# Michigan State Study



## Ranger Ray

Whatever happened to the study on fishermen attitude and direction, the state was doing several years back, TU helped fund? Never heard the results.


----------



## toto

Me niether weird huh???


----------



## kzoofisher

Preliminary results were presented at a CRSC meeting, I believe both Steve Mondrella and Don Wright were there so you could ask them. My recollection is that the survey answers showed that the GR water would have light pressure and they were going to go back and confirm that with creel census surveys. Never heard anything more. 

Iirc the study was funded with a grant from TU, overseen by the DNR, designed and run by MSU professor Dr. Frank Lupi.


----------



## Sparky23

Kazoo? What percentage of guys in the state that fish fly fish? Or fly fish trout? Guessing under 10 ..do you know? How old are you kazoo?


----------



## DecoySlayer

Sparky23 said:


> Kazoo? What percentage of guys in the state that fish fly fish? Or fly fish trout? Guessing under 10 ..do you know? How old are you kazoo?



Under 10% fly fish? How sad if it's true.


----------



## kzoofisher

I don’t know. What does that have to do with protecting resources ? Straw man argument.


----------



## DecoySlayer

kzoofisher said:


> I don’t know. What does that have to do with protecting resources ? Straw man argument.



Nothing. It's an art form in itself and I hate to see those die off. It can also be a way more effective method of fishing than most others.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Protecting the resource is done by limits. This notion that fly's only is needed to "protect the resources," is a straw man, pushed by the fly guys, to get special areas on our rivers, for their gear type only. The fly only water was put in place by crony legislation, not science. Time to get rid of it.


----------



## mfs686

Here we go......


----------



## DecoySlayer

Ranger Ray said:


> Protecting the resource is done by limits. This notion that fly's only is needed to "protect the resources, is a straw man, pushed by the fly guys, to get special areas on our rivers, for their gear type only. The fly only water was put in place by crony legislation, not science. Time to get rid of it.



Why? Do you hate art? Are you not able to use a fly rod? Don't like a challenge? Don't like using one of the most effective means of taking fish? 

What wrong with setting aside some portions of streams for fly only? 

Before you ask, yes, I USED to fly fish, I don't any longer. I don't even trout fish anymore, except once in a while for steelhead and only on the Huron. So the regs don't affect me.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Ah, I fly fish. Challenge has nothing to do with it. It has to do with how and why the fish are feeding, that I choose my gear.

There should be no fly's only water, because there is no scientific reason for it. Our government is mandated to manage for all. All gear should be able to share in the resources, unless deemed necessary for the survival of a species. The fact there are 100's of rivers that are near metropolises, that allow all legal gear, get pounded, yet the fish survive, is evidence fly's only is not needed for survival of species, but limits are. Should we start reserving areas for special interests? For one who proclaims the ills of government control, I find it interesting you do not see the same here. Once you start dividing outside of science, but for special interests, cronyism and corruption, control who is the privileged and who isn't. Unfortunately we see this with fly's only. Some of the best accessible river stretches to the wader, are controlled by fly only gear. Yet today, we even charge the bait fishermen for trout stamps. Now that is what you call a great setup. Make the bait fisherman pay for trout waters, and then keep them from it. I have some swamp land for sale.


----------



## DecoySlayer

How much for the swamp land? LOL!

I don't even like to fish in most of Michigan's streams anymore, fly fishing, or otherwise. I am tired of the mess, the slobs, those who don't have a clue about fishing etiquette, etc. 

I have fished some* amazing* streams in my day, none of them were in Michigan. We should be ashamed of what our streams and rivers look like, and how they are abused. 

You guys can do what ever you want. I don't care anymore. I won't be attending meetings where you may be affected, won't be answering surveys, etc. 

I will just sit back and ignore what goes on, and spend less and less of my time and money here. 

Keep an eye out, I may just be selling off all of my fly fishing gear in the near future. I have a REALLY nice Sharpes "Scottie "88" 5/6 weight rod. It is VERY slow, flexing down to the handle. It can cast the most wonderful, tight, loop you have ever seen. It is very easy to control and quite accurate.


----------



## Sparky23

kzoofisher said:


> I don’t know. What does that have to do with protecting resources ? Straw man argument.


It has alot to do with it. Why dont you enlighten us on what percentage fly fishes. You are so blinded by your liberalness that you cant see that it is not right to limit something everyone of us pays for to a tiny percentage of people. Its ljke saying ok. No walleye fishing sag bay unless you only troll with body baits. Why not a make a long hair hippy only section of river. Or a push button only section of river. Most that use push buttons dont trout fish so it would greatly reduce trout mortality. Lets try to push it through from green cottage to 37. Sounds stupid doesnt it.


----------



## kzoofisher

Did the DNR's most recent study on trout limits find that a higher limit/increased mortality damaged both size and structure? Yes.

Are some methods of fishing more likely to have high delayed mortality rate? Yes.

Even with a low delayed mortality rate is a more popular area going to have higher numbers of fish killed? Yes. 

Managers have to account for total mortality, both natural and angler related. This means taking all the above into account. 

The simple fact of the matter is that it is about predator prey balance. People are predators. The DNR is using limits/people predation to reduce fish in some areas; most obviously right now in Sag Bay. They are using limits and gear restrictions to reduce predation by people in other areas; muskie and sturgeon come to mind.

The argument that liberal rules haven't wiped out the fish in some places therefore restrictive rules are not needed is a false dichotomy. Either the population is destroyed or there is no problem are not the only options. Controlling human predation maintains fish size and structure. Over fishing encourages smaller fish to reach sexual maturity and never grow bigger. It pushes total population below the carrying capacity.

Now we have the PETA straw man that any fishing damages the resource. Balderdash. Properly managed fishing does not damage the resource no matter what PETA says. Everyone who has even the slightest understanding of management knows that. But when the facts are against you untruths and logical fallacies like those above and poisoning the well with personal attacks are all you have left.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Limits are used to manage fish populations for future generations. Nothing wrong with lower ones if deemed necessary. It's an end sum game, has been my whole life. What isn't scientifically needed, is fly's only water. It's why it was passed by crony politics. Time to end fly's only.


----------



## swampbuck

Maybe we should just have an equal miles of bait/lures only rivers. For every 5 miles of fly's only, have 5 miles above and below of no fly-fishing allowed.


----------



## Nostromo

Ranger Ray said:


> Protecting the resource is done by limits. This notion that fly's only is needed to "protect the resources," is a straw man, pushed by the fly guys, to get special areas on our rivers, for their gear type only. The fly only water was put in place by crony legislation, not science. Time to get rid of it.


I believe it's more about the sport than anything else. It's only reasonable to establish designated areas for designated activities. If you are not comfortable with the idea of someone else getting a little consideration fine. But calling it "crony legislation" makes me think you don't attend many NRC meetings.

Everyone has an agenda however benign.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Ah, you do know how fly's only water was legislatively mandated aye? Oh, and I do attend some NRC meetings. Even spoke at some. You? It's about who our DNR serves. They serve us all. When you start removing types of gear for special interest, interests, you no longer are serving "we" the people. Especially when you charge "we" to support the trout fishery.


----------



## Nostromo

Ranger Ray said:


> Ah, you do know how fly's only water was legislatively mandated aye? Oh, and I do attend some NRC meetings. Even spoke at some. You? It's about who our DNR serves. They serve us all. When you start removing types of gear for special interest, interests, you no longer are serving "we" the people. Especially when you charge "we" to support the trout fishery.


I attend the ones in Lansing when I can, and have spoke on rare occasion. Mostly I just watch and listen.

I don't agree with your assessment about service. I believe like I posted above that it is perfectly reasonable to designate certain areas for certain activities. Examples of this are everywhere in our society. I wonder if the heart of your concern "lies" in the sections of river chosen for fly's only. I think fly casting was developed to target trout in areas trout are found. So it follows that fly's only sections would be trout holding sections. These do tend to be the most picturesque sections of a river with the best habitat.


----------



## Jimbos

Ranger Ray said:


> Whatever happened to the study on fishermen attitude and direction, the state was doing several years back, TU helped fund? Never heard the results.


Now this is funny, just yesterday I PM'ed Heather Hettinger on this site asking for another report that was done and was supposed to be published last year but never was to the best of my knowledge.
Understandably she hasn't gotten back to me as of yet, but I'm sure she has a wealth of knowledge regarding these studies.


----------



## toto

I'm working right now, when I get home I'll see if I can articulate it a little better.


----------



## toto

I have about one minute but, go to page iii of Borgelts paper, you will see where it was a combination of conservation, and a way to privatize his waters. Perhaps you should direct your questions to Borgelt on that. Just to clarify, IF there were a conervation reason to do flies only, fine, but there isn't, and of course THAT would requre science, either way. We are suggesting it isn't needed any longer, and there are other ways to protect a resource, using the 10 fish thing in tha U.P. isn't a honest comparison, too many variables between waters. What MAY good one place may not good elsewhere.


----------



## kzoofisher

Yes, I see that. I don’t see the connection to the founding of TU 50 years later.


----------



## swampbuck

toto said:


> I have about one minute but, go to page iii of Borgelts paper, you will see where it was a combination of conservation, and a way to privatize his waters. Perhaps you should direct your questions to Borgelt on that. Just to clarify, IF there were a conervation reason to do flies only, fine, but there isn't, and of course THAT would requre science, either way. We are suggesting it isn't needed any longer, and there are other ways to protect a resource, using the 10 fish thing in tha U.P. isn't a honest comparison, too many variables between waters. What MAY good one place may not good elsewhere.


The legislature passed the SCIENTIFIC fish and wildlife management act. Could very well be a new pathway to change.


----------



## toto

kzoofisher said:


> Yes, I see that. I don’t see the connection to the founding of TU 50 years later.


I guess the point could be argued either way, but it isn't that important. The connection though is the philosophy.


----------



## toto

swampbuck said:


> The legislature passed the SCIENTIFIC fish and wildlife management act. Could very well be a new pathway to change.


If only the NRC would adhere to that, in all things outdoors. I'm just concerned about bias within this group. Of course TU thought enough of Mershon to name a chapter after him, so there is that.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> I guess the point could be argued either way, but it isn't that important. The connection though is the philosophy.


Mershon wanted to conserve the resource, TU wants to conserve the resource, toto wants to conserve the resource, I think everyone else here wants to conserve the resource so we're all connected that way. 

I think you are making some other connection between Mershon and the founding of TU but you won't say what it is and only act coy when asked. Took how many tries to get the above out of you? I think we both agree that fisheries knowledge and management has changed a lot in the last 100+ years. TU doesn't like to talk about it but they supported some management decisions in the past that they would in no way support today. Back then though it seemed like a good idea and gave more people the opportunity to trout fish. I can't hold it against them that they acted with the best of intentions when they didn't have the best understanding of what they were doing. 100 years from know I'm sure someone will be able to say the same thing about us.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Of course TU thought enough of Mershon to name a chapter after him, so there is that.


 You mean the one in his home town? The town he was mayor of, a civic leader, a business leader, a leading philanthropist and leading conservationist. The guy who fought against market hunting and fishing? Helped build monuments and parks? Gee, I wonder why a local chapter of a conservation group might honor him a few years after his death?


----------



## toto

That's all true, look at it this way, he would be basically the Godfather if you will. Of course he wasn't around when TU was organized but you have to know it was his philosophy that was used, that's all I'm saying. The bottom line is, why does it matter anyways? As you said times have changed, mostly for the better, taking 25 fish per day is nonsense, but there are other ways besides what we have in those areas now, and I'm starting to think you see that, at least a little bit, now too.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Fly's only water was put in place by crony legislation. The state is mandated to manage by science for all. No "all" in flies only, nor science. Time to make it go away.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Of course he wasn't around when TU was organized but you have to know it was his philosophy that was used, that's all I'm saying


 His philosophy of conservation. His ideas about privatization were rejected by TU who have worked hard at improving public access. I've got some TU access sites on Type 1 unmentionables around here. And according to at least one scholar his ideas about flies only and other methods of reducing angler mortality were proven to be correct.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ray, you keep bringing up the legislation and I don't remember how it was passed. Could you enlighten us? Frankly, it seems improbable that a tiny group of fly fisherman could manage to get anything passed by the entire Michigan Legislature if it didn't have merit. 1907 and the Age of the Robber Barons was a long time ago when Mershon did it. How did it happen recently?

I see that you're back to your other catch phrase, too. Do you think everyone has forgotten about post #89 already? You know, the one where you refer to the DNR's study on the ill effects of increased mortality and then go on to disagree with the conclusions? And the primary argument for flies only for decades has been reducing mortality.


----------



## Ranger Ray

*"Ray, you keep bringing up the legislation and I don't remember how it was passed. Could you enlighten us? Frankly, it seems improbable that a tiny group of fly fisherman could manage to get anything passed by the entire Michigan Legislature if it didn't have merit. 1907 and the Age of the Robber Barons was a long time ago when Mershon did it. How did it happen recently?"*

Yeah and our DNR wouldn't swap a section of the Little Manistee, with the Indian Club, unless it benefited "we" the people (which is mandated by law), and had merit. Oh wait! They did that. It, it seems "improbable" (think cronyism). Can you tell us the benefit to we the people on the trade?

Yeah, and our Cold Water committee could never end up with a majority of fly fishing organizations on it. After all, they are a tiny group. Oh wait! They did. It, it seems "improbable" (think cronyism).

Ah, there is that Kzoo straw man again. Do you think everyone forgot what I have posted? I never disagreed with their conclusion. Thanks for showing everyone how you twist everything.

As I said, there is no science for fly's only water. Nor is there any science that showed the fly's only water, that was made through crony legislation, needed reduced mortality. Now that we have a mandate to manage by sound science, time to get rid of fly's only water. Unless of course, you can show me we now have a mandate to manage by "argument." Time for a change. Especially now that the bait fishing majority is paying for trout stamps. So everyone who wishes to fish by legal means can fish the "best" and "pristine" waters, only fly fishermen enjoy today. We have limits to manage for mortality.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ha ha ha ha ha, "The scientists conclusion isn't wrong, it is unclear." When there is 0 disagreement between biologists at the DNR, the Feds, universities and conservation groups it isn't "unclear". When you are not an expert and you disagree with the experts who are unanimous in their view you're saying they are wrong. Wow, talk about obfuscation and befuddlement. 

"I don't think the sky is blue"
"Dude, everyone knows the sky is blue"
"I disagree"
"So you're saying everyone else is wrong?"
"No just that I disagree"
"Oooooookaaaaaaayyyyy"

The committees that didn't exist when flies only was legislated have nothing to do with it. Also, they aren't part of the Legislature! Whataboutism has nothing to do with it. You made the claim that legislation was passed in a certain way, now back it up with something. You can continue to make unsupported and verifiably false claims and I can continue to call you out on it but it gets a little tiresome, no?

Ray, "The sky is green"
kzoo, "No it's not"
Ray, "The sky is green"
kzoo, "No it's not"
Ray, "There is no sky"
kzoo, "What?!"
Repeat for ten pages


----------



## toto

Have you ever heard of lobbyists? No they can't contribute to a political campaign, but they sure can funnel monies into pockets in a lot of different ways, that's how a small, well funded group gets things done. All you have to do is see where the money comes from and who the players are and you start see a whole better picture. As for the indian club fiasco, even the ones who approved it within the DNR will admit, now, that it was a wrong thing to do. Do you know what that was about, we may be assuming something you don't know about. You seem to care what the public wants at least some of the public, does Prop G matter to you at all. It seems the NRC wants to pick and choose what science they want to believe. You agree about the chumming ban, that it is stupid, when they used ONE piece of research, but when there is the same amount of research that shows bait fishing mortality isn't as awful as presumed, it's ONLY one report, tell why it's different.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha, "The scientists conclusion isn't wrong, it is unclear." When there is 0 disagreement between biologists at the DNR, the Feds, universities and conservation groups it isn't "unclear". When you are not an expert and you disagree with the experts who are unanimous in their view you're saying they are wrong. Wow, talk about obfuscation and befuddlement.
> 
> "I don't think the sky is blue"
> "Dude, everyone knows the sky is blue"
> "I disagree"
> "So you're saying everyone else is wrong?"
> "No just that I disagree"
> "Oooooookaaaaaaayyyyy"
> 
> The committees that didn't exist when flies only was legislated have nothing to do with it. Also, they aren't part of the Legislature! Whataboutism has nothing to do with it. You made the claim that legislation was passed in a certain way, now back it up with something. You can continue to make unsupported and verifiably false claims and I can continue to call you out on it but it gets a little tiresome, no?
> 
> Ray, "The sky is green"
> kzoo, "No it's not"
> Ray, "The sky is green"
> kzoo, "No it's not"
> Ray, "There is no sky"
> kzoo, "What?!"
> Repeat for ten pages


Well thought out response.

Ah, the committee I brought up, was to show that cronyism does exist with the fly guys and the DNR. I showed two examples of it. You know, to show your "improbable" exists. Your response to them was typical of you.

There is no science that shows flies only was needed, for the protection of the flies only water. The flies only water had to be put in place by legislation, not the DNR seeing a need for your "argument." We now have a mandate to manage by science, a legislative mandate. So show us this science that the legislature used to pass fly's only water. You know where it had to be, to save the fish. You can't. With this new legislative mandate of manage by science, time to change the fly's only water for everyone to use. Especially when every biologists said, there was no need for gear restrictions, this last round, yet we got it. Now I am not a genius, but when every biologist says there is no need for something, and it still gets pushed through, it is because of cronyism. Then when you look at the group that was in the forefront of pushing it, and always is, well the picture becomes quite obvious. Now that bait fishermen, who are the majority have to pay for a trout stamp, time to include them in all sections of the river. The DNR has many ways to manage for the preservation of the fish population. There may even be reasons for artificial lures on stretches. Although I haven't heard or seen any cases for it from a biological standpoint. As a matter of fact, all the biologists said there wasn't any the last round of restrictions. Fly's only? That is going to an extreme that benefits a few people. We know why it was put in place, and who pushed it. Time to eliminate it.

Is everyone wrong? Not at all. Most will agree, there isn't any reason for fly's only. Only a small percentage of that group that pushes for it. Heck, even many of their members on here have said, there is no need for it from a biological stand point. Another straw man from Kzoo, that I think everyone is wrong. Nope, just a small minority pushing fly's only. Interesting you try to conflate fly's only with limits. Limits don't need fly's only to exist. Talk about befuddlement.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ray, you brought up a committee of citizen volunteers whose purpose is to gauge stakeholders opinions as evidence of some issue with the Legislature. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and pot roasts. I don't remember the ins and outs of how the modern GR water law was written. You say you know so why don't you tell us? Unless of course you don't know and you're just making it up.


Ranger Ray said:


> There is no science that shows flies only was *needed*, for the protection of the flies only water


 That word right there is the key to your argument. What do you mean by needed? If you mean to sustain the population without degrading it then yes, there is plenty of science. Not the least of which is this latest study from the DNR. If you mean something else you should make that clear and I'll address your philosophy. 


Ranger Ray said:


> Especially when every biologists said, there was no need for gear restrictions, this last round, yet we got it.


Except every biologist didn't say that. Unlike the UP study where all the biologists actually did agree.


Ranger Ray said:


> Now that bait fishermen, who are the majority have to pay for a trout stamp


 They're not the majority. Just because you have a thing you have in your head doesn't make it a fact. You'll know doubt be surprised to learn that the % who fly fish and the % who bait fish are nearly identical, a few more fly fish. Keep reading my posts to have your philosophy destroyed.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Do you know what that was about, we may be assuming something you don't know about.


You'll have to fill me in.


----------



## kzoofisher

Hey Sparky, great news! And it relates to this overall thread as well as your question way back on page 1. In February the DNR published a report on Values, Opinions, and Behavior of Inland Trout Anglers in Michigan. Turns out 88% of trout fisherman fly fish, 87% fish with other artificial lures and 75% bait fish. How's that for a game changer?!?! Obviously a lot of people use all types of gear. Like ME!

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FR29_618229_7.pdf


----------



## Ranger Ray

So 13% of the trout fishermen control some of the most "prestine" and "best" trout waters. Go figure.


----------



## toto

First of all, just to clarify, I wasn't demeaning you at all. Anyways, I don't know all the ins and outs of it, probably just enough to be dangerous, but there is someone who used to post on here who lives pretty much right across the river so I'm telling this second hand. The upshot is, the Indian Club worked out a trade in property with the DNR, and then the river in front of the NEW property became flies only; not because it was needed, because the Indian Club wanted it. From what I've heard, the DNR contact person for all this was given membership, or at the very least, was given a key to the property. Later that same person admitted it was all a mistake, and may have been illegal but no one ever did anything about it, that's the best I can do on that, and just to reiterate, that was all second hand knowledge. In your last post you mention the latest study, is that the one Troy Zorn helped to write? If so, I found it funny that within that study he mentioned the 4% mortality rate fishing bait, doesn't seem to help his, or your defense of flies only. The bottom line is, Ray is right, if the science don't fit, you must acquit, like that?☺


----------



## kzoofisher

I saw no mention of 4% mortality or any mortality. Yes, Troy Zorn co-authored it.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> So 13% of the trout fishermen control some of the most "prestine" and "best" trout waters. Go figure.


88% of all the over 4000 respondents to the survey fly fish. Where did you get 13%? Bait fisherman are the minority.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto, if you can get me some more details maybe I can find some contemporary reporting on the issue and we won't have to depend an second hand accounts of someone's memories. A year, people involved, stuff like that.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> 88% of all the over 4000 respondents to the survey fly fish. Where did you get 13%? Bait fisherman are the minority.


People that only fly fish are the minority.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> People that only fly fish are the minority.


The sky is not green. If we are going to talk about people who only use one method.

8% of respondents hardware
10% bait
21% flies

Looks like flies are dominant, more than hardware and bait combined!

Oh, and where did you pull that 13% number? It wasn’t one of the 80% of all statistics that are just made up was it?


----------



## toto

Frankly you are the one that wants to know you look it up. Maybe RR can tell you better than me, it's been quite a long time ago that I heard it, again it is one of those things that detracts from the real point anyways. Secondly, here's a quick lesson in reading research studies, look at the footnotes that tells you whether or not there is any reality to the paper, which in this case was exactly the same study I cited concerning the 4% mortality rate. You know it occurs to me that you are showing a very bad argument for flies only. You have shown that your biggest concern isn't fish themselves but rather the amount of money your, or perhaps some family members, property will be worth sometime down the road, not a very good point to stand on. You really need to brush up on your debating skills, bring us facts, scientific evidence to back up your point, and perhaps you can come up with something to change our minds, oh what am I saying probably not. Just being typical liberal and playing PeeWee Herman and stating "I know I am but what are you" just doesn't get it for me. Quite honestly you are boring me being so predictable. To reiterate a pint, the people spoke Prop G was passed, it's high time the NRC follows the law. So, once again, since our fisheries studies we have pointed out are unacceptable to you, show us what you got, just ask for Mr. Blue, I'll be the one holding my breath. Btw, a little help in your research writing, you'll need it when you get to college: always use footnotes as your reference to back up what you've just said. For example, in an above post you posted some numbers concerning how many fly anglers etc, prove it, that's where footnotes come in. When you get time to re-read Zorns study, take a look at his references, that will give a good idea of how to do it.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto, did you click on the link in post 119? Links are kind of like all in one footnotes. Doesn't seem like you've read the paper. It's a different study than the one you are talking about and has only been out since February. No mention of mortality at all except that two respondents mentioned it in the general comments.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> The upshot is, the Indian Club worked out a trade in property with the DNR, and then the river in front of the NEW property became flies only; not because it was needed, because the Indian Club wanted it.


 The requirements of creating GR water have been laid out on these forums many times. One of them is that public access must be assured. Was creating increased access part of the land trade? I can see how that might have annoyed your friend. Here he is with a sweet spot on the river that gets lightly fished because all the land in the area is private and some guys come along and do a trade with the DNR to create access. Now his quiet, hard to reach spot is going to be full of people and the fishing is going to go downhill. What better way to express your outrage than to gin up a story about dirty deeds and back room deals? Makes you look altruistic instead of looking like a guy who wants to protect his utopia by keeping the public out of it. I'm not saying that's how it happened but it could have. 

I've searched stories in the TC Record-Eagle and Ludington Daily News going back to 2006 and can't find anything. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong time frame? Or maybe it wasn't much of a story? The history of DNR land swaps is very hard to narrow down without the name of a parcel or something fairly specific.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> You have shown that your biggest concern isn't fish themselves but rather the amount of money your, or perhaps some family members, property will be worth sometime down the road, not a very good point to stand on.


Here's what I said. I'm clearly talking about all of Crawford County and not just me. Grayling Twp. depends on paddling related tourism and the money it brings in to town. I've explained this to you before but once you get an idea in your head no amount of evidence can shake it out again. Btw, my property near the river is well downstream and would be likely to increase in value with a reduction in paddlers on the river. Sure would be a lot quieter! 
_ 

Increased nutrient loading as a result of quadrupling production will cause *green slime* and foul smells. These in turn will hurt the fish and make the area unattractive for canoeing. That drives liveries out of business, hurts property values and the tax base, sends tourists elsewhere which hurts restaurants shops and hotels._


----------



## toto

I'll tell ya what, if I can get him back on here to explain it. Yes when I get something in my head, I generally research it and once decided you won't change my mind very easily. And one more time you bring in hotels, motels, restaurants etc, money, into the equation. Didn't know the DNR was a department of commerce. That statement you just made about that should tell everyone just what really matters to you, and your ilk $. Frankly we've been back and forth on this for years and I'm just done with it (discussing this), we're winning and I think you know that.


----------



## swampbuck

The everyone having to purchase a trout stamp now, could be a strong argument against gear restrictions


----------



## toto

kzoofisher said:


> Here's what I said. I'm clearly talking about all of Crawford County and not just me. Grayling Twp. depends on paddling related tourism and the money it brings in to town. I've explained this to you before but once you get an idea in your head no amount of evidence can shake it out again. Btw, my property near the river is well downstream and would be likely to increase in value with a reduction in paddlers on the river. Sure would be a lot quieter!
> _
> 
> Increased nutrient loading as a result of quadrupling production will cause *green slime* and foul smells. These in turn will hurt the fish and make the area unattractive for canoeing. That drives liveries out of business, hurts property values and the tax base, sends tourists elsewhere which hurts restaurants shops and hotels._


You weren't clearly talking about Crawford County, you were talking about you and those that are on the river. Again, no one , ever has said anything about getting rid of canoe livery, this is about flies only regulations, period. As for Grayling Township, or any other government agency, it's about time they learn to live within a budget, in fact coming in under budget would be even smarter. You want to help your communities, try getting a raise in PILT, or better yet limit how much land state or feds can own in a certain area.


----------



## 357Maximum

swampbuck said:


> The everyone having to purchase a trout stamp now, could be a strong argument against gear restrictions


That water is lost, I doubt it ever get returned to all the fisherman of the state. They will hatch a plan to keep it even if they have to take a second mortgage out on their souls to do such. Something as simple as a special use permit could keep it out of the hands of the ordinary Joe forever. They will not give it up and now there is one more fly guy on the NRC. Personally I have just counted that water as a loss that ain't worth fighting for or my time protecting. It is gone, I fish elsewhere and them areas will never see any of my money other than what is forced from me in order to buy a fishing license.


----------



## swampbuck

357Maximum said:


> That water is lost, I doubt it ever get returned to all the fisherman of the state. They will hatch a plan to keep it even if they have to take a second mortgage out on their souls to do such. Something as simple as a special use permit could keep it out of the hands of the ordinary Joe forever. They will not give it up and now there is one more fly guy on the NRC. Personally I have just counted that water as a loss that ain't worth fighting for or my time protecting. It is gone, I fish elsewhere and them areas will never see any of my money other than what is forced from me in order to buy a fishing license.


I guess, it will just be up to the locals at night to keep the population in check, with their spinning rods and a box of #12 pink nighty's


----------



## Sparky23

kzoofisher said:


> Ray, you brought up a committee of citizen volunteers whose purpose is to gauge stakeholders opinions as evidence of some issue with the Legislature. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and pot roasts. I don't remember the ins and outs of how the modern GR water law was written. You say you know so why don't you tell us? Unless of course you don't know and you're just making it up.
> That word right there is the key to your argument. What do you mean by needed? If you mean to sustain the population without degrading it then yes, there is plenty of science. Not the least of which is this latest study from the DNR. If you mean something else you should make that clear and I'll address your philosophy.
> Except every biologist didn't say that. Unlike the UP study where all the biologists actually did agree.
> They're not the majority. Just because you have a thing you have in your head doesn't make it a fact. You'll know doubt be surprised to learn that the % who fly fish and the % who bait fish are nearly identical, a few more fly fish. Keep reading my posts to have your philosophy destroyed.


 . I have Asked multiple times for a percentage. The fact you say that it is close to 50 50 is laughable. And the numbers you posted add up to over 250 percent lol. Show your resource for that. Funny that i work at a retail sporting goods store and our least asked for thing is fly rods...reels. We sell more pins and push buttons than fly stuff. Not that we dont have a selection. You just seem to make up fantasys in your head to make you feel better about you being the only one on this thread supporting your veiw.


----------



## kzoofisher

Sparky23 said:


> . I have Asked multiple times for a percentage. The fact you say that it is close to 50 50 is laughable. And the numbers you posted add up to over 250 percent lol. Show your resource for that. Funny that i work at a retail sporting goods store and our least asked for thing is fly rods...reels. We sell more pins and push buttons than fly stuff. Not that we dont have a selection. You just seem to make up fantasys in your head to make you feel better about you being the only one on this thread supporting your veiw.


It’s all in the link, a report from the Michigan DNR. Read it for yourself. I’ll save you a little reading since you don’t seem to like it too much, when you get to the report skip on down to page 50 or so and look at the table. Pro tip when you’re doing the math for yourself, some people use more than one method to catch fish. Actually, considering the number of posters here who say they fly fish (but hate flies only) I really don’t know why you’re surprised.


----------



## 357Maximum

swampbuck said:


> I guess, it will just be up to the locals at night to keep the population in check, with their spinning rods and a box of #12 pink nighty's



It's a good thing I ain't a local. I would be collecting and saving every black walnut I could get my hands on every fall.


----------



## JAA

*kzoofisher  :coco: *_ *How come you don't have any Likes on this forum** subject?? **Crawl under a Rock Please! ** 
swampbuck said: ↑
I guess, it will just be up to the locals at night to keep the population in check, with their spinning rods and a box of #12 pink nighty's, Or spinners like I use. because 


swampbuck said:



everyone having to purchase a trout stamp now, could be a strong argument against gear restrictions

Click to expand...

*_


----------



## kzoofisher

toto, you and I have been discussing the Grayling fish farm and the DEQ’s failure in several threads* and I’ve stated my opinion on the danger to the liveries and fishing and all related businesses that depend on those attractions. Your tunnel vision keeps you from seeing anything but gear restrictions. That’s not my problem. 

*New NRC commissioner and fish farm meeting threads most recently


----------



## Steve

I didn't say it was the reason for the restriction. What I said was the restriction does not preclude anyone from taking part. 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Ranger Ray

If you use bait it does.


----------



## Steve

Ranger Ray said:


> If you use bait it does.


Use the gear required by the law and you can fish. Thats like saying because you can't use a lead weighted treble hook and snag salmon that you can't fish for them. 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Ranger Ray

The argument isn't everyone can learn to fly fish, to fish flies only waters. Or pickup hardware fishing to fish the gear restricted waters. It's why should they have to. Sorry if I don't think, because a special interest wants me to, is a good enough reason. Especially now that we are mandated to manage by science. You show me a study where fly fishing only water is needed for the preservation of the fisheries, I'll be all for it. There is absolutely no reason I can longer fish my favorite spot on the PM with bait other than some special interest wanted it. When the head of the steelheaders sits before the NRC and said the organization was dupped into going along with the last round of gear restrictions. Everyone should take notice. But hey, we should just go along with it, because we can pick up the gear a small minority wants us to. That's the type of game management I want in Michigan, dupe the people into passing special interests wants. Nice.

Last I checked, snagging was an illegal means of fishing for all, in all waters. Bait fishing isn't.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

I believe "the most recent study" referenced here a few times was the one released last year, on the experimental "10 Limit" Brook Trout streams. That study had a pretty big hole in it that should have been obvious to anyone. If you put a special higher limit on fish in a stream and then advertise it in the fishing regulations and elsewhere (included a small media campaign when the special reg came out) - did you then attract more fishermen to the special reg stream, as compared to a "control" stream somewhere else? Hey folks, check out this stream - it's got so many Brookies in it, we will let you keep 10 of them. There wasn't actually a whole lot of data from actual electro surveys in that study either.

But that question was settled by the NRC; now we will have 30-ish steam segments in the U.P. with a limit of 10. And thus require more map reading and planning for this wonderfully complex deal called "Trout Fishing." But I think Brook Trout will survive just fine.


All we can do is share anecdotes, but I too fished a higher limit stream for the last five years running, and found it only got better and better. You can bank on catching a legal brookie within minutes of parking a vehicle, because you can catch one while still standing on the public road. If you know what you are doing.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

This thread started with the news of the results of a big study/poll of Trout Fishermen, one I had never heard of. That was published in February as DNR Fisheries Report #29.


Today comes news of DNR Fisheries Report #30 - "Management Plan for Inland Trout in Michigan." I received a copy in my email today. 87 more pages I look forward to reading, but don't know when. I would hook you up with a link to it, but the only one I can find is a draft version. There has even been some press on it around Michigan already (DNR press release I would think), but those articles also have a poor link back to a page for Fisheries without a link to the final, published version. Probably this will be fixed tomorrow I think. Might well could be worth it's own thread when it happens.


----------



## toto

Ok so bait fisherpeople should go out and buy fly fishing equipment, when they don't want to, not because of cost.The reason they should? Because those that have all the power, and much better financial resources said we should, not because the fish are in jeopardy, it's just that we (the elite) look in the mirror and swear to God they look more like Brad Pitt everyday, sounds like a good reason to fly fish to me. BTW, sarcasm alert.


----------



## Sparky23

It isnt the can i biy amd learn ot why does a small group get what they want with money and power...that continues to try to expand with no research backing it. And yes u can get a spinning combo for less tham a fly combo


----------



## crazydrake

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/12/michigan_dnre_shows_good_faith.html


----------



## PunyTrout

I think many readers here are familiar with the now considered a classic, Bob Clouser's Deep Minnow fly. Which, many have fished in flies-only regulated streams and rivers like the PM or elsewhere. Here is an example:








It has been argued in the past that this illustrious fish catcher should be classified as a _Jig, _not a fly.

Now there are products for fly tyers to use such as this:










Are these streamers also considered to be legal flies to be used in flies-only regulated streams?

My question is: What makes this an acceptable fly for flies-only streams?

Why can't a kid who lives on the outskirts of Idlewild in Lake County take his fishing pole and use a _jig_ with a bit of bucktail or marabou _or a rubber twister tail _attached and go fish the flies-only section on the Pere Marquette?

Yet, a guy who lives hundreds of miles away can roll up in a Land Rover with a streamer like those pictured above that is _essentially a jig_ and get away with fishing there no problem.
_
What's up with that?_


----------



## crazydrake

http://utdr.utoledo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2063&context=theses-dissertations


----------



## toto

And your point crazy drake, is what?


----------



## crazydrake

toto said:


> And your point crazy drake, is what?


 No point...I just thought some may find these links interesting reads....I refrain comment on this subject, because I am not educated or knowledgeable enough on this subject....Ive been a member of this site since its inception. I come to this site to gain, give and share information . I don't post often, because I don't get out often enough to give any "real time" reports. Side note , I do miss Milton Whitmore's opening day trout report.
I could be wrong , but it seems to me that special regulations waters were instituted after a small group or single person was fortunate enough to purchase large parcels of land with river frontage. Then after doing so , in the name of "conservation" , managed to get special regs instituted for their specific river segment. I could be wrong, and probably am. But, its not that big of a stretch to think that "they" wanted special regs to reduce traffic in these sections, in order to benefit "them". 
If science proves that a increase or decrease in creel limits benefits the overall "health" of a river, then changes should be made. If science supports increasing special regs or abolishing them altogether, then changes should be made as well. Who doesn't want whats best for the overall health of our rivers, forest, and environment ? 
Apparently testing has been done, data gathered, reports made, census provided. But, with all this information provided , people are using and interpreting this data differently. Hence, that is why there is still debate, bickering on this subject.
At the end of it all, I wish there was some concrete numbers, facts, and science provided, that was more cut and dry.... Simply put , if "facts are facts" , changes should or shouldn't be made.


----------



## PunyTrout

crazydrake said:


> I do miss Milton Whitmore's opening day trout report.


Anyone who _doesn't_ miss Whit1's Trout Opener threads should be taken out back and flogged...


----------



## toto

I'll tell him you said so. Milty doesn't get out as much anymore, but maybe I can talk him into a story or two, believe me, stories he's got. Just do me one favor, DO NOT ask him about floating spawn bags.


----------



## PunyTrout

Re: Whit1’s Trout Opener Threads

We now have roughly 2 weeks to go before the traditional Trout Opener for Type 1 streams. With that in mind, here is an homage to Whit1’s Trout Opener Threads for those who aren’t familiar… A little bit of memory lane. 

https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/the-58th.420946/#post-4103303

https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/one-week-to-go.182279/#post-1601681

https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/opening-day-report.18040/#post-129790

Time to get your gear ready.

I would have posted this in the Northwest forum but, this is as good a place since the topic was brought up here.


----------



## 6Speed

I feel fortunate to have met Whit many years ago when this site was young. The threads were much better back then. Less anger and better prose...LOL outings we're crazy too.


----------



## 6Speed

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/index.php?threads/18040/

I bumped this 2002 thread and encourage the guys posting on this current thread to take a trip back in time and read it before the opener. Good luck and tight lines to all, even the fly dunkers!


----------



## mondrella

The great Whit! I never got the chance to fish with him. Something always came up and our trips did not happen. We talked many times. His opening day hole I have fished many many times always leaving it opening day to him. I bought his Dryfly boat from him when he decided to part with it. It sees much use by my son. While I fish from mine.


----------

