# Criteria



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF TROUT STREAMS 
WITH GEAR RESTRICTION REGULATIONS 




Under the authority of Section 48701(m), as amended, being Sections 324.48701(m) of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the Director of the Department of Natural Resources on November 7, 2003, ordered that this criteria be adopted and used in the selection of gear restricted trout streams.







Introduction



Michigan can boast of 36,000 miles of rivers, streams and creeks, of which over 12,000 miles harbor significant populations of trout. In the early 1950s, Dr. Albert Hazzard, well-known fisheries researcher and then head of Michigans Institute for Fisheries Research, inventoried these trout streams and identified those that were the best and suitable for flies only regulations. To qualify, the streams needed to have strong, self-sustaining trout populations, have good insect hatches, and be wadeable and wide enough to permit fly-casting. Hazzard found approximately 1,200 miles that met these criteria. 



Prior to 2002, fisheries managers were restricted to 100 miles of trout streams on which gear restrictions could be applied. The restriction, contained in PA 451 of 1994, had been in place for many years, dating back to the early 1970s. This changed in 2002 when PA 434 went into effect. Among other provisions, PA 434 increased the number of available miles from 100 to 212 and mandated that the Department prepare a set of criteria to evaluate potential streams for application of gear restriction regulations. This document fulfills that obligation and provides a process and a set of criteria that will be used to 1) evaluate existing waters in stream Types 5, 6, and 7 and 2) evaluate potential streams for inclusion in one of the three available gear-restricted categories. 



The information presented here was developed as a tool for fisheries managers to use in the evaluation of trout streams, and to help decide whether gear restriction regulations may be appropriate on those streams. By design, biological and physical conditions of the streams form the basis of the criteria. However, it is clearly recognized that other aspects such as social, geographical and even political issues must be considered prior to making a final decision on a particular waterway. Those involved with the development of the criteria understood that it was important to set up strict enough guidelines to narrow the scope of potential/satisfactory streams, while still allowing managers some flexibility in their decision making. 



History of criteria



The origin for the criteria dates back to the 1980s when the Division collaborated with constituent groups on an effort to develop a user-friendly Blue Ribbon Trout Streams brochure. At the time, virtues such as stream productivity, fishibility, access, and wadeability were identified as some of the more important features of streams commonly considered blue ribbon quality. Recent efforts to develop criteria were renewed during the 1998 Inland Trout/Salmon regulation review process as the Division worked with the external Coldwater Steering Committee [Anglers of the Au Sable, Trout Unlimited, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fishermans Association, Federation of Fly Fishers, Michigan River Guides Association, and others). Starting with the rough framework of criteria mentioned above, the Committee produced several drafts over the course of the following 2-3 

years. Anticipating a legislative attempt to modify the number of miles available for gear-restriction regulations, the Division shaped the set of criteria in 2001 into its current form. Reviewed several times both internally (FD biologists) and by constituent groups (Coldwater Steering Committee), the draft criteria were presented in October 2002 at the statewide Biologist Meeting in Grayling. The Internal Coldwater Steering Committee met in December 2002 to incorporate comments from the October meeting into the final draft and prepare a final set of conditions for evaluation. 





Philosophy of gear-restricted waters



In 2000 Fisheries Division implemented a set of significant changes to inland trout and salmon regulations. The supporting documentation that accompanied the changes included background information defining the categories (Types) of streams and the rational for each Type. Representing a small yet highly significant portion of the total trout stream mileage, the gear restricted categories included a general philosophy behind the use of gear restrictions in fisheries management. Following are excerpts from that document, which are applicable to this discussion: 



Public values concerning angling appear to have evolved considerably since Michigans fishing regulations were last thoroughly reviewed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. [More] anglers fish primarily for the recreation. These anglers release all or most of the fish they catch even when harvest is legal. These practices are widely associated with organized trout and bass anglers, but are also practiced by other anglers. Catch and release fishing has become more popular for species such as stream trout, bass, muskellunge, northern pike, and stream-run steelhead. 



More anglers also appear to have increased their emphasis on catching large fish. Amongst some anglers, there appears to be a greater emphasis on challenge and excitement as important benefits of the angling experience. Both higher catch rates (quantity) and larger fish sizes (quality) seem to be key factors in enhancing challenge and excitement. Consequently, because angler values are more diverse than ever before, Fisheries Division is committed to providing diverse fishing opportunities for all types of anglers. 



Recreational fishing gear and methods are generally restricted for one of three reasons: 

¨ To enforce principles of fair chase by assuring that fish are captured individually and with sufficient difficulty;

¨ To prevent the spread of bait species into waters where they may be undesirable; 

¨ To reduce mortality of fish which may not be legally harvested. 



The Division is committed to the long term protection of rare and valuable resources and to identifying those streams that can produce "exceptional" fisheries. It is generally accepted that some combination of gear restrictions, season restrictions and reduced possession limits are critical to the success of these efforts. In looking at available state resources, certainly the division strives to develop those waters with stable, naturally-reproduced fisheries. Still, other waters in varying stages of rehabilitation may provide exceptional fisheries without natural reproduction (relying on stocking to produce expected fishery). These are unique resources that 

have most of the characteristics necessary to produce an exceptional fishery, and long term protection would be desirable in these situations.



Special regulations water are not only very popular, they can substantially increase the public value generated from Michigans outstanding array of trout streams. However, the response of the trout populations of any of these streams to special regulations will be governed to a large degree by a set of key biological conditions. It is important that these biological considerations be carefully weighed in the designation process because if they are not right, they will likely frustrate public expectations for improvement in trout size and abundance. Only a portion of these are biological conditions favorable for substantial improvement in trout size and abundance. Many are as good as they can be, or nearly so, under the protection of our current trout fishing rules.



The biological criteria that need to be considered are simple and common to nearly all animal populations. They include rates of reproduction and recruitment, growth, and mortality (both natural and fishing). It is our recommendation that before selecting any waters for special regulations, no matter how popular or well suited they may seem on the surface, that they be screened by these important biological criteria. Only in that way can we fairly assess not only what regulations should be imposed, but also what changes they are likely to produce.


Applying the criteria


As previously mentioned, this purpose of this document is to assist fisheries managers in their evaluation of streams for inclusion in stream Types 5, 6, and 7. The process we propose is to solicit from our field personnel candidate waters that not only qualify as productive and appealing trout streams, but whose trout populations would be likely to prosper under certain special regulations because of favorable rates of growth, survival and recruitment. 



The criteria are set up as a narrative and accompanying flowchart. Each step of the flowchart presents a question to be answered about an individual stream/reach. The first four (4) questions represent biological conditions/factors that pertain to the respective stream. Depending on the response to each question, managers will advance to the next question or to a STOP command. The STOP command necessarily means that the stream does not meet the minimum criteria and should not be considered as an option. The exceptions to this rule are if Natural Mortality is high, or if Fishing Mortality is low, then other considerations (such as geographical, political or social factors) may be considered before deciding whether to move the stream forward in the screening process. Managers must first decide whether a stream meets the Phase 1 and Phase 2 criteria. If so, other issues should then be taken into account, and these are described in further detail in the narrative portion that accompanies the flowchart. 





Other considerations



Social and Political Concerns



Aside from the biological and physical factors that must be considered in determining whether or not a stream should be included in Types 5, 6, or 7, there are other issues that are important, even critical, to the discussion. Political realities and social pressures/nuances at the local, regional or state level are non-tangible criteria that factor into the equation. Certain user groups and many anglers in general favor the concept of moving additional waters into the categories that have gear restriction regulations. For others, further restricting fishing opportunities based on tackle type is considered unfair, overzealous, and/or not necessary to protect any fisheries. 



This last point has some validity. During the 1998-2000 review of Inland Trout/Salmon regulations, the Division made it clear to anglers that for all practical purposes existing trout/salmon regulations on inland streams protect trout biologically. We suggested that by placing more restrictive regulations on stream reaches [gear restrictions], we could capitalize on and develop unique and diverse fishing opportunities throughout the state. This concept is actually part of the philosophical argument FOR gear-restricted categories. 



While the philosophy is sound, not all anglers support or agree with it. For example, take a stream reach that traditionally has been all tackle and/or supported a fishery for a certain species. If the stream reach meets the established biological criteria and a manager proposes to include that reach as a Type 7, the proposal may spark local or regional opposition simply based on it moving into a restricted gear status. Or, due to the nature of the category (Type 7=C/R) anglers may oppose it on the grounds that the harvest restriction is extreme. In this case, however, the anglers may support it being placed into Type 6 (artificial gear only). 



Once a stream is identified as a candidate for Types 5, 6, or 7, backlash also should be anticipated from riparian landowners living along all-tackle streams. This recently occurred in 2000 when the Division proposed to move the upper Manistee River reach into Type 5. While riparian landowner interests/comments/rights carry no more significance than the general public, reaction at some level should be anticipated. 



Managers also should be on the lookout for politically sensitive areas. A good example is the recent decision to include Johnsons Creek, Wayne County, in the Type 6 category. Prior to PA 

434 of 2002, Johnsons Creek would not have been placed in this category strictly on the basis of biological criteria. However, recent legislation mandated that the stream be placed in one of the gear-restricted categories, and the decision was made to place it in Type 6. 



These are just a few examples of social considerations that must be pursued, understood and considered prior to a decision on including a stream reach in Types 5-7. 



Geographical Diversity



Michigan is blessed with an abundance of cold waters, and anglers recreate in all corners and latitudes of the state, despite a population centered in southeast Lower Michigan. Geographical diversity should be considered when establishing additional gear restriction trout fishing opportunities, both regionally (within a particular Management Unit) and on a statewide basis. Thus, as managers evaluate streams within their respective Units, the decision-making process should take into account such things as the number of gear-restrictions already established within the Unit and the potential use (increase/decrease) of the stream under the proposed regulation. However, in order to avoid the if we build it, they will come situation, the consideration of geographical distribution of streams with gear-restrictions should not drive the decision. Rather, it should be used only after the biological and physical criteria have been weighed and when deciding among multiple streams within a given area/Unit.



Connectivity 



Regulations that are more restrictive than those for Type 1 trout waters are unlikely to generate desired changes in trout populations and angling quality if trout in the stream reach are exposed to significant increases in angling mortality when they emigrate to waters with less restrictive regulations. Seasonal movements of trout within streams may be extensive depending upon their needs for foraging, spawning, thermal refuge, or other life history requirements. The length of stream on which more restrictive regulations are applied should be relatively large to buffer effects of angling mortality on trout whose range of movement exposes them to higher angling mortality in adjacent stream reaches.



Trout less than 12 inches long generally move less than one mile during summer months when most angling mortality occurs. By contrast, the summer range of movement for trout larger than 12 inches is frequently greater than one mile. Fall and winter ranges of movement are usually substantially larger than in summer. Therefore we recommend that stream sections where regulations that are more restrictive are applied should be a minimum of two miles long although segments that are at least five miles long are more likely to buffer effects of angling mortality in adjacent stream reaches.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Based on this document, the first criteria for the candidate stream moving forward for gear regs is that "the angler fishery be dominated by trout." Would the PM be considered primarly a trout stream when you figure that fishing pressure is probably 10x greater during the salmon/steelhead runs than it is from May-August.

PM Creel Survey 1982 - Kyle Kruger

We'll have a new creel survey this year on the PM, but my guess is that, if anything these differences in angler activity have only increased over time between steel/salmon season and trout season.

Don


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

So now the PM is a walleye and small mouth river? Who knew?


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Who said anything about Walleye or Smallmouth? 

I said it's primarily a salmon/steelhead fishery, which based on the last creel survey, it was - and likely still is... 

A big percentage of salmon/steehead fishermen use natural bait, which is why the new gear restricted mileage on the PM has a split season between summer and fall/spring, where bait is allowed during the salmon/steelhead seasons.

The DNR realized the folly they made when they tried to add restrictions to more of the PM and made adjustments to accommodate the anadromous fishermen - thus the split season. However, it is my contention that had they looked closely at the very first criteria - primarily a trout fishery - they would have never had to deal with that issue in the first place.

Gear Restrictions aren't designed for Salmon/Steelhead, they are designed for upland stream trout that live their entire life in the river/stream.

Don


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

fishinDon said:


> I said it's primarily a salmon/steelhead fishery, which based on the last creel survey, it was - and likely still is... Don


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but steelhead are trout. The PM is dominated by brown and rainbow trout. 

You're grasping at any straw is now in the pathetic range, in trying to parse that the Pere Marquette river is now not a trout stream. 

Give it up, it's over. Don't divide some fishermen over a false narrative, wrapped up in a canard, presented in a McCarthy witchhunt. Save some respect. :sad:


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Pinefarm said:


> I hate to be the one to break it to you, but steelhead are trout. The PM is dominated by brown and rainbow trout.
> 
> You're grasping at any straw is now in the pathetic range, in trying to parse that the Pere Marquette river is now not a trout stream.
> 
> ...



Why did the DNR split the season if my point holds no merit? 



> Pere Marquette River (Lake County) from the Downstream Edge of
> the Boat Ramp/Slide at Gleasons Landing (T17N, R14W, S13) to
> the Upstream Edge of the Boat Ramp at Rainbow Rapids (T18N,
> R14W, S27): From September 1 through the Friday before the last
> ...


I am aware that the PM is full of Brown trout. Yes it's a trout stream. That was never my point, and you purposely mixing up the terms "trout stream" and "trout fishery" in an obvious attempt to distract is pretty sad. 

My point was that the vast majority of the fishery - i.e. fishing pressure - occurs during the salmon/steelhead runs. Those fisherman are not targeting the resident trout. Bait is still legal in the new gear restricted waters in the fall/winter/spring. Why would that be? It seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it? Could it be a compromise was reached to mitigate the fact that the vast majority of the fishermen would have been prevented from fishing their primary method - bait?

Don


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

"Why would that be? It seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it? Could it be a compromise was reached to mitigate the fact that the vast majority of the fishermen would have been prevented from fishing their primary method - bait?"



Well I stand corrected and you have my deepest apologies. I just uncovered top secret MDNR office surveillance footage where the two top MDNR Fisheries people are discussing how to steal away the PM in what they coded "operation Rockridge".
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBInZrRx5c"]Blazing Saddles - land snatch - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

I see you're out of Aces. Post another video, they are entertaining.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Pine, I'm not sure who you are trying to convince, is it us, or you? It would appear that you are trying desparately to convince the majority here that these gear regs are just, and called for. I for one, won't be convinced of your stance. But nice try.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

fishinDon said:


> I see you're out of Aces. Post another video, they are entertaining.


:lol: No, I won the argument days ago and you're still staggering around the ring, after the fans have left and the janitor is sweeping up around you.

I played high stakes poker with the fishing rules. I gambled everything. You're playing old maid with matchsticks.

If you feel so confident about your positions, mortgage your house, open a fishing store in Branch, then take your case to court and await all the business that occurs afterwards. 

Don't open a store near the fly water though, you should open one for all the spawn fishermen. Then you'll find out if the fly water is popular with the majority or not. :lol::yikes:

Either way, since you're the #1 preacher of the "case", you must be the one who gets arrested. I suggest you do it on opening day of trout season so you can fast track the court case.

Here's another video, per request...


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

toto said:


> Pine, I'm not sure who you are trying to convince, is it us, or you? It would appear that you are trying desparately to convince the majority here that these gear regs are just, and called for. I for one, won't be convinced of your stance. But nice try.


I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. I showed the public what the laws are and that's that. A couple 3 guys here are trying to make the bizarre case that the sky is in fact polka dot red and yellow.

The majority of fishermen on the PM fish the fly water. They go there because they like the rules. In fact, all those who come from all over the world do so because of the PM's rules.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

you changed the argument again. I'm bored. yawn...


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

fishinDon said:


> you changed the argument again. I'm bored. yawn...


Then grab your fly rod and run over to the PM. You won't be bored anymore.

You keep trying to move the goal posts after every time you lose a point. 

You don't like fly only waters. Fair enough, lots of sportsmen want changes.

But you then have the burden to prove that the current regs are somehow illegal and/or negatively impact the resource. 

You must also account for the fact that MDNR DOES take social science into account and if fisheries biologists want less participation from fly fishermen and fly groups. 

So far, nobody has come remotely close to presenting any reason to overrule the current rules. The PTD actually MAKES the case that the current rules are solid. Virtually anyone in the world is free to fly, sail, drive, bike or walk to the PM river and enjoy it, right now, at this very moment.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Pine, in one of your last posts, I think you summed it up pretty well, you said something about mortgaging the house to open a bait and tackle shop. It would seem to me that with that statement you pretty much alluded to the fact you are trying to protect business. I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me if thats so. I know you've said in the past that the DNR is entrusted to think of the communities as well. I have to disagree with that. The DNR's job is to protect the resource, and again, if the resource isn't in trouble, than it doesn't need to be protected in this particular way. In other words, if it ain't broke don't fix it applies here.

We can run this thread, and the other thread to 1000 pages if you like, but the bottom line, there is a difference in opinion here, and it appears it won't change, I'm sure it won't on my part.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Pinefarm said:


> The PTD actually MAKES the case that the current rules are solid.


That would fly in the face of fact. The fact that the DNR already once removed flies only on the bases of the PTD and not being of sound science. Don't let facts get in your way. 

So in your infinite reasoning, what business does the DNR manage fishing regulations for, Kings or BBT? One promotes flies only the other hardware and bait.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Pinefarm said:


> The majority of fishermen on the PM fish the fly water. They go there because they like the rules. In fact, all those who come from all over the world do so because of the PM's rules.


You are seriously going to contend that the sole reason the flies water is used by the majority of the fisherman is because of the rules

The reason it is so popular in the Fall/Spring/Winter is because the nature of the water makes it easy to line/snag fish. To be honest if you allowed for the use of spawn, fair hooking may actually become the norm vs the exception in that stretch.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

"Only a portion of these are biological conditions favorable for substantial improvement in trout size and abundance. *Many are as good as they can be, or nearly so, under the protection of our current trout fishing rules*."

After being granted the ability to impart additional special reg water, didn't the DNR then get reprimanded for dragging their feet on implementing more special regs? Nothing like forcing the implementation of special regs on the DNR who apparently didn't feel the need for it.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

TSS Caddis said:


> You are seriously going to contend that the sole reason the flies water is used by the majority of the fisherman is because of the rules
> 
> The reason it is so popular in the Fall/Spring/Winter is because the nature of the water makes it easy to line/snag fish. To be honest if you allowed for the use of spawn fair hooking may actually become the norm vs the exception in that stretch.


I think you are crazy if you think that fly fisherman traveling to fish the PM don't go to the flies only water first. Read any article written on the Pere Marquette in fly fishing magazines, and you wont find one that doesn't mention the fly water. It is marketed as the best water to fly fish on the river and visitors know that they will be fishing amongst their peers. 

You can line/snag fish in any part of the river. Are you telling me that the guys that fish the PM no other time other than the hex hatch are there to line fish? You are taking a very myopic view of the type of fishing that goes on there. It's the most popular stretch to fly fish for trout too, not just for salmon/steelhead. 

Argue the scientific benefit all you want, but there is no scientific benefit of removing it either. And the economic benefit is a reality.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

woolybug25 said:


> I think you are crazy if you think that fly fisherman looking to fish the PM don't first go to the flies only water. Read any article written on the Pere Marquette in fly fishing magazines, and you wont find one that doesn't mention the fly water. It is marketed as the best water to fly fish on the river and visitors know that they will be fishing amongst their peers.
> 
> You can line/snag fish in any part of the river. Are you telling me that the guys that fish the PM no other time other than the hex hatch are there to line fish? You are taking a very myopic view of the type of fishing that goes on there. It's the most popular stretch to fly fish for trout too, not just for salmon/steelhead.
> 
> Argue the scientific benefit all you want, but there is no scientific benefit of removing it either. And the economic benefit is a reality.


To me what is best for that stretch is counter intuitive and involves opening it up to methods that give a higher chance of fair hooking fish vs placing the line in a fishes mouth or setting the hook on the "bump".

Right now there is a ton of unethical behavior on that river in the spring/fall. Flies only has not curbed this behavior, it just changed the gear employed to do it. So for salmon and steelhead, what is really the benefit? All you have done with implementing flies only in that stretch is taken the most effective methods to fair hook fish off the table.

IMO, much better to let someone float skein through a hole in the fall and have the fish bite vs the current PM down stream sweep.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

TSS Caddis said:


> To me what is best for that stretch is counter intuitive and involves opening it up to methods that give a higher chance of fair hooking fish vs placing the line in a fishes mouth or setting the hook on the "bump".
> 
> Right now there is a ton of unethical behavior on that river in the spring/fall. Flies only has not curbed this behavior, it just changed the gear employed to do it. So for salmon and steelhead, what is really the benefit? All you have done with implementing flies only in that stretch is taken the most effective methods to fair hook fish off the table.
> 
> IMO, much better to let someone float skein through a hole in the fall and have the fish bite vs the current PM down stream sweep.


As I said, you are taking a myopic view of the flies only water. There are a large amount of people that flock to that stretch to fish dry flies to trout all summer long. It is one of the most popular places for guys swinging spey rods. Neither of those are popular or effective ways to foul hook fish. 

Regardless of that, the flies only regs didn't get put on that water to curb snagging. So whether it effectively keeps people from doing it is a moot point. Furthermore, snagging doesn't have anything to do with your original point of that stretch not attracting fly fisherman specifically by being flies only, which you are incorrect about.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

take this story anyway you want, but it says a lot. A few years back I went to a small bar in Branch for some dinner and the place was packed. There was a older gent with a TU hat on sitting by himself and I asked if I could join him and talk fishing while we ate. He said sure. He was a past pres or something of a local TU and had been very involved with the start of flies only on the PM. I told him I thought it was a selfish to regulate the water for flies only and artificial only would much better serve the general public and would do a lot to settle differences between fishing groups. What he said next floored me. "We created a monster on the PM that probably will never be put back in the bottle. What that section has become in the spring and fall was never our original intent, frankly it's a disgrace. It has turned into a free for all and the status of fishing it is more to be seen, than the joy of fly fishing." I won't even say what he thought of chuck and duck. We had a great dinner, some drinks, and talk fishing for quite some time, but I often wonder how many others share the same feelings he expressed that night.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

riverman said:


> take this story anyway you want, but it says a lot. A few years back I went to a small bar in Branch for some dinner and the place was packed. There was a older gent with a TU hat on sitting by himself and I asked if I could join him and talk fishing while we ate. He said sure. He was a past pres or something of a local TU and had been very involved with the start of flies only on the PM. I told him I thought it was a selfish to regulate the water for flies only and artificial only would much better serve the general public and would do a lot to settle differences between fishing groups. What he said next floored me. "We created a monster on the PM that probably will never be put back in the bottle. What that section has become in the spring and fall was never our original intent, frankly it's a disgrace. It has turned into a free for all and the status of fishing it is more to be seen, than the joy of fly fishing." I won't even say what he thought of chuck and duck. We had a great dinner, some drinks, and talk fishing for quite some time, *but I often wonder how many others share the same feelings he expressed that night.*


You would be surprised. Not all fly fisherman are the "c&d snaggers" that some people would like to label us as. 

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

woolybug25 said:


> You would be surprised. Not all fly fisherman are the "c&d snaggers" that some people would like to label us as.
> 
> Thanks for sharing.


Actually I was thinking more along the lines that he shared with me about good intentions that didn't turn out the way he/they visioned. This is an accepted way to flyfish steelhead now days. Hey, it's close to the mouth!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

woolybug25 said:


> Furthermore, snagging doesn't have anything to do with your original point of that stretch not attracting fly fisherman specifically by being flies only, which you are incorrect about.


Fisherman go where the fish are regardless of method. That stretch being flies only has little to do with it drawing a crowd. Where are fly fisherman fishing the hex hatch? That right, they bail down to the lower river. Where are fly fishing guides salmon fishing at the end of August or early Sept? That's right, in the lower river because that is where the fish are. Being the most gradient stretch below 37 draws fish and fisherman, it is that simple. No doubt some new to the river may flock to that stretch purely because the perception that flies only means more quality water, but the reality is that stretch was prime water and pounded hard well before flies only.

On the topic of snagging/lining, no, not all fisherman in the stretch are snagging, but if I walk the bank, the vast majority are either knowingly or unknowingly.

No doubt that enacting flies only was not to combat snagging/lining, but what it has done is eliminated very effective fair hooking methods and grown the number of snaggers/liners all on the invalid premise that flies only helps the fishery. 

Not limited to PM either because the same behavior takes place on the Mo, but at least on the Mo fisherman have options available which they are more likely to bite. Before I sold the sled last year, it was great fun to jump up on the front deck as guides floated down river for clients to fight their fish. On jumping up on the front deck trying to see where the fish was hooked as it floated by sideways, invariably the guide would tell their sport to lower their rod tip to keep it off the surface. 

I guess my point in all of this is flies only on the PM gives a lot of people a warm feeling that the river is somehow helped by it when in reality the river has turned into a joke because of it.

Now note, I'm not much of a big trout fisherman anymore, so I'm purely talking salmon and steelhead.


----------



## quack head (Oct 23, 2007)

tsscadis,"On the topic of snagging/lining, no, not all fisherman in the stretch are snagging, but if I walk the bank, the vast majority are either knowingly or unknowingly.

No doubt that enacting flies only was not to combat snagging/lining, but what it has done is eliminated very effective fair hooking methods and grown the number of snaggers/liners all on the invalid premise that flies only helps the fishery."


Wolly. "You would be surprised. Not all fly fisherman are the "c&d snaggers" that some people would like to label us as."


Let's be honest, any fly/bait/lure drifted or swung on or near the bottom can and will eventually "snag" a fish. Maybe back droping should be considerd the proper method? But I'm sure someone would say hey!!! you're pissing that fish of to the point that it strikes! Thats wild life harassment! I really hate the pulling at staws in this forum but I just can't seem to stop reading the debate's.

I havn't fished the P.M. in yrs. As of late I have not even bothered to fish "restricted Blue Ribbon Streams" No tuber's to put up with, no one high holing you, ect. I love my brush choked streams with uneducated large fish that will take dries when nothing is hatching. 

So I gues I'll leave the "restricted waters" to those that are privledged enought to fish them, and read about the one that are not hear on these forums.

I just want to fly fish in peace with my buddies.....in shorts.......so when I get a leach on my leg I can put it on my fly.....so i'm fly fishing with bait.....then i'll feel warm and fuzzy.....right after I share three fingers of Jim Beam with my friends.


----------



## quack head (Oct 23, 2007)

One more thing, why are people even C&D on the upper P.M. anyone with a decent amount of skill can indicator fish those holes. Mend poeple, mend. My 2 cnts.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

quack head said:


> tsscadis,"On the topic of snagging/lining, no, not all fisherman in the stretch are snagging, but if I walk the bank, the vast majority are either knowingly or unknowingly.
> 
> No doubt that enacting flies only was not to combat snagging/lining, but what it has done is eliminated very effective fair hooking methods and grown the number of snaggers/liners all on the invalid premise that flies only helps the fishery."
> 
> ...


The problem isn't the guy that accidentally snags up but the down stream sweep at the end of every drift guy or the set the hook on the bump guy or the quartering through spawning fish with a 6' leader guy, or the indicator guy with the lift in every drift. Remarkable talking to guys in the parking lot in the fall stating 20 hook ups a day discussing the stone fly pattern that produced that many salmon, or in the spring the guides telling sports how the fish hooked in the ass must have rolled in the line And all the while because they have a fly rod in hand they think they are doing something pure and protecting the fishery when they are raping it just like the guys at Tippy. Give them better options to fair hook fish and you might have less people violating.

I have asked biologists the following questions in the past:

1) Does the no kill in the flies water help the fishery?
Answer: No noticeable impact.

2) Does the flies water help the fishery?
Answer: No

3) Why does the flies water exist then?
Answer: Social regulation. The right groups lobbied for it and it was given to them.


----------



## quack head (Oct 23, 2007)

TSS Caddis said:


> The problem isn't the guy that accidentally snags up but the down stream sweep at the end of every drift guy or the set the hook on the bump guy or the quartering through spawning fish with a 6' leader guy, or the indicator guy with the lift in every drift. Remarkable talking to guys in the parking lot in the fall stating 20 hook ups a day discussing the stone fly pattern that produced that many salmon, or in the spring the guides telling sports how the fish hooked in the ass must have rolled in the line And all the while because they have a fly rod in hand they think they are doing something pure and protecting the fishery when they are raping it just like the guys at Tippy. Give them better options to fair hook fish and you might have less people violating.
> 
> I have asked biologists the following questions in the past:
> 
> ...


----------



## quack head (Oct 23, 2007)

BTW, A six ft leader is for fat kids. Nine ft leader, four ft of tipet, and a total of six flies. Just cast with very open loops. Thats the way to catch'em:evilsmile


----------

