# Gear Reg Threads



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

As you guys who are regulars in the NW and other river forums in MS know there are proposed new gear restriction regulations in the air. First of all, as of now, I believe these are a done deal and, in reality, have been since the inception of the group that came up with the proposals.

That said it is necessary that the voice of what I believe to be the majority of anglers in the state (and I have no data to support that so don't jump all over me as it is an opinion) needs to be heard.

Over the past several months there have been several threads in here discussing the issue. What needs to be done is to gather the data and pertinent comments that give sources for the data into one spot and then go from there. For instance I believe in the first draft of the proposals the DNR said that after 30 years of gear restrictions on the PM they saw no differnce in fish populations or size. Can someone provide a link to that draft and comment?

There was an excellent thread in here this past spring or summer that contained a LOT of data and comments. I thought it was a thread started by Splitshot and did a search of his threads, but what I found was one that focused on the PM which, while helpful, was not the trhead I was looking for. Can someone find that thread and post the URL in here?

This battle will be fought again because those who hunger for more gear restricted water have been fed and they will not be satiated. This will return as an issue.

It is important to gather all pertinent data and studies and that includes those that support gear restrictions. We need to know what we're up against.

I've got to scoot to church now. Start bringing on the information that is needed. We also need a data/stat guy who can read that stuff and find the flaws. They will be there.

By the way to contact the NRC via email you need to send them to
TeresaGloden at [email protected].


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/d...out-Streams-for-Gear-Regulations_322301_7.pdf

Might want to get that file copied or downloaded NOW, it might just go missing!!!!!!!!!! Didn't believe my eyes when I read that statement.

This might be the other thread you were looking for started by Tonello

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337167


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

That would be the gear reg discussion file and the thread that I spoke of and I have downloaded it. I understand how those types of files can "disappear" from "interested' sites as weve seen it happen before. In this case I am not speaking of the DNR, but rather another organization.

In that discussion file on what page(s) are the pertinent points that are needed to be emphasized.....that gear regs don't do what has been claimed they do and that is to increase trout numbers and size.....found?


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Pages 34 thru 36 for the PM and admission that gear restrictions do nothing for size or numbers of resident trout.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

I did get a well written response today. Apparently "science" is not just "biological science" but also includes "social science" and "economic science".

Personally, the "no kill" doesn't bother me as much as the "flies only" regs, particularly when "artificials only" is proven to be just as effective in the safe release of fish.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Ongoing electro-fishing surveys showed that in all but two cases, the more restrictive angling regulations failed to produce higher densities of bigger fish. In some cases, the trout populations showed a negative response to the regulations. 

In the two cases where the size structure or population densities improved, there were ongoing habitat-rehabilitation efforts under way. "We think that was the determining factor," Grischke said.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_46403_46404-216069--,00.html


From the reading I have been doing it appears that resricting sportsmen access/harvest through gear restrictions is the biggest factor. If in fact that is the overall goal and it does not have a biological benifit then it should not be allowed under prop g. Then again who has authority over fishing, Isnt the NRC authority limited to hunting.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

This study which shows the effect of going from gear restricted water to all gear is available again. Save it before it goes away again.
http://www.wisconsintu.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7BShpllXd88=&tabid=58&mid=372

Also, does someone have the House Bill # which enabled the DNR to establish the additional gear restriction mileage???


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Flyfisher said:


> I did get a well written response today. Apparently "science" is not just "biological science" but also includes "social science" and "economic science".
> 
> Personally, the "no kill" doesn't bother me as much as the "flies only" regs, particularly when "artificials only" is proven to be just as effective in the safe release of fish.


Ok, I will bite on this BS. Where are their studies that show the economic science of bait fishing vs fly fishing? Who spends more money on licenses? Bait? Lures? I guess I missed how letting the fly fishermen have all the prime trout waters benefits my "social science". Do you regulate for special interests or the majority when you socially regulate? Easy to give lip service that we do this for that blah, blah, blah. Then show us the reports and studies how these "economic sciences and social sciences led them to their conclusions. I won't hold my breath. Time to put these decisions back in the hands of the legislature. Just like the crossbow issue had to have a representative threaten legislature, so must this issue go.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

For a little help on finding studies, go to Institute of Fisheries Research at University of Michigan/ Ann Arbor. If fact, if anyone lives near there, and has the time, go there, and you can get copies of any study you want. Also, Paul Seelbach, PHd, is one person who you could contact on these issues, he is at Wolf Lake Fish Hatcher, or at least he was. BTW, I also just sent an email to Mike Cox to see what his opinion would be, as to whether its even legal to do that, either by the Administrative Procedures Act, or even its is considered discrimination. I'll let you know if I hear back from his office.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

I am sure there must be a social science definition by where one segment of the population seeks to deny access to another segment of the population.


----------



## bonefishbill (Nov 1, 2009)

You guys are determined to destroy your trout waters just like you did your deer herd


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

How so??


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Ranger Ray said:


> Ok, I will bite on this BS. Where are their studies that show the economic science of bait fishing vs fly fishing? Who spends more money on licenses? Bait? Lures? I guess I missed how letting the fly fishermen have all the prime trout waters benefits my "social science". Do you regulate for special interests or the majority when you socially regulate? Easy to give lip service that we do this for that blah, blah, blah. Then show us the reports and studies how these "economic sciences and social sciences led them to their conclusions. I won't hold my breath. Time to put these decisions back in the hands of the legislature. Just like the crossbow issue had to have a representative threaten legislature, so must this issue go.


Any of these numbers can be fudged. Tourism, moneys spent at lodges, guide houses, bars, fly shops, ect. There's your lobbying group. Deep pockets feeding politicians, feeding BS to the influential ones, some without a clue


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

bonefishbill said:


> You guys are determined to destroy your trout waters just like you did your deer herd


Really? 
Lets see studies show no improvement in restricted waters compared to other waters where all methods are allowed. I suggest you educate yourself on the issues at hand. If one wants truely large trout to catch fish streams that are mariginal trout habitat. There won't be as many but they will be bigger than any special regs can produce. That is a fact backed up by many studies done by our DNRE.
Our deer herd is improving slowly. Truely educate yourself before you make comments that are just a lot of hot air and no way to back them up.
Mich. deer herd was one of the first to rebound after market hunting. Did our state go down the wrong road on some things. You bet. Other states like yours got the chance to see were this state went wrong and correct the problems before they occured. That is a fact.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

bonefishbill said:


> You guys are determined to destroy your trout waters just like you did your deer herd


Please explain! "Destroy"??? Let's see something other than your opinion. In the comments above have offered links to studies showing that gear restrictions have little or no impact on improving the trout fishing. Even our own DNR has said so or didn't you bother to read that far.

As far as destroying trout streams the real culprit is the sand load that is dumped into every stream every year.

That's a nice swipe you just took at a lot of very dedicated trout anglers this one included, but it doesn't hold water as far as the facts go unless you can offer up the data that can convince those that are opposed to gear restrictions, which I've looked at and will again, and I will be convinced. There's just too much scientific information out there.......and I don't count "social science" or "economic science" the same as hard science.....that disproves the myth of "Flies only/Hardware only/No bait really does what it's proponents say it does.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Now, let's get back to the purpose of this thread and not be distracted by those whose minds are set by trying to defend what we really believe.

*Here's a couple of quotes (minus the members' names who posted the comments) that can be found in the long running thread that was offered above.*

_"Again I would like to point out we (as a whole) are stressing about 1/2 of 1% of the available inland waterways in Michigan. I'm sure there is plenty of water available for those of us who want to throw bait and I would bet the fish have to navigate these "open" waters before they make it into the gear restricted areas anyway."_

Notice the carefully used "1/2 of 1% of available inland waterways". While that may be true we need to focus on what the % of Blue Ribbon trout streams will now be gear restricted? Someone in here has done the math I believe and THAT is a point that must be hammered home.


Both of the quotes below are from the same poster (in two different posts) and one who is very familiar with the PM. Although the additional miles below Gleason's Landing are in the final proposal........and I believe they will be approved.....I'm wondering in what light the regs are looked upon now?


_"Since I really don't think there's a chance in hell that anything at all will change on the PM (As it should be besides maybe creel limits or slot restrictions IMHO)"

"Nothing will change on the PM, mark my words and... "_


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Shoeman said:


> Any of these numbers can be fudged. Tourism, moneys spent at lodges, guide houses, bars, fly shops, ect. There's your lobbying group. Deep pockets feeding politicians, feeding BS to the influential ones, some without a clue


So true Ralf but when the facts (paid dnr fishery researchers by you and me) show what reality is, AND that fact gets exploited, tell me what leg are they are going to stand on. The one buying dinner or the one getting them elected? I had a long talk recently with someone from Lansing about this. I flat out told them if this passes I expect them to save my tax money by cutting fishery and wildlife personal because why do we need them if their paid research is not listened too and decisions based on that. The subject was changed very quickly.:lol:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

riverman said:


> So true Ralf but when the facts (paid dnr fishery researchers by you and me) show what reality is, AND that fact gets exploited, tell me what leg are they are going to stand on. The one buying dinner or the one getting them elected? I had a long talk recently with someone from Lansing about this. I flat out told them if this passes I expect them to save my tax money by cutting fishery and wildlife personal because *why do we need them if their paid research is not listened too and decisions based on that.* The subject was changed very quickly.:lol:


And this is another point that needs to be pounded home.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Here's some more.

http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html


http://www.finefishing.com/1freshfish/aahowto/baits/baitfishingpartthree.htm

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/inventory/TroutHooking.pdf

http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/M02-040

In the following document read pp. 34-36 concerning the effect of the PMs Flies Only/No Kill regs on trout populations and size. It is a real eye-opener. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...s_322301_7.pdf


Let's see if I understand some of what is said in those pages. Because they are so popular, rather than having a positive effect on trout numbers and size, the current regs of Flies Only/No Kill from M37 to Gleason's Landing should be maintained. Okay, I don't agree with that, but..........

In lower stretches of the river fishing with all types of gear, flies, harware, and bait is very popular so now the reasoning is to extend the gear restricted water. Is it me or doesn't this sound like an oxymoron


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

I am still trying to grasp the email I received regarding social/economic "science" taking into account when decisions are being made. I am not going to harrass Kelley into explaining how they come to their numbers. With that in mind, if the regulations exclude a large portion of the angling population, I don't see how it makes sense? 

Here's a snippet on my question regarding the "flies only" versus "artificials only" designation. 



> Of the original 105 miles of gear restricted waters, 78.2 miles consisting of 7 stream reaches are flies-only waters. Three stream reaches totaling 26.7 miles were artificial lures or flies. In the newly proposed waters, 6 reaches totaling 45.9 miles are proposed for artificial lures and flies, while only 1 stretch of 2.9 miles is proposed as flies-only water.In other words, these reaches are, in my opinion, interesting experiments to compromise the social issues. Well see how these regulations work over time.
> 
> So the debate continues to be a social issue and many anglers have requested that flies-only waters be included in the mix. We have tried to do that; but we have also tried to bring an overall balance to the package. If you add the numbers up, we are proposing 81.1 miles as flies-only waters and 72.6 miles as artificial lures.


And even though we may lose this battle, I believe there is another war to be fought in that...



> As for the PM, the only gear restrictions to date are flies-only waters. There has been significant input and comment about adding an artificial lure stretch from Bowman Bridge down to Walhalla or even to the mouth of the river. We are not comfortable going even to Walhalla at this point without further assessment data. We intend to do survey work over the next several years to see if additional designation makes sense biologically, socially, and economically.


I appreciate that Kelley took the time to respond to my questions and said that our input would be forwarded. I am not sure who dictates what in regards to drafting these proposals but get the feeling that some people are forced to explain/defend decisions that others have made? Perhaps I am right, or I could be totally wrong?

I should add that the _"under 12 years old gets to keep a fish"_ reg is actually a legislative decision. Any time water is defined as "no kill", the little ones are allowed to keep a fish between 8"-12".

If someone get a chance, can you direct me to a post/thread that lays out how this process works at the state level or give me a "Reader's Digest" version? I am curious at what level the special interests are able to provide so much input in the final draft?


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

REG said:


> Well, I wouldn't necessarily say proven on the bait mortality issue. I guess that I am getting sensitive to extremely high mortality rates being bandied about as gospel in other venues, and as these articles show below, that is not necessarily so:
> http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/M02-040
> 
> http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/M02-172.1
> ...


Thanks, I'll read this when I get a chance. I agree on trout/steelhead under a bobber. I can't recall the last time I hooked a fish deeply. But what about the average joe worm fisherman that waits until the trout taps on the bait multple times before finally setting the hook. I've seen it quite often, usually people sitting in lawnchairs at boat launches shortly after the DNR truck has dumped its load. Needless to say, you brought up a lot of excellent points.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

toto said:


> I certainly hope some of you guys aren't changing your opinion, because if I read this right, some of you appear to be. Its your choice I quess.
> 
> Earlier I posted about the Michigan Compiled Law that concerns the running of the DNR/NRC. The rest of the story is this, the DNR/NRC are suppossed to make decisions that are to the benefit of the general public. In this case, what is meant is that the general public is all the citizens, and in fact in some references is specifically states that special interest groups are not the general public. Therefore, if it isn't what the "general public" wants, they can't do it. Look it up, you'll find that what they are doing just woudn't even hold up in court.


I want to get rid of all gear restricted water. What I am seeing is some in this battle are only worried about thier Steelhead and Salmon fishing not the resident trout. I honestly would not mind seeing a single steelhead or salmon again. They fight hard and the enjoyment from that is not enough for me. It is outwiting a big resident trout. To lose even a single mile of water to these regs is to much and I feel we have failed in standing for what is right.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

mondrella said:


> I want to get rid of all gear restricted water. What I am seeing is some in this battle are only worried about thier Steelhead and Salmon fishing not the resident trout. I honestly would not mind seeing a single steelhead or salmon again. They fight hard and the enjoyment from that is not enough for me. It is outwiting a big resident trout. To lose even a single mile of water to these regs is to much and I feel we have failed in standing for what is right.


 
Those would also be my sentiments


----------



## salmo'dog (Aug 24, 2007)

mondrella said:


> I want to get rid of all gear restricted water. What I am seeing is some in this battle are only worried about thier Steelhead and Salmon fishing not the resident trout.


I don't really agree with that statement, but I can kind of see where you are coming from. I think it's due in part because of the time of season it is...salmon & steelhead. I'm sure most care about resident trout just the same as salmon and steelhead.



Whit1 said:


> Those would also be my sentiments


Shouldn't we be respective of all species that anglers target being that we are trying to defend the same topic? Seems like we have a little bit of "inner turbulance" in a group that is supposed to be working together.
Just my two cents worth. Not sparking debate, just asking a question.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Actually, I would have to agree with Mondrella and Whit. It was certainly true with what I stated at the meeting. However, having said that, and considering the whole learning process that I went through when this issue came up, I can really sympathize and support guys like Mondrella and Whit.
I came into this with some foregone conclusions, such as gear/limit regs will always be for the betterment of trout populations and what I learned is that this is not often true. What I learned is that alot of the literature supporting gear regs was from the 70's, and that the literature that supported gear regs largely were from some super-pressured water and gullible species of trout, ie the Yellowstone River and cutthroats. I learned that, in some instances, gear/limit regs actually lead to overpopulation of trout in some instances with stunted growth and that some biologists feel it is very difficult to predict where it will work. I also learned that the pre- imminent expert in trout biology, Robert Behnke from Colorado and a regular columnist in Trout, had stated a long time ago that gear restrictions play mostly a minor role overall in trout population success. I also learned that gear restrictions were put in place, not for biologic reasons, but primarily for perceived socioeconomic postulates.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

REG said:


> Actually, I would have to agree with Mondrella and Whit. It was certainly true with what I stated at the meeting. However, having said that, and considering the whole learning process that I went through when this issue came up, I can really sympathize and support guys like Mondrella and Whit.
> I came into this with some foregone conclusions, such as gear/limit regs will always be for the betterment of trout populations and what I learned is that this is not often true. What I learned is that alot of the literature supporting gear regs was from the 70's, and that the literature that supported gear regs largely were from some super-pressured water and gullible species of trout, ie the Yellowstone River and cutthroats. I learned that, in some instances, gear/limit regs actually lead to overpopulation of trout in some instances with stunted growth and that some biologists feel it is very difficult to predict where it will work. I also learned that the pre- imminent expert in trout biology, Robert Behnke from Colorado and a regular columnist in Trout, had stated a long time ago that gear restrictions play mostly a minor role overall in trout population success. I also learned that gear restrictions were put in place, not for biologic reasons, but primarily for perceived socioeconomic postulates.


I used to think I knew a LOT about this fishing (and hunting) stuff. With the advent of the internet and all that's available out there I've learned that I didn't know as much as I thought I knew.

Someplace out on the 'net is a study of bait/fish mortality. In it some impressive/scary data was given. There was a contact email so I emailed the author of the study asking if, with deeply hooked fish caught on bait, an attempt was made to remove the hook. The response was something like, "Yes, of course we tried to remove the hooks." Therein lies part........part I said.......of the problem.

SN, I'd answer your "question", but I'm not sure what it is.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Read what a 32 year Wisconsin DNR fisheries manager has to say:

In interview with SW Wisconsin retired fish manager Roger Kerr

Roger Kerr, 70, of Boscobel shares his thoughts about the development of a world class trout fishing area in southwest Wisconsin and other fishing matters.


*Question: How did southwest Wisconsin become a world class trout fishing area?*

Answer: Prior to 2000, trout were not abundant in southwest Wisconsin. Roughly 95 percent of southwest Wisconsin area streams required stocking and hatchery trout had dismal survival. There were a few streams that had good natural reproduction and good populations of adult fish. This suggested that genetics was a factor in the failure of hatchery trout to survive after being stocked.

Truly wild brown trout were stocked in a few of the non-reproducing streams and they immediately created wild populations in these streams. Wild trout stocking was expanded and now there are hundreds of



streams in southwest Wisconsin that are full of wild trout (mostly brown trout). And these fish attract anglers from all over the country. It was the most amazing and interesting development that I ever saw in my long career in trout management work.
*Question: What prevented hatchery trout from creating good populations?
*
Answer: The traits that are desirable in hatcheries are undesirable in the natural world. A century of genetic manipulation created "tame" trout. Hatchery trout spawn too early in streams. Their eggs hatch too quickly and their fry emerge in the winter instead of early spring. The fry die under the harsh winter conditions. Truly wild trout spawn mainly in November and their fry emerge from the gravel in March and April.

*Question: Wisconsin has hundreds of streams that have special regulations. Did these special rules have a role in the creation of thesouthwest Wisconsin wild trout fishery?
*
Answer: A lot of anglers and Wisconsin DNR people have given credit to special rules for the development of this fishery. They are mistaken. Streams that didn't have special regulations developed populations just as good as streams that had special rules. And there are the examples of the streams that had excellent wild populations before the special regulation program began (Back in the 1970s, Black Earth Creek located only 15 miles from Madison had a terrific wild brown trout population with a 10-bag limit and no special regulations.)

*Question: You have been critical of the special regulation program. What is the basis of your criticism?
*
Answer: The Wisconsin special regulation program began in 1990 when 1,000 special rules were placed on streams and a few lakes. This required the publication of a 32-page booklet to list all the rules. It was a well intended attempt to improve trout populations and improve fishing but it mostly didn't work. The dismal survival of hatchery fish continued. And wild brook and brown trout generally don't respond to special rules.

After the 2002 season, more than half of the original 1,000 rules were cancelled. Wisconsin DNR personnel realized that they had no significant effect on the trout populations in the streams where they were implemented. So there is ample evidence that Wisconsin trout anglers have been massively overregulated.

Also, there was a very bad unintended consequence of the special regulation program. Tens of thousands of anglers quit fishing because they didn't want to deal with complex rules. These dropout anglers were mostly bait fishing, catch and keep anglers.

We have had a 75 percent decline in trout fishing activity in southwest Wisconsin in the past 20 years and special regulations have been the major cause of this decline. We mostly have fly fishing, catch and release anglers now in southwest Wisconsin and very few of these anglers live in the southwest Wisconsin area.

*Question: With the dramatic increase in wild trout in southwest Wisconsin, why hasn't the 3-bag limit been increased?
*
Answer: In my lifetime, the trout bag limit in southwest Wisconsin has declined from 15 to 10 to 5 to 3. (Some anglers quit trout fishing when the bag went to 3.) There is no biological reason not to increase it to 5 but the Wisconsin DNR has refused to do this. (In my opinion this is irresponsible.) We have millions of wild brown trout and brook trout in southwest Wisconsin and almost no harvest of these fish because we have mostly catch and release anglers. So there is no justification not to increase the bag limit.

*Question: What are your thoughts on catch and release fishing?
*
Answer: The Trout Unlimited organization promotes catch and release fishing and this group has had a profound effect on American anglers. The harvest of trout these days is well below what it was 20 or 30 years ago. (A statewide creel census in Pennsylvania a few years ago showed a 92.7 percent release rate of all wild trout.)

Catch and release is a good practice when trout are scarce. It serves no useful purpose when trout are abundant. We have 3 and 4 and 5 thousand trout/ mile populations all over southwest Wisconsin and it is better to harvest trout from these streams than return trout to these high populations.

*Question: Twenty years ago, southwest Wisconsin had a January through September trout season. Why did this season end?
*
Answer: This season began in 1975 and it was very popular. April became the No. 1 fishing month. It ended in 1994 because other counties refused to open early. Southwest Wisconsin area conservation people were angry this season wasn't expanded beyond the southwest Wisconsin area and they demanded that it be closed. And it was closed. It was one of the biggest mistakes ever made in the history of Wisconsin trout management.

Declining bottomland grazing has resulted in stream banks becoming vegetative jungles around June 1. So anglers who bank fish can only use these areas in May. Thenine-month season allowed anglers to fish these areas for five months instead of one month. So ending this season greatly reduced fishing opportunity.

*Question: Any other comments?
*
Answer: I firmly believe that natural resource agencies involved in fish management are regulating themselves out of the fishing business. When I started my Wisconsin DNR career in 1968 there were 5 pages of fishing rules. Now there are 100 pages. There are "red flags" everywhere suggesting that fishing is a dying sport. A few examples are:

1. Nationally, fishing license sales decline two percent per year.

2. Wisconsin had an unprecedented one million dollar decline in fishing license sales revenue two years ago.

3. A major study of Driftless Area trout fishing (which includes southwest Wisconsin and northeast Iowa) showed that only three percent of the anglers in this area are under 20 years of age.

4.Electronic gadgets have replaced fishing poles for millions of Americans.

I don't know when it started, but fish managers are obsessed with micromanagement these days, and it is worse in the warmwater program than it is for trout fishing. Hundreds of Wisconsin lakes have special rules for both panfish and gamefish. Basically, fishing has become one big hassle because of excessive rules.

Footnote: There is a "dark side" to having hundreds of streams full of wild brown trout. Brown trout are-by far-the toughest trout to catch. Anglers can walk by thousands of brown trout and not catch anything.

http://markdahlquist.blogspot.com/2010/01/interview-with-roger-kerr.html


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

That is a VERY GOOD INTERVIEW............It is time to reconsider restricted regulations statewide. The no-kill rules dont make sense to me, I would much rather see those fish on someones dinner table than dying and rotting in the river. A 75%decline in trout fishermen due to reg's, I would bet its that or higher here with the AuSable and Manistee. Is'nt the goal of Sportsmen to provide maximum sustainable recreation.


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

I'm against all types of gear restrictions. 

I'm not just after salmon and steelhead. I like to catch anything that I can *trick* into eating.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Thanks for posting that interview with the retired WI biologist, I'd been looking for it, but couldn't find it. His perspective from both a biological (excessive regs have no effect on trout) and social (people literally quit fishing due to regs) is a very important angle to consider. WI actually realized they made a mistake and have taken tremendous steps to try to correct the problem, by repealing the majority of the restrictions. The problem is that once adults stop fishing, they stop taking their kids, and the cycle of recruitment is broken. You can't bring anglers back nearly as quickly and easily as you can drive them away. For the most part, once they are gone, they are gone for good.

Other things to consider closer to home:

TU in michigan has about 4000 members.
Anglers of the Au Sable has about 800 members.

4800 total. Those are the two primary groups that are pushing for these gear restrictions.

Michigan sold 643,000 all species fishing licenses in 2009. What does all of this tell you? There is an ENORMOUS group out there that has never been heard from, that has no idea this is going on. And those people will be the first to leave. They will feel disenfranchised and disconnected and when their favorite stretch of river makes the list, they will simply walk away. I really hope we don't have to learn the same hard lesson that WI already did.

I believe there is a way to make regulations that will please both sides without chasing anyone off of the water. This is my goal. 

Don


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

We finally made the newspaper!

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


----------



## brookies101 (Jun 23, 2008)

fishinDon said:


> We finally made the newspaper!
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/10/proposed_plan_for_gear_restric.html


Freakin awesome!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Relative to the proposed additional flies only and "rumored" additional gear regs planned for the Pere Marquette
this statement in the article was noted.
&#8220;This is OK as a first step,&#8221; said Jim Schramm, president of the Great Lakes Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers. &#8220;It&#8217;s good because it moves the meat fishermen away from the upper river ... the people tend to be slobs.&#8221;

There you have it! This statement cuts right to the heart of the sentiments driving these proposed gear regs. Forget about pseudo biologic concerns and socio-economic hocus pokus. It's because anyone who keeps trout to eat or uses it's abdominal contents for bait "tends" to be, as defined by Meriam-Webster's Dictionary as: 1: a slovenly or boorish person 2: an ordinary person <just some poor slob>! :smile-mad

Have any doubts on these deep seated sentiments driving some of impetus for these gear regs? Read this on "Fish Killers!" :
http://markdahlquist.blogspot.com/2010/04/record-high-trout-population-on-prairie.html

At least, T-shirts, hoodies, hats and other items are readily available to show your pride.:lol: 
http://www.gillespiefishing.com/store/


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

I also found it very derogatory and insulting. Anyone that doubts this I invite to research my posts for similar content. Check my self composed tag line, etc..


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Honestly, I want one of those hoodies.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Flyfisher said:


> I think I read it somewhere here, but is it true that the Pere Marquette River wasn't even listed on the original draft? If true, does anyone have a timeline on when the PM was added?


Per an email from Dexter, after the public meetings were held. They felt that was what the public wanted.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I read that article too, and found that one particular sentence insulting to say the least. I've seen that same reasoning mentioned on here as well, and frankly, I find it revolting not only in the article, but also from others on here.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

This is OK as a first step, said Jim Schramm, president of the Great Lakes Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers. Its good because it moves the meat fishermen away from the upper river ... the people tend to be slobs.

Do these people think before the open their mouths? It is as bad as others calling all fly fishermen elite jerks. There needs to be a common ground. These stereotypes will never die, therefore there will always be a division and never a compromise.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Ranger Ray said:


> Thanks for pointing that out. Don't know what I read but obviously missed something if this is the same proposal as I read. I could almost go along with it. But here is the million dollar question. Why were these streams closed during this time period to begin with? Sound science I do believe. Has that science been disproved? We now can trample the beds of spawning brook trout in the fall and spawning rainbows in the spring as long as we have only fly rods in our hands? If so than the DNR has cheated you and I out of all these years of being able to fish the winters catch and release. Awful lot of fishing time I will never enjoy for a little mistake like that. Looks more like a "we want" than "whats good for the fish" all of a sudden. Me thinks the Indians were right and white man speak with the double tongue.



Great point!

Funny how waving a long rod allows one to break all the rules of basic science.....lol


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

REG said:


> This is OK as a first step, said Jim Schramm, president of the Great Lakes Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers. Its good because it moves the meat fishermen away from the upper river ... the people tend to be slobs.


Mr Schramm should spend a few days walking the banks around the Green Cottage while the salmon are in thick. Lots of foul-hooked fish being battled and dragged in backwards by "non-slobs". The only "slobs" I have run into are the snaggers, whether is be with a flyrod or a treble hook. And snaggers aren't as much slobs as they are ignorant. 

Regarding the topic at hand, if people want to try and remove all gear restrictions in the state, you have my support. I don't feel that this is a war that can easily be won whereas keeping additional restrictions off the PM is a reasonable short term goal, in my opinion.


----------



## Grass Shrimp (Jun 16, 2004)

You took the words out of my mouth Flyfisher. I have heard his wife Dorothy say the same thing. She is the president of the Flygirls club. For a couple so prominently positioned in the flyfishing industry in michigan, they sure have a lot of growing up to do. They might be the oldest (immature) people who really need some education on this whole subject. They are living in the past! I am convinced that bait fisherman are more ethical and responsible than the flyfisherman as far as the P.M. river is concerned. You just have to look back at this past falls salmon run to see it plain as day. Unfortunately, the spring steelhead run is getting just as bad.


----------



## mjmmusser (Apr 24, 2005)

I can tell you that the comment from John Schramm rubbed me the wrong way. Especially after last weekend. I admit that I did foul hook a lot of fish but every single one went back, 8 total. I also hooked quite a few fair hooked fish and released 3 of them (loose hens). 

While I was there, I also walked the banks and picked up any trash I had seen while waiting for the others in our group to land a few fish. While walking the banks, I noticed that these fly fisherman would stop fishing every time I got close to them. So I stood back and watched from a distance through the woods. They were ripping their fly's through fish, like they had a baseball bat in hand, and would foul hook them. I didn't witness them keeping any though.


----------



## Grass Shrimp (Jun 16, 2004)

Thanks mjmusser for a first hand account of what is going on in the precious flywater and beyond. Why do people quit fishing when someone is watching? I have always said that if a Conservation officer was sitting in the back of most of the guide boats on the P.M. there would be few, if any, fish hooked on flies on any given day. This rings true for both salmon and steelhead fishing.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

I'm always amazed at the number of skein/bobber guys that used to soley fly fish.

Now for trout, I can get behind fly fishing 100%, since I really enjoy it where trout are concerned, but I don't see the need to have my own stretch of river to do so. 100% of Michigan water is open to fly fishing, so I have not complaints. If I want to fly fish, I have no one stopping me. On the other hand, why is someone stopping me from bait fishing?

Now for river Salmon, I started out fly fishing for them just because my buddy worked at Johnson's at the time. I have to admit, I like the idea of being out with a $500 rod and $600 real, sort of the same with driving a Porsch vs a Buick. We used to go out and line the hell out of the fish and have a blast. Pretty remarkable how blind you can be to your own ethical deficiencies. After a fall of doing the next spring this carried over to steelhead fishing in the pm flies water. Way more mouth hooked fish then with salmon, and still found it a ton of fun, but frustrating fishing for spawning fish who are dodging line. This went on for a few years. I was fully entrenched with the thought that somehow what I was doing was better than bait fishing. With $1000 in gear in your hand, it is very easy to convince yourself that you are superior and your method better. Also, due to the crowd you run with, it is very easy to be brainwashed that every non-fly fishing bankie is their to rape the resource.

Luckily after around 3 years of living this life, I started talking with a die hard steelhead fisherman at work that solely used spawn. My light bulb finally went off one day on just how ineffective and sloppy my method was compared in comparison to bait when we compared some numbers. Shortly after I took an invite for some fall steelhead from him and stopped fly fishing for steelhead that day. Gone was the bulky running line. Gone were the slinky sinkers and cluncky 2 fly rig. Gone was the endless stripping of line and lifting the rod at the end of every drift. Replacing it was a #10 hook, light rod and 4lb. I could literally feel a sigh of relief to have found a method to fish for the fish I love that was a joy to fish, that the fish wanted to eat and where without all the bulk of chuck and duck bites felt 10 times harder, and fights were more personal without dragging chuck and duck gear all through the water. I'm sure it sounds corny, but truely a life changing experience. I look back now and laugh at how we used to fish steelhead.

Now, at that point I quit fishing kings all together since there were always some early fall steelhead and late skams around to target. In the upper river, the really weren't hitting vs being lined and in comparison with the elegance of steelhead fishing on light tackle, the 10lb leader, slinkies and chuck n duck gear in general now seemed like a chore, clunky and just the ethics of it drove me away. Why drag fish in by the ass, tail, back, run line through their mouth etc... when steelhead were available. Seemed pointless. Then quite a few years ago, my buddy Tim Roller moved from chuck n duck for salmon to cranks. This now peaked my interest again, but in the back of my mind I thought "how boring, cast all day for maybe one legit fish", oh how wrong that thought was. Hutch drank the coolaid that Roller was selling and soon I was right in the same boat. Salmon fishing was actually fun again. Good by tying a thousand flies for the fall only to have to pull them out of most fish from everywhere besides the mouth. Thank goodness. Skein and Bob followed shortly after. Gone were the days of lining,snagging 20 salmon/day as now you could hit that number if not more on fish where 100% bite. What a relief to fish in a manner where you do not have to hide from the truth of how you are fishing.

Looking back, I actually feel sorry for the guys that are still where I was 15 years ago. Sort of like being in an abusive relationship and finally walking away.

The fly fisherman that look down on bait fishing for Salmon and Steelhead, just have not had it sink in yet, hopefully it will some day.


----------



## Randle (Nov 6, 2000)

Excellent post! That describes exactly what I went through with my steelhead/salmon fishing. Could not be more true. You said it a lot better than I could have.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Grass Shrimp said:


> Why do people quit fishing when someone is watching?


I'm sure that is purely rhetorical, but when I fished gravel in the spring on the Mo in places like Gaza, Charmical, etc... I would always f with the fly fishing guides a bit. As they would hook fish off gravel above me and have to chase them down stream past me, I would always jump up on the front deck of the boat and try to see where the fish was hooked. EVERY time, the guide would look at me and immediately have the sport quickly lower his rod top to get the fish off the surface so I could not see.

Must be hell to deposit that check every day knowing what you are doing for the almighty $$$.


----------



## Grass Shrimp (Jun 16, 2004)

People are getting wise to the ole' turn your back to the client trick and pull the flies out of the fishes body routine. Everyone but the client that is. Why is it that there seems to be an endless supply of people willing to pay 400.00 to snag fish with flies? By the way, lining fish is still snagging. I call it "precision snagging".


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

all these waters, regulated or not belong to all citizens of michigan. We should all be allowed to fish them how we like (legally) regardless of tackle. I am very much in favor of getting every inch of fly's only water back for everyone to enjoy.

Greed is ugly, but often the greediest lose everything because of it.

any stream /river that has fish planted in it from our DNRE should be accessible to all fisherman.

If special interest groups want their own streams, let them buy all the land on both sides and pay for their own management.

This would make a great " miller high life" commercial.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

mondrella said:


> I want to get rid of all gear restricted water. What I am seeing is some in this battle are only worried about thier Steelhead and Salmon fishing not the resident trout. I honestly would not mind seeing a single steelhead or salmon again. They fight hard and the enjoyment from that is not enough for me. It is outwiting a big resident trout. To lose even a single mile of water to these regs is to much and I feel we have failed in standing for what is right.



I think you are right on track with many peoples thinking sir.


----------



## Grass Shrimp (Jun 16, 2004)

TSS CADDIS. What you wrote is a work of art. I couldn't have summed up my short flyfishing career for salmon and steelhead any better (minus the skein fishing as I gave up salmon all together). It brought tears to my eyes to read your post and made me realize that there are more people in this world who "get it". I will give you one word of advice my friend and that is to copy that piece of writing and send it to the fisheries people for them to read first hand. The people that still feel that these methods are ethical are the ones telling the D.N.R.E. that bait fisherman are slobs and we trash the river and shouldn't be allowed to fish the best parts of the stream. Go figure! My goal is to discredit them altogether.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

This has been a long running and informative thread, with a couple of exceptions, perhaps it's time to put it to bed for now, step back and allow the "food for thought" that's been posted in here get a chance at the banquet table so to speak. Let's give it a rest for a time to see how things work out.


----------

