Pere Marquette and return the river to Type 4. I'm sure some still will


Based on DNR data there is no case to be made that shows fishing pressure may make a measurable impact to the numbers of decent sized trout available to be caught on any of our rivers. It is premise not based on any facts.




fishinlk said:


> Thank you for such a fine post Ray. Buried in that long winded post you've managed to answer my question while completely contradicting your answer.
> 
> Splitshot wrote; Okay so now comes my answer to your question: IF the gear regs were to be dropped to open the water to bait how would you feel about that type of creel limit(2 fish per day 1 larger that 18") being maintained on a watershed if the study shows that the age structure of the fish in that watershed was improved?
> 
> This question is the reason I started this thread, but somehow you havent comprehended my point on this issue so the short answer to your question is NO!
> 
> Followed by this: Splitshot wrote Since I support the size and creel limits our biologists set based on their expertise and within the limits of the law and their own mission statement I would support further changes on size limits and creel limits if those same biologist deemed them necessary to sustain our fishery. I am in favor of making them better.
> 
> So in one breath you're saying no but in the next your saying you would support the laws the DNR established. I proposed that they saw the value in this rule and you flat out rejected it. I didn't say MY study. I was talking about the DNR study, which seemed to be pretty clear.
> 
> There is nothing in this poposed change in regulations that would stop ANYONE from fishing an area with the creel restriction. It would only reduce your potential harvest.
> 
> Lance,
> 
> If you would try to comprehend what I wrote instead of looking for that gotcha moment we might be able to have a more frank and impartial discussion.
> 
> I said No to your hypothetical question because improving the age structure and number of trophy trout reduces the opportunity for fishermen who choose to eat trout. When you said in regard in your hypothetical question; It would only reduce your potential harvest you agree that could be a result. I have been very consistent in my position that I dont support rules for trout or deer that improve opportunities for one group at the expense of another group on either public waters or public lands.
> 
> In my second statement I wrote that I supported creel limits Only if the experts felt they were necessary to protect and sustain that fishery according to their own mission statement. No contradiction and no support for your claim of some hidden agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> fishinlk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the helicoptering trees in for habitat goes. Sure the DNR is getting a grant to pay for the 'copter more often than not a pretty significant portion of these habitat improvments have been paid for by organizations like TU or Anglers of the Ausable and a few other groups. While agree that there are other waters that can use the help. Why would a group that raises money for a specific watershed or two invest their money somewhere else? The DNR is sitting with very limited funds. If they have an opportunity to make a significant improvment in an area when someone else will foot a large portion of the bill vs. using the lesser funds to do less why wouldn't they do the larger project where they can make their own funds go futher.
> 
> 
> 
> While Many of us suspect what you say is true, please show me where TU or Anglers of the Au Sable raised large amounts of money to improve trout habitat on any public waters with the expectations that they would receive special privileges in return? I do get your point as to why they are willing to spend public funds on a specific watershed where they have already garnered rules that support their fishing philosophy, but that is what I have been saying for many years and why we feel rules not based on equal use and fairness to all fishermen need to be reversed. Thanks Lance.
Click to expand...


----------



## MERGANZER

itchn2fish said:


> I meant this: De-forestation, Habitat-loss, habitat destruction, the scouring of the streams, erosion of the roll-aways and other stream-bank areas, etc, were the main, key causes of the of Michigan grayling extinction. Our rivers were once cold, tree-lined, deep, and narrow. They are now warmer, less tree-lined, shallow and wide.
> But browns were introduced way before the grayling were gone. The brown preyed heavily on the grayling, and wiped out any remaining grayling. It was this _combination_ of events that led to the demise of the grayling.
> IMO, if browns had never been introduced at all in to Michigan streams, then enough grayling may have been able to survive the habitat alteration and might still be around today, who knows?
> Browns still continue to be planted in waters of the UP & LP where brookies are present. I think that this is a grave mistake given that browns are known to be voracious predators, and surely eat a lot of brookies. IMO, in these waters, every legal brown caught, no matter the size, should be retained and eaten, period.


 
I agree that we should focus more on the brookies where they are present.

Ganzer


----------



## mondrella

MERGANZER said:


> We spoke to them (DNR) and they said they hadn't done anything to collect data from that stretch. If they had I wouldn't question it so much. They were in there this year. They called and asked if we would allow them access for vehicles etc. and we welcomed them as we would like them to get as much data as possible. As far ass navigability is concerned, you can find info to support either side the C.O. told us that one of the issues is access site. The bridge is not a "legal" access site and if we called the vehicles could be towed and or ticketed. Not a big deal as we don't ask people to leave unless they are littering etc.
> 
> Ganzer


 There was stream shocking done during that time. I just happened to be there and witnessed it with my own eyes. The number of fish in there is staggering. 
As for access according to public trust doctrine the bridge IS a legal entrance point to the water. The only way is if the county deems it a hazard for vehicles to be parked there thus needing signage. A road right of way is for public use. It would be no different than me parking along a road and continuing on foot. I have every legal right to do that unless the road is marked no parking.


----------



## MERGANZER

mondrella said:


> There was stream shocking done during that time. I just happened to be there and witnessed it with my own eyes. The number of fish in there is staggering.
> As for access according to public trust doctrine the bridge IS a legal entrance point to the water. The only way is if the county deems it a hazard for vehicles to be parked there thus needing signage. A road right of way is for public use. It would be no different than me parking along a road and continuing on foot. I have every legal right to do that unless the road is marked no parking.


 
These issues can be argued more than APR's that is just what the DNR C.O. told us when we asked.

Ganzer


----------



## fishinDon

Ganzer - 

Guessing you are referencing the Type 2 (yellow) water that was lifted above 37. Type 2 has been shown by DNR's research to be a failed regulation for increasing numbers and size structure, and has been lifted on most streams now execpt where certain people or groups raised a big stink to keep their failed regulation because they believe the opposite and can't be swayed by the DNR data. What the DNR told you when you called was correct, they lifted the regulation based on their research that showed it wasn't working. 

If you think about Type 2 logically, it does exactly what you hope it wouldn't...put all the harvest pressure on the 12+ brown trout. 

Don


----------



## MERGANZER

fishinDon said:


> Ganzer -
> 
> Guessing you are referencing the Type 2 (yellow) water that was lifted above 37. Type 2 has been shown by DNR's research to be a failed regulation for increasing numbers and size structure, and has been lifted on most streams now execpt where certain people or groups raised a big stink to keep their failed regulation because they believe the opposite and can't be swayed by the DNR data. What the DNR told you when you called was correct, they lifted the regulation based on their research that showed it wasn't working.
> 
> If you think about Type 2 logically, it does exactly what you hope it wouldn't...put all the harvest pressure on the 12+ brown trout.
> 
> Don


 
I can only go with what I experienced, my family members and friends experienced. We don't hardly ever keep anything anyhow.

Ganzer


----------



## Splitshot

MERGANZER said:


> I can only go with what I experienced, my family members and friends experienced. We don't hardly ever keep anything anyhow.
> 
> Ganzer


Your comment that you rely on your experience to support rules or regulations is exactly why we think it is better to leave it to the experts. I fish one section of river where the minimum size is 12 inches and after a couple of years the average size of the fish in that section has been smaller on average. The biologists who collected the data agree with what my experience shows, but like Don said they haven&#8217;t changed the rule on that river because of some emotional local objections. 

I have not objected to the rule but just the same I think we should leave those decisions to the MDNR biologists. Your opinion and my opinion are just that, opinions. Those opinions might be useful to the biologists and we hope they listen to them, but in the end the best science and fairness should be used to make the rules.


----------



## fishinlk

Toto,

Yes, I would not be totally against getting rid of Fly only waters if there were similar creel restrictions in place. 


Ray,

I wasn't looking for a "gotchya moment" but you sure put one out there. 

So basically if I sum up what you are saying is that you only want support a regulation that stops the stream from being depleted of fish. So basically I a stream that allows you to keep your 5 or 10 legal trout with an occasional above average fish thrown is good enough and all anyone should expect to have in our streams? 

What's wrong with wanting a world class fishery? You say it only benefits the trophy fisherman, I say bull. If the overall quality of fish in the system goes up ALL fisherman benefit. I've seen enough pics on here to know that the bait guys are just as proud of catching a 15-20" fish as the fly or spinning gear guys are. I honestly can't believe you actually said that.. 


I'll see what I can do on looking up info on the $$. I've donated myself to both Anglers and back when the Fly Factory used to do the Trout Bum BBQ's when they started doing more of that kind of thing. 


itchn2fish

Thanks for the follow-up. It sounds like you may have taken it that I was missing the impact of all the habitat damage that hurt the Grayling. That wasn't the case so if that's how it was interpreted I'm sorry. I did not realize that the browns were introduced quite that early. 

As for the impact of browns on the brookie populations I'd be thrilled to see regs on some waters were there was a free for all on keeping browns if we could keep those nice brookie waters intact!


----------



## toto

Ganzer. I asked as I believe you live along a flies only section, correct me if I'm wrong, man don't be so thin skinned, no one called you a liar of insinuated anything of the sort, I'm asking for a reason.


----------



## MERGANZER

Splitshot said:


> Your comment that you rely on your experience to support rules or regulations is exactly why we think it is better to leave it to the experts. I fish one section of river where the minimum size is 12 inches and after a couple of years the average size of the fish in that section has been smaller on average. The biologists who collected the data agree with what my experience shows, but like Don said they havent changed the rule on that river because of some emotional local objections.
> 
> I have not objected to the rule but just the same I think we should leave those decisions to the MDNR biologists. Your opinion and my opinion are just that, opinions. Those opinions might be useful to the biologists and we hope they listen to them, but in the end the best science and fairness should be used to make the rules.


 
I agree with you on this. My point was that the "experts" told us they were changing our stretch based on what they had gathered on other stretches not ours. You know as well as anyone that what is good for one stretch doesn't always mean it good for another. That is all my point was.

Ganzer


----------



## MERGANZER

toto said:


> Ganzer. I asked as I believe you live along a flies only section, correct me if I'm wrong, man don't be so thin skinned, no one called you a liar of insinuated anything of the sort, I'm asking for a reason.


 
Toto, I am not thin skinned and it is obviously difficult to read words on a screen and know the emotional intent as to how they were written. I didn't mean to come across wrong towards you.

Ganzer


----------



## fishinDon

fishinlk said:


> As for the impact of browns on the brookie populations I'd be thrilled to see regs on some waters were there was a free for all on keeping browns if we could keep those nice brookie waters intact!


Black River Gear Restricted section has this. Harvest on brookies is 2, browns is 5. Selfishly, I'd like to see them allow additional brown trout harvest on some of our other more well known brook trout streams as well...


----------



## Splitshot

QUOTE=fishinlk;4706581] Ray,

I wasn't looking for a "gotchya moment" but you sure put one out there. 

So basically if I sum up what you are saying is that you only want support a regulation that stops the stream from being depleted of fish. So basically I a stream that allows you to keep your 5 or 10 legal trout with an occasional above average fish thrown is good enough and all anyone should expect to have in our streams? 

What's wrong with wanting a world class fishery? You say it only benefits the trophy fisherman, I say bull. If the overall quality of fish in the system goes up ALL fisherman benefit. I've seen enough pics on here to know that the bait guys are just as proud of catching a 15-20" fish as the fly or spinning gear guys are. I honestly can't believe you actually said that.([/QUOTE]


No matter what I say Lance, you continue to twist what I have said in an effort to demonize me as a greedy fish hog who only cares about himself and doesnt care about our trout fishery because the only way to defeat my arguments is to discredit me personally. As usual you have used that tired straw man argument again, I suppose in an attempt to justify implementing special rules that you feel will help you catch more big trout even without any supporting evidence to justify the sacrifice you ask of others. Yes I know you believe all fishermen will benefit in the end, but that dream is based on your assumption that the number of trophy fish without the increase in proper habitat will be substantial. 

The real difference between your position and mine is, unlike you I am not willing to sacrifice the rights of fishermen who choose to legally keep and fish within the law in order to achieve some utopian dream of building a world class trophy trout fishery. 


In the same post where you mistakenly concluded that I contradicted myself, I clearly stated that I supported improving our trout fishery through continued habitat restoration projects and in fact I have spent hundreds of hours in that endeavor including projects in fly only sections. 

Habitat restoration is the main reason Trout Unlimited was formed and the main reason they continue to exist. TUs official position regarding trophy regulations including creel reductions and increased size limits and flies only rules is neutral even though there is a growing amount of information supporting a different conclusion.

When you mentioned pictures, I looked at your photo gallery and saw a picture of a beautiful trophy brown trout you caught in 2002. I dont know how many fish over 20 inches you caught since then, but it made me think about why you may think so poorly about our fishery in Michigan.

A few years ago, I fished about 60 days and my main goal was to catch big trout. I ended the year with 48 trout over 18" and of those about half were over 20 inches with 4 over 24 inches. As I recall those fish were taken from over 20 different sections of rivers and none of them came from bait restricted waters and only 2 or 3 of them came on flies. None of those trout came at night either, because I gave night fishing for trout up many years ago.

I gained access to these rivers I fished in every case from public access sites open to all fishermen using all legal methods. Besides those 48 trophy trout, I conservatively landed approximately 2,000 other legal trout. By law I could have kept 300 of those trout, but even though I cant remember exactly how many I caught, I know it was less than 24. Kind of different from your inference of me.

In my opinion we have an exceptional trout fishery in Michigan and perhaps the above description of one of my better years trout fishing will help you understand what our rivers really have to offer.

First almost all of our trout rivers in Michigan hold good numbers of trophy trout. The reason you might not be understanding that fact could be because you choose to limit yourself to one legal method of fishing. Instead of insisting other people sacrifice their rights just so your chances of catching a trophy trout on a fly might be increased, perhaps you should consider investing some time learning and acquiring new skills, or modify and reinforce, any existing knowledge, and perhaps you will begin to understand what you desire already actually exists.


----------



## fishinlk

Ray, 

I do feel that we have very good to great fisheries here in this state and I also feel it's been steadily improving. I also think future may still be even better yet. I know that there are good numbers of trout over 20" in many stretches of the rivers. I've seen big fish in some pretty skinny water too. I also agree with you that habitat is the most important facet to the rivers. I think many stretches are still recovering from the abuse of of past years as weell as current threats like those that clear away the cover of stream banks for what ever reason is used or the warm water run-off coming from asphalt surfaces. Making sure that these things get addressed is the most important thing, hands down. 

I don't think I'm asking anyone to give up their right to fish. Just in some cases limit what they are keeping. I'm not necassarily looking for an increase in "trophies" but I think that there are opportunities to improve the overall size structure in some rivers. Particularly an increase in those fish in the 13"-17" range. I think those regs that are labeled "trophy regs" for lack of a better term really benefit the fish in those size ranges the most. 

I don't this is a some kind of Utopian expectation. I think that it's something that could be a very real experience that can be acheived by simply being a little flexible in our resource managment.


----------



## Splitshot

fishinlk said:


> I don't think I'm asking anyone to give up their right to fish. Just in some cases limit what they are keeping. I'm not necassarily looking for an increase in "trophies" but I think that there are opportunities to improve the overall size structure in some rivers. Particularly an increase in those fish in the 13"-17" range. I think those regs that are labeled "trophy regs" for lack of a better term really benefit the fish in those size ranges the most.
> 
> I don't this is a some kind of Utopian expectation. I think that it's something that could be a very real experience that can be acheived by simply being a little flexible in our resource managment.


Therein lies the problem Lance. It isnt that your asking anyone to give up their right to fish, something I never said, but asking some fishermen to continue to make sacrifices just because you or people like you think it is a good idea and eventually your ideas will somehow benefit us all in the future.

This is exactly why we want fair decisions made by biology, research, educated professionals and not by ballot box biology or the gut feelings. 

Over the years, the MDNR has been very flexible. In one instance organized group of fly fishermen and guides asked for trophy regulations on the Big Muskegon River below the Thornapple landing in an effort to see if, as they believed a trophy fishery would be created. After several years the MDNR showed that not only were there fewer big fish caught but there was also less fishermen using the river. The 15" minimum experiment did not work and when the MDNR biologist presented the supporting data many of the guides and fly fishermen turned on them and disputed the data based on their opinions.

On some rivers the MDNR increased the minimum size limit on trout from 10 to 12 inches. After years of study and data, they determined the 12" minimum not only did not work, but might have had an opposite effect in some cases. The classification was changed on some of those rivers, but not on others because of the intensive pressure of some fly fishing groups who would not accept the scientific evidence so they remain in force today.

I could make a long list of rules that restrict or deny opportunities to a majority of trout fishermen based on philosophical thinking of how it is in our best interest, but history shows a different tale and is why many of us are working to reverse those rules and why we reject your premise of what just a little flexibility might bring.


----------



## fishinlk

lol, Ray you've built your arguments exstensively thoughout these conversations that gear restrictions were out to stop people from fishing. Then it tunred into creel retrictions were to stop people from fishing. When I ask specifically about the idea of opening areas up to access with the creel restrictions, even going so far as to say SPECIFICALLY if the MDNR though they were the right thing to do you said "NO". Then in the same reply and again here you said you back the DNR. Then again, you say this under the condition that your assuming that the studies dictate that the rules that YOU want will be the ones in place and that the more restrictive rules cannot possibly be right. I think if the studies come back and showed that there are improvements to the age structure you would still not back it and would blame the results as being biased to the special interest groups. 

The fact is that as much as you want to try to polarize this against gear restrictions and trophy fisherman the real truth is that you are no different than what you say the supposed groups that you railing against want.
You want what's important to YOU and in reality it's not what's necassarily whats best for the overall fishery. In this case you want to be fish any troutstream and take home fish.

Somewhere in the middle of all of this is where the rules should really be. The real problem is that the DNR is not financed in a way to really do what's best for every stream. The money and controls are not there to facilitate the studies to accurately do this. So they have to take a broader approach to it and take their best shot. In some cases some people get their feelings hurt because it's not what "they" want for the waters they enjoy the most. The rest of us make it work and hopefully do what we can to facilitate habitat improvements and participate in surveys and provide feedback. Hopefully without too much bias. Hopefully all of this translate to a bright future to our streams.


----------

