# Is TU the real problem?



## Splitshot

Almost all the trout fishermen I know are interested in protecting our resources which leads me to ask the question, why is there so much controversy over bait restrictions?

Im convinced the answer lies in the fly fishing community. While we may find ourselves agreeing with much of what the fly fishing community says it is the differences that divide us. It was an article written MUCC that got me thinking about those differences along with a some of the rhetoric posted in my last two threads and as I think about it in many threads I have posted on this web-site over the last 13 years that had to do with this issue.

Someone asked me the other day what kind of regulations do you think we would have if TU and other fly fishing organizations were in charge? My quick answer was flies only no kill on all trout waters. While that answer might not be totally correct, all one has to do is look at all of the bait restricted waters where these folks have had an overwhelming influence and compare the number and size of the trout allowed with non restricted waters and the answer is clear.

Recently MUCC has taken the stance in the wolf debate in favor of sound biological management of wolfs in Michigan and opposes the let nature take its course management ideology supported by wolf preservationists. 

In the article MUCC stated; See, true conservation groups believe in conservation. The definition of which, of course, is the wise, sustainable use of natural resources. And Michigans wolf population is a natural resource. Hunting is one of conservations pillars. Without hunting and hunters, conservation would be in big trouble.

The groups that will oppose the wolf hunt arent conservation groups at all. They are preservation groups. Organizations that believe man has no place in the natural world. Or worse, the opposing organizations are anti-hunting groups hiding behind the veil of conservation in an effort to raise huge amounts of money to foster their own personal agendas. 

Thank you MUCC for your insite! The problem of course is in our issue is understanding the difference between the conservationists and the preservationists. If we were at a wolf rally to protect the wolf it would be difficult to know who was who as both groups want to protect the wolfs.

We have the same problem with organizations like Trout Unlimited because TU has such a great reputation and does great work rehabilitating our trout rivers and like us they want to preserve and protect our trout and the places trout live, The problem become clearer when these organizations get involved in the rule making process. That is when they start looking and acting like preservationists.

If you want evidence of their preservationist positions it is easy to find and is overwhelming. Their philosophy expalins why they take issue with the DNR biologists, why they push for exclusive use regulations, why they push for no kill regulations, why they criticize real biological studies, why they justify extreme rules like those below Gleasons Landing and on and on.

The most dogmatic disciples kneel at the alter of guys like Lee Wulff for his inspired utterance that a trout is to valuable to be caught only once. On the TU web-site under philosophy you will find statements like; Trout fishing isnt just fishing for trout! It is fishing for sport not food! One should limit their kill instead of killing their limit! It is subscribing to the proposition that what is good for the trout is good for the trout fisherman and that managing the trout for the trout rather than for the fisherman is fundamental to the solution of our trout problems.............!

While some of these cliches may sound like words of wisdom, most seem to be written to elevate the esteem of the membership. 

Our differences are clear. We are on the same page regarding habitat work and agree that protecting our fisheries is important, but we part company when some of the believers try to further their philosophy by lobbying for rules that unfairly take away the rights of the fishing community in general.

Like MUCC stated so eloquently; See, true conservation groups believe in conservation. The definition of which, of course, is the wise, sustainable use of natural resources. 

All one has to do to find support for my argument is read the comments in the thread aIs mortality a reason to exclude bait?: and It is just a small %! Oh Really? and TU mentality will become clearer. Many of the comments are just smoke designed to lead the readers away from the real topics.

As individual fishermen, organizations and sportsmen and women, we need to educate ourselves to see that it is not in our interest to keep allowing these special interests groups to siphon away our rights under the pretense of false science, fear, mis-direction or for The Greater Good and compel our MDNR to manage our resources in the best interest of the resources and for the optimum use of all fishermen, women and kids.


----------



## toto

I personally don't think TU stands alone as the problem. I do wonder however their true motives. When I look at where TU gets their money one has to wonder, when I see people such as Sierra Club, and the Pew Foundation as two main contributors, I really do have to ask myself the question as to what they are really about.

To say I totally disagree with TU wouldn't be an honest statement. The things they do for habitat restoration is wonderful work and if fact I'll congratulate them on that. Where is starts to get hairy is when they so behind the flies only fishing etc. That is against what they say they are, and if fact have made the statement they are not a fly fishing organization, but wonder about that as TU pretty started as a fly fishing group, if I"m not mistaken.

If you read this you may see where I am coming from. I could tell a little more about what I've discovered about TU from years ago, but I'll save that for when it's needed.

I tried to post a link, but it doesn't work. The site was known as undue influence, but can't seem to link it right now.


----------



## llpof

As always, thanks for the good read, and insights.


----------



## METTLEFISH

As I see it the Trout are not a natural resource in Michigan. They are the result of much effort to bring them to and establish them in MI. . One may ask; why were they put here, after all it takes great effort to get them here. Goodness look a the cost of doing so, many hundreds of millions of dollars spent to build hatcheries, run the hatcheries, plant the fish, employ Fisheries Biologists, Etc. 

The answer simply is to provide the people that pay for these costs the opportunity to fish for, catch, release or consume at their choice.

Now comes a group of people that feel so strongly about these fish (and rightfully so, I love them too) that they feel everyone should employ their tactics of doing so, their way or the highway.

This is of the most un American ideologies I've ever seen. How is that after all the funds produced and spent to establish all these factors and fish that they can be removed from the people that established them to begin with? Sickening!


----------



## Steve

I have no problem with the TU chapters and the great habitat work they do on our streams only to be @&$? on by others. Don't like what they stand for? Join them and attend some meetings. Personally, I quit when the Michigan chapter took money from Nestlé.


----------



## Jackster1

How many TU meetings locally, regionally and nationally have you attended and voiced your opinions to?

Just read the TU Conservation Agenda and if you still see bogey man hiding in it take it to TU. You ARE a member, right?
http://www.tu.org/sites/www.tu.org/files/documents/national_conservation_agenda_2012.pdf


Then there's this little tidbit that speaks a great deal of truth and fact. It is not TU's fault that it appears fly fisherman care enough about the resource to join an efficient and effective conservation organization as theirs is. I know first-hand that squeaky wheels like you can be heard, are heard and can have TU do your bidding for and with you. This was proven when TU said they had no dog in the fight for stream access rights. They do now just by members voicing their opinions on the subject.

From the TU website: _It's true that while the majority of our members are primarily fly anglers, which is why this is emphasized in our publications and mail campaigns, we certainly want to hear from spin anglers as well! _

_Our philosophy at TU is that it's a big tent, and there's certainly room for fly anglers, spin anglers, and lots of other people as well. Our love of cold clean water, and preserving it for future generations, is what should bind us together - not the type of angler, or bait or fly that one prefers to use._

I've backed out of your anti TU crusades for as long as you've been making them. The main reason is that you are far more eloquent than me and you are tireless and wear people down. I'm fairly certain you haven't changed any minds with your crusades but it is clear that you have gained disciples. TU is quite powerful. Have you considered trying to change things from within yet still retain and even help in all of the fantastic resource work they do and are doing?
Meanwhile, enjoy the clean streams and healthy trout you might be fishing for and more than likely thank TU or one of their chapters for helping make that so.


----------



## METTLEFISH

let's see... first Trout and Salmon plants in Michigan; late 1800's. And just when did T.U. come about?


----------



## scooter_trasher

The one thing Fly only Regs accomplishes very well is reducing fishing pressure, much more fair than other methods such as a permit lottery, after all who cares about the kid who can't drown a worm from the bank, at his own families cabin, as long as people from out state & out of state can enjoy that premium water and the guides get to make money, separate but equal, worked in the south for years, perfectly fair sounding, should never cause any animosity, nobody ever had a problem with the Jim Crow laws did they, I think this whole thing needs a more trendy name than Gear Restriction, lets call it something like ( Enhanced Opportunity), and set aside the lower five or ten miles of the Rouge River for the kid so he can feel special too
http://www.bing.com/maps/print.aspx?mkt=en-us&z=13&s=b&cp=42.288609,-83.135273&pt=pb


----------



## kzoofisher

Steve said:


> I have no problem with the TU chapters and the great habitat work they do on our streams only to be @&$? on by others. Don't like what they stand for? Join them and attend some meetings. Personally, I quit when the Michigan chapter took money from Nestlé.


 Nestle' never gave MITU any money. They offerd a donation to the National near the end or just after the Ice Mountain suit, MITU objected and the National turned down the money. This story has been going around but it is untrue. I've got my own reasons for not wanting to be a member of TU but that isn't one of them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toto

Kzoo, that is pretty close to the truth about the Nestle money. The local chapter did indeed accept the money in the beginning but pressure from the higher organization forced them to return the money. Was the pressure from the National or MITU I'm not really sure, but I heard that right from the source. But yeah, you are pretty accurate.


----------



## DFJISH

METTLEFISH said:


> Now comes a group of people that feel so strongly about these fish (and rightfully so, I love them too) that they feel everyone should employ their tactics of doing so, their way or the highway.
> This is of the most un American ideologies I've ever seen. Sickening!


Does anyone else notice that the same situation exists with Michigan deer? There are "special interest" groups among us who have made it clear that they are intent on forcing their own agenda on everyone in the state. The really sad part of this is that our DNR is vulnerable to such pressure. :sad:


----------



## Boozer

Steve said:


> I have no problem with the TU chapters and the great habitat work they do on our streams only to be @&$? on by others. Don't like what they stand for? Join them and attend some meetings. Personally, I quit when the Michigan chapter took money from Nestlé.




You may want to fact check that statement...


----------



## Steve

Boozer said:


> You may want to fact check that statement...


Corrected: They were going to accept a donation, and later changed their mind.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-62900.html


----------



## Robert Holmes

I am not a member of TU as they support restricted fishing. As far as I am concerned every waterway should be open to the public to fish how they see fit. I believe that restricted fishing is discriminatory and illegal. Until someone challanges it in a superior court it will continue in Michigan.


----------



## Splitshot

Jackster,



Jackster1 said:


> .....This was proven when TU said they had no dog in the fight for stream access rights.....
> 
> Very misleading. If TU supports special flies only regulation that limit access by other fishermen then your claim is false Bow wow! We strongly believe access rights on public waters are very important to fishermen.
> 
> 
> 
> Jackster1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the TU website: _It's true that while the majority of our members are primarily fly anglers, which is why this is emphasized in our publications and mail campaigns, we certainly want to hear from spin anglers as well! _
> 
> Clever Jackster, the real question is, does TU want to hear from bait anglers or would that make their tent to crowded?
> 
> 
> 
> Jackster1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Our philosophy at TU is that it's a big tent, and there's certainly room for fly anglers, spin anglers, and lots of other people as well. Our love of cold clean water, and preserving it for future generations, is what should bind us together - not the type of angler, or bait or fly that one prefers to use._
> 
> Should bind us together!
> 
> 
> 
> Jackster1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've backed out of your anti TU crusades for as long as you've been making them. The main reason is that you are far more eloquent than me and you are tireless and wear people down. I'm fairly certain you haven't changed any minds with your crusades but it is clear that you have gained disciples. TU is quite powerful. Have you considered trying to change things from within yet still retain and even help in all of the fantastic resource work they do and are doing?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have tried from the inside and was a member for a year and as I stated in my original post TU has done some fantastic resource work. The idea that one of the main reasons for not engaging is because I am far more eloquent than you has me scratching my head. May I suggest one of the reasons might be because I use facts to support my arguments. It is not that I am so smart or eloquent but because I choose sides when Im pretty sure I have facts to back my position, but thanks anyway.
> 
> Jack, just for the record, I only met you once at a fly show where you were giving a demonstration casting a fly rod. I think I am a pretty good fly fisherman, but your fly casting abilities are far superior to mine and your demonstration was very impressive. I respect your passion for fishing and except for your political views, we have a lot in common.
> 
> Every time I see your name it reminds me of your excellent fly casting display and these comments are not meant as some shallow flattery but out of respect and although this might not be the perfect place for it, I am glad to finally say it.
> 
> 
> 
> Jackster1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, enjoy the clean streams and healthy trout you might be fishing for and more than likely thank TU or one of their chapters for helping make that so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do thank TU for their great work, but in Michigan we have over 100 different organizations that are working to restore our rivers. I spent years working as a board member of the Little Manistee Conservation Watershed Council. Should we give all the credit for all our hard work to TU because a few of our members are TU members? The Conservation Resource Alliance out of Traverse City has worked as hard to help restore our rivers as any other organization in North West Michigan and they have no hidden agenda. Anyone who cares about our natural heritage who wants to get involved and help make a difference will be welcomed by CRA.
> 
> The main point of this thread is not to bash TU I joined TU after meeting one of the past executive directors of TU, R. Bowman if I remember correctly because he told me the same thing Bryan Burroughs told me. TU is not a fly fishing organization. Forty percent of TU members do not fly fish and TU has only one mission and that is to restore the places where trout live. Bryan Burroughs the current TU executive director also told me personally that TU does not support flies only areas and that TU doesnt engage in these activities for any consideration.
> 
> The actions of TU have directly contradicted the rhetoric of TU both written and spoken and is why I asked the question; Is TU the real problem? If I am mistaken or my arguments are incorrect or misleading, please enter the discourse and provide your reasoning.
> 
> Altruism can be defined as the unselfish regard for the welfare of others. I contend here is a growing body of evidence that TU has ventured outside of the realm of their stated goals and the results of their great influence is causing a loss of opportunities to many of our citizens that cannot be excused by the good deeds they have done!
> 
> If more members of TU will work from the inside to get them back on course and solve this problem we can move on to other issues like the proposed antler restriction rules someone mentioned here that have the same potential impact of the rights of hunters as flies only rules have on the rights of fishermen.
> 
> We formed our organization to fight for the rights of the public on our public waters, but my reasons are not totally altruistic. Personally I long to fish in those rivers I spent much of my youth and adult life fishing using all the techniques I have learned along the way. Even more importantly to fish them with my kids and grand kids and teach them those secret places where the trout live and instill in them the values and what it means to be a good steward.
> 
> We are not looking for special privileges nor are we greedy or are we trying to deprive anyone else from sharing the public waters we all have a right to fish. We would never consider forcing anyone to fish with bait or lure or fly. Fish the way you want, let the DNR biologist decide what rules are necessary to protect our fishery and let the rest of us work together improving the habitats that foster larger numbers and larger fish and more importantly improve public access to public our public resources many of which have been closed because of private pressure.
> 
> Whenever we open a road or add a boat launch or make it easier to access, we spread out the pressure on these places improving the outdoor experience for everyone.
> 
> Because Nestles bottling water proposed plant was to be located on the headwaters of the Little Manistee river, not only was our LMWCC very engaged but we had access to other inside information.
> 
> Nestle as everyone agreed offered a large sum of money to coorporate TU . Im not sure they physically took the money, but the TU national office proposed to side with Nestle position and it was the local TU chapter(s) that became irate and even threatened to quit the organization. In lieu of the pressure, TU corporate caved in and sided with its Michigan members. Whether or not they took the money or declined a standing offer doesnt change the fact that they were inclined to change their position for the money.
> 
> It also shows that change is possible although getting TU to agree to share the rivers, even the public rivers with bait fishermen is a much more difficult task.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MERGANZER

Robert Holmes said:


> I am not a member of TU as they support restricted fishing. As far as I am concerned every waterway should be open to the public to fish how they see fit. I believe that restricted fishing is discriminatory and illegal. Until someone challanges it in a superior court it will continue in Michigan.


 
Fish how they see fit? Slippery slope there. Hook and line, spear, bowfish, bets, trot lines, poison, dynomite and on and on. There are different regs for everything in the state. Seasons vary by area etc.

Ganzer


----------



## Robert Holmes

Wow! What a battle!! It makes me happy that you are a voice for unrestricting the restricted waters in Michigan. In my area there are no restricted waters, however, some prime waters are surrounded by very large hunting resort encampments. In my opinion this is equally as bad, making them unfishable for the public. I do fish on one of the rivers and will continue to do so. I do not care if I am ticketed as I consider the river a public river and can provide proof of such in court.


----------



## Robert Holmes

MERGANZER said:


> Fish how they see fit? Slippery slope there. Hook and line, spear, bowfish, bets, trot lines, poison, dynomite and on and on. There are different regs for everything in the state. Seasons vary by area etc.
> 
> Ganzer


If I said fish by what it says in the rule book then you better have a fly rod and a fly. I see flies only sections of rivers as privitizing a public waterway not in the publics best interest.


----------



## Splitshot

Thank you Robert and for your information there are no rivers or streams in the UP that have been deemed not navigable. Until a court rules otherwise they all are deemed public and you are allowed to access them by any public bridge unless there is some safety issue like parking on an expressway. We (the public) own all flowing waters up to the ordinary high water mark.

Lots of COs dont understand the laws but that is something we want to address and believe it can be resolved through education. An excellent source of information can be found in a book written by one of our members called Forever Free: Your Right to Fish Michigans Inland Lakes and Streams by Dan Summerfield.

A more detailed explanation can be found at http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/mi-law.htm

Both sources explain how to assert your rights without having to spend a lot of money in the courts.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Splitshot said:


> Thank you Robert and for your information there are no rivers or streams in the UP that have been deemed not navigable. Until a court rules otherwise they all are deemed public and you are allowed to access them by any public bridge unless there is some safety issue like parking on an expressway. We (the public) own all flowing waters up to the ordinary high water mark.
> 
> Lots of CO&#8217;s don&#8217;t understand the laws but that is something we want to address and believe it can be resolved through education. An excellent source of information can be found in a book written by one of our members called &#8220;Forever Free: Your Right to Fish Michigan&#8217;s Inland Lakes and Streams&#8221; by Dan Summerfield.
> 
> A more detailed explanation can be found at http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/mi-law.htm
> 
> Both sources explain how to assert your rights without having to spend a lot of money in the courts.


Split Shot you're incorrect there. The MI.Supreme Court in Eppinger V.Pleasant lake Hills Corp. ruled that public rights of way are not public accesses.


----------



## mondrella

METTLEFISH said:


> Split Shot you're incorrect there. The MI.Supreme Court in Eppinger V.Pleasant lake Hills Corp. ruled that public rights of way are not public accesses.


This case covers private water not public. Road access is legal if one can park legally. If a body of water is deemed non navible is the only way you can keep someone off it in this state. All comes back to the pTD. A road right of way is for public use so are our waters. The issue would be if it was for commerce.


----------



## Splitshot

Mettlefish,

I will discuss this case in the new navigable/public waterways thread so this one stays on target. Thanks


----------



## mondrella

As for TU as a former member I give them high scores with their stand and help in habitat improvement. When it come to supporting C&R and gear restrictions they say one thing and do another unfortunately. 
I was in a chapter that at first I was accepted as one of them. I have luck to normally catch some very large stream trout. Once members learned I did not solely flyfish and release every trout out of the 25 guys who would come to meetings only 2 would even say hello anymore. It was not worth the headache and belittling they would dish out over legally caught trout. This is a mindset still being carried from the early days of the organization. Really up to the 80's most fisherman lived by a catch and keep mentality. A great time example would be even the late forties. Our rivers were not near as conducive for trout survival as today. Fish were planted and harvested for the most part. Overall survival was slim. If it was not harvested it more than likely would succumb to conditions of the stream. Maybe it was high summer temps. Or winter kill because lack of a key thing HABITAT. Conditions of our rivers have improved the mindset of catch and keep your limit every time has nearly disappeared. Times have changed through education and more. Yet the old guard is not willing to adapt to the changes because of the about face it is to the old ways. Sad is what it is.


----------



## troutguy26

Splitshot said:


> Thank you Robert and for your information there are no rivers or streams in the UP that have been deemed not navigable. Until a court rules otherwise they all are deemed public and you are allowed to access them by any public bridge unless there is some safety issue like parking on an expressway. We (the public) own all flowing waters up to the ordinary high water mark.
> 
> Lots of COs dont understand the laws but that is something we want to address and believe it can be resolved through education. An excellent source of information can be found in a book written by one of our members called Forever Free: Your Right to Fish Michigans Inland Lakes and Streams by Dan Summerfield.
> 
> A more detailed explanation can be found at http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/mi-law.htm
> 
> Both sources explain how to assert your rights without having to spend a lot of money in the courts.


A must read book for anyone who hasn't yet.


----------



## Ranger Ray

MERGANZER said:


> Fish how they see fit? Slippery slope there. Hook and line, spear, bowfish, bets, trot lines, poison, dynomite and on and on. There are different regs for everything in the state. Seasons vary by area etc.
> 
> Ganzer


Hey, lets petition for an all Caucasian river section? When others complain we can use the same excuse "hook and line, spear, bowfish, bets, trot lines, poison, dynomite and on and on. There are different regs for everything in the state. Seasons vary by area etc." Think they will buy it based on your reasoning? 

This is how we do it. We claim this Caucasian idea is a philosophy. That there is a growing trend of fishermen that appear to be for it. We classify the best fishing stretches as only being suitable for it. We call it a "diverse" fishing experience. We do some studies at Custer and Scottville shhh: I know its predominantly Caucasian), and proclaim them the will of the people. What say you? You in? Its a slam dunk.


----------



## Jackster1

Dang Splitshot... that was right nice of you to remember and mention that time we met. I don't remember a thing about the casting but I do remember sitting around the table with you. Face to face always seems better than these internet deals.
I still say that you are quite the wordsmith and you can for sure wear a fellow down with the length, frequency and facts of your arguments.
There... I said it... facts! Am I saying eveything you post is pure fact? Hel... Heck no. Am I going to argue against your facts? Not hardly. There are people out there better at it than 'lil 'ol me. Besides, I think we agree on more than you could ever imagine.

Back to T.U. They for sure aren't my favorite group. Moving south I did look them up because being a member they toss you into the chapter that falls in your area code. 
What I've learned since moving here is that many chapters are simply fly fishing clubs that ask for money as a feel-good by-product of their getting together to mainly talk about fly fishing and even sometimes go fly fishing. 
After going to several meetings that consisted of guest fly tyers, the 'whose been fishing' question and then the planning for the next fishing outing I pretty much got fed up. I asked the chapter honcho after actually getting along pretty good with him if this chapter ever did cold water conservation. His answer was the rivers were too far away and blah, blah, blah. I told him the chapter I left in Michigan traveled about 300 miles to work on and hopefully improve the habitat of our trout streams.
Later I left a meeting and went back in to "Jack... you're back" to which I said to the group, "Yes, and I have two questions"... How much money do we have in the bank and does this chapter EVER do cold water conservation? I said, "You will sit here and tell about the last trout fishing outing and plan the next but not once have I ever heard so much as having members bring a garbage bag to fill at one of these outings. The crowd gasped and looked sorta guilty.
I then asked again how much money the chapter had. $29,000.00 was the answer. That is pure BS I said. Here we are a non-profit group and you guys are hoarding money like a bunch of uptown bankers. They are in fact uptown bankers. Charlotte is a top banking center and these guys were doing what they know, collecting and hoarding money.
I kept my membership because of the greater good TU does and am glad to say they turned around and are now a conservation group doing and funding cold water conservation.
After that incident though I said to heck with it. I emailed people I knew and said on a then popular forum in the area that if anyone is interested in forming a fly fishing club to meet at Gander Mountain on a certain day and time. 35 people showed up, we elected a board and became a charter club of the FFF and never looked back. We are a fly fishing club period.Having cold, warm and salt water all around us we don't care what you fish for as long as it is with a fly rod. We do conservation too, like fixing up a warm water river nearby and helping replenish the mangroves AND clean up and work on our trout streams but mainly we fly fish and teach how to fly fish. We're up to 230 active members in our little club and our big push this and last year was to get new people into fly fishing and especially kids. It is working too. Some of the single Mom's only see their kids over the dinner table and maybe at homework time. They have no idea at all about the outdoors or fishing and to see them outside having pure fun together beats the crap out of their usual day-to-day lives. 
Fishing license sales are dropping way too much. Not only does this leave fewer people to protect our resources later, but it also means an entire generation is living their young healthy lives watching a screen and punching buttons (like I should talk, eh?)
Sorry for rambling but late nights have that effect. No interruptions or distractions... it's my peaceful time.

If I had a point it might be somewhere in here. It probablywas meant to say that I have no deep fondness for TU. I like what the National is supposed to be doing and does in a great many ways. It's the chapters who think they're fishing clubs that riles me up. I wish they would be for real and do what they should be doing... cold water conservation mainly.
Oh, and when TU sends a Christmas greeting and in the next paragraph asks for money that too just ain't right.


----------



## kzoofisher

Nice post Jack,

Some TU chapters are a lot better than others and if your local one ain't to your liking, don't join. Or join the one in the area where you fish a lot. Or join another group, there are lots of them as splitshot pointed out. The obsession with TU around here seems to mainly come from members of the GLFSA who keep bringing them up as the bogeyman. Maybe if you guys don't start threads about TU (2 this week) or mention them in posts all the time they would get less press. That there are some urban legends* floating around doesn't help either but if we can stop repeating them and adding new bs details when the old ones are exposed that will help, too.

*Thanks to Steve for posting that link to the real story from 2004. I had the details wrong myself and learned something new. Hooray!


----------



## Steve

TU is definitely not the boogeyman here. The local chapters do a lot of good on some waters. Also I would like to counter the argument that all of the restricted waters are "the best" waters. Take Paint Creek, Johnson Drain, and the Huron River near Proud lake. All of these are marginal at best and the restrictions are trying to keep them at least at a marginal point.


----------



## ausable riverboat

TU is part of the problem. The real problem is Anglers of the AuSable.


----------



## fishinDon

I have come to understand over these past few years that the boogeyman is us - all of us. It is me, it is you, and it is all of us that would rather fight over rules than work together. 

The boogeyman in us all tells us to spend our precious time pointing out our differences and to never take a step back to realize we are all the same. 

Kudos to Splitshot/Jackster for chasing off the boogeyman for a bit.

Don


----------



## Steve

fishinDon said:


> I have come to understand over these past few years that the boogeyman is us - all of us. It is me, it is you, and it is all of us that would rather fight over rules than work together.
> 
> The boogeyman in us all tells us to spend our precious time pointing out our differences and to never take a step back to realize we are all the same.
> 
> Kudos to Splitshot/Jackster for chasing off the boogeyman for a bit.
> 
> Don


----------



## toto

Don, that's pretty much along the same lines as I was thinking. We could take all these groups and find something good, or bad about each of them. What is troubling though is the mentality of this "flies only" thinking. 

Trout are a fish, not a person, they don't feel the same pain as we do, they don't think the same way, and they certainly are below us humans on the food chain. It is my understanding that from years ago the DNR planted fish for our use, not a play toy where I have someone saying, "okay your done playing with that toy, put it away now", that's nanny state mentality right there. 

If we combine the last 3 or so threads and make one discussion it comes down to this: We all have our differences, we all have our thoughts. Some of those thoughts are under the guise of protecting something that doesn't need protecting, these fish aren't in trouble, in fact somewhere I read that Jim Dexter said that 30%-70% of the trout die each year from natural causes so why the restrictions? Who pays for these fish to be planted, so why the restrictions? 

Don, what you seem to fail to understand is the law is the law, but it doesn't mean the law is good law. By that I mean, as the law is written right now, we are not able to fish certain rivers/streams with bait, okay so we'll follow the law, at least until it gets changed. The problem is, there are more powerful laws out there that should have prevented this from happening in the first place. I can remember when you were on board with this as you knew that the AuSable was the first of the flies only and the original rules were rescinded, back many many years ago. If TU were to look at their history, they would find that even though the "club" was started in the 50's I believe, there was a time long before that they tried to have flies only and it got shot down, and if your memory serves you well enough you know why. 

What I'm trying to say with that is, Ray is only asking a question as to how everyone feels, and it would appear to me that we are all pretty much on the same page, TU is indeed a good group, to a point, it's when they waver from that point that is in question. Again, it isn't the group ideal that I'm questioning but rather the mentality of it's people. Do not in any way think that I am for compromise, as I am not, and for TU to be a non-profit group and get federal grants to improve habitat, while at the same time working to keep average Joe citizen out of those same waters just smacks of hypocrisy to me. To have other groups dump leaves from the streets of Grayling in the river to improve the fishing, smacks of hypocrisy to me. To have groups accept money from the water companies (yes they returned it after getting pressure) smacks of hypocrisy to me. To have our DNR state in a public article in October of 2010 that these new rules and regulations are not due to the fish being in trouble but rather is a social issue, smacks of hypocrisy to me. To know the TU has well paid lobbyist in Lansing and elsewhere smacks of hypocrisy to me as this tends to make them a political organization rather than a conservation organization. To see where, and who TU gets their money from again, yep, smacks of hypocrisy.

There isn't one thing I've said that isn't true and it's easy enough to find on the net. One thing to remember, I don't back down from these types of fights, I've done them before, and I will continue to do so, and I will always be on the side of what is right and wrong, and what is wrong here is the idea that those that have the resources can take from those that don't. In the end, do I blame TU, probably more than I care to admit frankly as they were the original group that all others splintered off from, and they have become something they profess not to be.

The bottom line is I don't have a problem with TU, in fact, I would suggest they may be one of the better ones out there. There are several who are "fly fishing" groups and state as such; my problem with TU is they do so clandestinely. If they would stick to their original mission statement there would be no problems with TU, but they don't.


----------



## Jackster1

toto said:


> Do not in any way think that I am for compromise, as I am not


Isn't that same ideal what makes our government run so great lately?



toto said:


> To have other groups dump leaves from the streets of Grayling in the river to improve the fishing, smacks of hypocrisy to me.


You lost me on that one. Where is it written that only T.U. can help create habitat for the insect life that trout feed on?



toto said:


> To have groups accept money from the water companies (yes they returned it after getting pressure) smacks of hypocrisy to me.


It seems you like getting smacked or hypocrisy. You must, you seem to see it lurking around every corner. You go so far as to bring up information that was set straight several times in this thread alone. Even though they returned the money whose to say how it was presented to them and when. Was it presented as a means for T.U. to further their cold water conservation goals when the dirty, little secret was Hershey knew that if they took and kept the money they ccould use that as a pitch to help their cause.



toto said:


> To have our DNR state in a public article in October of 2010 that these new rules and regulations are not due to the fish being in trouble but rather is a social issue, smacks of hypocrisy to me.


I don't know that I would call this hypocrisy but I would agree to see your point a bit more if you mentioned fairness or something along those lines.



toto said:


> To know the TU has well paid lobbyist in Lansing and elsewhere smacks of hypocrisy to me as this tends to make them a political organization rather than a conservation organization.


Really? To many of us this is exactly why we belong to T.U. Without getting the ear of politicians many laws to protect the resources we need and love would not be in place and those who don't give a care about the water we need would have a field day destroying it.



toto said:


> To see where, and who TU gets their money from again, yep, smacks of hypocrisy.


How so? Am I missing something here? I thought the bulk of their money was from people who want their cold water resources protected and conserved.



toto said:


> I don't back down from these types of fights, I've done them before, and I will continue to do so, and I will always be on the side of what is right and wrong, and what is wrong here is the idea that those that have the resources can take from those that don't.


I do back down from these fights and I too have done them before. Even though I've been quite successful when I didn't back down from a fight, I now leave that up to the pro's who I donate to and communicate with. They are simply far more effective.
SOn your other point, such is the way of the world. I can name all sorts of places I can't fish because someone owns the property and limits access. Come down here where the power companies flood areas to create lakes to run their power dams and try wade fishing at any of the 'parks' they put up as a feel-good gesture to the public. It ain't fair but again, such is life in the big city.



toto said:


> The bottom line is I don't have a problem with TU, in fact, I would suggest they may be one of the better ones out there. There are several who are "fly fishing" groups and state as such; my problem with TU is they do so clandestinely. If they would stick to their original mission statement there would be no problems with TU, but they don't.


Is there an echo in here?


----------



## toto

Look jackster, I won't do the research for you, just suffice it to say that if you took the time to find the information, you would see exactly what I see. Secondly, I can tell you without a doubt that TU is much more than just a "coldwater habitat" restoration group. One thing I can absolutely assure you of, I won't post that information on here.

As for the leaves being dumped in the river in Grayling. Well let's think about that for a minute. 1) what was the purpose? The purpose would be to create an environment where trout have a better chance of survival, why do leaves matter, because they rot and create phosphorous which in turn creates a little food for the fishies. Now when you think about where the city of Grayling collected these leaves, which was they scooped them up all the sides of the streets, and then you consider the fact that these streets all have some sort of pollutants on them, that sounds pretty contrary to what these guys are supposedly all about. Remember the fight they had with the oil company on the AuSable? What was that fight about, yep, the fact that the effluents would create phosphorous, therefore weed growth therefore it couldn't be allowed. Which side are they really on??

Jack, you can sit here and defend them all you want, but the simple truth is these guys are hypocrites and only have one agenda in mind, and that's to take water from those that don't fly fish, period. That is why I will continue to fight this, and I predict the outcome won't be what TU wants. We'll see.


----------



## Ranger Ray

The issue is simple. There are those that wish to impose gear restrictions for philosophical reasons, nothing more. Our DNR has stated that, even many TU members have stated that. We are already past the biological argument, as there is none. Well except we keep being told there is a future biological argument that has yet to be completed. Funny how that works. Issues that are normally being done behind closed doors, should be pointed out to the masses, as most to this point have no clue such things are even being done and there implications. Those that are pushing the gear restrictions should also be pointed out. Yes BS is spread sometime as witnessed in Don's post where he showed the claim there was some great change in thinking at the DNR to be false. At least the issues are able to be presented for discussion and those that normally would never be informed of such issues, now are. They now must decipher the facts from fiction. Steve's great site is helping the masses be informed. Can't think of a better place than an open forum, for that discussion. As more learn, more will participate in that discussion. I bet we see an astronomical upswing in participation in 2015 on the next round of gear regulations. The majority of people will never post in these threads, but they will be informed if and when they decide to get involved. It was something like 16 people that decided for no kill on the PM. How ridiculous is that. 630,000 all species anglers and 16 people decided the fate for the no kill stretch. Preposterous! Democracy is a beautiful thing when not manipulated for the few by the few.


----------



## Shoeman

I'll take it one step further and elaborate on the restrictions within the National Park in the Smokey Mountains. 

No bait, no scented rubber, no Powerbait, single hook and from what I gathered C&R until April 1 (unless that was only within Gatlingburg limits)

So if these pristine waters warrant protection, why not the rest of the nation?

I find it somewhat confusing that here in Michigan some need to dig-in their heels and want to overturn laws concerning C&R, Hook restrictions and limited take?

The entire country lives within these rules to establish a great fishery. Just the concept of catching a trophy within these restricted waters is a distinct possibility seeing the rules might just allow that. 

That whole thing about "stupid trout and I don't want to catch him twice" just kills me! 

Hey, that trout might just be a dinner for some, but it may be the fish of a lifetime for others. 

I don't get it! That type of mindset will never fly among anyone with ANY common sense! 

I've always condoned open water for all, but let's keep certain watersheds for the possibility of a trophy fishery and restrict the take.

As for TU, I'm with Jackster! Locally (here in SE Mi) they're trying to make it happen, with some success, but in reality it's a movement, yet still an opportunity within an urban environment and that needs to be applauded!

Take these Urban Waters and add the mindset of Catch & Keep crowd we end up with nothing

No compromise on your end! No slots, no limited take, no Bait and or hook restrictions... Just a Free-for-all.... 

OK Good Luck. :lol:


----------



## Finno

This site really is great for gathering info on all of the political fishing topics, and I really appreciate all of the research and work put in by others that I am seemingly too lazy to do. Personally, I don't think that the gear regs pose a "great injustice" on anyone. after all, they are still fishable. I fly fish just about 100% of the time (flame away), and if my favorite streams were changed to bait only I'd be as unhappy as some of the others on this board. But, if i wanted to fish said streams I'd buy some worms and enjoy myself.

I've never had a bad experience trout fishing alongside anyone using different methods (salmon snaggers excluded*), and I don't see evidence pointing out fish mortality as being a reason to segregate flies and worms. It all seems like some people with money in the "boys club" got together and decided they didn't like those darn worm dunkers! I support TU for doing good things, but I might see it differently if they were trying to keep me off the good rivs.

What I like about this country is that if enough people spend enough time and energy theses laws and regulations can be changed.

I hope to see many of you bait guys on the rivers this year, and I'll even welcome the razzing you give me when you out catch me a zilly to one. Keep up the good fight and enjoy the upcoming season. Don't let the political BS ruin what you love.


----------



## Finno

Shoeman said:


> No bait, no scented rubber,


Goodbye bacon flavored condoms.


----------



## Steve

Id also add that in two of the restricted urban water I mentioned, all one needs to do is to take their spinning gear and tie on a Panther Martin and carry on if they wish. In my other example, it is a free for all after the last Saturday in April (Proud Lake). Hardly draconian IMHO.


----------



## Jackster1

toto said:


> Look jackster, I won't do the research for you


 or for yourself either it appears. 



toto said:


> I can tell you without a doubt that TU is much more than just a "coldwater habitat" restoration group. One thing I can absolutely assure you of, I won't post that information on here.


Just read my earlier post on the matter and take in what I said about TU. I can assure you without a doubt that this is no great secret that only Don knows. TU under the national level is indeed more than just a "coldwater habitat" restoration group but I fail to see the point in your bringing that up. Just read the dandy letter to the editor in Trout a few issues back where some member went on a flyer yelling about TU being a fly fishing club. I don't believe TU even posted that stupidity.



toto said:


> As for the leaves being dumped in the river in Grayling. Well let's think about that for a minute. 1) what was the purpose? The purpose would be to create an environment where trout have a better chance of survival, why do leaves matter, because they rot and create phosphorous which in turn creates a little food for the fishies. Now when you think about where the city of Grayling collected these leaves, which was they scooped them up all the sides of the streets, and then you consider the fact that these streets all have some sort of pollutants on them, that sounds pretty contrary to what these guys are supposedly all about.


I guess they could have left the leaves on the street. That would have done a great deal of good, right?
How about you think for a minute... the leaves weren't meant for food for the fishies directly. They were meant to be part of the biomass and were meant to be food and shelter for the insects that trout feed on as I stated in a previous post on this thread.
Rain and snow will put those same pollutants into the watershed. Maybe we should complain about the rain and rally to stop it.



toto said:


> Remember the fight they had with the oil company on the AuSable? What was that fight about, yep, the fact that the effluents would create phosphorous, therefore weed growth therefore it couldn't be allowed. Which side are they really on??


Have you always just picked up little morsals of an issue and brush aside the bigger picture?
Wasn't that OilCo vs. Ausable battle over much more than weed growth? If you honestly don't know the answer to that maybe you shouldn't bother bringing it up.




toto said:


> Jack, you can sit here and defend them all you want, but the simple truth is these guys are hypocrites and only have one agenda in mind, and that's to take water from those that don't fly fish, period. That is why I will continue to fight this, and I predict the outcome won't be what TU wants. We'll see.


Say WHAT? You are so wrong on this it's laughable. Did facts and reality not work effectively so you started making things up or took a tiny portion of what a few TU members or chapters did and blew it up into being the sole, resounding reason for their existance?

Keep it real Don, it works far better and adds to your credibility.

Someone else here said Anglers of the Ausable are the bad guys. I'm of a different mind than that because I appreciate the hard work they did to keep certain areas of the Ausable watershed as that old-time neighborly industrialist (from back when they thought of more than the next quick buck to make before the quarterly earnings statement came out) who donated it to us wished it to be. Bravo to the Anglers of the Ausable for all they've done to keep things decent for us, our kids and our grandkids to enjoy.


----------



## Shoeman

Just a dummy here Bill...

My point is that you guys have no leg to stand on. Biological reasons to keep any legal fish. Please...

Nothing outside of State legal limits negotiable? 5 fish a day, no more that 3 over whatever it is these days and dig in your heels.... 

I'm still harping about the Tropht Waters below Mio. It was restricted back in the 70's when I cut my teeth. We just lived with it and the experience was worth it, None of us used bait, we primarily fished spinners. The only restriction was based on the size. 

Yeeeah. We survived! :lol: That and lack of seat belts, metal dashboards and no airbags. 

So in essence you guys want to open all waters, allow bait and take every dumb fish out of the system? 

yeah, ok....


----------



## METTLEFISH

Let me straighten out your cunundrum kzoo. 

It would be WISE to only consider biological FACTS and only implement them in our fisheries.

It is not WISE to consider SOCIAL reasons in our fisheries, as biology is the ruling factor.


----------



## mcfish

toto said:


> Apparantly it's true, reading is comprehensive. I don't know of one guy who is advocated catch and keep everything, just another exageration perhaps??


That's my fault, toto. I figured everyone could figure out what I meant by the dunkin' society. 

To make it simple and easy, I was referring to the GLFSA. The game hog I was referring to is I'm guessing a member. At least he talks the talk here on this forum. 

And yes he advocates catch and keep everything, at least with his actions.


----------



## Shoeman

If it takes social science to keep any kind of decent fishery, there it is!

Like mentioned above Flies Only is wrong, but using artificials allows everyone to utilize the resource, unless you limit yourself to a cane pole. 

it seems like a perpetual joke to continually mention biological reasoning to rape the resource. 

Perhaps the leadership of your organization should have used a different approach a decade ago to plead your case. 

In most eyes you guys are just fish hoarders and could care less about anyone fishing behind you!


----------



## toto

I can see where you would get that, but you would be wrong, at least from my standpoint. Again, I can't answer for everyone on this issue, so I'll answer for me. The pro reg side has used about every excuse in the book to keep it this way, don't blame em, I would too if I were nervous. But the bottom line is this: Just TU, FFF, Anglers of the AuSable etal have done a lot of work on our streams DOES NOT give the exclusive rights to this water. Sure I could grab a fly rod or some spinners and fish in those waters, but that isn't the point either. 

The real point is a "takings" issue actually. This water belongs to everyone, and yet no one. This water and fish in them are for the people to utilize. Having size limits, or daily bag limits is a conservation ethos that makes sense to me, but again, it isn't about that either. What this is trully about is understanding just who's water is it, who pays for it, and who pays for the fish in them?? I can tell one thing for sure, it wasn't just the pro gear reg people. When you combine that logic, with statements from people within the Pere Marquette watershed council, then why wouldn't we get our hackles (pardon the pun) raised?? I fail to understand just how fly fishing, as an example, makes the experience of fishing in a cold stream more enjoyable than dunking a worm or live bait? 

Personally, after all the discussions on this board, the pro gear guys just don't seem to get it, and apparantly never will.


----------



## Shoeman

Perhaps it's Ray at the helm with his "stupid" fish comments

I'm all for open waters, but once someone mentions dumb 20"+ fish caught twice just goes to show the mindset of this movement, or whatever you call this joke!

The entire mindset is a joke... I'm done! Why even waste a brain cell on something a silly as you guys wanting to fill your freezers with trout? 

Oh boy, worms, crickets, waxies, minnows, Please!!!!! For trout? which are pretty stupid to begin with? 

Go fill your iceboxes and feel confident the Bio's will catch you guys before the resource is limited. That will be the day....


----------



## Ranger Ray

Shoeman said:


> In most eyes you guys are just fish hoarders and could care less about anyone fishing behind you!


Yeah that's us, fish hoarders. Here is one of our members. Maybe one of you fly fishing fish management experts can explain to Roger where his thinking is wrong.



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


----------



## Shoeman

Not to mention the litter left behind. Perhaps the motivation should be toward reducing the blue worm containers, not the guys trying to preserve the little fishery we have left!

Edducate the slobs, not us!


Want pictures? I'll get them to help your cause!


----------



## Splitshot

Ralf,

You keep making a lot of weak, imaginary arguments not substantiated with any reason, logic or science which makes it difficult for a reasonable person to respond to them. The mindless personal attacks against people who dont agree with your ideology arent furthering reasonable discourse either. 



mcfish said:


> You're not far off the mark, Shoeman.
> 
> I know one member of the dunkin' society that fishes the Pine and he takes so many fish over the course of a season that it's sickening.
> 
> Game hog doesn't even come close to describing it/him.


Is this just an as hominem attack in an attempt to disparage people you dont agree with or are you willing to explain first hand facts to back up your statements?

Explain what the dunkin society is , who this person is, how many fish he has taken and give us your definition of what a game hog is.


----------



## Shoeman

Nothing ficticuous here, just what you represent! An ugly way for trout fishermen to attract a certain subset to feed your needs. I guess you found a following of......


----------



## toto

Come on Ray, you know the answer to the last question, a game hog is someone who wants to keep a fish, must be anyone other than the TU, FFF, Anglers of the Ausable, etc. I fail to understand just when it was that trout were put up higher on the food chain than a human. Next thing ya know, these guys will be looking to outlaw commercial fisherman, they kill every perch, chub, or any other fish that is sold at market, after all that's totally against their credo, so I would expect that.


----------



## mcfish

Splitshot said:


> Is this just an as hominem attack in an attempt to disparage people you dont agree with or are you willing to explain first hand facts to back up your statements?
> 
> Explain what the dunkin society is , who this person is, how many fish he has taken and give us your definition of what a game hog is.


Dunkin' society is my way of saying glfsa. 

No I won't out the person.

Don't know how many fish he has taken. Only that he keeps way more than any thoughtful person should. 

A game hog in my opinion is someone who is a good fisherman and gets to fish often and feels that every legal fish should be made into dinner.

I love to eat fish. I enjoy a pan fried trout as much as the next person. But trout aren't bluegills, walleye or crappie in my opinion. I consider them to be special. I'm a sap that way.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Toto, what's worse is all the information the anti's are aquiring from all these studies. If fishing is indeed bilologically harming to these fish shouldn't ALL angling for them stop?.


----------



## mcfish

toto said:


> Come on Ray, you know the answer to the last question, a game hog is someone who wants to keep a fish, must be anyone other than the TU, FFF, Anglers of the Ausable, etc. I fail to understand just when it was that trout were put up higher on the food chain than a human. Next thing ya know, these guys will be looking to outlaw commercial fisherman, they kill every perch, chub, or any other fish that is sold at market, after all that's totally against their credo, so I would expect that.


 
This is quite honestly the dumbest post I have ever seen on this board.


----------



## broncbuster2

Shoeman said:


> I know it is and many feel it's an entitlement to take every fish within regulations. Yet whenever slots, limited take or artificials only comes up, guys like Broncbuster, Toto, Ray and the rest of the gang Come in and want no part of it. It's all or nothing for those guys. Screw the casual fisherman that may reel in a trophy that has been released twice.
> 
> With our reduced stocking program C&R should be increased if anything, not reduced in the face of some legal mumbo jumbo because you want to use worms... Come on... bait? Please
> 
> I was on board about the Flies Only stuff. That's just plain wrong! But once it went beyond the flies issue and the reluctance of any type of restriction, you might as well fish for Catfish.
> 
> You guys are just as selfish as the advocates. Artificials only isn't enough? :lol:
> About as dumb as it gets.... :help:



You call US selfish Ralf?
I believe YOU are the one to post everytime...Save my trophy fish...you may take it if you use bait....Quite frankly sir you just disgust me... 
In another post you stated something like...Whatever, my freezer is full...
you have another agenda, where you are the only one that enjoy's fishing...
I have only taken 2 count that one....two... LIMITS ever in my life.I don't care about your trophy fish...
Now cut me down all you like because people will see what you really stand for and how you are..
I will fight these restrictions with all the resources I have, and trust me...I have a lot more then what we are working on right now..
You say things about ray being the leader...You are killin me how really naive YOU are.


Jerry


----------



## toto

You may select it as the dumbest post ever, but you need to think about something. If TU reveres fish so much, and they are holier than thou, why wouldn't they think this way, over the top, maybe, but no more so than shoemans rhetoric.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Interesting



> From the ancient and feudal laws, the American case law of the 1800&#8217;s, and many cases that have followed, the Public Trust Doctrine rests on these three principles (from Horner, 2001):
> 
> · Wildlife can be owned by no individual but is held by the state in trust for all the people
> 
> · As trustee, the state has no power to delegate its trust duties and no freedom to transfer trust ownership or management of assets to private concerns
> 
> · The state has the affirmative duty to fulfill trust responsibilities &#8211; i.e. it cannot sit by idly while trust resources are depleted or wasted.


So if the following is true:



Kzoo said:


> I have no doubt that your philosophy of "wise, sustainable use" would not destroy the fishery on any given river. That's why so many rivers have regulations that meet with your approval. I also have no doubt that TU's philosophy would not destroy any given river, either.


Would not managing for nothing more than a social no kill philosophy be a waste of resources?


----------



## mondrella

mcfish said:


> Dunkin' society is my way of saying glfsa.
> 
> No I won't out the person.
> 
> Don't know how many fish he has taken. Only that he keeps way more than any thoughtful person should.
> 
> A game hog in my opinion is someone who is a good fisherman and gets to fish often and feels that every legal fish should be made into dinner.
> 
> I love to eat fish. I enjoy a pan fried trout as much as the next person. But trout aren't bluegills, walleye or crappie in my opinion. I consider them to be special. I'm a sap that way.


So I take it this person is not breaking any law? This is just your personal belief. Yet our biologist have a legal daily take of 5 trout 10 in possession. With these rules in place the studies and models they have done say this is a safe number to protect the resource. In fact I have heard with my own ears talking to these individuals that a 10 fish limit would still be safe due to the natural mortality of trout in our streams. It just shows how little you have educated yourself. You have THE best biologist in the country on your payroll yet you fail to look at what they have put forth. They recommended not to extend the gear restricted water on the pm yet it took place. Why have them on the payroll if we don't listen to them.
As for you calling someone a game hog is insinuating that they are a poacher. You personally attack a individual on a public forum yet do not have the backbone to call this individual out causes me to come to the opinion that you are either a liar or nothing more than a backstabbing lowlife who has to tear others down to make themselves feel good about them self. Sad really sad


----------



## METTLEFISH

All this talk of the P.T.D. and Natural Resources. By the definition of Natural Resource is it even legal for the DNR to utilize funds for non-Natives?


----------



## kzoofisher

Toto,



> Just TU, FFF, Anglers of the AuSable etal have done a lot of work on our streams DOES NOT give the exclusive rights to this water.


 Who, besides you and your compatriots on this board says it gives them exclusive rights? Oh wait, in the sentence after that one you admit that it doesn't give them exclusive rights but that's not the point!? You also asked in another post if TU does any work on non-GR rivers, yes they do and lots of it. The Rifle stands out as a stream that has had temp studies, habitat improvements etc. How about the Au Sable and its branches? Plenty of non-GR water there getting work. SW Mi streams? Quite a few of them. Is anyone saying the GLFSA has no standing because it has done almost nothing for any river anywhere? I don't think so and in the same vein no one is saying TU has greater standing because of all the work they do. When you post stuff you haven't looked into, do you just assume it must be true? When you just make stuff up, have you convinced yourself it must be true? TU thinks it has exclusive rights to waters? Try supporting that with something besides how you _feel_ about it. Then you and your brothers make and respond to ad hominem attacks while complaining about the attacks without a hint of irony.
It's not a "takings" issue because no one is having anything taken away from them. They can still fish so long as they do it legally. The GLFSA talks a good game about supporting all sportsmen but where were you guys when the musky fisherman were having there season shortened to one fish for social reasons? I asked about your stand before it happened and as far as I know you never took one. Is it that because musky fisherman aren't sportsmen or because you don't care for their style of fishing?

Agenda 21. Yes, I've heard of it and all he complaints I've heard have been nonsense, based on "facts" that don't exist. I'm sorry to hear that you've been fooled by that hooey and it once again makes me question what sort of research you do on anything.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger,


> Would not managing for nothing more than a social no kill philosophy be a waste of resources?


 You have a talent for taking the most extreme possible view and acting like it is most probable. However, let's look at your scenario objectively. It pre-supposes that the no-kill philosophy has been found to be the wisest use of the resources so no, it wouldn't be a waste. It would be the best use society sees for the resource. If the opposite were found, that keeping every fish until the limit were reached was the wisest use, then hat would be the regulation. Neither one of these is a realistic outcome so neither case is much worth arguing except as an ad hoc.


----------



## Shoeman

broncbuster2 said:


> You call US selfish Ralf?
> I believe YOU are the one to post everytime...Save my trophy fish...you may take it if you use bait....Quite frankly sir you just disgust me...
> In another post you stated something like...Whatever, my freezer is full...
> you have another agenda, where you are the only one that enjoy's fishing...
> I have only taken 2 count that one....two... LIMITS ever in my life.I don't care about your trophy fish...
> Now cut me down all you like because people will see what you really stand for and how you are..
> I will fight these restrictions with all the resources I have, and trust me...I have a lot more then what we are working on right now..
> You say things about ray being the leader...You are killin me how really naive YOU are.
> 
> 
> Jerry


One can enjoy the resource without raping it. I might be naive, even been called stupid once or twice, but you guys are like a bunch of kids "I wanna use bait, I wanna use bait"... :gaga:

I know you don't care about trophies, limits whatever, but yet you're speaking for those that do. Mostly because you have to catch them first.

All that Top of the Mountain talk just turns my stomach. Disgusting at best. Go find some carp or something. There's plenty of fish out there used as a food source (and I'll include myself for eating walleyes, panfish) and even then I prefer using artificials if at all possible. 

To resort to using bait for trout and preaching the right to do so is so 3rd grade. Kids fish with bait... And kill many of them trying to get the hook out

No money to buy some 5 and 7 Rapalas, or 5 Panther Martins? Like I said above, I was on board against Flies Only, but this recent Free-for-All on trout is just sickening. No restrictions, no slots, no nothing.... 

I used to fish like that and then my Dad got a job!
I'm done with stupid argument. Go take that biological crap and.....


----------



## METTLEFISH

Shoeman... what's wrong with using bait? Your acting like the typical fly snob that believes his beliefs are the the only way to fish. The people that are truly suffering from these Regs. are the kids. That's sick! 


tro·phy 
/&#712;tr&#333;f&#275;/ 

Noun

A cup or other decorative object awarded as a prize for a victory or success.
A souvenir of an achievement, esp. a part of an animal taken when hunting.
Synonyms
prize - spoil - booty


----------



## toto

Kzoo, my question on what other streams does TU work on was an honest question, I really didn't know the anwer to, I wasn't saying they don't do it other than flies only waters, I really didn't know the answer so thanks for pointing that out.

As for agenda 21, if you read on what some of rules of this program are, and correlate that with some of the ideals of the DNR, there appears to be a parellel, just sayin.


----------



## Shoeman

METTLEFISH said:


> Shoeman... what's wrong with using bait? Your acting like the typical fly snob that believes his beliefs are the the only way to fish. The people that are truly suffering from these Regs. are the kids. That's sick!
> 
> 
> tro·phy
> /&#712;tr&#333;f&#275;/
> 
> Noun
> 
> A cup or other decorative object awarded as a prize for a victory or success.
> A souvenir of an achievement, esp. a part of an animal taken when hunting.
> Synonyms
> prize - spoil - booty


yeah, 60-70 year old kids. :lol:

I'm done!


----------



## -Axiom-

I fail to see what is so special about brown trout that some see it as a sin to eat them.

Why is it ok or even encouraged to take limits of panfish & walleyes but the brown trout are sacred?

Most of these trout worshippers don't seem to have a problem with killing and eating brook trout, why is that?
Brookies are native and a much prettier fish.

What is it about the brown trout that live in rivers?
It seems to be ok to catch them in a lake and eat them, why are they special when they are in a river or creek?

In the last couple yr the DNR has planted around 100k brown trout between US131 & Harvey bridge on the Manistee river.
This water is too warm in the summer for trout why did they plant so many in this stretch if they weren't intended to be caught & kept?

I was a member of TU for over 20 yrs, until it became painfully obvious that they actively work against my interests.
They are just a bunch of feel good liberals in my book.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Shoeman said:


> yeah, 60-70 year old kids. :lol:
> 
> I'm done!


Shoe, I'm pleased that you agree that those pushing these regualtions down others throats are acting like children.

How sick is it to keep kids off of these waters!.....


----------



## toto

I think it's fairly apparant that there is some confusion as to where we stand. This has nothing to do with keeping a butt load of trout, we don't have a problem with a 5 fish limit, at least that makes some sense. 

What we have a problem with is the fact that these gear restricted waters are just that, restricted. The simple fact is, they are restricted for an emotional reason, and not a conservation measure, and that has been stated by the likes of Jim Dexter. If you look at an article in MLive from October 09, you will see Dexter states exactly that.

Also, in Dexter's own words, 30% to 70% of the trout die in a system due to natural causes and has nothing to do with mortality from fishing. Therefore it would stand to reason, and common sense, that taking a few fish will not harm the fishery, and that was also stated by the biologists of the DNR. No where has anyone ever stated that we are looking to take home 50 fish stringers, we are just advocating access to fish the way we prefer. Why is it it can't be understood that we can have the same amount of enjoyment fishing with bait as you do fishing without bait. In fact, I would bet a lot of guys on the side of bait fishing, also do a fair amount of fishing with spinners, and some even fly fish occasionally. This isn't about which method you prefer, it's about locking out of fishermen/women who just want a day on the river to enjoy the surroundings, catch a few fish and enjoy what nature offers.

What seperates is the fictional thought that trout are something they are not. They are not something to be worshipped, as another form of a God, they are a fish, not that they shouldn't be respected, we all do, even the bait fisher, but to elevate them to some mythical stature just isn't natural. We are not India here, where they worship cows, we are the United States, where people have the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't mean we can do things to others that make us happy, but the fact that we should be able to enjoy things that are available to us, in this case being able to fish. Don't infuse using dynamite, or spears or whatever, that isn't sensible, and just diffuses the debate. I know a lot of you don't like to hear about laws, old or new, but they are there, and they are valid.

We have talked about the PTD, and we also know that TU is aware of it also, at least now they are. But as a side bar to that is the Northwest Ordinance which is one of the 4 organic laws of the United States, thought of just as highly as the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution. The history of this document needs to be understood, especially article 4 of that document. This portion of the document is so important it was used to finally bring an end to the debate of native americans and their rights to fish.

All we are saying is, you might be surprised to know that many of us from GLFSA are just as concerned about the environment as the fly guys, we don't like to see blue containers any more than you do, and I trully feel that the ones I know from this group feel the same, and will usually pick this stuff up, and dispose of it. Are there people out there that don't care and just leave it laying around, certainly, but I don't think lumping us in with that mentality is true, and isn't fair. Just as a woman said, she is scared to go the the PM during salmon time as she is afraid she may get raped, or the swearing, I can understand the part about the swearing, she doesn't deserve to hear that stuff, but to believe she will get raped, a little over the top in my mind. I'm not saying there isn't riff raff that comes out during salmon time, in fact, I can remember posts from a few years ago from 1000 casts about Clem and Cletus. We all laughed, but we also knew there was a bit of truth to it as well, but again, to lump us in with that mentality isn't fair, and serves no purpose in solving this dilemma.

Hopefully this post makes sense, and can be an appeal to look at the situation with an open mind and understand, we aren't about raping the resource.


----------



## broncbuster2

Shoeman said:


> One can enjoy the resource without raping it. I might be naive, even been called stupid once or twice, but you guys are like a bunch of kids "I wanna use bait, I wanna use bait"... :gaga:
> 
> I know you don't care about trophies, limits whatever, but yet you're speaking for those that do. Mostly because you have to catch them first.
> 
> All that Top of the Mountain talk just turns my stomach. Disgusting at best. Go find some carp or something. There's plenty of fish out there used as a food source (and I'll include myself for eating walleyes, panfish) and even then I prefer using artificials if at all possible.
> 
> To resort to using bait for trout and preaching the right to do so is so 3rd grade. Kids fish with bait... And kill many of them trying to get the hook out
> 
> No money to buy some 5 and 7 Rapalas, or 5 Panther Martins? Like I said above, I was on board against Flies Only, but this recent Free-for-All on trout is just sickening. No restrictions, no slots, no nothing....
> 
> I used to fish like that and then my Dad got a job!
> I'm done with stupid argument. Go take that biological crap and.....


You change your tune when challenged back...What's up with that?
You can fish the way you want to and I want to fish the way I like,Just because I do it different than you you go on a rant talkin that I am the Devil or something for using bait. 
A trout isn't anything special, Just a stupid fish to me
I see where you say you are done with this argument... so get out of it, 
Maybe you should go burn another one...I am finished with YOU.:lol:


----------



## Benzie Rover

Robert Holmes said:


> Wow! What a battle!! It makes me happy that you are a voice for unrestricting the restricted waters in Michigan. In my area there are no restricted waters, however, some prime waters are surrounded by very large hunting resort encampments. In my opinion this is equally as bad, making them unfishable for the public. I do fish on one of the rivers and will continue to do so. I do not care if I am ticketed as I consider the river a public river and can provide proof of such in court.


This is a suprising statement, assuming you're talking about walking over private land to fish a stream. So if I pay taxes to own private river frontage and can afford to own both sides of the river, you should still be able to access the river through my property? Now I am NOT a property rights fanatic at all, but this seems pretty dang solicialist to me. Of course if you're just talking about wading, well that's obviously a whole different issue, but I assumed you were aware that wading is a public access right.


----------



## toto

So, Mr. Holmes, let me get this straight. You say that if someone owns both sides of the river, even if navigable, you may not fish it?? Don't know how to tell you this, but you are missing out some good fishing. As long you accessed said river legally, there is no problem fishing said stretch of river. You may not walk at that property above the high water mark, and you may even walk on property above that mark, IF you are avoiding a hazard. Let me know where this stretch of river is, sounds like a good place to fish to me.


----------



## DReihl9896

Benzie Rover said:


> This is a suprising statement. So if I pay taxes to own private river frontage and can afford to own both sides of the river, you should still be able to fish that stretch????? Now I am NOT a property rights fanatic at all, but this seems pretty dang solicialist to me!!!


Here is where that comes from as far as Michigan is concerned. Navigable waterways are held in the public trust and therefor when you buy land on both sides of a navigable waterway, the waterway does not go with it (Like purchasing land on both sides of a road does not grant ownership of the road). Now, as for what constitutes a public waterway and what doesn't, that is a little ambiguous. 



> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf
> The question is often asked: How did the State of Michigan acquire the duty to hold the
> soil beneath navigable waters in trust for public use? Virginia ceded the Northwest
> Territory to the Federal Government. Michigan, which was carved from this territory, took
> title to the submerged lands limited to the grant by Virginia and the Ordinance of 1787.
> This ordinance, being one of the laws of the Northwest Territory, and still of binding force
> in Michigan, provided that "[t]he navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and the
> Saint Lawrence, and the carrying places between, shall be common highways, and
> forever free, . . . without any tax, impost, or duty therefor." Art. IV Northwest Ordinance
> 1787. Therefore, Michigan, upon admission to the Union, took title burdened with the
> aforesaid public trust.
> Michigan, either by legislative enactment or judicial decision, could in turn, surrender title
> to its submerged lands. The State, by judicial fiat in the case of Lorman v Benson, 8
> Mich. 18 (1860), retained title to the bed of the Great Lakes, but surrendered title of the
> submerged soil of inland navigable waters to riparian owners. However, this transfer of
> title could not unburden such submerged land from the public right of navigation, fishing,
> and related uses as the State of Michigan could not convey to a private individual more
> rights than it originally took. It is significant that the title, which the state took to all
> navigable waters, was burdened with the common law trust for the benefit of the public.


----------



## mondrella

Benzie Rover said:


> This is a suprising statement. So if I pay taxes to own private river frontage and can afford to own both sides of the river, you should still be able to fish that stretch????? Now I am NOT a property rights fanatic at all, but this seems pretty dang solicialist to me!!!


Yes this has been the law of this land since its founding. It was put in place to see that game of this country remained in possession of the game and not individuals like in the mother country.


----------



## wintrrun

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> I'm done with this website.
> 
> I don't need to make a bombastic post to be banned. This section of the website just shows that the vast majority of people who frequent this site are pure consumers.
> 
> My outdoor pursuits are coldwater gamefish, saltwater fly angling and bass with a fly rod. This clearly is not a website for me.
> 
> A sportsman has a respect for the game he is seeking. The mentality in this thread makes it clear that most of you view trout as little more than morels to be picked and plucked when available.
> 
> There is zero reverance for trout as gamefish by essentially all but a few who post in here.
> 
> There is zero respect for the concept of conservation.
> 
> Tight stringer lines to you. Time for me to finally buy that Trout Unlimited Life Membership because I know what it takes to preserve both the resource AND stream access.
> 
> This website used to be enjoyable. Now it's something much different. Congratulations. You chased away Whit1 (a much better fisherman than myself) and me as well.


Buh-Bye, pumpkin.
Maybe you can find a site where your unprofessional views and opinions will be met and welcomed with open arms.
I am thinking trophy wife flyfishers or possibly the arayan brotherhood of the long rod might be on top of that list. :beer:


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

broncbuster2 said:


> You change your tune when challenged back...What's up with that?
> You can fish the way you want to and I want to fish the way I like,Just because I do it different than you you go on a rant talkin that I am the Devil or something for using bait.
> A trout isn't anything special, Just a stupid fish to me
> I see where you say you are done with this argument... so get out of it,
> Maybe you should go burn another one...I am finished with YOU.:lol:


If you think that a trout is "just a stupid fish", why even bother going fishing for trout?

I think religion is largely a human fabrication. However, I see the divinity in trout. There is more beauty and truth in the colors of a spawning male brook trout than in the entire Bible to me.

The fact that you can catch them off the surface and that a foot long brook trout will put a bend in a 2 ounce fly rod is one of life's great pleasures to me and many of the thousands of people who belong to Trout Unlimited.

Trout are not "just stupid fish" and in my opinion they warrant protection from those whose only use for them is in a frying pan.


----------



## itchn2fish

Darn good thread. Thanks for starting it, Ray.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

wintrrun said:


> Buh-Bye, pumpkin.
> Maybe you can find a site where your unprofessional views and opinions will be met and welcomed with open arms.
> I am thinking trophy wife flyfishers or possibly the arayan brotherhood of the long rod might be on top of that list. :beer:
> 
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Actually, a fellow member who I greatly respect asked me not to leave the site.

So I deleted that post.

Why do I fly fish? Because it is more sporting.

Why do I throw trout back? Because I know that trout ARE special.

"aryan brotherhood of the long rod"...Yes, because the only concepts that the not very astute can use to convey their whining ideas of repression are socialism and Nazi fascism. 

Flies only regulations are not like having the SS storm into your home in the middle of the night and throw you and your non Aryan family members onto a box car for execution out of principles of "Aryan superiority." How you could compare "flies only" to the concept of the "Aryan superiority" is astounding and sad that you would attempt such a comparison. Your words compare the most monstrous treatment of humanity in the 20th Century; the Holocaust spurred by "Aryan superiority" to the idea of "flies only"...What a demented view of human history you have expressed.

That delusional sense of persecution expressed in here because there are very few waters set aside for flies only shows just how massively out of scale the victim card is being played by you poor, poor suffering bait fishermen who can't learn how to fly fish and who can't restrain yourselves from killing trout. No, gear restrictions are NOT like Nazi repression unless you have a massively inflated victim card that you are seeking to play.

I see you are from Honor. The Platte should be single hook only and catch & release only. Hopefully my TU contributions can make that happen.


----------



## broncbuster2

thats my feelings and GOODBYE


----------



## Shoeman

itchn2fish said:


> Darn good thread. Thanks for starting it, Ray.


For the eighteenth time..... :lol:

I find it funny that only 3 of us can make you look like sand box children. Yes, it was me that talked Paul into staying. 

Sure didn't want to make another post after putting Bronc on my ignore list, but I owe it to Paul.

Quite funny that within the popularity of the site all the comments are being read and many of you are shooting yourselves in the foot with your comments. One of the reasons I urged Paul to reverse his decision. 

2-3 of us seem to do great job in whatever you got going... 

(I really wanna do the "bait, bait, bait thing", but won't


----------



## broncbuster2

Yup 2 to 3 of ya do nothing but show others how right we are.
Keep on going 
I am sooooo sorry that the truth bothers you so much


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Ralf,

Thank you for reminding me that a few other members on here understand that trout and steelhead should receive a higher level of protection than more easily sustained fish like bass or walleye.

I mentioned to Ralf that I fished Berrien Springs Dam for the 1st time this weekend.

I was the only one fishing with a fly rod and it wasn't very crowded at all. I was swinging big attractor patterns knowing that the fish would likely just be feisty and not necessarily hungry. The spawn guys had no bites.

I hooked two fish. One was a big fish that threw the hook. A very nice guy fishing spawn tried to net my big fish. "That's what fishing should be" I thought. I pointed where I thought the fish were holed up and he gave that spot a try.

I don't know much about the St. Joe but I do get the sense that it is too warm for natural reproduction. 

I thought why doesn't the State draw a line; like at M46 north and hold that those waters are catch and release only until teh opening day of trout season. Why not give the steelhead a chance to actually spawn? 

Why can't there be no kill restriction slot limits on cold water streams like the Little and the Platte to try and enhance natural reproduction.

You guys don't really have a good answer about that other than "they're just trout."

There is nothing finer than enticing a fish to bite on the surface and if Michigan tried to develop a trophy, wild fish fishery, it would be great for tourism.

But it's more important to catch the 15" trout with power bait...


----------



## Ranger Ray

This buds for you men of quitting before not quitting after quitting!


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Ranger Ray said:


> This buds for you men of quitting before not quitting after quitting!


Oh, I haven't asked to renew my advertising on the site which did make a good return on the money spent nor have I re-upped for the $24 sponsoring membership.

Too many "sportsmen" in here who mainly find sport in seeking to have those with whom they disagree banned. 

You guys ran off a top notch member in Whit. The site is a poorer place for his absence.


----------



## wintrrun

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Actually, a fellow member who I greatly respect asked me not to leave the site.
> 
> So I deleted that post.
> 
> Why do I fly fish? Because it is more sporting.
> 
> Why do I throw trout back? Because I know that trout ARE special.
> 
> "aryan brotherhood of the long rod"...Yes, because the only concepts that the not very astute can use to convey their whining ideas of repression are socialism and Nazi fascism.
> 
> Flies only regulations are not like having the SS storm into your home in the middle of the night and throw you and your non Aryan family members onto a box car for execution out of principles of "Aryan superiority." How you could compare "flies only" to the concept of the "Aryan superiority" is astounding and sad that you would attempt such a comparison. Your words compare the most monstrous treatment of humanity in the 20th Century; the Holocaust spurred by "Aryan superiority" to the idea of "flies only"...What a demented view of human history you have expressed.
> 
> That delusional sense of persecution expressed in here because there are very few waters set aside for flies only shows just how massively out of scale the victim card is being played by you poor, poor suffering bait fishermen who can't learn how to fly fish and who can't restrain yourselves from killing trout. No, gear restrictions are NOT like Nazi repression unless you have a massively inflated victim card that you are seeking to play.
> 
> I see you are from Honor. The Platte should be single hook only and catch & release only. Hopefully my TU contributions can make that happen.


I don't care about your resume oh yeah and i'll be honest from your posts it's all about what you want, not what you need.


The Platte is a single hook unweighted river. Has been for along time. 
As for catch and release, when the professionals ( the biologists we pay to protect our resource ) say it's time for that step to be taken then I will be right there backing them.
Not because some guy who might fish it from time to time thinks it would be best for the Platte. 
Oh btw I don't keep trout on the Platte or alot of rivers and streams here in Michigan.
It's my personal choice even knowing full well I can. 
I don't expect people to see my vision of trout utopia or what I feel is acceptable practices on rivers and streams.What I want is meaningless when all I need is a river to fish.



posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## troutguy26

What is going on in here? 

Just because we disagree doesnt mean we have to drive people away from this site. 

Hell i disagree with alot of what OH YEAH says but it still doesnt mean i would never fish with the guy (fly rods of course) and probably have a good time doing it. Why? Because we both share a passion for trout fishing just like the rest of you. 

I think these debates are good sources of information for people who are not exposed/involved in these issues but when they get all personal each side looks like an idiot no matter what rod you got in your hand.


----------



## diztortion

I don't see why there needs to be lines drawn in the sand.


----------



## mondrella

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Ralf,
> 
> Thank you for reminding me that a few other members on here understand that trout and steelhead should receive a higher level of protection than more easily sustained fish like bass or walleye.
> 
> I mentioned to Ralf that I fished Berrien Springs Dam for the 1st time this weekend.
> 
> I was the only one fishing with a fly rod and it wasn't very crowded at all. I was swinging big attractor patterns knowing that the fish would likely just be feisty and not necessarily hungry. The spawn guys had no bites.
> 
> I hooked two fish. One was a big fish that threw the hook. A very nice guy fishing spawn tried to net my big fish. "That's what fishing should be" I thought. I pointed where I thought the fish were holed up and he gave that spot a try.
> 
> I don't know much about the St. Joe but I do get the sense that it is too warm for natural reproduction.
> 
> I thought why doesn't the State draw a line; like at M46 north and hold that those waters are catch and release only until teh opening day of trout season. Why not give the steelhead a chance to actually spawn?
> 
> Why can't there be no kill restriction slot limits on cold water streams like the Little and the Platte to try and enhance natural reproduction.
> 
> You guys don't really have a good answer about that other than "they're just trout."
> 
> There is nothing finer than enticing a fish to bite on the surface and if Michigan tried to develop a trophy, wild fish fishery, it would be great for tourism.
> 
> But it's more important to catch the 15" trout with power bait...


I enjoy trout fishing more than most people. To me there is nothing better than hooking into a big trout. I do flyfish when it is the way to fish. I however respect trout for what they are. Every fish is special to me. In fact last Friday I went sucker fishing. Why they are a beautiful fish put a bend in the rod and to catch them does take some skill believe it or not. Bluegills are just as special to me as trout. What makes a trout more special than a bluegill? Both fish seem to have close to the same life expectancy in Michigan waters. Walleyes live longer on average. I hear all the time about needing these regs to protect or create big trout. The fact is they are not needed to do this. There are lots of trophy size trout in Michigan. Most people do not think out of the box to catch them with any consistency. I do just fine. I fish artificial be it flies or hardware 95% of the time. This kind of thinking that you and Ralph are using is outdated. Times have changed yet. You hold on to the past and unwilling to educate yourself and grow.


----------



## llpof

Not that anyone here would take advice from someone whose name is short-hand for liar, liar, pants on fire; but what you have here is your classic deontological argument. Probably someone like a lawyer could give you the Latin translation of the root word.

The long and short of deontological argument is that ones deeply held beliefs come from an external source that the belief holder holds to be beyond reproach, thus there is no question in their minds, that their arguments are true and right and just.

Other examples include abortion, capital punishment, and jihad.

Luckily, what we do know about deontological arguments is that there is only one way to win one. That is to kill your opponent. Some might say that reasonable people can disagree; and the endless lobbying of government to force others to live under your rule is an acceptable alternative.

Not me. Not for these trout. Hand out the guns.


----------



## Ranger Ray

llpof said:


> Not that anyone here would take advice from someone whose name is short-hand for liar, liar, pants on fire; but what you have here is your classic deontological argument. Probably someone like a lawyer could give you the Latin translation of the root word.
> 
> The long and short of deontological argument is that ones deeply held beliefs come from an external source that the belief holder holds to be beyond reproach, thus there is no question in their minds, that their arguments are true and right and just.
> 
> Other examples include abortion, capital punishment, and jihad.
> 
> Luckily, what we do know about deontological arguments is that there is only one way to win one. That is to kill your opponent. Some might say that reasonable people can disagree; and the endless lobbying of government to force others to live under your rule is an acceptable alternative.
> 
> Not me. Not for these trout. Hand out the guns.


:lol:

How about we leave it up to the biologists? Its obvious where this "social management" will lead us.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Yo OH-YEAH... What is a Trout if not a dumb fish? Why did our forefathers bring them here? Why does you apparently having difficulty catching them make them mythical?

From where I stand, if you not building your own Bamboo rods, wood reels, braiding your own Horsehair line, and carving hooks from bone you're a poser. 

You're far from what the Art was or stands for. It was a method of presenting a bait so one could capture a meal. It evolved to a sport that some revere without feeling the need to oppress others that may hold different views.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

METTLEFISH said:


> Yo OH-YEAH... What is a Trout if not a dumb fish? Why did our forefathers bring them here? Why does you apparently having difficulty catching them make them mythical?
> 
> From where I stand, if you not building your own Bamboo rods, wood reels, braiding your own Horsehair line, and carving hooks from bone you're a poser.
> 
> You're far from what the Art was or stands for. It was a method of presenting a bait so one could capture a meal. It evolved to a sport that some revere without feeling the need to oppress others that may hold different views.


Mettlefish, if you think having to fish with a single hook unweighted lure is "oppression", then you have a very shallow understanding of "oppression."

Anyone can fish the flies only with spinning gear.

The regs also allow you to do it 365 days a year as long as you throw the fish back.


----------



## Ranger Ray

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Anyone can fish the flies only with spinning gear.


This is right up there on the stupid argument list as the "its only 1% of the rivers."


----------



## METTLEFISH

OH-YEAH..... UMMMM where did I say that? You forgot to answer my questions... including my question a few weeks ago as to why you felt that Char in your picture had genetically superior genes...

Oh yeah... OH-YEAH!!!... ummmm I hate to be the one to tell you this...however Brook Trout are not Trout.


----------



## kzoofisher

llpof,

You make a very interesting point. Those who have a deontological view of ethics or morals also tend to be very *either or* in their thinking, with no gray areas and no tolerance for subjectivism. This can create tunnel vision and a failure to recognize or accept any evidence that runs contrary to their immutable *laws*. Certainly describes a few posters around here.

And because I can't stop myself from nit-picking, the root is Greek. If my Dad heard you say it was Latin he would have lectured you for an hour.


----------



## toto

It amazes me that we can't just for once have a calm and rational discussion of how to solve a problem.

Great, Ralf talked you into staying, I wonder if he would do that for someone who disagrees with him, hey, I know Ralf has been trying to get me banned for years, if he does he does. As for Whit, I won't pretend to speak for whit, but he got sick of the constant bickering, not just on this issue either, but overall. 

As for this "great" debate, it's become painfully obvious that this is an emotional issue for some, and a legal issue for others. At this point in time, I cannot see myself changing my position, but this isn't about emotion to me, this is about what is right and wrong, or legal and illegal, depending on what you read.

My problem is, our side has presented piles of evidence to back our claims, but yet the pro side, has been presented nothing, but emotions. It sorta surprises me too, with the legal resources at hand with you OY, you haven't presented one thing to tell us we are wrong. I have mounds of information to prove our point, buy you can't present even one?? That proves to me that it is only an emotional thing to your side. I have reems of more information at my disposal as well, and when the time comes I'll use it, but there isn't any point in doing so until the next step is reached.

The bottom line here is, we are at a point in this debate that one side is using legal stuff, and the other is using emotion, unless we can get to where both sides are using one or the other, this will continue to go in an ugly direction. So, either both sides debate from a legal position, or both sides debate from the emotional side, until that can happen, we get no where except hurt feelings, and guys getting banned, and that is just ridiculous.


----------



## itchn2fish

Shoeman said:


> I find it funny that only 3 of us can make you look like sand box children.


But the cat instead chooses to cover-up the turds...........


----------



## troutguy26

toto said:


> It amazes me that we can't just for once have a calm and rational discussion of how to solve a problem.
> 
> Great, Ralf talked you into staying, I wonder if he would do that for someone who disagrees with him, hey, I know Ralf has been trying to get me banned for years, if he does he does. As for Whit, I won't pretend to speak for whit, but he got sick of the constant bickering, not just on this issue either, but overall.
> 
> As for this "great" debate, it's become painfully obvious that this is an emotional issue for some, and a legal issue for others. At this point in time, I cannot see myself changing my position, but this isn't about emotion to me, this is about what is right and wrong, or legal and illegal, depending on what you read.
> 
> My problem is, our side has presented piles of evidence to back our claims, but yet the pro side, has been presented nothing, but emotions. It sorta surprises me too, with the legal resources at hand with you OY, you haven't presented one thing to tell us we are wrong. I have mounds of information to prove our point, buy you can't present even one?? That proves to me that it is only an emotional thing to your side. I have reems of more information at my disposal as well, and when the time comes I'll use it, but there isn't any point in doing so until the next step is reached.
> 
> The bottom line here is, we are at a point in this debate that one side is using legal stuff, and the other is using emotion, unless we can get to where both sides are using one or the other, this will continue to go in an ugly direction. So, either both sides debate from a legal position, or both sides debate from the emotional side, until that can happen, we get no where except hurt feelings, and guys getting banned, and that is just ridiculous.


Well said toto.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

You guys just won't confront the truth that a fish released alive is just that - a fish left in the eco system to help propogate the species.

There is no way for you to refute that. Conservation DOES preserve fish. Conservation does maximize the resource.

The absolute best example is the Holy Waters. There are many trophy fish there because of catch & release. 

It's irrefutable that enforcing catch & release preserves the resource.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

This time of year is a great example.

Why not allow steelhead to try and spawn at least until the opening day of trout season when the spawn is often done?

On put and take steelhead rivers like th St. Joe or Muskegon, maybe allow harvest. 

But on natural reproduction rivers like the Little, Platte, PM below Gleasons, why not allow the fish to spawn?

The misapplication of the Public Trust doctrine ignores the core of the concept. That is that the State is entrusted with preserving and enhancing the resource on behalf of the public.

That is why game limits, seasons and regulations on hunting & fishing methods are allowed.

Honestly, this whole Forum exists because of Splitshot's beef with his much larger neighbor, the Indian Club.

Don't like the laws? Pay lobbyists like Trout Unlimited uses.


----------



## Shoeman

Bill, I think you have the right approach with your data. I might not agree with it, but you're very level-headed when it comes to this subject.

We may have had our differences and possibly still...lol. But I still feel you are a great steward for the resource would allow the Bio's to do their job, unlike a few contributors that could care less and rather rely on additional stocking to get their fill.

We all know that won't happen with our cash-strapped State and reductions do to less Hatchery space, lack of biomass in the big Lakes, ect

This subject does ruffle feathers (ok bad choice of words) :SHOCKED:

I just hope once your goal is achieved that things won't go South and destroy what little we have left. I have always enjoyed Open Waters and only fished F/O waters a handful of times and found it WAY overcrowded, oversensationalized (sp) and mostly for Guides and landowners. Not a place I want to hang my hat? OK maybe at Riverman's place! 

These discussions are based on extremes, seeing how some of the feelings within come across. 

Yeah, they are just fish, but in some youngster's eyes that 20"er is pretty special and possibly survived a few C&R's. If removed did another take his place, sure! But it might only be 17".

Who's to say that an army of good fishermen won't take all the good fish, like years ago and then it was barren for that year and part of the next. Yes, they are for the taking, but we have to draw the line. So what, we need more Bio's to keep the pulse of certain stretches in order to maintain any kind of decent fishery? We all know that won't happen, yet in some places it does, mostly because of G/R's and limited take...

Here I go back to square one! Like chasing my tail

Most States with any kind of trout fishery have these restrictions. Go South and the Powerbait boys will strp a river of all fish while chasing the trucks within a week. By the first month it's slim pickin's. Ask Jackster. 

The streams that keep a decent fishery are the ones within National Parks where take and methods are restricted. Look at the pellet pigs in Cherokee on the reservation.

How about the hogs on the White and Norfork in the restricted waters? Yet only a mile here and there (and under the trout docks) and the rest is cookie cutters getting fished out. 

All kinds of restrictions for non-residents in Alaska. I remember in 2000 we were only allowed 2 bows over 20 or 25" for the entire stay on a punch card! Why? because it works and provides a sport for the next guy. King Salmon I think it was one in the Kenai.

Haven't fished West much, but there's restrictions there as well. After talking to Kingfisher2, they might close entire sections of a river at the drop of a hat. Biology? Yeah probably, but here in Michigan we do not have the resources available to monitor things until it's too late and then it years to recover. 

I'll once again sum up my stance. I hate Flies Only, but don't mind some gear restrictions and limited take and seeing the general stance against any regulations unless based on science (which won't be monitored until it's too late) brings on my dilemma to jump on board. 



Biological? I don't know? Tourism? More than likely, but it works!


----------



## Shoeman

itchn2fish said:


> But the cat instead chooses to cover-up the turds...........


No turds here... Just the grim reality of what is possible without constant monitoring which in Michigan won't happen do to budget restraints. 

I thought I was done.  I guess Bill's remark about banning needed some explanation. I like Bill! We sometimes don't agree. 

As for Paul, many hate him for his political views. In this instance he does provide another view (although extreme), not much different than some of the posts on the other side of the fence! Why provide a free for all without allowing rebuttal?

Can't have it all!


----------



## toto

Thanks for the kind words ralf. As for this whole issue, I wish I could convey exactly what we mean. In a weird way, it's kinda like those who really, truly care about the homeless, or those that have conditions where they truly can't work, or whatever you want to choose. This is along the same vein really, we are about the person who doesn't want, can't afford to, can't physically do, fly fishing. I hope I'm making my point, as that's the real deal here. I don't know if I'm making my point yet, but I hope that helps some.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

People scoff when I suggest that Michigan could be managed to provide some of the best steelhead fishing in the world.

It already has fishing far better than many of the traditional steelhead rivers in Washington & Oregon. 

Why not switch the emphasis from king salmon to steelhead?

Wisconsin is doing that with brown trout and is having great success. 

We have far better Lake MI tribs than Wisconsin. Kings are already self sustaining on many rivers like the PM

The answer will be that Lake MI doesn't have the bio mass to support steelhead. It would if the kings were not planted.


----------



## Boozer

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> People scoff when I suggest that Michigan could be managed to provide some of the best steelhead fishing in the world.
> 
> It already has fishing far better than many of the traditional steelhead rivers in Washington & Oregon.
> 
> Why not switch the emphasis from king salmon to steelhead?
> 
> Wisconsin is doing that with brown trout and is having great success.
> 
> We have far better Lake MI tribs than Wisconsin. Kings are already self sustaining on many rivers like the PM
> 
> The answer will be that Lake MI doesn't have the bio mass to support steelhead. It would if the kings were not planted.


So exactly what is it regarding our steelhead fishery that needs improvement?

Confused as a blind monkey could catch 500+ steelhead a year in this state if he can fish 100 days or so and doesn't mind fishing bait heck good fly fisherman can put up those numbers "I bet Feenstra & his clients land over 250 a year on swung flies alone", not sure what else one could ask for...

Michigan will never compete with the PNW in some ways, purely numbers wise, definitely, but you can't really beat catching a fish like a steelhead in its native environment...

I'm all for bigger steelhead, but to accomplish that, you have some serious biological issues to address in Lake Michigan, simply cutting Kings will not do it...

Sure releasing steelhead is a great thing on many watersheds, but once a fish spawns, their growth rate SLOWS so while you are keeping a fish in the gene pool, you aren't ensuring a "trophy" fish for anyone in the future persay...

I guess what I am saying is, we got a darn good steelhead fishery as it is


----------



## METTLEFISH

OH-YEAH!! There are just as many fish released in other waters around the entire state. The true reason there are so many large fish in the waters on the AuSable you speak of is habitat, and as you may or may not know the springs that feed that area are almost always at optimum temperature for Trout - 365. So they have conducive conditions to grow in, as well as be released in.

Do you just dismiss Biologists studies that show there is a large percentage of death in released fish?

Where are the answers to those questions I asked you?

Golly!... OH-YEAH!!! do you not read?... Wisc. inshore habitat is superior to what we have on the East side of the lake.


----------



## mondrella

Ralph,
I don't think there is one of us in favor of pillaging the river of quality fish. That is the farthest thing we want to see. Times have changed our mentality in this state for all fish seems to be evolving quicker than many other parts of the country. At one time I could see were regs would have been the best option to create quality fishing. The overall meat mentality and bragging one had their limit from the early days are gone for the most part here. I have fished some of the southern water and no exactly what you mean by following the hatchery truck mentality many have there. There was people appalled to see me releasing trout on a particular Kentucky stream. I fished it every weekend for 2 months when I worked down that way. It was a two hour drive to just trout fish. I was checked my 3rd weekend there by a CO. He was back in the brush and had watched me catch 7 fish out of a hole. He even asked to check my waders. I had one trout in my possession and I showed him what I was doing. He said he had watched 9 people fish the spot and not one fish was caught. He could not believe I was releasing trout because everyone keeps every trout they catch. Certain people bring up the hunt creek brook trout study that fishing has a big impact on quality size fish. That was then the 60's everyone creeled there trout and many guys creeled a extra or two. The mentality has changed. Opening it up to harvest may have a slight impact at first but in the end it would be so slight that it would be little to no impact. Take a look at O'Neil's study on the pm. The no kill has had minimal effect on numbers of trout I'm this water. I hear people say it is the regs on the a ausable that created that fishery. BULL!! It had little to anything let's move them regs to the flat river and see what it does for the small number of trout in that system. Not a dam thing I bet. It is habitat that creates big trout and numbers plain and simple. We are wasting our energy fighting amongst ourselves and that energy could be pur to use improving Habitat.
Oh yeah,
I have a hard time buying into what you are saying because studies show it does not work and is not needed. The idea we need nearly every fish to spawn in the pm to improve steelhead fishing sounds good but in real life just don't work. To start there is so much of that river system already closed to fishing during the spawn nothing else is needed. In fact you would be amazed at the numbers up those small tribs and they are the true nursery of the steelhead in that river.. it does not take that many fish to spawn to maintain the fishery. Cutting. All salmon plants would not help for the food source in the big lake. Salmon and steelhead use different habitat out there. Take the lil river. In the fall there is huge numbers of you steelhead by the time they migrate out numbers plummet why??? HABITAT!!! It is what it is. We have one of the greatest steelhead fisheries in the World! 
A question for both of you? Why have a standard to make water gear restricted. Then not even follow that standard? I will be surprise I you even attempt to answer this question since other questions I have asked have went unanswered. 
A second question on the pm the last gear restriction that went thru. The biologist recommended no change. They had 30 years of study to back their. Decision. Yet when it came out. There was a addition of Gleason's to Bowman bridge to fly only no kill. The steelhead / salmon fisherman came unglued. The original reason was law enforcement wanted a hard boundary instead of a launch site. Next thing you know bait is allowed during the heaviest fishing pressure time when nearly every trout is focusing on eggs. Then let's increase it 10 miles to another launch site but make it no livebait. If you want to protect trout and bait fisherman are so evil why have it during the heaviest fishing pressure and when those fish are most vulnerable?


----------



## kzoofisher

> My problem is, our side has presented piles of evidence to back our claims, but yet the pro side, has been presented nothing, but emotions.


toto,
Im surprised you made this claim. In the last few threads I have shown that the claims of no biological effects were false and presented you with the DNRs reasoning for having gear restrictions under the PTD. In previous threads I have given you the names of wildlife professionals who have disagreed with the interpretations of biology that you support. TC has pasted excerpts from studies and provided links that support his position in the last 24 hours. It seems that every time facts a presented that contradict your thinking you simply blip over them and forget that they ever existed. Ive said it before and I will say it again, your total tunnel vision here seriously erodes the credibility of the research you have done elsewhere. If your best hope is to present arguments at the last minute and depend on no one being able to contradict them then your arguments must not be very strong. If they are strong you can present them at any time and they wont be refuted.


----------



## diztortion

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Why not switch the emphasis from king salmon to steelhead?


Kings are managed for the big lake. Even if they were managed for the rivers, they only provide a 60 day fishery.

Steelhead on the other hand, can be damn near caught in rivers 12 months of the year and are managed for river anglers.


----------



## toto

Kzoo, for one show me where the PTD says we should manage for social science, you can't as it isn't there, period. As for reading the Hunt Creek study, read it a long time ago, and the way I read it, and most others, it basically says that roughly 50% of the fish die, right in the middle of the numbers stated by Dexter.

Look, Kzoo, you may as well admit it, I think you know you are on losing side here, and you frankly have not, nor will you ever be able to find anywhere in the PTD that says we should manage our natural resources for social science. Social science is a newer science, if it's science at all, it's an idealogy plain and simple. I have mentioned it before, we have an attorney on here who won't even venture into the land of the PTD, now there can only 2 reasons for that, 1 is he doesn't know enough about it, and water law to go there, or 2, he knows we are right so he has to go and try to demean us by saying we are after raping a resource, and that couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Kzoo, for one show me where the PTD says we should manage for social science, you can't as it isn't there, period. As for reading the Hunt Creek study, read it a long time ago, and the way I read it, and most others, it basically says that roughly 50% of the fish die, right in the middle of the numbers stated by Dexter.
> 
> Look, Kzoo, you may as well admit it, I think you know you are on losing side here, and you frankly have not, nor will you ever be able to find anywhere in the PTD that says we should manage our natural resources for social science. Social science is a newer science, if it's science at all, it's an idealogy plain and simple. I have mentioned it before, we have an attorney on here who won't even venture into the land of the PTD, now there can only 2 reasons for that, 1 is he doesn't know enough about it, and water law to go there, or 2, he knows we are right so he has to go and try to demean us by saying we are after raping a resource, and that couldn't be further from the truth.


The study also shows a change in average size. Another example of you selecting only the data that support you point.

This second part is completely silly. First, Ive been blowing up the anti-GR arguments left and right so I in no way think Im losing. You have had to resort to secret information for your points because everything you put out in public is shown to be wrong. Second, you seem to have no idea what an ideology is. Third, if you abandon social science you have to abandon the PTD, Law is a social science


----------



## Ranger Ray

Here Kzoo, respond to Roger. Point out where he has gone wrong in his thinking.



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


----------



## mondrella

kzoofisher said:


> The study also shows a change in average size. Another example of you selecting only the data that support you point.
> 
> This second part is completely silly. First, Ive been blowing up the anti-GR arguments left and right so I in no way think Im losing. You have had to resort to secret information for your points because everything you put out in public is shown to be wrong. Second, you seem to have no idea what an ideology is. Third, if you abandon social science you have to abandon the PTD, Law is a social science


 KZOO
I suggest you do a little research. Actually look and read the study. Take a look at the recent info on the black river and the PM. To start with let's do a little background and history. The study in question started on Hunts creek in 1949 fishing was allowed to the mid 60's. What is the mindset of fisherman in that time? Hmm. I was not even alive. I do however have collected a huge collection of old magazines from that time frame. Hmm is it kind of odd every article from that time frame talks about Creeling a limit of trout. Be it fly rod or bait fishing. Now take into consideration the stream was not as healthy early also. Habitat improved and continues to improve to this day. AMAZING!! Mother nature is doing a fine job as long as we do not undo what she is doing! Now look at the Black river study and the PM. I am a very opened minded individual. In fact in the beginning my initial thought was GR. was the way to go. Then I researched it talked to many biologist who are hands on in our waters not someone who is miles away or paid by anyone but you and me. Why not listen to them? Fishing mentality has changed here. Time to see it and be thankful it has. There is evidence out there that I am sure will derail the movement even done by TU itself and I plan on calling them out when the time comes. Sometimes it is best to hold all your cards close until it is time to play them. The evidence is there. The real question is what political movement will win. Let's face it even the pro bait guys are now going to be lobbying. What a waste by both sides.


----------



## kzoofisher

You guys are pretty much making my point for me. Mortality matters and picking out individual studies to make a broad based case is a mistake. At the limits we have today the differences in mortality are small and biologists argue about the importance of those differences. I'm not a biologist so all I won't be reading the over 200 DNR studies that reference brookies in the UP or the who knows how many for trout in the LP. I'm a conservative guy who has seen fish and wildlife populations collapse in areas both large and small over the last 40 years, I hope you'll understand that that makes me leery of claims that regs can be loosened because most people won't take advantage of it anyway. The PM or some other stream might be able to handle higher mortality really well for the next 5 years, then we have 2 years of low water coupled with hot summers and cold winters and we end up with a river full of young of the year and a few remaining spawners. After a couple more years with complaints from the public, a study is completed, weather improves, limits are lowered and 10 years later the fishing is back. With natural mortality being so variable and government so slow to react this is my concern with higher angler mortality. Maybe it doesn't happen for 20 years and it only ruins my kids or grand kids fishing, I'm still not willing to risk it.


----------



## mondrella

We are making your point mortality matters? Really this dumb old farm boy is not seeing it. Point it out to me please. 
The DNR have daily limits set for every fish in this state. The criteria to set those limits is to see that the fish are capable to survive even with fishing pressure. With the logic you presented about overall numbers declining because of harvest. I could make the out landish case that well the No Kill on the PM is harming overall numbers of trout. When it went into place the numbers were at their highest they have been in 34 years. Those numbers have declined steadily for a number of years and seem to be now leveling out. Guess what it had nothing to do with fishing pressure or regs it was mother nature. It was a statewide occurance. Peaks and valleys man. 
To start with you have it backwards about what happens with either a very hot or cold winter. It is the young of the year fish that are most likely to die first. Larger trout those 2 and 3 year old trout are historically hardier fish and able to survive the changes better. Why do you think many individuals in favor of planting would like to see the DNR hold them in the hatchery a year longer? 
You put forth a model or hypothesis of what could or what should happen. If I had not read those studies about brook trout and river assessments that our Biologist have done I would buy into your logic and TU's. However it is flawed and hard to believe but the data is there to prove it. Daily harvest limits are set to protect the resource and our biologist say they do just that. There are other rivers in this state that are type 1 streams that hold just has good or better numbers of fish. Harvest is allowed and takes place. These rivers continue to balance themselves and have a long running trout numbers that rise and fall in the same pattern of the GR water. Hard to believe but it is true! If numbers crash it will not be due to harvest. You cannot stockpile trout all the evidence in the world is there it is the way it is. Is it possible that opening once closed waters to harvest and all methods of fishing you could have some additive mortality yes. To combat that there are things that could be done to lessen or even eliminate that issue.


----------



## toto

Kzoo, it would appear to me you are making a point against yourself. When we talk about limits, such as 5 fish per day or whatever, that is a conservation issue, and we must presume these numbers are based on what is acceptable to the resource, therefore they are using biological science, as we've been saying all along. I see nothing where fly fishing, or no bait solves anything. We can look at these studies and see what we want to see, such as the Hunt Creek study. You see high mortality due to fishing pressure, I see high mortality due to natural causes, and apparantly the DNR can see it that way too, why would Dexter make that statement if they didn't have the studies that said so. If you can explain why the top fishing dog of the DNR made the statement of 30-70% die off, I'd sure like to hear it, obviously you know something we are not privy to.


----------



## fishinDon

Shoeman said:


> I'll once again sum up my stance. I hate Flies Only, but don't mind some gear restrictions and limited take and seeing the general stance against any regulations unless based on science (which won't be monitored until it's too late) brings on my dilemma to jump on board.


I have to agree with Ralph. I completely disagree with flies only as a management tool. There's no reason for the regulation what-so-ever. There's tons of research that shows that flies only without creel restrictions is no different than all-tackle. The sub study in that 40 year creel survey on the Hunt Creek where part of the river was flies only for 5 years actually provides evidence to that effect. Back when fishermen (fly and bait and hardward) harvested fish, the hook type didn't matter. 

I could live with everything else. Lower the limit to 2 or 3 trout some places and see if it works. I wouldn't even oppose C/R Only all tackle. That's a regulation change that might make a difference and effects every fisherman equally.

Actually study before and after the change. If it doesn't work, try it someplace else. See if it works there. After 10 tries, if it doesn't work anyplace then put it back to 5 and call it good and stand by the research. 

Don


----------



## wintrrun

fishinDon said:


> I have to agree with Ralph. I completely disagree with flies only as a management tool. There's no reason for the regulation what-so-ever. There's tons of research that shows that flies only without creel restrictions is no different than all-tackle. The sub study in that 40 year creel survey on the Hunt Creek where part of the river was flies only for 5 years actually provides evidence to that effect. Back when fishermen (fly and bait and hardward) harvested fish, the hook type didn't matter.
> 
> I could live with everything else. Lower the limit to 2 or 3 trout some places and see if it works. I wouldn't even oppose C/R Only all tackle. That's a regulation change that might make a difference and effects every fisherman equally.
> 
> Actually study before and after the change. If it doesn't work, try it someplace else. See if it works there. After 10 tries, if it doesn't work anyplace then put it back to 5 and call it good and stand by the research.
> 
> Don


 
I don't think you would find too many opposed to this if it were even possible.
Legislation has created a problem once again in resource management where ultimately there wishes will have to be met at the cost of everyone who actively pursues the resource. X amount of miles of gear restrictions.
In the grand scheme of things from a resources standpoint, hands are tied, so let the next round of resource grabbing commence.

Its long been said if you want to take something that would greatly improve our way of life or a resource, just send it to the lawmakers.


----------



## Shoeman

wintrrun said:


> I don't think you would find too many opposed to this if it were even possible.
> Legislation has created a problem once again in resource management where ultimately there wishes will have to be met at the cost of everyone who actively pursues the resource. X amount of miles of gear restrictions.
> In the grand scheme of things from a resources standpoint, hands are tied, so let the next round of resource grabbing commence.
> 
> Its long been said if you want to take something that would greatly improve our way of life or a resource, just send it to the lawmakers.


And that would be influenced by special interest, just like the worm bill

Where does Tonella stand on this? Seeing his limitations to a handful of watersheds each year with his studies. Like K-zoo and myself brought up the pulse of each one and adjusting the take for a given year. Seems like it takes years for them to realize some year-classes disappeared or are scarce. Then add the climate of when these studies are performed and we have nothing to base our science to. 

I just wish that both sides of this issue would be willing to compromise and see where it leads in hopes of a better fishery. 

Again, get rid of Flies Only, allow a liberal take in the stocked watersheds and most importantly monitor the ones that show the most promise while trying to maintain some sort of destination for tourism and most anglers alike. 

To plant 5-6" trout hoping they survive to reach 10-12" before the heat of the summer gets to them, or worse yet to take them at 10" because they are legal..

Some do survive and grow, but it has to be monitored, which it isn't. 

Look at the numbers of steelhead on the Little Man over the last 10 years. A huge decline and monitored, but only because of constant monitoring. Would we ever see that on the Clam, Bear, AuGres, Tobacco, Pine, ect.?

No, because the funds aren't available. 

By the time the studies are done, it's too late and like K-zoo mentioned it would take years to recover. 

Why not a comprise in NO tackle restrictions for the time being and limited take, even C&R and go from there after a study?

Sure wish that our State had the resources to monitor each watershed, yet they don't. It takes years for them to get around each one. Most already know which one is prolific, but to paint a broad brush among all of them in a mindset that are all alike is just like our deer herd that needs to be micro managed, which won't happen in Michigan

The 
Biological stance isn't feasible at this stage of the game, do to restraints. 

Step 1, get rid of FO, 2. Bait restrictions, 3 keep a pulse on the fishery and most of all try to keep a fishery we've been accustomed to. (or even better)


----------



## REG

fishinDon said:


> I have to agree with Ralph. I completely disagree with flies only as a management tool. There's no reason for the regulation what-so-ever. There's tons of research that shows that flies only without creel restrictions is no different than all-tackle. The sub study in that 40 year creel survey on the Hunt Creek where part of the river was flies only for 5 years actually provides evidence to that effect. Back when fishermen (fly and bait and hardward) harvested fish, the hook type didn't matter.
> 
> I could live with everything else. Lower the limit to 2 or 3 trout some places and see if it works. I wouldn't even oppose C/R Only all tackle. That's a regulation change that might make a difference and effects every fisherman equally.
> 
> Actually study before and after the change. If it doesn't work, try it someplace else. See if it works there. After 10 tries, if it doesn't work anyplace then put it back to 5 and call it good and stand by the research.
> 
> Don


To address a tangential question, some gear reg advocates keep asking about the new pike/muskie regs. Correct me if I am wrong here, but one thing I noticed is the absence of any gear regulations for pike/muskie. I think this sends a significant message. 

So, if these regs are designed to help pike populations recover by protecting prime spawners and enhance numbers of trophy fish that generally exist in low densities such as muskies, well, I'm for it. 

Don, I totally agree with your take.

From my perspective, there are two ways to go here. We can keep building barriers and creating divides. Just my opinion, but continuing down this road, it will get worse. It also picks "winners and losers" as Don has always spoke to in the past, which will just further the distance and fractionize the trout/salmon angling community.

Alternatively, we can identify what we have in agreement and build on that. By being able to identify and agree on commonalities, perhaps we can identify alternatives to the way these issues get addressed. IMHO, with maybe a few exceptions, alot of us have the same behaviors and beliefs about angling. Why not try build on that?


----------



## toto

In the interest of finding a solution, and my sanity, here is where I'm at.

Having limits makes sense to me, but then that's a biological science question to begin with, and I have no problem with being able to keep 5 fish or whatever that number is. I can see the problem that shoe talked about, the studies issue, but the problem is money, and logistics. We do have a lot of streams and rivers in Michigan and to cover them all, every year probably isn't possible either way. Making a sensible decision based on common sense would be the ideal I suppose. But to eliminate waters to bait fishing just doesn't make sense, at least not based on the excuse that is being given. 

So, can we find some common ground, probably but only to a point.


----------



## Shoeman

So there's like 10 of you trying to change a National effort to keep any kind of Trophy fishery within the country, with comments proposed above? 

No compromise? None? Even with allowed Bait?


----------



## troutguy26

Shoeman said:


> So there's like 10 of you trying to change a National effort to keep any kind of Trophy fishery within the country, with comments proposed above?
> 
> No compromise? None? Even with allowed Bait?


I would be lead to believe that there is alot more than 10 people involved in issues like this... The scope of some things is alot broader than the MS public, just like the offensive. 

If a compromise could be reached which allowed all tackle and bait, but had said restrictions as stated before, with extensive monitoring i would be for it. If the c&r or creel limits didnt work than they would need to be lifted. As everyone knows each stream is different and in a perfect world this would be almost impossible to make work but i would be willing to possibly give it a shot. Granted i would need to see some sort of plan drawn out and people of all ranks held to it no matter what.


----------



## mondrella

Shoeman said:


> So there's like 10 of you trying to change a National effort to keep any kind of Trophy fishery within the country, with comments proposed above?
> 
> No compromise? None? Even with allowed Bait?


Ralph, 
I am all about large trophy size trout. The thing is there are more around than people think. I basically trout fish 5 months out of the year. I wonder what I am doing wrong if I don't catch at least 1 20" trout out of every 3 trips out. Last year I landed 4 fish 24" or better during that time. 
Will we or can we grow the resident stream trout like there is in the tail water of the white river down south. No but the big lake does and come end of Oct to end of Nov. You can find them in the rivers. World class browns at that but not the same to me as a full time resident stream trout. I fish some water most will not for trout because there are very few fish there. It is these marginal waters similar to what is below Mio that hold the really big trout. Just like the PM people fish the numbers area because they want to catch fish. Fish in the marginal water on this system and that is where the really big fish are. I release 99% of my trout. 
I am not against say a lower limit on certain waters but not no kill. It really has not helped much if at all on one of the most premiere waters in the state.


----------



## wintrrun

Shoeman said:


> So there's like 10 of you trying to change a National effort to keep any kind of Trophy fishery within the country, with comments proposed above?
> 
> No compromise? None? Even with allowed Bait?


Describe trophy fishery in Michigan?
I've been to and fished all the trophy fisheries in Wisc, Tenn, Ark, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Utah, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Foundland, British Columbia and Argentina.
All unique situations.
I have property on the Platte in Michigan. I fish it quite a bit. I can peg 6 trout over 20" to there daytime lies with out question within a 400 yard stretch of public access.
From what i hear from all the good fisherman that show up is that these fish do not exist and if we just adopted No/kill and F.O fishing would be better.
I am sure if the trout were represented they would say....:fish2:. I would back them as well. :fish2:


----------



## Shoeman

Personally I wouldn't advertise that fact, since you must believe in some form of C&R, unless they broke you off, or those fish would not exist.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I have 40+ trophy class streams within 3 hrs of me. All allow all types gear. Not sure what this trophy water issue argument is about.


----------



## mondrella

I only count fish I physically land. I believe in selective harvest. If I so choose to stringer up three 14" to have a meal for my kids and myself I do it. If it is a 20+ and my mouth waters thinking how well it will taste on the grill it will be going home with me. I only take what I can eat in a meal or 2. The only fish in my freezer is salmon from fishing wiyh my brother on the big lake. That is for a fish fry for the neoghbors once it warms up. I fish many different streams in fact I only fished the same stream 2 times last year. Both of those were in different parts of them. I am different than most trout fisherman. I like heavy traveled waters. Lots of canoe traffic or tubers even other fisherman. I have learned how those fish react and where they will set up to take advantage of what is going on. I fish once or twice a year with splitshot. I rather have him fishing ahead of me. Yes he catches way more fish than I do. I always seem to get the best fish of the day. I will not ever say where I fish or exactly what I am fishing with. I know how rewarding it was to me to figure out how to catch large trout and where. I will not wreck that feeling of reward once someone puts it together.
Some decide it is more important and enjoyable to catch a trout on a fly rod. That is great! I love to catch them that way. One of my favorite in fact. Yet I will fish all the other methods so I am not limiting myself in my opportunities to catch a fish.


----------



## Shoeman

Sounds like we're not that far apart when it comes to conservation. I guess just some need a muzzle, because of the way they convey your message.

That take all within limit crap gets old real fast. Although some will take your message to extremes.


----------



## llpof

llpof said:


> Not me. Not for these trout. Hand out the guns.


Perfect solution right here.


----------



## toto

Ralf, I don't think anyone is for getting their limit every time out, and certainly not every day, however if the limit is set at 5 fish, or 3 fish I would presume it to mean that the waterway in question can handle it. 

One more thing to at least consider, if we are talking about waters that are stocked, wouldn't it make sense to remove some of the fish anyways. Wouldn't that give those fish that remain, which will more than one thinks btw, a better chance to grow to "trophy" size? After all, less competition for food, means those that are fed, grow to be bigger, not so unlike people, which brings me to a question, an honest question. Do you think genetics plays a part in how large, or small any given fish can be?? 

I think personally, you may be worrying about something that you don't need to worry about. I can see your point, to a degree, but you must try to remember, there isn't going to be swarms of people suddenly coming in and keeping their limit every day, and they certainly won't "fish out" a stream or river. As mondrella said, there are more trophy fish in those waters than you think, and more trophy fish in highly fished waters than you think. For obvious reasons, I won't give away my spots, but I can tell you about catching brook trout 15" in Michigan, and it wasn't some deserted place in the U.P. So those that are on the side of gear regs should probably settle down a bit and let things play out.

As for using the White River in Arkansas as an example for our fisheries in Michigan, bad example there, don't forget the rivers in the south typically have bottom draw dams and they can keep the temperatures and along with that the oxygen levels ideal for optimum growth. One thing it appears we have finally done is have some rational discussion, thanks everyone for that.


----------



## Splitshot

Ill try again. Who favors this compromise as a starting point?

I think the first thing we need to do is define what kind of fishery we want. How about a trout fishery loaded with plenty of big wild trout managed by professional biologists whose mandated responsibility 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.

As fishermen and sportsmen we will strongly oppose at every turn the politicization of resource management, or decisions based on unscientific principles, and we will remain an outspoken voice on behalf of the long-term use and conservation of Michigan's natural resources.

We will not tolerate any special rules that discriminate against any of our fellow sportsmen and instead strive for the inclusion of all fishermen including women and children even if it means a few more people using our public resources..


----------



## itchn2fish

I favor this compromise as a starting point


----------



## Steve

> We will not tolerate any special rules that discriminate against any of our fellow sportsmen and instead strive for the inclusion of all fishermen including women and children even if it means a few more people using our public resources..


I think it might be taken more seriously with the omission of this. If you get what you are after in the first two paragraphs you don't need the last one and you will turn less people away.


----------



## toto

Back to the original meaning of this thread:

http://www.undueinfluence.com/trout_unlimited.htm


----------



## Splitshot

Steve said:


> I think it might be taken more seriously with the omission of this. If you get what you are after in the first two paragraphs you don't need the last one and you will turn less people away.


I think your advice is sound Steve. The other day my wife asked me if something was bothering me. She thought it was my anticipation of opening day. I told her in the last couple of weeks I have been accused of being uncompromising, jealous of some rich guys because I live in a little house, of being selfish, of being a fish hog, of not being ashamed for catching so many fish and threatened to tread lightly or my favorite Pine river and some of my favorite techniques for catching trout might be posted all over the Inter-net and on MOOD TV utterly destroying my fishing for years to come. 

It is no wonder why I have been identifying with the rug in my living room lately and have the feeling that everyone is walking on me lol. 

As far as the Pine river, I really dont care if other people fish there. It is not my river and besides a lot more pressure from other fishermen will just increase the challenge for me. As you know the trout dont come easy there, but if you put in the time and learn it, the experience can be rewarding. One thing I can tell you for sure is, it is not the place you want to go to if your looking for easy fish!

So:

I think the first thing we need to do is define what kind of fishery we want. How about a trout fishery loaded with plenty of big wild trout managed by professional biologists whose mandated responsibility 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.

As fishermen and sportsmen we will strongly oppose at every turn the politicization of resource management, or decisions based on unscientific principles, and we will remain an outspoken voice on behalf of the long-term use and conservation of Michigan's natural resources.


----------



## Trout King

the biological evidence shows YOU CANNOT HOARD TROPHY FISH. so try to build a trophy state and it will be eerily similar to what it is now. again, i will state that most fisherman look for trophies in the wrong spots.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ranger Ray

Was informed today, Wisconsin is looking into increasing stream trout limits from 3 to 5 with no size restrictions on many of their rivers. They feel their trout numbers are excellent. Appears they don't think they can stockpile anymore trout. :lol:


----------



## itchn2fish

Ranger Ray said:


> Was informed today, Wisconsin is looking into increasing stream trout limits from 3 to 5 with no size restrictions on many of their rivers. They feel their trout numbers are excellent. Appears they don't think they can stockpile anymore trout. :lol:


Very cool. Great! Brother Buzz (Trowoot) and I each caught out first trout(s) in The Peshtigo River.


----------



## fishinlk

That's old news from Sept. 2012. There is nothing trout related on the WI DNR site in the spring 2013 fishing reg proposals.


http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/rules/springhearings.html


There are also regs in what you are talking about to protect the larger fish. Again you only paint half of the picture:

This was from Sept 2012.

Jordan Weeks WDNR Fish Manager from La Crosse gave a review of the upcoming report on Trout Fishing Participation Survey. He explained that the survey shows drop in participation is due mostly to busy lives, and other hobbies. Not because of regulations and limits. A full report is due out very soon.

DNR liaison Jordan Weeks gave a briefing on DNR Trout Committee and the review of the possible trout regulation changes. He also commented on contacts from the public about changes in the regulations. He feels people are bypassing the Conservation Congress and going straight to their legislators. May be due to lack of knowledge of the Congress and its purpose. Also may be due to the time involved in getting changes done due to ACT 21.

Weeks gave a report on the DNR Trout Committee review of the current fishing regulations, and possible changes. Some of the proposed changes being looked at are;
Longer season, earlier start, and later close

Some of regulations changes are in the categories.

Category 1: no size limit, 5 fish bag limit
Category 2: 8&#8221; or 9&#8221; size limit, 3 fish bag limit
Category 3 special regulations (catch and release, trophy, ETC,)

Eliminate Category 4: Minimum length limit: Brown and rainbow trout
12"; brook trout 8" Daily bag limit: 3 in total
Eliminate Fly Fishing only regulations, convert to artificial only.

He stressed all of these are only proposals as of now, no changes have been agreed to as of yet.

A proposal was also floated out there to increase the Trout Stamp fee from $10.00 to $15.00


Fisheries Biologist (608) 785-9002 [email protected]


----------



## Ranger Ray

fishinlk said:


> That's old news from Sept. 2012. There is nothing trout related on the WI DNR site in the spring 2013 fishing reg proposals.
> 
> 
> http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/rules/springhearings.html
> 
> 
> There are also regs in what you are talking about to protect the larger fish. Again you only paint half of the picture:
> 
> This was from Sept 2012.
> 
> Jordan Weeks WDNR Fish Manager from La Crosse gave a review of the upcoming report on Trout Fishing Participation Survey. He explained that the survey shows drop in participation is due mostly to busy lives, and other hobbies. Not because of regulations and limits. A full report is due out very soon.
> 
> DNR liaison Jordan Weeks gave a briefing on DNR Trout Committee and the review of the possible trout regulation changes. He also commented on contacts from the public about changes in the regulations. He feels people are bypassing the Conservation Congress and going straight to their legislators. May be due to lack of knowledge of the Congress and its purpose. Also may be due to the time involved in getting changes done due to ACT 21.
> 
> Weeks gave a report on the DNR Trout Committee review of the current fishing regulations, and possible changes. Some of the proposed changes being looked at are;
> Longer season, earlier start, and later close
> 
> Some of regulations changes are in the categories.
> 
> Category 1: no size limit, 5 fish bag limit
> Category 2: 8 or 9 size limit, 3 fish bag limit
> Category 3 special regulations (catch and release, trophy, ETC,)
> 
> Eliminate Category 4: Minimum length limit: Brown and rainbow trout
> 12"; brook trout 8" Daily bag limit: 3 in total
> Eliminate Fly Fishing only regulations, convert to artificial only.
> 
> He stressed all of these are only proposals as of now, no changes have been agreed to as of yet.
> 
> A proposal was also floated out there to increase the Trout Stamp fee from $10.00 to $15.00
> 
> 
> Fisheries Biologist (608) 785-9002 [email protected]


I told what I knew. The WIDNR are having meetings (2013) discussing trout regulations. One of the recommendations is to go from 3 to 5 on limit with no size limit on some streams. My original statement stands.


----------



## fishinlk

yeah but it's misleading like a lot of what happens in these posts. It's kind of like me seeing the discussions on the UP brookie limits and saying they're doing away with the C+R regs. in the rest of the state. If you really didn't know any better than maybe you should check your facts before you post......


----------



## Ranger Ray

My facts are correct. The WIDNR are having meetings (2013) discussing trout regulations. One of the recommendations is to go from 3 to 5 on limit with no size limit on some streams. I have no idea what you are rambling about.


----------



## fishinlk

You know exactly what I'm talking about here. you purposefully painted it that way. 



> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Was informed today, Wisconsin is looking into increasing stream trout limits from 3 to 5 with no size restrictions on many of their rivers. They feel their trout numbers are excellent. Appears they don't think they can stockpile anymore trout.


And just as an FYI with a little more digging you'll find the results of the WI angler surveys stating that the 2nd leading reason behind anglers leaving trout fishing in WI is the quality of their fisheries are unsatisfactory. #1 is a lack of time. It also stated that most of the anglers that are dissatisfied with the waters would come back if the quality improved. There may be a reason that this ended up only making it as far as a proposal and never made the cut.  I would think that the streams that would dictate that type of change are probably a very small subset of their fisheries.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I received a communication from Roger Kerr, 32 year WIDNR biologists (retired) telling me about the 2013 task force that is going on. In his communication he stated what I posted. Your accusations are totally off the wall.



> Time constraints was cited by over one third (35 percent) of the former anglers as their primary reason for not trout fishing. Old age, poor health and lack of companions was ranked first as by 21 percent; the quality of fishery of their favorite trout water was named as the top reason by 13 percent, and trout regulations were cited by 12 percent as their most important reason for no longer fishing for trout.


I guess 13% could sway the limit increase. We will have to see. Funny that regulations was at 12%, only one behind poor fishing. But it has nothing to do with the statement: 



Ranger Ray said:


> Was informed today, Wisconsin is looking into increasing stream trout limits from 3 to 5 with no size restrictions on many of their rivers. They feel their trout numbers are excellent. Appears they don't think they can stockpile anymore trout.


I especially like this which Roger sent me:



Wisconsin Outdoors 3/8/13 said:


> A breakdown of the pre-meeting responses from 20 task force members showed that 19 of them fly fish, 13 spin fish, 12 are TU members.


19 of 20 fly fish? Looks like a stacked deck. :lol:


----------



## Splitshot

fishinlk said:


> yeah but it's misleading like a lot of what happens in these posts. It's kind of like me seeing the discussions on the UP brookie limits and saying they're doing away with the C+R regs. in the rest of the state. If you really didn't know any better than maybe you should check your facts before you post......


Thanks for bringing the brookie limits up Lance because it is relevant to this thread and the question is TU part of the problem? A few years ago the Pennsylvania DNR made a proposal to rescind all the flies only rules. Fly fishermen led by TU campaigned against the proposal by contacting landowners who owned land on many of the fly only streams with stories how the hordes would over run and damage their property. It worked and the PA DNR took the proposal off the table only because the public would lose more opportunities than they would gain if the landowners followed through with their threats to close off access if the rules were changed.

A victory for fly fishermen, but it doesnt change the fact that in PA they saw the inequality of flies only and wanted to change them.

Likewise TU has had much success getting WI to lower limits and initiate gear restrictions based on social reasons. But today there is much discussion about the wisdom of those restrictions. They are starting to see science and biology are better methods than Chicken Little scare tactics for managing trout and are moving toward reversing those rules.

In the UP, TU rallied their members to outvote raising the brook trout limits. Overall the number of those that voted was small and interestingly enough 42% of those who voted claimed fly fishing was their most preferred method of fishing. TU has learned that all they have to do to win is make sure their voice is the majority. Not the majority of the fishermen, just of the people voting. It is no wonder they are willing to protect their victories offering to spend $100,000.00 to fund a study to show what trout fishermen want. It is clear to them all they need is a majority of those voting to protect the flies only, low limit, no kill, exclude bait regulations. They pick the guy, influence the wording of the questions, influence who gets the survey or any combination for their $100,000.00 and you and your cohorts will be able to claim it is the publics will.

Remember there were over 2,000 people who signed petitions against any further gear restrictions on the PM that were not considered because some one in the MDNR decided some of those who signed the petition may have also sent an e-mail even though that 2,000 plus petition would have defeated the restrictions about 3 to 1 even if they didnt count any of the e-mails sent to the MDNR in opposition to the bait restrictions. 

I think we made a strong case that TU is more than a just the altruistic trout habitat rehabilitation organization as they claim. 

I understand confusing the UP brookie issue with something about doing away with C & R regulations state wide Lance is the way to divert attention from the real issue, but some of those who read these threads get it. Why not just answer the question and enlighten us with one good reason we should have any flies only rules on public waters?


----------



## fishinlk

Ray, 

I can honestly say that in about 99 out of 100 I'd be good with seeing the fly only changed to artificials only. The more important thing would be keeping creel restrictions in place, which is where the real battle seems to fall with some. There are those that seem to think they should still be able to go out and keep their 5 fish limit if they choose no matter what. Some people just refuse to acknowledge the success realized by they increased size limits and creel reductions.

A PERFECT example is a nice much older gentleman that camps near me and has been there for much longer than me. He is the proverbial vacuum cleaner, keeps everything legal every time out right up to his limit. He comes up and fishes a couple weeks straight in June and periodically throughout the year. Most of us in the camp have been up there for years and usually catch up on the previous days fishing. Typically the conversations would go something along the lines of asking if he caught anything and he'd answer "I got 2 or 3 keepers and that was it." he'd ask how we did and we'd tell him about what we caught and he'd always ask with a little disbeleif "why didn't we keep them?" He'd then go on to complain about the lack of legal size trout and how back when they were kids they'd go out and keep their limit every day. TURN THE PAGE FORWARD to the past couple years after some changes in size limits on the upper river. NOW the converations goes more like this from him: "I got 2 or 3 keepers and that was it, wish they wouldn't have changed the regs or I would have had my limit!". _*Now why do you think that is??? Could it be that the fish aren't being cropped off at 8" anymore?? *_Angling pressure DOES impact a stream and this delusion that some have about "not stock piling fish" and "avg. life expectancy is only 3 yrs so we should just keep them anyway" is just BS. So now we are seeing more fish reach a decent breeding size?? Maybe we could actually see more self sustaining fisheries?? The short sightedness of guys amazes me.


----------



## Ranger Ray

fishinlk said:


> Ray,
> 
> that some have about "not stock piling fish" and "avg. life expectancy is only 3 yrs so we should just keep them anyway" is just BS. So now we are seeing more fish reach a decent breeding size?? Maybe we could actually see more self sustaining fisheries?? The shortsightedness of guys amazes me.


Well I hate to tell you, but the "you can't stock pile them" is coming from biologists and DNR's. 3 off the top of my head is Tennessee, Wisconsin and Michigan. So don't tell us, go tell the professionals that are stating that.

Fish are a renewable resource. Just like corn disappears when we harvest it, its planted the next year and is back. As soon as man walks into the trout stream in spring, a reduction of fish begins, its simple math. Knowing this the biologist set limits to account for this. The preservationist thinks the fish should always be at maximum capacity. They manage for what they think is the absolute best for the fish. Except whats really best for the fish, if that's all that matters, would be to not fish at all. Ah, but they allow whats not good for the fish, just enough to allow them to fish how they want. 



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


That's from a 32 year WIDNR career biologist. He was instrumental in planting a wild strain in Wisconsin that worked beyond belief. Its the reason today they are looking at going from 3 to 5. Want his phone #? You can call him up and explain your experience in fish management and tell him he is full of BS. 



Brook Trout Fishing in The Smokies Resarch said:


> Because of the results of recent fisheries research and the success of the park's brook trout restoration effort, in 2006 park management opened brook trout fishing and harvest park-wide for the first time since 1976. The results of a recent three-year brook trout fishing study indicate there was no decline in adult brook trout density or reproductive potential in any of the eight streams opened to fishing during the experimental period compared to eight streams closed to fishing during the same time period


They do not allow bait though, so the study did not include bait fishermen

I think we can agree the PM is not one of your streams in your anecdotal observation above. Yet, they got special regs. Fox river? Nope. That's why they didn't change anything, just allowed fly fisherman on the river during winter, restricting other types of gear fisherman the same right. Here is where the hypocrisy comes in on your analogy. The streams that are getting the special regulations, don't need it, the biologists admit it, yet we are told by the preservationists that because some obscure stream in lala land is why we need these regs. Except it keeps getting put on the best waters in the state. The old "don't piss down my back and tell me its raining" comes to mind.

I don't know of anyone that is against limit reductions based on a scientific need. But the new preservationist ideology that all streams should be at maximum capacity at all times is ridiculous. Personally, I don't care if the limit is 1, 2, 3, 10 or a 100. If the biologists say its needed, I am OK with that. What I see today is a bunch of good old boys sipping whiskey and smoking cigars managing on "Game fish are too valuable to only be caught once." Last I checked, that's an ideology, not a biology.

Here is the latest on the Black River. Even though the science showed no reason for gear restrictions, they did it anyway. There is your story above, and there is reality to what is happening. These regs are getting put on waters that don't need it, in the name of there may be some that do. 



> Type 2 regulations were clearly ineffective at increasing abundance of larger brook trout at either the Sid&#8217;s Drive or Main River Bridge stations (See figures 7 and 8). Mean abundance of brook trout larger than 8 inches long at Sid&#8217;s Drive was remarkably stable over the past 24 years, averaging around 90 fish per mile before and after 2000 (See figure 7 and bottom panel of figure 2). The point estimate for mean abundance of brook trout larger than 10 inches was lower after 2000, but not significantly different than before 2000 (Figure 7). At Main River Bridge density of larger brook trout was more variable than at Sid&#8217;s Drive over time, but again there were no significant differences in density before and after 2000.


----------



## fishinlk

I've been up all night at work and probably should have written that differently so I'll give you that one. "they can't be stockpiled." BUT They can be effectively managed to acheive a better age class structure, which is occurs when the majority of fish are getting cropped off at a legal size limit.

Going home and going to bed.


----------



## Shoeman

Give up, Lance! 

All of us tried. There seems to be an effort to elimate any type of common sense when it comes to trout and survival. This movement is so huge :lol: and thrives on publicity. 

Trout deserve to be on a plate, not in water! The bigger the trout, the larger the plate! :SHOCKED:

It's all science! They're stocked and therefore a food source and meant to be removed, mostly because they're dumb enough to bite the hook. Throw them back and they might bite again. They're just dumb, so need to be removed. 

We don't want any dumb fish! We want educated fish. Wait, those are dumb fish as well... :lol: And also need to be removed

Take them all and start with the big ones. I say 22" and up. They eat too much and fit better on the grill.


----------



## irishmanusa

Back in March I hooked-up (didn't land) my very first Winter Steelhead on the "Flies only No Kill section" of the PM. I took up fly fishing to add to my arsenal of fishing tactics. I waded around a bend and came across a gent with a spinning rod w/bobber and a clown egg pattern on the tip. He looked at me and said "beautiful day on the river" my reply: "Amen Brother!". 

Help me out here: Isn't this what it's all about anyway? Or is that just too damn simple.


----------



## Im4slotlimits

Just finished reading this thread! I had never thought of joining TU before now, as of 5 minutes ago I am a new member!
Any other groups I should join that supports the following:
1. Conservation
2. Slot limits
3. No kill zones


----------



## Shoeman

Im4slotlimits said:


> Just finished reading this thread! I had never thought of joining TU before now, as of 5 minutes ago I am a new member!
> Any other groups I should join that supports the following:
> 1. Conservation
> 2. Slot limits
> 3. No kill zones


Not in this forum!


----------



## Steve

Shoeman said:


> Give up, Lance!
> 
> All of us tried. There seems to be an effort to elimate any type of common sense when it comes to trout and survival. This movement is so huge :lol: and thrives on publicity.
> 
> Trout deserve to be on a plate, not in water! The bigger the trout, the larger the plate! :SHOCKED:
> 
> It's all science! They're stocked and therefore a food source and meant to be removed, mostly because they're dumb enough to bite the hook. Throw them back and they might bite again. They're just dumb, so need to be removed.
> 
> We don't want any dumb fish! We want educated fish. Wait, those are dumb fish as well... :lol: And also need to be removed
> 
> Take them all and start with the big ones. I say 22" and up. They eat too much and fit better on the grill.


To this point, wouldn't it be easier at some point to go right to the hatchery, pick out your limit and take it home? I know that's extreme but a lot of the arguments have been on this thread.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## fishinlk

You would think so..... :idea:


Ralph, I don't know what I ws thinking. Being at work late I guess I just had the urge to go beat my head into a block of wood and respond. Most of the time lately I've been leaving these go as there's no objectivity to most of the "discussions". It's all about trying to drive a mission instead of working together. I doubt I'll post on another one of these for awhile since I got my splinter fix.  Besides I think if we leave them alone and don't kick the ant hill nobody will pay attention.


----------



## Shoeman

That type of mentality works quite well in States like Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee. Their Rivers are stocked weekly with 10-14" fish. Guys literally follow the trucks, take their limit and go feed the family. 

Here in Michigan streams are stocked with 6" fish in hopes of some kind of survival, mostly in marginal water, yet once they reach legal size, or better yet the gauntlet 3 years down the road... If released. :lol:

It's almost like catfish or something. :help:

Not like we have a superior Trout program! We don't have ****!

Go blow that crap up someone else's kilt. Put your effort into our trout program and then talk about hook and cook, bait for all and limits.

Why not just spear them? Might as well.... The outcome is the same....


----------



## kzoofisher

You guys have done a nice job of fighting the BS and I don't blame you if you're tired of it. When somebody is going to use a shred of truth to support some outrageous claim the important thing for them is to keep repeating the claim, even if they are admitting that they don't have much evidence for it. People tend to remember the first thing they heard and if you repeat it when you disprove it all that happens is that the misinformation gets reinforced in memory. A good example of this is Columbine where the initial reports said that the two whackjobs were loners who had been bullied. This was later shown to be completely untrue and widely reported as such while repeating the original story. The result is that if you ask around many people will remember the bullying story and not remember the truth at all. They didn't wear dusters, didn't target jocks and weren't on anti-depressants but that stuff still gets repeated today. Memory is an awfully funny thing, which is why it is always good to check out what you are told with several sources.

This brings us to the Wisconsin citizen's trout task force. Each of the roughly 40 members were sent a questionnaire but only 20 responded to it. What does this tell us about the task force? Not much. We do know that the task force is made up of members of the Conservation Congress, conservation groups, businesses and fishing guides with an interest in trout fishing. We know that 88% of the respondents to another survey (the one sent to 2000 people who had quit fishing?) don't list regulations as the primary reason they quit. We know that Wisconsin has a very strong tradition of citizen involvement with regulation changes, the Conservation Congress has been around since 1934, and that Wisconsin has a higher per-capita rate of fishing license purchases. Do we know that those two things are connected? No. I found out all this in just a few minutes using google. Unfortunately, some people would rather throw their unsupported and inaccurate interpretations of "facts" out there and then repeat them over and over again. There are other examples in this thread of the same sort of unsupported stuff, some statements that are clearly untrue but repeated anyway. It's quite the effective propaganda tactic. Luckily there are a few posters here who call them out instead of letting them yell at each other in an echo chamber. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> This brings us to the Wisconsin citizen's trout task force. Each of the roughly 40 members were sent a questionnaire but only 20 responded to it. *What does this tell us about the task force? Not much. *


Not much is right. Whats your point? Did you refute 19 of the 20 were fly fishermen? No. Its a stacked deck and not representative of "the people." You are the befuddler of befuddlement. Talk about no facts. "If I say it, then its true, I am Kzoo." How is Brad doing? Does he have his crickets ready to go? Outing a persons favorite fishing technique out of spite. And you talk about BS.

Roger wants to know what you guys that have done so good fighting this BS, have for experience in the fisheries. He said he will wait in anticipation for you to explain your qualifications and what makes you experts. He said he wont be holding his breath though. 


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


----------



## Shoeman

Put some more paint in that corner! :lol:

Ever fish there? I haven't, but talked to friends that have. It's extreme!


----------



## mondrella

Shoeman said:


> Not like we have a superior Trout program! We don't have ****!
> 
> Go blow that crap up someone else's kilt. Put your effort into our trout program and then talk about hook and cook, bait for all and limits.
> 
> Why not just spear them? Might as well.... The outcome is the same....


Ralph,
Where is the weakness in this states trout program? 
I take it you don't think there is enough trophy fish in this state. I don't see it. I think you may need to spend a day with the DNR when they do a electro fishing to get a count on the numbers and size of fish.
What do you consider a trophy size trout?
Maybe our definition of a trophy size trout.

All I know is over the last 15 years of trout fishing I have averaged 2 trout a year over 24". That is not including trout that could possibly be lake runs. I have had days of 4 20" in a day brought to hand. I don't see a lack of big fish. In fact I think the numbers the DNR numbers they show in studies of large trout are actually lower than what really exist. That is just my personal experience however fishing waters they study on a regular basis.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Shoeman said:


> Put some more paint in that corner! :lol:
> 
> Ever fish there? I haven't, but talked to friends that have. It's extreme!


Kzoo would call this post "a nice job of fighting the BS." :lol:


----------



## kzoofisher

You are a crack up. She doesn't say high densities caused the problem. She is just expaining to you that the trout are perfectly safe to eat and if you eliminate the prey the predator will go away. Eliminating brook trout is a poor solution if you want to improve the brook trout fishing and I'll write to ask her if her intention was to eliminate brookies or to discourage someone from not fishing. It is interesting to note that you argument revolves around changes in regs that must have caused fish to be "stockpiled" so that lice could now be a problem and that increased mortality from fishing is needed to reduce the numbers. I know it seems confusing bvecause it is. You are arguing in circles just to try to make a point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> You are a crack up. She doesn't say high densities caused the problem. She is just expaining to you that the trout are perfectly safe to eat and if you eliminate the prey the predator will go away. Eliminating brook trout is a poor solution if you want to improve the brook trout fishing and I'll write to ask her if her intention was to eliminate brookies or to discourage someone from not fishing. It is interesting to note that you argument revolves around changes in regs that must have caused fish to be "stockpiled" so that lice could now be a problem and that increased mortality from fishing is needed to reduce the numbers. I know it seems confusing because it is. You are arguing in circles just to try to make a point.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not enough time in the day to unravel that befuddlement from the befuddler. Ah, and no one said, she said "high densities caused the problem." I said its causing the spread of it. Another befuddle befuddled. 

Its not confusing, its why they reduce the deer herd in the TBA zone. To help reduce the spread of disease. Common sense, even a humble nobody like you should understand the elementary. Its why a 32 year biologist understands, and so does Susan. I am sure you will straighten them out. Oh and no one said eliminate the brook trout, "reduce the density", just another Kzoo, befuddle. Wow they are getting old. 

Thought of the day: If you manipulate verbiage to manipulate the context of what was said, does it then become truth? Its a little befuddling.

Hey did you ever admit you were wrong on the "This is totally, completely and utterly untrue" statement. Funny, you misdirected right around that.


----------



## Splitshot

Quote; Kzoo

Director Creagh,

I have recently heard claims that the Public Trust Doctrine bars the DNR from creating Gear Restricted waters. This seems like an overly broad reading of the PTD and one that would hamstring the Department in both Fisheries and Wildlife. Does the Department have a paper I could refer to that clarifies its position and powers under the PTD?

Kzoo,

Your letter to the MDNR director highlights our differences. We see the PTD as a roadmap for our MDNR to manage our natural resources in a way that protects those resources and treats all Michigan citizens equally and fairly when it comes those natural resources.

You and your friends currently are enjoying exclusive use to some of our most productive waters and see the PTD and fairness as a threat to those privileges. In my opinion, the Fisheries Division mission statement below supports the PTD and I would be surprised if the director felt any differently.

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.

Until the MDNR biologist can show us that the use of bait contradicts the PTD or their own mission statement we will continue to work toward repealing all bait restrictions.

The last time I asked you for one good reason bait fishermen should be denied access to any public waters, you gave me a 3 page history lesson on how those regulations came to be law.

How about this time you give me a direct answer to the question; Provide one good reason we should have any flies only rules on public waters?


----------



## Splitshot

TSS Caddis said:


> Most people can not really look inside themselves and accept their own motives for thinking a certain way nor are they able to realize when they have not formed their own opinion vs regurgitating one they heard. As a result I really enjoy critical thinking, so well done splitshot.


Thanks for your suport Gene I appreciate it.


----------



## kzoofisher

splitshot,

Your view of the PTD differs from mine. I dont think that comes as a surprise to anyone. Mine happens to coincide much more closely with the DNRs, which is that the PTD speaks to access. You may have very strong feelings about what Dir. Creagh thinks of the PTD and I respect your feelings. However, I asked him about the PTD and you saw the answer that I got, so as a matter of policy we know where the DNR stands.

You and your friends would like to prevent the DNR from acting in the interests of all the people of the State so that you might selfishly enjoy your preferences and see the PTD as a cudgel that you can use to get your way.* 



> The last time I asked you for one good reason bait fishermen should be denied access to any public waters, you gave me a 3 page history lesson on how those regulations came to be law.
> 
> How about this time you give me a direct answer to the question; Provide one good reason we should have any flies only rules on public waters?


 I started a many page thread on the subject which I'm sure you are aware of. Of course, if you don't accept any reason as "good" then you question can't really be answered. If you want a simple, easy to argue with reason I'll give you this one. Because it benefits all the people of the State of Michigan. As long as we are giving straightforward answers how about answering a few of the questions I've asked you recently?

*Did you see what I did there?


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> I started a many page thread on the subject which I'm sure you are aware of. Of course, if you don't accept any reason as "good" then you question can't really be answered. If you want a simple, easy to argue with reason I'll give you this one. Because it benefits all the people of the State of Michigan. As long as we are giving straightforward answers how about answering a few of the questions I've asked you recently?
> 
> *Did you see what I did there?


It's interesting that you believe that flies only benefits all the people of the State of Michigan when so many are opposed to it. Maybe all these people that want it gone just don't realize the benefit they have in being restricted? 

Don


----------



## toto

http://lenharris.blogspot.com/2013/01/gill-lice.html


----------



## TheSpinner

toto said:


> http://lenharris.blogspot.com/2013/01/gill-lice.html


above is my blog.

Wanted to see why you all are looking at my Gill Lice post.

There are varying opinions on Gill Lice.

Some say they have always been here

Some say they almost wiped out the brook trout population 40 years ago here 

When I first brought up the gill lice they were ignore by WiDNR staff.
Crawford County my home county has had a 85 percent drop in brook trout in last 4 years.

The coop stocking folks are putting brook trout right on top of infected brook trout.

The WDNR picks the areas to be stocked.

WiDNR thinks brook trout are the only worthy trout from the area because of the native species denotation. 

I have thrown up my hands on the Gill Lice problem and believe within 8 years the only brookies left will be hatchery ones.


----------



## Splitshot

Thanks Len, and it is nice to see your still catching decent trout. For some reason I was not allowed to leave a comment there, so I'm making it here.

Did the WDNR ever explain why just the brook trout. I remember they planted lots of brown trout all over the state when I lived there in the seventies.


----------



## J-Lee

Thanks for the update Len, miss your posts on this forum.


----------



## kzoofisher

fishinDon said:


> It's interesting that you believe that flies only benefits all the people of the State of Michigan when so many are opposed to it. Maybe all these people that want it gone just don't realize the benefit they have in being restricted?
> 
> Don


I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say it's more like they only look at how it effects them and not at the whole state and all the people. I'm also sure that there are far more non-anglers who have never considered it and whatever benefit they have gotten they have never thought about it on the macro level. Most of us don't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## -Axiom-

kzoofisher said:


> I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say it's more like they only look at how it effects them and not at the whole state and all the people. I'm also sure that there are far more non-anglers who have never considered it and whatever benefit they have gotten they have never thought about it on the macro level. Most of us don't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't have a problem with *some *flies only water, even if it is the best in the state.
The problem is that the current *some *is too much and it looks like more is going to be stolen.


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say it's more like they only look at how it effects them and not at the whole state and all the people. I'm also sure that there are far more non-anglers who have never considered it and whatever benefit they have gotten they have never thought about it on the macro level. Most of us don't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If you are making an economic argument, I don't buy it, pun intended.  

IMO, It's not the DNR's job, nor their mission to bring more revenue into the State's coffers. Besides, if you subscribe to the economic argument, they could just raffle off access to the highest bidder and make way more money than they get from 6% of the fly shop's take. Au Sable would prolly go for millions...careful what you wish for...

Beyond that, in order to assert that the regulations create revenue, you also have to prove that those fly shops, guides and revenue would suddenly be crippled or disappear if the regulations were removed, and I hardly buy that arguement either. Again, IMO, the State stands to "lose" next to nothing financially by removing flies only regulations.

I also would bet my paycheck that there's almost no evidence that a measurable financial gain was created around/near Baldwin or Grayling in the last 3 years since the new restricted mileage was added, even though we are advertising the heck out of it through Pure Michigan. I'm aware of one bait shop in Baldwin that closed and one fly shop in Grayling that closed in that same time frame. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to consider any data that you have to share.

Good luck fishing this weekend Kzoo, I know I'l be out there!
Don


----------



## Shoeman

Those shops were locked up in the euphoria of things. We all knew that wasn't going to last. Money a-plenty, status, ect...lol

I've seen them fish. Most of those guys couldn't catch trout on bait. 

Spending $800 on a rod won't help you catch fish. First you have to learn fishing and then you "might have a chance". 

I see it daily with these high-pocket guys. You can't just throw money at it, it's a science. One has to learn it!


----------



## Trout King

Shoeman said:


> Those shops were locked up in the euphoria of things. We all knew that wasn't going to last. Money a-plenty, status, ect...lol
> 
> I've seen them fish. Most of those guys couldn't catch trout on bait.
> 
> Spending $800 on a rod won't help you catch fish. First you have to learn fishing and then you "might have a chance".
> 
> I see it daily with these high-pocket guys. You can't just throw money at it, it's a science. One has to learn it!


800 dollar rod? is there such a thing?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DLHirst

$800? Plenty. You can spend three grand on a new cane rod if you have more money than common sense.


----------



## kzoofisher

Don,

It's not just about fly shops, it's about hotels and restaurants and campgrounds and boutiques and a million other things, not the least of them jobs. Making the state a desirable destination for tourists and for those who want to start a business is the governments job. The DNR is a part of that. On those pure Michigan ads you see fly fishing because fly fishing is what sells and everybody knows it. It may be silly that people see fly fishing and get some fuzzy Brad Pitt feeling, but they do. Now that SB 289 is putting economic considerations into law for the NRC to use I doubt fly of GR water is going to be reduced at all.


----------



## -Axiom-

kzoofisher said:


> Don,
> 
> It's not just about fly shops, it's about hotels and restaurants and campgrounds and boutiques and a million other things, not the least of them jobs. Making the state a desirable destination for tourists and for those who want to start a business is the governments job. The DNR is a part of that. On those pure Michigan ads you see fly fishing because fly fishing is what sells and everybody knows it. It may be silly that people see fly fishing and get some fuzzy Brad Pitt feeling, but they do*. Now that SB 289 is putting economic considerations into law for the NRC to use I doubt fly of GR water is going to be reduced at all*.


 That would also mean that there is a good chance that snagging will be legal again.
Say & think what you want, the annual salmon rodeo brings in a lot of money even more when snagging is legal.

In some cases I'm sure that flies only regs keeps people away from some places.
Not all of our flies only water is famous...
It stands to reason that if you want the maximum amount of people out using the resource that you would open up the regs to facilitate it.


----------



## -Axiom-

I often wonder that if something catastrophic were to happen the the AuSable system, like fracking ruining the entire river.

Would the river still be under flies only regs?


----------



## RUSTY 54

-Axiom- said:


> I often wonder that if something catastrophic were to happen the the AuSable system, like fracking ruining the entire river.
> 
> Would the river still be under flies only regs?


And that is exactly what "evil" groups like TU and Anglers of the Ausable are at the forefront to prevent.


----------



## toto

Jackster1 said:


> I still wonder why not just broaden your game and fly fish? Special regs does not by any means mean your are excluded or guaranteed an epic day fishing. They are worth fishing if you simply like fishing usually-not-ugly places occasionally. It's just damn cool having places like the special regs areas available to us... all.
> If those areas are really that important to you just go fish there. It's okay.


The argument isn't fly fishing, in fact, I would say most of the guys who are arguing against it fly fish, at least occasionally.


----------

