# The Public Trust Doctrine



## toto

If spearing is legal than fine have at it, but that is an aside to what we are talking about. We were, and still are talking about 2 accepted methods of fishing, and how is it I'm an elitist if I'm wanting these waters open to all, regardless of whether you fish with fly, lures, and a worm? It is the fly guys who are the elitists, not me. Frankly I don't care what legal method you use to fish, as long as its legal. Using dynamite for example, isn't legal, but fishing with bait, fly, or lure is. The conundrum is, why should any waters be segregated from the bait fishermen if it isn't harming the resource, which has been stated it isn't. The fish stocks in the PM for example are doing just fine, so why is it they have to have it no bait zones? Isn't needed, and frankly, even a lot of the fly fishers don't like the elitist attitude either.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Toto,
> you missed my point. Spearing etc. are not illegal, they are restricted as is bait fishing. Spearing is OK for perch, pike, musky, suckers, carp, sturgeon... why not trout? Your answer that the proposal is ludicrous shows only that you are an elitist who wants to preserve the P.M. for his own style of fishing while leaving other anglers out. Of course, the answer may not be that you are so thoughtless in your arguments. Maybe you realize that the prejudice against spearing runs much too deep and if you acknowledge that it is on equal footing with flies, spoons and bait you will lose all your support from other fishing groups. Again, what is the biological reason to continue the restrictions on these other forms of fishing? If you have no answer to this I have to question your dedication to equality among anglers.


Spear, snag, use bows. Who cares? If there is no scientific reasoning to ban it, it shouldn't be banned. 2 dead fish in a fry pan, are two dead fish. Like I said before, there was science argued to the fact, release was about impossible on undersized fish and different species that may be out of season.


----------



## Pinefarm

TSS Caddis said:


> That stretch would get the most use whether flies only or not.


So, the public is already using the resource. Is that correct? 

So no landowner has strung barbed wire across the river, stopping the public from enjoying the navigable waters?

Another thing to keep in mind is the impact on canoe permits. Currently, there's a limit to how many canoes can go down the fly water each day.
Can you imagine how many more 100's of canoes a day will be jammed in there after the canoe float permit system is abolished if the laws are all thrown out?


----------



## toto

Pine, now you are being an alarmist, no one has even mentioned anything about canoes, although I suppose it could be argued, but that isn't the basis for this debate. We are talking about fishing, legal fishing methods, and where one should be able to do such. Let me ask you this, how would feel if we were to the legislature to set aside and equal amount of miles of rivers/streams for bait only fishing? Would that rankle you at all?


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Spear, snag, use bows. Who cares? If there is no scientific reasoning to ban it, it shouldn't be banned. 2 dead fish in a fry pan, are two dead fish. Like I said before, there was science argued to the fact, release was about impossible on undersized fish and different species that may be out of season.


If you know of a study that shows that spear and bow fisherman can't differentiate between species or estimate sizes I'd like to see it. They don't seem to have any problems with pike, musky and sturgeon. As for the mortality rate of those styles, well the higher mortality rate of bait fishing is the primary reason for its restriction. You interpret the higher mortality rate as insignificant, the people who make the rules don't. Judging from the number of restrictions cited from other states a lot of those fisheries professionals feel the same way as the MDNR.


----------



## toto

Actually kzoo, if you read one of my previous posts you'll find that the difference between using spinners, for example, and bait mortalities is negligible, at best.

Lets not forget one more thing: Jim Dexter made the statement that isn't about biological science, its a social issue, so therefore, it would appear that even the DNR doesn't think fishing with bait per se, is really the problem. Just sayin....


----------



## Pinefarm

No, you're talking about the public trust somehow being violated on the fly only water of the Pere Marquette River. Either it's being violated by a host of perceived limitations or it's not.

If you say you can't have a special interest have any say on one aspect of the public trust, then you can't pick and choose. A canoe rental busness has just as much right as anyone else, right? You don't think fishermen should be able to dictate the public trust to boaters and canoer's, do you? Who exactly do you think you are? I thought this is exactly what you were fighting?

For those of you watching at home, once the states atty establishes that the public is in fact using the fly only water in such large numbers that some have to be turned away, as in canoer's, that's the point where the states atty asks the judge for a summary dismissal, is granted that summary dismissal, then the dazed defendants are wisked off to pay fines and court costs. Even worse for some, then Eric Sharp will have a great story for the paper and he can explain the public trust to people so there's no more confusion on the matter. 

If we really want to have fun, wait until Obamacare is deemed unconstitutional! :lol:


----------



## Pinefarm

From MDNR on the PTD for lakes. I'm not sure where people got the idea that social concerns are of no concern...

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Wildlife divisions, have developed guidelines for protecting and restoring the natural resources of Michigan lakes.
These guidelines follow the departments ecosystem-based approach to natural resource management that *combines ecological, social, and economic considerations toward achieving the goal of conserving and sustaining natural resources. *The guidelines were developed to support
department staff in managing *public trust* lake resources, and also as reference information for other organizations and individuals interested in Michigan lakes.

Keep Prop G in mind...

Proposal G is a referendum on Public Act 377 of 1996, which would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to grant the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state. The amendment also would require the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable, to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game. The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. (The NREPA defines "game" as any of 38 listed birds and mammals, including bear, deer, duck, geese, rabbit, pheasant, and ruffed and sharptailed grouse. Only the Michigan Legislature may designate a species of bird or mammal as "game." The term "principles of sound scientific management" is not defined in current or proposed law.) 

Keep in mind, social science is science. Especially when 1,000,000's of licensed hunting and fishing users are involved to manage the game animals.


----------



## toto

Okay, so you want to get technical, you would be correct, if the PTD is held in force, then yes canoes can go in the water in any given amount of numbers. Frankly pine, you surprise me, here I always thought you were of a conservative bent, however you are showing your true colors. The argument you just posted isn't even relevant, we are talking about rivers/streams here, not lakes. The PTD, and Northwest Ordinance does not concern itself with lakes, it concerns itself with the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi, and the carrying places between them, that would be known as rivers. Why must you insist on trying to turn the subject to something that isn't relevant? The simple fact is, we can use pages of this website to debate our feelings, but we aren't going to be the final arbiters of this. My other thought is, what is your ulterior motive here? I have a feeling it has something to do with your deer camp and the fact the PTD could create some sort of an issue with you there too. Don't know about that part of it, and frankly I don't care, all I care about the equal use of the natural resources in question.

BTW, in reading your above post again, the part about combing economic, ecological, and social issues is correct, however, if the fish aren't in trouble, they don't need these regs for one, and 2) regulations may only be made for conservation issues, period. Sorry Bob, but I'm just gonna have to disagree with you now, and probably for quite some time, as you have not convinced me I'm wrong, in fact, you may have convinced me even further that I'm right.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Pinefarm said:


> Keep in mind, social science is science. Especially when 1,000,000's of licensed hunting and fishing users are involved to manage the game animals.


So all your whining about the crossbows and baiting being based on social rules and not science, and how the NRC was caving to a bunch of idiots and their social rules was wrong? Who would have guessed. :lol::help:


----------



## Ranger Ray

Pinefarm said:


> You mean the one where Mershon wanted to keep people off the river in the attempt to protect junevile trout?
> 
> In 1928, they may not have had scientific basis for protecting gravel, but today, the whole reason we have closed seasons from Oct.1 thru last Saturday in April is to keep boots off the gravel.
> 
> Ironically, it was Mershon's deal that ultimately led to the forming of TU.


No, the one where Mershon wanted to keep people off his little piece of heaven, under the guise of protecting juvenile trout.

Ironically the same tactics Mershon used are alive today. Cue the angels and the trumpets!

Did you notice the reasoning the DNR gave for stopping Flies only? What was it?


----------



## toto

Maybe North Carolina gets it:

In Bell v. Smith, 171 N.C. 116, 87 S.E. 987 (1916), plaintiff argued that she held the
exclusive right to a seine fishery adjacent to her beach in Bogue Sound by either grant of
the bed or her habit of fishing the same area for many years. The Court wrote: "The right
to fish in navigable waters is open to all, and the proprietorship of the adjacent beach gives
no exclusive right of fishing in the navigable waters in front thereof . Rejecting her claim
of exclusive fishing rights by grant and prescription, the Court concluded:
The right of fishing in the navigable waters of the State belongs to the people in
common, to be exercised by them with due regard to the rights of each other, and
cannot be reduced to exclusive or individual control either by grant or by long user
by any one at a given point. Such right must be exercised, in the absence of express
regulations by the State, with due regard to the rights of all under the general custom of
fishing in the sound.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I can take pictures of the big browns on the little Manistee, advertise it all over hell, pimp the river everywhere I go for bait fishing and build a big lodge on it. Then I can have it bait only? Wow, I didn't know. Here on MS we have to keep some streams a secret but our DNR is managing in favor of who pimps them? That's the kind of management I am talking about. And we argue over 1 or 2 fish limit?  

Bottom line, the DNR can say and do what ever it wants. They can interpret public trust doctrine in any way shape of form they want. Doesn't make it right. When someone challenged the special regs that brought all the supposed peoples money to Wisconsin and saved all the fish of course, the court wanted to see one thing, the science. Never asked to see the books of the businesses. It was totally legal up to the point of being questioned. Funny how that works. If it benefits the special interest group to argue science, they argue science. If it benefits them to argue social science to get their way, they will. We all know what would happen if they brought snagging back. It would bring great amounts of money to areas like tippy, and when this was happening before, they eliminated it. What happened to social money management then? Guess who was arguing science then? TU. Guess who was arguing science on this last round of special regs on the PM? TU. :lol:


----------



## swampbuck

Pinefarm said:


> From MDNR on the PTD for lakes. I'm not sure where people got the idea that social concerns are of no concern...
> 
> The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Wildlife divisions, have developed guidelines for protecting and restoring the natural resources of Michigan lakes.
> These guidelines follow the department&#8217;s ecosystem-based approach to natural resource management that *combines ecological, social, and economic considerations toward achieving the goal of conserving and sustaining natural resources. *The guidelines were developed to support
> department staff in managing *public trust* lake resources, and also as reference information for other organizations and individuals interested in Michigan lakes.
> 
> Keep Prop G in mind...
> 
> Proposal G is a referendum on Public Act 377 of 1996, which would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to grant the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state. The amendment also would require the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable, to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game. The Commission would have to issue orders regarding the taking of game after a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. (The NREPA defines "game" as any of 38 listed birds and mammals, including bear, deer, duck, geese, rabbit, pheasant, and ruffed and sharptailed grouse. Only the Michigan Legislature may designate a species of bird or mammal as "game." The term "principles of sound scientific management" is not defined in current or proposed law.)
> 
> Keep in mind, social science is science. Especially when 1,000,000's of licensed hunting and fishing users are involved to manage the game animals.


the PTD for lakes, and Prob g / NRC which has absolutely NOTHING to do with lakes, rivers, or fisheries, Pinefarm must be running out of proof....... You know, When you reach the bottom of the hole, QUIT DIGGING. :lol:

The gear restrictions are a paper tiger, With the right organization and approach they could be beaten down.......again!


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> As for the mortality rate of those styles, well the higher mortality rate of bait fishing is the primary reason for its restriction.


I know its your thinking, I have yet to hear a DNR official say it. Like to site where they have stated this? :lol: Only in the Fly fisherman's brain is it the root of total destruction. The biologists have stated the extra mortality of bait fishing is irrelevant in the whole picture, totally opposite of your claim. Do you know what the rate of death is for fish under C&R? All so you can take a picture and thump your chest. Seems like a masochist type thing to kill fish for no other reason than to get your jollies off. I kill them to eat. Who has the moral high ground?


----------



## kzoofisher

Well, as usual the "rights of the people" crowd have resorted to insults and impugning the character of those they disagree with. At least Toto was able to admit that he prefers to see unlimited boat traffic, spears and crossbows on the PM if it means he can say he was right. I'll take comfort in knowing that if those things come to pass the stewards of the river will fund the studies to win the court case so my kids grandkids can enjoy the rivers as they once were.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I will take that as a no, you can't site it, and you do not know the death rate for C&R. Good luck.


----------



## kzoofisher

You will find, if you bother to make a study of it, that survival rates can vary because of water temps, type of net, releasing the fish without touching it etc. The constant however is that fish hooked on artificials are less likely to be deeply hooked and all other things being equal will have a survival rate double that of bait, often triple and in some studies as high as seven times. If you follow the link you will find many articles from many organizations and fisheries departments explaining the benefits of releasing fish and how to do it properly. Don't take just my word for it, read what so many resource professionals have to say. I hope you do and learn that you can keep fishing instead of quitting early because you have already killed your limit. I recommend the Arlinghaus study which is a fine overview of the history, philosophy and sociology of C&R.

http://catch-n-release.org/


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> I hope you do and learn that you can keep fishing instead of quitting early because you have already killed your limit.
> http://catch-n-release.org/


Really?


----------



## Pinefarm

I was unaware just how much of PA's water was fly only/catch and release...

http://fishandboat.com/fishpub/summary/catchreleaseffo.html


----------



## toto

First of all, because its flies only doesn't justify it, no matter where you are. For a little different twist on the same argument:

http://www.midarkhouse.org/articles/heritage_under_attack.pdf


----------



## Pinefarm

I hate to be the one to end the dream of a few of using the PTD to get rid of fishing regulations, but this Michigan case settles the matter once and for all...

So long as the water flows and fish swim in [the river], the people may fish at their pleasure in any part of the stream *subject only to the restraints and regulations imposed by the state.* In this right they are
protected by a high, solemn and perpetual trust, which it is the duty of the State to forever maintain.

Michigan Supreme
Court, 
Collins v. Gerhardt, 237 Mich. 38, 49 (1926)


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> I hate to be the one to end the dream of a few of using the PTD to get rid of fishing regulations, but this Michigan case settles the matter once and for all...
> 
> So long as the water flows and fish swim in [the river], the people may fish at their pleasure in any part of the stream *subject only to the restraints and regulations imposed by the state.* In this right they are
> protected by a high, solemn and perpetual trust, which it is the duty of the State to forever maintain.
> 
> Michigan Supreme
> Court,
> Collins v. Gerhardt, 237 Mich. 38, 49 (1926)


I think any reasonable person would think this pertains to all people in Michigan equally. It does not state "*subject only to the restraints and regulations imposed by the state for special interest groups."*


----------



## Pinefarm

It does apply to all citizens of the state, equally. Virtually nobody is prohibiting you from jumping in your vehicle today, right now in fact, and driving over to Baldwin and enjoying the use of the PM River. 

You are free to frollic, prance, rollick, romp, cavort or skip right on down to the river and start fishing, today-right now, and nobody is going to stop you or get in the way of the PTD.

All you have to do is buy the appropriate fishing licenses and parking permits and just follow the regulations settled upon after many open to the public meetings, for public input. 

You're even free to canoe the "closed to fishing until last Saturday in April" sections of the PM if you choose to do a photo taking drift.

Go on out and enjoy! Be a part of the PTD today! PTD is "a great place to be".


----------



## Pinefarm

Anyhow guys, I'm done here. This "debate" is over. 
If anyone wishes to keep after the witchhunt, I leave you with this...


----------



## toto

Collins v Gerhardt was an access issue, not a fishing issue in this sense. The simple fact is, according to the PTD, the DNR may not select the type of fishing equipment used for the select few. Plain and simple, if it ain't broke the DNR can't fix it, and again, according to Jim Dexter, the fishery ain't broke. If it stands that the gear restrictions are allowed to stand, it was also make sense that the DNR cannot stock these waters with public funds, not sure if they stock the PM, and don't really care, using the PM is only one instance, the no stocking should be used on ALL regulated waters. If the GENERAL public is not allowed to use these waters all inclusive, than the DNR shall not stock these waters for the select few.


----------



## Pinefarm

One last thing I forgot to post for those watching at home. :lol:

Under the public trust doctrine, Michigan holds all fish within Michigans
jurisdictional waters in trust for the benefit of the people of Michigan. Michigans obligation to preserve and protect its resources is prescribed by Article 4, § 52 of the Michigan Constitution. The Michigan Legislature has implemented this constitutional mandate by establishing the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR, in the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1, Act 451, Part 5, § 324.501), and established duties for the Department (in Act 451, Part 5, § 324.503):
The department shall protect and conserve the natural resources of this state; provide and develop facilities for outdoor recreation; prevent and guard against the pollution of lakes and streams within the state and enforce all laws provided for that purpose with all authority granted by law; and foster and encourage the protection and propagation of game and fish. The department has authority to regulate the taking or killing of fish, animals, or game birds for protection or preservation purposes, and may
promulgate rules and orders as necessary under Act 451, Part 411, § 324.41102. The Department has the authority to regulate stocking of spawn, fry, or fish into public waters under Act 451, Part 487; and
the Department has the authority to regulate the importation of game fish and eggs under Act 451, Parts 459 and 487. The importation of Oriental weatherfish Misgurnus anguillicaudatus, grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idellus, ide Leuciscus idus, rudd Cardinius erythrophthalamus, bitterling Rodeus sericeus, tench Tinca tinca, and species in the Family Salmonidae are prohibited without permit, under Department of Natural Resources Administrative Rules R299.1051 et seq.


----------



## toto

The department has the authority to regulate the taking or killing of fish, animal, or game birds for protection and preservation purposes..... pretty much says it all right there. For the, seems like the millionith time, Jim Dexter says it isn't a biological issue, it is a social issue. Therefore, by what you just posted...... Thank you for spelling that out Pine, we all appreciate it.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> One last thing I forgot to post for those watching at home. :lol:
> 
> Under the public trust doctrine, Michigan holds all fish within Michigans
> jurisdictional waters in trust for the benefit of the people of Michigan. Michigans obligation to preserve and protect its resources is prescribed by Article 4, § 52 of the Michigan Constitution. The Michigan Legislature has implemented this constitutional mandate by establishing the Michigan
> Department of Natural Resources (MDNR, in the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1, Act 451, Part 5, § 324.501), and established duties for the Department (in Act 451, Part 5, § 324.503):
> The department shall protect and conserve the natural resources of this state; provide and develop facilities for outdoor recreation; prevent and guard against the pollution of lakes and streams within the state and enforce all laws provided for that purpose with all authority granted by law; and foster and encourage the protection and propagation of game and fish. The department has authority to regulate the taking or killing of fish, animals, or game birds for protection or preservation purposes, and may
> promulgate rules and orders as necessary under Act 451, Part 411, § 324.41102. The Department has the authority to regulate stocking of spawn, fry, or fish into public waters under Act 451, Part 487; and
> the Department has the authority to regulate the importation of game fish and eggs under Act 451, Parts 459 and 487. The importation of Oriental weatherfish Misgurnus anguillicaudatus, grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idellus, ide Leuciscus idus, rudd Cardinius erythrophthalamus, bitterling Rodeus sericeus, tench Tinca tinca, and species in the Family Salmonidae are prohibited without permit, under Department of Natural Resources Administrative Rules R299.1051 et seq.


If you interpret with _original intent _I think you will see the error in your logic.


----------



## kzoofisher

cadillacjethro said:


> If you interpret with _original intent _I think you will see the error in your logic.


Oh boy. Please, tell us what the_original intent_ of the Legislature was and be sure to include some documentation.


----------



## REG

kzoofisher said:


> You will find, if you bother to make a study of it, that survival rates can vary because of water temps, type of net, releasing the fish without touching it etc. *The constant however is that fish hooked on artificials are less likely to be deeply hooked and all other things being equal will have a survival rate double that of bait, often triple and in some studies as high as seven times. *
> http://catch-n-release.org/


No, not a constant. Example: Hooton, R.S. 2001. Facts and issues associated with restricting terminal gear types in the
management of sustainable steelhead sport fisheries in British Columbia. British Columbia
Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks. Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Also, many of the studies used to illustrate dramatically high mortality rates for trout using bait were done in artificial conditions, rainbow trout and power bait. One of the methods described using a "5 count" before setting the hook using power bait on stocker rainbows. 

It hasn't stopped anyone from quoting this type of literature when proselytizing exceeding high mortality rates from using bait....professionals or not.


----------



## Ranger Ray

cadillacjethro said:


> I think any reasonable person would think this pertains to all people in Michigan equally. It does not state "*subject only to the restraints and regulations imposed by the state for special interest groups."*


That is correct. What Pinefarm fails to realize is they still have a mandate to manage fairly for all. They have to show some type of danger or risk to the public to deviate.

Seeing how Pinefarm is so sure of himself and he always brags of his connections, I am sure he can have one of his DNR friends put it in writing that the DNR can place specific type of gear regulations on streams for the purpose of helping commerce. I am sure Kings would love to hear someone go on record from the DNR that they are managing flies only for commerce in Baldwin. The DNR is not in the business of making winners and losers in commerce. Let me rephrase that, they are not supposed to be. 

Here we have the state closing schools, prisons, and laying off all kinds of people, but there is our DNR, the wildlife managers, supposedly regulating game laws for the good of specific local jobs. That is some funny crap, or pathetic, depending how you view it.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> You will find, if you bother to make a study of it, that survival rates can vary because of water temps, type of net, releasing the fish without touching it etc. The constant however is that fish hooked on artificials are less likely to be deeply hooked and all other things being equal will have a survival rate double that of bait, often triple and in some studies as high as seven times. If you follow the link you will find many articles from many organizations and fisheries departments explaining the benefits of releasing fish and how to do it properly. Don't take just my word for it, read what so many resource professionals have to say. I hope you do and learn that you can keep fishing instead of quitting early because you have already killed your limit. I recommend the Arlinghaus study which is a fine overview of the history, philosophy and sociology of C&R.
> 
> http://catch-n-release.org/


Oh trust me, I have made a study of it. I have seen claims as high as 60% and as low as 4% for both. The baiting studies that showed the worse percent, had specifics to their rules of study, usually leaving the fish eat for a period of time and they had to rip the hook out of any fish that swallowed. In reality, its possible for a bait fisherman to have a 4% day while the C&R crowd has a 60% day. Funny how that works. My last trip of 30+ fish using bait had 0% deeply hooked fish. But according to you, that would be impossible. 

Ah yes, these are the studies I like "philosophy and sociology of C&R." Sweden, Germany and Norway are really into "philosophy and sociology of C&R." Matter of fact, they have stopped all C&R and only allow catch and keep. Even the animal rights groups state C&K is more palatable than C&R. I see some of your social management coming to rain on your parade soon. I think I will join them in their social thinking. No more cruelty to poor fish for chest thumping, catch and keep for food only. Silly humans.


----------



## cadillacjethro

kzoofisher said:


> Oh boy. Please, tell us what the_original intent_ of the Legislature was and be sure to include some documentation.


Laws are to be interpreted in the intent in which they were written (original intent). A law written in 1900 must be interpreted in 2012 as it was written in 1900. Do you really think the Treaty of 1837 or the Public Trust Doctrine envisioned anything like "Flies only" water?


----------



## kzoofisher

Hooten puts this caveat near the beginning:

Section 1.1
_
"In numerous published references to the Vancouver Island steelhead brood stock collection data only one acknowledged that the observed hooking mortality figure was minimal and that caution needed to be applied in its interpretation (Horton and Wilson- Jacobs, 1985). Inherent factors included: 1) the occasional release of injured and/or bleeding fish that were assumed to have had a higher chance of survival in the river than if handled, confined and transported to a holding facility; 2) counting any fish that died more than 24 hours after capture as a holding mortality rather than a hooking mortality; 3) occasional (legal) harvest of a mortally injured hatchery fish rather than inclusion of it in the data base; and 4) higher standard of fish handling than would be expected from average anglers."_

Section 1.2 where he puts some numbers in context.
_
"The Keogh hooking mortality investigations were undertaken specifically to address differences between barbed versus barbless hooks and bait versus artificial lures. Once again the immediate mortality rates (i.e., within 24 hours) were relatively low (5.6% for baited hooks and 3.8% for artificial lures, although barbed baited hooks resulted in a 9.1% mortality rate) (Hooton, 1987). Additional observations from the original Keogh investigations have gone unnoticed or been ignored. Those relate to the efficiency or CPUE of the two gear types and the incidence of hooking in critical anatomical locations with each gear type. During the Keogh experiment, it quickly became evident that, in order to obtain the requisite sample size of steelhead hooked on artificial lures, it was necessary to commence angling sessions with that gear type. Despite a strong bias towards artificial lure fishing prior to using bait, lures caught 99 fish while bait produced 236 or 2.38 times as many for similar hours fished (data on file, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), Nanaimo). Additionally, artificial lure caught fish were hooked deep inside the mouth or gill arches and bleeding heavily in 4 of 99 cases (4.04%) where those data were recorded. Bait caught fish were similarly hooked in 26 of 236 records (11.02%) or 2.72 times as often (data on file, MELP, Nanaimo). Thirteen of the 26 heavily bleeding fish caught on bait (50%) died within 24 hours, while all four caught on artificial lures (100%) expired in that same period (Hooton, 1987). The combination of higher CPUE and higher injury rate for bait fishing compounded the differences between the two gear types but that feature of the Keogh results has never been considered in addressing mortality rates associated with sport fisheries elsewhere._

Section 1.3 Maybe this was what you were thinking of, but notice even more caveats near the end.
_
"A search of regional offices of MELP uncovered additional hooking mortality data sets that warrant mention here. Among 436 steelhead brood stock reportedly captured by angling with bait in Thompson River tributaries between 1982 and 1995, seven (1.61%) were recorded as direct mortalities. On the Coquihalla River, another 306 steelhead brood stock were bait caught between 1985 and 1995. Only one (0.31%) direct mortality was reported. On the Squamish River, between 1985 and 1991, 209 steelhead were angled on artificial lures and 9 (4.31%) direct mortalities were recorded. On the Somass River system, Lirette (1988) reported 6 (7.9%) immediate hooking mortalities among 76 bait caught summer steelhead and 8 (4.1%) immediate hooking mortalities among 195 winter steelhead. Lirette (1989) also reported 6 (8.7%) immediate hooking mortalities for 69 bait angled summer steelhead in the Campbell River. Lastly, during a radio telemetry program on the Chilliwack River in 1999 and 2000, a total of 226 steelhead were angled, radio tagged and tracked for variable periods of time thereafter. Virtually all the steelhead tagged by project technicians were angled on baited hooks (personal communication, Troy Nelson, Resource Management Biologist, LGL Environmental Research Associates, Sidney, BC). Post-release tracking data suggested not more than two fish (0.9%) died for reasons that could be attributed conclusively to the initial angling event (Nelson et al., 2001). Qualifications that should be applied to the data retrieved from regional MELP offices include: 1) none of the projects was intended to be a hooking mortality study; 2) the terms immediate and direct mortality were not defined; 3) the Thompson and Coquihalla samples were summer steelhead angled, in closed times/places, by agency staff, under cold water temperatures, many months after freshwater entry (circumstances that are frequently assumed to reduce mortality); 4) the Squamish sample was comprised of winter steelhead recently arrived from salt water and caught mostly by volunteer anglers; and 5) the Chilliwack River data applied to newly arrived winter steelhead angled by trained specialists but related only to fish that were selected as specimens for radio tag application. An additional consideration with respect to the Chilliwack study is that elsewhere in the province there have been several studies involving angler caught and radio tagged steelhead. Frequently the survival and reproductive performance of tagged fish has not reflected the results that are interpreted from the Chilliwack River data. (MELP, data on file)."

"Palermo et al. (2000) examined coho caught on passively fished baited hooks and reported mortality rates of between 14% for fish hooked on the periphery of the mouth but 46% for those that swallowed the hook. These fishing methods may not be directly applicable to most steelhead fisheries in the province but the study results illustrated clearly the significance of the hook penetration site."_

Section 1.4 Not good for rivers with healthy resident fish populations and makes me wonder if mortality in an all freshwater environment may not be higher.
_
"Whereas he concluded that baited hooks penetrated critical areas roughly five times as often as artificial lures (i.e., 50% with bait versus 10% with artificials) and that bait related mortality was a significant issue among resident stream dwelling salmonids (especially rainbow trout). He also concluded that these findings were not applicable to adult winter steelhead because data from the Vancouver Island brood stock collection program up to 1983 showed otherwise. Mongillos ultimate conclusion was that the use of eggs for winter run steelhead fishing produced less than 10% hooking mortality. Based largely on Mongillo (1984) and personal communication of the raw data eventually published in Hooton (1987) Horton and Wilson-Jacobs (1985) recommended that Oregon use a figure of 10% hooking mortality for management considerations until or unless more conclusive data became available."

"Vincent-Lang et al. (1993) reported 69.3% mortality for coho caught in the estuary of an Alaskan River and 11.7% for similarly caught fish further upstream in the same river. Their work involved the use of size 2/0 single hooks and clusters of salmon eggs drifted along the river bottom, methods that are common to many steelhead fisheries in British Columbia. They observed that 48% of the fish captured in the tidal reaches of the river were hooked in the gills or gullet and, of these, most were bleeding. In contrast 20% of the fish caught in non-tidal waters upstream were similarly hooked and bleeding. The probability of dying was significantly related to the anatomical location of hooking. The authors speculated that the physiological transformation anadromous fish experience during transition from marine to freshwater environments was likely a significant factor in the high mortality among estuarine caught fish. They also suggested that fish closest in time and space to their normal feeding environment may be more susceptible to fatal injury associated with baited hooks."

"A potential issue raised by recent observations in Washington State related to the frequency of critical hook injury (i.e., hook penetrating eye, tongue, gill or esophagus) among kelt steelhead and how that might influence the contribution of repeat spawners to a population. Among 48 steelhead angled for scale collection purposes, there were 27 bait caught pre-spawners of which 1 (3.7%) was critically injured. Twenty-one bait caught kelts produced seven (33.0%) critically injured fish. Among 32 artificial lure caught fish, there were 29 pre-spawners and 3 kelts but no critical injuries among either group (personal communication, Curtis Kraemer, fisheries management biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington). Given that repeat spawners are generally larger, more fecund fish with larger individual egg size their contribution to population egg deposition is greater than their numerical representation among spawners. Kraemer expressed the concern that angling related mortality could be of disproportionately greater significance from a population perspective in the later stages of the angling season when kelts began to appear."_

Section 1.5 Not good for bait or artificials
_
"In contrast to the relative scarcity of data directly applicable to mortality by gear type in freshwater anadromous fisheries there is an abundance of data on resident salmonids. A consistent pattern is readily apparent. Specifically, resident fish caught on bait experience significantly higher mortality than those caught on artificial lures or flies..... The reviews are not completely independent because several have used some of the same data to make their point. Nonetheless, the data confirm overwhelmingly that hooking mortality applicable to the use of bait was consistently at least three to nine times higher than that associated with the use of artificial lures. Mortality associated with the use of flies was consistently the lowest for all three gear types. The typical observation was that baited hooks were taken more deeply than artificial lures or flies and that rupture of blood vessels was the primary cause of mortality."

"Specific examples emphasize the point. Wydoski (1977), in a multi species investigation, settled on a figure of 25% mortality for bait fishing and 5% for artificial lures or flies. Warner and Johnson (1978) found 35% mortality among bait caught landlocked Atlantic salmon but only 4% for those caught on flies. Mongillo (1984) reported bait angling for rainbow trout produced mortalities of roughly 30% but only 5-10% for artificial lure or fly. For cutthroat trout the difference was even greater (50% for bait but still 5-10% for other gear). Taylor and White (1992) looked at studies on a variety of non-anadromous trout and found an average mortality of 43.6% when bait was used but only 5.1% for artificial lures. Pauley and Thomas (1993) worked with anadromous coastal cutthroat trout and found 39.5  58.1% mortality among bait caught fish and 10.5  23.8% for those caught on lures. Schisler (1995) investigated the mortality associated with scented artificial baits versus flies and lures on rainbow trout and reported mortalities were 5.8 to 12.9 times higher per unit time fished with the scented product. Trotter (1995) cited some of the above studies plus others on non-anadromous trout and concluded that the overall mean mortality for baited hooks was 31.4% but only 4.9% for lures and 3.8% on flies."_

He does go on to mention that in a few studies where very small hooks were used bait mortality was not so lopsided. I'm surprised you picked this study to support your argument.


----------



## kzoofisher

cadillacjethro said:


> Laws are to be interpreted in the intent in which they were written (original intent). A law written in 1900 must be interpreted in 2012 as it was written in 1900. Do you really think the Treaty of 1837 or the Public Trust Doctrine envisioned anything like "Flies only" water?


The NREPA was written in 1994 so I'm sure the authors were aware of Flies Only. Also, your contention that laws must be interpreted according to the time they were written is, well....


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Oh trust me, I have made a study of it. I have seen claims as high as 60% and as low as 4% for both. The baiting studies that showed the worse percent, had specifics to their rules of study, usually leaving the fish eat for a period of time and they had to rip the hook out of any fish that swallowed. In reality, its possible for a bait fisherman to have a 4% day while the C&R crowd has a 60% day. Funny how that works. My last trip of 30+ fish using bait had 0% deeply hooked fish. But according to you, that would be impossible.
> 
> Ah yes, these are the studies I like "philosophy and sociology of C&R." Sweden, Germany and Norway are really into "philosophy and sociology of C&R." Matter of fact, they have stopped all C&R and only allow catch and keep. Even the animal rights groups state C&K is more palatable than C&R. I see some of your social management coming to rain on your parade soon. I think I will join them in their social thinking. No more cruelty to poor fish for chest thumping, catch and keep for food only. Silly humans.


Your anecdotal stories don't carry much "scientific" water. As for the sociology, I was hoping you would notice that by calling me a masochist (sic) you were resorting to the same tactics as PETA etc.


----------



## TC-fisherman

If your all so 100% positive that special regs are against the law and you have so many cases to prove you are right why on earth are you wasting your time on an internet forum? 

Go fish bait in artificial only water, call RAP on yourself, go to court, and explain to judge how the DNR rules are against the PTD. There appear to be so many experts here that there would be no need to hire an attorney.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Your anecdotal stories don't carry much "scientific" water. As for the sociology, I was hoping you would notice that by calling me a masochist (sic) you were resorting to the same tactics as PETA etc.


First, I never called you a masochist, you took it out of context to play the woe with me, picked on fly fisher. Something someone does when they don't have an argument. Second my anecdotal point was simple math, if you can have a 4% mortality rate with bait and a 60% C&R death rate, simple math says the C&R crowd can and will have days they kill more fish than bait fisherman. Sorry if you don't understand that.


----------



## toto

Actually, on the Northwest Ordinance and the PTD, yes I do believe they know about fly fishing back then, there were plenty of fly fishing clubs in existence. Actually it was known as Phlly fishing then, or something like that, too lazy right now to look it up. All I can really say is, at some point in time, we'll all know who's right or wrong, we can only determine by what we know at this point, but I'll tell ya what, just think about it one minute, what gives the fly fishing community the right to have exclusive rights to areas to fish. In my mind its only for conservation purposes that they can do that, and thats been stated by experts on the PTD than me. Maybe you guys who don't want to think this way, should do your own research and tell me where I'm wrong, but at this point, I've not seen, or heard it.


----------



## Ranger Ray

TC-fisherman said:


> If your all so 100% positive that special regs are against the law and you have so many cases to prove you are right why on earth are you wasting your time on an internet forum?
> 
> Go fish bait in artificial only water, call RAP on yourself, go to court, and explain to judge how the DNR rules are against the PTD. There appear to be so many experts here that there would be no need to hire an attorney.


Because we were told by those in charge, the last special regs were politically driven from those departing. The new guard has taken over and we are giving them the benefit of the doubt. We just like to keep the issue front and center. We gauge our effectiveness on whether or not you post in the thread. Thanks for posting.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> I know its your thinking, I have yet to hear a DNR official say it. Like to site where they have stated this? :lol: Only in the Fly fisherman's brain is it the root of total destruction. The biologists have stated the extra mortality of bait fishing is irrelevant in the whole picture, totally opposite of your claim. Do you know what the rate of death is for fish under C&R? All so you can take a picture and thump your chest. Seems like a masochist type thing to kill fish for no other reason than to get your jollies off. I kill them to eat. Who has the moral high ground?


You quoted my post and responded with the above. Looks like your the one with the victim complex. 

As for flies or artificials having a mortality rate 15 times that of bait under the same conditions; you'll have to link the studies because I don't believe it.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Because we were told by those in charge, the last special regs were politically driven from those departing. The new guard has taken over and we are giving them the benefit of the doubt. We just like to keep the issue front and center. We gauge our effectiveness on whether or not you post in the thread. Thanks for posting.


The new guard is doing surveys so they can decide which biologically unnecessary, socially driven regs to go with for brookies, pike and musky. I guess you lost.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> You quoted my post and responded with the above. Looks like your the one with the victim complex.
> 
> As for flies or artificials having a mortality rate 15 times that of bait under the same conditions; you'll have to link the studies because I don't believe it.


It was a general statement. If you think it was against you personally, that's your choice. To think same conditions happen in real life at all times is a fallacy. The issue is how many fish are killed on any given day. There will be days the C&R crowd kill more than bait guys and vice versa. You're the study expert, you should have no problem finding one.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> The new guard is doing surveys so they can decide which biologically unnecessary, socially driven regs to go with for brookies, pike and musky. I guess you lost.


Like going to ten from five? You know, the ten that coincides with science.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Like going to ten from five? You know, the ten that coincides with science.


I'm sorry, but you are delusional. Here is a quote from Ranger Ray in another thread where he admits that the change from 10 to 5 was social and the change back is social. 

*Was there science to change to 5? I bet that was a social change also. Its a guessing game at best.*

The DNR's studies show that with the current pressure and success rate of anglers any change is purely symbolic from a biological standpoint. This is why they are doing surveys, because with healthy fisheries it is possible to manage for _optimal_ use by the public and with the ease of internet surveys it is possible to let the public define _optimal_. The public owns the fish, let the public decide what kind of healthy fishery they want to see. I trust the DNR to block any proposals that would hurt the fisheries.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Context man, context. You need to understand it. 

As example: "*you* are delusional", see, now that is a direct attack and would fit the "Well, as usual the "(fill in the area with whoever)" crowd have resorted to insults and impugning the character of those they disagree with."


----------



## quack head

That was one intense lurk. 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=E89LESI7OdY


----------



## kzoofisher

Ray, 
in your post where you quoted me and responded to my position you wrote:

_Do you know what the rate of death is for fish under C&R? All so you can take a picture and thump your chest. Seems like a masochist type thing to kill fish for no other reason than to get your jollies off. I kill them to eat. Who has the moral high ground?_

In what context was that not addressed to me?


----------



## toto

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/inventory/TroutHooking.pdf


----------



## fishinDon

Wow a guy takes his family to Chicago for a few days and the Tippy Dam has been renamed after me. Exciting stuff! 

Socially motivated rules are great when you're on the winning side and they stink when you're on the losing side, which is why I generally oppose them. And why, in general, they are pushed/sponsored by special interest (winners).

Lets go with Biological Science, it's always right and it completely removes the mud slinging. Every person who posted in this thread is passionate about our state's fish/game resources and strong advocates for our "rights" in general and the future of our outdoor sports. A debate over a couple socially driven regulations has us fighting against each other instead of working together on truely important issues.

Biology baby!
Don


----------



## woolybug25

fishinDon said:


> Wow a guy takes his family to Chicago for a few days and the Tippy Dam has been renamed after me. Exciting stuff!
> 
> Socially motivated rules are great when you're on the winning side and they stink when you're on the losing side, which is why I generally oppose them. And why,* in general, they are pushed/sponsored by special interest (winners).*
> 
> Lets go with Biological Science, it's always right and it completely removes the mud slinging. Every person who posted in this thread is passionate about our state's fish/game resources and strong advocates for our "rights" in general and the future of our outdoor sports. A debate over a couple socially driven regulations has us fighting against each other instead of working together on truely important issues.
> 
> Biology baby!
> Don


Hi don. I hope all is well. Let me preface this by saying that you seem to be a real good dude. I tend to agree with you on a lot of issues and respect you as a fellow poster. 

But there is one thing that bugs me about GLFSA is that many of it's members often post about how they dislike "special interest groups" and how they should have no place in the regulations debate. That being said, the GLFSA by definition is a special interest group. I don't have a problem with that, but the organization tries to posture itself as a group with no agenda, which of course is inaccurate. 

The definition of interest group is:

_noun
a group of people drawn or acting together in support of a common interest or to voice a common concern: Political interest groups seek to influence legislation._

This is exactly what GLFSA does. So if the GLFSA wants to have the "honest dialogue" that it claims to, let's first start it with being honest about both sides of the argument. Are their special interest groups defending gear restrictions? Sure. But there are special interest rallying against them as well. One of those groups is the GLFSA.


----------



## fishinDon

woolybug25 said:


> Hi don. I hope all is well. Let me preface this by saying that you seem to be a real good dude. I tend to agree with you on a lot of issues and respect you as a fellow poster.
> 
> But there is one thing that bugs me about GLFSA is that many of it's members often post about how they dislike "special interest groups" and how they should have no place in the regulations debate. That being said, the GLFSA by definition is a special interest group. I don't have a problem with that, but the organization tries to posture itself as a group with no agenda, which of course is inaccurate.
> 
> The definition of interest group is:
> 
> _noun
> a group of people drawn or acting together in support of a common interest or to voice a common concern: Political interest groups seek to influence legislation._
> 
> This is exactly what GLFSA does. So if the GLFSA wants to have the "honest dialogue" that it claims to, let's first start it with being honest about both sides of the argument. Are their special interest groups defending gear restrictions? Sure. But there are special interest rallying against them as well. One of those groups is the GLFSA.


Thanks for the reply.

You are absolutely right. GLFSA, by definition, is a special interest group. No qualms here about it. We just like to think of ourselves as different than most. We chose to form in response to the Gear Restriction issue in large part because of what we observed some of the more powerful special interest groups doing - using their money/clout to influence DNR decisions (e.g. MI TU gave away prizes for letters in support of gear restrictions when they knew the DNR was simply counting letters to decide on the issue). 

GLFSA exists mainly because politics has entered fishing regulations in Michigan. You can choose to vote for or against an issue. You can also choose not to vote. We noticed that "choosing not to vote" seemed to be hurting the average guy, thus GLFSA formed and we tossed our hat in the ring. 

Nothing more, nothing less. 

I'm sure some will counter that we are no different than other groups, and that's fine with me. It's simple semantics. I don't have a lot of time for that. What I do have time for is what I believe and I believe we are different because we don't openly pursue rules that favor us (even though we joke about things like "bait only" areas). Instead, we pursue a middle-ground that promotes what is best for all fish AND all fishermen - because it is a two-way street. We believe that is best accomplished through rules firmly rooted in biology.

Case in point, I'm an all-methods fisherman, who rarely uses bait - nothing against it, I'm just better with hardware. Several of our members are almost exclusively fly-fishermen, yet we are gear restrictions staunchest opponents. Why? Because we believe there's no biological basis for gear regs. IMO, when we pass rules that have no basis in biology, we pick winners and losers and we open ourselves up to infighting. That weakens us as a group of sportsmen.

Thanks again,
Don


----------



## The Downstream Drift

fishinDon said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> You are absolutely right. GLFSA, by definition, is a special interest group. No qualms here about it. We just like to think of ourselves as different than most. We chose to form in response to the Gear Restriction issue in large part because of what we observed some of the more powerful special interest groups doing - using their money/clout to influence DNR decisions (e.g. MI TU gave away prizes for letters in support of gear restrictions when they knew the DNR was simply counting letters to decide on the issue).
> 
> Don


Don, you know my position on this issue so there is no point in bringing things back up that others have discussed on this forum. However, you (and many of the members here) know that I am firmly rooted in TU. I sent several letters in support of the proposal written on Paint Creek in Southeast Michigan. Matter of fact, I was part of the committee formed to write the proposal. The issue I have here is that no one on our committee (including myself) received any "gifts" from MITU for writing letters. This has been mentioned time and time again by those that oppose TU's position on the gear regs and it simply didn't happen. The only thing any of us received was an email from MITU thanking us for our support.

I suppose I felt it was time to clear this up. Perhaps many of you won't believe the truth behind it, but "gifts" never happened.


----------



## woolybug25

fishinDon said:


> I'm sure some will counter that we are no different than other groups, and that's fine with me. It's simple semantics. I don't have a lot of time for that. What I do have time for is what I believe and I believe we are different because we don't openly pursue rules that favor us (even though we joke about things like "bait only" areas). Instead, we pursue a middle-ground that promotes what is best for all fish AND all fishermen - because it is a two-way street. We believe that is best accomplished through rules firmly rooted in biology.
> 
> Case in point, I'm an all-methods fisherman, who rarely uses bait - nothing against it, I'm just better with hardware. Several of our members are almost exclusively fly-fishermen, yet we are gear restrictions staunchest opponents. Why? Because we believe there's no biological basis for gear regs. IMO, when we pass rules that have no basis in biology, we pick winners and losers and we open ourselves up to infighting. That weakens us as a group of sportsmen.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Don


Thanks for the reply. 

I would argue that the special interest argument is not just semantics. There is a distinct socioeconomic split between the sides. This is very similar to modern day politics. People generally have beliefs on that cross the line into the other party's platform, but at some point you lean a specific way. 

For instance, the special interest group you pointed out, TU. This group is going to unilaterally support dam removal, wild fish and increased regulations. So there will be occasions where this is in direct opposition to beliefs of the GLSFA (not any one item in particular, mind). The same goes for GLSFA. They unilaterally support removing gear restrictions, increasing bag limits and increasing available angling experiences. Some of these will be in direct opposition to the general beliefs of TU. 

But being a member of either is putting in your proxy to the organization that is going to follow a specific platform of beliefs. So pick your poison, because at some point, you are going to disagree with an ideal that the organization is making for you. 

Special Interests groups are ALWAYS going to look out for their platform regardless of whether a few eggs get cracked along the way. It's not semantics, GLSFA is a mirror image of TU, just juxtapose.


----------



## fishinDon

woolybug25 said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I would argue that the special interest argument is not just semantics. There is a distinct socioeconomic split between the sides. This is very similar to modern day politics. People generally have beliefs on that cross the line into the other party's platform, but at some point you lean a specific way.
> 
> For instance, the special interest group you pointed out, TU. This group is going to unilaterally support dam removal, wild fish and increased regulations. So there will be occasions where this is in direct opposition to beliefs of the GLSFA (not any one item in particular, mind). The same goes for GLSFA. They unilaterally support removing gear restrictions, increasing bag limits and increasing available angling experiences. Some of these will be in direct opposition to the general beliefs of TU.
> 
> But being a member of either is putting in your proxy to the organization that is going to follow a specific platform of beliefs. So pick your poison, because at some point, you are going to disagree with an ideal that the organization is making for you.
> 
> Special Interests groups are ALWAYS going to look out for their platform regardless of whether a few eggs get cracked along the way. It's not semantics, GLSFA is a mirror image of TU, just juxtapose.


Hey wolly. Thanks again. 

I don't think of GLFSA as completely juxtaposed to TU at all. We disagree with some of the politics that TU has played with regulations, but I am a huge supporter (and have been - feel free to do a search of my previous posts) of TU's core mission - habitat improvements that help support, sustain and improve our trout populations. In fact, I'll be joining my local TU chapter here in a couple weeks for a clean up on my local river.

Also, I don't support any blanket bag limit increases or wholesale plundering - again search my past posts. Our group promotes river clean ups, habitat improvement, public access and regs based on sound science. Not so much the opposite of TU, really the only place we differ greatly is on regs.

In fact, had TU stuck to it's core mission and stayed out of regulations and politics, GLFSA might not even exist because we'd all just be happy TU members. Some of our members are, however, former TU members that left over gear regs.

Don


----------



## fishinDon

The Downstream Drift said:


> Don, you know my position on this issue so there is no point in bringing things back up that others have discussed on this forum. However, you (and many of the members here) know that I am firmly rooted in TU. I sent several letters in support of the proposal written on Paint Creek in Southeast Michigan. Matter of fact, I was part of the committee formed to write the proposal. The issue I have here is that no one on our committee (including myself) received any "gifts" from MITU for writing letters. This has been mentioned time and time again by those that oppose TU's position on the gear regs and it simply didn't happen. The only thing any of us received was an email from MITU thanking us for our support.
> 
> I suppose I felt it was time to clear this up. Perhaps many of you won't believe the truth behind it, but "gifts" never happened.


Hey Jason, no disrespect to you at all (greatly admire all you do for our coldwater resources) but I sent you a PM with some information including the following, which is a direct quote from MI TU's website back in 2010:

"As a thanks for your time, all persons sending an email to the DNRE by the end of the day on October 6, 2010 (and cc&#8217;ing [email protected]s e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) will be entered into a drawing to receive a copy of TU founders&#8217;, George Griffith&#8217;s &#8220;For the Love of Trout&#8221; book and Art Neumann&#8217;s TU Philosophy print. Another drawing will be held for emails sent between October 7 &#8211; November 3, 2010."

This is what I was referring to above. Sorry for the confusion in not being more clear. There may have never been any gifts, but there was a promise of 2 drawings for prizes.

Thanks,
Don


----------



## Ranger Ray

woolybug25 said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I would argue that the special interest argument is not just semantics. There is a distinct socioeconomic split between the sides. This is very similar to modern day politics. People generally have beliefs on that cross the line into the other party's platform, but at some point you lean a specific way.
> 
> For instance, the special interest group you pointed out, TU. This group is going to unilaterally support dam removal, wild fish and increased regulations. So there will be occasions where this is in direct opposition to beliefs of the GLSFA (not any one item in particular, mind). The same goes for GLSFA. They unilaterally support removing gear restrictions, increasing bag limits and increasing available angling experiences. Some of these will be in direct opposition to the general beliefs of TU.
> 
> But being a member of either is putting in your proxy to the organization that is going to follow a specific platform of beliefs. So pick your poison, because at some point, you are going to disagree with an ideal that the organization is making for you.
> 
> Special Interests groups are ALWAYS going to look out for their platform regardless of whether a few eggs get cracked along the way. It's not semantics, GLSFA is a mirror image of TU, just juxtapose.


Our organization promotes equality for all legal methods of taking game. We believe that if regulation is needed, everyone must share equitably in the conservation deemed necessary by science. We believe waters set aside for any one type of gear, is not a necessity backed by science, but is special treatment. TU just stopped me from being able to fish one of my favorite spots with bait, for no other reason than ideology. There is not a similarity in the groups when it comes to gear regulations. One promotes all fisherman, no matter the gear, should be able to fish the same waters. The other seeks miles of water for fly gear only. We are about a mirror image of trout unlimited as Attila The Hun is to Pope John Paul II when it comes to special regulations of gear. I can see why you are trying to paint that picture though. 

So how do you like the stream laws in Colorado? I believe you said they "suck." Might try the PTD to get that changed. Oh wait, your OK with those that seek to limit others based on ideology. I guess one could call that, poetic justice.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Social Science, have to love it:



> Catch and Release fishing will be banned in Switzerland from next year, it was revealed this week.
> 
> And anglers in the country will have to demonstrate their expertise by taking a course on humane methods of catching fish, under new legislation outlined by the Bundesrat - the Swiss Federal Parliament.
> 
> The new legislation states that fish caught should be killed immediately following their capture, with a sharp blow to the head from a blunt instrument. Under the new regulations, the use of livebait and barbed hooks is also prohibited except in certain situations.
> 
> The laws come into effect in 2009 but while the Swiss government does not mention Catch and Release specifically, it does say that "it is not permitted to go fishing with the 'intention' to release the fish."
> 
> EFTTA lobbyist Jan Kappel has been in contact with Martin Peter, Vice President of the Swiss Angling Federation, to see whether a joint approach to the Swiss government could persuade them to amend the legislation - which forms part of a much wider animal welfare programme.
> 
> The law on the protection of animals was passed by the Swiss parliament in 2005 and officials have spent three years refining the details, taking into account the comments of interested parties.
> 
> Said Jan: "Catch and Release is one of the most difficult issues we have to deal with, and one of the most important in my opinion.
> 
> &#8220;The new Swiss law doesn't make use of the term 'Catch and Release', which is the same as in Germany &#8211; but I don't see how governments can enforce legislation which makes 'intent' illegal.
> 
> &#8220;And demanding that people kill the fish they catch gives no thought to the conservation benefits from releasing them."
> 
> Angling Codes of Conduct with regards to proper handling and releases can be found for practically any fish species caught by anglers in Switzerland and the rest of the world. The new Swiss law makes it obligatory for anglers to take lessons before being granted a fishing license. So there is absolutely no need for an outright ban on the release of fish in Switzerland.&#8221;
> 
> It&#8217;s believed that the legislation could affect as many as 275,000 anglers in Switzerland, who generate around 30 million Euros in annual tackle sales.
> 
> EFTTA acting president, Pierangelo Zanetta, said: "EFTTA does not believe that forcing anglers to kill their catches is either good for nature or for recreational sport fishing - which makes a significant financial contribution to the EU economy.
> 
> &#8220;Making the killing of fish obligatory will simply reduce fish population and, at the same time, run the risk of having a negative impact on sport fishing.
> 
> "Anglers and the sport of angling invest time and money to improve water quality and create larger and healthier fish populations. We believe is it far better for the fish if the fisherman decides, according to the situation, whether to keep and eat the fish or to release it."


Swiss, Germany, Sweden and Norway have all banned C&R now.


----------



## kzoofisher

fishinDon said:


> Lets go with Biological Science, it's always right and it completely removes the mud slinging. Every person who posted in this thread is passionate about our state's fish/game resources and strong advocates for our "rights" in general and the future of our outdoor sports. A debate over a couple socially driven regulations has us fighting against each other instead of working together on truely important issues.
> 
> Biology baby!
> Don


Don, 

I think that using science to achieve management goals is great because it helps prevent waste and protect the resource. Having said that, what are the management goals that you see Biological Science achieving?


----------



## kzoofisher

Don,

I don't think you are naive at all, I think you are a very smart man pushing the right political buttons to further your agenda. That is what the leader of an advocacy group is supposed to do.

Hook and line rules are considered reasonable. Spearing is not. This is a long standing prejudice that the GLFSA seems to accept. Perhaps in another twenty years you will accept the prejudice against bait fishing. The fact that one social view is acceptable to you and the GLFSA and the other is not says a great deal about your views on inclusion of all sportsmen. 

Why should you care about pike and musky? Because this is you mission statement":

The Great Lakes Fishing and Sporting Alliance is a sportsmen&#8217;s organization dedicated to working for the management of our Natural Resources based on sound science. The GLFSA promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations.

Any and all special regulations should be made only for the inclusion of all sportsmen and user groups with primary consideration placed on the health of our fish and wildlife populations.

Why shouldn't TU? Their mission statement:

To conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.

Anglers of the Au Sable:

preserve, protect and enhance the Au Sable River System for future generations of fly fishers

Your mission is apparently much more sweeping and inclusive. Perhaps your mission statement would be more accurate as:

The Great Lakes Fishing and Sporting Alliance is a sportsmen&#8217;s organization dedicated to working for the management of our _cold water_ Natural Resources based on sound science _and the continuation of social norms that we have grown accustomed to_. The GLFSA promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations.

Any and all special regulations should be made only for the inclusion of all sportsmen and user groups _except those we don't think about_ with primary consideration placed on the health of our fish and wildlife populations _and the social norms we are comfortable with_.

Why have I typed this long response? Because the GLFSA through its Mission Statement and the rhetoric of some its representatives paints me and some organizations that I am a member of as greedy, self-interested destroyers of the very freedoms this country was founded on. I think I have shown that the motivations of those supporting Gear Restrictions are not so different than the GLFSA. We interpret the less conclusive areas of biological studies to show our own goals in a better light and promote our goals with passion. That is so common a practice that some people can spend their whole lives getting paid to do follow-up studies or act as advocate expert witnesses for a viewpoint. The primary difference is that I and other supporters of GR can admit that we have pre-conceived notions of what constitutes a great fishery and we act on them within the reasonable limits of biology and the law, while too often representatives of the GLFSA present *Science* as some sort of god that is making decisions for society to act upon. I find those characterizations and attitudes offensive and will continue to speak out against them and to try to show others when they have been invoked. 

As for someone being a winner here, I fear that no such thing is possible. What is possible and good for everyone is that the posters here and all the lurkers examine there own lives, compare them to society as a whole and speak up in some way to make themselves heard. Whether they join a group, speak out publicly or vote doesn't really matter. Getting involved in the process of molding society is good for fishing, good for Michigan and good for America. I'll bet a lot of them already do.

Thanks for taking the time to read this far, hope you had a very blessed Holiday,

kzoofisher


----------



## fishinDon

kzoofisher said:


> Don,
> 
> I don't think you are naive at all, I think you are a very smart man pushing the right political buttons to further your agenda. That is what the leader of an advocacy group is supposed to do.
> 
> Hook and line rules are considered reasonable. Spearing is not. This is a long standing prejudice that the GLFSA seems to accept. Perhaps in another twenty years you will accept the prejudice against bait fishing. The fact that one social view is acceptable to you and the GLFSA and the other is not says a great deal about your views on inclusion of all sportsmen.
> 
> Why should you care about pike and musky? Because this is you mission statement":
> 
> The Great Lakes Fishing and Sporting Alliance is a sportsmens organization dedicated to working for the management of our Natural Resources based on sound science. The GLFSA promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations.
> 
> Any and all special regulations should be made only for the inclusion of all sportsmen and user groups with primary consideration placed on the health of our fish and wildlife populations.
> 
> Why shouldn't TU? Their mission statement:
> 
> To conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.
> 
> Anglers of the Au Sable:
> 
> preserve, protect and enhance the Au Sable River System for future generations of fly fishers
> 
> Your mission is apparently much more sweeping and inclusive. Perhaps your mission statement would be more accurate as:
> 
> The Great Lakes Fishing and Sporting Alliance is a sportsmens organization dedicated to working for the management of our _cold water_ Natural Resources based on sound science _and the continuation of social norms that we have grown accustomed to_. The GLFSA promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations.
> 
> Any and all special regulations should be made only for the inclusion of all sportsmen and user groups _except those we don't think about_ with primary consideration placed on the health of our fish and wildlife populations _and the social norms we are comfortable with_.
> 
> Why have I typed this long response? Because the GLFSA through its Mission Statement and the rhetoric of some its representatives paints me and some organizations that I am a member of as greedy, self-interested destroyers of the very freedoms this country was founded on. I think I have shown that the motivations of those supporting Gear Restrictions are not so different than the GLFSA. We interpret the less conclusive areas of biological studies to show our own goals in a better light and promote our goals with passion. That is so common a practice that some people can spend their whole lives getting paid to do follow-up studies or act as advocate expert witnesses for a viewpoint. The primary difference is that I and other supporters of GR can admit that we have pre-conceived notions of what constitutes a great fishery and we act on them within the reasonable limits of biology and the law, while too often representatives of the GLFSA present *Science* as some sort of god that is making decisions for society to act upon. I find those characterizations and attitudes offensive and will continue to speak out against them and to try to show others when they have been invoked.
> 
> As for someone being a winner here, I fear that no such thing is possible. What is possible and good for everyone is that the posters here and all the lurkers examine there own lives, compare them to society as a whole and speak up in some way to make themselves heard. Whether they join a group, speak out publicly or vote doesn't really matter. Getting involved in the process of molding society is good for fishing, good for Michigan and good for America. I'll bet a lot of them already do.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to read this far, hope you had a very blessed Holiday,
> 
> kzoofisher


I appreciate your position as a strong supporter of TU. I very much respect and enjoy many of the great things that TU does for our cold water fisheries in terms of the habitat projects and fundraising they do for our sport. I am a STRONG supporter of TU based on these things. And I have said that over and over again on these boards. The only place I differ with TU is on "trout politics." I absolutely agree that we need as many strong advocates as possible for our resource, and appreciate that you've taken a leadership role. Kudos to you for that. 

Thanks for pointing out that our mission statement is too broad. I'll initiate some conversation with our members and consider some adjustments. Yes, at this point, we are primarily a coldwater fisheries group. Please stop telling me how I feel about spearing though, I've never once said anything about it, other than to say I don't have anything to say about it. Still don't....

I have already said we are a special interest group, I agree with you on that point as well. Nothing more to add there...

When the DNR invited me to join the coldwater committee (right after the gear restrictions passed) they handed out literature at the first meeting to all of the committee members. The literature explicitly said that socially driven regulations necessarily pick winners and losers. Doesn't matter if you are a spotted owl or a logger. This didn't come from me, it was handed to me by the DNR.

Part of the DNR's mission is to provide good customer service and as the public continues to ask for changes the DNR is finally forced to vet them - like the current 10 BKT bag proposal in the UP. Make no mistake; the DNR doesn't care to put themselves through these sorts of processes very often, which is why it took over 10 years for this to be formally reviewed. These processes are emotionally and physically exhausting and take up TONS of resources, and inevitably devolve into the DNR being "yelled at" by both sides. Those lost resources could most certainly be used to help fund a habitat project, like the large woody debris (LWD) project on the Au Sable, that was suspended by the DNR this year in year 7 or 8 of a 10 year commitment because they simply don't have the funding to continue.

Could we all agree that if we all stopped the politics that both the private groups and the DNR would have more funding available for habitat work and dam removal? 

These kind of rules come with cost - and it's both economic and social.
Don


----------



## Pinefarm

GLFSA isn't a legit group. It's only a couple guys with the free time to monopolize a forum setup especially for them, to keep them away from bitching on the real fishing forums and nobody is ever going to hear about the "organization" 2 years from now. 

All GLFSA is a grievance website. A website or facebook page, with a handful of bitter guys who don't understand basic law, does not make a legitimate organization.


----------



## woolybug25

fishinDon said:


> Part of the DNR's mission is to provide good customer service and as the public continues to ask for changes the DNR is finally forced to vet them - like the current 10 BKT bag proposal in the UP. Make no mistake; the DNR doesn't care to put themselves through these sorts of processes very often, which is why it took over 10 years for this to be formally reviewed. *These processes are emotionally and physically exhausting and take up TONS of resources, and inevitably devolve into the DNR being "yelled at" by both sides.* Those lost resources could most certainly be used to help fund a habitat project, like the large woody debris (LWD) project on the Au Sable, that was suspended by the DNR this year in year 7 or 8 of a 10 year commitment because they simply don't have the funding to continue.
> 
> *Could we all agree that if we all stopped the politics that both the private groups and the DNR would have more funding available for habitat work and dam removal? *
> 
> These kind of rules come with cost - and it's both economic and social.
> Don


With all due respect, Don. Isn't the GLFSA's main priority to get the DNR to review (and change) all gear regs? If so, that is going to be exactly what you are saying takes up their resources and drains their funds. Changing gear regs would be a lengthy and expensive process and we would most certainly see more funds get used up there instead of habitat improvement. 

So I totally agree that we should stop the politicking and work on the more vital issues of habitat improvement and dam removals, but that would take a drastic mindset change for the GLFSA. Your organization would need to put more effort into those things instead of using all of it's energy/manpower on gear regs. Is that a philosophical change that you could see happening?

If not, then your request for the end of politicking is a one sided endeavor. You are really asking for everyone else to focus on that while your organization continues it's focus on gear regs. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Pinefarm

Don't forget the lawsuits from businesses, towns and county governments wanting to know why the rules were changed.

This isn't like feral hogs or TB in deer or deer baiting, where those activities HURT the resource. If anything, restricted waters helps the resource. 

The state government may have the burden in court to prove why they destroyed whole towns, for no reason.


----------



## Pinefarm

What is GLFSA's annual budget for all activities?


----------



## cadillacjethro

If we can include more folks without harming the resource, why on earth wouldn't we? Are we really having this debate?? I fish with a fly rod because I choose to. I don't require special anything, I don't want special anything, and I don't pay for special anything.


----------



## fishinDon

woolybug25 said:


> With all due respect, Don. Isn't the GLFSA's main priority to get the DNR to review (and change) all gear regs? If so, that is going to be exactly what you are saying takes up their resources and drains their funds. Changing gear regs would be a lengthy and expensive process and we would most certainly see more funds get used up there instead of habitat improvement.
> 
> So I totally agree that we should stop the politicking and work on the more vital issues of habitat improvement and dam removals, but that would take a drastic mindset change for the GLFSA. Your organization would need to put more effort into those things instead of using all of it's energy/manpower on gear regs. Is that a philosophical change that you could see happening?
> 
> If not, then your request for the end of politicking is a one sided endeavor. You are really asking for everyone else to focus on that while your organization continues it's focus on gear regs. It doesn't work that way.


You are absolutely right. I am wasting time and money defending my position, the other groups are wasting time and money advancing theirs. If they were not lobbying for rules there would be no reason for GLFSA to exist, I'd just be a member of TU, since I agree with everything else they do. 

If you can broker an agreement that requires all special interest lobbying to leave Michigan's Trout Fishing Regulations then I'll gladly walk away right now and join TU. In fact, I've actually spoken to Brian Burroughs over the phone about this very subject. How much more could we do if we stopped the fighting each other, found a compromise that worked for everyone and used our money and energy for coldwater conservation?

Don


----------



## Pinefarm

fishinDon said:


> How much more could we do if we stopped the fighting each other, found a compromise that worked for everyone and used *our money *and energy for coldwater conservation?
> 
> Don


TU has an annual budget of $20,000,000.00 a year. What exactly is the GLFSA budget? And no, the change in the truck ashtray is not a budget.

The mockery is attempting to make a couple bitter guys with a website and a cell phone try to compare themselves to a real organization, like TU.


----------



## woolybug25

fishinDon said:


> You are absolutely right. I am wasting time and money defending my position, the other groups are wasting time and money advancing theirs. If they were not lobbying for rules there would be no reason for GLFSA to exist, I'd just be a member of TU, since I agree with everything else they do.
> 
> If you can broker an agreement that requires all special interest lobbying to leave Michigan's Trout Fishing Regulations then I'll gladly walk away right now and join TU. In fact, I've actually spoken to Brian Burroughs over the phone about this very subject. How much more could we do if we stopped the fighting each other, found a compromise that worked for everyone and used our money and energy for coldwater conservation?
> 
> Don


Don't blow up on me for asking how you plan to have your organization follow the suggestion *you made to the rest of us*. You can blame the rest of us for your member's inability to orchestrate change without forming into a special interests group, but the facts still remain:

- You want special interests out of the discussion, but want decisions to be made based on your special interests group's opinion. 
- You want the bureaucracy out of the DNR's decisions, but lead a group that fights for more. 
- You want the DNR to have more time and money for habitat improvement, but lead an organization hell bent on making them spend their time on gear regs instead. 


Saying this: 



> "Those lost resources could most certainly be used to help fund a habitat project, like the large woody debris (LWD) project on the Au Sable, that was suspended by the DNR this year in year 7 or 8 of a 10 year commitment because they simply don't have the funding to continue."


and then leading the fight for the DNR to spend all of their time and money on gear regs are a complete contradiction. So yes, Don. Maybe you are wasting your money.


----------



## fishinDon

Pinefarm said:


> GLFSA isn't a legit group. It's only a couple guys with the free time to monopolize a forum setup especially for them, to keep them away from bitching on the real fishing forums and nobody is ever going to hear about the "organization" 2 years from now.
> 
> All GLFSA is a grievance website. A website or facebook page, with a handful of bitter guys who don't understand basic law, does not make a legitimate organization.


Bob, 

I realize that you disagree with the premise of our organization, but I wanted to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to re-energize our troops and drive up our membership.

Thanks,
Don


----------



## fishinDon

woolybug25 said:


> Don't blow up on me for asking how you plan to have your organization follow the suggestion *you made to the rest of us*. You can blame the rest of us for your member's inability to orchestrate change without forming into a special interests group, but the facts still remain:
> 
> - You want special interests out of the discussion, but want decisions to be made based on your special interests group's opinion.
> - You want the bureaucracy out of the DNR's decisions, but lead a group that fights for more.
> - You want the DNR to have more time and money for habitat improvement, but lead an organization hell bent on making them spend their time on gear regs instead.
> 
> 
> Saying this:
> 
> 
> 
> and then leading the fight for the DNR to spend all of their time and money on gear regs are a complete contradiction. So yes, Don. Maybe you are wasting your money.


I wasn't blowing up. I was being serious. We would quit in a minute if we could. 

I'll PM you. I think maybe you're misunderstanding me.
Don


----------



## fishinDon

Pinefarm said:


> TU has an annual budget of $20,000,000.00 a year. What exactly is the GLFSA budget? And no, the change in the truck ashtray is not a budget.
> 
> The mockery is attempting to make a couple bitter guys with a website and a cell phone try to compare themselves to a real organization, like TU.


So we need 20 million to have a voice? Or maybe there's a lower ceiling? Can you please let me what the minimum monetary requirement is to post in this forum?

Thanks,
Don


----------



## Pinefarm

fishinDon said:


> Bob,
> 
> I realize that you disagree with the premise of our organization, but I wanted to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to re-energize our troops and drive up our membership.
> 
> Thanks,
> Don


Oh, are the other 2 members online?


----------



## fishinDon

Pinefarm said:


> Oh, are the other 2 members online?


I'm not sure what you're hoping to contribute to the conversation, but I'm done replying to you.

Thanks again for all the attention you've given our group of 3. 

Don


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> Oh, are the other 2 members online?


You really are a joke.


----------



## Splitshot

Pinefarm, 

I am surprised at your attacks our organization and us personally. I understand why guys like Woolybug, Kzoofisher want to discredit us by using personal attacks and disparaging remarks and by misrepresenting our intent, dismissing our claims of discrimination and that gear restrictions dont limit public use and constantly claim that we are somehow hurting the fishery and dont care about our rivers or natural heritage.

Bob all I can figure is you were one of the founders of BBT and the current owners are prime backers of gear restrictions on the PM. You are either taking up their cause because they dont or more likely cant defend their position or perhaps you still have a financial interest in the success of their shop. I dont know for sure, but to say you have no dog in this hunt is disingenuous in my opinion and that is not legit.

To set the record straight, GLFSA does have an agenda but unlike TU we dont have public mission statement and a hidden agenda of lobbying, pushing for more gear restrictions on our public waters based on pseudo science.

We have no hidden agenda and represent no special interest, only a public interest. We are interested in repealing all gear restrictions because they discriminate against bait fishermen which means they discriminate against the average fishermen, women and youngsters who are denied access to some of the best trout waters in our state because of groups who believe they have more rights to our prime waters than the public. I define them as special interest groups.

The argument that all one has to do is use a fly in the fly waters is not much of an argument. In our opinion the DNR has the obligation to make and enforce rules that protect our public resources based on a scientific basis and not rules simply to limit access. 

Do anyone think there are any fly fishermen that would not fish some rivers if they could only fish there if they used bait? Likewise many bait fishermen will not fish some rivers because they must use flies as a condition to fish there.

Much of the public goes fishing because they like to fish and they like to eat fish. When the DNR implements gear restrictions or No Kill rules it limit the number of people who will fish there just as sure as if they put a fence around it and only gave keys to the people who belonged to groups with power and influence. In our opinion they violates the Public Trust, and the stated goals of the MDNR .

To some of you removing gear restrictions it is a slippery slope that will lead to the use of spears, explosives or snagging. We disagree and are against those methods for trout. We think the slippery slope is if the DNR can make rules that limit public use like showing consideration to commercial interests at the expense of the public or show consideration for other special interest groups at the expense of the public, then the Public Trust has little meaning and all of us lose.


Bob, those tens of thousands of fly fishermen from around the country who fish the flies only section of the PM and other rivers are welcomed by us and we dont want to deny them or anyone else from fishing our public waters. If they choose not to fish our rivers unless some of our citizens are restricted to use only one legal method they can choose to stay home.

We talk about the Public Trust Doctrine because it is real and written into our state constitution and is a sacred trust between the government and the people of the state of Michigan. It is not the small business trust doctrine, and it is not the fly fishing trust doctrine and because the DNR has supported gear restrictions and dont think they are discriminatory doesnt mean they are right.

One of our basic arguments is based on this point. In the twelve years I have been supporting this position, not one person has broken this argument.

River guides are a group, fly fishermen are a group, and bait fishermen are a group. One of the basic concerns of our organization is discrimination which is defined as prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.

Great Lakes Fishing and Sporting Alliance stands against discrimination. If you want to brand us as extremists who support Sharia Law, refer to us anarchists, liars, belittle our efforts and our organization instead of an honest debate, I cant stop you, but those kind of attacks say more about you than us.

Convince us that gear restrictions are not discriminatory and we have something to discuss.

The debate about what the Public Trust protects will probably have to be settled in the Federal Courts although we think most of it has been settled already. Since we are not legal scholars and you and your group are not legal scholars, the future will tell.

We think the Public Trust is their to protect public waters and lands for the public use. We know for sure the State cannot sell or lease public waters that limit public use or access or are not in the best interest of the public. We think the mission statement of MDNR fisheries is consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine and that is manage the resources in the best interest for the public, to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.


----------



## Fishin' Wizard

Very interesting how this web site has evolved in the last 12 years or so. I have been watching this thread run for a good while. Quality Deer Management and Fly Dunker's First are still the same thing here that it was a decade ago but the moderators have evolved it from SFK saying "What the Fudge" to a civilized version of the same arguments made in 2000 saying the same thing over and over. Everyone now has lots of research and long winded posts about why their special interest group is the best. The hunting & fishing is as good now as it was then if you know what you're doing. Its just fewer and fewer of the guys are posting methods and helping others learn than it was then. SFK was banned for calling it like it is but the same fun continues. I think this is just a way to create excitement to sell the site and get advertisements, allowing this to continue. The words change but the message remains, "why can't people just get along" and just hunt & fish their way and not tell others how its done best. The resources belong to all of us. It is our right to hunt & fish and its a shame that the people who love to do this are so divided. 

Obama promised our county change but I'm still waiting to see it!


----------



## kzoofisher

Splitshot,

Please show where I have "discredit us by using personal attacks and disparaging remarks and by misrepresenting our intent, dismissing our claims of discrimination and that gear restrictions dont limit public use and constantly claim that we are somehow hurting the fishery and dont care about our rivers or natural heritage." I have defended myself when attacked, have never tried to guess you intent and only commented on the GLFSA's actions or inactions.


----------



## woolybug25

Splitshot said:


> Pinefarm,
> 
> I am surprised at your attacks our organization and us personally. I understand why guys like Woolybug, Kzoofisher want to discredit us by using personal attacks and disparaging remarks and by misrepresenting our intent, dismissing our claims of discrimination and that gear restrictions don&#8217;t limit public use and constantly claim that we are somehow hurting the fishery and don&#8217;t care about our rivers or natural heritage.


I have not used personal attacks nor misrepresented your intent (I in fact said that I thought the majority had good intent). I have been VERY clear in my points and none of you have proven any of them incorrect. I never made a claim that the GLFSA is hurting fisheries, that is a straight up lie, but I don't expect you to paint a clear picture for everyone concerning the GLFSA.



> Bob all I can figure is you were one of the founders of BBT and the current owners are prime backers of gear restrictions on the PM. You are either taking up their cause because they don&#8217;t or more likely can&#8217;t defend their position or perhaps you still have a financial interest in the success of their shop. I don&#8217;t know for sure, but to say you have no dog in this hunt is disingenuous in my opinion and that is not legit.


Or he can just see how ridiculous your organization is and how they aren't actually accomplishing anything. Meanwhile, you and the rest of the members spend all of your energy bashing others on the internet and not participating in actual projects going on around the state. There have been DNR habitat projects, dam removal projects, etc that you and the GLFSA feel are less important than some regs that effect less than 2% of Mi's trout streams. 



> To set the record straight, GLFSA does have an agenda but unlike TU we don&#8217;t have public mission statement and a hidden agenda of lobbying, pushing for more gear restrictions on our public waters based on pseudo science.


No, the GLFSA doesn't actually do anything to address their own mission statement and really just pushes a hidden agenda of lobbying, pushing for less gear restrictions on our public waters using pseudo science. 

But keep bashing TU, they are only doing more to tear down dams, improve habitat, and putting vets and kids onto water, etc then the GLFSA has done in their entire history. 



> We have no hidden agenda and represent no special interest, only a public interest. We are interested in repealing all gear restrictions because they discriminate against bait fishermen which means they discriminate against the average fishermen, women and youngsters who are denied access to some of the best trout waters in our state because of groups who believe they have more rights to our prime waters than the public. I define them as special interest groups.


Have you read anything in this thread? Your cofounder (Don) readily admits that you are a special interest group. Look up the damn definition of "special interest group" and come back on here and lie right to our faces again. 



> The argument that all one has to do is use a fly in the fly waters is not much of an argument. In our opinion the DNR has the obligation to make and enforce rules that protect our public resources based on a scientific basis and not rules simply to limit access.
> 
> Do anyone think there are any fly fishermen that would not fish some rivers if they could only fish there if they used bait? Likewise many bait fishermen will not fish some rivers because they must use flies as a condition to fish there.


Your opinion is that you want to make the social decision (because the science does not show that taking away gear regs improve the fishery) based on your specific desire to fish any way you want to. It's is simple as that. The GLFSA is not an organization fighting for better waterways, it is a SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUP fighting to change regs.



> Much of the public goes fishing because they like to fish and they like to eat fish. When the DNR implements gear restrictions or &#8220;No Kill&#8221; rules it limit the number of people who will fish there just as sure as if they put a fence around it and only gave keys to the people who belonged to groups with power and influence. In our opinion they violates the Public Trust, and the stated goals of the MDNR .


Then get an effing lawyer and sue the state. The reason no one has challenged it is because you are wrong. Pretty simple. 



> To some of you removing gear restrictions it is a slippery slope that will lead to the use of spears, explosives or snagging. We disagree and are against those methods for trout. We think the slippery slope is if the DNR can make rules that limit public use like showing consideration to commercial interests at the expense of the public or show consideration for other special interest groups at the expense of the public, then the Public Trust has little meaning and all of us lose.


Again, the GLFSA is a special interests group, so when you bash special interests groups, you are bashing your own organization. 




> Bob, those tens of thousands of fly fishermen from around the country who fish the flies only section of the PM and other rivers are welcomed by us and we don&#8217;t want to deny them or anyone else from fishing our public waters. If they choose not to fish our rivers unless some of our citizens are restricted to use only one legal method they can choose to stay home.
> 
> We talk about the Public Trust Doctrine because it is real and written into our state constitution and is a sacred trust between the government and the people of the state of Michigan. It is not the small business trust doctrine, and it is not the fly fishing trust doctrine and because the DNR has supported gear restrictions and don&#8217;t think they are discriminatory doesn&#8217;t mean they are right.
> 
> One of our basic arguments is based on this point. In the twelve years I have been supporting this position, not one person has broken this argument.


So in the last 12 years of pouring all your time and energy into fighting gear regs, where have you gotten? Meanwhile, groups like TU, which the GLFSA publicly blasts, has spent over $30million in Michigan over the last decade removing dams, building habitats and protecting fisheries. 

I wonder why there isn't a line around the block looking to join the GLFSA. Maybe it's because you dudes don't actually accomplish anything to improve Michigan fisheries. 



> River guides are a group, fly fishermen are a group, and bait fishermen are a group. One of the basic concerns of our organization is discrimination which is defined as prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.


But yet you and the other GLFSA members use this site to make your own little "group". Funny how you end up becoming the things you hate. 



> Great Lakes Fishing and Sporting Alliance stands against discrimination. If you want to brand us as extremists who support Sharia Law, refer to us anarchists, liars, belittle our efforts and our organization instead of an honest debate, I can&#8217;t stop you, but those kind of attacks say more about you than us.
> 
> Convince us that gear restrictions are not discriminatory and we have something to discuss.
> 
> The debate about what the Public Trust protects will probably have to be settled in the Federal Courts although we think most of it has been settled already. Since we are not legal scholars and you and your group are not legal scholars, the future will tell.
> 
> We think the Public Trust is their to protect public waters and lands for the public use. We know for sure the State cannot sell or lease public waters that limit public use or access or are not in the best interest of the public. We think the mission statement of MDNR fisheries is consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine and that is manage the resources in the best interest for the public, to protect and enhance fish environments, habitat, populations and other forms of aquatic life and to promote the optimum use of these resources for the benefit of the people of Michigan.


Again, then effing prove that its illegal what the state is doing by allowing communities to thrive around special regs water. If this fight is so important that you and all of the GLFSA members fight this instead of trying to make the fisheries better through real projects, then show us. 

The GLFSA isn't ever going to accomplish a damn thing at this rate. 


@Don - I got your pm and will call you at some point. This is the kind of stuff that I am talking about. Splitshot, a leader in your organization, publicly stabbing TU in the back on this forum. But you want "to let this one thing go and work together"... BS. This type of behavior is why I am hesitant to work with anybody within your organization. Because every time the GLFSA gets a chance to show that you really have no desire to actually improve fisheries, you do so.


----------



## Ranger Ray

We are but a band of merry men, bait fishing the rivers of life(at least the ones the fly guys haven't claimed to themselves), when we all of a sudden heard, TU was pushing for more fly's only water. We decided to go to some of the meetings and see this sound science we heard they were using to ask for more fly's only water. Low and behold, we were astonished by guys jumping up demanding 500 miles more of flies only water. We thought to ourselves, what manner of people are these. So we decided to go voice our opinion to the NRC. Luckily we struck up a dialog with a few government employees of integrity and ethics (you know who you are, you are welcome at my campfire anytime  ) that explained we were a bit naive as to the nature of these special regulations. They informed us that politics, lobbying and money was where the "social regulations" were being fought. We noticed the "Billy Bob, McDonald eating, stupid people" were not represented very well. So we decided to start a new organization to counter those that wish to limit bait fisherman&#8217;s access to water and promote more for flies. Yes we are small band of merry men, and working mostly off a five and dime budget. Now Pinefarm would like you to think that because we are not the 500lb gorilla in the fight, we are nobody's. But as the Kurt Meister case has shown us, you don't have to be.  

Nice post Ray. I thought you did a very good job of making your point without attacking anyone.

It appears wooly somehow thinks, while he was just a thought in his father and mothers mind, you were sitting idle doing nothing. He fails to realize the things you and I have done before he was even born to help the ecology of this state. I may have even been a member of the steelheaders longer than he has been alive. You know, another group of ecology minded people that work for the good of the fishery. I guess in the mind of the fly guy, its TU baby, otherwise you&#8217;re just a fat mac daddy.


----------



## woolybug25

Ranger Ray said:


> We are but a band of merry men, bait fishing the rivers of life(at least the ones the fly guys haven't claimed to themselves), when we all of a sudden heard, TU was pushing for more fly's only water. We decided to go to some of the meetings and see this sound science we heard they were using to ask for more fly's only water. Low and behold, we were astonished by guys jumping up demanding 500 miles more of flies only water. We thought to ourselves, what manner of people are these. So we decided to go voice our opinion to the NRC. Luckily we struck up a dialog with a few government employees of integrity and ethics (you know who you are, you are welcome at my campfire anytime  ) that explained we were a bit naive as to the nature of these special regulations. They informed us that politics, lobbying and money was where the "social regulations" were being fought. We noticed the "Billy Bob, McDonald eating, stupid people" were not represented very well. So we decided to start a new organization to counter those that wish to limit bait fisherman&#8217;s access to water and promote more for flies. Yes we are small band of merry men, and working mostly off a five and dime budget. Now Pinefarm would like you to think that because we are not the 500lb gorilla in the fight, we are nobody's. But as the Kurt Meister case has shown us, you don't have to be.
> 
> Nice post Ray. I thought you did a very good job of making your point without attacking anyone.
> 
> It appears wooly somehow thinks, while he was just a thought in his father and mothers mind, you were sitting idle doing nothing. He fails to realize the things you and I have done before he was even born to help the ecology of this state. I may have even been a member of the steelheaders longer than he has been alive. You know, another group of ecology minded people that work for the good of the fishery. I guess in the mind of the fly guy, its TU baby, otherwise you&#8217;re just a fat mac daddy.


Just some more "we are the blue-collared little people" scare tactics in order to vilify those scary ol' meany-head TU people. 

What you fail to represent is that those same meanie heads have done more for the state of Michigan's fisheries than all of the small special interest groups you can think of in Michigan combined. 

But I understand that you guys disagree with TU's feelings on Michigan's special regs. That is exactly why TU organizes into local chapters. So people that have varying views can make changes locally. Instead of banding together and trying to make changes with the tools that were available to you, GLFSA was born. 

In the time that GLFSA has been around, they have managed to come up with a couple opinions and do two cleanups. Roughly what every fly shop in the state does every single year. You claim to not have the money, manpower or time to work on anything but bitching about regs on the internet. But all of those things were already at your disposal before you formed. You have no plan or opportunity to improve any of the things listed. So there is no reason for anyone on the outside to believe that your organization will actually ever accomplish anything. So while you guys spend your efforts attacking people on the internet and talk amongst eachother about some regs that effect 2% of trout streams, other organizations will actually participate in making trout habitat better. 

Your members have also shown very clearly how people with a different view will be treated. So why would anybody offer their money, manpower or time to an organization when history shows that the GLFSA will immediately stab you in the back the first time you disagree with the organization? One of you asked me once, "can't we put this one difference aside and work together on the rest"? Why would anyone do that when they know that you wouldn't even be an organization if you would have taken that approach with your local chapter of TU? Instead of doing that, you took your ball and went home, and are now busy berating them on the internet. A classic betrayal. 

In regards to the regs, none of the science shows that removing the regs would improve the water, so the whole "Science" argument is BS. It's a social issue for each side and one that you want the state of Michigan to make in your favor.


----------



## Ranger Ray

woolybug25 said:


> In the time that GLFSA has been around, they have managed to come up with a couple opinions and do two cleanups. Roughly what every fly shop in the state does every single year. You claim to not have the money, manpower or time to work on anything but bitching about regs on the internet. But all of those things were already at your disposal before you formed. You have no plan or opportunity to improve any of the things listed. So there is no reason for anyone on the outside to believe that your organization will actually ever accomplish anything. So while you guys spend your efforts attacking people on the internet and talk amongst eachother about some regs that effect 2% of trout streams, other organizations will actually participate in making trout habitat better.


Most of us are involved with many other organizations and have been for 37 years plus. You are hung up with the fact that GLFSA is a little over one year old and hasn't done the things you think it should have. If the only thing GLFSA does is stand as a voice to oppose water managed for no other reason than selfishness, to a specific gear type, it has served its purpose to me. I spend many hours with other groups participating in and making habitat better. The little extra GLFSA has done in its short lifespan, is just that, a little something more. Its only in your mind that it has to meet your criteria. I will put my years of funding organizations and doing habitat improvement in Michigan up against yours any day. Matter of fact, maybe based on your own criteria, you shouldn't even have a say against someone who has done it 20 years longer than you. With the amount of time you have spent trying to prove we are irrelevant, I would say we are making headway.


----------



## woolybug25

Ranger Ray said:


> Most of us are involved with many other organizations and have been for 37 years plus. You are hung up with the fact that GLFSA is a little over one year old and hasn't done the things you think it should have. If the only thing GLFSA does is stand as a voice to oppose water managed for no other reason than selfishness, to a specific gear type, it has served its purpose to me. I spend many hours with other groups participating in and making habitat better. The little extra GLFSA has done in its short lifespan, is just that, a little something more. Its only in your mind that it has to meet your criteria. I will put my years of funding organizations and doing habitat improvement in Michigan up against yours any day. Matter of fact, maybe based on your own criteria, you shouldn't even have a say against someone who has done it 20 years longer than you. With the amount of time you have spent trying to prove we are irrelevant, I would say we are making headway.


THEN PROMOTE THOSE ORGANIZATIONS ONCE IN A WHILE!

All you and most of the other GLFSA guys do is promote removing regs. Furthermore, GLFSA does not advertise themselves as a complimentary organization, they advertise themselves as a group that _promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen *and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations.*_ Why don't we just be honest with each other and just drop that second part off of your mission statement, because the GLFSA isn't doing anything to improve habitats or promote fish populations. You belong to a group blinded by a topic that effects a small amount of water, and your cause wouldn't do anything to help populations in those waters. You serve as a distraction to the real issues at hand.

As far as my experience, you are barking up the wrong tree. If you put your contributions of coldwater protection up against mine, you will lose. I have spent the majority of my life protecting waterways and you don't know the first damn thing about me. I do know that I have been part of a lot of major projects in Michigan, and haven't ran into you once. 

But this isn't about me, it's about the GLFSA, and as long as your organization runs around the internet abusing others, I will be here to tell the public how useless of an organization you belong to.


----------



## Ranger Ray

woolybug25 said:


> T
> As far as my experience, you are barking up the wrong tree. If you put your contributions of coldwater protection up against mine, you will lose. I have spent the majority of my life protecting waterways and you don't know the first damn thing about me. I do know that I have been part of a lot of major projects in Michigan, and haven't ran into you once.


Your 30 or close to it and you want to learn guitar. You left Michigan barely a man, yet you represent yourself as doing so much for it. Your telling grandiose stories to try to bolster your opinion as meaning something. I have been involved in many major projects also, only 23 years longer.


----------



## woolybug25

Ranger Ray said:


> Your 30 or close to it and you want to learn guitar. You left Michigan barely a man, yet you represent yourself as doing so much for it. Your telling grandiose stories to try to bolster your opinion as meaning something. I have been involved in many major projects also, only 23 years longer.


Don't mistake being old as being experienced. I'm sure that you scoured my blog in an attempt to find some morsel of writing in which you could spin into me being the bad guy on this, but you wont find anything on there that I am ashamed of. But I hope others see this as another example of how when you don't have anything left to stand on, you try to attack me personally. Stay classy. 

You do probably notice that I promote a lot of organizations on that blog (a great deal of them Michigan based). I do that for no other reason than to promote the protection of fisheries. I have written articles, sat on boards and traveled the country for many of these causes. So if your goal with this whole turn of conversation is personally attack me, then go ahead. I'm proud of the impact I have made for the protection of fisheries.

The guys that you see running major coldwater organizations pick me up at the airport and they don't know you from Joe. So what does that say about the last 23 years of your life? Maybe you should spend more time working on habitat projects and less time trying to attack people's character on the internet.


----------



## fishinDon

Glad I watched the muppets with my kids tonight and tucked them in. Time well spent. I think we all forgot about the truly important stuff quite a while ago now. 

@wolly - I'll be around when you're ready to talk. I won't be armed and I'll be halfway across they country. Should be pretty safe! 

Blatant attempt to lighten the mood. 

Don




_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## Ranger Ray

woolybug25 said:


> Don't mistake being old as being experienced. I'm sure that you scoured my blog in an attempt to find some morsel of writing in which you could spin into me being the bad guy on this, but you wont find anything on there that I am ashamed of. But I hope others see this as another example of how when you don't have anything left to stand on, you try to attack me personally. Stay classy.
> 
> You do probably notice that I promote a lot of organizations on that blog (a great deal of them Michigan based). I do that for no other reason than to promote the protection of fisheries. I have written articles, sat on boards and traveled the country for many of these causes. So if your goal with this whole turn of conversation is personally attack me, then go ahead. I'm proud of the impact I have made for the protection of fisheries.
> 
> The guys that you see running major coldwater organizations pick me up at the airport and they don't know you from Joe. So what does that say about the last 23 years of your life? Maybe you should spend more time working on habitat projects and less time trying to attack people's character on the internet.


No, my goal is to show you that just because someone does something for more years than somebody else, they don't deserve special treatment. Based on your own logic, your a snot nosed punk to me, and should be saying yes sir and no sir. This is based on your logic, so don't try your little woe with me, I am being attacked BS. Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## woolybug25

Ranger Ray said:


> No, my goal is to show you that just because someone does something for more years than somebody else, they don't deserve special treatment. Based on your own logic, your a snot nosed punk to me, and should be saying yes sir and no sir. This is based on your logic, so don't try your little woe with me, I am being attacked BS. Here endeth the lesson.


Keep the spin going, it's past pathetic and reached silly at this point. I never said anything about time being a determining factor in an organization's value. I participate in a couple organizations younger than GLFSA. My whole point is that you should be judged on your actions. You and the GLFSA have made very little action, TU has. I think any reasonable person can read over my posts and see that I never made accusations based on the time that GLFSA has been around. You made that one up all on your own.

Thanks for the lesson though.


----------



## Splitshot

Woolybug,



woolybug25 said:


> I have not used personal attacks nor misrepresented your intent (I in fact said that I thought the majority had good intent). I have been VERY clear in my points and none of you have proven any of them incorrect. I never made a claim that the GLFSA is hurting fisheries, that is a straight up lie, but I don't expect you to paint a clear picture for everyone concerning the GLFSA.


Is calling me an anarchist a personal attack? Did you accuse me of constantly posting propaganda? Did you say;  No, the GLFSA doesn't actually do anything to address their own mission statement and really just pushes a hidden agenda of lobbying, pushing for less gear restrictions on our public waters using pseudo science. 

Sorry those are personal attacks. Besides, pushing for less gear restrictions is not a hidden agenda it is a stated purpose.


You said in the brook trout forum that; I completely disregard protecting our waterways? When I asked you where I ever made such a statement, you quoted my statement that; It is a myth that our rivers are fragile, pristine places that must be protected from people sport fishing. In fact it is absurd."

That argument always comes up to defend flies only and other gear restrictions like keeping bait fishing Billy Bobs off our rivers, somehow protects these fragile and pristine rivers. Our rivers, especially our northern rivers withstood the onslaught of logging and next to that, what sport fishermen do to our rivers is minor. So I am asking you again to back up up your statement by pointing out even one river that has been seriously damaged by sport fishermen? If you can answer that one, than we can look at the difference between us and TU. Can you handle it?



kzoofisher said:


> Splitshot,
> 
> Please show where I have "discredit us by using personal attacks and disparaging remarks and by misrepresenting our intent, dismissing our claims of discrimination and that gear restrictions dont limit public use and constantly claim that we are somehow hurting the fishery and dont care about our rivers or natural heritage." I have defended myself when attacked, have never tried to guess you intent and only commented on the GLFSA's actions or inactions.


Okay Kzoo.


kzoofisher said:


> Thanks for the response Don,
> I have to give you credit for remaining as vague as possible so that your specific goals can't be pinned to you, others in the GLFSA are not so careful. To be quite frank, my biggest problem with the GLFSA is what I see as disingenuous populist politicking on behalf of one style of fishing, bait........


We are not politicking on behalf of one style of fishing and repealing gear restrictions is a stated goal. Since all gear restrictions are on public waters we only want what you have. Equal access to all public waters. We are not trying to restrict fly fishing in any way but fly fishermen have already pushed for restricting bait fishermen. We are just trying to make it fair to everyone. If you want to have an honest debate lets have a discussion one step at a time and start with our claim of discrimination. Do you think gear restrictions are discriminatory toward bait fishing or is there some good reason only people that fly fish should be granted the right to fish some of our best trout waters?

Discrimination is defined as prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.
.
Ill be waiting for your response.


----------



## woolybug25

You do post propaganda, that's not an opinion, by definition this site is littered with GLFSA propaganda. I compared your opinion of not having regulations for fisherman as anarchic in nature. Which again, by definition, it is. Look both terms up if you are unfamiliar with their meanings. That isn't a personal attack, it's a completely logical opinion based off your comments regarding your views.

As far as comparing the rivers healing after the logging of Michigan's past, the rivers are still healing from that era. Species like Michigan Grayling were completely wiped out. Using that as an example on why we shouldn't be protecting waters is asinine. I sincerely do not understand your logic with those comments. So what, as long as it takes less than a hundred years to repair, we should allow it? 

I expect more out of fisheries. I highly doubt you will find many members on here that don't think that habitat, and in turn fish populations, could be greatly improved still in Michigan. Half the rivers in Michigan are still straightened and without natural meanders that create quality fish habitat (That is a part of the logging era that hasn't healed yet). What do you think would have a bigger impact on the quality of fishing; helping organizations that create more viable fisheries, or an organization that puts all their effort in changing the regs on less than 2% of rivers that are already thriving?

What is your problem with TU other than the regs? You obviously have a personal vendetta against them which is completely uncalled for. They have never isolated the GLFSA. They would be happy to help your organization with any other types of projects in Michigan. But instead of giving them props for working on a ton of great projects, you spend all of your time stabbing them in the back on this forum. Which is funny, because they certainly do not disrespect your organization.


----------



## Splitshot

Woolybug,



woolybug25 said:


> You do post propaganda, that's not an opinion, by definition this site is littered with GLFSA propaganda. I compared your opinion of not having regulations for fisherman as anarchic in nature. Which again, by definition, it is. Look both terms up if you are unfamiliar with their meanings. That isn't a personal attack, it's a completely logical opinion based off your comments regarding your views.


Nice try but when you accuse someone of something, you need to provide specific examples of where I deliberately posted half truths. Having an opinion is not proof. When I provided you with a definition of anarchy as a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. You said ; This is what I am referring to.

You are just a troll who runs off at the mouth without having an understanding of what you are saying but think that what you say is truth. Give me one example of where I professed any violence for the purpose stated? Without proof what you said was a personal attack..



woolybug25 said:


> As far as comparing the rivers healing after the logging of Michigan's past, the rivers are still healing from that era. Species like Michigan Grayling were completely wiped out. Using that as an example on why we shouldn't be protecting waters is asinine. I sincerely do not understand your logic with those comments. So what, as long as it takes less than a hundred years to repair, we should allow it?


Again hyperbole. Your proof that I completely disregard protecting our waterways, was because I said our It is a myth that our rivers are fragile, pristine places that must be protected from people sport fishing. In fact it is absurd." 

If you could show me one river that was materially damaged by sport fishermen it would answer the question, but what has that have to do with our rivers healing after logging or grayling being wiped out or why we should be protecting our rivers or twisting what I said with as long as it takes a hundred years to repai,.we should allow it? 

I understand that is what you must do when you cant back up your aspersions but I doubt many people agree with you.



woolybug25 said:


> What do you think would have a bigger impact on the quality of fishing; helping organizations that create more viable fisheries, or an organization that puts all their effort in changing the regs on less than 2% of rivers that are already thriving?


If you want to change the direction of our organization perhaps you should attempt to join. Good luc!. That 2% of rivers in MI equates to over 17% of what the DNR refers to as Blue Ribbon waters. Tell me why fly fishermen deserve to have exclusive use of that water and if you can, provide one good reason that any fisherman, woman or child should be limited to fish these waters with a legal method they prefer? 



woolybug25 said:


> What is your problem with TU other than the regs? You obviously have a personal vendetta against them which is completely uncalled for. They have never isolated the GLFSA. They would be happy to help your organization with any other types of projects in Michigan. But instead of giving them props for working on a ton of great projects, you spend all of your time stabbing them in the back on this forum. Which is funny, because they certainly do not disrespect your organization.


Wrong again! I dont have a personal vendetta against TU. I also give them credit for doing as much for our trout as any other group I know. I do disagree with their support gear restrictions. While working on this issue I had several opportunities to have conversations with Michigans Executive Director of TU. He told me TU was not a fly fishing organization and probably 40% of its members were not fly fisherman. I used to be a member myself.

We discussed his reasoning for the bait restrictions on the PM. He said his concern was people using bait during the steelhead and salmon season were hooking many trout behind the spawning steelhead and salmon redds and as a result were killing many trout because of deep hooking.

He had no problem with using bait during the regular trout season because there was very little pressure then. He said he had data that proved his position and offered to send me a copy. He has my e-mail but I never got it from him. I suggested he needed to send it to the DNR personal because the DNR biologist came to a completely different conclusion.

In the end this executive director supported the use of bait during the salmon and trout season and supported the exclusion of bait during the regular trout season. His actions showed me and many of our members that he either didnt have the courage of his convictions or his real agenda was to deny fishermen from using bait in an additional 10 miles of the Pere Marquette River.

The reasonable conclusion is TU is really against bait fishermen on some of the best waters in our state. The DNR biologist for this river in a public report you can look up did not recommend any more gear restrictions on this river. It wasnt just TU, but several other fly fishing organizations including local guide associations and a few others who stood to gain financially that supported them.

At least one fisherman grew up fishing the flies only waters of the PM with bait because that section of river has always provided the best trout fishing on the river. Once he was excluded from using bait, he moved to the lower section where he spent years learning the river. Now he has lost 10 more miles and is pushed down river again to even less productive waters. If there was a good reason for it, he would accept it, but there are no good reasons. 

Some politically connected fly fishing groups lobbied the DNR simply because they felt that they were entitled to its exclusive use. This was confirmed by officials high up in the department. We have no problem sharing our public waters with all legal fishermen. It isnt us who fears competition from other fishermen. It isnt us who feels challenged. We are not trying to get special rules for bait fishermen. We dont think it is fair to the public and is inconsistent with the Public Trust Doctrine and the stated mission of the MDNR fisheries division. 

When you or anyone accuses us of bias or trying to harm other fishermen or take away other fishermens rights they are totally mistaken. We are interested in an equal playing field.


----------



## kzoofisher

Splitshot said:


> Okay Kzoo.
> 
> We are not politicking on behalf of one style of fishing and repealing gear restrictions is a stated goal. Since all gear restrictions are on public waters we only want what you have. Equal access to all public waters. We are not trying to restrict fly fishing in any way but fly fishermen have already pushed for restricting bait fishermen. We are just trying to make it fair to everyone. If you want to have an honest debate lets have a discussion one step at a time and start with our claim of discrimination. Do you think gear restrictions are discriminatory toward bait fishing or is there some good reason only people that fly fish should be granted the right to fish some of our best trout waters?
> 
> Discrimination is defined as prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.
> .
> Ill be waiting for your response.


Criticizing the GLFSA is not a personal attack on you. In fact, the post you quoted was specifically addressed to Don and he responded in such a way that we both understand each other, so much so that I don't think we would get much further without speaking directly. There are some on message boards, usually on both sides of an issue, who have trouble distinguishing between disagreement and insult which complicates discussions.

As for my views on discrimination, I thought I had made myself pretty clear in my discussion with Don. In a thread this long things can get lost easily, post #161. You may disagree with me. Fair enough.


----------



## quack head

Splitshot, ''Do anyone think there are any fly fishermen that would not fish some rivers if they could only fish there if they used bait?'' 

Depends on how big the fish are


----------



## woolybug25

Splitshot said:


> Woolybug,
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try but when you accuse someone of something, you need to provide specific examples of where I deliberately posted half truths. Having an opinion is not proof. When I provided you with a definition of anarchy as &#8220;a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.&#8221; You said ; &#8220;This is what I am referring to.&#8221;
> 
> You are just a troll who runs off at the mouth without having an understanding of what you are saying but think that what you say is truth. Give me one example of where I professed any violence for the purpose stated? Without proof what you said was a personal attack..


I keep reading over what I wrote in that post and really don't understand how your reading comprehension could be so poor to misunderstand me. I have no duty to clarify it further because no explanation is going to be good enough for you. 




> Again hyperbole. Your proof that I completely disregard protecting our waterways, was because I said our &#8220;It is a myth that our rivers are fragile, pristine places that must be protected from people sport fishing. In fact it is absurd."
> 
> If you could show me one river that was materially damaged by sport fishermen it would answer the question, but what has that have to do with our rivers healing after logging or grayling being wiped out or why we should be protecting our rivers or twisting what I said with as long as it takes a hundred years to repai,.we should allow it?
> 
> I understand that is what you must do when you can&#8217;t back up your aspersions but I doubt many people agree with you.


I didn't spin anything. Several times you have used this supposed "healing from the logging era" as an example of why sportfisherman could never harm a fishery or why we shouldn't try to enact regulations that help a fishery. What you fail to tell people is that Michigan streams are still not healed from that era. 





> If you want to change the direction of our organization perhaps you should attempt to join. Good luc!. That 2% of rivers in MI equates to over 17% of what the DNR refers to as &#8220;Blue Ribbon&#8221; waters. Tell me why fly fishermen deserve to have exclusive use of that water and if you can, provide one good reason that any fisherman, woman or child should be limited to fish these waters with a legal method they prefer?


This cracks me up. This is exactly what you and your small band of merry men should have done with TU instead of stabbing them in the back. Maybe then you would have time, money or resources to actually accomplish something. Again, why would I ever consider joining an organization that has proved themselves not only untrustworthy, but incapable of real action on any issue. 



> Wrong again! I don&#8217;t have a personal vendetta against TU. I also give them credit for doing as much for our trout as any other group I know. I do disagree with their support gear restrictions. While working on this issue I had several opportunities to have conversations with Michigan&#8217;s Executive Director of TU. He told me TU was not a fly fishing organization and probably 40% of its members were not fly fisherman. I used to be a member myself.


How am I wrong, people aren't stupid. They can look back one post to see you blasting them. They can see you and the rest of the members of GLFSA attacking TU on a daily basis. The fact remains that you and the rest of the GLFSA consistently stab TU in the back and try to make them into the bad guys. 





> When you or anyone accuses us of bias or trying to harm other fishermen or take away other fishermen&#8217;s rights they are totally mistaken. We are interested in an equal playing field.


You are interested in taking away the state's ability to manage fisheries for their specific and unique qualities or local social desires. The GLFSA fights to remove any regs and raise bag limits. That is what your organization stands for. As I mentioned before, the GLFSA doesn't do a damn thing to try to improve fisheries, only to improve availability of water for bait fisherman. This is your main goal, while other organizations actually make action on creating more viable water for people to fish. 

The reality is that this argument isn't about our particular opinions on gear regs. It's about the fact that your organization doesn't actually accomplish anything, and it certainly doesn't even have a desire to actually improve fisheries.


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> I keep reading over what I wrote in that post and really don't understand how your reading comprehension could be so poor to misunderstand me. I have no duty to clarify it further because no explanation is going to be good enough for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't spin anything. Several times you have used this supposed "healing from the logging era" as an example of why sportfisherman could never harm a fishery or why we shouldn't try to enact regulations that help a fishery. What you fail to tell people is that Michigan streams are still not healed from that era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This cracks me up. This is exactly what you and your small band of merry men should have done with TU instead of stabbing them in the back. Maybe then you would have time, money or resources to actually accomplish something. Again, why would I ever consider joining an organization that has proved themselves not only untrustworthy, but incapable of real action on any issue.
> 
> 
> 
> How am I wrong, people aren't stupid. They can look back one post to see you blasting them. They can see you and the rest of the members of GLFSA attacking TU on a daily basis. The fact remains that you and the rest of the GLFSA consistently stab TU in the back and try to make them into the bad guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are interested in taking away the state's ability to manage fisheries for their specific and unique qualities or local social desires. The GLFSA fights to remove any regs and raise bag limits. That is what your organization stands for. As I mentioned before, the GLFSA doesn't do a damn thing to try to improve fisheries, only to improve availability of water for bait fisherman. This is your main goal, while other organizations actually make action on creating more viable water for people to fish.
> 
> The reality is that this argument isn't about our particular opinions on gear regs. It's about the fact that your organization doesn't actually accomplish anything, and it certainly doesn't even have a desire to actually improve fisheries.


I dont have a problem with TU's work as far as stream improvements. HOWEVER I do have a problem with TU pushing for special regulations after they took my money as a non fly fisher to get fly fishing only regulations pushed thru on other streams. Fly anglers dont truly care about a fishery because if they did areas like the flys only stretch on the PM would be closed from the end of sept til the end of april. Its not because people in baldwin need to make money. It's not about fly fishing in peace, its about forcing people to buy products from a fabricated industry, by changing the laws to cater their industry. 

This is coming from someone who started steelhead, salmon, and trout fishing with the fly rod, and now would rather fish a pop can rig than ever form a d loop and puff on a cigar with my pinky up talking in a fake british accent. I get the jist that fly fishermen/shops/guides all get this idea in their head that if they act like fly fishing is like some sort of "country club" the ritzy folks with flexible spending accounts will be more apt to pay up and join in. The reality is they are lobbying and using politics to get their way. It's not just here in Michigan where this is taking place and its NOT only trout and salmon related. Here in IL smallmouth bass fishing is becoming some new trendy thing for fly fishing. I wont mention the name of the river that I am talking about as it is a small gem and a rarity in northern IL. Anywho I try and make it a point to visit her at least once to 3 times per year. This year my first visit I was appauled to see that a local fly fishing chapter has bought the land adjacent to a bridge crossing and put up barb wire fence tight to the bridge and berm. CLEARLY violating the 33 foot easement rule. They also put a sign up, on the fence saying fishing access for fly fishing club members only. I immediately called the local dnr office about this as in the past i had helped with the bank restoration and habitat improvements in years past with the ILDNR and ISA in this stretch of river. A local conservation officer informed the club's representative they had 24 hours to remove the fence from with in the 33 foot easement and that they cant restrict angler access to the waterway on the bridge crossing. Last I had checked the fence was gone but the exclusive access only sign was still there. It is all about exclusivity with the fly fishing industry. If it wasnt woolybug25 wouldnt be on here from colorado arguing rhetoric. After reading 13 pages of woolybug25's typing I have to ask how are you making your income and contributing to such groups with a job that allows you to be on a michigan outdoors website for DAYS ON END?


----------



## Boozer

It's not all about that Mark, I fly fish "especially for Smallies" and I don't get into that type of crap...

For every fly fishing yuppie out there pulling crap like that, there is another guy who just fishes to fish and is all about everyone simply enjoying the resource...

If you ever notice, the REAL anglers don't buy into all that hype, it's the country club yuppies who occasionally fly fish who get into that, but they certainly don't represent real anglers...

You cannot hold an inanimate thing "fly fishing" accountable for the actions of humans, just because some guys are douche bags that do it, doesn't make "it" responsible...


----------



## woolybug25

mark said:


> If it wasnt woolybug25 wouldnt be on here from colorado arguing rhetoric. After reading 13 pages of woolybug25's typing I have to ask how are you making your income and contributing to such groups with a job that allows you to be on a michigan outdoors website for DAYS ON END?


I figured it was a matter of time before you popped up. As I said before, my beef with GLFSA has little to do with their opinion on gear regs. So while I have indeed wrote a lot of stuff in this thread, it is obvious that you didn't read a word of it. 

I am not sure why questioning my profession has much to do with this argument, but I will humor you. I'm a former guide turned commercial banker. I sit on two coldwater boards and a member of several organizations working on preserving coldwater fisheries. I am a very busy dude that is quite proud of the contributions I have made to fisheries (which includes projects in Michigan). It may seem like a lot of writing for you, but I don't have to spend a lot of time on here to contribute that amount of text. I have plenty of experience in writing out my thoughts in a well structured way, I don't have to spend hours to accomplish it. I hope that satisfies whatever reasoning you had for inquiring about me personally. What do you do for a living?

This argument is about GLFSA's inability to make a positive impact on the fisheries of Michigan. Not about you and me. So if you still feel compelled to go after me personally, do it in a pm.


----------



## mark

Boozer said:


> It's not all about that Mark, I fly fish "especially for Smallies" and I don't get into that type of crap...
> 
> For every fly fishing yuppie out there pulling crap like that, there is another guy who just fishes to fish and is all about everyone simply enjoying the resource...
> 
> If you ever notice, the REAL anglers don't buy into all that hype, it's the country club yuppies who occasionally fly fish who get into that, but they certainly don't represent real anglers...


you're right in that regard, but it was just a recent example of the country club mentality in another species of fishing. like politics these days the fishing industry has become divided and eventually will destroy the industry unless the few bad apples realize that without cooperation we can never get where we want to be. division of anglers hurts more of the resource than it gains, and you cant argue that. i just see this taking place more and more every year.


----------



## woolybug25

mark said:


> you're right in that regard, but it was just a recent example of the country club mentality in another species of fishing. like politics these days the fishing industry has become divided and eventually will destroy the industry unless the few bad apples realize that without cooperation we can never get where we want to be. division of anglers hurts more of the resource than it gains, and you cant argue that. i just see this taking place more and more every year.


Ironically, this sums up a lot of what I have been saying in this thread. That divisiveness is what spawned the GLFSA in the first place. Their lack of desire to work with the organizations that disagreed with them. Now, instead of working with the groups on other projects, they focus their energy on this one subject and attack any group of people that have a difference of opinion on that one single aspect. 

There are a ton of Michigan based organizations that are working to unite fisherman in order to accomplish big things. There are ones against special regs and ones for special regs. We should be trying to help those organizations that have the desire to act on projects that actually benefit the health of rivers.


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> I figured it was a matter of time before you popped up. As I said before, my beef with GLFSA has little to do with their opinion on gear regs. So while I have indeed wrote a lot of stuff in this thread, it is obvious that you didn't read a word of it.
> 
> I am not sure why questioning my profession has much to do with this argument, but I will humor you. I'm a former guide turned commercial banker. I sit on two coldwater boards and a member of several organizations working on preserving coldwater fisheries. I am a very busy dude that is quite proud of the contributions I have made to fisheries (which includes projects in Michigan). It may seem like a lot of writing for you, but I don't have to spend a lot of time on here to contribute that amount of text. I have plenty of experience in writing out my thoughts in a well structured way, I don't have to spend hours to accomplish it. I hope that satisfies whatever reasoning you had for inquiring about me personally. What do you do for a living?
> 
> This argument is about GLFSA's inability to make a positive impact on the fisheries of Michigan. Not about you and me. So if you still feel compelled to go after me personally, do it in a pm.


if you are on here at work via a bank's server all I need is your IP address, can contact your IT guy and find out just how many hours per day you spend on here, but thats not the point. my point is if groups like TU took all anglers money and put it strictly to stream improvements, NOT to regulation changes that were PRO fly fishing, then we wouldnt even be having this conversation. but they arent, so we are. if you are TRULY concerned about the well being of trout and salmon populations and their health, you wouldnt be fishing for them PERIOD, but you're not because you do fish for them. being a member of a bunch of special interest groups doesnt show me anything other than your desire to further the divide between fly fishermen and regular fishermen. with the right lawyer i can make a case that those special interest groups are prejudice, but im not because i have better things to spend my money on. i think its great you did some stream projects on some rancher's private property out there. good for you! i didnt see you anywhere during the most recent dam removal in southwest michigan, which was on public land for the public's access to fish. funny as no fly fishing groups wanted any part of that.


----------



## woolybug25

mark said:


> if you are on here at work via a bank's server all I need is your IP address, can contact your IT guy and find out just how many hours per day you spend on here, but thats not the point. my point is if groups like TU took all anglers money and put it strictly to stream improvements, NOT to regulation changes that were PRO fly fishing, then we wouldnt even be having this conversation. but they arent, so we are. if you are TRULY concerned about the well being of trout and salmon populations and their health, you wouldnt be fishing for them PERIOD, but you're not because you do fish for them. being a member of a bunch of special interest groups doesnt show me anything other than your desire to further the divide between fly fishermen and regular fishermen. with the right lawyer i can make a case that those special interest groups are prejudice, but im not because i have better things to spend my money on. i think its great you did some stream projects on some rancher's private property out there. good for you! i didnt see you anywhere during the most recent dam removal in southwest michigan, which was on public land for the public's access to fish. funny as no fly fishing groups wanted any part of that.


You don't know what the hell you are talking about and the work thing was nothing more than a personal attack on me with no rational whatsoever. You spend just as much time on here as me, but you have the audacity to question my profession? I make a good living and work hard, anybody that knows me personally would attest to that. So dont act like you know the first thing about me. 

If with the right lawyer you could prove that "special interests groups" (you do realize that the GLFSA is a special interest group, right?) are prejedice, dont you think someone smarter than you would have already done so?

I have never done a single project for private interest and can promise you that I have made significant impacts with my work. Funny that you mention the dam in SW Michigan, because ask Speyday if I have helped. It's a funny comment since I know a lot of people on here that working on it, but I don't know what any of your contributions have been. I have probably been part of more projects in Michigan since I moved than you have period. 

And that isn't just an assumption. I know more about you than you think.


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You also don't know me. If with the right lawyer you could prove that "special interests groups" (you do realize that the GLFSA is a special interest group, right?) are prejedice, dont you think someone smarter than you would have already done so?
> 
> I have never done a single project for private interest and can promise you that I have made significant impacts with my work. Funny that you mention the dam in SW Michigan, because ask Speyday if I have helped. It's a funny comment since I know a lot of people on here that working on it, but I don't know what any of your contributions have been. I have probably been part of more projects in Michigan since I moved than you have period.
> 
> And that isn't just an assumption. I know more about you than you think.


im not talking about that dam on that river. if you had been around in september you would know what watershed im referring to, and what dam WAS already REMOVED in september of 2011. since you are not in michigan and not around for that removal process on the dam in question, assuming what im talking about is pretty moot. last time i checked the dam you are referring to is STILL in PLACE thanks to politics, MONEY distributions, and special interest. im interested in projects that gain access for fishermen of all kinds and providing better habitat for the fish, all while being completed in a realistic amount of time. from 1996-2001 i was part of meandrs and never once saw you there. as opinionated as you are, we would have talked. possibly you were a member of a group in this region that tried to block stream access on a trib of the river you brought up. private property stream improvements dont help the public's interest in fishing. again another example of the country club mentality.


----------



## Boozer

Alright kids...


----------



## TSS Caddis

woolybug25 said:


> What you fail to represent is that those same meanie heads have done more for the state of Michigan's fisheries than all of the small special interest groups you can think of in Michigan combined.


No doubt TU has done a ton for the state's trout fisherman, there is no arguing that. But don't fool yourself for one second though that all these noble deeds mean all motives are altruistic.


----------



## TSS Caddis

woolybug25 said:


> We should be trying to help those organizations that have the desire to act on projects that actually benefit the health of rivers.


How did more flies water benefit the health of a river? Legit question.


----------



## woolybug25

mark said:


> im not talking about that dam on that river. if you had been around in september you would know what watershed im referring to, and what dam WAS already REMOVED in september of 2011. since you are not in michigan and not around for that removal process on the dam in question, assuming what im talking about is pretty moot. last time i checked the dam you are referring to is STILL in PLACE thanks to politics, MONEY distributions, and special interest. im interested in projects that gain access for fishermen of all kinds and providing better habitat for the fish, all while being completed in a realistic amount of time. from 1996-2001 i was part of meandrs and never once saw you there. as opinionated as you are, we would have talked. possibly you were a member of a group in this region that tried to block stream access on a trib of the river you brought up. private property stream improvements dont help the public's interest in fishing. again another example of the country club mentality.


I know what dam you are talking about and doubt you had a significant impact in that project. I followed it closely. While I didn't personally involve myself in that project, I didn't need to. It was obvious what was happening there, so I dedicated my time elsewhere. I can't possibly contribute to every single project in Michigan and Colorado, but I bet I still participate in more than you do.

In regards to the Dow, maybe if you got off your @ss and actually helped, we would get a little closer. I find it comical that you sit back and watch this project and say we aren't accomplishing anything, but in the same breath support a group like GLFSA that has never accomplished a thing. 

Btw, I did work on MEANDRS and also donated money to the project. All while living in another state. You live right next to the damn thing and I don't remember your name being brought up once. Since you have actually never met me, and I know who you are, what group were you with when you volunteered all of these hours?


----------



## woolybug25

TSS Caddis said:


> How did more flies water benefit the health of a river? Legit question.


It hasn't benefited the ecology of the river. I never opined that it had. What I was referring to is the fact that removing them does not improve the ecology of the river either. So I find it silly that an organization that claims to want to improve habit and support the proliferation of fish spend their time there. All the meanwhile, other organizations are actually creating more viable fisheries for us to enjoy in addition to strengthening the current fisheries. 

It's never been about regs for me, that's a GLFSA issue, not mine.


----------



## fishinlk

WOW That is the longest 14 pages of posts I have EVER read!! lol



> *Splishot wrote * To some of you removing gear restrictions it is a slippery slope that will lead to the use of spears, explosives or snagging. We disagree and are against those methods for trout. We think the slippery slope is if the DNR can make rules that limit public use like showing consideration to commercial interests at the expense of the public or show consideration for other special interest groups at the expense of the public, then the Public Trust has little meaning and all of us lose.


 I think Don missed where this initially came up in the thread and I don't think anyone on the GLSFA is really getting what's implied by this comparison. If they do they're trying to whitewash right by it. So I'm going to take the risk of spelling it out. 

We're all quite aware that the GLSFA is against those methods (expcept for the post where Toto said that he didn't really care if they did that as well). The point is that these are legal methods of fishing for other species but they are not "acceptable" for your group on trout and salmonoids. What makes this any different than the bait argument on fly waters? They chose their method of fishing so they are relegated to other waters and in this case even species. Your making your choice of tackle they made theirs. 


As a bowfisherman that likes to shoot some carp, why shouldn't they be able to do that with a nice salmon or steelhead if they're going to eat it? Doesn't sound alot differenent than the agument to open up the gear restrictions. Your arguments could set a precedence that you don't really want.

BTW Ray, good to chat again, it's been awhile!


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> I know what dam you are talking about and doubt you had a significant impact in that project. I followed it closely. While I didn't personally involve myself in that project, I didn't need to. It was obvious what was happening there, so I dedicated my time elsewhere. I can't possibly contribute to every single project in Michigan and Colorado, but I bet I still participate in more than you do.


thats bull, and you know it. read what you stated before i told you what dam i was talking about. you are a good at bs-ing, thats for sure. if you can use that excuse for not knowing whats going on so can i with the dow. more stories, love it.


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> In regards to the Dow, maybe if you got off your @ss and actually helped, we would get a little closer. I find it comical that you sit back and watch this project and say we aren't accomplishing anything, but in the same breath support a group like GLFSA that has never accomplished a thing.


I choose to use your excuse for the dow dam removal. also who said i support the GLFSA? I dont support any special interest group anymore.


----------



## woolybug25

mark said:


> thats bull, and you know it. read what you stated before i told you what dam i was talking about. you are a good at bs-ing, thats for sure. if you can use that excuse for not knowing whats going on so can i with the dow. more stories, love it.


I mistook what dam you were talking about in your first post because I assumed you were talking about the largest profile project, but when you said that it wasn't the Dow, I can assume. It's not rocket science to know what projects are going on in SW Michigan. 

You didn't answer my question. Despite your accusation, I participated and donated money to MEANDRS and never heard your name brought up once. So what group did you work with while you were logging all of these hours for the project? I'll speak to them directly and ask them specifically what you did. 

Or you could just make another off topic stab at me without addressing any of the points I make. But yeah.... i'm the one making up stories...



> I choose to use your excuse for the dow dam removal. also who said i support the GLFSA? I dont support any special interest group anymore.


So you are using my accusation of you being too lazy to help the Riverkeepers project as reasoning on why you dont help the project? I'm not sure that even makes sense, but I guess you are trying to say it's laziness that causes you to sit on your @ss? Ok. 

Do you actually proof read what you write?


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> Btw, I did work on MEANDRS and also donated money to the project. All while living in another state. You live right next to the damn thing and I don't remember your name being brought up once. Since you have actually never met me, and I know who you are, what group were you with when you volunteered all of these hours?


im glad you donated to meandrs, but that doesnt tell me anything other than you had money to donate. i told you once the years i was involved in meandrs, not going repeat myself. when i did help with meandrs it was when i was in college, and prior to because the meetings had to do with all aspects of the watershed, including the agricultural side along with land ownership with waterfront property, which directly involves my family's property. the reason i dont volunteer anymore has to do with my living situation (IL) and that i work 2 different jobs to make ends meet during the week and some weekends. commoners like myself in the american economy these days dont have "X" amount of moneys set aside for donations to various special interest groups. heck in all the years of steelhead and salmon fishing this upcoming stocking meeting in benton harbor will be the first i can attend since 2000 due to scheduling and location. for someone so "pronounced" as you claim to be in this region of the state i would have at least once in 5 years with meandrs met you, and didnt. but you did donate so i guess that counts right?


----------



## woolybug25

mark said:


> im glad you donated to meandrs, but that doesnt tell me anything other than you had money to donate. i told you once the years i was involved in meandrs, not going repeat myself. when i did help with meandrs it was when i was in college, and prior to because the meetings had to do with all aspects of the watershed, including the agricultural side along with land ownership with waterfront property, which directly involves my family's property. the reason i dont volunteer anymore has to do with my living situation (IL) and that i work 2 different jobs to make ends meet during the week and some weekends. commoners like myself in the american economy these days dont have "X" amount of moneys set aside for donations to various special interest groups. heck in all the years of steelhead and salmon fishing this upcoming stocking meeting in benton harbor will be the first i can attend since 2000 due to scheduling and location. for someone so "pronounced" as you claim to be in this region of the state i would have at least once in 5 years with meandrs met you, and didnt. but you did donate so i guess that counts right?


I donated time too. The reason you don't want to tell me who you worked with is because you know that I will talk to them. No worries, i'll make some calls tonight to see how full of ***** you are. You may not know me, but I know plenty of people in the group. I will know exactly what type of impact you had. Because after all, I have the same issue as you claim to have. I have worked on a ton of projects in Michigan and never ran into your name. I never even knew your full name until one of my buddies that doesn't even post here explained how I know you and how he (and everyone else he knows) see's you as a ahole. I guess that persona follows you even off of the web. 

I really don't need to prove how much work I do, you are the last opinion I give a crap about. As I mentioned earlier, I can't be a major contributor for every single program in Michigan, but even then, you still wouldn't be happy. Even though I do more than you for Michigan water, you still want talk crap to me no matter what. Look even now, what point are you trying to make, because other than being a dic to me, you haven't made a single valid point yet.

Btw, so... you constantly bag on me for supporting Michigan projects from my out of state home, but you yourself do not live in the state of Michigan? At least I own property in the state of Michigan. I don't want to hear your BS about me being living out of state again.


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> I mistook what dam you were talking about in your first post because I assumed you were talking about the largest profile project, but when you said that it wasn't the Dow, I can assume. It's not rocket science to know what projects are going on in SW Michigan.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Despite your accusation, I participated and donated money to MEANDRS and never heard your name brought up once. So what group did you work with while you were logging all of these hours for the project? I'll speak to them directly and ask them specifically what you did.
> 
> Or you could just make another off topic stab at me without addressing any of the points I make. But yeah.... i'm the one making up stories...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are using my accusation of you being too lazy to help the Riverkeepers project as reasoning on why you dont help the project? I'm not sure that even makes sense, but I guess you are trying to say it's laziness that causes you to sit on your @ss? Ok.
> 
> Do you actually proof read what you write?


you didnt ask a question in your prior statement, but now you are because my point was proven. the years i was involved with the group nothing had started with arthur dodd park. as i recall some of the land owners during the time i was involved were concerned that they would loose portions of land if the project were to start at the time. from 2002 til now the only fisheries related meeting or project i have been able to attend based on work schedule has been the asain carp meetings with all federal and state agencies in chicago last april. if anybody went or watched on webcam im the guy that proved the coast gaurd's ballast water laws in the welland canal wrong and used the USGS's factual data to prove it wasnt working. everybody in that meeting gasped when i brought up the bloody red mysid shrimp's invasion into lake huron as late as 2008 when the coast guard claimed their policies have let in no new invasives into the upper great lakes since 2004.

in regards to the riverkeepers project, of course i want the dam removed. the first meeting i had a friend go for me and give the cliffnotes. you know what the cliffnotes were? POLITICS, MONEY, AND SPECIAL INTEREST. NO thanks. take the crap out of the project and ill be interested. end of it


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> I donated time too. The reason you don't want to tell me who you worked with is because you know that I will talk to them. No worries, i'll make some calls tonight to see how full of ***** you are. You may not know me, but I know plenty of people in the group. I will know exactly what type of impact you had. Because after all, I have the same issue as you claim to have. I have worked on a ton of projects in Michigan and never ran into your name. I never even knew your full name until one of my buddies that doesn't even post here explained how I know you and how he (and everyone else he knows) see's you as a ahole. I guess that persona follows you even off of the web.
> 
> I really don't need to prove how much work I do, you are the last opinion I give a crap about. As I mentioned earlier, I can't be a major contributor for every single program in Michigan, but even then, you still wouldn't be happy. Even though I do more than you for Michigan water, you still want talk crap to me no matter what. Look even now, what point are you trying to make, because other than being a dic to me, you haven't made a single valid point yet.
> 
> Btw, so... you constantly bag on me for supporting Michigan projects from my out of state home, but you yourself do not live in the state of Michigan? At least I own property in the state of Michigan. I don't want to hear your BS about me being living out of state again.


no, the reason im not telling you is because it really is NONE of your business.


----------



## woolybug25

mark said:


> you didnt ask a question in your prior statement, but now you are because my point was proven. the years i was involved with the group nothing had started with arthur dodd park. as i recall some of the land owners during the time i was involved were concerned that they would loose portions of land if the project were to start at the time. from 2002 til now the only fisheries related meeting or project i have been able to attend based on work schedule has been the asain carp meetings with all federal and state agencies in chicago last april. if anybody went or watched on webcam im the guy that proved the coast gaurd's ballast water laws in the welland canal wrong and used the USGS's factual data to prove it wasnt working. everybody in that meeting gasped when i brought up the bloody red mysid shrimp's invasion into lake huron as late as 2008 when the coast guard claimed their policies have let in no new invasives into the upper great lakes since 2004.
> 
> in regards to the riverkeepers project, of course i want the dam removed. the first meeting i had a friend go for me and give the cliffnotes. you know what the cliffnotes were? POLITICS, MONEY, AND SPECIAL INTEREST. NO thanks. take the crap out of the project and ill be interested. end of it


So your water projects consist of attending one meeting over the last 8 years and you are accusing me of not doing my part?

Don't say that I didn't ask you a question, I asked specifically, WHO DID YOU WORK WITH DURING YOUR TIME WITH MEANDRS? Clear enough? The reason I ask is because I know you are exaggerating. 

The decision to tear the dam down is coming has to come from politicians, how do you suggest solving it without talking to them? Somehow money needs to be raised to support the project, how do you suggest doing it without it? Tearing a dam down in itself is a special interest. Any type of project is a special interest. I'm not sure that you understand the definition of "special interests". 

You are a dude with a lot opinions and no answers...



> no, the reason im not telling you is because it really is NONE of your business.


lol. But my profession and what projects I have worked on are your business? Seems kinda unfair. No worries, Mark. I'll find out who knows you from MEANDRS either way.


----------



## REG

woolybug25 said:


> Ironically, this sums up a lot of what I have been saying in this thread. That divisiveness is what spawned the GLFSA in the first place. Their lack of desire to work with the organizations that disagreed with them. Now, instead of working with the groups on other projects, they focus their energy on this one subject and attack any group of people that have a difference of opinion on that one single aspect.
> 
> There are a ton of Michigan based organizations that are working to unite fisherman in order to accomplish big things. There are ones against special regs and ones for special regs. We should be trying to help those organizations that have the desire to act on projects that actually benefit the health of rivers.



You're making one heck of statement there. I'd like you to elaborate on this. Key points are:
- What divisiveness? Where did the divisiveness stem from?
- When you say lack of desire to work with organizations that disagreed with them, exactly what are you referring to? What other projects?
- What Michigan organizations are working to unite fishermen? Which of these are against special regs and which ones are for?

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.


----------



## woolybug25

REG said:


> You're making one heck of statement there. I'd like you to elaborate on this. Key points are:
> - What divisiveness? Where did the divisiveness stem from?
> - When you say lack of desire to work with organizations that disagreed with them, exactly what are you referring to? What other projects?
> - What Michigan organizations are working to unite fishermen? Which of these are against special regs and which ones are for?
> 
> Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.


I have literally responded to every one of these questions in this thread. Despite what Mark tells you, I do actually have things to tend to. Read over my prior posts and you will find VERY detailed answers to all of your questions. I really don't have time to keep posting the same points over and over again if you aren't even reading them. 

I will clarify slightly on the organizations question though. I don't support groups on whether or not they support regs. To be honest, TU is the only one that I participate in that I can recall actually having a stance on the topic. Most organizations worry about actual issues harming fisheries, not some regs that dont effect much water and have no impact either way. I do not consider it an issue that will be either fully addressed or will make an impact on improving fisheries. That is what I am about, improving fisheries, not trying to change regs that have no ecological impact either way. But again, I have made that point a couple dozen times in this thread alone. Read my posts for anything more, it's all there.


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> I have literally responded to every one of these questions in this thread. Despite what Mark tells you, I do actually have things to tend to. Read over my prior post and you will find VERY detailed answers to all of your questions. I really don't have time to keep posting the same points over and over again if you aren't even reading them.
> 
> I will clarify slightly on the organizations question though. I don't support groups on whether or not they support regs. To be honest, TU is the only one that I can think of that has actually taken a stance on the topic. I do not consider it an issue that will be either fully addressed or will make an impact on improving fisheries. That is what I am about, improving fisheries, not trying to change regs that have no ecological impact either way. But again, I have made that point a couple dozen times in this thread alone. Read my posts for anything more, it's all there.


no, no it isnt.


----------



## mark

personally in regards to fishing, the only things i truly care about is solitude and maintaining/habitat improvement for the fabricated coldwater fisheries in the great lakes. i try my best to avoid popular locations like the flys only stretch or the holy waters for a reason. that reason is solitude. heck with how popular all of NW michigan has become i try and avoid the insanity all together. im a FIP that comes to MI to get away from people not join in hold hands, and frolick down the fisherman's trail. look at "cirque de 6th st" in the spring. no thanks


----------



## Boozer

mark said:


> personally in regards to fishing, the only things i truly care about is solitude and maintaining/habitat improvement for the fabricated coldwater fisheries in the great lakes. i try my best to avoid popular locations like the flys only stretch or the holy waters for a reason. that reason is solitude. heck with how popular all of NW michigan has become i try and avoid the insanity all together. im a FIP that comes to MI to get away from people not join in hold hands, and frolick down the fisherman's trail. look at "cirque de 6th st" in the spring. no thanks


Well, in many ways, Michigan relies on those "Fabulous Illinois People" coming here, like it or not...

Especially considering our previous Governor let most of the "real" jobs leave the state...

These days I find myself caring less and less about our non-native species, but habitat improvement is good for everything and is what I care about the most. Sadly I don't have nearly as much time as I would like to donate to projects, heck I hardly even fish much anymore the past year, hopefully all this hard work will pay off soon and I will have more time to spend doing the important stuff in life...


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> Just wanted to touch on a few things here, why, I really don't know as it likely will not make any difference...
> 
> Regarding the dam removal on the Dowagiac River...
> 
> 1) The main reason that dam still stands is pretty simple, a individual from Chicago acted like a raving lunatic in many ways, tried to in many ways push around a small town into doing something, compared said town to Mayberry and to be blunt, people from here, don't like "FIPS" as a general rule, right or wrong, it's the way it is, I tried extensively to make this individual understand this to no avail. While I respect his passion and effort, it was a large cause to why the project was met with a lot of resistance.
> 
> 2) The other reasons were TU was involved which after these gear restrictions, most anglers I know want nothing to do with the organization. So that certainly did not help matters, second, you have anglers who resisted the removal based on the fact they did not want migratory Trout & Salmon ascending above the dam. Third you had this idea floating around the dam was worth something, which it is not, I think that has been debunked at this point to be honest though...
> 
> These were the concerns that NILES CITY RESIDENTS expressed to their elected officials. The removal has not been written off, but if City residents don't back the removal, their elected officials are not going to either...
> 
> As for the comments against GLSFA and TU, my thoughts are as follows...
> 
> 1) During the Pucker Street Dam removal talks, I was in contact with TU representatives on state and national levels. One individual clearly stated, he felt TU needed to embrace "worm fisherman". While he did not fish bait, he knew that it was not a serious enough issue or really an issue at all, that would make it worth alienating anyone whom would support TU in projects that really mattered. So based on those statements, which I personally heard, I have faith in the future of TU, and I highly respect many many things they have done as an organization. I find it very narrow minded to alienate a group of anglers based on social reasoning if your true goal is for the greater good of the resources. While I do not believe TU had anything but the best interest for the resource at hand and I do not believe they wanted special regs on the Dowagiac River, they still now have this bad reputation to deal with and that is due to very poor decision making with the Michigan TU powers that be in the past, plain and simple. TU National or TU Michigan never expressed any goals other than helping to get the dam removed, special regs or anything of the sort were never even mentioned. My honest opinion was, in this case, TU acted exactly as it should, simply for the greater good of the resource and I wish people would realize that and get behind them in that regard.
> 
> I do not dislike TU and I greatly respect them, but I honestly think they need to make a serious effort as to leaving social reasoning out of natural resources management in the future, I think there are very serious threats which they should be focusing on more than gear restrictions. Everyone needs to learn to give a little to gain a lot so to speak...
> 
> 2) As for GLSFA, I admit many of their members seem to take things a bit too far in some aspects, but the bottom line is, they believe in letting the biologists manage the fisheries for the greater good of the resource and everyone involved, I don't see how anyone can argue with that personally. Some may say they should have simply tried to join groups like TU and change the way things worked, I would agree in some ways, but perhaps this more radical move will create more immediate changes in the way TU looks at their ideology and who are we to say a group of anglers should not create a group of concerned people to help watch over our natural resources. I would like to see GLSFA take a higher road and not attack other groups, I would like to see them strictly focus on their goals and that be it, attacking other groups as their members have seems unprofessional and makes the group seem less serious, in my opinion...
> 
> Both organizations seem to be a good thing as a whole and you can never have too much of a good thing...


Wow, I feel like I just witnessed a pedestrian/bus accident. Gives some credence to the saying, "A leader truly stands alone". 

Any good Wisconsiner will tell you it's FIB, not FIP. :lol:

Back around the late 80's, early 90's, Trout ran an article called The Case for Bait. It appeared at that time there was a movement to develop a broader membership base. However, over the next few issues, the letters to the editor contained some responses that were, in my view and the view you state above, considered as disappointing.

Don't know if much has changed.


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> Wow, I feel like I just witnessed a pedestrian/bus accident. Gives some credence to the saying, "A leader truly stands alone".


*This may or may not be what you meant by this statement, but felt the need to say this anyway...*

He did not stand alone and he doesn't now, myself and everyone who knows him backed him 150% and if anyone had any real idea of where his heart really was, they would have let that ridiculous stigma of where his current address on this planet was go...

What I stated were simply comments which were made.

We kind of joked about his "wild monkey boy" approach and while yes at times he could have probly went a little lighter on it "and I talked to him about it", his goal from the get go was to get people riled up and get them talking about it, he accomplished that. Many mistook what I would consider "very passionate" as something along the lines of a "raving lunatic". It just didn't work out quite like it was intended in the short term, but in the long term, it may be something we look back and say, you know, that crazy guy was on to something. I do not hold that as a negative thing though as he was in the end, the only one who put the time in and my theories may not have worked any better or worked even worse. You cannot bash someone if you yourself did not put in an equal amount of effort and nobody put in as much effort as he did...

Ken took over when nobody else had the time to do what he was willing to do. He busted his **** and he brought to light a lot of great information. He knew he was fighting an uphill battle by being from Illinois and he didn't let it get him down...

If you ever read any of the newspaper articles, which I know you did, they never missed an opportunity to state where he lived, and small town Michigan has animosity against any outsiders, especially Illinois. It's nothing new and likely will always be that way. On one hand, I can see why they would be skeptical, on the other, he gave them the information and the resources to find it for themselves. They apparently just never did...

The City of Niles didn't seem to trust Jay Wesley anymore, but that's a whole different story, there genuinely seemed to be a distrust for the MDNR as well, regarding the elected officials...

While my comments were blunt, they were not made with ill will. Simply repeated what I had heard stated...

The project isn't over, the dam remains, the City really has no other options left but removal and when it's all said and done, no matter what, Ken will be one we need to all give a big thanks to, simple as that...

I have stated this all before in other threads, but felt the need to do so again as my previous post which you quoted didn't quite do what Ken did justice...

P.S. Since Ken was born a "cheese head", I am sure he knows all about the FIB's!


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> [B
> P.S. Since Ken was born a "cheese head", I am sure he knows all about the FIB's!


Yes, he told me the daily limit is 6 and the possession limit is 12. And then everyone wonders why FIB's drive so fast.....

You articulated your point quite concisely and appreciate the clarification. Thanks.


----------



## Splitshot

GLFSA members and especially the founders have taken some pretty harsh criticism in this thread, but we understand the reasons. Some of you have tried to paint us as hypocrites, have attacked our mission statement, have called us anarchists, and have told us what we should be doing differently. 

Below is our mission statement and is the main reason we exist. 

The Great Lakes Fishing and Sporting Alliance is a sportsmens organization dedicated to working for the management of our Natural Resources based on sound science. The GLFSA promotes resource management for the inclusion of all sportsmen and habitat management and improvement for the proliferation of our fish and wildlife populations.

We are sorry if some of you are disappointed that we have not achieved all of our goals in the fifteen months we have been in existence. The motivation for the foundation of our organization was gear restrictions so it is no wonder our first goal is to eliminate them.

I objected to the comparison with Trout Unlimited or any of the other groups who supported gear restrictions as a special interest group on the basis unlike those groups, we do not support any special interests but rather a public interest.

TU for example claims they are an organization dedicated to restoring our trout rivers for altruistic reasons as opposed to any self-serving reasons. TU claims they are not a fly fishing organization and does not support gear restrictions for the benefit of their fly fishing members.

That is a pretty hard sell if the organization offers rewards to its members for sending the MDNR e-mails in support of gear restrictions.

Out organization doesnt think it is right that bait fishermen should not be allowed to fish with bait on public waters especially since most of the money used to manage these public waters comes from them. Of course if bait was proved to be a real threat to our fishery every one of our members would support a ban just like when we challenged the chumming ban when spawn bags deemed okay.. Everyone including me said if fish eggs were a threat to our fishery, outlaw all fish eggs, not just the loose ones.

When TU spends time energy and money to improve any of our trout rivers and say they are doing it for the trout, I believe them even though those actions benefit some of them by improving the fishery. Like them our goal is to improve our rivers as well for every fisherman so some of us will benefit from opening these waters up too.

Unlike TU however we do not have any hidden agenda for any segment of our members. We do not seek any special privileges and that is an important difference between us. If TU was living up to its own mission statement we wouldnt have to exist.

We understand that social aspects enter into almost all decisions and do not dispute that fact. Were we differ with those supporting gear restrictions is we feel that science should be considered first and then apply the social aspects, but even then we would never support any rule that picks one group over another and is why we constantly point out the Public Trust Doctrine and the advertised mission statement of the MDNR Fisheries division.

All of the supporters of gear restrictions want to exclude the majority of fishermen from using their preferred legal method on waters owned by all of us for no good reason, no scientific reason, no good social reason and no good moral reason.

Gear restrictions certainly cause less people presence on rivers where they are imposed but if you think about it that causes some fishermen to either quit fishing all together or crowd into other areas. In fact it is even worse than that. On the PM for example flies only didnt restrict enough people these same groups pushed for No Kill regulations on the flies only waters. As a result all the people who figured out how to catch salmon on a fly that wanted to keep some fish were forced to move if they wanted to keep fish. This section of the PM is the only place anywhere in our state where salmon are present and must be returned.

We know for sure all the salmon that spawn in the PM will die before winter is over so what possible reason could there be for the no kill regulation on salmon in the PM except to exclude more fishermen. 

As far as the biologist within the DNR, I give them all a lot of credit. I have only met Jay Wesley informally a couple of times, and he seems like a credit to the DNR, but Jay could proclaim to the world that he would never allow gear restriction on the Dowagiac river but in the end it is not his call. I doubt very seriously if Jay ever made that statement in the first place. Im sure he is like the other biologist and doesnt support gear restrictions but I would be very surprised if he ever said that.

Part of the problem with some people is they make statements about people to show they are important insiders. Bashing Mark Tonello for not pushing against gear restrictions is also an inaccurate statement. First it is not the biologist job to publically support rules, it is their job to make recommendations to their bosses. On top of that, Mark Tonello is not responsible for the PM as the PM is in biologist Rich ONeals territory. 

I read the recommendations from the fish biologist for ever river being considered for gear restrictions. Rich ONeal recommend that since the PM already had 7 miles of gear restricted waters and those gear restrictions would not have any noticeable effect on the fish population he proposed no further gear restrictions for the PM

Even though I have some minor differences with Kelly Smith the fisheries director at the time, he showed his mettle through out this controversy. When he could have directed his biologist how to prepare their reports, he did not and directed all of them to submit their reports based on their scientific training, their experience and professional judgement. To my knowledge that is what they all did. 

Kelly Smith could have let his biologist take the heat from guys like me when it looked like those recommendations would not be followed, but instead he took every phone call and acted professionally in every instance. Even though I believe he recently retired, and our conversations were not off the record I will only say I believe he answered every one of my questions honestly. I just wish Becky Humphries would have had the same amount of class as DR. Smith. Every time I sent her an e-mail or letter I was contacted by Kelly Smith. Unfortunately Rodney Stokes has the same policy.

In the end, we feel we are on the right side of this discussion and have no problem with the criticism we have received in this thread. In fact the criticism confirms some people are taking us seriously. We think our goals are in the best interest of all the people of Michigan and we will let people in the future decide if we are legit or not..

I welcome anyone to provide one good reason we should tolerate gear restrictions of debate why fly fishermen deserve special privileges or perhaps why social rules should be considered over science and what is best for all people in our state!

Finally, thanks to all of you who support us on this issue.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Well said Ray.


----------



## Boozer

Splitshot said:


> As far as the biologist within the DNR, I give them all a lot of credit. I have only met Jay Wesley informally a couple of times, and he seems like a credit to the DNR, but Jay could proclaim to the world that he would never allow gear restriction on the Dowagiac river but in the end it is not his call. I doubt very seriously if Jay ever made that statement in the first place. I&#8217;m sure he is like the other biologist and doesn&#8217;t support gear restrictions but I would be very surprised if he ever said that.
> 
> Part of the problem with some people is they make statements about people to show they are important insiders. Bashing Mark Tonello for not pushing against gear restrictions is also an inaccurate statement. First it is not the biologist job to publically support rules, it is their job to make recommendations to their bosses. On top of that, Mark Tonello is not responsible for the PM as the PM is in biologist Rich O&#8217;Neal&#8217;s territory.
> 
> I read the recommendations from the fish biologist for ever river being considered for gear restrictions. Rich O&#8217;Neal recommend that since the PM already had 7 miles of gear restricted waters and those gear restrictions would not have any noticeable effect on the fish population he proposed no further gear restrictions for the PM
> 
> Even though I have some minor differences with Kelly Smith the fisheries director at the time, he showed his mettle through out this controversy. When he could have directed his biologist how to prepare their reports, he did not and directed all of them to submit their reports based on their scientific training, their experience and professional judgement. To my knowledge that is what they all did.
> 
> Kelly Smith could have let his biologist take the heat from guys like me when it looked like those recommendations would not be followed, but instead he took every phone call and acted professionally in every instance. Even though I believe he recently retired, and our conversations were not off the record I will only say I believe he answered every one of my questions honestly. I just wish Becky Humphries would have had the same amount of class as DR. Smith. Every time I sent her an e-mail or letter I was contacted by Kelly Smith. Unfortunately Rodney Stokes has the same policy.
> 
> In the end, we feel we are on the right side of this discussion and have no problem with the criticism we have received in this thread. In fact the criticism confirms some people are taking us seriously. We think our goals are in the best interest of all the people of Michigan and we will let people in the future decide if we are &#8220;legit&#8221; or not..
> 
> I welcome anyone to provide one good reason we should tolerate gear restrictions of debate why fly fishermen deserve special privileges or perhaps why social rules should be considered over science and what is best for all people in our state!
> 
> Finally, thanks to all of you who support us on this issue.


Regarding Tonello, as I made it clear, he was simply used as an example, simply trying to move the focus from TU "one entity with zero law making capabilities", to emphasize it was only possible via a chain of failures that something like this would occur. The first 10 pages of this thread were clearly a very narrow minded discussion and was simply trying to make those look at it in more of a big picture sort of way. It would have obviously now in hind sight been more accurate to use Rich Oneal's name instead, but the basis of what I was trying to get across, remains. I do not follow what happens on the NW rivers very much as it's not somewhere I really spend much time and it was indeed a mistake on my end using the wrong biologists name as an example, that I do apologize for...

I understand your comments were simply a jab at me personally as you as usual allow your hatred for me to create a very narrow focus on things, which is essentially where all of the criticism lies with some members of GLSFA as well. I in no way tried to create some claim I was an "insider" and based on the amount of PM's I got praising me for trying to portray a wider scope on things, including members of GLSFA, my intentions for the most part were received in the manner I intended them to be...

As far as my statements about comments Jay Wesley made, most of those statements were made here on this forum, he made these statements in a public format to contend with allegations that himself, those of us supporting the dam removal and TU were all in cahoots together to bring TU in to not only help with dam removal, but inevitably create special gear restrictions on the watershed as well. Perhaps he does not have the "power" to create the laws, but he himself guaranteed that 1) The watershed did not meet the criteria and 2) that due to lack of public support, he could guarantee gear restrictions would not be put in place, period.

In closing, the entire reasoning of my post was to make a point that most of which was being discussed was a worthless point as it had zero bearing on the real issues at hand, that point I feel hit home with many and that's in the end all I care about...

No doubt many do take GLSFA seriously, but there is also no doubt that if you took the high road, only focused on the things that really mattered, GLSFA would be taken a lot more seriously. These are comments your own members have made, not just myself...

Sadly, I think a lot of these things people hold against GLSFA create a stigma where they don't realize all the positive things which outnumber the negatives by far and that is a real problem as GLSFA is a good thing...


----------



## woolybug25

I leave for a couple days and come back to this. lol

I don't have time to read and address all of the comments, but i'll note on a few things:

1) Boozer - Great comments. 

2) I don't give a crap about the regs, so everyone can quit acting like my issue is the regs. My issue is that most of the people on here bitching about regs spend all of their time fighting an ineffective fight when they could actually be making a difference on other issues. 

3) Mark, I didn't make fun of you for being a FIP, I was showing how much of a hypocrite you are for blasting me for being out of state while conveniently leaving out that you don't live there either. 

Btw, I know that you posted a 15 year old pic of me on your facebook. I don't know what your goal was with that, but I think this shows how low you will stoop. You have continuously gotten the verbal beat down from me and then thought posting a pic of me somewhere you thought I wouldn't see it would somehow make you look better? It was a chicken-***** move from a dude with poor character. 

Oh, I also talked to several of my contacts at MEANDRS. Not only did they not recognize your name, but they told me it would have been hard for them to miss someone. They said that if at some point you did help, it was not in official MEANDRS capacity. Just another typical lie from a dude with poor moral fiber.


----------



## Rzr

I think that many of you fighting 'closet' exclusionary groups or the DNR itself on these rivers must realize a few things in regards to each and consider this parallel example:

One hand washes the other.

The DNR does not intentionally and exclusively partner with the American Motorcycle Association District 14 (largest in the country) or the Cycle Conservation Club on multi-use motorized access issues because they 'welcome' Michigander's responsible motorized access to our resources. In the same respect, the above two 'enthusiast' groups do not 'welcome' DNR backed limitations to their sport..*but if the DNR's goal is to keep the larger motorized population off of 'their' trails (which frankly they both claim)...provide their 'low impact' group exclusive access to the DNR itself and effectively FUND these same organizations through developmental or maintenance-related 'grants'...well who is truly the pitcher and who is the catcher in this warped relationship is really a mute point*.

Until the public starts demanding that their political represenatives (when elected) truly clean house at the DNR by appointing directors who recognize and destroy these long held corrupt 'non-profit' alliances these access-related abuses will continue. How do you fix a fiscally broke state when your Treasurer is still the same guy from the old administration? Isn't it the _people's_ responsibility to demand that wholesale changes be made to the DNR _before_ a governor is elected instead of allowing him to select the previous ineffective DNR chief's right hand man?

About the only hope we have right now is the next generation. These kids will gladly cut off future government pensions and reform non-profit/government corruption if we educate them in terms of the 'players' presently soaking the system. If not, they will find it hard to believe that we ashamedly let these cozy relationships go on for so long without exposing the (non-profit) access related game for what it is.


----------



## toto

First of all, I made a committment to myself to stay out of this a few days ago, but there are a couple of things I just need to get off my chest.

1) This bickering back and forth about issues each has been involved in, helps neither side of the debate. What should be understood is that everyone involved in this debate is passionate about what they believe, no matter which side they are on.

2) When mentioning biologists, matters not to me if you are talking about Tonello, O'Neill, or any other biologist, they aren't the decision makers. They can only give the research documents and leave it at that. Yes I'm sure they are asked for their opinions, but as said by someone earlier, opinions are only what one believes; however in this case, it is what they believe based on their research.

The root problem to all of this is this, at least in my opinion. This whole argument should never have happened in the first place, and where it derived from is the problem. Back when the Department of Conservation was first set up in the early 1900's, it was stated that all decisions by this department were to be based only on what the department believed was correct, based on biological science. To go one step further, it was also pointed out that the legislature had no right to legislate fish and wildlife issues. The reasoning was valid, why would a congressman, or senator sit there and say we need to do this or that, when the department (DNR) says otherwise. In other words, how could it be possible that a legislator can make decisions on fish and wildlife, if he has no knowledge of the subject? That is what is happening here on this issue. The issue really comes down to, why is the legislature dictating that 200 miles +/- can be gear restricted? Based on what? Social science apparantly. Since when does social science dictate the health of our fish and wildlife? I quess deep down, that is what troubles me the most. I'm sure there are those out there that will say, this is in an effort to control the amount of fishing pressure in certain areas, when all that does is create more pressure in others?? Just a thought.


----------



## mark

woolybug25 said:


> I leave for a couple days and come back to this. lol
> 
> I don't have time to read and address all of the comments, but i'll note on a few things:
> 
> 1) Boozer - Great comments.
> 
> 2) I don't give a crap about the regs, so everyone can quit acting like my issue is the regs. My issue is that most of the people on here bitching about regs spend all of their time fighting an ineffective fight when they could actually be making a difference on other issues.
> 
> 3) Mark, I didn't make fun of you for being a FIP, I was showing how much of a hypocrite you are for blasting me for being out of state while conveniently leaving out that you don't live there either.
> 
> Btw, I know that you posted a 15 year old pic of me on your facebook. I don't know what your goal was with that, but I think this shows how low you will stoop. You have continuously gotten the verbal beat down from me and then thought posting a pic of me somewhere you thought I wouldn't see it would somehow make you look better? It was a chicken-***** move from a dude with poor character.
> 
> Oh, I also talked to several of my contacts at MEANDRS. Not only did they not recognize your name, but they told me it would have been hard for them to miss someone. They said that if at some point you did help, it was not in official MEANDRS capacity. Just another typical lie from a dude with poor moral fiber.


quest32a,

how many times is this guy going to violate the terms of use policy used to ban me multiple times in the past on this website before he gets banned? 


mike,

thanks for bringing this thread YET AGAIN, off topic and into YET AGAIN, a measuring contest. bs-ers tend to do that.


----------



## woolybug25

mark said:


> quest32a,
> 
> how many times is this guy going to violate the terms of use policy used to ban me multiple times in the past on this website before he gets banned?
> 
> 
> mike,
> 
> thanks for bringing this thread YET AGAIN, off topic and into YET AGAIN, a measuring contest. bs-ers tend to do that.


Dude. I haven't violated any terms of use. You should know what that constitutes if they have had to ban you several times for violating them yourself. I also am not the one that personally attacked someone in their sig line, that was you.

Also, are you going to answer me on why you are posting old fishing pics of me on your facebook? Did you think that I wouldn't eventually find out?

I have been on topic the entire time. You are the one that brought up my profession, my current address and then personally attacked me. Any off topic comments from me are in response to your attacks. I have the right to defend myself.


----------

