# Splitshot, I understand your point



## UltimateOutdoorsman

fsutroutbum said:


> It is not possible to take my 3 year old grandson to fish this section of river I love nor if APR goes through will I be able to introduce my older grandson to deer hunting at my cabin.


Wait, you're saying that because you can't shoot baby deer, you can't take a kid hunting? 

Why can't you teach your child to fly fish? Chuck and duck nymphing is every bit as simple as bottom bouncing worms.

For what it's worth I feel gear restrictions are useless, as it seems you do as well. I do however support strict kill limits, or better yet, slot limits like they utilize in western states. 

Which is exactly why I approve of APR.

Michigan has all the potential to be a premier whitetail state, as soon as we break the "if it's brown, it's down" mentality so deeply ingrained here.

APR's are like size limitations for trout.


----------



## UltimateOutdoorsman

mondrella said:


> I I publicly will denounce the Antler restrictions being put forth. This is a small group of vocal people who have pushed for this to happen.


Over 66% of respondents in the official DNR survey, SUPPORTED APR's. This does not constitute a "small group" as you're leading people to believe.


----------



## Benzie Rover

Fishndude said:


> Have you ever tried to teach a 3 year old how to cast a flyrod?


Actually, yes I have taken 3yo fly fishing. It's tough for trout at age 3, bluegill are good though since you can just flail a rod length of line with a spider. Watching them eat the fly on top gets them pumped. 

My son has grown up to prefer spinning gear with spinners/plugs for trout and spawn bags for steelies. He fishes everywhich way, but hex fly rod fishing is by far his favorite, outside of saltwater fishing, and he talks about it all year long. 

My kids and I fish and enjoy fishing with and with out bait restrictions, so I am fine with or with out them honestly and don't put much emotion eitherway into that topic, but, like Ultimate, I strongly agree with strict harvest restrictions where low natural repro, lack of prime habitat or intense fishing pressure creates a less than optimal coldwater fishery. I feel several of our NW Lower rivers have too high a creel limit for stream trout given the reproduction and habitat challenges they face. And yes, I am very familiar with both the methods and literature used in those decisions. Provided we are all given an opinion, that is mine.


----------



## mondrella

UltimateOutdoorsman said:


> Over 66% of respondents in the official DNR survey, SUPPORTED APR's. This does not constitute a "small group" as you're leading people to believe.



Why do you need APR's to kill a big deer? Why do people need special rules to think they are upping their odds at large trout? I catch lots of trophy trout a year and if I actually shared numbers most of you on this site would say I was lying. A few who fish with me know have seen me in action and the quality of trout I get. If I can do it any one can. Hell last night on the way home I stopped and fished and caught several impressive trout. Kept 1 for dinner that was shy of 18" ate great. I could easily kill a quality buck every year in Michigan if I put the effort into like I do big trout. Don't tell me it is not possible. My brother is a avid deer hunter. He has 8 deer on the wall all killed on public ground with the biggest being a 165" 11pt. Is it because you are to lazy to dedicate the time to do it? So let's try to up our odds by putting rules in place instead of doing the ground work of finding big deer. Let's live in a utopian society. Every one wants to kill a big deer. I notice most hunters do not know how to hunt big deer in this state. I am happy with any mature buck I kill. My last 4 have been 31/2 to 41/2 year old deer that never really put any antlers on their heads. Biggest was a 118" 8pt. I only hunt maybe 5 days a year at most. Could I find bigger you bet do I care to no. It is just a deer to me. Meat for my table since I don't ever buy Beef or chicken to eat. My house is fish and venison on the table. You want big deer put the work in. Certain people have the gift others wish for it. 
I see APR's allowing those yearling Bucks with real potential to be the ones wacked instead of using education let's put worthless rules in place. 
Everyone just wants the easy way in life. I hate to see it. Go out and earn it. Many people think I am lucky to have the things I have in life. Bull I have went out and earned what I have. I worked harder and longer than most to have fine things in my life and most are to lazy to do the same.


----------



## UltimateOutdoorsman

mondrella said:


> Why do you need APR's to kill a big deer?


I don't. 

My property is in an area that has already mandated, and proven that APR's work, well before the rest of the state began going that route- Leelanau County.

For me it's a fundamental belief that if one does not shoot sparky, he grows bigger next year. Hence, all hunters have a better chance of taking a quality deer, year in, and year out. 

"Want meat" you say? Shoot a doe.

My original point still stands, which you didn't address at all in your lengthy retort. The mentality of deer hunters in Michigan is evolving... for the better, IMO. The MIDNR survey results speaks to this.

This thread is not the place for APR debate anyway. There's countless other threads on MS for that. Head on over to one of those, and I guarentee you'll find yourself a heated debate there.


----------



## mondrella

My point exactly. Instant gratification with no effort put forth. 
Yes peoples mentality is changing on its own gradually. Just like the entire mentality of fisherman in this country. All fishing was a catch and keep mentality. It has evolved into a C&R mentality. Believe it or not there will come a time fisherman realize selective harvest is the best all around practice. Yet you do favor the unneeded rule to up the odds for you. My point was made you failed to see it. 
As for venison it is does you will find in my freezer. Instead of educating hunters like the most fishing community did the other route is being taken. IMO it is wrong. Pure laziness is what it boils down to.


----------



## UltimateOutdoorsman

mondrella said:


> Yes peoples mentality is changing on its own gradually. Just like the entire mentality of fisherman in this country. All fishing was a catch and keep mentality. It has evolved into a C&R mentality. Believe it or not there will come a time fisherman realize selective harvest is the best all around practice.


Good point. The same evolution is happening with hunters, like it or not. 

Soon many hunters will realize that having a minnimum standard of size, *just like fishing does*, will have a place in deer herd management.

We have size limits on how big a trout has to be before he can be kept for the table, but not a deer?


----------



## mrjimspeaks

I think it's worth noting that the rational behind some of the first Flies Only regulations that were put in place on the AuSable, was that the property owners on the stretch were mainly fly fishermen. So therefore it wouldn't effect worm dunkers etc. I believe it was the Mason Stretch, I could be wrong don't feel like reading through my paper on it again. That area is also the birthplace of Trout Unlimited. 

So historically giving property owners on the stream more of a say in its management has not been the best idea. There are plenty who float and fish the area that don't own it, but whose tax dollars are spent maintaining it. I think it also goes against the spirit of the State's rules regarding private property and rivers/shorelines.


----------



## mondrella

UltimateOutdoorsman said:


> Good point. The same evolution is happening with hunters, like it or not.
> 
> Soon many hunters will realize that having a minnimum standard of size, *just like fishing does*, will have a place in deer herd management.
> 
> We have size limits on how big a trout has to be before he can be kept for the table, but not a deer?


Yes there is. As long as I can remember anyways. Takes 3" of antler to be a legal racked buck. Was not until recently did the OK come to put a buck tag on a button buck. Plus a second tag is restricted already and was improving age structure on its own. Just not the pace the gotta have it now crowd wants.
We have rules in place to allow for trout to reach a size to spawn on average at least once to repopulate a stream. There is always a number of trout never caught. In fact there are more large trout than we believe. I have seen days when I could catch 10 trout 10" and up out of every single good hole in a stream. The next lucky to even catch a fish. 
The same is true with deer there has always been a few make it to the next year. Granted there are way more deer hunters than stream trout fisherman. Opening weekend there are a few but after that I am lucky to see 50 fisherman a year fishing trout. We have single trout streams with more trout than there are deer in this state.


----------



## toto

Call me stupid, but one question that keeps rolling around in my mind. If it were possible to created that all fish, or deer are of a size to say they are trophies; pick your number 20" trout, 10 point deer, when do they become not trophies anymore??? What I'm saying is, IF both of these animals were that size, are they really trophies anymore? Do we then upgrade it to 25" fish, and 12 point bucks? To me a trophy is one that was earned with some stealth and tactics that out smart the animal in their own environment. If you learn to fish properly, you can catch them, if you learn to hunt instead of sitting over a pile of corn or whatever, you can get em. Just seems a little weird that the act of getting these animals IF all these animals are of that size, sorta diminishes the act, if you know what I mean.


----------



## fsutroutbum

My point was that I can understand the objections sportsmen have on GR and other restrictions. For those of you who had some questions let me say it is easier to teach a 3 year old to dunk a worm for a trout than throw a fly and I would prefer to take him to a few places I like. As for teaching my other grandson to enjoy deer hunting again the restrictions come into place. No doe permit and APR is in force where my cabin is then the kid waits to shoot what some special group lobbied to put into place. The whole point was that as sportspersons we should not be divided into restricted groups as there are enough special interest groups trying to negatively impact our various sports. I also was just saying that I understand the arguments that Splitshot has been making and commend him for his fine posts.


----------



## MERGANZER

I understand the reasons people get frustrated with GR waters and I also get frustrated with the fact I cannot walk the small non navigable brook trout streams on private property. Here is the deal, we have established GR waters and they have been for the most part accepted so leave them alone and do not add any additional GR stretches. That being said, we need to clean up our own act. My family has property on the PM. We don't kick people out or harrass them when they are out fishing it even though we have the right to tell them to leave. That being said, it is very upsetting to walk the river or bank and have to pick up worm containers, wads or fishing line, beer cans and candy bar wrappers and cigarette butts on a daily basis. If we want access to water we better do a better job of cleaning up after ourselves.

Ganzer


----------



## rcleofly

MERGANZER said:


> I understand the reasons people get frustrated with GR waters and I also get frustrated with the fact I cannot walk the small non navigable brook trout streams on private property. Here is the deal, we have established GR waters and they have been for the most part accepted so leave them alone and do not add any additional GR stretches. That being said, we need to clean up our own act. My family has property on the PM. We don't kick people out or harrass them when they are out fishing it even though we have the right to tell them to leave. That being said, it is very upsetting to walk the river or bank and have to pick up worm containers, wads or fishing line, beer cans and candy bar wrappers and cigarette butts on a daily basis. If we want access to water we better do a better job of cleaning up after ourselves.
> 
> Ganzer


I couldn't agree more with your statement on cleaning up our act. And we have been guilty of it at one time or another.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## johnhunter

Good thread. Many worthy points made. 


However,


fsutroutbum said:


> It is not possible to take my 3 year old grandson to fish this section of river I love nor if APR goes through will I be able to introduce my older grandson to deer hunting at my cabin.


I understand your point, but I believe you exaggerate just a bit. Once the APR is approved, all antlered bucks except for spikes and forks will still be fair game. And if your grandson takes up archery, every antlerless deer in the county would also be legit targets for him.


----------



## RUSTY 54

toto said:


> Call me stupid, but one question that keeps rolling around in my mind. If it were possible to created that all fish, or deer are of a size to say they are trophies; pick your number 20" trout, 10 point deer, when do they become not trophies anymore??? What I'm saying is, IF both of these animals were that size, are they really trophies anymore? Do we then upgrade it to 25" fish, and 12 point bucks? To me a trophy is one that was earned with some stealth and tactics that out smart the animal in their own environment. If you learn to fish properly, you can catch them, if you learn to hunt instead of sitting over a pile of corn or whatever, you can get em. Just seems a little weird that the act of getting these animals IF all these animals are of that size, sorta diminishes the act, if you know what I mean.


You always bring a lot of wisdom with your posts, and I respect that, but it seems odd that baiting deer, rather than learning skills, is unacceptable to you, but baiting trout is o.k.


----------



## broncbuster2

Please read it again Rusty... 
He is saying, "If you learn to hunt, instead of sitting over a bait pile"


----------



## toto

Frankly I don't have a problem with either one, my point was if you plan to sit over a pile of bait, don't expect the 10 pt + buck to come to your spread. As far as baiting fish, I don't have a problem with chumming either, I don't do it, but that's just me. In order, IMHO, to get the bigger deer, or the bigger steelhead for example, you have to do a little work, that's all I'm saying. To sit over a pile of bait does not make one a great deer hunter, nor does chumming fish make one a great fisherman, but again that's my opinion,

My true point was, when do we decide the lower end of the "trophy" scale, either in deer, or fish? Let's look at both for a minute, let's say that suddenly the fish defy the argument of the biologist and all the fish in a given stream are suddenly 20". Once that happens, there will most likely come a time when the people fishing there don't see them as trophies any longer, and now to be considered a trophy they need to be 25", and on and on. Same way with deer, if a 10 pt is considered a trophy now, and then all the deer in a given area are 10 pts, now they aren't trophies right? So now, they need to be 12 pts, or whatever. Don't know if I'm making my point clear here, but I'm trying to make sense of it. This has the possibility of becoming an ever higher bar to jump to get the "trophy" we all see in our heads. With deer or fish, it takes a little work, and little doing something out of the norm, fishing in the wood where no one else would even considered throwing a hook, or hunting the swamps or thickets where the normal guy doesn't or won't go. Get my point????

Another way to look at it is this, if a guy/gal works their butts off all year long, and finally it's time to get out and go fishing, or hunting, and they catch a few fish, or get a decent buck, who's to say that isn't a trophy to that person? That same person may have some personal issues that the outdoors serves as a get away from the trials of life for a bit, maybe that 4 pt buck is their trophy for hanging in there, or maybe that 5 pound steelie is their trophy for a having a hard time and hanging there. Sounds a little silly perhaps, but perhaps not. When I come up there in October for some fishing, my trophy is just the being there after working the last year at 55 hours per week. Shouldn't our outdoors sometimes be trophy enough???


----------



## rcleofly

toto said:


> Another way to look at it is this, if a guy/gal works their butts off all year long, and finally it's time to get out and go fishing, or hunting, and they catch a few fish, or get a decent buck, who's to say that isn't a trophy to that person? That same person may have some personal issues that the outdoors serves as a get away from the trials of life for a bit, maybe that 4 pt buck is their trophy for hanging in there, or maybe that 5 pound steelie is their trophy for a having a hard time and hanging there. Sounds a little silly perhaps, but perhaps not. When I come up there in October for some fishing, my trophy is just the being there after working the last year at 55 hours per week. Shouldn't our outdoors sometimes be trophy enough???


Thank you toto. Yes it is enough. Your comment rendered me speechless. I've only been on the water 1 time this year. Been on 65 hour weeks for a couple months. Monday me and a close friend are taking the 3 hour drive to Mason Tract. He is a postman and just like me has no time. If you were to see us Monday. The odds are you would see a couple tired stressed out guys sitting on the bank with flyrods laying next to them laughing, talking about times before life became real. Thanks again toto for that comment. It contains more truth then any other comment in this thread. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MERGANZER

Hey, if we get to the point we are tired of catching 20" trout then I for one am okay with that scenario!!!

Ganzer


----------



## Splitshot

Fsutroutbum,

There is no exaggeration that mandatory antler restrictions will make it much more difficult to kill a buck just like flies only regulations make it much more difficult to catch a trout. I have hunted Lake, Wexford and Manistee counties for over 50 years and have seen only a handful of deer with antlers larger than 4 points during the gun hunting season. Bigger deer exist but older deer are much more difficult to hunt adding another degree of difficulty to young and novice hunters.

Early in my hunting career I killed several bucks in these counties, but I would have had to pass on some of them especially if I had to be sure they had 3 points on one side. Why, because the deer were moving, they were in thick cover or low light conditions and while I could see antlers, I couldnt be sure of the number of antler points and as a result would have been obligated to let them pass.

As an experienced hunter equipped with stellar optics and the ability to hunt from elevated stands, it is easier, but is still an extreme hindrance for young people, new hunters, elderly hunters and weekend hunters. Even if the regulations would increase the number of larger racked bucks, these deer are not as apt to wander into the sights of the young and/or inexperienced hunters. 

The odds are increased for the dedicated experienced hunters but only at the expense of those mentioned above and it is clear that even the possibility of larger antlers is justification for those with little regard for others. 

We all know that scientific management can produce monster bucks and you can see them almost daily on TV, but that kind of intense management is expensive and will never be affordable to the general public. Practice QDM on private property and make all the antler restrictions you want on private property, but when you impose those kind of regulations on public land that reduces the opportunity for other hunters simply because you havent learned how to hunt well enough to shoot a trophy buck or the deer on your property might wander on to public land is unconscionable, greedy and self-indulgent.

The MDNR is obligated to manage our resources based on sound science as stated in The Public Trust Doctrine, their own mission statement and now PA 21. Mandatory antler restrictions are not scientifically necessary to protect the resource and are not in the best interest of the public. The majority of some survey does not justify discrimination and the new PA 21 reinforces the standards necessary for implementation of rules regarding our natural resources.


----------



## Fontinalis

Trout King said:


> Yes populations at risk should be protected. You have not shown any evidence of endangered populations or at risk. The problem is the least at risk streams are the most highly protected for no biological reason. You can run your argument around in circles but without evidence it is mute. All the research why cr and fo water is not legitimate biologically has been presented many times over in this forum, but evidence for it seems to be non existent. Please present a sound case and I am sure it can be a great discussion.



If the argument is whether or not C & R causes the same or higher mortality rates as harvesting fish that's completely asinine. 

When an angler harvests a fish it is removed from the fishery forever. Mortality rate 100%! 

Slot limits and no kill regulations far outweigh gear restrictions.


----------



## Trout King

Fontinalis said:


> If the argument is whether or not C & R causes the same or higher mortality rates as harvesting fish that's completely asinine.
> 
> When an angler harvests a fish it is removed from the fishery forever. Mortality rate 100%!
> 
> Slot limits and no kill regulations far outweigh gear restrictions.


Again, prove it with research. Mortality is 50% (appx ) each year. You have no valid evidence that cr fo improves a fishery. Killing trout has been stated by biologist to have no overall impact on a fishery. These statements are facts. So is your statement about removing a fish, but what does it matter when 50% die regardless? You cant stockpile trophy trout or numbers. All of the evidence is out there and had been linked here numerous times to support my statements. I am done responding to your arguments until you bring some biological data or proof to the table for discussion. You are far from the first to bring in the same arguments each time they have been proven false by real life biological data. We are still waiting (2 plus yrs) for someone to bring hard evidence that support the need for cr fo slot limits etc. I have more faith in professional biologists than people stating opinions, feelings and emotions online. Facts are facts.


----------



## Trout King

Fontinalis said:


> Just because browns are able to reproduce at 3 to 4 years doesn't mean they are the same brood stock as an alpha male at 5 or 6. These are the best of the gene pool and the ones the DNR use to generate new strains like the Sturgeon River strain. Also, trout mature and grow at different rates given their environment. Not all streams are the same. The Platte and the Boardman are a good example.
> 
> Also, ad hominem is when you attack the individual because you can't attack his argument. Again, the argument here is:
> 
> If we are relying solely on natural reproduction to maintain trout populations on small, pressured streams, the current gear and harvest regulations are inconsistent with the developing them as sustainable and healthy fisheries.
> 
> So attack all you want.
> 
> *This is a forum for discussion.
> *
> I know most anglers who genuinely wish to protect our future fisheries would agree that we shouldn't kill trout in streams where they're at risk. They will vote for new restrictions and regulations when it's time to do the RIGHT thing.


When does age of fish determine genetic makeup?


----------



## REG

Fontinalis said:


> If the argument is whether or not C & R causes the same or higher mortality rates as harvesting fish that's completely asinine.
> 
> When an angler harvests a fish it is removed from the fishery forever. Mortality rate 100%!
> 
> Slot limits and no kill regulations far outweigh gear restrictions.




http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...2oH9DQ&usg=AFQjCNHGR1GvuzxOuoPjuJvy-xtpcT2FKw

http://www.glfsa.org/science/BlackRiver-SpecialRegsevaluation2010.pdf


----------



## Fontinalis

Trout King said:


> Again, prove it with research. Mortality is 50% (appx ) each year. You have no valid evidence that cr fo improves a fishery. Killing trout has been stated by biologist to have no overall impact on a fishery. These statements are facts. So is your statement about removing a fish, but what does it matter when 50% die regardless? You cant stockpile trophy trout or numbers. All of the evidence is out there and had been linked here numerous times to support my statements. I am done responding to your arguments until you bring some biological data or proof to the table for discussion. You are far from the first to bring in the same arguments each time they have been proven false by real life biological data. We are still waiting (2 plus yrs) for someone to bring hard evidence that support the need for cr fo slot limits etc. I have more faith in professional biologists than people stating opinions, feelings and emotions online. Facts are facts.


Here's your evidence. Same fish caught two weeks apart practicing C & R. If this fish were harvested IT WOULDN"T BE THERE, plain and simple. There are literally thousands of these pictures. On the ground -- real angler data. 

Shove your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes as much as you want. It doesn't make you right.


----------



## Fontinalis

Fontinalis said:


> Here's your evidence. Same fish caught two weeks apart practicing C & R. If this fish were harvested IT WOULDN"T BE THERE, plain and simple. There are literally thousands of these pictures. On the ground -- real angler data.
> 
> Shove your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes as much as you want. It doesn't make you right.


Again, because the MDNR has either completely discontinued or drastically reduced the amount of trout stocked in Northern Michigan understand that:

Killing trout in rivers and creeks North of US 10, especially those in the tip of the Lower Penninsula is putting those trout populations at risk.

The future of Michigan's trout fisheries is in your hands. Be a responsible steward of the fishery and make the right choice. Practice Catch and Release on those streams which rely solely on natural reproduction. Do the right thing!


----------



## Trout King

Fontinalis said:


> Again, because the MDNR has either completely discontinued or drastically reduced the amount of trout stocked in Northern Michigan understand that:
> 
> Killing trout in rivers and creeks North of US 10, especially those in the tip of the Lower Penninsula is putting those trout populations at risk.
> 
> The future of Michigan's trout fisheries is in your hands. Be a responsible steward of the fishery and make the right choice. Practice Catch and Release on those streams which rely solely on natural reproduction. Do the right thing!


Last time I fished north of 10 I caught 4-5 fish that were "trophy" size in the same day on water that isn't planted or gear restricted. Splitshot was there and did as well. So again your point is not valid. I have cough dozens of browns over 20 inches and brookies over 14. None in cr or gr water. They are there, choose to believe or not.
Still no biological evidence to support your claims though.


----------



## Fontinalis

Trout King said:


> Last time I fished north of 10 I caught 4-5 fish that were "trophy" size in the same day on water that isn't planted or gear restricted. Splitshot was there and did as well. So again your point is not valid. I have cough dozens of browns over 20 inches and brookies over 14. None in cr or gr water. They are there, choose to believe or not.
> Still no biological evidence to support your claims though.


Wow, amazing! Talk about unscientific and anecdotal evidence. Catching browns over 20" isn't hard and it isn't an indicator of how healthy those trout populations. So many anglers catch the same fish. I trust you did the right thing and released those fish. If not they will take years to replace.

Again, and I feel like a broken record here, the point isn't that there are no fish in those rivers or the fisheries are currently in peril. 

*The issue is that harvesting trout in those creeks and rivers which solely rely on natural reproduction is putting the fishery at risk.*

Got it yet?


----------



## Trout King

Fontinalis said:


> Wow, amazing! Talk about unscientific and anecdotal evidence. Catching browns over 20" isn't hard and it isn't an indicator of how healthy those trout populations. So many anglers catch the same fish. I trust you did the right thing and released those fish. If not they will take years to replace.
> 
> Again, and I feel like a broken record here, the point isn't that there are no fish in those rivers or the fisheries are currently in peril.
> 
> *The issue is that harvesting trout in those creeks and rivers which solely rely on natural reproduction is putting the fishery at risk.*
> 
> Got it yet?


I think you are the one getting it, but hey biology isn't easy for everyone to understand. Do some research please.


----------



## Fontinalis

Trout King said:


> I think you are the one getting it, but hey biology isn't easy for everyone to understand. Do some research please.


You're missing the point. I'm raising the issue that streams which rely solely on natural reproduction, especially those premier rivers in the tip of the lower penninsula, will suffer if trout are harvested.

I'm not asking you to agree with me because you have an agenda. This is my agenda and I'm making it clear. Understand? 

We are on opposite sides of the issue in the sense that I support catch and release on those streams until MDNR decides to stock them again. 

If their populations are sustainable, and you'll be surprised to see this, limited harvest could be an option once again. 

In the meantime, why risk the health of wild trout populations by allowing harvestation on those streams? When you release a trout there is a chance it will survive. When you harvest a trout it is removed and the survival rate is ZERO.

So did you release your "trophy" fish or keep them?


----------



## Boozer

Fontinalis said:


> You're missing the point. I'm raising the issue that streams which rely solely on natural reproduction, especially those premier rivers in the tip of the lower penninsula, will suffer if trout are harvested.
> 
> I'm not asking you to agree with me because you have an agenda. This is my agenda and I'm making it clear. Understand?
> 
> We are on opposite sides of the issue in the sense that I support catch and release on those streams until MDNR decides to stock them again.
> 
> If their populations are sustainable, and you'll be surprised to see this, limited harvest could be an option once again.
> 
> In the meantime, why risk the health of wild trout populations by allowing harvestation on those streams? When you release a trout there is a chance it will survive. When you harvest a trout it is removed and the survival rate is ZERO.
> 
> So did you release your "trophy" fish or keep them?


http://www.wildtrout.org/content/trout-facts

"The fecundity (reproductive potential - fertility) of female trout generally increases with size but decreases in large, old fish."

"Studies of trout populations in Europe and N. America show that stocking can lead to the loss of natural genetic diversity, potentially affecting their ability to adapt and survive in the future. " 

"The more fish that are stocked into a water body, the slower they will grow in the wild."

Not going to get into a heated debate, but some harvest can be a good thing and stocking, well it isn't the answer when talking "premier rivers."


----------



## Fontinalis

Boozer said:


> http://www.wildtrout.org/content/trout-facts
> 
> "The fecundity (reproductive potential - fertility) of female trout generally increases with size but decreases in large, old fish."
> 
> "Studies of trout populations in Europe and N. America show that stocking can lead to the loss of natural genetic diversity, potentially affecting their ability to adapt and survive in the future. "
> 
> "The more fish that are stocked into a water body, the slower they will grow in the wild."
> 
> Not going to get into a heated debate, but some harvest can be a good thing and stocking, well it isn't the answer when talking "premier rivers."


Exactly, that's why C & R should be practiced on those premier streams. Thanks.


----------



## Boozer

Fontinalis said:


> Exactly, that's why C & R should be practiced on those premier streams. Thanks.



Exactly?

You argued that there shouldn't be any harvest unless there was fish being stocked...

I showed proof that on a "premier river" where Trout are capable of naturally reproducing on their own, stocking can actually be detrimental to the health of the fishery and in fact, is better off without it...

So wouldn't that make your argument that harvesting fish on those rivers unless they get stocked, inaccurate and in fact, it would be better to keep fish on rivers that are actually not stocked as long as they are capable of sustaining naturally reproducing populations of Trout... for example "premier rivers"???


----------



## Fontinalis

Fontinalis said:


> Exactly, that's why C & R should be practiced on those premier streams. Thanks.


Once we raise awareness that over-harvesting trout is detrimental to those fisheries that rely solely on natural production to sustain their populations, I'm sure the vast majority of anglers will rather choose to release those trout and give the native population a better chance then to kill and remove them from the gene pool.

Great debate. Raising angler awareness is key!


----------



## Ranger Ray

Fish are a renewable resource. Native, planted, call them anything you like. Show me a river that is in jeopardy of this elusive over harvest, and I will show you a river that no one should fish. Funny, they never seem quite that in jeopardy. :lol:


----------



## Fontinalis

Ranger Ray said:


> Fish are a renewable resource. Native, planted, call them anything you like. Show me a river that is in jeopardy of this elusive over harvest, and I will show you a river that no one should fish. Funny, they never seem quite that in jeopardy. :lol:


Again, the point is to prevent over harvest on wild trout populations before they are at risk, not to wait until it's too late. Quality fisheries are maintained not rescued. Thanks for the input.


----------



## -Axiom-

Fontinalis said:


> Again, the point is to prevent over harvest on wild trout populations before they are at risk, not to wait until it's too late. Quality fisheries are maintained not rescued. Thanks for the input.


 The point is to restrict access to reduce the pressure on trout streams.


----------



## rcleofly

Fontinalis said:


> Again, the point is to prevent over harvest on wild trout populations before they are at risk, not to wait until it's too late. Quality fisheries are maintained not rescued. Thanks for the input.


Yeah that.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Where is this over harvest taking place? Sorry I just do not see it. I am on the rivers, streams and creeks almost daily and I rarely even see anglers. The ones that I do encounter are already practicing c&r for the most part. I was thinking the other day about how great this season has been with the amount of fish I have caught from numbers and size. There are bag limits and slot restrictions already in place and they seem to be just fine. Sure, in all recreational activities such as fishing and hunting you will deal with the riff raff that the rules do not apply. They will catch and keep 50 brookies and drop any deer, turkey or bear they come across, this will never stop. 

I am on board with the slot limits and creel limits set forth by the MDNR's biologists. I do not have a hard time finding trout of all sizes. Once that big brown is removed it is gone, yes it is, but the food that fish ate is now available for another fish to eat and grow, it happens every year. What if it wasn't creeled? What if it died of natural causes? Another fish is there to take it's place. 

I fish in creeks I can step across to some of the biggest water in the state. I practice c&r by choice. I may choose to keep a fish if I want. If the fishery is in such peril then why even risk killing just one by hooking it, fighting it to exhaustion, removing the hook and then molesting it for a hero shot? How much energy did that fish burn? Sure it swam away but will it die in a few minutes? BTW I fly fish. I think you and I have a lot in common but are also very far apart on some issues. Good luck out there.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Fontinalis said:


> Again, the point is to prevent over harvest on wild trout populations before they are at risk, not to wait until it's too late. Quality fisheries are maintained not rescued. Thanks for the input.


OK. DNR biologists limits see to that. Thanks for the input.


----------



## fishinDon

Fontinalis said:


> FishinD,
> 
> I don't think people are having a hard time taking the issue seriously, even if you are.
> 
> Go and take a look at MDNR stocking numbers in many of the counties North of US 10 and you will find either complete discontinuation or a drastic decline in those numbers. This started in the early 2000's.
> 
> Since those fish only live a 6 or 7 years max. on the larger river systems, we are currently dealing with wild fish populations only.


Contrary to your opinion, I take trout populations, their health and the future of our trout fishery very seriously. 

*What I'm not taking seriously is your unfounded claims that the sky is falling on our trout fishery without providing a single shred of evidence that our wild fish populations are (or will be) in peril.*

(I put it in bold for you so you didn't miss it, since you haven't answered a single one of my questions yet.)

Again, the DNR discontinuing stocking in areas where natural reproduction is sufficent does not equal peril or coming peril. If your ideology disagrees with the idea of harvesting a wild trout, that's fine. But your feelings are not the same as scientifically measurable peril. 

Don


----------



## Fontinalis

fishinDon said:


> Contrary to your opinion, I take trout populations, their health and the future of our trout fishery very seriously.
> 
> *What I'm not taking seriously is your unfounded claims that the sky is falling on our trout fishery without providing a single shred of evidence that our wild fish populations are (or will be) in peril.*
> 
> (I put it in bold for you so you didn't miss it, since you haven't answered a single one of my questions yet.)
> 
> Again, the DNR discontinuing stocking in areas where natural reproduction is sufficent does not equal peril or coming peril. If your ideology disagrees with the idea of harvesting a wild trout, that's fine. But your feelings are not the same as scientifically measurable peril.
> 
> Don


Never said the sky was falling, so save the drama...

Just because MDNR discontinued stocking certain streams and even lakes for trout doesn't mean that they are capable of natural reproduction or that natural reproduction alone can sustain the trout population. That is what you are assuming.

In case you haven't noticed over the last ten years the DNR doesn't have any money and has cut back on many of it's programs and services. 

Being in the bottom 4 states in conservation funding report isn't good.

http://www.michiganlcvedfund.org/sites/default/files/Losing a Legacy.pdf

Again, I never said the streams are currently in peril. However, removing wild trout brood stock from fisheries where natural reproduction is solely responsible for the trout population is poor conservation.


----------



## 6Speed

Anything productive ever come out of one of these threads?


----------



## fishinDon

"Sky is falling" is a commonly accepted English phrase for the mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. Look it up. I think I used the phrase properly to describe my feelings on your baseless argument and without drama. 

What level of harvest on wild fish would be considered "good" conservation, in your opinion? Zero?

Don


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Fontinalis

6Speed said:


> Anything productive ever come out of one of these threads?


Yes, sportsmen are exposed to more than one position on the issues.


----------



## Fontinalis

What level of harvest on wild fish would be considered "good" conservation, in your opinion? Zero?

Don


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire[/QUOTE]

That would depend on the overall health of the trout population in each stream. 

Sometimes, that harvest limit might be zero, or 1 within a certain slot limit or even 2 fish of different species. MDNR is trying their best to work with what they have, I understand that, but the public also has a responsibility to protect fisheries that are at risk. 

Angling pressure is up across the board on the more popular rivers in Northern Michigan. This is pushing anglers to less pressured rivers and further away from the accesses. Watch, if we don't do something to protect those fisheries, ten years from now we'll wish we would have done something.


----------



## Trout King

6Speed said:


> Anything productive ever come out of one of these threads?


To a point. However, that point usually ends when one side has a baseless argument with no data or solid legitimized answers to questions to prove their point (see font's posts above).


----------



## Fontinalis

Trout King said:


> To a point. However, that point usually ends when one side has a baseless argument with no data or solid legitimized answers to questions to prove their point (see font's posts above).


Or one side has an agenda and has heard all the arguments before and doesn't really care about evidence. I know better than to waste my time on those who don't want to listen. Enough of their pseudo-science that creeling fish is good for wild trout populations. Time to hear the truth.

Raising awareness of the issues within the angling community is more important.


----------



## fishinDon

Can you give an example of a river that you believe is receiving increased pressure? 

I fish many of the popular rivers in the NLP all trout season long and rarely, if ever, encounter another angler. My report from opening weekend in the "North" forum would be a prime example of that. I saw lots of wildlife, caught lots of Brown trout, and never saw another person (besides the 2 buddies I fished with). We were on the water about 6 hours and it was opening weekend, I actually expected to run into a couple anglers, but we didn't see any. 

The recently completed Pere Marquette creel study also seems to indicate that the fishery is vastly underutilized during the traditional trout season and only sees heavy traffic during Salmon and Steelhead runs. The DNR biologist recommended all the restrictions be lifted based on the results of that and the fact that very, very few fish were harvested, and that the shocking surveys don't show an improvement in the fishery in the restricted waters. 

Don


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Fontinalis

fishinDon said:


> Can you give an example of a river that you believe is receiving increased pressure?
> 
> I fish many of the popular rivers in the NLP all trout season long and rarely, if ever, encounter another angler. My report from opening weekend in the "North" forum would be a prime example of that. I saw lots of wildlife, caught lots of Brown trout, and never saw another person (besides the 2 buddies I fished with). We were on the water about 6 hours and it was opening weekend, I actually expected to run into a couple anglers, but we didn't see any.
> 
> The recently completed Pere Marquette creel study also seems to indicate that the fishery is vastly underutilized during the traditional trout season and only sees heavy traffic during Salmon and Steelhead runs. The DNR biologist recommended all the restrictions be lifted based on the results of that and the fact that very, very few fish were harvested, and that the shocking surveys don't show an improvement in the fishery in the restricted waters.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Creel study on the PM is great. However, I made it a point not to include rivers like the PM, Manistee, AS, LM because most of them have either maintained or increased there stocking numbers. 

The rivers I'm concerned about are all located North M-72. I don't want to name these rivers because they don't need the extra attention or angling pressure.


----------



## 6Speed

Fontinalis said:


> Yes, sportsmen are exposed to more than one position on the issues.


Is there a winning position or just arguments. All of this seems to just repeat itself to no avail. What's the point? This divides all fishermen in the state and seems stupid?


----------



## Fontinalis

6Speed said:


> Is there a winning position or just arguments. All of this seems to just repeat itself to no avail. What's the point? This divides all fishermen in the state and seems stupid?


We don't have to agree. But the message in this forum up to this point has been lopsided in favor of no restrictions and increased harvesting. 

My argument is that without C & R practices, harvest limits and gear restrictions on some of our streams in Northern Michigan we run the risk of putting those streams that rely solely on natural reproduction at risk. I would rather be divided than agree on policies that have the potential to harm those fisheries.

A creeled wild trout is a dead wild trout. Mortality rate 100%. A released wild trout has a good chance at survival. 

There may not be a big difference in studies between spin, bait, and fly tackle on mortality rates but one thing is for sure:

If you kill a wild trout it's no longer a part or the population.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Wisconsin found that natural reproduction in wild strain trout actually increased the viability and sustainability of the trout population. Purely a ideological philosophical view that wild trout populations in themselves demand C&R. I will let a 32 year retired biologist that helped create the wild trout fishery in Wisconsin explain it:



Roger Kerr said:


> Roger Kerr retired WDNR Fish Manager:
> 
> I spent most of my adult life doing things in the public interest (for the common good). There seems to be a trend away from that these days. Small elite groups run the country and a small elite group by the name of Trout Unlimited runs the Wisconsin trout program. This is not in the public interest. This group does a lot of good things but their "thinking" is "outdated". Trout Unlimited started in Michigan 50 years ago. Their "motto" was that trout are too valuable to be caught just once. This was appropriate when trout were scarce. It serves no useful purpose when trout are super abundant as they are now (at least here in southwestern Wisconsin). Killing and eating trout has been made "sinful" by Trout Unlimited. This is nonsense because natural mortality is continuous . Trout can NOT be "stockpiled". When angling mortality goes to zero or close to zero, natural mortality increases to make up for the reduced angling mortality. This seems to be the #1 biological fact that Trout Unlimited members don't understand


Maybe in your fish knowledge, you can explain to a 32 year fisheries biologist, were he is going wrong.


----------



## troutguy26

6Speed said:


> Is there a winning position or just arguments. All of this seems to just repeat itself to no avail. What's the point? This divides all fishermen in the state and seems stupid?


It may seem that these debates are fruitless when in fact one side produces countless info and studies done by highly respected biologists and professor's while the other runs on gut feelings and emotions. I'm sure, and would be willing to bet money, that people following these threads with an open mind and reads all the info presented to them can see fact for fact. These people may not comment on the issue but can see that NOONE has provided any credible source of info as to why these regs should be in place. On top of the fact that a lot of these guys posting on here commit a lot of their time to actually showing up to meetings and being part of committees and so forth concerning our resources instead of just babble mouthing about something that doesn't exist on the internet without any science to back their claims up. Well done guys for actually being part of what's going on and devoting your time to do so. My hats off to you and you know who you all are.


----------



## Fontinalis

troutguy26 said:


> It may seem that these debates are fruitless when in fact one side produces countless info and studies done by highly respected biologists and professor's while the other runs on gut feelings and emotions. I'm sure, and would be willing to bet money, that people following these threads with an open mind and reads all the info presented to them can see fact for fact. These people may not comment on the issue but can see that NOONE has provided any credible source of info as to why these regs should be in place. On top of the fact that a lot of these guys posting on here commit a lot of their time to actually showing up to meetings and being part of committees and so forth concerning our resources instead of just babble mouthing about something that doesn't exist on the internet without any science to back their claims up. Well done guys for actually being part of what's going on and devoting your time to do so. My hats off to you and you know who you all are.



It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that when you kill a wild trout that is of brood stock development it would take at least 3 to 4 years to replace that fish. Kill enough and you've severely damaged the trout population for years.

But nice try with your babble. 

*Stand up for Michigan's wild trout population. Support C & R on those streams that rely on natural reproduction alone!*


----------



## Boozer

Fontinalis said:


> It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that when you kill a wild trout that is of brood stock development it would take at least 3 to 4 years to replace that fish.
> [/B]


Your logic has one serious flaw, your assuming when one is harvested, you must start from zero to replace it. That simply isn't true...


----------



## Ranger Ray

Boozer said:


> Your logic has one serious flaw, your assuming when one is harvested, you must start from zero to replace it. That simply isn't true...


Takes a scientist to understand that. :lol:


----------



## Boozer

Ranger Ray said:


> Takes a scientist to understand that. :lol:


He says that if you take out one mature fish, that you must wait 3-4 years for that fish to be replaced.

However, there would most certainly be many immature fish already present which would benefit from him being gone and in a much shorter period of time, fill his/her role in the ecosystem as "broodstock"...


----------



## Fontinalis

Boozer said:


> He says that if you take out one mature fish, that you must wait 3-4 years for that fish to be replaced.
> 
> However, there would most certainly be many immature fish already present which would benefit from him being gone and in a much shorter period of time, fill his/her role in the ecosystem as "broodstock"...



That would be true if I was talking about just one fish. Try reading the rest next time. Ridiculous.


----------



## Boozer

Fontinalis said:


> That would be true if I was talking about just one fish. Try reading the rest next time. Ridiculous.


I did read every single post you have made here, if your statements held any merit, we would already have issues with trout populations in this state, period.


----------

