# 10 trouts eh!



## Quig7557 (Dec 31, 2008)

People violate laws, regardless of location. I’ve never been checked ever on a stream or leaving one.

Fishing is worse on most streams inthe UP since the five fish limit.

I throw back a lot of fish, I now keep bigger fish to eat, because five doesn’t go very far.

I think Trout King covered it well.
And I believe we’ve plowed this ground already haven’t we?


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

Quig7557 said:


> People violate laws, regardless of location. I’ve never been checked ever on a stream or leaving one.


That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. How many times have I been checked in the UP? Zero. That's what causes me to ask these questions about the 10 fish streams.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

PunyTrout said:


> That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. How many times have I been checked in the UP? Zero. That's what causes me to ask these questions about the 10 fish streams.


It does not matter to those guys that are going to poach. In fact most are already doing it. One sept. I was fishing a western UP stream. Came upon a beaver pond a local was fishing this pond was a solid 2 miles in from the nearest 2 track. The guy had a five gallon bucket better than 3/4 of the way full of brook trout. Fish running 10 to 12 inches. Surprised the hell out of him as he was standing on the dam tuned into catching fish and no idea I had walked right up behind him. Miles from cell service at the time what could one do. I still catch nice trout in this area and pond. I am sure the guy still cleans house once or twice a year. 
I let him know as I passed by the limit was 5 fish. I would not want to pay that fine if caught. It was only the 2nd time I ever seen someone trout fishing in the UP in the 25 years I have fished up there for trout. The other was a guy fishing the fox by the campground. He said he did not catch a fish in the 3 hours he had fished. When I passed him I already had caught 27 trout in 2 hours. The bend below I could see where he had pushed thru the brush and grass. Landed the best fish of the trip a 17” male in its splendid sept colors. Some catch fish some don’t. 
It would be nice to bust each and everyone of these poachers. Hopefully those days catch up to them. I will just go fishing enjoy my time on the water catch my share of trout.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

PunyTrout said:


> Really? You came back with a, "If my Uncle wore a dress, He'd be my Aunt." type response?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No puny trout. Even if you were wearing dress it would be a dumb statement. We don't manage our trout streams or rivers based on what if statements. We hope they are managed based on science.


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

Splitshot said:


> Not a good argument. What if Mondrella kept a 100 trout every day?


See what you did there? You automatically relegated my question into the absurd with your 100 fish comment.

My question involved a 10 fish limit which is legal on some selected streams. Your model of a 100 fish being taken has never been legal in Michigan for as long as there _have_ been limits.



Splitshot said:


> No puny trout. Even if you were wearing dress it would be a dumb statement. We don't manage our trout streams or rivers based on what if statements. We hope they are managed based on science.


I think you have me confused with someone else. What's next? Name calling, switching topics or twisting what I've said to fit your narrative? Go back to lurking.


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

Splitshot said:


> No puny trout. Even if you were wearing dress it would be a dumb statement.


I asked a couple of questions. The only statement I made was, "Violators _do exist._ And, it’s in their mentality to violate_." _

Do you honestly disagree that_ violators do exist? Or are they a figment of my imagination?_

Please put your reading glasses on a reread what I asked.



PunyTrout said:


> What will prevent an unscrupulous angler from taking 10 fish from the Fox River and then driving down the road towards home and if questioned, just claim they took them from The Driggs? Rinse and repeat across the UP.
> 
> What about the guy who takes 7 trout from a stream with an upstream limit of a certain bridge where they parked and then, ‘filling out their limit’ on the downstream side (with a 5 fish limit) and then driving away?
> 
> Violators _do exist._ And, it’s in their mentality to violate. What really prevents poachers from picking out one of the 10 limit streams from the list closest to where they fished and then claim that’s where they took them from when questioned away from the stream?


Exactly which part do you find dumb? The part where I ask if some anglers will lie when they are confronted? Or the idea that some anglers will try and take advantage of the new regulations?



Splitshot said:


> We don't manage our trout streams or rivers based on _what if statements_.


You want to read a What if question? Read the one that _you_ contributed:



Splitshot said:


> *What if* Mondrella kept a 100 trout every day?


Your comment is not germane to the discussion. It's an attempt to disrupt the civil debate we're trying to have. And it's called,_ 'Trolling'._


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

PunyTrout said:


> What will prevent an unscrupulous angler from taking 10 fish from the Fox River and then driving down the road towards home and if questioned, just claim they took them from The Driggs? Rinse and repeat across the UP.
> 
> What about the guy who takes 7 trout from a stream with an upstream limit of a certain bridge where they parked and then, ‘filling out their limit’ on the downstream side (with a 5 fish limit) and then driving away?
> 
> Violators _do exist._ And, it’s in their mentality to violate. What really prevents poachers from picking out one of the 10 limit streams from the list closest to where they fished and then claim that’s where they took them from when questioned away from the stream?


To answer your questions, nothing. But if he does, what difference is it going to make in the overall scheme of things? Probably not much. You are worrying about things you have no control over. Worse case scenario is, if Joe violator catches every fish out of a system, the DNR can always stock more, and bring the system back. This scenario is so far fetched though, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

Ranger Ray said:


> To answer your questions, nothing.


"Nothing". That is the verbatim answer my friend concluded as well. Hence my satirical story in the other thread.

Thank you for your response.


----------

