# Finally a Bubbler at Croton Dam



## Whit1

We've talked about bubblers being required for Hodenpyle Dam (Big Manistee R) and Croton Dam on the Muskegon River for a couple of years. The bubbler is now in place at Croton Dam and will soon be tested. Here's a link to an article on it.

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2009/06/improved_angling_cooler_muskeg.html 

You guys that fish the Mo regularly need to keep an eye peeled on this.

I've been told that the bubbler at Hodenpyle Dam ".....should be ready to go any day now." It was installed and tested a couple of years ago, but has not been operational.............until now?? Soon? Let's hope so.


----------



## Fishbone

> Fifty-thousand trout are stocked annually in the Manistee River below Hodenpyl Dam. Half are rainbow trout. The other half are brown trout. Tonello said natural reproduction there is poor.
> 
> "Hopefully, it will give the trout a break," he said. " Hopefully, we will see better survival. That's the ultimate goal."





> The upwelling devices were developed to address problems the utility had meeting the operating requirements of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydropower licenses.
> 
> The company got a 40-year license to operate Hodenpyl in 1994, but it contained a settlement agreement that required Consumers to spend $1.75 million on water quality improvements.


Between the FERC license agreements & saving the trout, these two combined are believed to be nothing more than one expensive pile of HOPE.


----------



## plugger

On a similar note my son spent a couple days last week doing the electrical supply for a bubbler on the mio pond. I dont know anything else about it.


----------



## Steve

Great. Hopefully it will make a difference of a few degrees.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

This is great news. I am behind these projects 100%.


----------



## Whit1

Fishbone said:


> Between the FERC license agreements & saving the trout, these two combined are believed to be nothing more than one expensive pile of HOPE.


 


"The only things that stand between a person and what they want in life are the will to try it and the faith to believe it's possible."
_Rich DeVos
_


----------



## Pork Chop

Times are tough in the state of Michigan, sounds like they must have had to go to a "rent to own" place for the compressor. Must have not had enough money available to make a down payment for a purchase. Hopefully they can keep up with the weekly payments.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Pork Chop said:


> Times are tough in the state of Michigan, sounds like they must have had to go to a "rent to own" place for the compressor. Must have not had enough money available to make a down payment for a purchase. Hopefully they can keep up with the weekly payments.


You may want to do some reading to get more informed on the topic before venting.


----------



## stinger63

Great news it should bring some improvement.


----------



## Jekart

I think this is great news and commend those involved with at least making an effort to better the water quality on this stretch of river.


----------



## CANEMAN

I'm hope the bubbler will do what it's designed to do....supply cooler water!
I was fishing up near Croton Dam last Sunday and noticed a crew working above the dam
on something, hopefully it was the bubbler!
Would like to see the unit operated when the water temp gets 70 rather than the proposed
72 degrees. Maybe it the DNR likes what the bubbler is doing for the MO...we'll finally get
better regs. to improve the trout fishing below the dam.


----------



## TSS Caddis

CANEMAN said:


> I'm hope the bubbler will do what it's designed to do....supply cooler water!
> I was fishing up near Croton Dam last Sunday and noticed a crew working above the dam
> on something, hopefully it was the bubbler!
> Would like to see the unit operated when the water temp gets 70 rather than the proposed
> 72 degrees. Maybe it the DNR likes what the bubbler is doing for the MO...we'll finally get
> better regs. to improve the trout fishing below the dam.


Once there is cooler water and a confirmed drop in mortality, I'm sure there will be changes. And this time they may actually stand a chance at making a real difference vs. an imaginary one in many guides heads.

If the bubbler helps, expect a on slaught of pressure for flies only/no kill. If it helps, I'd like to see a 3 fish 15" limit from the dam to Newaygo. Of course if that happens and there are more large trout, expect even more pressure for flies only/ no kill


----------



## Shoeman

So far the temps have been very favorable for the trout

High water and a cool spring kept the temps low and the trout well-fed. Even as far as last week, the night time water temps dipped to 66 and the highest I've seen during my 3 week stay was 72.6. 

What's wild was that the temps were lower way downstream (Town, Anderson's, Henning)compared to the actual tailrace. 

The fish are fat and sassy, but really haven't disbursed for a second year in a row. Quite a few holdovers as well. Somehow the browns that were planted in April have disappeared

If this bubbler has only a marginal success rate, the fishing will be awesome this fall and next year


----------



## Whit1

CANEMAN said:


> Would like to see the unit operated when the water temp gets 70 rather than the proposed
> 72 degrees.


The temperature would be determined by the availability of colder water. Croton is not a large dam thus it has a smaller pond behind it. This limits the amount of cold water that can be "bubbled" into the system. You are correct in saying that 70 degrees would be better than 72.


----------



## CANEMAN

Shoeman said:


> So far the temps have been very favorable for the trout
> 
> High water and a cool spring kept the temps low and the trout well-fed. Even as far as last week, the night time water temps dipped to 66 and the highest I've seen during my 3 week stay was 72.6.
> 
> What's wild was that the temps were lower way downstream (Town, Anderson's, Henning)compared to the actual tailrace.
> 
> The fish are fat and sassy, but really haven't disbursed for a second year in a row. Quite a few holdovers as well. Somehow the browns that were planted in April have disappeared
> 
> If this bubbler has only a marginal success rate, the fishing will be awesome this fall and next year


I agree 100% with you...it can only help! As for those browns?.....I'm getting a few on small tungsten beadheads, but nowhere near where the bows are. The browns are just being browns... and 7X is the ticket!
It would be nice if we get the new regs. on the river for the trouts sake....and not necessarily the fisherman's. We need to put back the bigger fish to sustain a healthier breeding stock instead of the smaller hatchery trout. I think most good sportsman would go along with keeping a few for the pan and releasing the larger trout 15" and over. I don't kill any trout myself but I can understand the guys who like to take home a couple small ones for the pan. I'm sure whatever comes of it all....your not going to please everybody, except maybe the trout....and isn't that what it all about. The days of greed and excess are far behind us now that we all learned the hard way. I see better days ahead for the MO...IF we can all agree that the trout need to be nurtured and not just harvested.


----------



## Bucket-Back

Shoeman said:


> So far the temps have been very favorable for the trout
> 
> High water and a cool spring kept the temps low and the trout well-fed. Even as far as last week, the night time water temps dipped to 66 and the highest I've seen during my 3 week stay was 72.6.
> 
> What's wild was that the temps were lower way downstream (Town, Anderson's, Henning)compared to the actual tailrace.
> 
> 
> I was wondering if the sub-50 degree nights have anything to do with it?
> 
> The water heats up on the pond all day,then goes over the Dam onto the cold rocks at night,cooling down as it goes downstream.Just a thought.


----------



## CANEMAN

Bucket-Back said:


> Shoeman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far the temps have been very favorable for the trout
> 
> High water and a cool spring kept the temps low and the trout well-fed. Even as far as last week, the night time water temps dipped to 66 and the highest I've seen during my 3 week stay was 72.6.
> 
> What's wild was that the temps were lower way downstream (Town, Anderson's, Henning)compared to the actual tailrace.
> 
> 
> I was wondering if the sub-50 degree nights have anything to do with it?
> 
> The water heats up on the pond all day,then goes over the Dam onto the cold rocks at night,cooling down as it goes downstream.Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Good point you make... but I think the cooler water further downstream from the dam might be from all the cold springs that enter the river between Thornapple and Newaygo...and there are many!
Click to expand...


----------



## TSS Caddis

CANEMAN said:


> I agree 100% with you...it can only help! As for those browns?.....I'm getting a few on small tungsten beadheads, but nowhere near where the bows are. The browns are just being browns... and 7X is the ticket!
> It would be nice if we get the new regs. on the river for the trouts sake....and not necessarily the fisherman's. We need to put back the bigger fish to sustain a healthier breeding stock instead of the smaller hatchery trout. I think most good sportsman would go along with keeping a few for the pan and releasing the larger trout 15" and over. I don't kill any trout myself but I can understand the guys who like to take home a couple small ones for the pan. I'm sure whatever comes of it all....your not going to please everybody, except maybe the trout....and isn't that what it all about. The days of greed and excess are far behind us now that we all learned the hard way. I see better days ahead for the MO...IF we can all agree that the trout need to be nurtured and not just harvested.


Pointless until there is colder water. Regs without colder water have been tried and proven not to work, Although some guides that don't have a grasp on reallity think they did.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Bucket-Back said:


> Shoeman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far the temps have been very favorable for the trout
> 
> High water and a cool spring kept the temps low and the trout well-fed. Even as far as last week, the night time water temps dipped to 66 and the highest I've seen during my 3 week stay was 72.6.
> 
> What's wild was that the temps were lower way downstream (Town, Anderson's, Henning)compared to the actual tailrace.
> 
> 
> I was wondering if the sub-50 degree nights have anything to do with it?
> 
> The water heats up on the pond all day,then goes over the Dam onto the cold rocks at night,cooling down as it goes downstream.Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Cooling at night is called diernal(sp) cooling. I imagine below croton it is minimal. Wev have had a very cool spring/su
> mee so far. Great news for the trout. But a short term gain without a annual source of cold water.
Click to expand...


----------



## CANEMAN

TSS Caddis said:


> Pointless until there is colder water. Regs without colder water have been tried and proven not to work, Although some guides that don't have a grasp on reallity think they did.


I have to disagree with you on that one. Several years ago when the regs. below Thornapple
Landing were taken off and made the same from the dam to Newaygo...the size and numbers of trout dropped substantially below that point! Now you don't have to take my word on that, just ask any person who fishes the river regularly, and you'll hear the same consensus.
As for what the guides know and say, that all depends on the guides you're talking to. All the local guides that work the river on a daily basis I think will agree with me and the facts.
If you talk to the folks who are just out to kill their daily limit...I'm sure they will disagree with any special regulations.
Now I'm not sure what river you were referring to where it's "been tried and proven not to work" but I know the river is not the MO!


----------



## Ranger Ray

Flyfisher said:


> Ironically, many of these guides are the same ones pushing for the return of the special trout regs.


Its called pimp my river. Under the name of trout preservation of course.


----------



## Flyfisher

I read an interesting blog tonight...

http://graydrakelodgeandoutfitters.blogspot.com/

On an "unrelated" note. I wonder where "CANEMAN" has gone?


----------



## JFISHING

Why not put a bubbler at Hardy. There should be plenty of cold water available from the deep pond. Obviously, it wouldn't get Lake Michigan Fish, but I think it good still be a great trout fishery.


----------



## Whit1

JFISHING said:


> Why not put a bubbler at Hardy. There should be plenty of cold water available from the deep pond. Obviously, it wouldn't get Lake Michigan Fish, but I think it good still be a great trout fishery.


The distance between the tailwater below Hardy Dam and the backwaters of Croton Dam is too short. The cold release at Hardy would be quickly warmed by Croton Pond.


----------



## mondrella

Flyfisher said:


> I read an interesting blog tonight...
> 
> http://graydrakelodgeandoutfitters.blogspot.com/
> 
> On an "unrelated" note. I wonder where "CANEMAN" has gone?


I think he needs to remeasure his net. 
Great fish but more like 22" to 24".
Notice how he makes it sound like the DNR say they don't exsit.

MR Supinski I know you will read this and the DNR never said anywhere in thier studies that kind of fish don't exist. There is 1% that make it to that size that are planted. It is not cost effective to dump 250,000 trout yearly into a river and have the rest become crayfish and turtle food. The money spent on plants would be better put to use doing habitat improvements on other rivers so they could self produce and hold higher numbers of trout. The only reason why these plants occur is for conveniece to the average city trout fisherman and for river pimps such as yourself and the small community you live in. Face the hard truths. The MO will never be a tail water fishery like the White or Cumberland. It is a cool water river not a cold water river. 
For individuals to flat out try and attack the credibity of some of this states best bioligist is to much. If you would like I will try and find the link to the DNR study to back these FACTS up. 
Wait you already attack the way the study was done because you don't agree with it and it don't help your pocket book. 

I hope the bubbler improves the trout fishing and does not effect the pond above. As for trout reg changes NO WAY it was established as a put and take fishery and remain so. This state like I said has everything to grow huge trout. The thing is these fish grow fast and live short lives. Our rivers have tremendous food sources high in protien that grow big fish with water temps conducive to optimum growth. Even the No kill waters would not be harmed by conservetive harvest. My understanding from talking to a few individuals i the know say trout growth rates have slowed in these waters. A very real possibilty is there are now to many trout for the food source. Thus slowing growth and preventing fish from reaching their true potential. 
This last is not a fact just a hypothsis until a expermint is done to see if overall size can be increased by allowing some harvest of fish. 
I would much rather to catch a 1 28" trout than 3 22" trout if I am trophy hunting.


----------



## Flyfisher

And its very convenient to mention that the main-stem of the Delaware gets 72-76 degrees in the summer and yet fail to mention that the trophy rainbow trout of that river almost all migrate into the much colder west branch of the Delaware. There are radio transmitter studies to prove this but I am not going to waste my time citing them. The west branch of the Delaware is a TRUE tailwater fishery with a cold water tap pulling ice cold water from the bottom of a very deep reservoir, not some bubbles pumping from the 30' "depths" of Croton Pond. I remember a 4th of July weekend on the Delaware where I HAD to wear neoprenes because the water temp was in the 40's, and yet the air temps were in the mid-80's. No comparison to the Muskegon River. 

I am not even sure if the bubbler has been turned on yet because temps have stayed below 72 degrees since its been put in place. We have had an unusually cool summer and the only time the river got above the threshold was during the last week in June. 

With that said, it would great if I had a "world class" trout fishery within an hour of me but I'll accept what we have and wait until September to enjoy my catch and release flyfishing for trout.


----------



## TSS Caddis

This Just helps to illustrate how Sputnik can't see past the comb over in front of his eyes. Most of the guys posting on this thread don't keep fish, but because the facts around the regs don't support his thoughts, they are misrepresented. In addition our thoughts are discounted because we are pro killing fish. What part aboute rarely keeping a fish is confusing? I prefer to not keep fish, but if thermal pollution kills 90% that are planted, it is only reasonable to allow for a harvest. It is very simple. I'm not pro kill but pro managementz

Btw, what is irresponsible is catch and release of skams at rangeline in water temps that for sure kill them on release, all for the $$$$. If your going to catch and release double digits to die, you should be lobbying for a double digit limit on skams.

How do you explain lining skams above Berrian just to release them to die? Probably the same lack of water temp knowledge that makes you think the Mo is a blue ribbon fishery.

With your noted with the above, your book and actions I have seen first hand, I'm utterly shocked that any one would pay to fish with you.

Just like Other guides on this site, you want what is best for your pocket not the fishery. 

Please do not lie and mis state facts. In doing so, you prove just how week your argument is.


----------



## Flyfisher

21 celsius=70 fahrenheit
21.5 celsius=71 fahrenheit

Here's an interesting comparison with a TRUE tailwater:








10.5 celsius=51 fahrenheit

I should add for our friend, Mr. Caneman, that the large fish, up to 20"+, that I used to catch on the Muskegon near Pine were rainbows, not browns, and were all caught in general reg waters. Not sure if they were remnants from a "better" strain of rainbows that they stopped planting in 1998 but they were nice fish nonetheless. Personally, other than nasty half-dead river salmon, I rarely see fishing on stringer while enjoying the Muskegon River. Why anyone would want to fish for decaying salmon on the gravel is beside me anyway but that's a different issue for a different day. 

Point is, that the water is there for all of us to enjoy and special regs do nothing more than attract additional people, as there is a perception that the fishing is that much better than it really is. Look at the zoo on the PM the "flies only/no kill" regs has created, where one can't find a parking spot on the weekend.


----------



## Flyfisher

TSS Caddis said:


> Btw, what is irresponsible is catch and release of skams at rangeline in water temps that for sure kill them on release, all for the $$$$. If your going to catch and release double digits to die, you should be lobbying for a double digit limit on skams.


Actually, the more sound conservation approach for that particular fishery would be closing "thermal" refuge areas from July 1-August 31 every year. Basically, it means no fishing 100 yards above or below creek mouths that the DNR determines are thermal refuge areas for trout and/or salmon. Its a popular management approach in several eastern states for trout including the famed Beaverkill River in NY and CT's Housatonic River, where temperatures are known to reach into the 70's.


----------



## Splitshot

Steve,

I agree with your assessment and before the DNR depletes the cold water in Croton they should at least study the effect it might have on other species above the dam. Glad to see you are thinking.

Flyfisher I agree with your assessment as well. There is no comparison between the Muskegon and true tail water fisheries. There is a possibility that the Muskegon could become a trout river but a lot of work upstream must be completed. All dams on all tributaries need to be removed, the main channel needs to be narrowed trees will need to be planted along the shore line protecting it from the summer sun and even then it is questionable if it will ever be a year round trout fishery except in those areas where cooler water keeps the temperatures below 70 degrees.

There is a Muskegon watershed association and they are working on restoring the river to pre logging days, but even the most optimistic assessment puts completion decades down the road. In the meantime people should feel free to keep all the fish they can utilize as this is a put and take river, not a Mecca for river gods, I mean river guides.

And some people never learn. I spoke at a meeting several years ago and after I was done one of the guides stomped out of the meeting, leaving his wife to take the heat. The same guy wrote a long emotional letter to the DNR in the same way our recent guest did with his first post in this thread. The DNR scientifically rebuked the author point by point in an unusual public way. As far as I know, the author did not respond or try to further defend his position. I have a copy of that letter stored on my computer.

Yesterday I went fishing on this put and take river and in keeping with what I said, we kept half of the trout we could have kept. Why only half? Because I believe in our conservation edict of keeping only those fish we could use. Here is the money picture and I wonder if Caneman can recognize any of them? It has been a long time since I fished this river for stream trout but the memories are already starting to come back. I did forget to take my GPS with me, but next time I wont.


----------



## Flyfisher

Splitshot said:


> before the DNR depletes the cold water in Croton they should at least study the effect it might have on other species above the dam.


When we get all worked up over the artificial trout/salmon/steelhead fisheries maybe we lose sight that the sturgeon, walleye, pike, suckers, and smallmouth were the original historical inhabitants of the Muskegon. And we shouldn't forget about how the dam, and a "coolwater" bubbler may affect the native fisheries. Having fished some superb, and more challenging, trout fisheries throughout the midwest, northeast, and Appalachians, I have grown somewhat tired of the anticlimatic and predictable trout fisheries that west-central Michigan offers. The Muskegon has been written about, promoted, and advertised beyond its potential, proposed special regs or not. Glamourized fantasy fiction may sell glossy flyfishing magazines and coffee-table books but does not always equate to reality. There are northern rivers that run free and cold that are true "blue ribbon" fisheries, whereas the Muskegon is, and will always be, a put-take stream even if we dream and fantasize differently.

I haven't abandoned the Muskegon and truly hope that the bubbler saves a few fish this summer. The results will become apparent to me at the end of the summer when I hit the river again, maybe to fish some of the "improved" caddis hatches I have been reading about lately


----------



## Flyfisher

Interesting note on this summer:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=grr&storyid=29941&source=0
NOAA says that our July has been the coolest on record, which should bode well for our coldwater fisheries throughout the state. I have been tracking the temps at Croton and making comparisons with previous years. Along the lines of what "Shoeman" mentioned earlier, coolest water temps on the Mo since 1997 and it hasn't even reached the threshold for which Consumers Power would have to utilize the "bubbler" system under their FERC agreement. I have to wonder if the bubbler system has even been turned on as there would be no reason other than to test it. Scary were the years where there were spikes well into the 70's, as high as 78 degrees one August day, obviously more normal for this river than what we are experiencing this summer. Generally a few 75 degree days every year with what looked to be a 2 degree celsius higher average than this year.

This may be good news for all the planters I was catching back in June? We'll see in earnest come October when I am chasing steelhead behind the "big uglies". In the meantime, if the temps stay mild like this, it may be worth a trip to walk in one evening? Enjoy it while you can!


----------



## TSS Caddis

Whit, if I send you Jory's presentation is there somewhere it can be posted? It's in PDF.

People can then read for themselves, how skewed Supinski's view on all of this is.


----------



## Whit1

TSS Caddis said:


> Whit, if I send you Jory's presentation is there somewhere it can be posted? It's in PDF.
> 
> People can then read for themselves, how skewed Supinski's view on all of this is.


Send it to me and I'll see what I can do.


----------



## Flyfisher

I can only read so many blogs about trophy trout and cold "bubbler" water and I have to get up north to check out the blanket cahill hatches, dead zebra mussels, and caddis hatches that are 75% of the levels of the 1990's. I checked the water temps out and the max was 68 degrees today, compliments of cloud cover and the *coldest July on record*, so I am ready to conquer the "challenging tailwater trout" that the Muskegon river offers us. Even without the "coldwater bubbler" working, i still will be wearing waders as I would hate to be stuck on shore shivering from the rush of cold water the Muskegon offers. Trust me, I will report back and be fishing quite a ways below Pine below the "spring seeps" that further cool the mighty Muskegon. Hope the fish are looking up as I only will be fishing dry flies (the only way I fish trout anymore). I rigged some 7X tippet on the end of my 12' leader for finicky browns, but will be happy with the abundant planter rainbows, as I would like to see how much they have grown in this Disneyland for trout. If anyone wants to join me for some catch and release trout fishing, feel free to send me a PM. You are welcome to join me "CANEMAN", provided you supply me with a 8.5' 5wt split-cane bamboo and Hardy reel to fish with, silk line implied, gut leader optional. I'll bring the flies and tippet material.

Back to the original topic...why bring up the Delaware or Beaverkill when we are talking about the Muskegon? What evidence, or alternative SCIENTIFIC studies, can one provide to dispute the DNR studies? Fish porn is a dime a dozen and in a fishery with migratory brown trout plump from Lake Michigan, how can we always accept large fish as residents? I have caught 5lb+ browns from a Grand trib throughout the summer but would never fool myself into believing these were necessarily resident fish, but rather lake fish that followed runs of alewives upstream under high water conditions, quite a common situation in late May under the right conditions. I am looking for facts, not anecdotal evidence. I am not a DNR biologist that doesn't "understand" the nature of trophy browns but an experienced fly angler that has cast flies over some large trout in wild OR artificial setting. This ain't my first rodeo...and I can tell the difference between a 26" brown and a 20" fish without a tape measure, although I will pack one.

_UPDATE: the 9' 4pc Orvis 5wt with matching Orvis reel is all set up. On the terminal end I attached a 9' Orvis 6X leader and 3' of Orvis 7X Superfine tippet material and a #16 green elk hair caddis. I am using the WULFF Triangle Taper line, 4/5wt, so I can present the fly gently to the selective Muskegon River brown trout. I have packed a selection of green/cinnamon caddis #14-18 as well as BWO down to #22. And #12-16 "light cahills". Cripple and emerger patterns implied in my collection. The waterproof digital camera is packed to capture my fish as I hold them up for 3 seconds or so before release, barbs pinched down. I will be "head-hunting" (ie looking for big fish) so numbers don't matter as much as the elusive search for the monster browns feeding on crippled cahills. Looking forward to a nice quiet evening on the Mighty Mo with a friend or two. I will be filing a report on my findings! I know its short notice, but should we post this in the "outings" forum?_


----------



## Shoeman

:lol:

Pretty funny read

I see there's quite the love for Matt. Personally I have nothing against the man. Met him a few times at the launch at Henning. I even helped him when his wife clipped a fender into a brand-new tire.  Ran into him fishing solo above his lodge and he was very willing to share the latest scoop. His agenda doesn't really differ from mine. We all want a better fishery, not just the annual plant of 4-6"ers. After spending some time on his site I see Matt does do his homework even if it has a business-like spin to it. Can't blame him there. He's no different than Steve @ BBT, or some of the charter guys plowing the Great Lakes. If there's an opportunity to better the fishery, or an idea to limit the harvesting of larger fish through slots without gear restrictions, I'm all for it! (even if I fish nothing but bugs)

Before you guys accuse me of kissing his ass, let me share a little history on my part. I cut my teeth fishing the Au Sable back in the 70's and early 80's, mostly between Parmalee and 4001. Anything below Mio is much like the Muskegon. Way warm (ACTUALLY WARMER) and tons of canoes and tubers, yet it holds some real trophies. That stretch has enjoyed "special regs" for as long as I can remember. They do work!! (2 fish a day, no bait)

Then in 89 I bought a river boat that could cover some serious water and headed west. We had already deciphered the Big Man during the salmon and steelhead run, fished the Grand, the Joe and even the Flat above Lowell for the bass. Information on rivers was very limited, with only the weekly newspaper report and Fred Trost. Locals were very tight-lipped and all of our knowledge came through trial and error. (and lots of lost hardware :lol

It was late Spring and we launched at Anderson's. Back then we called it Old Widow's Point. We ran up as far we could and fished back down. It was nothing to catch 50-60 trout a day. Probably a dozen or more better than the Au Sable. What a hoot! And we never even fished the Upper River where the fishing was better yet. 

After selling my weekend house in Oscoda and a few year spell of cruising the Great Lakes we decided to buy a motorhome and put it on the Muskegon River. That was in 2001. Since then I have logged countless hours on that river chasing trout. Seen great years and some not so good, but always caught a few "real trophies" each year. 

Maybe I got bored, maybe I wanted to take this fishing thing to another level, or maybe my pocket book had too much money, but I jumped into this flyfishing thing with both feet. For the first season I always took my "crutch" (a hardware rod, a few Panther Martins and some Rapalas). I think it helped me find some of the better habitat and taught me where the fish were on this endless riffle. Seemed the entire river was full trout. For the last 5-6 years I hit it with 3 long rods. One rigged with dries, another with nymphs and a 6wt rigged for deep work. The first few seasons (prior to the reversal of the special regs) some real consistant catches of brutes came to the net, but that was prior to year-long droughts and above average temps. Could I blame the reversal? Sure, but I doubt that was the main factor. 

I don't participate in the circus surrounding the salmon and steelhead. Seems a few that that have an axe to grind with Matt don't even go there for the trout and might not like his demeanor or fishing methods during the height of "stupid season", but that shouldn't be considered when it comes to the health or preservation of some of the larger trout. He does have a voice and it's probably louder than a few guys behind a keyboard.

Many of us (keyboarders) have discussed trout regs at length. Most of us agree that our trout program is in the stone age. Gear restrictions are social, but like mentioned above most of us can live with slots, which might/should be instilled on many prime waters. Once these fish went through a summer even in marginal waters the potential of them growing to trophy status is pretty good. 

At this point it seems that many of us have the same agenda. We want a better fishery, not just a "Dear Santa, I want it all".


----------



## Whit1

Shoeman said:


> :lol:
> 
> Pretty funny read
> 
> I see there's quite the love for Matt. Personally I have nothing against the man. Met him a few times at the launch at Henning. I even helped him when his wife clipped a fender into a brand-new tire.  Ran into him fishing solo above his lodge and he was very willing to share the latest scoop. His agenda doesn't really differ from mine. We all want a better fishery, not just the annual plant of 4-6"ers. After spending some time on his site I see Matt does do his homework even if it has a business-like spin to it. Can't blame him there. He's no different than Steve @ BBT, or some of the charter guys plowing the Great Lakes. If there's an opportunity to better the fishery, or an idea to limit the harvesting of larger fish through slots without gear restrictions, I'm all for it! (even if I fish nothing but bugs)
> 
> Before you guys accuse me of kissing his ass, let me share a little history on my part. I cut my teeth fishing the Au Sable back in the 70's and early 80's, mostly between Parmalee and 4001. Anything below Mio is much like the Muskegon. Way warm (ACTUALLY WARMER) and tons of canoes and tubers, yet it holds some real trophies. That stretch has enjoyed "special regs" for as long as I can remember. They do work!! (2 fish a day, no bait)
> 
> Then in 89 I bought a river boat that could cover some serious water and headed west. We had already deciphered the Big Man during the salmon and steelhead run, fished the Grand, the Joe and even the Flat above Lowell for the bass. Information on rivers was very limited, with only the weekly newspaper report and Fred Trost. Locals were very tight-lipped and all of our knowledge came through trial and error. (and lots of lost hardware :lol
> 
> It was late Spring and we launched at Anderson's. Back then we called it Old Widow's Point. We ran up as far we could and fished back down. It was nothing to catch 50-60 trout a day. Probably a dozen or more better than the Au Sable. What a hoot! And we never even fished the Upper River where the fishing was better yet.
> 
> After selling my weekend house in Oscoda and a few year spell of cruising the Great Lakes we decided to buy a motorhome and put it on the Muskegon River. That was in 2001. Since then I have logged countless hours on that river chasing trout. Seen great years and some not so good, but always caught a few "real trophies" each year.
> 
> Maybe I got bored, maybe I wanted to take this fishing thing to another level, or maybe my pocket book had too much money, but I jumped into this flyfishing thing with both feet. For the first season I always took my "crutch" (a hardware rod, a few Panther Martins and some Rapalas). I think it helped me find some of the better habitat and taught me where the fish were on this endless riffle. Seemed the entire river was full trout. For the last 5-6 years I hit it with 3 long rods. One rigged with dries, another with nymphs and a 6wt rigged for deep work. The first few seasons (prior to the reversal of the special regs) some real consistant catches of brutes came to the net, but that was prior to year-long droughts and above average temps. Could I blame the reversal? Sure, but I doubt that was the main factor.
> 
> I don't participate in the circus surrounding the salmon and steelhead. Seems a few that that have an axe to grind with Matt don't even go there for the trout and might not like his demeanor or fishing methods during the height of "stupid season", but that shouldn't be considered when it comes to the health or preservation of some of the larger trout. He does have a voice and it's probably louder than a few guys behind a keyboard.
> 
> Many of us (keyboarders) have discussed trout regs at length. Most of us agree that our trout program is in the stone age. Gear restrictions are social, but like mentioned above most of us can live with slots, which might/should be instilled on many prime waters. Once these fish went through a summer even in marginal waters the potential of them growing to trophy status is pretty good.
> 
> At this point it seems that many of us have the same agenda. We want a better fishery, not just a "Dear Santa, I want it all".


Nice post Mr. R.


----------



## Flyfisher

Seriously Shoeman, I am going flyfishing for trout, and I was inspired by water temps in the 60's on a river that usually flows well into the 70's by the end of July. I find "over the top" writing styles entertaining, so I emulate them on occasion. Glad you found it funny, as it was meant to be good natured humor. As I posted yesterday, we are experiencing the COOLEST JULY ON RECORD, which undoubtably has resulted in some good news for the trout, and folks that pursue them. 

Unfortunately, I have seen too much "behind the scenes" antics of some of the outfitters and guides on the Muskegon. One October morning a few years ago, when wade-fishing bait under a bobber for fall steelhead with Steinfishski and another M-S member, I had one guide (not Matt) for a well known outfitter up there float by with his client, mumbling "look at those snaggers". Bear in mind, we were fishing a deep run with bobbers and they were chuck and duck "fly-fishing" for salmon. If I recall, we did pretty well on the chromers that morning (released them all as well), but it put a rotten taste in my mouth for that guide and the lodge he worked for. There are many more stories but this is neither the time nor place for it. I don't dislike or hate Matt, just disagree with him on a lot of issues. 

We all want a better fishery but it should be supported by scientific evidence, not by emotion, future earnings potential, or a picture or two of a big brown. Rather than alienating and taking making jabs at people that don't flyfish through writings in web-forums, blogs, and magazine articles, why not embrace those folks as fellow sportsmen for the good of the resource. I think the majority of us here on the site practice, at the very least, selective catch and release and yet Michigan-Sportsman was labeled "unfriendly to flyfishermen and quality regs" in a recent blog, despite several areas of this site dedicated to conservation, flyfishing and flytying. 

So, would I like to see a better fishery on the Muskegon? Definitely! Can it be accomplished through different regulations? Haven't seen the scientific proof yet nor have I seen a *viable*, non-emotional counter-response to the DNR study that was performed. Bottom line, rather than blasting the DNR in an arrogant, know-it-all fashion, maybe a soft-handed cooperative approach to the management of the trout fishery on the Muskegon is needed?


----------



## Shoeman

Flyfisher said:


> We all want a better fishery but it should be supported *by scientific evidence, not by emotion, future earnings potential, or a picture or two of a big brown. Rather than alienating and taking making jabs at people that don't flyfish through writings in web-forums, blogs, and magazine articles, why not embrace those folks as fellow sportsmen for the good of the resource.* I think the majority of us here on the site practice, at the very least, selective catch and release and yet Michigan-Sportsman was labeled "unfriendly to flyfishermen and quality regs" in a recent blog, despite several areas of this site dedicated to conservation, flyfishing and flytying.


Agreed!

And perhaps years of "name-calling" gave Matt the right to recriprocate the feeling on his own blog, even when a good majority of the trout fishermen on this site practice flyfishing

If you plan on coming up in the next couple of weeks, give me a bump. Just leave the 12' 7X leaders at home. You'll loose too many fish...LOL


----------



## Flyfisher

Shoeman said:


> Just leave the 12' 7X leaders at home. You'll loose too many fish...LOL


Never had any problems before and that includes some tailwaters with way better than average trout. I only fish dries, and the size of the fly dictates the tippet.

I'll be up there tonight. If the fishing/hatches are good and the water stays under 70 degrees, I'll be fishing evenings during the week on occasion.


----------



## Splitshot

Ralf,

I agree with the quality regulations that are not Flies only or No Kill but only where they create a better fishery for the general public. This is not going to happen on the Muskegon until they find a way to keep the temperature below 72 for sustained periods of time. Even with the bubbler that may not happen.

The Little Manistee in the flies only supports bigger than normal trout and they are all wild. Even in the days when all methods could be used it was a big fish area. After all the improvements starting in the late nineties it is much better today. The Little Manistee has all the qualities needed to grow trophy fish. Food, cover, water quality and cool water temperatures all year. For the most part the fish are all wild. While I dont support the flies only, I do support the trophy designation on my home waters.

Any river where a majority of the fish have to be planted to sustain a decent fishery be it because of warm summer temperatures or lack of suitable habitat should not be considered for trophy waters in my opinion. Currently we have no trout slot limits that I am aware of but the 15" minimum is just as good.

The Muskegon has most of these qualities but the river does not reliably maintain cool water temperatures except in certain areas to support any trout fishery through out the summer. The DNR plants 100,000 trout in this river and as the study showed 99% of these trout die without ever reaching the minimum size of 15 inches. Many of us feel it makes no sense to penalize all the regular fishermen and women who would utilize these trout just to benefit a few individuals.

I also disagree with the premise that we should manage our public resources for the benefit of local businesses. I think we should manage our resources based on what is best for the resource and then what is best for the majority who pay the tariff.

The guides loved the old 15" rule because most average fishermen who fished the river quit fishing below Thornapple because they never caught a legal fish and it is only a small percentage of people who fish for trout just to release them all. The rule effectively kept people from using the river giving the guides a perfect scenario. Thousands of trout that are easy to catch, very little competition from the general public and few people.

The two guides you mentioned Ralf care about the river and care about maintaining the best fishery possible, but care very little for the rest of us. Those average fishermen and women without whom there would be no plants or habitat improvements or trout research or lamprey control.

Remember our rivers are owned by the public, who should have first rights to the river and the fish. Guides take advantage of the efforts of the DNR and the money supplied by people who purchase fishing licenses. Few people care if guides fish for profit but should do so on and equal basis. Instead of being grateful to the public and the DNR for providing these excellent fisheries many guides feel they are entitled to more than their share and work hard to change the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of those who foot the bill.

On the Muskegon the 15" rule only benefitted guides and hard core fishermen who know these little secret spots where bigger trout can survive the high water temperatures. They dont care that 99% of the fish go underutilized as long as they can have access to a few more trophy fish for their clients. And like I said, instead of being grateful to the public for the money they invested to make these fisheries great, they resent them and question their morals, call fishermen who keep fish greedy or call them un-sportsmen like. You know Matt made the wrong assumption about my motives but in his mind anyone who doesnt support his ethical view must be after the 10" hatchery fish. The irony is as I pointed out earlier, he is the one spending most of his time chasing hatchery fish. 

Every time a guide hires a kid to stake out a hole or only leaves a hole when another guide arrives are cheating the average guy out of an opportunity to catch fish. When the guides united against the weir on the PM because the steel head were reluctant to pass the low voltage making them more available to fishermen without boats they made the same kind of disparaging remarks about keeping fish. This lamprey weir was installed to test the theory that low voltage could keep lamprey from infesting the entire river system without chemicals but this group put pressure on them to stop the experiment because it was taking to long.

Of course if they continued the research, they might have discovered a breakthrough that might have controlled the lamprey eels without using chemicals that kill other invertebrates like mayfly larva, but less fish above the weir meant less fish for their clients to catch which means less cash.

Speaking of the PM, when the new rules are released, you will find that on the PM you will need a permit into November instead of September starting next year. Most of us feel that there are to many guides on PM and the guides feel there are to many regular fishermen on the river. The guides made their case to forestry and forestry has further limited the number of regular fishermen by making them get a permit during prime salmon and steel head seasons. The guides get their permits once every 5 years.

Obviously more guides wrote to forestry about the new plan than average fishermen wrote because it is the guides that have money on the line and the average guy didnt know what was going on so they got punished again. I spent hours writing them about my thoughts on the plan, but I was only one small voice and totally ignored.

Unless the DNR and the National Forest Service finds a way to get more interaction from the general public like through a web-site like this, it is not going to change. Rules will continue to be formulated to favor those businesses that make money on our public resources and who are involved in protecting those interests on a daily basis.

Back to the Muskegon. Caneman responded to me before he retreated to his blog by saying I didnt understand what he wrote so I am going to explain it again for him.



CANEMAN said:


> I think most good sportsman would go along with keeping a few for the pan and releasing the larger trout 15" and over. I don't kill any trout myself but I can understand the guys who like to take home a couple small ones for the pan..


So Caneman is saying in his opinion good sportsmen release larger trout and he is more than a good sportsman by his own definition because he releases all of his trout. Then he becomes understanding of the guy who only takes home a couple of small ones. How gracious of him to define what kind of sportsman a person is who is obeying the laws.



CANEMAN said:


> I'm sure whatever comes of it all....your not going to please everybody, except maybe the trout....and isn't that what it all about. The days of greed and excess are far behind us now that we all learned the hard way. I see better days ahead for the MO...IF we can all agree that the trout need to be nurtured and not just harvested.


Caneman thinks trout fishing is all about the trout, not the fishermen. Then he says the days of greed and excess are far behind us. What days are those Caneman. Fishing is better now than at anytime in my lifetime. Remember I was fishing the Muskegon long before you ever new it existed. Take away the planted trout and steel head and the fishery for steel head and trout dies. Oh there will always be a few, but nothing like it is now. You rely on the sportsmens money to maintain this fishery then you try to squeeze him out. To further show your disdain, you make the statement that it will be okay if we just nurture the trout and not just harvest them. Disingenuous, does not even begin to describe the hypocrisy in that post.

Over the years whenever I point out how guides are exploiting our rivers someone will say but I met this guy and he is very helpful and a great guy. Explain this, if someone is nice to you while they rob you does that somehow make it okay? 



Shoeman said:


> Agreed! And perhaps years of "name-calling" gave Matt the right to recriprocate the feeling on his own blog, even when a good majority of the trout fishermen on this site practice flyfishing


Ralf,

Most trout fishermen on this site practice fly fishing? I would have never guessed that one. Regarding the years of name calling, Matt is jaded by his beliefs. I dont want to post the DNR reply to his attack against them a couple of years ago. They rebuked every point he made and from his current writings he has learned nothing. If you want to call that doing his homework, fine. Personally I dont have much respect for people who when their beliefs are challenged, cut and run. He does have the right to say and attack anyone he wants to attack on his blog, but that doesnt make him right.

Steve at BBT and I had a conversation on his web-site about the lamprey weir and when it appeared he was losing the argument, he just deleted the entire threat. When I asked him why he simply said it was his web-site and he could do whatever he wanted to do. I havent been back since. Someone told me that guides wont argue on the Internet because they dont want to take a chance it will cost them business. I dont care, if it works for them fine. Personally I believe it is because they are on the wrong side of the argument, but that is just my opinion.


KWB,

I dont think anyone is against the bubbler but since Mondrella raised the question about the world class pike fishery above the dam that might rely on the cold water pool it is something that should be answered.


----------



## Flyfisher

Hit the river shortly after 7:00pm off state land between Pine and Thornapple, on a large flat shallow stretch that I have experienced decent brown trout fishing in the past. The first of a dozen or so planter 'bows came on a #18 elk hair caddis on my 2nd cast over him. Couldn't get any other fish to go on that so I switched to a rather simply tied poly wing emerger with an antron tail. Color didn't seem to matter, nor did size and I took every fish I cast to on flies between #16 and #20. Long, light leaders helped present the fly in the braided currents, as well as a pile cast. These little guys did require a drag-free drift. I managed 9" brown just at dark, around 9:30pm. Never saw or hooked any "holdover" fish and the rising activity was erratic at best, with no fish setting up in regular feeding patterns. Bugs were pretty sparse, with light cahills going unmolested by the trout, however every fly that flew above 15' got hammered by the abundant swallows. Caddis were present but not in numbers even close to the historical levels I recall in the 90's. Lots of miscellaneous mini-bugs such as midges, olives, and micro caddis. Despite wearing shorts under my waders and lightweight socks, I didn't feel any "rush of cold water". And to my surprise when I got home and checked the temp at Croton, I realized that the river temp was up to at least 71 degrees today. At least I only had to share the 1/4 mile of river with one other angler all evening. Now I know why no one bothers to fish there in the evening for trout.


----------



## KWB

Yeah, I never thought of Pike. I would assume if things got too hot, they would be less likely to die than say Trout. Plus they could always take refuge near the mouth of a coldwater tributary or Spring. One thing's for sure, we will find out in due time.

Hopefully the Bubbler is able to do what it is directed at doing, without hurting anything else.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Shoeman said:


> Agreed!
> 
> And perhaps years of "name-calling" gave Matt the right to recriprocate the feeling on his own blog


He is actually speaking like a reasonable person on his blog. I'm not sure why he could not do so here. Is it that he can post on his blog and not be questioned? Probably.

I have never had a problem with Matt on the river. What I do have a problem with was his posts here blindly thinking that new regs would work, when they have been proven not to. On his site he gave reasons why he thought the studies were flawed, he did not do so here, just spouted off in a dramatic fashion. Can't respect someone that knows the facts do not support his case so he tries to take the argument off track since if based on facts his argument does not have merit. It is much easier to snipe at the regs and studies with conjecture. Fortunately our DNR does not have the luxury of going by gut feel, fortunately they are obligated to back up their decisions with science. I know it still sticks in the craw of some in the DNR that there is a social regulation in place not based on science, yes, the flies only water of the PM. It's easy to take pot shots at the DNR when he knows good and well that they will not get on here to counter his points. The premise that O'Neil wanted the special regs removed and purposely skewed things to make that happen is also absurd. 

Now if he was man enough to support his questioning of the facts on an open forum, I can respect that, but to snipe at the dicussion from his blog where he can not be questioned is child like.

Any ridicule that Matt takes, he bring upon himself.


----------



## Shoeman

Splitshot said:


> Ralf,
> 
> Most trout fishermen on this site practice fly fishing? I would have never guessed that one. Regarding the years of name calling, Matt is jaded by his beliefs. I dont want to post the DNR reply to his attack against them a couple of years ago. They rebuked every point he made and from his current writings he has learned nothing. If you want to call that doing his homework, fine. Personally I dont have much respect for people who when their beliefs are challenged, cut and run. He does have the right to say and attack anyone he wants to attack on his blog, but that doesnt make him right.


Perhaps homework should be defined, but that being said, I value your "opinion" on the Little River more so than let's say Ladykiller that might hit it twice a year.  

If someone fishes and/or observes it on a daily basis, his deductions weigh considerably more than just a guy who looks for early kings and draws a general concensus from just a few hours wading a short stretch. 

My point being, Matt is out there all the time. He should be, it's his living. Sure there's a spin. Many of the recent changes such as increased hatches and a change in water color, which are very appearant even to the casual observer are mentioned on his site. All of these things along with the cool summer so far and the installation of the bubbler are positive things. Are they enough to create an above average fishery? I think we already have that and it "may" get even better. 

Enough to make changes to existing regs? Slots? 

I keep hearing about Put and Take. Back to the Au Sable. Who pushed for the Special Regs below Mio over 30+ years ago? I don't think it was Rusty. I don't remember any guides operating on that stretch (although I wasn't looking for them back then...LOL) I do remember many fish in the 20+ range and noone fishing for them. I also remember the river turning to bathwater in late July/August. Low 80 degree temps were not unusual. Yet it remained "Special Regs" and was never contested. There is however a recent push to extend the season beyond the regular trout closure that from what I gather will be put on the books next year. 

How about Tippy? 15" for years. Not sure, but wasn't it 16" for decades. More marginal water. Noone crying to overturn that. Granted many of the rainbows planted are steelhead and close to 12" before they head out, but what about the browns?

I can see with all the micro management that "special interest" feels they can put their foot in the door and sway regs into their own favor. You saw that with the Club and now with the PM guides and the permits. UNREAL!!!! Bad enough guys sleeping on holes. That was my last time on that river (and I don't miss it and the circus)

Flyfisher,

I have logged over 40 days on the river in the last 2 months. Wading the river is not a good option when looking for consistant action. We have found do to the complex hatches (sometimes 4 different bugs at once), the feeders move with the flavor of the day. Prime example: One of my favorite runs is about a 1/2 mile long. Some evenings they would be at the top of fast water grabbing emergers from a flat above and in the morning right in the tailout way below and the direct opposite the next night. Almost impossible to target on foot while the feedbag is on. Also, there's many "bare spots" in the river. Areas that have held fish in years past now seem totally void of life. At least that's my opinion (and homework...LMAO)


----------



## Shoeman

TSS Caddis said:


> He is actually speaking like a reasonable person on his blog. I'm not sure why he could not do so here.


Sounds like an invite


----------



## Steve

> The guides loved the old 15" rule because most average fishermen who fished the river quit fishing below Thornapple because they never caught a legal fish and it is only a small percentage of people who fish for trout just to release them all. The rule effectively kept people from using the river giving the guides a perfect scenario. Thousands of trout that are easy to catch, very little competition from the general public and few people.


Irregardless of whether I agree or disagree with the old 15" rule, I don't agree with this statement. The rule did not keep people from using the river. Rather I (and I'm sure I'm not alone) was more than happy to float that section and try my luck and was happy to toss back the sub 15" fish.


----------



## Flyfisher

The river spiked at 71 degrees and dropped down to a "chilly" 68 degrees overnight, despite lows in the 50's. It was 69 degrees this morning so one can only imagine what it will end up at by days end. This is the coldest July EVER on record and it didn't even get up to 80 degrees yesterday, and yet the river still spiked into the 70's? Bubbler or not, its a good thing we aren't having a normal summer or the temps certainly would be at the lethal range for rainbow trout, 75F/24C. To ever imagine this river as a self-sustaining fishery, "quality regs" or not, is simply fantasy and wishful thinking. 

As TSS Caddis mentioned, I too would like a mature debate on the topic of "quality regs" here on Michigan-Sportsman, rather than reading responses mixed with fantasy fiction on a blog. I believe we all want the what is best for the Muskegon River and its fishery and perhaps constructive conversation could lead to a "maximized" fishery, assuming the Muskegon is not already there. 

Personally, I would be curious as to why the hatchery rainbow strain was changed from the _Mt Shasta_ to the _Eagle Lake _strain starting in 1997? In researching lethal temps for trout, I ran across an intersting study that showed the former, _Mt Shasta_, with higher growth rates and tolerance for warmer waters. My personal observations, not science by any means, was that I caught some nice holdover rainbows in mid-late 90's. Perhaps someone recalls why the decision was made to change the type of rainbow that was planted? Here is a link to the study: http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/0FC4BFA7-EAF6-4F45-912F-B78666C81EAE/0/APDEA_AttachmentITroutTemperatureRequirements.pdf


----------



## TSS Caddis

I just finished reading Ray's post. Like anyone there is some spin, but boy, 90% of it is spot on IMO. Ray very eliquently captured the big picture of this whole thing. There is much more to this debate than what is best for the fishery, there is a lot of "what is best for me.". 

BTW, as FlyFisher is saying, 1 cold summer is nice to have, but regs should not be adjusted to it.

Trust me, I'd love to have larger trout in that river. Unfortunately reality is that unless the bubbler has an huge impact that it will be destined to remain a marginal cold water fishery. Yes Matt, I said "marginal", I know you hate it when people refer to it as that, but it is. Water temps show that and I don't think even you can question the water temps.

Again, as our corporate attorney would say, "it is what it is". Translation being, as much as we may want the Mo to not be a marginal cold water fishery, it is and regs should be based on that.


----------



## Flyfisher

Shoeman said:


> Flyfisher,
> 
> I have logged over 40 days on the river in the last 2 months. Wading the river is not a good option when looking for consistant action. We have found do to the complex hatches (sometimes 4 different bugs at once), the feeders move with the flavor of the day. Prime example: One of my favorite runs is about a 1/2 mile long. Some evenings they would be at the top of fast water grabbing emergers from a flat above and in the morning right in the tailout way below and the direct opposite the next night. Almost impossible to target on foot while the feedbag is on. Also, there's many "bare spots" in the river. Areas that have held fish in years past now seem totally void of life. At least that's my opinion


Ralf, I picked a section that I could cover well over 1/4 mile of river, with practically every conceivable component that the Muskegon River offers as far a types of water. I stopped walking/wading when I found feeding fish and caught, or hooked, just about every one that I could reach with a cast. Then I explored more and didn't find anymore feeding fish so I returned to the area that I had earlier success. You are right, a boat does help, and I am quite familiar with the many "bare spots" in the river though my many years fishing between Croton and Newaygo out of drift boats, jet boats, and pontoon watercraft. A lot of the time in boats has been with "fun-trips" with friends that guide on the river. This particular area is by no means a "bare spot" and was even mentioned in a recent blog. Considering I have been tossing flies in the Mo well before you bought your first flyrod, please give me a little credit. There was no "feedbag" last night as, other than the micros, bugs were relatively scarce.


----------



## Shoeman

I didn't mean to come across like that. :help:

Sounds like Carmichael's.


----------



## Splitshot

Ralf,

I am not taking issue with Matts observations, only his conclusions. As far as the regulations below Tippy, I think they should be changed back to the 10" limit and I have made my feelings known. The guy from Michigan State who wrote his thesis clearly showed that the steel head fry dont make it through the summer. These same high water temperatures are the same ones that kill the trout. The fish biologist believe that more fish make it through the summer than on the Muskegon.

While that may be true, most summers most of the trout expire from the warm water temperatures and are wasted. In order for there to be a trophy fishery, the fish should be able to make it through the summer or people should be able to harvest them for consumption.

The bubbler would be a better option their, because the Pine River flows into Tippy Lake replenishing some of the cold water supply. Lets hope it works.

Ralf, I dont know who pushed for the regulations below Mio. If I had to guess I would say Rustys father. I have no problem with trophy regulations, only where they dont make sense. Mio has always been a special place where water temperatures have also been marginal. Brown trout can handle water temperatures a little warmer than rainbow trout and is perhaps one of the reasons the browns seem to strive. In that case, I see no reason to have a 15" limit on rainbows but I support the trophy regulations on brown trout. Since you mentioned Rusty, he and his minions are pushing hard for a No Kill below Mio to protect this trophy brown trout fishery even though like you say it has been a trophy fishery for over 30 years. 

They want No Kill even though the science shows that brown trout size will decrease under that regulation. Again if he would have said protect the easy fish he would have been more honest. To me that just supports my contention that when money is involved altruism loses.



Steve said:


> Irregardless of whether I agree or disagree with the old 15" rule, I don't agree with this statement. The rule did not keep people from using the river. Rather I (and I'm sure I'm not alone) was more than happy to float that section and try my luck and was happy to toss back the sub 15" fish.


Your not alone Steve, but the data collected by fish biologist rich ONeil supports my statement. They had people at the river for several summers collecting data and concluded that fewer people were fishing the section below Thornapple access. At the last outing I attended at Henning, I also enjoyed fishing the river as well. 

I am very thankful the DNR plants the Muskegon, the Big Manistee and all the other rivers. I enjoy catching trout whether they be planted or wild. I will admit I do enjoy catching wild trout more, but unlike Mr. S, I would never put anyone down for fishing for them. In my opinion any trout that makes it a year is just as difficult to catch than any wild trout except in No Kill areas. I find little challenge in that. To me it is one step below fishing in a trout pond. Still fun to fight them, but kind of like shooting a deer behind a fence. You can claim it is just as difficult, but inside you know differently.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I have a right to forage for my food. I give no other argument than that for my right to pursue fish and game. I do not mind regulation to maintain a sustainable population. After that, its all BS. This argument is the only one that can stand up to the test of time. It is one of the hardest arguments for anyone to deny. 

Has anybody been watching Canada and Sweden? They are starting to approach it solely from a fish standpoint. Sweden's studies have led them to allow a limit, then you must stop fishing. No size regulation, no catch and release. Their studies show that it is more conducive to the fishes health to limit the handling of fish, even if this means killing a few, than to expose many to catch and release. So has Canada's latest studies, but they have yet to act on them. Maybe for the sake of the fish, we should also embrace their studies. Pure nature, isn't it beautiful. 

Maybe we can cast in the holly waters and have kids hook pictures on the end of our lines of big brown's, thus sparing the fish from the near death experience of being hooked. Soilin Green! Its made out of fish I tell you. ITS MADE OUT OF FISH! "OH NO! SAY IT AIN'T SO! SAY IT AIN'T SO! MY MEDS! MY MEDS! Lets all sing. Cumbia my lord, cumbia."


----------



## Flyfisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Has anybody been watching Canada and Sweden? They are starting to approach it solely from a fish standpoint. Sweden's studies have led them to allow a limit, then you must stop fishing. No size regulation, no catch and release. Their studies show that it is more conducive to the fishes health to limit the handling of fish, even if this means killing a few, than to expose many to catch and release. So has Canada's latest studies, but they have yet to act on them. Maybe for the sake of the fish, we should also embrace their studies. Pure nature, isn't it beautiful.


Yeah, imagine paying $300 to get guided down the Muskegon River and right off the bat you *have to whack five 8" planters*...wham!:yikes: Your day is over! But on the plus side, a really good guide could schedule multiple trips in a day :lol:


----------



## riverman

This has been a pretty good so far but feel I need to set the record straight on a couple things. Ray (splitshot) wrote

"When the guides united against the weir on the PM because the steel head were reluctant to pass the low voltage making them more available to fishermen without boats they made the same kind of disparaging remarks about keeping fish. This lamprey weir was installed to test the theory that low voltage could keep lamprey from infesting the entire river system without chemicals but this group put pressure on them to stop the experiment because it was taking to long.

Of course if they continued the research, they might have discovered a breakthrough that might have controlled the lamprey eels without using chemicals that kill other invertebrates like mayfly larva, but less fish above the weir meant less fish for their clients to catch which means less cash.

Speaking of the PM, when the new rules are released, you will find that on the PM you will need a permit into November instead of September starting next year. Most of us feel that there are to many guides on PM and the guides feel there are to many regular fishermen on the river. The guides made their case to forestry and forestry has further limited the number of regular fishermen by making them get a permit during prime salmon and steel head seasons. The guides get their permits once every 5 years.

Obviously more guides wrote to forestry about the new plan than average fishermen wrote because it is the guides that have money on the line and the average guy didnt know what was going on so they got punished again. I spent hours writing them about my thoughts on the plan, but I was only one small voice and totally ignored."

#1 The low voltage weir study was not stopped by the guides(and a whole lot of other folks that fish that river) but has continued and will untill next year. After that determination will be made as to continue funding the study. Tuesday afternoon when I pulled into my cabin and the river was running bright yellow from lamphrey treatment is the main reason so many oppose it. It does not work and it's time to quit wasting tax payer money.

#2 Permits will be required in salmon season in the future. The reasons for the permits is to stop the overcrowding of certain sections/parking and to try to distibute the fisherman over more of the river. Getting a permit will most likely not be a problem, you just might not be fishing the section you wanted. Landowners, guides, forest sevice all saw the need for this. Many of public meetings were held prior to the writing of the new act and this was topic was talk about alot. 

#3 Try and find a special use permit that is needed to guide the PM. If you do find one, you had better have some deep pockets. Controlling the renegade guides with enforcment during peek seasons is all that's needed. Of course they are usually too busy handling all the complaints of trespass, snagging, and the rest of the circus act that comes to town every fall and spring. Alot of paper work is required to use a special use permit. It just isn't a free ride.

Great thread here and I might just add, On Monday fished summer runs down south with success, Wednesday's morn browns out of the PM, and kayaked the Pine in the afternoon with my daughter. All isn't perfect in this state and will never be, but if you love water, fishing, and all the rest, name me one state that offers more?


----------



## Fox

I agree, interesting thread. I think partof the issue is that there is a conflict between what the sciencesays and what apprently only some of us see/experience first hand. For example, for me, the months of Sept. and Oct. have historically (going back into the 80's) been great months for trout fishing. Lots of fish 10-14". Then just this last summer I've caught numerous fish 18" or better. I'm trying to brag, but just illustrate how it can be conflicting to consider it a marginal water. Do I think it will be the "bighorn of the midwest"? no way, I think what we see is what we get. I'm optimistic about the bubbler, but I'm not holding my breath. Having fished the river before and during reg changes I can't say that I've seen any significant difference, more anglers if anything. 
F


----------



## Flyfisher

I took the time to read Matt's (aka "CANEMAN") proposal for a slot limit on the Muskegon River which would allow for 2 browns between 10"-14". Here is the link if you care to read the entire presentation:
http://www.brasswindweb.com/grayDrake/images/muskegonBrownTrout.pdf

Matt, I encourage you to carry on the debate here, rather than pot shots and jabs mixed with some nice comments and responses through your blog. The moderators here will not allow things to get out of control and perhaps we can all find some common ground? I believe we all want the most, biggest, and best fisheries. Because I don't keep trout, I could care less if the river is "catch and release" or unlimited kill. I agree, based on the current strain of rainbow, that its wise to allow the take of 5 rainbows per day over 10". Unfortunately, it seems that the fish don't holdover well and a seemingly a very small portion of the fish actually grow to reach catchable (10") size.

Brown trout, on the other hand, are known to be a bit more tolerant than rainbows in regards to the warm temps that the Muskegon offers and rather than making comparisons to the Bighorn and Delaware (as you did in your presentation), perhaps using Mio as an example would make a better case. NOTE: I will say it right now and there is no argument...the Muskegon will NEVER be the Bighorn or Delaware so please do all the intelligent anglers out there a favor by not making the comparison again. You lose a lot of credibility with the hardcore, experienced anglers by even mentioning those two rivers in the same sentence as the Muskegon. 

I'll make a few additional points:

Lake-Run Browns-You post several pictures of what very well could be migratory brown trout from Lake Michigan except you assert that they are resident brown trout. I have caught lake-run browns in streams that could no way support resident fish and yet they exhibited the same "bright yellow" coloration as resident brown trout. Please do not insult our intelligence by trying to "explain" how these are resident fish. This, again, strikes negatively on your credibility.
To appeal to a broader spectrum of the angling community, you may want to propose that a "single" (1) trophy fish may be retained per day, in addition to a second fish in the slot limit. Basically, two browns over 10", with only one over 14", in combination with rainbow trout for a maximum limit of 5 trout. Otherwise you are promoting what amounts to a no kill area for fish over 14", on a river with no biological premise (due to the lack of documented natural reproduction) to support it.

In conclusion, and on a more personal note, what strikes at the heart of the many that fish the Muskegon is how special regs tend to attract unwanted attention, particularly from the businesses that rely on the fish that are property of everyone that buys a fishing license. From reading your blog, its been known for some time that the "bubbler" was getting installed, but it also reads like this is the savior of Muskegon. Sometimes, in advertising and promoting a product the fine line between fact and fiction, fantasy and reality, gets blurred. I cringe at what I may possibly read if "quality regs" were put in place on the Muskegon, and I am not the only one that feels this way. I have already read enough fictional reports and articles (ie advertisements) about spring steelhead and fall salmon on the Muskegon and they make my blood boil.

Now, I may have have brought up a few things that we don't agree on, but before you reply in an emotional, arrogant, or sarcastic fashion please bear in mind that I would seriously consider changes to the regulations in regards to brown trout on the Muskegon River, provided the DNR was on board and willing to commit to the study of them. 

I welcome your response here.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Fox said:


> Having fished the river before and during reg changes I can't say that I've seen any significant difference, more anglers if anything.
> F


And that is one of the reasons that the special reg water was done away with. No impact to the fishery as far as size of fish and a dramatic decrease in angling pressure. Maybe Matt can explain why if the special regs made the fishing so great the was no one utilizing that stretch?????

After all, it was loaded with 15"+ fish. I would have thought that would have drawn all sorts of people.


----------



## Splitshot

riverman said:


> #1 The low voltage weir study was not stopped by the guides(and a whole lot of other folks that fish that river) but has continued and will untill next year. After that determination will be made as to continue funding the study. Tuesday afternoon when I pulled into my cabin and the river was running bright yellow from lamphrey treatment is the main reason so many oppose it. It does not work and it's time to quit wasting tax payer money.


Kirk,

I know it is still ongoing, but I understood the decision was made to discontinue the study as you said after next year. I agree the guides were not the only ones lobbying against it but they have been vocally against it for the past few years. I think it is very short sighted of all the people who are fighting against the weir. Sorry the river was running yellow, but that was the problem the study was trying to solve. I think it is very important and had they been conducting the study on the Little Manistee I would have encouraged them to continue in spite of how it would affect me personally. If they had this encouragement perhaps they would feel more confident and solve the problem and this technology could have been used on all the rivers and streams in the state and maybe we could have rid ourselves of this pest and the chemicals used to control them.

In your opinion they were wasting tax payer dollars. In my opinion that is very short sighted. I would have continued to support them even if they wanted to quit. The setup is what cost the most money and once they stop the research it is unlikely to be started again so get used to your river and all the other rivers in the state to continue to run yellow. 



riverman said:


> #2 Permits will be required in salmon season in the future. The reasons for the permits is to stop the overcrowding of certain sections/parking and to try to distibute the fisherman over more of the river. Getting a permit will most likely not be a problem, you just might not be fishing the section you wanted. Landowners, guides, forest sevice all saw the need for this. Many of public meetings were held prior to the writing of the new act and this was topic was talk about alot.


These meetings largely consisting of locals who have a special interest pack these meetings and is why I keep pushing for a forum where the average guy can get his voice heard. If indeed there is over crowing, the first ones to go should have been the guides, not the average fisherman who might make only one trip a year. In peak season the guides are making money every day. Why are they more important. I understand how the system works and in the last 25 or 30 years the landowners, local businesses and guides have won almost every time. With more discussions like this one, perhaps we can turn the tide.



riverman said:


> #3 Try and find a special use permit that is needed to guide the PM. If you do find one, you had better have some deep pockets. Controlling the renegade guides with enforcment during peek seasons is all that's needed. Of course they are usually too busy handling all the complaints of trespass, snagging, and the rest of the circus act that comes to town every fall and spring. Alot of paper work is required to use a special use permit. It just isn't a free ride.


One of the problems is once you get one it is almost a lifetime deal. Personally I think that guides should be eliminated from rivers where the flow is under 2000 cfm. At the very least they should be limited to one weekend day (preferably Sunday) and two week days in order to give the average fishermen and women a chance at the best waters. They might not individually pay the same as a guide, but collectably pay thousands of times more. It is the average fisherman who spends his twenty eight dollars and goes only once a year and when he does cant get a permit to float so he walks in only to find a guide boat in every good hole for the entire weekend.

On the other side of the coin, and as a property owner I am aware of the temptation of thinking I have more right to the river than some guy who spends only $28.00 a year when I spend thousands just in property taxes. The truth is it was a conscious decision for me and just because I made the decision to own property next to the river it gives me no special privilege right to use the river than any other citizen. Kirk, you mentioned yourself that it wasnt only the guides, but businesses and property owners who are fighting against the interest of the public and might be why you are making a case supporting the guides. I dont know, just sounds like it.


----------



## riverman

Ray, I'm not going to hijack this thread another direction and will not reply again. The weirs future is going to based on the results and if funding is available. End of story. There is no secrect sect to eliminate the public from the river. Just an effort to reduce some of the problems with boat traffic. End of story. The guides are not the only ones hogging holes in Sept and gravel in April. It's everyone. The only way to stop that is to reduce the pressure and in Michigan that is not going to happen. The laws are very generous to the public in this state as far as access and I'm glad they are. Never has the old saying early bird gets the worm been more true than on many rivers during salmon/steelhead seasons. You know only too well the rest of the year a stream fisherman has them to himself. Kinda nice if you like to chase trout. :>)))))


----------



## Splitshot

Nothing to hijack. As a fisherman I am for any kind of research that will result in a better fishery. The more fishermen support this effort the harder the scientist will work toward funding it and finding a solution. The end of the story will come when they find a non chemical cure for the lamprey problem. There is no secret sect, but there are groups on almost every river who are in favor of rules that limit the public and they are pretty open about it.

If we eliminate guides from our smaller rivers, there would be less demand and people would have to do what most of us did and find these good places for themselves. Making rules for the benefit of money as history has shown does the resource no good. We need to remove the profit seekers when ever they start to forget that it is the average guy whose money is paying for their opportunity.


----------



## KBUCK

This is a great thing and should help huge!


----------



## MOJO-65

I have enjoyed reading this long and interesting thread.

Here's an observation that I have also posted on TSS.........

The disolved oxygen levels seem to be running lower than the yearly averages when it appears to me the bubbler is being operated. I have always been under the impression that cooler water was able to carry more disolved oxygen.

I check the USGS site daily and I'm pleased to see the lower water temperatures, but what is going on with the disolved oxygen?

Any thoughts?

Mojo


----------



## Ranger Ray

Colder water is capable of *holding *more dissolved oxygen, it doesn't make the oxygen. Example of lost oxygen would be cloudy days, there is a decreased level of oxygen produced from photosynthesis that occurs and equates to a loss of oxygen available in the water. Hope this helps, as it is a really simplified explanation.


----------



## CANEMAN

Years ago, I remember seeing an old picture in a book of two "sportsman" standing in front of an old barn with fifty very large trout nailed to the side of it with a hand written caption below it reading "Mornings Limit". 
The picture came to mind when I saw the pictures that SPLITSHOT posted of his fine catch.
Just because the legal limit of trout was fifty back in those early days...didn't make it right,
it just made it legal.

What if, say one hundred years from now,this blog could be read by future sportsman,what do you think they would be saying about it and it's readers? Will my views be looked upon
as "absurd" because I put the interests of the resource before my own personal gratification...or because I gave back more to the river then I took?

I doesn't matter who's views are right or wrong, but only that what we do is ... what is right, and that's not always the same as just doing what's legal or what the DNR thinks...and by no means does taking a picture of ones limit of dead trout make any of us a better sportsman.
The mistake I made was thinking that the someone reading this blog would at least consider giving a little more back to the river than what is taken. It's clear in reading all the comments
here who the takers are and who isn't...who cares and those who just don't give a damn.

You know, SPLITSHOT was right, my comments were just "absurd", stupid and silly... and by God it's his right to take whatever he can from the river ...and I'll bet that if the DNR would
allow snagging again?.....well, some of us learn and move on (like I'll be doing for good here shortly) and others just take pictures of morning limits.


----------



## Flyfisher

CANEMAN said:


> ...and I'll bet that if the DNR would
> allow snagging again?


Lets hope they never allow snagging again. Its disgusting enough to watch some of the guides on the Muskegon allowing their clients to snag and fight foul-hooked salmon on two-fly chuck 'n duck rigs....flyfishing? I think not! Sporting? Hardly!


----------



## thousandcasts

CANEMAN said:


> Years ago, I remember seeing an old picture in a book of two "sportsman" standing in front of an old barn with fifty very large trout nailed to the side of it with a hand written caption below it reading "Mornings Limit".
> The picture came to mind when I saw the pictures that SPLITSHOT posted of his fine catch.
> Just because the legal limit of trout was fifty back in those early days...didn't make it right,
> it just made it legal.
> 
> What if, say one hundred years from now,this blog could be read by future sportsman,what do you think they would be saying about it and it's readers? Will my views be looked upon
> as "absurd" because I put the interests of the resource before my own personal gratification...or because I gave back more to the river then I took?
> 
> I doesn't matter who's views are right or wrong, but only that what we do is ... what is right, and that's not always the same as just doing what's legal or what the DNR thinks...and by no means does taking a picture of ones limit of dead trout make any of us a better sportsman.
> The mistake I made was thinking that the someone reading this blog would at least consider giving a little more back to the river than what is taken. It's clear in reading all the comments
> here who the takers are and who isn't...who cares and those who just don't give a damn.
> 
> You know, SPLITSHOT was right, my comments were just "absurd", stupid and silly... and by God it's his right to take whatever he can from the river ...and I'll bet that if the DNR would
> allow snagging again?.....well, some of us learn and move on (like I'll be doing for good here shortly) and others just take pictures of morning limits.


Just because someone doesn't favor special regs, it doesn't mean they don't give a damn. We're not talking about some pristine trout stream here, we're talking about the Muskegon--where without DNR planting, the bulk of the fish population consists of suckers and smallmouth. Neither of which is a cold water species. If you ask me, the whole stream trout program in that river is a waste of money and hatchery space. I'd love nothing more than to see those plants cut in half and the difference made up with MORE STEELHEAD. As it is now, it's no different than dumping planter trout in Lime or Half Moon Lakes. Most die or get caught in the first season and a few lucky ones survive through the next winter to get big. However, with the numbers of fish planted, the ones that do holdover to become larger fish are miniscule in comparison. Are they there? Yep, no doubt about it. Are they there in large numbers? Nope...not when you compare them to the numbers planted. So the choice is let them die or set regs to allow some utilization via harvest. That's what you get in a warm water stream...and that's exactly what the Muskegon is. It's a great steelhead river that I love dearly, but it's delusional to think that it's anything but an artificial fishery that's reliant upon continued DNR plants, period. 

It's stuff like this that makes me glad that the Mo has some guides like Chad Betts--someone who has a good head on his shoulders and doesn't make the fishery out to be anything other than what it is. Which is why he's considered one of the "good guys" on that river. Some of the others should take a few lessons from him.


----------



## Echolalia

CANEMAN said:


> Years ago, I remember seeing an old picture in a book of two "sportsman" standing in front of an old barn with fifty very large trout nailed to the side of it with a hand written caption below it reading "Mornings Limit".
> The picture came to mind when I saw the pictures that SPLITSHOT posted of his fine catch.
> Just because the legal limit of trout was fifty back in those early days...didn't make it right,
> it just made it legal.
> 
> What if, say one hundred years from now,this blog could be read by future sportsman,what do you think they would be saying about it and it's readers? Will my views be looked upon
> as "absurd" because I put the interests of the resource before my own personal gratification...or because I gave back more to the river then I took?
> 
> I doesn't matter who's views are right or wrong, but only that what we do is ... what is right, and that's not always the same as just doing what's legal or what the DNR thinks...and by no means does taking a picture of ones limit of dead trout make any of us a better sportsman.
> The mistake I made was thinking that the someone reading this blog would at least consider giving a little more back to the river than what is taken. It's clear in reading all the comments
> here who the takers are and who isn't...who cares and those who just don't give a damn.
> 
> You know, SPLITSHOT was right, my comments were just "absurd", stupid and silly... and by God it's his right to take whatever he can from the river ...and I'll bet that if the DNR would
> allow snagging again?.....well, some of us learn and move on (like I'll be doing for good here shortly) and others just take pictures of morning limits.


The knowledge that's available today on population growth, viable ecosystems, planting, survival rates, variables such as viruses, bacteria, weather conditions etc is far greater than it ever has before. The DNR takes much more careful consideration into regs that allow the maximum enjoyment for fishermen while allowing enough fish to sustain the population. Personally I always throw back, simply because I don't like the taste of fish, but having taken a couple bio classes related to this, I definitely feel more comfortable about the DNR's work and the research and information they consider when setting regulations.


----------



## Fishbone

Flyfisher said:


> Lets hope they never allow snagging again. Its disgusting enough to watch some of the guides on the Muskegon allowing their clients to snag and fight foul-hooked salmon on two-fly chuck 'n duck rigs....flyfishing? I think not! Sporting? Hardly!


I think a lot of us get the point with the whole guide sport technique thingy. Just like the trout regulation conspiracy, it is like beating a compost pile again & again. There is more than enough of this same type of splattered evidence floating around on these forums, and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

IMO, there is not a sufficient amount of scientific evidence to back your theory. It is only based on personal observation and nothing more.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Echolalia said:


> The knowledge that's available today on population growth, viable ecosystems, planting, survival rates, variables such as viruses, bacteria, weather conditions etc is far greater than it ever has before. The DNR takes much more careful consideration into regs that allow the maximum enjoyment for fishermen while allowing enough fish to sustain the population. Personally I always throw back, simply because I don't like the taste of fish, but having taken a couple bio classes related to this, I definitely feel more comfortable about the DNR's work and the research and information they consider when setting regulations.


Exactly. 

From what I've read and heard at the meetings, the regs were changed back for 2 reasons:

1) They did not meet their goal or larger trout. The trout stayed the same size.
2) Angler enjoyment. They found that the angler use of that section of river declined dramatically.


----------



## Ranger Ray

CANEMAN said:


> What if, say one hundred years from now,this blog could be read by future sportsman,what do you think they would be saying about it and it's readers? Will my views be looked upon
> as "absurd" because I put the interests of the resource before my own personal gratification...or because I gave back more to the river then I took?


There will be a bunch of Peta people reading it and stating: "Can you believe people caught fish just for fun called catch and release? Oh and some made a living doing it? Thats just morally wrong. Good thing we put the resources before our personal gratification and were able to get it outlawed. Moral high five!"


----------



## Flyfisher

Did anyone of the mods make contact with CANEMAN's alter-ego Matt? I was hoping to carry on the discussion without having to look at pictures of doomed skams trapped in creek-mouths. Hopefully, there were steelhead steaks on his grill last night or it was probably just another wasted gamefish. Hey, its not like they naturally reproduce in the "Joe", might as well enjoy some fresh fish? Seriously, skams are probably better eating than farm-raised Atlantics.


----------



## KWB

This thread needs to be sent directly to Hollywood, you guys would be perfect for Days of our Lives or whatever it's called! Seriously guys, think about it...


----------



## TSS Caddis

KWB said:


> This thread needs to be sent directly to Hollywood, you guys would be perfect for Days of our Lives or whatever it's called! Seriously guys, think about it...



I don't see it. This is a serious topic. If pure speculation on regs, half truths, misrepresentations are allowed to influence regs instead of fact, we are all f'd in the future.

I don't care what Sputniks motivations are, if he can support his argument with facts I'm more than willing to listen. But the conspiracy theory, half truths and misrepresentations don't go anywhere with me.


----------



## Flyfisher

TSS Caddis said:


> I don't care what Sputniks motivations are, if he can support his argument with facts I'm more than willing to listen. But the conspiracy theory, half truths and misrepresentations don't go anywhere with me.


Good point! So if the DNR surveys/creel census/shockings weren't adequate/flawed (or purposedly biased by Rich O'Neal) in Mr. Supinski's opinion, perhaps Matt can suggest the best methods for the DNR to collect data on the growth and retention of this hatchery dependent fishery?


----------



## Shoeman

I don't ever recall being part of an access creel survey. When were they conducted?


----------



## Whit1

Shoeman said:


> I don't ever recall being part of an access creel survey. When were they conducted?


Ralf,
If the creel surveys on the Muskegon R. were/are done anything like they are at other places it involves a periodic check of anglers as they come off the body of water. I've been asked at Frankfort/Elberta and at Tippy Dam a number of times. I doubt there is/was a set and announced schedule.


----------



## TSS Caddis

At least 2001, 2003.

In 2003 Guides and clients accounted for 7.2% of the interviews. No guides or clients of guides were interviewed during the June/July/Aug timeframe. They were either purposefully missed, were missed because they were not leaving the river during the survey times, or are not as present on the river once steelhead are off gravel. I would think that they were not purposefully missed, but were not surveyed due to the other reasons.

If I recall at the meeting it was brought up by guides that they are the best anglers and the DNR should be seeking out their logs etc... IMO, can't do this since the data is not collected under a controlled environment. A creel cencus clerk has no reason to misstate measurements, but guides certainly would. Let us not forget Matt's own statement "I've been known to have a heavy hand with a tape measure". Or the rumored circumstance of a guide taking out a DNR employee and on catching a trout, said "here is one of the 15" trout that don't exist" on measuring it came in at 12". I digress though, you need an accurate sampling method and polling guides records, or anyone's, would not be accurate.

They also did collections, I'm assuming that by "collection" they are talking about shocking. 

Shoeman, pm me your email and I'll send you all the doco I have. There are a few areas that can be questioned when looking at them with a critical eye, but for the most part they do a good job proving the need to change the type 3 regs.

This fish were basically not getting any larger and angler use was down. Plain and simple.

It is pretty much cut and dried, so I'm not sure why people continue to look for conspiracies and act like reg changes would help when it has been proven that they didn't.


----------



## Shoeman

Whit1 said:


> Ralf,
> If the creel surveys on the Muskegon R. were/are done anything like they are at other places it involves a periodic check of anglers as they come off the body of water. I've been asked at Frankfort/Elberta and at Tippy Dam a number of times. I doubt there is/was a set and announced schedule.


I understand the infrequency of the surveys. The reason I asked was because in all the time I spend on the river during the summer, I never ran into a census taker. Just wondering what year they were conducted. Gene aswered that. (Thanks)


Although a census is the only way to gather hours/fish data, most of the time the hours that the actual census takes place is flawed. (maybe not so much with trout, but salmon it is/was) Prime example Oscoda. The census taker was present during mid-afternoon and never after the fleet came in at dark. Same for the morning bite. We'd limit out by 9am and were long gone by noon. Same with Frannie as she worked the Rockport/Alpena/Harrisville area

This being said, we all agree that a major portion of the plant seems to vanish and only a few survive. It would be nice to protect at least some of the holdovers (through slots) that have made it through the first summer, even if it's only in 1 stretch (like from the dam to Pine or...)


----------



## Flyfisher

Shoeman said:


> It would be nice to protect at least some of the holdovers (through slots) that have made it through the first summer


Considering we are talking about brown trout, aren't they already "protected" to some degree on the Muskegon from October through the last Saturday in April?


----------

