# Trout tips for fly fishermen



## Splitshot

Lately I have been taking a lot of criticism because I fish with bait and because I dont support the idea that fly fishermen deserve special privileges to our public waters that every citizen should have a right to access and fish any legal way they choose. Somehow fighting against special privileges makes me greedy at the same time these special interest groups threaten going after much more of our public waters if I persist. Anyway I am using what happened on my first day trout fishing as a way to get honest answers to questions I have.

My day started late because I had some work to do in the morning and didnt get on the river until shortly after noon. The river still had a good stain and I thought it would be perfect for big browns. I started using bait and casting plugs but after 2 hours I didnt get one bite or even a follow casting plugs.

I consider bait fishing as much a science as any fly fishing and just because your toss a worm in the river doesnt mean every trout in the river will just roll over. In any event I kept changing baits, lures and presentations until I started catching fish. Once I figured it out I decided that I was going to keep every tenth keeper I landed and quit once I had the five fish I was allowed to keep.

Once I figured where the trout were feeding I took out my fly rod and started casting dry flies. That only lasted about 20 minutes since I saw no bugs hatching and no fish rising in the stained water I decided I was wasting my time so I switched to nymphs. I was patient and spent the next hour probing those areas where I had been earlier catching trout on bait. While I cant say I wouldnt have caught anything using flies, I had enough and besides my arm was getting tired. Not just from casting flies, but from rowing my Dry Fly float boat as well.

About 3:30 I went back to fishing bait and casting plugs but after a while I figured the cold front had a calming effect on the aggressive trout so I gave up the plugs as well. It was a beautiful day on the river and I never saw one angler or even one person on the river all day. How lucky I was. Fly fishermen often tell me they need special places to fly fish so they can enjoy quality time on the river. In fact Howard Meyerson an outdoor writer asked me that very question. He said; Didnt I think fly fishermen deserved a quality day on the river? in defense of flies only waters.

My answer hasnt changed and I explained that it would be nice in a perfect world, but I fish about 60 days a year for trout and more often than not, I have the river pretty much to myself. Besides when you only allow on group of fishermen to fish some of the best waters so they can enjoy a quality experience, what happens to all the fishermen who used to fish there. Arent they now more crowded?

Lately someone just told me that fishing has evolved since the stone age and if I really wanted to fish those areas, I should just lose the worms. It is not uncommon for fly fishermen to think bait fishermen are Neanderthals, that they are unethical or worse, but let me continue less I digress.

As I continued to fish, the fishing remained pretty consistent and while I seldom caught more than one fish out of a hole, most holes gave up one trout. I was fishing a river that does not get stocked with planted fish has many public access points and can be waded in many places and I had to quit fishing because I bagged my last legal trout. I caught 4 trout larger than any trout shown in the picture below but I kept to my plan to keep every tenth legal fish. Normally I would have caught more fish, but that is just because I only keep what I can use which means I seldom keep my limit.










Since the early part of the year usually yields the most trout, this is a little above the average number of trout I catch in a days fishing. What Im saying is that our rivers or most of the ones that I fish have huge populations of trout of all sizes why should we make special concessions for on small segment of the fishing community. On rivers like the PM I often do much better because the stock much of the river. My position is if the DNR feels it is necessary to plant streams why would they apply gear or bait restrictions on those sections. The DNR biologist all concur as far as I know that flies only, or other gear or bait restrictions do nothing to protect the fishery so why in the world would they use more of the money from all fishing licenses to plant fish for a small percentage of fishermen.

The MDNR fisheries chief told me directly that bait restrictions came to be simply because of lobbying and political considerations and biology had nothing to do with the rules. For the people to say we have gear restrictions because the DNR wanted them is far from the truth. Anyway on to my questions.

First based on my experience explained above, what would you have me do? Give up bait fishing because you think it immoral? Use lures to increase my chances but still catch less fish? If I would have not used bait, I might not have caught a single fish and in any event far less than I did catch.

I think a lot of fly fishermen have similar experiences to mine find it easier to blame their lack of success on those slob bait fisherman who are depleting our rivers when they end up with the old skunk than on their fishing skills. Since I am a pretty good fly fisherman I know I can catch fish when the trout are taking flies, but I also know when to change my plan. I know that to some trout fishermen catching a trout on a fly is more important than catching a trout, but that does not justify pushing for more and more of our Michigan waters just to sooth their egos or to satisfy their unfounded beliefs.

To the guy who said we should use creel limits to enhance the number of trophy trout, that is exactly what has happened as a result of the current creel limits. I have often said that it is a basic part of our traditional history to catch trout and share them over a dinner table with our friends and family. The DNR is charged with making rules that protect our resources based on hard science and it sad when we force them to make rules simply based on the belief that they are needed to protect our fishery.

Another person recently said it would be a sad day to see the banks of the Holy Waters, The Mason Tract or the South Branch of th Au Sable lined with fishermen. I say every day is a sad day until all fishermen have equal access to our public waters.

For 12 years on this site I have been asking for one good reason we should restrict 90 of the fishermen from fishing our best trout waters with none given. I know it is much easier to attack me or the way I fish or simply suggest I simply give up using bait or give up a fight I can never win or it is okay because it is just a small percentage of our thousands of miles of trout streams and rivers.

Personally I would enjoy fishing those streams and rivers I fished as a kid and young man. I invested a lot of time and energy learning the little nuances only to be pushed out because of an ideology of a few zealots. In the end, Im guilty because I believed the lies about how these regulations protected the fisheries but now the truth is out and after 25 years of fishing and learning less productive sections of the PM some fishermen think it is okay to causally suggest that I stop fishing the way I like to fish and just get over it regardless if it violates the public trust, the very fundamental reason we depend on our DNR and their stated mission statement.

If what I say in my post is true and our rivers are full of trout as well as lots of trophy trout, and the individuals and organizations that are pushing to take more of our public waters from all of us keep twisting the truth about why we should allow them exclusive access from fishing our best public waters unless we conform to fish they way they demand then it is probably a good idea to fight them in spite of what one guy said you may get swift kick in the balls.

And yes I know some people fish for trout other than to eat them, but I fish for all the same reasons and get to eat some too. If you want to release all the trout you catch and it makes you feel noble or superior in some way, go for it, but dont try to push your morals on me especially when at least half of the trout in our rivers are going to die anyway. I consider myself a part of the food chain, not someone above it looking down on the immoral slobs that just dont know any better.

Keep preaching that fly fishing puts you in a special class of enlightened anglers and a majority of those you convince will give up fishing altogether just like the vast majority of fishermen who took up fly fishing after watching the movie; A River Runs Through It. Most of them no longer fish at all after they found out that catching a nice trout on a fly is not as easy as it looks. Im guessing that most of them, never realized that the guy making those incredible casts was not Brad Pitt and I think many of you still believe it was him. Sorry but it was just a movie.


----------



## METTLEFISH

I too have asked for an expanation as to why, to no avail. Simply put it is just to facilitate some wild fancy of a few of the fisherman. Why protect the highest density portions of streams and not the lower density portions? Are these fish endangered?.... not here where they aren't even Indiginous they aren't! So historically why were they put here?... to be caught, there was no mention of flies only water then, just can we make a fishery out of these low production waters. Fish to be caught by the people that pay for them.

So if these waters are to not going away, why not a high fee stamp to fish those sections, say an amount close in cost to what the price would be to travel west to where one can have this most "Holy' of experiences in a natural setting. If as stated this is about protecting these sacred fish, then restrict the casting gear, the Angler makes his rod & reel (wooded only) braids his line from Horse hair and makes hooks of bone or thorn, then walks or rides Horse back to his destination, after all that was part of the experience "in the day"

All the B.S. aside, we - those who are against specific descriminative practices on our public waters need to group together and start legel procedures against the DNREQ. Force them to prove why these waters exist in a Court of Law, no rhetoric just the facts!


----------



## Undertow

I usually don't read nor comment on these type of arguments, but the title of your post and my coffee this morning got my blood stirring. 

You have a valid point. I'm a diehard flyfisherman so I see things from a different angle. I could go into the history, the art, the science, the literature, the good, the bad ,and the ugly of my sport and juxtapose these with the same characteristics of the bait or plug fisherman. All that would come from it would be a headache. My advice to you is deal with it. Lifes tough and no matter what philosphy or dogma you subscribe to your going to be excluded from certain things in this world. Yeh I know land of the free and equal rights, but in reality we know thats a bunch of BS.

One thing we do have in this country is a right to voice our opinion and fight against things we do not agree with. From your post and the link at the bottom of it your doing both. People like you, who voice their opinion and push for action are exactly the ones who got us the special regulations. Keep on fighting for what you believe in and I'll be on the otherside doing the same.

I hope you understand that I respect your view. What really bugs me about your manifesto is the way you seem to portray flyfisherman. We are not all snobs nor did we all pick up a flyrod due to a movie. I really don't care how you catch your fish or whether or not you keep them, but if you want to fish certain area's you have to abide by the rules. You make it sound like you've been cut off from your childhood due to some mindless regulations. Guess what, your not cut off, you can still go there and fish. You just have to abide by the rules. There are plenty of examples of having to change or adapt to a specific set of rules in order to do something in our country, for instance, if your in a wilderness area that does not allow motors, do you still drive your motor boat while screaming what an injustice it is to all motorboaters? Sorry you can't do it your preferred way but thats just goes back to life is tough, deal with it.

Undertow

P.S. I did not get one flyfishing tip for trout from your post. Next time just title it for what it is.


----------



## troutmaster

Undertow said:


> I usually don't read nor comment on these type of arguments, but the title of your post and my coffee this morning got my blood stirring.
> 
> You have a valid point. I'm a diehard flyfisherman so I see things from a different angle. I could go into the history, the art, the science, the literature, the good, the bad ,and the ugly of my sport and juxtapose these with the same characteristics of the bait or plug fisherman. All that would come from it would be a headache. My advice to you is deal with it. Lifes tough and no matter what philosphy or dogma you subscribe to your going to be excluded from certain things in this world. Yeh I know land of the free and equal rights, but in reality we know thats a bunch of BS.
> 
> One thing we do have in this country is a right to voice our opinion and fight against things we do not agree with. From your post and the link at the bottom of it your doing both. People like you, who voice their opinion and push for action are exactly the ones who got us the special regulations. Keep on fighting for what you believe in and I'll be on the otherside doing the same.
> 
> I hope you understand that I respect your view. What really bugs me about your manifesto is the way you seem to portray flyfisherman. We are not all snobs nor did we all pick up a flyrod due to a movie. I really don't care how you catch your fish or whether or not you keep them, but if you want to fish certain area's you have to abide by the rules. You make it sound like you've been cut off from your childhood due to some mindless regulations. Guess what, your not cut off, you can still go there and fish. You just have to abide by the rules. There are plenty of examples of having to change or adapt to a specific set of rules in order to do something in our country, for instance, if your in a wilderness area that does not allow motors, do you still drive your motor boat while screaming what an injustice it is to all motorboaters? Sorry you can't do it your preferred way but thats just goes back to life is tough, deal with it.
> 
> Undertow
> 
> P.S. I did not get one flyfishing tip for trout from your post. Next time just title it for what it is.


Couldn't have said it better.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## aimus1

Undertow said:


> I usually don't read nor comment on these type of arguments, but the title of your post and my coffee this morning got my blood stirring.
> 
> You have a valid point. I'm a diehard flyfisherman so I see things from a different angle. I could go into the history, the art, the science, the literature, the good, the bad ,and the ugly of my sport and juxtapose these with the same characteristics of the bait or plug fisherman. All that would come from it would be a headache. My advice to you is deal with it. Lifes tough and no matter what philosphy or dogma you subscribe to your going to be excluded from certain things in this world. Yeh I know land of the free and equal rights, but in reality we know thats a bunch of BS.
> 
> One thing we do have in this country is a right to voice our opinion and fight against things we do not agree with. From your post and the link at the bottom of it your doing both. People like you, who voice their opinion and push for action are exactly the ones who got us the special regulations. Keep on fighting for what you believe in and I'll be on the otherside doing the same.
> 
> I hope you understand that I respect your view. What really bugs me about your manifesto is the way you seem to portray flyfisherman. We are not all snobs nor did we all pick up a flyrod due to a movie. I really don't care how you catch your fish or whether or not you keep them, but if you want to fish certain area's you have to abide by the rules. You make it sound like you've been cut off from your childhood due to some mindless regulations. Guess what, your not cut off, you can still go there and fish. You just have to abide by the rules. There are plenty of examples of having to change or adapt to a specific set of rules in order to do something in our country, for instance, if your in a wilderness area that does not allow motors, do you still drive your motor boat while screaming what an injustice it is to all motorboaters? Sorry you can't do it your preferred way but thats just goes back to life is tough, deal with it.
> 
> Undertow
> 
> P.S. I did not get one flyfishing tip for trout from your post. Next time just title it for what it is.


Splitshot does indeed have a valid point! And as a die hard fly fisherman, who fishes rivers no other way just like you, I don't really see yours. "Deal with it"? And if the flies only sections of these waters were re-opened to bait fisherman; Would YOU simply "deal with it"? Or how about if they removed the flies only regs on these stretches and made them bait only? You still just "dealing with it" Your motorboat argument unfortunately doesn't hold water. Those regs are there based on scientific reasons and in effort to protect the resource. Flies only regs are not. They're simply based on blind discrimination. Unfortunaley this is what fly fishing for many has become. I don't consider myself any better than the guy worm dunkin a couple bends downstream. "Deal with it".....Incredible!:sad:


----------



## jerrob

aimus1 said:


> Splitshot does indeed have a valid point! And as a die hard fly fisherman, who fishes rivers no other way just like you, I don't really see yours. "Deal with it"? And if the flies only sections of these waters were re-opened to bait fisherman; Would YOU simply "deal with it"? Or how about if they removed the flies only regs on these stretches and made them bait only? You still just "dealing with it" Your motorboat argument unfortunately doesn't hold water. Those regs are there based on scientific reasons and in effort to protect the resource. Flies only regs are not. They're simply based on blind discrimination. Unfortunaley this is what fly fishing for many has become. I don't consider myself any better than the guy worm dunkin a couple bends downstream. "Deal with it".....Incredible!:sad:


Well said aimus1,


----------



## troutguy26

aimus1 said:


> Splitshot does indeed have a valid point! And as a die hard fly fisherman, who fishes rivers no other way just like you, I don't really see yours. "Deal with it"? And if the flies only sections of these waters were re-opened to bait fisherman; Would YOU simply "deal with it"? Or how about if they removed the flies only regs on these stretches and made them bait only? You still just "dealing with it" Your motorboat argument unfortunately doesn't hold water. Those regs are there based on scientific reasons and in effort to protect the resource. Flies only regs are not. They're simply based on blind discrimination. Unfortunaley this is what fly fishing for many has become. I don't consider myself any better than the guy worm dunkin a couple bends downstream. "Deal with it".....Incredible!:sad:


Couldnt have said it any better!!!!!!!

You can give up your freedoms all you want. I wont. 

On a side note. That really wasnt brad pitt?


----------



## fishinlk

Ray, 

Congrats on the nice day on the water. It clearly sounds like you had a quality day both fishing and catching. Interesting way to throw a post out there to get attention to your cause. Nothing like being a little misleading, but then again you seem to be working that way more often these days. It was nice back when you had great posts on here without having to drive some type of agenda.....  

I applaude you for the idea of you approach to how frequently you'd keep a fish vs. legal size limit. You are already inderectly practicing some aspects creel restrictions that I've spoken of in the past. 

Good fishing.


----------



## the rapids

Undertow said:


> P.S. I did not get one flyfishing tip for trout from your post. Next time just title it for what it is.


I think you were misreading the title "trout tips for flyfisherman". One of the tips I obtained from Splitshot's story was to switch up tactics when your preferred or initial method is not producing any hook ups and you want to catch fish.

One of the thoughts I had after reading his post was how not being able to have that option of switching tactics from bait to lure to fly on a stretch of river actually may hurt the ability of an angler to learn new things about fishing or apply tactics from one form of angling to another, especially on some of our most productive stretches of river in the state containing gear restricted regulations.


----------



## hairyjoe123

The use of worms as bait is far newer to fishing than fly fishing. Fly fishing dates back 3000 years and has the first record of string being used for fishing. Before fly fishing it was just nets and spears. If anybody is more Neanderthal or barbaric it is the fly fisherman. 

I fly fished almost exclusively until recently. I find it to be more relaxing. I bait/spin cast when I feel it necessary or just plain want to. By and far, I fly fish but not exclusively anymore. 

Truth be told, I find it an injustice for the state to charge and place licensing on fishing. All is public water. Forcing a person to purchase a license, to use water and its content is wrong, as far as I am concerned.

I also am against the stocking of non native fishes. Last I knew brown trout were a non native fish from Europe. I think the only native trout species is brook trout. I may be mistaken, I don't think I am but maybe. Are trout streams the only restricted streams? I could be wrong. 

Lets go, hurry up, there's fish to be had!


----------



## hairyjoe123

Not to say I wouldn't fish the stocked fish. If I'm paying for' em, I'll fish' em. 

Lets go, hurry up, there's fish to be had!


----------



## METTLEFISH

I hate to be the one to tell you... Brook "Trout" are actually ''Char" as is the Lake "Trout"... Michigan has no Indiginous Trout....or Salmon.


----------



## hairyjoe123

Don't hate to tell the facts. Brook trout, not a trout, but a Char, is good to know. 

Lets go, hurry up, there's fish to be had!


----------



## Shoeman

trout tips for flyfishermen?

More like an informercial for Walt's Crawlers or the NEW Banjo leech... :lol:

Come on Ray! You can do way better than that


----------



## Steve

Misleading title but some good tips. Wouldn't it be great if we could switch tactics in waters that are now flies only to using hardware if the conditions warranted? Granted the regs still wouldn't allow for bait in those waters but it gives the angler more options than he has now.


----------



## tannhd

I fly fish probably 40% of the time. I use artificials/spin cast 50% and 10% I use worms or spawn sacks or whatev. I adapt to the stream and conditions. 

I wouldnt mind gear regs simply limiting to aritificials/single hooks only. Heck, even barbless would be fine. That doesnt limit the TYPE of fishing, only the type of bait. 

I dont understand why strict flyfisherman would have a problem with altering regs to meet that criteria??? How is a barbless, single hook spinner going to kill more fish than a streamer??? Some of these articulated streamers have two hooks and are completely inhaled by fish. Im sure Ive killed a few on articulated zoo cougars, boogeymen and the like. 

Makes no sense to me.


----------



## Benzie Rover

Splitshot said:


> If what I say in my post is true and our rivers are full of trout as well as lots of trophy trout....


At least you put a qualifier in there... our rivers are *not *full of trout, let alone full of TROPHY trout But if that is how you see things, I guess that explains some of your rhetoric and management proposals. First of all, please know that I fully concur that there is *not* a valid rationale for imposing fly fishing as a management tool. It is a socially desirable (for some) angling choice, just like bait is for others. 

However, there are many valid management goals that utlitize no-bait fishing as an important tool. No-bait/artificial only is not the same a fly fishing, however it yields the more or less the same result from a fishery perspective. The most well studied and often used no-bait scenario is when a river system has a population of steelhead or coho smolts that become vulnerable to angling by-catch for adults steelies. Disallowing bait quickly and effectively removes 99% of the smolt catch in these situations. In Michigan this would be helpful for rivers managed for natural steelhead reproduction, but obviously we would not 'socially' accept such scientific management of rivers that we have always thrown bait in, thus, we will never make such a scientific management move based on SOCIAL BAIT CONCERNS... pretty ironic huh? Instead we just focus on a costly, put-n-take stocking system and for-go any real commitment to habitat and natural reproduction... Talk about empowering the DNR even more... think about it folks. The less we need to stock, the less we need to rely on easily- influenced government... Who knows what argument or side will have their ear in the future... are you willing to bet it will be 'your' side? Let's promote habitat, restrict harvest where they are not spawning and focus harvest on where they do spawn well. Simple, right!? :lol:


----------



## Bull Market

Actually, I feel kinda "violated". Normally, I try to avoid these kinds of discussions, because they end up leading nowhere, raising my blood pressure enroute. I was thankful when the Forum added the "Gear Restrictions and Fishing Regulations" section, so that I could avoid these kinds of discussions.

Now, it seems that like a disease of some sort, that ire has spilled back over into the peaceable sections of the Forum. I hope the moderators see fit to translocate this thread back to the "Fishing Regs" section where it belongs. Beam me up, Scotty!


----------



## broncbuster2

Shoeman said:


> trout tips for flyfishermen?
> 
> More like an informercial for Walt's Crawlers or the NEW Banjo leech... :lol:
> 
> Come on Ray! You can do way better than that


That the best ya got Ralf?
Kinda funny, I got a tip from it.
Should I give you a brief synopsis?
Pretty easy, if your not catching anything on some stupid feathers, change to something else and if that isn't working either and
you want something for dinner try using a WORM...:yikes:


----------



## Jackster1

the rapids said:


> I think you were misreading the title "trout tips for flyfisherman". One of the tips I obtained from Splitshot's story was to switch up tactics when your preferred or initial method is not producing any hook ups and you want to catch fish.
> 
> One of the thoughts I had after reading his post was how not being able to have that option of switching tactics from bait to lure to fly on a stretch of river actually may hurt the ability of an angler to learn new things about fishing or apply tactics from one form of angling to another, especially on some of our most productive stretches of river in the state containing gear restricted regulations.


 


As one who fly fishes 99.9% of the time by choice simply because I find it the most enjoyable way to fish, I too agree that switching tactics is the best way to up your catch rate when things are slow. That is why you'll find my vest full of different fly boxes and leaders and sometimes even extra reel spools full of different lines to fish different depths of the water column. It's the challenge that blows my skirt. I don't have to test my manhood on if I catch a limit or not. I've gone through every stage of fishing that you can come up with, from cat fishing all night with stink bait to crickets on Granny's cane poles to handlining for walleye on the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers to slamming red worms under pines for brookies and end up in my old age absolutely loving tricking the hard to get fish through skill gained in years of studying the fly cast and reading water on tricking the fish on imitations I've made. It don't get much better than that and until you've experienced it is very hard to understand. Back in the '50's my Uncle Joe tried explaining it to me but I sort of blew it off when he stared in on why he fly fished. Luckily, my mind wasn't completely closed to his thoughts and some of them echoed around in my head until I was able to try them out for myself. Uncle Joe was right... for me anyhow and I really wish he was still around to thank for planting the seed.

I digress... changing tactics doesn't have to mean putting down the fly rod for something easier. Every single way to fish with a fishing pole can be duplicated with a fly rod except still fishing under a bobber.

Despite how many who argue for one side of this issue or the other by labeling and name calling, most fly fishers fly fish by choice after going through bait and hardware fishing. They find it as I do, a more enjoyable way to fish.

As for the special regs debate, I admit that some of the places put on special regs hold a special place in my heart. The history and attention they've been given over the years just add to make them special. In my years of fishing all over Michigan from times that included legal snagging I contend that a quality fishing experience includes not getting tripped by wads of 12# test mono or seeing the banks and river bottoms covered with used worm containers. I know this has nothing to do directly with the health of a fish population (note I said 'directly'), I'm glad there is a very small portion of waters with quality fishing regulations. Quality does NOT merely mean numbers of fish to some of us who buy licenses and spend good money to fish.


----------



## hairyjoe123

Fly fishing can include bobber fishing in still water . Just because fly fisherman call it a strike indicator doesn't mean its not a bobber. 

Lets go, hurry up, there's fish to be had!


----------



## Jackster1

hairyjoe123 said:


> Fly fishing can include bobber fishing in still water . Just because fly fisherman call it a strike indicator doesn't mean its not a bobber.


Dang... you've picked up on that strike indicator/bobber thing! So tell me, which flies would duplicate a squirming worm or swimming minnow?


----------



## Trout King

jackster you seem like as a reasonable guy, but your last comments are typical bs that fly guys use to argue gear regs. not a dig on you, but how do u feel in the flies water seeing flies getting ripped at spawning fish and the fish being decorated wih
th multi fly rigs with 9ft tippets dangling in the current?.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jackster1

Trout King said:


> jackster you seem like as a reasonable guy, but your last comments are typical bs that fly guys use to argue gear regs. not a dig on you, but how do u feel in the flies water seeing flies getting ripped at spawning fish and the fish being decorated wih
> th multi fly rigs with 9ft tippets dangling in the current?.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I can't say I've ever seen fly ripped through runs to snag but if I did I would either intervene or call the authorities. I surely don't like seeing any man made jewelry on fish whether in flies only area's or not. I learned the hard way not to tail a salmon for a friend! :rant:
I added that last bit about trash simply because it is true from peronal observation. No BS. Just yesterday at the pond in my 'hood I had to carry out a few cans, a worm container, some lure wrappers and two wads of spent mono. Lucky for me they also left a broken styrofoam cooler I was able to use to haul that garbage out.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Jackster1 said:


> As one who fly fishes 99.9% of the time by choice simply because I find it the most enjoyable way to fish, I too agree that switching tactics is the best way to up your catch rate when things are slow. That is why you'll find my vest full of different fly boxes and leaders and sometimes even extra reel spools full of different lines to fish different depths of the water column. It's the challenge that blows my skirt. I don't have to test my manhood on if I catch a limit or not. I've gone through every stage of fishing that you can come up with, from cat fishing all night with stink bait to crickets on Granny's cane poles to handlining for walleye on the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers to slamming red worms under pines for brookies and end up in my old age absolutely loving tricking the hard to get fish through skill gained in years of studying the fly cast and reading water on tricking the fish on imitations I've made. It don't get much better than that and until you've experienced it is very hard to understand. Back in the '50's my Uncle Joe tried explaining it to me but I sort of blew it off when he stared in on why he fly fished. Luckily, my mind wasn't completely closed to his thoughts and some of them echoed around in my head until I was able to try them out for myself. Uncle Joe was right... for me anyhow and I really wish he was still around to thank for planting the seed.
> 
> I digress... changing tactics doesn't have to mean putting down the fly rod for something easier. Every single way to fish with a fishing pole can be duplicated with a fly rod except still fishing under a bobber.
> 
> Despite how many who argue for one side of this issue or the other by labeling and name calling, most fly fishers fly fish by choice after going through bait and hardware fishing. They find it as I do, a more enjoyable way to fish.
> 
> As for the special regs debate, I admit that some of the places put on special regs hold a special place in my heart. The history and attention they've been given over the years just add to make them special. In my years of fishing all over Michigan from times that included legal snagging I contend that a quality fishing experience includes not getting tripped by wads of 12# test mono or seeing the banks and river bottoms covered with used worm containers. I know this has nothing to do directly with the health of a fish population (note I said 'directly'), I'm glad there is a very small portion of waters with quality fishing regulations. Quality does NOT merely mean numbers of fish to some of us who buy licenses and spend good money to fish.


I utilized most all techniques at an early age. I never found fly casting much of a challenge, more of a waste of time when my "bait" shoud be in the water catching fish issue for me. A cable between me and the fish just turned me away from that. I can use a two weight fly blank built into a spinning rod with two pound test all the way from the reel to hook, be it on a fly or other artificial.... Gossamer strands....


QUOTE=Jackster1;4119418]Dang... you've picked up on that strike indicator/bobber thing! So tell me, which flies would duplicate a squirming worm or swimming minnow?[/QUOTE]

FYI the correct yarn duplicates a worm or crawler perfeclty, and I believe streamers do a pretty good job on the minnow thing.....


----------



## swampbuck

QUOTE=Jackster1;4119418]Dang... you've picked up on that strike indicator/bobber thing! So tell me, which flies would duplicate a squirming worm or swimming minnow?[/QUOTE]

FYI the correct yarn duplicates a worm or crawler perfeclty, and I believe streamers do a pretty good job on the minnow thing.....[/QUOTE]


There is NO duplicate....


----------



## METTLEFISH

swampbuck said:


> QUOTE=Jackster1;4119418]Dang... you've picked up on that strike indicator/bobber thing! So tell me, which flies would duplicate a squirming worm or swimming minnow?


FYI the correct yarn duplicates a worm or crawler perfeclty, and I believe streamers do a pretty good job on the minnow thing.....[/QUOTE]


There is NO duplicate....








[/QUOTE]

When faced with fooling the very small brain of a fish... yarn does it as close to perfect as needed!


----------



## fishinlk

> *Originally posted by Mettlefish* When faced with fooling the very small brain of a fish... yarn does it as close to perfect as needed!


So there really is no need for bait fishing then???? :corkysm55



I couldn't help myself....


----------



## Jackster1

METTLEFISH said:


> FYI the correct yarn duplicates a worm or crawler perfeclty, and I believe streamers do a pretty good job on the minnow thing.....


In moving water that stuff works fine but if I'm not mistaken when still water fishing under a bobber that stuff doesn't move on its own.
I know of stuff far better than yarn to duplicate worms and use it all the time when taking out wounded veterans who have never fly fished. The goal there is to get them on to some fish and that we do.
We're splitting hairs here though. I didn't mean to turn this into a debate on fly materials.


----------



## toto

To me, the whole point to Rays thread isn't really against fly fishing, but rather the experience. What I fail to understand is why it is, that a bait guy can't have the same experience as the guy using flies, or spinners or what have you? It is my opinion is, fishing isn't necessarily about the catching as much as the getting away, and letting lifes pressure disappear, if even for a few hours. Catching fish is something that we do, its inherent in our DNA, its been done for eons for subsistance primarily, but only in the last few decades has it become more. Again, no one on the side of elimination of gear restrictions is against fly fishing as a method, we are just against the exclusive nature of it.

From my standpoint, those that are adamant about fly fishing being the only way, and MUST have catch and release or the Brad Pitt mentality, are pretty much what I'll call P.E.T.A light. I can't say its full fledged P.E.T.A. but somewhere close. At least you guys have no problem catching fish, you just have some twisted thought that those that don't fly fish can't have the same experience, I just can't wrap my head around that.


----------



## Trout King

jackster, i've been out trout fishing 6 times this year and havent found a worm container or any trash. just because you use bait or lures doesnt mean you are a slob. i've seen spools of stripped fly line on the bank of the pm, but im not going to argue all fly guys are slobs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shoeman

Trout King said:


> jackster, i've been out trout fishing 6 times this year and havent found a worm container or any trash. just because you use bait or lures doesnt mean you are a slob. i've seen spools of stripped fly line on the bank of the pm, but im not going to argue all fly guys are slobs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You must be fishing in some real remote places. 

But this isn't about trash. It all boils down to a preferred method. Some like to drown feathers while others like bait. Now to be repeatedly called a fool for utilizing a long rod and robbing others of "prime" water is also wrong. I can't see any of our members pushing gear restricted water, yet it's implied on a daily basis.

You guys really need to take a different road to vent. Throwing all flyfishermen into the same category is just wrong. Noone I know ever needed special regs to catch fish. 

Hey Jerry, my freezer is full and I haven't missed any meals...lol


----------



## Trout King

Shoeman said:


> You must be fishing in some real remote places.
> 
> But this isn't about trash. It all boils down to a preferred method. Some like to drown feathers while others like bait. Now to be repeatedly called a fool for utilizing a long rod and robbing others of "prime" water is also wrong. I can't see any of our members pushing gear restricted water, yet it's implied on a daily basis.
> 
> You guys really need to take a different road to vent. Throwing all flyfishermen into the same category is just wrong. Noone I know ever needed special regs to catch fish.
> 
> Hey Jerry, my freezer is full and I haven't missed any meals...lol


actually i havent fished any remote areas yet. seen footprints but thats it.

i have no problem with fly fisherman, i have two fly rods,looking into another. just gets old hearing gr wate is needed because trash worm containers etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toto

Ralf, I agree with you honestly, most of the guys that are on the side of no gear restrictions also fly fish, at least a little bit. This whole thing isn't about fly fishing per se, at least not to me.

One of the problems that seem to arise is the bait container thing, I will admit I do see too much of it, but as an argument to have gear restrictions, not a good one. Also, there have been those that have said they are afraid of fishing, particularly on the PM when its salmon season, as they are afraid of getting raped or however it was said. BTW, that was said by some in the Pere Marquette Watershed Council, and that can be looked up to verify that. Also, and I have no evidence of this, but I wonder how much of the litter is caused by canoeist that are just there for the one trip. Most RESPONSIBLE fisherpeople will pick up the trash, and more when they find it. Take a look at Tippy, is that garbage left behind by responsible people, or is the majority of it left those that fish, well should say irresponsibly? Again, no proof of that, just a quess.


----------



## Shoeman

Trout King said:


> actually i havent fished any remote areas yet. seen footprints but thats it.
> 
> i have no problem with fly fisherman, i have two fly rods,looking into another. just gets old hearing gr wate is needed because trash worm containers etc.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's BS too

I'm just tired of reading about how us flydunkers are steeling your rivers. Screw that!!!! I'd like to see one members name that advocates that crap!

Lately all I see is that we're painted with a broad brush and EVIL!!!!!

I'm also tired of bait, bait, discrimination, best waters, ect.

Take that crap to Lansing and quit placating the board trying to drive a wedge into the membership. We're all anglers looking for the same thing. A tug on the business end!

Screw the rest of the politics! You guys really need to take that up another level and quit berating anyone that owns a flyrod and uses that method.

I'm pissed listening to all this crap. Go to Lansing with your agenda!


----------



## Shoeman

Hi Bill! 

This isn't about bait containers or other trash left behind by others that misuse the resource. You know that! It's about a select few with connections!

I highly doubt that any of them are members on this board. Then why continually harsh every flyfishermen and call us snaggers, elitists, ect.

It has to stop! I realize that you guys are on a mission to reverse a misjustice, but why do it at the expense of the website and the members?

It's just wrong! Crap, we didn't make the rules! Go and address the ones that did!

This daily harping is getting really old. 

BTW, I still love you, Bill!!!!!

See where I'm at?


----------



## toto

I hear ya Ralf, and I don't THINK I've ever berating fly fishing for fly fishing sake. I have said over and over again, this isn't about fly fishing per se, I do it occasionally, in fact, I do it quite often down here. You are also correct in you statement that no one on this board made the rules, at least as far as I know. I'm pretty sure there are lurkers out there watching this stuff, but thats besides the point. Even there this is an argument for discrimination, that isn't necessarily the tact that I am using. My whole argument involves the PTD, and that frankly is my only point. You are once again correct in stating that we need to take it up with those that made the rules, and we are, and will continue to do so. 

One thing I can assure you is, this is not only a volitile issue, but also a very confusing one, and I understand that. All I can offer for advice to ALL of us is, please just take the time to read links to the PTD, or google it. In that way, perhaps we can have a rational discussion, until then, its pretty hard for those that haven't read it, have any idea where we may be coming from. I can also say, with some certainty, that if the fishery were in trouble, there wouldn't be much argument on the gear restrictions etc. But when its stated that isn't the case, then I think these rules and regs are in error, but thats only my opinion at this point. Know what I mean?

BTW, I never once called fly fisherperson snaggers, flossers, or anything of the sort, that terminology has been used by others, and to paint all fly fishers as such, is indeed painting with a broad brush, and does nothing to further the debate. Debate is healty Ralf, but where I'll agree with you again is the name calling, and insinuations need to stop. This debate should only be about gear regs, vs no gear regs, plain and simple. Everyone who has ever posted anything in all these diatribes is passionate about the issue, but that passion shouldn't serve as a wedge. Somehow we all need to make sense of the issue, and I am a firm believer that this issue is a lot deeper than we can imagine, and with enough research, and enough talking to the right people, we'll finally come to some sort of understanding of the true issue here, and the true issue isn't garbage, or fly fishing in general, its about all of us having equal footing with the others. Our waters aren't mine, yours, or any one segment of societies, but its ALL of ours. Yes we need to protect the waters, its habitat, and the fish and wildlife that depends on these waters for survival, but again, if the fish and wildlife aren't a protected species, or are in trouble, then they don't need protecting.

One more thing, it was never the intention of myself, or others to attempt to divide this website, but rather it is a great sounding board due to amount of members we have. In theory, with what 60,000 member +/- it would seem like a good idea to see what others may think.


----------



## Trout King

Shoeman said:


> That's BS too
> 
> I'm just tired of reading about how us flydunkers are steeling your rivers. Screw that!!!! I'd like to see one members name that advocates that crap!
> 
> Lately all I see is that we're painted with a broad brush and EVIL!!!!!
> 
> I'm also tired of bait, bait, discrimination, best waters, ect.
> 
> Take that crap to Lansing and quit placating the board trying to drive a wedge into the membership. We're all anglers looking for the same thing. A tug on the business end!
> 
> Screw the rest of the politics! You guys really need to take that up another level and quit berating anyone that owns a flyrod and uses that method.
> 
> I'm pissed listening to all this crap. Go to Lansing with your agenda!



WHOA! Calm it down, we don't need to get the blood pressure up. I personally have no problem with fly fisherman either. 

You don't need to looks to far back in this very GR forum to see the people who think like what I stated above. I am against GR because there is no scientific backing behind them. These restrictions do not affect me personally because I don't fish on any of the streams with them, except maybe once a year. I fish mostly water that is un fishable with a fly rod. I just don't agree with restrictions because it is not based on solid scientific data, just social regulations.

Shoeman, please don't take me as a anti-fly guy. I have absolutely no problem with fly fishing or most fly fisherman. I just find some of the arguments I see supporting gear water silly. Everyone has their own opinion on the subject. I fished a section of a NW river this past weekend and came across a sign while wading that someone felt the need to put it up, it read, "catch and release please", then the Lee Wulff quote about too valuable to catch once. We kind of laughed it off and creeled another trout. No need to get too worked up about what others think, everyone will have an opinion, some you may like more than others.


----------



## beer and nuts

I just don't understand how the OP gets fly fishing folks blood boiling with this story?? I'm a fly fisher too and didn't see it has negative fly fisherman!? Great post though if you read it, as it was intended.

I think the story most should get out of it is, especially for daytime fliers is why stick to the crowedd fly-only stretches, some great fishing is to be had outside the fly only sections. I actually think less pressure during the summer is on open reg sections of rivers, and some of the most pressured occur on the fly only sections!


----------



## beer and nuts

> it read, "catch and release please", then the Lee Wulff quote about too valuable to catch once.


 Had to laugh at this, know a guy that says the same thing. Said it once to me after I kept a large 20 incher for my elderly neighbor to eat. He got all serious about it....big fly fishing supporter.


----------



## toto

For one, I never said they were a bad organization, just it matters plenty who they REALLY are. Doesn't it seem weird that they get money from the feds to use it for their purposes, only to have them get involved in keeping you out? What else I fail to understand is, why is it these writings aren't from me, but rather those that have done far more research than I. Is there ever anything against TU, or any of those organizations that you find true, unless its the good things??


----------



## Splitshot

fishinlk said:


> Ray, this statement pretty much says it all about you.


Splitshot wrote I did read the posts you directed me to, but in my opinion they were psycho babble just like your description of our organization and how you felt our mission statement should be [/QUOTE] in regard to Kzoofisher.

From that you draw the following conclusion Lance;



fishinlk said:


> You have zero interest on listening to any view that is out side of yours or what you think it should be and are out to discredit those who fall outside of it. I am MORE than willing to listen to others and view that as a way that I can grow. Again I'm not pushing fly only as a gear restriction, yes that used to be the case years a go but I listen and have no problem with re-thinking things from time to time.


Lance if that is true, go read the posts that kzoo directed me to and reconcile it with the definition of Psychobabble listed below and you will see it was not an attack but an accurate description of what kzoo wrote.

Psychobabble (a portmanteau of "psychology" or "psychoanalysis" and "babble") is a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation.

Splitshot wrote; You think more creel restrictions will make it better fishing, but that is just because you only converse with people who believe keeping fish is wrong or that returning fish is helping out your fellow fishermen. To be frank, that is just stupid and uninformed. You cannot stockpile fish. 



fishinlk said:


> Way off base here buddy. I have *NEVER* said that keeping fish is wrong. I just think that is should be done in moderation, ideally with a focus on doing it in a way that you could do so with a sustained natural reproduction when it's a stream that should be able to support that type of fishery. If it's a stream with marginal qualities then stocking may be the right thing to do with supporting catchable populations of fish. As mentioned earlier on in one of these circus threads I do keep an occasional fish.


Minor point: I should have said many people who believe keeping fish is wrong.......... I know you keep an occasional fish, but the DNR biologist decide what should be done in moderation and because of the beliefs of you and some of your buddies the DNR has imposted stricter limits than they think is reasonable because of the lobbying power of groups like yours. Not because they wanted to.



fishinlk said:


> I do know who Jim Dexter is and I will be spending some time reaching out to MDNR biologist, to understand their views. You can count on it. Just for the record the MDNR must have some view that creel restrictions have some value and it's not just TU chapters pushing for it as I see it's on the proposals for managing the northern pike as well.


A step in the right direction. In past post you tried to compare trout limits with red fish and now managing northern pike with trout. Apples to Oranges! This is where the new social reasoning is heading. The DNR director thinks we are customers and he wants to please everyone so they are asking for input on lots of issues. I think this social reasoning will fail in the long run and many of us feel the experts should manage based on science first and what is best to protect the resource and not because of social or political power. Regarding pike, even if the most outspoken group pushes for trophy regulations, it probably will negatively affect the larger majority of pike fishermen for example who love to eat pike. Antler restrictions, pike or musky size limits, gear and bait restrictions all give special rights to one group while taking something away from another group. 



fishinlk said:


> When we used to talk you would call fish populations in managed waters as artificially high and I would argue that they were at "a natural level" if the watershed wasn't stocked. Now you're saying that you can't stockpile fish. So based on that, the fish population in a manged watersheds that is supported by 100% natural reproduction is where it belongs and cannot be viewed as artificially high.
> 
> I'd like to think that you may have actually changed views on this but I'm guessing its just an oversight as it doesn't comply with the argument you're trying to make here.


Anywhere fish are not planted trout will find a natural level based on their need for food, cover, etc. etc... I agree. If you remove all the rock bass, bass, pike, eagles, otters, mink, mergansers, king fishers, lampreys and other predators like people who keep trout the numbers will be higher in the short run but in the end, 50 to 80% of them will die before the next season because 99% of browns and brook trout only live an average of 3 years and 2 years respectively. If you release a 15 to 20" trout in July, it is most likely he will be dead by the following trout season.

I change my views whenever I am presented with facts and new information. A few years ago I thought brown trout lived 7 years, but seeing the shocking data provided by the DNR proved that I was wrong. I have read all the studies provided on the shocking data from the PM over many years and although we know numbers have increased since $1,000,000.00 or more of taxpayers money funded habitat improvements on the flies only stretch of the PM there is more cover and food so more fish can survive. Habitat improvements work!

The data shows when compared to other rivers that the numbers and size of the trout has remained the same since before it was flies only and 5 fish limits were allowed and when it was flies only and only 2 fish were allowed and finally when it was flies only no kill. The conclusion of those doing the research in all the rivers they studied for gear restrictions was that fishing overall had no noticeable effect on the fishery. Other studies in other states yield similar results.

Therefore gear and bait restrictions have very little effect on the number of size of fish in any of our rivers that were studied as stated by the biologist responsible for their management. Nature always produces excess numbers in order to survive. Bait fishing has been a long accepted practice in this state and our trout fisheries are as good as any if not better than any that I can remember. Therefore there is just no good reason to exclude bait fishing or for reducing creel limits.

I talked to a business owner in Baldwin today and he told me his bait business is way down this year and he believes the bait restrictions are at least partly responsible. A lot of his regular customers are no longer coming to fish because of the restrictions. He also said that there was much more activity below the gear restricted areas than normal as told to him by some of his local guys. 

I fished the artificial only area once last year below Gleasons Landing and the water was just right for throwing plugs. Between two of us we only had two fish follow our lures that we saw. When we got to the end of the restricted water we began using bait and we caught lots of fish. We only saw two other fly fishermen on the bait restricted water and they wrongly informed us that these were fly only waters. They did apologize after we set them straight. Every time I plan on trout fishing that section comes to mind and it is sad I can no longer fish the way I want to fish. You can now accuse me of crying and complaining if it makes you feel better, because I am.

Howard Meyerson an outdoor writer from the Grand Rapids Press asked me in defense of bait restrictions; if I thought fly fishermen deserved a quality day on the river? My answer hasnt changed and I explained that it would be nice in a perfect world, but I fish about 60 days a year for trout and more often than not, I have the river Im fishing pretty much to myself. Besides when you only allow one group of fishermen to fish some of the best waters so they can enjoy that Quality experience, what happens to all the fishermen who used to fish there who now have to crowd into other areas or quit fishing altogether.

Lance, like Kzoo and many others you have been very successful in ignoring my prime question which is: What is one good reason we should have any gear or bait restrictions on any of our public waters?


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Splitshot said:


> Howard Meyerson an outdoor writer from the Grand Rapids Press asked me in defense of bait restrictions; if I thought fly fishermen deserved a quality day on the river? QUOTE]
> 
> I never understood the phase "Quality Fishing" or " Quality Experience" in the defense of GR's. I love trout fishing. I fly fish, toss spinners and dunk crawlers. I love everything about. Everytime I go out, regardless if it a GR stream or one open to all tackle, I have a "Quality Day" and also a "Quality Experience." People seriously need special areas for this? Really?


----------



## Splitshot

Boardman Brookies said:


> Splitshot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howard Meyerson an outdoor writer from the Grand Rapids Press asked me in defense of bait restrictions; if I thought fly fishermen deserved a quality day on the river? QUOTE]
> 
> I never understood the phase "Quality Fishing" or " Quality Experience" in the defense of GR's. I love trout fishing. I fly fish, toss spinners and dunk crawlers. I love everything about. Everytime I go out, regardless if it a GR stream or one open to all tackle, I have a "Quality Day" and also a "Quality Experience." People seriously need special areas for this? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> If you go to the link kzoo put in his post to the guy who was asking the question why do we have gear restrictions it explains the whole thing. It is clear to me that the type of water to be chosen and all the other identifiers were written by the fly fishing gurus who managed to get on the committee that made all the recommendations. I tried to get on this committee for two years but was denied I assume because I wasnt on the same page.
> 
> Once I found out that I could still attend and participate I started attending the meetings, but while the negations were in progress I was denied access. I have met a lot of people within the DNR over the years and most of them try to follow their mission, but there are several who in my opinion are of were allies of the fly fishing special interest groups.
> 
> As you read how it happened one of the reasons used to justify flies only is Fair Chase. No member of the DNR would ever use those words in reference to bait fishermen, ever! That idea could only come from true believers of the philosophy of the fly.
> 
> They also defined it as Quality waters and Quality fishing because they cannot even imagine that someone other than a fly fisherman could even comprehend the joys, art and spiritual enlightenment of their fishing endeavors
> 
> Several years ago this article appeared in Outdoor Life and because of it, I purchased a 3 year subscription. It is worth reading and using the Internet to look up terms you might not be familiar with to gain the full appreciation of what Mr. McIntyre has written and it may help gain some insight into what I refer to as the Philosophy of the fly..
> 
> The Insufferable Sport
> 1.	Thomas McIntyre
> Outdoor Life Magazine
> How did flyfishing become a way of life instead of a way of catching a few trout for supper?
> By itself, the fly rod is a perfectly reasonable implement. At the right time and place, with the right fly and the right presentation, it is capable of snaring more fish from a stream than a Japanese trawler can snare salmon from U.S. territorial waters. Once, the fly rod was nothing more than the humble, pragmatic, food-gathering tool of phlegmatic rustics like, say, John Barsness. Now, though, in the hands of greying boomers who wade into cold running water to soothe their jogged-out knees, it can no longer be just a simple pole for the catching of fish. Now, when it is raised majestically skyward and then waved down magically over a flowing stream, it is nothing less than the sceptre of some far and wondrous kingdom -- the Enchanted Wand of True Enlightenment.
> 
> The fly rod, and flyfishing, descended into the realm of preposterousness and irrelevance along at least two routes. One can be traced back some 20 years to what is, in fact, a quite adequate story, A River Runs Through It, written, amazingly enough, by a college English teacher, Norman Maclean. The story's great sin, though, aside from letting Robert Redford loose on the world to direct yet another gormless cinematic travesty, is the jaw-dropping contention, made in its opening sentence, that there exists no clear distinction "between religion and fly fishing."
> 
> One shudders even to speculate upon how many soulless masters of the universe this bit of wisdom has sent scuttling to trout streams. Flyfishing a sport? A pastime? Not hardly! It's theology, with swell gear to boot. It's a notion that in the last decades has granted flyfishing -- at one time just a way of enjoying simple pleasure -- the standing of a means of salvation from every spiritual, emotional, physical, pharmaceutical, and financial crisis imaginable. Especially financial, based on book sales, with far too many "fishers" (a large number now women as well as men) not satisfied merely to acknowledge flyfishing as their personal redeemer in the privacy of their own hearts, but insisting upon writing tome after tome about the entire ghastly conversion experience, so that none of us can escape sharing in the grim festivities.
> 
> Although most such writings invariably turn out to be nothing more than self-absorbed, subliterate maunderings, the authors who compose them nonetheless seem to be laboring under the serious misconception that they are somehow Dante Alighieri commencing La divina commedia: "In the middle of the journey of our life I came to myself within a dark wood where the straight way was lost &when. Luckily I stumbled across an Orvis shop."
> 
> Instead of Beatrice, these trovatore seem happier to have discovered the perfect wading shoe. No wonder your average Ivy League M.B.A. with a Mercedes sport-ute and a $500 graphite rod fancies himself a tortured poet whenever he shuffles into a creek in Patagonia or Kamchatka and performs a roll cast. It used to be that folks went to a river to fish. Now they go to perpetrate art and cleanse their psyches. Flyfishing for them is a matter of style over substance. Thus, they cleave with a zealot's fervor to such idiotic dogma as zero-weight rods and the "immorality" (some Imperial Wizard of flyfishing once actually said this to the painter Russell Chatham) of
> sinking lines! And there isn't one in 10 of them who could tell you what the original purpose of flyfishing indeed was. Bluntly put, a fly rod was, and is (or ought to be), for killing gamefish. Yet flyfishing's other road to hell was paved three generations ago when angling bodhisattva Lee Wulff decreed, "A gamefish is too valuable to be caught only once." This is truly sophistry of a very high order. Too valuable to whom? Tackle manufacturers, fishing guides, lodges? So valuable that they deserve to be put in abject terror of their lives over and over again? And at which time they are caught is it permissible to kill them? When they qualify as a "trophy" for some vacationing dry-fly sportsman, but not when they might represent fresh fish to supplement the diet of a less well-heeled angler, who might or might not be proficient with a fly rod?
> 
> Wulff's statement is not so much a conservation stance (although I'm sure that's what he intended it to be) as it is an admission of flyfishing's degeneracy, even 60 years ago. Such affected manners are the mark not just of an everyday elitism, but one that is positively mandarin. (A few years ago, I happened upon a letter to the editor from some nitwit orthodontist railing against the severe scarring he was seeing on the mandibles of the trout he was landing with his fly rod. The good doctor's solution was to set the possession limit at zero and banish all bait and lure fishermen from the river -- the poor man so divorced from reality that he did not realize that no self-respecting bait or lure fisherman ever put a legal trout back into a river so it could develop a scar!)
> 
> It would seem that gamefish, especially trout, are special creatures, meant to be fished only by very special people. Why? Because they are so handsome and intelligent (the trout, not the anglers).
> Excuse me: They're fish. And if their designation as "game" constrains flyfishermen from killing and eating them, why not the same constraints upon killing and eating game animals?
> What is it the high-dollar angler at the high-dollar wilderness lodge does directly after a self-satisfying day of torturing and releasing wild trout (not a few of which will shortly expire due to gross mishandling)? He repairs to the open-beamed dining room and tucks into a hearty, candlelit meal of wild ptarmigan or wild caribou, complemented by a nice Chianti, of course.
> 
> Formerly the province of "deadbeats" with a taste for the occasional trout supper, flyfishing now threatens to turn into the outdoor equivalent of the power lunch. Devoid of almost any reference to its original honorable purpose of finding, catching, killing, and eating wild flesh, flyfishing today is a sad melange of faux mysticism, sanctimony, fashion trends, networking, and a poetic sense about as sophisticated as that found in high-school literary magazines entitled The Zephyr. It is unmoored. None dare call it "blood sport."
> 
> Give a man a fish, they say, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Click to expand...


----------



## quack head

LMFAO! If I subscribed to Out Door Life, Which I do not. They would not get a renewal. The writer must have read the bickering on this site. And decided that all fly guys are rich. 

Jo Bob fishes in cut off jeans and chucks worms. Charles Drinks wine and gently places flies. 

***, what a bunch of crap.


----------



## kzoofisher

Looks like I missed a lot today, especially splitshot's love of "mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation". 

Split- First you claim I never answered you questions, then you say I did answer them but you didn't get it, then you go back to saying they were never answered. You have a fine talent for admitting that you are wrong and then going right back to your false statement as if repetition will make it true. 



> But this is typical of you. Like everything you say kzoo I guess we have to define what you mean by stockpiling fish, but since 99% of the brown trout live only 3 years according to the science I&#8217;m interested in what you mean by stockpiling fish.


 Again making a false statement, this time attributing it to me, and then crowing about how wrong I am. I didn't claim it was possible to stockpile trout. You said it wasn't possible in response to my post to TroutKing that the odds of catching a fish twice may not be a small as he thinks and you said that it was extremely rare on the waters you fish. You then went on to say


> If it isn&#8217;t unusual for you to catch damaged fish, you must be fishing the catch and release sections which to me is almost pathetic.


 clearly implying that in a C&R section fish will in fact be stockpiled and caught repeatedly.



> In my first post I stated that I kept every 10th fish which means I returned 45 trout that day so logically how do you reconcile that statement above regarding; &#8220;If you don&#8217;t kill every fish............&#8221; and &#8220;Your inability to do says more about your fishing technique than I ever could.&#8221; Do you mean because I use bait? Seems like your showing your arrogance again kzoo! I guess the fact that I release fish just doesn&#8217;t fit into how you define bait fishermen in your mind so you just make it up as you go. Very good!


 No silly, I didn't say you keep them all I said you kill darn near all of them. Also note that you are the one who knows what I'm thinking and you are making it up as you go, not vice versa. You claim to average 40 or more fish per outing and very rarely catch the same fish twice. Since you believe that a fish carefully released on a C&R section is likely to be re-caught I have no option but to believe that you have little expectation for your own releases to survive.

I will remind you before this last bit that my only contributions to this thread until you called me out with untrue and insulting remarks were a fairly silly series of posts about nit-picking the common names of fish.



> In a recent court battle against the Nestle Company trying to stop them from taking water from the headwaters of the Little Manistee River to sell as bottled water, TU and many local TU chapters in Michigan led the fight against Nestle. That is until Nestle paid TU International a $50,000.00 grant (bribe) to switch sides. TU International granted their wish and supported Nestle in their quest for LM water. The local chapters got so upset that they challenged TU International and made such a big deal TU International finally returned the money and switched sides again.


This is a bald faced lie. You have no evidence whatsoever for an accusation of bribery, you have no evidence the TU National ever supported Nestle. What actually happened was that Nestle in fact gave the National 50K and the National returned it after the folks in Michigan complained about the appearance of a conflict of interest to put it mildly.

Toto, your next. The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise is the parent group for undueinfluence.org. They are a "wise use" group and in fact the executive VP Ron Arnold claims to have invented the phrase. As you may be aware the Wise Use Movement has battled with TU, especially in the west for many years so it is no surprise that they would create an "educational" arm to attack TU. Undueinfluence looks like not much more than a front for the extractors. In 2003 47% of the gifts, grants and contributions received by CDFE came from ExxonMobil. Some quotes from CDFE founder Alan Gottlieb and VP Arnold.

Arnold -In a May 30, 1993 interview with CNN, he described the role of a wise user as akin to a warrior weilding a sword. "And that sword has two purposes: to carve out a niche for your agenda, to reshape the American law in your image; and, kill the bastards."
"Facts don't matter. In politics, perception is reality."
"We want to destroy environmentalists by taking away their money and their members."

Gottlieb -"For us" said Mr. Gottlieb... "the environmental movement has become the perfect bogeyman."

And a final quote from an article

"At CDFE's website you can also read the:
"rave reviews of Paul Driessen's new book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death that exposes the green racist agenda to withhold malaria control and life-saving GMO crop from Africa and other developing nations. A horrifying account of green genocide."
They fail to mention that the supposed ban on DDT in some third world countries, used to control malaria, is a myth."

Definitely sounds like you and splitshot have taken a page from their book.


----------



## centerpin

I just came back from a trip on the flies only section of the PM last week.

The fish were not that active on the surface while I was there (there was a bit of surface activity but nothing to write home about). The hot ticket was nymphing and streamers.

Now with streamers the most efficient delivery system is a fly rod with a sinking line. I can live with that, its fun to rip streamers all day.

But during the longer and brighter daytime periods on Monday and Tuesday nymphing was the strongest. I ran a 9' spinning rig and a small float setup utilizing a small bead head nymph. That rig was as effective or more than a typical fly indicator setup. A properly tuned float rig is pure efficiency and simplicity while nymphing. Its for the most part the same theory and technique as running bait under a float.

I easily outfished my fishing companion using his fly rod. My conventional gear held a strong advantage in that situation as it played to more of my gears strengths. The deeper the run the better I did, its what float fishing does best.

Things totally change when flies start hatching or streamers are involved, but a conventional fisherman can easily hold his own or better nymphing.

The streamer and dry fly fishing was horrible Monday and Tuesday, Had I concentrated on nymphing I could have cleaned house.

So all is not lost for us conventional guys 100% of the time in flies only water. I just wanted to point this out.


----------



## hairyjoe123

Sounds like a rough little spat going on. Do any of you make money fishing? Unless your livelihood depends on fishing, boohoo. Most of these restricted waters has a near by section that either is not restricted or is restricted in the opposite manner (artificial lures vs artificial flies).

Go get a job and bitch about your boss, cheat on your spouse, and pray for death like the rest of us, or, or fish and be content with what you still have because Michigan's ruling parties could just take that away whenever they please. There are better injustices with the fishing laws that can be debated than gr water. For instance, why can't I fish a bare hook or by hand? Why am I limited to six hooks or three poles? If anything by hand or bare hook fishing is far more sporting than a dressed or baited hook. In what way does the number of poles or hooks I have in the water affect the fish in the water? 

I really am tired of this thread. I only read or comment in this topic because it won't leave my "participated" tab no matter how long I ignore it. I made the mistake of imputing my ignorant two cents and now regret ever having done so, not because I made a half correct statement but because y'all are rather annoying. Arguing like children or LSD burnouts, on and off topic(senseless bickering about gr water, what is a brook trout, who said what about who) and back around again. The way I see it, most of you need a good lay. Put down the rod and get one up or in(whatever way you want I don't judge). 

Most everything any of you post outside of this topic is good reading, helpful, and friendly. Yes I have said some dumb, insulting, radical, and insensitive things on the M-S forums. Ignore/block/ban me but I don't care. Y'all are not going to get anywhere bickering. These fish are the "kings fish". If you think the law is wrong break it. Laws are meant to be just, and when they are not, they are not laws, they are corrupted, exhibitions of tyranny. 

If this post is tough to read because its incredibly off topic and the spelling is poor and the grammar is horrid, scroll up and read the whole topic and posts in one sitting. The entirety of this post I have made is mostly BS filled in with more BS and wrapped in questionable sobriety(am I smashed or am I just mad about my ****** night fishing). It's threads like this that make the non forum subscribing citizen justified in their thoughts of elitism within the forum members. 

Lets go, hurry up, there's fish to be had!


----------



## toto

No hairy I don't make money fishing, I only fish because its my escape mechanism, just like you, and just like everyone else I would assume.

As for bringing out the truth on TU, and the subject in question, I can only report my findings, I didn't write it, I didn't say it even though I may have thought it. But you have to ask yourself one question, IF these are false allegations, wouldn't TU have sued someone? I quess in the words from the movie A Few Good Men, maybe its a case of "you really can't handle the truth". In time, I'm sure that this will get resolved one way or the other, and at that point, IF we are wrong, we'll admit it and move on, the question is, if we are right, will you?

You can bash me all you want, I expected as much. Its pretty easy to see it coming, its right out Saul Alinsky's play book. Once you understand that, you are pretty much able to move on with your cause. The name calling, and the bashing of ones opinions is just what they do. Try to impune what you are saying by making me look like a conspiracy theorist, but sometimes, theories become truth. All one has to do is connect the dots, and sooner or later, you have a picture, just a few more dots to go and my picture will be complete.


----------



## troutguy26

Is anyone ever gonna answer splitshots question? Even try?


----------



## toto

If you are referring to one good reason for gear restrictions, frankly there isn't one, at least not as it is right now. There is no evidence that these fish need protection as the fish are not in trouble. Furthermore, the DNR stocks plenty of fish all over Michigan, so a lot of water is put and take anyways. For example, there is a sportsmans club just outside Fife Lake that just recieved 30,000 brown trout from the DNR. This club has raceways where they will feed them until they are ready for planting, at which time they will be planted in the upper Manistee river, at least thats what I've been told, and oh by the way, isn't that flies only water up there?

Again, in answer to splits question, there is no biological reason for gear restricted waters, period.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> If you are referring to one good reason for gear restrictions, frankly there isn't one, at least not as it is right now. There is no evidence that these fish need protection as the fish are not in trouble. Furthermore, the DNR stocks plenty of fish all over Michigan, so a lot of water is put and take anyways. For example, there is a sportsmans club just outside Fife Lake that just recieved 30,000 brown trout from the DNR. This club has raceways where they will feed them until they are ready for planting, at which time they will be planted in the upper Manistee river, at least thats what I've been told, and oh by the way, isn't that flies only water up there?
> 
> Again, in answer to splits question, there is no biological reason for gear restricted waters, period.


I have answered Splitshot but it was a bit complex for him. Check out my posts from page 8-12 in the PTD thread, can't remember exactly which post it is. I'll put together something more basic when I get home tonight.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## troutguy26

Toto you cheated you already knew the correct answer. 

Kzoo i will wait for later tonite instead of digging around and finding something. Plus im better with laymans terms. Ill check back in when im taking a break from planting the garden.


----------



## troutguy26

Oh could we leave the social aspect out of it to if possible? Throw some science at it.


----------



## Splitshot

kzoofisher said:


> Looks like I missed a lot today, especially splitshot's love of "mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation".


Yes. 



kzoofisher said:


> Split- First you claim I never answered you questions, then you say I did answer them but you didn't get it, then you go back to saying they were never answered. You have a fine talent for admitting that you are wrong and then going right back to your false statement as if repetition will make it true.


Spin!



kzoofisher said:


> Again making a false statement, this time attributing it to me, and then crowing about how wrong I am. I didn't claim it was possible to stockpile trout. You said it wasn't possible in response to my post to TroutKing that the odds of catching a fish twice may not be a small as he thinks and you said that it was extremely rare on the waters you fish. You then went on to say clearly implying that in a C&R section fish will in fact be stockpiled and caught repeatedly.


Clarified!




kzoofisher said:


> No silly, I didn't say you keep them all I said you kill darn near all of them. Also note that you are the one who knows what I'm thinking and you are making it up as you go, not vice versa. You claim to average 40 or more fish per outing and very rarely catch the same fish twice. Since you believe that a fish carefully released on a C&R section is likely to be re-caught I have no option but to believe that you have little expectation for your own releases to survive.


I dont catch them again because I only try to fish any stretch of river once a year plus the fact that I have a lot of experience releasing them so even if they are caught by someone else, it is unlikely that anyone could tell that they had been caught before.. So far this year not one trout that I caught on bait was hooked deep. I dont know if some of the fish I release die, but Id bet that less fish I release die than those released by the average fly fisherman. Besides being careful, another reasons for my successful release record is the fish I usually catch are keeper size or bigger and larger fish can more likely withstand being caught.

Personally I do feel it is pathetic that some people dont see the problem with catching the same fish over and over and over and they feel justified taking away the rights of others because in their minds they cant have a quality experience unless the river has the most fish it can hold and there are no lowly bait fishermen present.



kzoofisher said:


> I will remind you before this last bit that my only contributions to this thread until you called me out with untrue and insulting remarks were a fairly silly series of posts about nit-picking the common names of fish.


So what?



kzoofisher said:


> This is a bald faced lie. You have no evidence whatsoever for an accusation of bribery, you have no evidence the TU National ever supported Nestle. What actually happened was that Nestle in fact gave the National 50K and the National returned it after the folks in Michigan complained about the appearance of a conflict of interest to put it mildly.


Wrong again. This information came from an impeccable source. Besides your statement basically supports what I said in the first place. TU took the 50k and returned it because of the Michigan TU members. I guess I cant prove it is a bribe, that doesnt make it a bald face lie.. 

Earlier Kzoo you stated; I am not a member of TU and do not attend their meetings......	Are you somehow working for TU to misdirect or otherwise try to confuse the issues because for a guy who felt he had to distance himself from TU you seem to know a lot about them and you seem to be spending a lot of energy trying to defend them, just wondering? The next couple of paragraphs make me wonder even more about you..



kzoofisher said:


> Toto, your next. The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise is the parent group for undueinfluence.org. They are a "wise use" group and in fact the executive VP Ron Arnold claims to have invented the phrase. As you may be aware the Wise Use Movement has battled with TU, especially in the west for many years so it is no surprise that they would create an "educational" arm to attack TU. Undueinfluence looks like not much more than a front for the extractors. In 2003 47% of the gifts, grants and contributions received by CDFE came from ExxonMobil. Some quotes from CDFE founder Alan Gottlieb and VP Arnold.
> 
> Arnold -In a May 30, 1993 interview with CNN, he described the role of a wise user as akin to a warrior weilding a sword. "And that sword has two purposes: to carve out a niche for your agenda, to reshape the American law in your image; and, kill the bastards."
> "Facts don't matter. In politics, perception is reality."
> "We want to destroy environmentalists by taking away their money and their members."
> 
> Gottlieb -"For us" said Mr. Gottlieb... "the environmental movement has become the perfect bogeyman."
> 
> And a final quote from an article
> 
> "At CDFE's website you can also read the:
> "rave reviews of Paul Driessen's new book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death that exposes the green racist agenda to withhold malaria control and life-saving GMO crop from Africa and other developing nations. A horrifying account of green genocide."
> They fail to mention that the supposed ban on DDT in some third world countries, used to control malaria, is a myth."
> 
> Definitely sounds like you and splitshot have taken a page from their book.


 Definitely sounds like you trying to discredit us since you have no reasonable arguments or reasons why the special group you belong to deserves special privileges to waters that belong to all of us. So far I havent even read the links Toto provided but I will when I have time. From what Im seeing and from what some TU guys have stated, I am seeing TU in a much more radical way than I would have imagined before this latest attempt at stealing more public waters and it seems like we are not alone. 

Toto did a lot or research and posted them for people to read. That doesnt mean he or me or anyone else accepts them or that puts us in league with them. I Thank Toto for doing this research and his other hard work. For me, this is also the first Ive heard of the Wise Use Movement but you raise an interesting question. Why would any group want to battle with an organization if their sole reason for existing was to improve the places where trout live. Who could be against that?

My personal experience over the last couple of decades with TU reveals a much different organization than the altruistic, benevolent organization they portray themselves to be. I also know that many TU members are honest stewards of the waters where trout live and I see the organization leaving them, not the other way around. When you say your not a member and dont attend meetings, it seems unlikely to me that you would then be so defensive and know so much of the history not only of TU but of other organizations who dont agree with them. If it quacks like a duck?


----------



## 2PawsRiver

This thing sure has legs.


----------



## quack head

2PawsRiver said:


> This thing sure has legs.


More like wheels, and I keep reading it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol:


----------



## Splitshot

Hairyjoe,

Hey Joe, tell us how you really feel? Lol Listen I feel your frustration so I will try and briefly explain what is going on from my perspective but first there are some things you need to understand.

We do not have kings who dictate what we can do and what we cant do. I know it sounds like words of wisdom that you cant fight the system, but that doesnt mean you cant try. We are a country of laws even if they are often ignored.

One of the conditions Michigan had to agree with before the territory would be allowed statehood was to abide by the Public Trust Doctrine. The Public Trust Doctrine basically says that the State of Michigan will hold in trust for the citizens of Michigan Free Forever all waters flowing into the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Mississippi River. Every state has the same requirement which means every state interprets their responsibilities differently but the Federal Courts have the final say.

Basically the states can make rules to protect our resources but cannot make rules if they just limit recreation. They cannot give trade or sell any of our public lands or waters unless there is a greater benefit to the public. The DNR of course is the government agency responsible for protecting the public interest and the DNR Fishery mission statement supports the Public Trust. It says; The mission of Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.

We take the position that the public means all the people, not just some of the people. Early in Michigans history several wealthy landowners on the Au Sable River system made some sections of the system flies only in an attempt to keep local people from fishing those sections under the guise that flies only protected the trout. Just a few years after Michigan established a professional DNR they rejected that idea because there was no evidence that flies only protected anything so those rules were not in the best interest of the public.

Years later people from the same groups though they could get around the public trust by going to the state legislature to get special support for flies only on 100 miles of prime trout waters. No one challenged the state so it became the law of the land. By doing so the state of Michigan violated their obligation to uphold the Public Trust Doctrine which makes the law pased by the legislature invalid.

It wasnt until these same special interest groups lobbied for additional waters and promised to push for even more that some of us got involved. Originally we felt the flies only rules were discriminatory toward bait fishermen and the public and we tried to get involved. As rookies, we soon found we were stonewalled from the process and as the politicians, lobbyist and special interest groups pushed the rules through against the recommendations of the biologists who were imposed with the task of making their professional recommendations on specific waters.

To some people the idea of fighting against each other is worse that the principles we are fighting for and think we should just all get along. Sounds good, but not going to happen. With the help of Toto, we found this thing called the Public Trust Doctrine and the more we learned and the more United States Supreme Court Decisions we found supporting the rights of the public over the rights of the few we became encouraged that we were on the right path.

The more we learn how special interests are ignoring the publics rights by denying them from their rightful access to our natural heritage we think it is time to do something about it. If we do nothing the greedy, the entitled, the selfish will continue to infringe on our rights. If you are in one of the groups that benefits at the expense of the rest of us it is understandable why you want to maintain the status quo, but we feel it is time to work toward reestablishing our rights by bringing these issues into the sunshine. 

Even though we believe we have the law on our side, we realize that it wont be an easy task and we dont make any guarantees that we will succeed but we are going to try because some of us believe in the principle. You have the choice of looking at this issue, doing nothing, continue to complain that we dont have a chance, work against us or join in.


----------



## toto

Maybe if we used these ten tenets of the commons, we could all figure it out:

Ten Tenets: the Law of the Commons of the Natural World

1.The commons shall be passed on to future generations unimpaired. E.g., Montana Constitution: Article ix: environment and natural resources National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C.1.
2.All commoners have equal access to the commons and use by commoners will be allocated without discrimination. E.g., Alaska Permanent Fund.
3.Government&#8217;s key responsibility is to serve as a trustee of the commons. E.g., Lake Michigan Federation v. Army Corps of Engineers, 742 F. 2d 441 (N.D. Ill. 1990), Source: Public trust doctrine.
4.The commons do not belong to the state but belong to commoners, the public. E.g., Public Trust Doctrine.
5.Some commons are the common heritage of all humans and other living beings. Common heritage establishes the right of commoners to those places and goods in perpetuity. This right may not be alienated. The Common Heritage law is a limit on one government&#8217;s sovereignty to claim economic jurisdiction and exclude some commoners from their share. E.g., the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, article 136 and 137.
6.The precautionary principle is the most useful tool for protecting the commons for this and future generations. E.g., San Francisco precautionary principle ordinance.
7.Eminent domain is the legal process for moving private property into the commons and shall be used exclusively for that purpose. Source: Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
8.Infrastructure necessary for humans and other beings to be fully biological and social creatures will reside within the domain of the commons. The positive benefits (externalities) of the commons shall accrue to all commoners. E.g., Alaska Permanent Fund.
9.Because the commons are the foundation of the economy, commerce and private property shall not externalize damage or costs onto the commons. E.g., Florida Polluter Pay Constitutional Provision.
10.Damage to or loss of the commons shall be compensated to all commoners. E.g., Alaska Permanent Fund

Makes sense to me.


----------



## kzoofisher

> Wrong again. This information came from an impeccable source. Besides your statement basically supports what I said in the first place. TU took the 50k and returned it because of the Michigan TU members. I guess I cant prove it is a bribe, that doesnt make it a bald face lie..


 Typical of you, "an impeccable source" followed by, "I can't prove it as a bribe" and yet you stand by the statement because it coulda maybe happened? How about this scenario? Nestle contacts somebody in fundraising and says we want to give you 50K because we are such good citizens. The professional fundraiser says sure, I'll take anybody's money. When the word gets out the money gets returned. No backroom deals, no crimes, no malfeasance. 



> Earlier Kzoo you stated; I am not a member of TU and do not attend their meetings......	Are you somehow working for TU to misdirect or otherwise try to confuse the issues because for a guy who felt he had to distance himself from TU you seem to know a lot about them and you seem to be spending a lot of energy trying to defend them, just wondering? The next couple of paragraphs make me wonder even more about you..


I'm not a member. I don't work for them. I don't work for Nestle who I also defended from your bribery charge. I also backed up Don, not that he needed it, when one of your more rabid members wildly misrepresented the suggested compromise. I don't like internet bullies who make it up as they go along. I do read newspapers, magazines and blogs to keep up on things that interest me and I don't see bogeymen around every corner like some people.



> Definitely sounds like you trying to discredit us since you have no reasonable arguments or reasons why the special group you belong to deserves special privileges to waters that belong to all of us. So far I havent even read the links Toto provided but I will when I have time. From what Im seeing and from what some TU guys have stated, I am seeing TU in a much more radical way than I would have imagined before this latest attempt at stealing more public waters and it seems like we are not alone.


I'm discrediting you because you chose to personally attack me out of the blue in this and other threads. As for my reasons for supporting GR, you're in luck, I just posted them again.



> Toto did a lot or research and posted them for people to read. That doesnt mean he or me or anyone else accepts them or that puts us in league with them. I Thank Toto for doing this research and his other hard work. For me, this is also the first Ive heard of the Wise Use Movement but you raise an interesting question. Why would any group want to battle with an organization if their sole reason for existing was to improve the places where trout live. Who could be against that?


Toto posts that stuff even when he disagrees with it? Funny, he sure seemed to like the links when he was encouraging us to learn the "truth" about TU. Spin it Splitshot! And if you have never heard of Wise Use you must be very new to conservation issues or you're being "disingenuous" again, it has been a powerful movement since the '80s. As for why Exxon would want to battle with TU or another conservation group, because they have a terrible record of polluting that dates back a century and groups like TU take them to task if any plans of theirs are lacking environmental safeguards. Why don't you stop spinning, correcting yourself and then repeating your mistakes, accusing others of attacking when they are only defending against your attacks, refusing to acknowledge arguments you don't like and just try making your points in a calm and polite way?


----------

