# West Michigan River Regulations



## KWB

Master Blaster said:


> I have a question do any steelhead that run up the ladders in the St. joe return to the big lake? As far as I know it's a one way trip. So why not harvest our legal limit? The water in the joe is to warm for the smolts in summer not much chance of survival. So the system is a put and take river.
> As for making the un-named river fly fishing only, thats as close to buying the river as you can get. Self serving greed of only a few. If it is done there look out, the Pine or little Manistee could be next.


I have been told by MDNR Biologists that adult steelhead can survive going over two dams on the way back down quite well, which any fish going up the D only have to make it back down through 2 dams, so fish do make it back to the lake. The fish that go all the way to Indiana and have to take the plunge over more dams have a much smaller chance of surviving as the pounding they usually take going through the flood gates is not exactly easy on them. I live on Lake Chapin above Berrien Springs Dam and drop back steelhead are all over in the lake April and May, if you sit and look at the lake in the evenings that time of year you will see lots of steelhead jumping and I have seen them chasing schools of bait fish many times. Most of these fish would have definitely had to survive coming back down over Buchanan Dam as there simply is not that much spawning going on in the section between Berrien Dam and Buchanan Dam.

The smolts can and do make it back down the river, but there are high casualties, especially caused by Buchanan Dam's turbines. There is no natural reproduction in the main river, but the tons of small tributaries do contribute a fair amount, the D being one of the biggest contributors, if they would get rid of the Pucker Street Dam it's ability to to sustain natural reproduction would sky rocket.

There was an agreement with the power company to not run their turbines the month of May to aid in the amount of Skam smolts planted in Indiana getting back to the lake safely, but they had the turbines going this May so not quite sure what happened with that.


----------



## thousandcasts

If they were to lower the steelhead limit, it would have to be done across the board. There are the six or seven (can't remember which it is off the top of my head), classifications that they use for trout streams. You'd have to use one of those current classifications as the DNR is, rightfully, not interested in creating more classifications which would create more confusion.

The Muskegon used to be broke up into two classifications. From Pine to thornapple, the size limit on trout used to be 10", then from Thornapple to Newaygo, the classification changed and fish had to be 15" to keep. Now the whole river is one classification and the size limit is 10" across the board. The same thing would have to apply to the Dow. One way to protect the browns is to have the classification changed to the one that still allows bait, but requires a 15" size limit. 

For historical purposes, it was the early fall of '92 when then Berrien ladder became effective and the anadromous fish were able to pass there in numbers. When that happened, a few of us broke out the Delorme's and started trying to find those fish that were stacked below Berrien, then vanished once the refurbished ladder became operational. That's how spots like Rangeline and the Dow came to be...and most of us that fished those never said a word. It wasn't until a few years after that, that some of the Indiana guys got wind of where their fish were ending up and that was it for the "secret" of the Dow. 

My tone is that of someone who has had enough of this. It's not just the Dow, it's everywhere where someone makes a living flinging flies. They somehow get it in their head that bait fishermen are the devil and we need special regs to protect "their" fish. I can think of two guides on two different rivers right now that if they saw the Dow get some sort of special regs, then they'd be all over trying to get that "stuff" on the rivers they guide on. Ironically though, when there's river clean ups, river watches, etc. those guides are no where to be found...but a lot of us bait demons are there. Go figure.


----------



## Flyfisher

thousandcasts said:


> I can think of two guides on two different rivers right now that if they saw the Dow get some sort of special regs, then they'd be all over trying to get that "stuff" on the rivers they guide on.


Funny that both the rivers start with the letter "M".


----------



## Jay Anglin

The thing is, there really is no comparison between The Mo, The Big Man and the D. You're comparing huge pumpkins and an apple. The D below Pucker is less than 3 miles and located in close proximity to well over 10 million people if you include the Chicago area. In my view, this is what makes it more vulnerable to over-harvest than those larger rivers that are somewhat less accessible to so many people. Maybe not so much the Mo but certainly the Manistee. Certainly all of the rivers in Michigan would benefit from a lower steelhead limit...maybe some "quality" stretches at one fish a day....I'd be glad to join in with any group to push that through...I'll even buy the beer at the meeting. For now, I just don't see it happening. Maybe my view is a quick fix but I believe it would benefit the fishery immensely.


----------



## quest32a

Jay Anglin said:


> The thing is, there really is no comparison between The Mo, The Big Man and the D. You're comparing huge pumpkins and an apple. The D below Pucker is less than 3 miles and located in close proximity to well over 10 million people if you include the Chicago area. In my view, this is what makes it more vulnerable to over-harvest than those larger rivers that are somewhat less accessible to so many people. Maybe not so much the Mo but certainly the Manistee. Certainly all of the rivers in Michigan would benefit from a lower steelhead limit...maybe some "quality" stretches at one fish a day....I'd be glad to join in with any group to push that through...I'll even buy the beer at the meeting. For now, I just don't see it happening. Maybe my view is a quick fix but I believe it would benefit the fishery immensely.


The fishery for who Jay? I don't fish the Dow a ton, maybe 6-10 times a year. But every single time down there we get fish, normally a pretty good number too browns and steelhead. Doesn't matter the season, if you asked me I would think that river is in pretty good shape. 

Most the guys I know and see there release most of their fish. Hell I fish bait and I haven't kept a steelhead out of there in 3 years, and the ones that I have kept over the years were skams that were questionable on swimming away 

Last year in my trips there I caught 7-8 browns. With one noteable one over 20 inches. Also took a picture of an extremely healthy 18 incher this past summer that my buddy caught. 

The Dow has plenty of fish to be caught, I just don't see the numbers being dragged out that you are alluding too. I would be all for a slightly lower limit of steelhead down there, but not for any bait ban just to protect stray fish. If there were lots of wild fish in there I would think we would catch more smolts in the summer, but they are pretty much non existent. 

Sorry, but i think you are really barking up the wrong tree with this. I would hate to see gear restrictions on this river that would further seperate fly and bait fisherman. 

BTW, we have crossed paths numerous times on the river and you have always been courteous and polite. Maybe it was because you have seen me releasing fish....LOL


----------



## wolvron

Jay Anglin said:


> The thing is, there really is no comparison between The Mo, The Big Man and the D. You're comparing huge pumpkins and an apple. The D below Pucker is less than 3 miles and located in close proximity to well over 10 million people if you include the Chicago area. In my view, this is what makes it more vulnerable to over-harvest than those larger rivers that are somewhat less accessible to so many people. Maybe not so much the Mo but certainly the Manistee. Certainly all of the rivers in Michigan would benefit from a lower steelhead limit...maybe some "quality" stretches at one fish a day....I'd be glad to join in with any group to push that through...I'll even buy the beer at the meeting. For now, I just don't see it happening. Maybe my view is a quick fix but I believe it would benefit the fishery immensely.


 


I hate to say it jay, but your not helping with the pressure on the dow. I know a lot of your clients come from the Chicago area. so really what your doing is exploiting a gem for your own personal needs. I'm not putting you down for trying to make a living doing what you love, but you are a little bit responsible for what happens on the Dow. You told me once that if you held a gun to your client's head they couldn't find there way back to the Dow. do you really believe that. come on.


----------



## KWB

wolvron said:


> I hate to say it jay, but your not helping with the pressure on the dow. I know a lot of your clients come from the Chicago area. so really what your doing is exploiting a gem for your own personal needs. I'm not putting you down for trying to make a living doing what you love, but you are a little bit responsible for what happens on the Dow. You told me once that if you held a gun to your client's head they couldn't find there way back to the Dow. do you really believe that. come on.


Jay doesn't add any pressure to that system besides what he does himself while guiding. The people that hire him have absolutely no desire to go fishing on their own. They have very limited time so when they fish they want to go the most efficient route there is, which is hiring a good guide. They also have the money to hire him whenever they want to go fishing, so these are not the people who are adding pressure to the river. I'm sure they know how to get there, but I don't feel they do any other time than when they are there to fish with him...


----------



## KWB

Just make the section a Type 4 like it is above the dam and be done with it, the resident fish get more protection and the bloody steelhead stay the same...


----------



## wolvron

KWB said:


> Jay doesn't add any pressure to that system besides what he does himself while guiding. The people that hire him have absolutely no desire to go fishing on their own. They have very limited time so when they fish they want to go the most efficient route there is, which is hiring a good guide. They also have the money to hire him whenever they want to go fishing, so these are not the people who are adding pressure to the river. I'm sure they know how to get there, but I don't feel they do any other time than when they are there to fish with him...


 


Do you really believe that. they go home and tell there friends what a great body of water it is, and they tell there friend's, and they tell there friends. It's never ending. I don't have a problem with what jay does. he has the right to fish the river just as well as the rest of us, but don't try to change the rule's for your own needs. 

I have one question for Jay. Do you as a guide put you clients on fish while they are on the redd's.


----------



## Jay Anglin

"I have one question for Jay. Do you as a guide put you clients on fish while they are on the redd's."

Obviously I have in the past like so many folks that develop as a steelheader have. I'm sure you've seen me do it. Personally, I preferred not to but as a guide that is the SOP of course which sucks. As I was developing as a guide I realized that it sucks. In fact I absolutely hate it and as a rule don't allow it because its one of the greatest farces in the history of the world and it sucks. Did I mention that it sucks. 

The problem of course is you fish dark water for feeders and that works great some days but when it doesn't that old sock of a hen fanning away is awfully tantalizing for the guy that is paying. I get in arguments, I explain why it "isn't cool"....I go out of my way to avoid it at all costs even anchoring the boat and explaining what is going on how important it is to not to stomp gravel etc. In the end, I'd say well under 20% of the fish I land annually are yanked off the redds whether intentionally or by accident which does happen in deeper redds in dirty water more than most experts are willing to admit. I wish I could say its 0% but I can only keep the leash so short and I'd be lying if I told you that. 

When they are foul hooked which of course is often when you are messing spawners...I insist in a very direct way that fish be broken off immediately. I have lost many clients for this reason and frankly I don't care because that ain't fishing. Neither is clobbering kings all day while they try to finish their cycle. I'd say I landed less than 2 dozen kings this fall and of those a handful were on flies taken in holes while steelheading and one day I had a older gentleman work a few on gravel to see if any clean males would eat a bunny leach...and they did. The others were on plugs and spinners....one of my favorite types of fishing. 

There is always talk about closing the streams during the steelhead spawning run. I find that fascinating because while personally I could care less and in fact may even enjoy not having to drag guys off the gravel and chase turkeys and bass instead...I just can't imagine how the DNR could possibly pull that off. I've seen the Joe completely peter out by March 10th and I've seen fish spawning in May and even June a few times.....when the main spawning effort could be 30 to 50 days in either direction depending on the weather...I just don't see it being even remotely practical. Of all the things they could do to really destroy what budget they have left...taking the spring steelhead run away from legions of anglers seems like good way to put the final nail in the coffin. 

As far as clients coming back....of course some do. Probably the same ones that would do it on their own without a guide trip under their belt and stumble around pissing everybody off until they figured it out on their own. The VAST majority of them do not. In fact, a few days ago I had to explain to a guy how to get there for the 3rd time in 6 weeks and he got lost....again. "Jay, I see a sign...it says Bridgman...am I close?" Another guy I took last week has been there probably 30 times with me over the years and he always asks,"What state is that river in again?" I ain't making this stuff up fellas...I'm not making any negative statement either...that's just the way many folks are. The majority simply do not care to go on their own and don't waste any of their brain capacity on trying to remember how to get there apparently. 

If I told you that I didn't think I was adding pressure to the river it'd be foolish. Of course I do. But frankly, a hot stick could hit the D and lay down more good drifts in an hour than most of the average fishing clients do in an entire day. And the thing is, the guys I typically guide would not be insulted by that statement. Many are developing and eventually they will hopefully get better at it. In my experience once they master the basic skills and have a few good days they tend to back off quite a bit. It's almost like the hunger for knowledge and the quest for a good day is the allure and once that happens the monkey crawls down your leg and leaves you alone for a while and only comes back once in a while for a fix. Then of course there are the guys that could be guides and have enough money to pay me to save them the trouble patterning etc. I can promise you this, with rare exceptions I am confident that my clients are good stewards of the river and understand the biology behind the stream and the habitat in general. I like to mix the science in as much as possible...the bio degree needs to be used for something I guess because it cost me a ton of money and its about as worthless as tits on a boar most of the time.

My personal strategy, resting a run or a hole and rotating as often as possible...."sacrificing" a spot for other guys so that they can have fun and we don't have to low hole each other all day. In a river that length you get pretty good at figuring out to make sure it's fishable and of course how to share it with others. Incidentally this is by far and away the most openly I have ever discussed this river in a public forum. I do not mention this river on my website and though I was once snookered into mentioning it in a national magazine(and actually received a death threat afterward), I go out of my way to NOT mention it. In my seminars I have spoken openly about the D at TU meetings etc but only in rare situations does somebody not know about it already. It's not exactly a secret anymore. 

Okay enough of the bio...but I wanted some of you that don't know me to understand that I'm not a scumbag. At least I try really hard not to be.


----------



## KWB

wolvron said:


> Do you really believe that. they go home and tell there friends what a great body of water it is, and they tell there friend's, and they tell there friends. It's never ending. I don't have a problem with what jay does. he has the right to fish the river just as well as the rest of us, but don't try to change the rule's for your own needs.
> 
> I have one question for Jay. Do you as a guide put you clients on fish while they are on the redd's.


I believe that these people go home and say "that was a beautiful stretch of water, it was a nice FLOAT, the whole shore lunch thing, he put us on fish or showed us something neat" that type of stuff, people going home after a good trip is probably the best advertising a guide has, the people they brag to are more apt to hire him than go to the river themself. They want the full experience and since they probably aren't going to run out and buy a drift boat to fish 10 days a year, they hire a guide. It's a more convenient option for their busy lifestyles.. Not making fun of them, it's just the way most of them feel, they enjoy fishing with a guide. If they didn't, why would there be as many guides as there are? If you think about how many guides work in this state, there is a lot of people paying to go fishing instead of doing it themselves.


----------



## wolvron

OK I will just come out, and ask. Jay do you have something to do with this push for fly's only on the dow. I was told on another forum that you where behind it. You can answer me by PM If ya want.


----------



## Jay Anglin

I have nothing to do with a flies only push and I would not support it and I'd be vocal about it.


----------



## Jay Anglin

I should be clear though...I am referring to the stream below the dam. If the Dodd Park stretch...I mean the meander is short..I believe that would benefit greatly from trophy regs an should be protected. If that includes fly only so be it. There is a huge portion of the stretch between Pucker and Dodd that is very difficult to fish and as somebody mentioned in this thread previously...it's kind of classic worm water. I would suggest that size restrictions that support trophy fish would be the ideal way to deal with that upper river. The D will grow em for sure!


----------



## wolvron

Jay Anglin said:


> I should be clear though...I am referring to the stream below the dam. If the Dodd Park stretch...I mean the meander is short..I believe that would benefit greatly from trophy regs an should be protected. If that includes fly only so be it. There is a huge portion of the stretch between Pucker and Dodd that is very difficult to fish and as somebody mentioned in this thread previously...it's kind of classic worm water. I would suggest that size restrictions that support trophy fish would be the ideal way to deal with that upper river. The D will grow em for sure!


 


What should you have anything to do with the Dow. Do you pay Michigan Taxes. you don't even live in this great state. so you come up and use our waters for profit. what's wrong can't get your drift boat on Indiana's streams. Is that a legal access point That you use there, or is it a man made launch which funnels all the crap out of the parking lot into the stream. Pretty much what I'm saying jay is why don't you try to do this on your own home waters, and leave us alone. Oh I know why because those boy's down there would crucify you. Well guess what we aren't going to lay down, and have some out of town just for his own pockets push to have the rules changed.


----------



## wolvron

Jay Anglin said:


> I have nothing to do with a flies only push and I would not support it and I'd be vocal about it.


 
ok sorry. artificial only. I know exactly what you have to do with it. just wanted to see if ya had the ball's to back it on this forum. Guess not.


----------



## Frogpoopin

got a question for ya Jay well two of them....

1 what state do you live in?

2 how do you feel about a ban on guides making a living on out of state waters?

see ya on the water


----------



## KWB

Alright guys, this is not about Jay Anglin and where he lives or what he may or may not do. Personally I have fished the D a lot in my life, seen Jay with clients on it a lot, never once were they fishing gravel. The St. Joseph River migratory fishery is a joint effort between Indiana and Michigan for starters and he is an American, it doesn't matter what state he is from or at least it shouldn't.

This post was intended to discuss regulations in a polite manner and maybe actually come up with something that people could agree on. It was not intended to bash fly fisherman, guides or a place for personal attacks.

Since this is what it keeps resorting back to, maybe the moderators should just lock down the whole damn thread...


----------



## Whit1

KWB said:


> Alright guys, this is not about Jay Anglin and where he lives or what he may or may not do. Personally I have fished the D a lot in my life, seen Jay with clients on it a lot, never once were they fishing gravel. The St. Joseph River migratory fishery is a joint effort between Indiana and Michigan for starters and he is an American, it doesn't matter what state he is from or at least it shouldn't.
> 
> *This post was intended to discuss regulations in a polite manner and maybe actually come up with something that people could agree on. It was not intended to bash fly fisherman, guides or a place for personal attacks.*
> 
> Since this is what it keeps resorting back to, maybe the moderators should just lock down the whole damn thread...


 
Good point and as for you last comment..........not YET!


----------



## Flyfisher

Whit1 said:


> Good point and as for you last comment..........not YET!


Here's my suggestion, 1 trout (steelhead) per day over 15" on Lake Michigan tribs that show even marginal natural recruitment. Crucify me or agree with me?

The natural recruitment idea is interesting because a smaller trib I fish in the west central part of the state is absolutely loaded with wild steelhead parr right now...little 4"-5" fish that make you actually leave a spot to fish elsewhere because they pull your float (or flyrod strike indicator) down EVERY cast. Occasionally you hook one and smile because you know that 3 or 4 years down the road these fish might actually make their way back upstream...all this while you are frustrated because you can't fish the hole on account of the little guys I actually went on the stocking database to see if there was a fall plant of fingerlings/parr (which there was not) because I have never seen that many...chalk it up to a cool and wet summer I suppose. Now if these fish can survive the winter by not freezing to the bottom of the river in anchor ice? 

So, while some rivers produce some wild fish one could theorize that those rivers could produce even more if limits were reduced? I believe the DNR has done studies on most of the rivers and has percentages of naturally reproduced fish versus hatchery stock.

Maybe taking a cue from NY state's Salmon River program, where limits were dropped to 1 fish daily over 21" and leader lengths are limited to less than 4' would also help. 

Its just my impression that everyone would like more fish in our rivers. Given the state of the economy, the DNR is pumping out what they can afford to put in our rivers. How many guys here regularly kill 3 steelhead on the rivers anyway? And how many would be devastated if they could only kill one or maybe two? Most of the more serious steelheders I know rarely kill fish, and when they do its usually a fish or two here and there.

So, rather than arguing about tackles/techniques and bashing Jay, why don't we focus on regulations that could maximize the fishery for everyone? Believe it or not, although I haven't spoken to Jay in years, he's one of the more ethical guides I have met. And although he doesn't fish bait, he has tossed hardware for years. Certainly not you "flyfishing only" kind of guy. I believe he lived and went to school in MI. And if he pays for the appropriate licenses and certifications to guide in MI, how can that be an issue? Personally, I'm more concerned about a "flyfishing nazi" group out of South Bend, Indiana, particularly when they state how *"flyfishing is the most sportsmanlike angling technique"*...hogwash, I say!


----------



## thousandcasts

> Its just my impression that everyone would like more fish in our rivers. Given the state of the economy, the DNR is pumping out what they can afford to put in our rivers. How many guys here regularly kill 3 steelhead on the rivers anyway? And how many would be devastated if they could only kill one or maybe two? Most of the more serious steelheders I know rarely kill fish, and when they do its usually a fish or two here and there.


Well, since this is the time of year where you see those, "come fish our tournament where the goal is to box up everything that bites a hook" threads, then I can imagine there's some guys that would be flat out devastated. 

To be perfectly honest, that's one of the biggest reasons right there I would support a one steelhead limit across the board.


----------



## Flyfisher

thousandcasts said:


> Well, since this is the time of year where you see those, "come fish our tournament where the goal is to box up everything that bites a hook" threads, then I can imagine there's some guys that would be flat out devastated.


Can't lie and say I haven't participated in one of those types of events in the past. They are fun gatherings for all involved. Also can't see why a ruler/tape measure and a digital camera wouldn't yield fair results? 

Tournament weigh-ins are sort of like the chest-thumping one sees with the guy that drives around town all morning on the deer opener with his buck bungeed to the roof of his SUV.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> Most of the more serious steelheders I know rarely kill fish, and when they do its usually a fish or two here and there.


This isn't a shot at you or anything, but how does roping 3 steelhead make you a non "serious" steelheader? I have only kept 2 fish this fall, and don't plan on any more, but I wouldn't really use how many fish someone keeps as a way to rate how serious or hardcore or good they are as a steelheader. 

I'd be in for a 1 fish limit, it would be good for the lake as well as the river. People do seem to forget just how many fish the boats in the lake take; it isn't just the river guys.


----------



## thousandcasts

ausable_steelhead said:


> This isn't a shot at you or anything, but how does roping 3 steelhead make you a non "serious" steelheader? I have only kept 2 fish this fall, and don't plan on any more, but I wouldn't really use how many fish someone keeps as a way to rate how serious or hardcore or good they are as a steelheader.
> 
> I'd be in for a 1 fish limit, it would be good for the lake as well as the river. People do seem to forget just how many fish the boats in the lake take; it isn't just the river guys.


That's what I mean when I say, "one steelhead limit across the board." I would flat out lose my mind if it ever got to the point where it was one in the rivers and still three out in the lake. I mean, let's face the reality of it here. Fishing out on the big lake is a meat fishery. Cool...it is what it is, no big deal. But they got their way and got a five salmon limit--so why keep the steelhead limit at three? They changed the strain of lake trout, so we don't get those upriver anymore. The LRB's have vanished. For gosh sakes, throw us river guys some sort of bone, ya know?


----------



## Flyfisher

ausable_steelhead said:


> This isn't a shot at you or anything, but how does roping 3 steelhead make you a non "serious" steelheader? I have only kept 2 fish this fall, and don't plan on any more, but I wouldn't really use how many fish someone keeps as a way to rate how serious or hardcore or good they are as a steelheader.


You're reading into this a bit much...Its just the guys I have fished with over the years don't generally kill steelhead.

To generalize, it does seem like the bait/plug fishermen on the St Joe and Kalamazoo Rivers do have a tendency to box all their catch, and there are certainly some serious steelheaders on those rivers. To some, taking what the law allows is their protocol, and there is nothing wrong with that. I would just like to see the law changed.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> You're reading into this a bit much...Its just the guys I have fished with over the years don't generally kill steelhead.


No, I was just seeing where you were coming from, that's all. I figured you probably didn't mean it like it was typed.



> I mean, let's face the reality of it here. Fishing out on the big lake is a meat fishery. Cool...it is what it is, no big deal. But they got their way and got a five salmon limit--so why keep the steelhead limit at three? They changed the strain of lake trout, so we don't get those upriver anymore. The LRB's have vanished. For gosh sakes, throw us river guys some sort of bone, ya know?


I agree fully on this. I just don't see how/why the DNR sees the lake fishery as so much more considerable then the river? Yeah the lake brings in more money, but wouldn't the river as well if it was managed to it's potential? I've never understood the DNR thought process on this. Manage and make it fair for EVERYONE, not just certain ones. In a way, it's a social issue kinda.


----------



## thousandcasts

ausable_steelhead said:


> No, I was just seeing where you were coming from, that's all. I figured you probably didn't mean it like it was typed.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree fully on this. I just don't see how/why the DNR sees the lake fishery as so much more considerable then the river? Yeah the lake brings in more money, but wouldn't the river as well if it was managed to it's potential? I've never understood the DNR thought process on this. Manage and make it fair for EVERYONE, not just certain ones. In a way, it's a social issue kinda.


Well, it's all perception. If you look at the big lake fishery, there tends to be a lot more across the board agreement when it comes to the fishery as a whole. You have one organization that says, "we want to catch fish." and the other that says, "yeah, what he said." Granted, they didn't see eye to eye on the five salmon limit, but there wasn't some dramatic schism that put both of them at opposite sides of the spectrum.

Then you have the river fishery where, honestly, there isn't any unified voice for the bulk of the anglers. You have one organization where it's "meat,meat and more meat" or then you have the contingency where it's "special regs baby! Flies only!" Hell, even those who are in the middle can't see eye to eye. Someone can go up north and hook three fish in a day and think it was the best day ever. Meanwhile, guys like me are thinking that hooking three fish isn't even worth getting out of bed for. So, you have this perpetual infighting where it's:

1) Catch n release means you catch it and release it into the cooler.
2) No kill is the only option
3) Quality over Quantity.
4) Quantity IS Quality. 
5) Bait fishing is stupid.
6) Fly fishing is stupid.

And that's just scratching the surface! So, how the heck can we expect the DNR to manage a river fishery when NO ONE can agree on anything? Ideally, we need to move past this whole fly v. bait thing and develop a voice for the bulk of the anglers who fall into the "middle" of both extremes. It's not installing more special regs, nor is it the "meat first" mentality. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Have to base it on something. To go to one fish for the sake of going to one fish, I can't agree with. My favorite river is fishing as good this year as ever for Steel. Its all about the forage and food source. Its why they base a lot of plantings on the net results of bait fish in Lake Michigan. Artificially sustaining a fish population isn't a perfect science and thus at times a 5 fish limit may be called for, as well as a 1 fish limit might the next. But it has to based on something. Its what we pay our fish biologists for.


----------



## thousandcasts

Ranger Ray said:


> Have to base it on something. To go to one fish for the sake of going to one fish, I can't agree with. My favorite river is fishing as good this year as ever for Steel. Its all about the forage and food source. Its why they base a lot of plantings on the net results of bait fish in Lake Michigan. Artificially sustaining a fish population isn't a perfect science and thus at times a 5 fish limit may be called for, as well as a 1 fish limit might the next. But it has to based on something. Its what we pay our fish biologists for.


I could say the same thing about my steelhead fishing as well this year. However, I would gather a hypothesis that the reason for that is that with the five salmon limit, LESS steelhead were targeted out in the big lake, thus allowing more fish to make it into the rivers. In the past, on the big lake, it was "OK, we got our three kings, let's go get our two steelhead." Now, five is five...and more guys are concentrating on the five kings as opposed to what it used to be. 

Ergo, you could make the argument that reducing the steelhead limit, even down to two fish, would make an improvement in the fishing. At least that's how I theorize it.


----------



## Flyfisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Have to base it on something. To go to one fish for the sake of going to one fish, I can't agree with. My favorite river is fishing as good this year as ever for Steel. Its all about the forage and food source. Its why they base a lot of plantings on the net results of bait fish in Lake Michigan. Artificially sustaining a fish population isn't a perfect science and thus at times a 5 fish limit may be called for, as well as a 1 fish limit might the next. But it has to based on something. Its what we pay our fish biologists for.


Not that I disagree with you as far as using science instead of emotion to make changes. The DNR takes years to complete a single study on a single river, just because of the amount of work they put into it. Multiply this by how many rivers? At that rate we'll have reg changes that will be out of date by time they go into effect. How long ago did the DNR implement the 3 steelhead per day limit on steelhead and what science did they use for basis on that number?

If the DNR can make management changes catering to small groups of anglers (ie flies only stretches of rivers), I don't see why they can't lower possession limits if majority popular opinion is there to do so. Fortunately unlike salmon, steelhead will eat more than just alewives when in the big lake so forage base is not as much of an issue as it is when managing salmon. 

But then again, maybe the underfunded and overworked DNR can do some more studies and implement changes 10 years or so down the line?


----------



## Jay Anglin

Thanks Ron....I figured it was Ron but wasn't sure who you were. Well, I'll see you on the river and we can have a cup of coffee sometime maybe.


----------



## wolvron

Jay Anglin said:


> Thanks Ron....I figured it was Ron but wasn't sure who you were. Well, I'll see you on the river and we can have a cup of coffee sometime maybe.


 
That's fine, and maybe discus our differences. Oh black. no cream or sugar


----------

