Any news on the releasing of fish on the Little Man.

[sparty09]

Does anyone have any news on the releasing of fish on the little Man.

[Vicious Fishous]

At least a month and a half

[dinoday]

At least a month and a half

:cwm27::one_eye:

[Chip]

You should release those fish, they are the broodstock for most of the GL region.

[Belongtothewoods]

Saw a DNR fish planting truck on 131 the other day, not sure where he was headed tho. I got off at cedar springs and he kept going.

[sparty09]

Any fish released from weir up stream

[Whit1]

You should release those fish, they are the broodstock for most of the GL region.

As for the Little Manistee R. you would not be totally correct. The "broodstock" comes from eggs taken at the DNR's egg taking station at the weir. Yes, the little river is a natural spawning stream for steelheads, but as for the "broodstock" those eggs and milt are taken at the weir.

Fish that anglers catch may be kept at the discretion of said angler and the laws of daily limit and possession. These laws are set after evaluation of the resource by qualified and competent DNR fisheries personnel.

As oppposed to what happens on other outdoor sites here in MS we won't have members getting on others for posting reports and keeping fish as long as they are within the laws of the state.

[Chip]

I stand corrected. Actually, I have kept fish from the Little Man before and have no problems with anyone who wants to take home some of their catch. My comment was basically a smart a** play on words.

To actually answer the original question of the post, in the manner the poster most likely intended:

1. The fish can now move freely up and down the whole system.

2. If you are ever curious about DNR operations, go on the DNR website and you can find numbers to call for the information you want.

Take care,
Chip

[direwolf23]

I stand corrected. Actually, I have kept fish from the Little Man before and have no problems with anyone who wants to take home some of their catch. My comment was basically a smart a** play on words.

To actually answer the original question of the post, in the manner the poster most likely intended:

1. The fish can now move freely up and down the whole system.

2. If you are ever curious about DNR operations, go on the DNR website and you can find numbers to call for the information you want.

Take care,
Chip

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_19092-51534--,00.html

Sounds like the weir is out and that they have passed 3700 fish. Better than the last two years.

[Treven]

Out of sheer curiosity, why would people want to kill fish out of the Little Manistee? Unless they are ignorant to the fact that the Little is one of VERY few rivers that is not stocked and the returns are natural fish...

Legally you can kill fish from that river, ethically you cannot IMO if you respect one of the few gems of the GL region. Also, please please please be nice to the smolts! Do not take them out of the water, do not touch them in any way, use a hemostat and gently release them back to the river unharmed, they are our future.

BTW, who ever I saw last weekend with a pantyhose full of eggs (size of a mini basket ball :yikes:), I gave the DNR a ring for you!

What happened to conservation? I kill a few fish, out of the upper Big Man. Have some foresight into the future people:rolleyes:

Trev

[Whit1]

Legally you can kill fish from that river, ethically you cannot IMO if you respect one of the few gems of the GL region. Also, please please please be nice to the smolts! Do not take them out of the water, do not touch them in any way, use a hemostat and gently release them back to the river unharmed, they are our future.

Trev

So, if I legally keep a fish that I legally catch out of the Little Manistee R. I am unethical? That's quite a stretch you're making with that accusation. While in your mind your ethics are noble they do not necessarily apply to others and if someone doesn't follow your interpretation of ethics they are "unethical"? I think not.

If I do keep a fish then I don't "respect" the river? Trout fishing? Again this is quite a step you're taking there and one whose first footfall is trodding upon uncertain ground.

As for your accusations of being unethical and lacking in respect, as they apply to me and many other anglers who fish the Little Manistee they would be highly inaccurate.

The Little River is not planted with steelheads, that is true. It is, however, an excellent nursery stream and it has been determined by the DNR's fisheries biologists to be able to handle the limits as set by the DNR.

Shocking data from the Little River have shown it to be well supplied with upland trout other than the migratory steelheads and the data supports the present daily limit and possession regulations.

[skipper34]

Whit, I think this has gotten off topic. The original post, the way I read it, concerns the amount of fish that have been released over the weir. A few posts ago, there was mention of the number of fish passed by the DNR. Correct me if I am wrong?

[DryFly]

[QUOTE=Treven;2100090]Out of sheer curiosity, why would people want to kill fish out of the Little Manistee?

I do not know you my friend but hats off to your post!;);)

Yes the Little M is not stocked and is one of our few wild fish rivers.
The Steelhead eggs taken here are the sole source for stocking all over Michigan and other states.

If one really feels it necessary to kill a few fish, why not go to the Big M, PM or Muskegon?

Remember there are MANY POLITICS involved along with scientific data used to set limits and restrictions.

A few years ago the DNR wildlife biologists and other experts also set the deer hunting regulations and allowed a person to purchase as many doe permits as they wanted as long as it was only one per day. They damn near wiped out the deer herd in Lake County. Then after realizing something was wrong, since then there has been no application drawn or over the counter doe permits issued. Humm??

Catch and Release will only make this good river BETTER:)

[DrEw8716]

:yeahthat: Look at rivers in Colorado or other states that do catch and release. The fishing is outstanding. Maybe if we made a few rivers catch and release only, people would see the big difference. I think we can all agree that fishing is more about fishing, and not eating.

[Splitshot]

I had the same question when they changed the upstream limits for the early opener a couple of years ago. My question to Mr. Tonello was; “What sense does it make to open up the heart of Little Manistee spawning area while the fish are still spawning?” Mr. Tonello is one of the fish biologist from the Cadillac district and he told me there was nothing to be concerned about. Like Dryfly, I have a place on the Little Manistee only on that exact section.

Like Dave, I am sure some arms in Lansing were twisted since my neighbors the Indian Club were pushing for these regulations. I didn’t like it, I don’t like it, but I stand behind our fish biologist. I am pretty sure the rule wouldn’t have been changed without the pressure, but I also know that if Mr. Tonello or Mr. Rozich felt there was any danger to our steelhead stocks they would have not allowed it to happen.


DrEw8716,

The main reason it is easier to catch trout on our western rivers has very little to do with no kill regulations. Insects form a much larger part of the trouts diet in western rivers than our rivers in Michigan. The character of those rivers are quite different as well.

Some of our rivers hold more trout per acre than some of those western rivers as well and flyfishing is still much more challenging even where there is less pressure.

The main reason it is easier to catch trout where “No Kill” regulations are applied is because of the easy fish. In streams where one is allowed to keep trout, the first fish to be taken are the easy fish. The dumb ones if you will that one could catch over and over as is evidenced in places like the “Holy Waters” of the Au Sable. It kind of contradicts the idea that people fly fish because it is more challenging.

In the end, eating trout is healthy, a great tradition and a wonderful way to share your outdoor experience when your friends are enjoying a very special treat. Besides rules are set so that only the excess fish are utilized. Since trout fishing in Michigan is better than I can remember since I first wetted a line in the late forties, there seems to be no case for “No Kill” regulations. Of course I understand the justification for people who otherwise couldn’t catch fish without a crutch, but that is exactly why we have pay by the inch trout ponds.

[TC-fisherman]

regarding "ethics" and fishing in the little manistee (at least for browns)
from the dnr status of the fishery report
One interesting phenomenon regarding the brown trout population in the Little Manistee River is the number of large brown trout caught in recent years. In 1981, during the marking runs at all six stations, a total of eight brown trout larger than 15 inches were caught. In contrast, 31 brown trout larger than 15 inches were caught during the marking runs at each of the six stations in 1995, and a total of 81 brown trout larger than 15 inches (seven of which were larger than 20 inches) were caught during the marking runs at the six stations in 2002. It is unclear why there were more large brown trout in the population in 2002, but it may have to do with fishing regulations, ethics, or a combination of the two. In 2000, trout fishing regulations in Michigan became more restrictive. Although the majority of the survey stations have been under flies-only regulations since 1973, they had a five fish daily bag limit and an 8 inch minimum size limit on brown trout. In 2000, the regulation for brown trout switched to a two fish daily bag limit and a 15 inch minimum size limit. Also, anglers may presently release more trout than they did in years past, allowing fish to live longer and grow to a larger size. Finally, the increase in large brown trout may be due to weather-related phenomenon

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2005-8_Little-Manistee_River_144067_7.pdf

[DryFly]

regarding "ethics" and fishing in the little manistee (at least for browns)
from the dnr status of the fishery report


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2005-8_Little-Manistee_River_144067_7.pdf

Interesting.
I have to go along with this scientific data.

I live on, and for the last 12+ years have worked on restoration and protecting the Little M. It is very dear to my heart.

My intentions are not to rehash the "catch & release" debate. It has been proven that each of us have opinions that will never be changed. This is ok.

I do keep an occasional fish and right now there are 2 steelhead basking in my smoker:corkysm55

I just believe that each of us needs to be conservation minded and leave some for our grandchildren.
To continue to take all you can when ever you can, is a policy that will ruin our fishery.

Along with the "scientific data" listed in the previous post, I have my own personal data. Scientific, I'm not sure but honest and practical, you betcha.

As stated, I live on a very nice stretch of the little M and fish it a lot. I usually do not fish many of the other parts of the river that are not within walking distance up and down stream from my house. Being retired, I fish a lot. I know when conditions are right and where to go to catch browns. I know where the big ones live and where you will only catch smaller fish. I know every hole, log jam, which ones are open at the bottom and which have snags. I know best where the bigger fish hide. I can walk up and down the river in the dead of night and know how to avoid things under water that will cause you to trip and stumble if not careful. I walk the river daily and have a very good handle on what is going on.

I say this to prove my point. Knowing the conditions above, I'm aware of major changes in the fishery.

I recall a few times over the past years where after a good rain when the water rises and becomes dirty, when it was very easy to catch Browns, there were a group of guys who came in and fished hard with crawlers, the easiest way to catch the vulnerable Browns after a rain. I'm not against fishing with crawlers and everyone to his own. I'm not condemning bait fishermen, but I have found that this classification of fisher people have a tendency to keep every fish they can and the largest ones to boot, rather than limiting their catches.

In each of these situations, the large Browns were eliminated from the area I know so very well. I'm not just talking about me or others that I know who regularly fish the area, not catching big Browns the day or 2 after the slaughter, but for the rest of the year. The large fish population would slowly came back in a couple of years.
This personal observation has happened a few times times in my area in the last 20 years.
With no fish being stocked and the large bread stock being removed, this will and does happen.
It's a no brainer.

I have friends on both side of this issue and do not want to offend anyone, just give you my personal experiences.

[Splitshot]

I don’t believe that we should lobby the DNR to take any action except what good science dictates. The weir is an experiment to block lamprey eels from getting into the spawning areas of the river and prevent their reproduction. All of us should know the devastation that is caused by them. If we can find a way to defeat the lamprey without chemicals like TFM we should exhaust all our resources until we find the best solution. Although TFM is an excellent way to treat our rivers and streams, it still has side effects. The fact that it kills mayfly larvae if reason enough to continue to try to replace it with this low voltage weir.

The fact that you recommend more “no kill” tells me you are more interested for business reasons than for the fishery. No kill is the worst of all special regulations and studies show that it adversely affects the quality of brown trout. No kill is a regulation that turns sections of our rivers into little trout ponds similar to those that you pay by the inch to fish. The only difference is that some people are fooled because it implemented in a section of river that makes it seem wild. The main reason for this social rule is to provide a crutch to fishermen who otherwise would have a difficult time hooking a trout. Even in this environment many find it difficult.

I don’t support any regulations that are meant just for a special group of fishermen or businessmen. As far as the weir, I hope they continue to try and solve the problems until the scientist believe it has run it’s course. As you said, fish are a little reluctant but are passing through it both up and down stream. Just like any dam this weir holds the fish for a while and offers an excellent opportunity for fishermen to hook up.
[QUOTE=Steve@BBT;2100450]Ray, I actually really like you, even if you do occasionally kill off some of my very best friends in some of the best rivers, but wow, what a contradiction in statement all in one paragraph...

Even if I am "more interested for business reasons" why would it then be "than for the fishery"??? Aren't they one in the same?!?!?!? Duhhhh....

The FACT is I love this river with all of my heart, it is second to only my immediate family, even if it wasn't my living, but even more so because it is! That alone should tell you I have nothing but the best interest of the PM and it's fishery in mind no matter what I say or do, but to this, you are apparently blind.

I will not sit here and debate the merits of special regs or anything else for that matter with you as we are all well aware of your feelings in the matter, but that has to be the silliest thing I've ever seen you post. I honestly do appreciate the input for everyone to see and have a great season!
Steve,

Thanks, and I didn’t mean anything personal and I’m also not interested is some internet argument, but it seems a couple of things need to be cleared up.

First last year I spent about 55 full days trout fishing on almost all the rivers in our area. I didn’t keep track, but I’d guess I kept 30 trout and almost all of them were between 12 and 18". Most of those went to my mom and a few of her friends.

When I fish the PM especially in winter, I don’t keep any fish and honestly I don’t because there is not a great abundance of fish in the system in winter and it could make a difference for another winter fisherman. I didn’t keep any steelhead last year or this year except for a July fish and I caught that at Tippy.

It is no secret that the PM has one of the best populations of brown trout over 18" except for perhaps the Little Manistee. Since they no longer plant browns in the Little Manistee, I like it better because all the trout are wild. I’d actually say the fishing on almost all the rivers is better than I can ever remember except my favorite river the Pine, so ‘No Kill” regulations are unnecessary unless you want to actinically keep the numbers of trout higher and keep all the easy fish in the system.

In spite no planting in the Pine, the Pine is still one of the best trout rivers, but not for trout over 18" and not nearly as good as it was 6 years ago. Part of the reason is there is much more pressure on the Pine than even 4 years ago, but the fishery is sound and sport fishing with current limits will never threaten that fishery.

The bottom line is in areas like the flies only on the PM and the Pine and the Little Manistee are not planted and the populations were self sustaining even before the “no kill” regulations on the PM flies only stretch. The reason is there were many stream improvements on this section and if I recall over a million dollars of our money was spent. There are areas of the PM and Little Manistee that are not very good fishing but the reason is almost always the habitat.

Even in sections of the PM where they plant trout, the ones that are not taken out by fishermen won’t make it because there is not enough food or cover. One can love the river all he wants, but changing the regulations like in the case mentioned above makes little sense if the fish aren’t going to make it anyways.

If you want better sustained fishing and a healthy fishery the best way to do it is work to improve the habitat. That is one of the goals of the PM Watershed council even though some in that organization want to change the regulations for their special group as soon as the work get done as evidenced by the flies only no kill section.

In this section of the PM, the trout populations were holding steady even before Mr. Rozich recommended “no kill” and that was long after they stopped stocking trout there. Studies show that brown trout will on average get smaller as numbers rise. I don’t see how that helps anything. Well except those easy fish don’t get taken out of the system which makes it easier for the sports to hook one. Some fish if hooked once will be very difficult to trick again with the same tactic but some fish you could catch 3 or 4 times a week or even a couple of times a day perhaps because they just don’t seem to learn.

That is why I made the comparison with the trout ponds. This is the best scenario for people who guide and all the Brad Pitts of the world, but there is something very distasteful and phony about it to me. I get that same bad taste in my mouth when I see guides coaching clients to line fish and then congratulating them after the fact with high fives, pictures and all the other praises.

I am not being critical, because I don’t know what I would do if feeding my family depended on some sport catching a fish or not. Lord knows I have fished with a lot of rookies that can’t catch on with me looking over their shoulder. There is a learning curve and mostly I have patience with people I take fishing because I like them. I can’t imagine how I would deal with some sport telling me how to do it because he is a world class fisherman who has fished all over the world. So I have some empathy and understand the pressure, but disagree with the course of action.

The best way we can protect the fishery and the river is to restore it back to the pre logging days. Work with the watershed and pick a section of river get the permits, make a plan to work on habitat and create some fish structure, stop erosion on one of the open sores and otherwise provide a better environment for the fish and there will be no need for flies only or no kill as there will be plenty of fish for everyone. I know this is a lot harder to organize than a cleanup, but the benefits and satisfaction will be a lot greater.
TC,

I guess your ignore button isn’t working to well. Lol Individual ethics are not the same as being ethical as if people who release fish are somehow more ethical or care more about the fishery then people who keep some for consumption.

It is too bad that little survey didn’t include me as it would reflect a far different picture. Since I know the DNR does not survey individual fishermen on the stretch in question the information probably came from the Indian Club whose members only fly fish.

I have been fishing that section of river since the fifties and can tell you this has always been big fish water. Even before this survey I was catching trout over 25" on a regular basis. About 4 or 5 years ago I kept a brown that was 27" to have mounted, and one of the members of the club questioned me as to why I kept it. He didn’t think I should have taken this big fish out of the system.

He was a younger member and my question to him was about the club rule. The club rule is they can only keep a brown if it is 24" or bigger and I also know none of the club member have caught one that big in close to 20 years. That section is flies only and I think it bothers them that I won’t tell them how I catch those big browns every year.

It is funny the question of ethics is raised in this context because this section of river was not always flies only. The club made a deal with the DNR to make it flies only. The deal was the club would allow the public access by foot to their roads in return for the flies only designation. Someone tossed a picnic table into the river from their property and the club decided that was enough so they went back on the agreement and blocked public access. How about that for being ethical.

I’ll give you another example of club ethics. One day I was fishing up river and a couple of club members pulled up in a truck got their gear on watched me for a minute then asked me what fly I was using and stepped into the river right in the spot my fly touched the water and began fishing upstream. I was a little ticked off, but decided it wasn’t worth a confrontation so I got out of the river and walked a couple hundred yards upstream where another member started screaming that I was trespassing on private property.

I walked right over and stepped into the river next to him and asked if he would rather I walk upstream through where he would be fishing like I should have done to his other two pals or walk around like a gentleman. All he said was walk around but don’t dally on club property. Maybe those are the ethics they were referring too in the article. I don’t know.

A person can access the river from both ends of the 3 mile club property, but it takes a lot of effort. I had walked upstream for more than a mile before they creek jumped me as if owning the land gave them special privileges to the river. A few years ago they lobbied the DNR for a “no kill” designation, but settled for the new trophy designation on a 2 fish over 15" limit.

I agree with this rule change only because this river has all the ingredients necessary to produce trophy fish so it makes sense. It doesn’t make much difference since very few people fish there including club members and from the few I have watched I wouldn’t be too worried if I were a fish.

I joined this web-site in 2000 and one year since then I remember landing over 30 browns from this river over 20 inches. Seven of those came in one day when conditions were perfect. Maybe I should go to my logs and send it to the DNR so they can provide a better picture of this section of river.

It takes much more effort to target big fish and these days I fish an easier method. I had perhaps my best year ever last year in terms of numbers, but I only recall one fish over 20". This year I’ll be fishing the same way, but I expect it will be a better year as I will be living on the river full time starting next month. I won’t be missing any more of those perfect days when conditions are just right.

The last statement in that report says; “Finally, the increase in large brown trout may be due to weather-related phenomenon.” That is a real understatement. When we had drought conditions a few years back the size of fish I was catching was smaller in all the rivers I fish and it was the same for the other guys I know as well. Low water less food and warmer temperatures, not good.

Dave,

I just read your post and find nothing you said that to disagree with. I also know those guys you are talking about and as far as we know they don’t keep more than their limit. It does take time for the big fish to recover, but this the way it always happens. It would be difficult to pass a law to not fish for x days after a rain just as it would be if you tried to stop night fishing during the Hex hatch. Bottom line is the fishery only takes a temporary hit but it always recovers.

Next time it rains, call me and we can go out during the week and sore mouth those fish so when these guys come up it will not be so easy for them.

[DryFly]

[QUOTE=Splitshot;
Dave,

I just read your post and find nothing you said that to disagree with. I also know those guys you are talking about and as far as we know they don’t keep more than their limit. It does take time for the big fish to recover, but this the way it always happens. It would be difficult to pass a law to not fish for x days after a rain just as it would be if you tried to stop night fishing during the Hex hatch. Bottom line is the fishery only takes a temporary hit but it always recovers.

[/QUOTE]

Each time these big fish were taken out of the system, it took years to get back to normal.

Possibly a slot limit would be better. Lower the daily limit and only one fish over 17". This might help the big breeders to live many years and carry on their genetics.:fish:

[Spawn Tosser]

I would say 10-15 inch slot limit and that would be fine. I am going camping on the Little Manistee in a few weekends with my father in law and a couple of his freinds to a spot we have been going for years. I'll be bringing my flyrod, but the river is pretty tight there so I will more than likely be using bait or spinners most of the time, and yes, we wil be keeping some of our catch for dinner Saturday night. Nothing better than fresh pan fried trout, and fried potatoes. We do only keep pictures of the big ones, and eat the smaller to medium size fish.

DryFly, you used to stop in to my shop by the airport in GR and buy stainless hardware for your boats I think, probably about 8 or 9 years ago? Glad to see your still building them!

[DryFly]

I would say 10-15 inch slot limit and that would be fine. We do only keep pictures of the big ones, and eat the smaller to medium size fish.

DryFly, you used to stop in to my shop by the airport in GR and buy stainless hardware for your boats I think, probably about 8 or 9 years ago? Glad to see your still building them!

I applaud your conservation efforts.
I do remember purchasing fasteners from you. If I reacll, your company started dealing exclusively with Steel Case and I had to go to your competition.

Good fishing and create some more memories with your camera. Who knows, you may catch that big one again when he gets a little bigger!

[Spawn Tosser]

I applaud your conservation efforts.
I do remember purchasing fasteners from you. If I reacll, your company started dealing exclusively with Steel Case and I had to go to your competition.

Good fishing and create some more memories with your camera. Who knows, you may catch that big one again when he gets a little bigger!

Yea, that was us. Brilliant business decision that was.

[DryFly]

Splitshot,
I finally had an opportunity to read all of your post. You are assuming that you know the guys at the Indian Club, but I'm not sure you really do.
I felt it necessary to come to their defense as I would do for you, if the situation came up.
I personally know almost every member and have worked, fished and socialized with them on many occasions over the last few years. I do not know of any other group that works as hard or donates more personal time and money towards restoring and protecting the river. They are a truly ethical, conservation minded group.
They own a part of the river and pay a lot of property taxes, I believe this gives them the right to post it against trespassing, especially when they have many members and family members who already fish the river.
They do not condemn anyone for keeping a fish every now and then. Individuals have kept some for a meal and some are mounted on the wall. You probably will not see anyone from the club post or brag on this web site about how many fish they catch or what size. To them it is a personal gratification, they need nothing more. Could this be why you think they do not know how to fish?
I asked some of the older members about them pushing the DNR to make the restrictions you mention and they do not recall any such action. They did tell me about a land swap and since the property they acquired was once open to the public, they would still allow it. This was not an agreement, and legally if it was, they could not close it off.
There are some very talented fly fishermen and I asked them if they fish other methods. Some do on certain occasions but I was told by many that at one time they fished with spinners and crawlers. I was told as time went on and they were catching many fish, they decided to make it a little more of a challenge and fly fish year around, not only the Hex hatch. To target a fish in a hole or run with a dry fly or streamer, usually resulted in less fish but more satisfaction. I guess I can relate to this.

You are correct about the DNR using scientific date to set regulations. Remember daily limit and possession go hand in hand. Someone who is a very good fisherman and fishes many days, some consecutively could cause this limit regulation to hurt the fishery. An individual who kills a daily limit probably will not eat all of those fish the next day. Therefore if he goes out the next day and again kills his limit, then he is in violation of the possession rule.
If the DNR took this practice into account for all fisher people, then I'm certain that they would have to make changes to protect the fishery.

Giving the fish away will side step the possession issue, but again is not good for the fishery. It is not fair for people to accept and consume fish that are given to them on a regular basis and not help support the sport by purchasing a fishing license.

So much for that.;)
When are you moving up to your place on the river permanently?


[QUOTE=Splitshot;2101338]
Since I know the DNR does not survey individual fishermen on the stretch in question the information probably came from the Indian Club whose members only fly fish.

I have been fishing that section of river since the fifties and can tell you this has always been big fish water. Even before this survey I was catching trout over 25" on a regular basis. About 4 or 5 years ago I kept a brown that was 27" to have mounted, and one of the members of the club questioned me as to why I kept it. He didn’t think I should have taken this big fish out of the system.

He was a younger member and my question to him was about the club rule. The club rule (there is no such rule)is they can only keep a brown if it is 24" or bigger and I also know none of the club member have caught one that big in close to 20 years.
Splitshot, how do you know this?Ho
That section is flies only and I think it bothers them that I won’t tell them how I catch those big browns every year. Hmmm

It is funny the question of ethics is raised in this context because this section of river was not always flies only. The club made a deal with the DNR to make it flies only.( Can you document this? They know nothing about it.) The deal was the club would allow the public access by foot to their roads in return for the flies only designation. Someone tossed a picnic table into the river from their property and the club decided that was enough so they went back on the agreement and blocked public access. How about that for being ethical.
The club at one time owned property above and below the old railroad bridge. The property below the railroad bridge is now public and runs along part of river road. The only deal that they made with the DNR was to do a land swap and give their property below the railroad bridge to the DNR in exchange for DNR property adjacent to the club property upstream from the bridge. They also allowed the public to enter their property to fish. You are correct, there was a lot of trashing and throwing tables in the river after the parties, so they finally closed it to the public. Similar to what other private property owners have done

A few years ago they lobbied the DNR for a “no kill” designation, but settled for the new trophy designation on a 2 fish over 15" limit.Club members are not aware of this and would not agree to it as some of them like to keep a fish every now and then. I have seen some mounted and a few were eaten. They never keep fish to give away.

It doesn’t make much difference since very few people fish there including club members and from the few I have watched I wouldn’t be too worried if I were a fish. I have fished with many of these guys and they are very good at it. Over the years I have learned a lot as many of these old timers 70- 80 years have been at it for a long time. They do know how to catch big fish.

[Splitshot]

Dave,

I find it very interesting that you would have a conversation about what I said about the Indian Club with some of its members and then defend them without first talking to me before posting their intemperatation.

I am very careful not to say things unless I’m not pretty sure they are accurate. I have many sources including some who were involved first hand in some recent rule changes and decisions made about the land swap many years ago. All I can say, is it was a hell of a deal for the club. They gave up some marginal trout water that had easy access because of the adjacent public road for some of the best water on the river where access is very limited but that just shows how resourceful they are.

Many people who live around there predicted that they would find a way to stop the public from using their roads and were not at all surprised when it happened. You said; “They own a part of the river and pay a lot of property taxes, you believe this gives them the right to post it against trespassing, especially when they have many members and family members who already fish the river.”

Dave, I agree they have the right to post against trespassing but I also feel it necessary to correct part of your statement about owning part of the river. Neither you nor I nor the Indian Club own the river but perhaps this misunderstanding about ownership of the land adjacent to the river is why you were complaining about legal fishermen in an earlier post keeping some of the bigger brown trout and maybe you should re-read the part of my post where they took over the river starting at the end of my cast. I noticed you didn’t try to defend that action, perhaps again because you didn’t think they needed defending because like them you think owning the land near the river gives you special rights to the river. Why else would an ethical club member enter the water and start fishing immediately in front of another fisherman?

However I agree with you about most of the members being ethical and conservation minded and spending a lot of money for it’s upkeep. It certainly wouldn’t be fair to group them all in with the guys who ended my fishing day. Most of my encounters on that stretch of river with members have been very pleasant and cordial although they have been far and few between.

Maybe the 24" rule was not a formal one, but perhaps an understanding between members, but I have heard it from several members and others who have been allowed to fish from club property for many years. but really what difference does that make. None really. I agree with you that my remark about their fishing skills was out of line so I take that one back as it was very subjective.

I think your statement about giving fish away as being somehow unethical or as you put it sidestepping the possession rule is truly a lapse in judgement on your part. It is the same attitude we often see coming from people who think killing trout is not what fishermen should be doing. By taking that position in your view anyone who shares a fish dinner with friends and family is morally flawed and then you compound it by saying that by giving fish away is somehow not good for the fishery.

The answer to your other question is we should be moved in permanently by the 1st of June.

[duxdog]

I remember the days of the 5 fish limit. I remember dragging 5 fish down the river every time I fished:sad:. And everyone that was with me also. Maybe it was an ego thing I don't know. I am not all that convinced the DNR knows what is best for the fishery or the hunting in this state for that matter. I think it should be NO KILL on all female steelhead and Salmon. and a two fish limit. How many more do you need anyway? It is sad to see guys dragging 3 hens down the bank. If we still kept fish, we would take several hundred at least a year out of the system. I think there were 5 males kept all season.

[DryFly]

I certainly would not and did not go behind your back on this issue.
You stated things that I thought were not accurate and when the opportunity arose, I asked some of the members about it. I did not mention your name. You posted what you thought and I responded with what they told me.
If I would have talked to you first would you have changed what you said?
I certainly do not want to offend anyone but both sides of this issue should be on the table and now they are.

You are right they did get a hell of a deal, that is why they went for it. The deal was the deal and did not allow for the property to be open for public use.
No one owns the river and it is there for all to use. It becomes an issue when people trespass across private land to get into the river.

It sounds like you ran into a jerk while fishing the river that runs through the club property. No excuse for this but I would guess that he was fed up with the trespassing that goes on. Not many people will walk up the river to fish,
they go across land. This should not be a problem with the increased patrolling that is going on. I witnessed members being very cordial to fishermen who are fly fishing in the river. I have also seen trespassers and those fishing with spinners and bait in this flys only section get hassled.


A fish dinner with friends and family, who do not buy licenses should not be a problem, but giving fish away on a regular basis so one can go out the next day and again keep their limit again (because they have none in possession), is just not right. It is the fees from licensed fisher people that support our sport.
Too many times I have seen guys with their limit in coolers or on stringers and when they are done fishing, ask if anyone wants some fish. Especially with Steelhead and Browns. In my opinion, if they did not want the fish in the first place, why did they kill them?
Maybe they have an need for the attention or recognition that they can catch fish.

To each his own, unless the law says differently, but some of us have differing opinions.;)

Dave,
I find it very interesting that you would have a conversation about what I said about the Indian Club with some of its members and then defend them without first talking to me before posting their intemperatation.

I am very careful not to say things unless I’m not pretty sure they are accurate. I have many sources including some who were involved first hand in some recent rule changes and decisions made about the land swap many years ago. All I can say, is it was a hell of a deal for the club. They gave up some marginal trout water that had easy access because of the adjacent public road for some of the best water on the river where access is very limited but that just shows how resourceful they are.

Many people who live around there predicted that they would find a way to stop the public from using their roads and were not at all surprised when it happened. You said; “They own a part of the river and pay a lot of property taxes, you believe this gives them the right to post it against trespassing, especially when they have many members and family members who already fish the river.”

Dave, I agree they have the right to post against trespassing but I also feel it necessary to correct part of your statement about owning part of the river. Neither you nor I nor the Indian Club own the river but perhaps this misunderstanding about ownership of the land adjacent to the river is why you were complaining about legal fishermen in an earlier post keeping some of the bigger brown trout and maybe you should re-read the part of my post where they took over the river starting at the end of my cast. I noticed you didn’t try to defend that action, perhaps again because you didn’t think they needed defending because like them you think owning the land near the river gives you special rights to the river. Why else would an ethical club member enter the water and start fishing immediately in front of another fisherman?

However I agree with you about most of the members being ethical and conservation minded and spending a lot of money for it’s upkeep. It certainly wouldn’t be fair to group them all in with the guys who ended my fishing day. Most of my encounters on that stretch of river with members have been very pleasant and cordial although they have been far and few between.

Maybe the 24" rule was not a formal one, but perhaps an understanding between members, but I have heard it from several members and others who have been allowed to fish from club property for many years. but really what difference does that make. None really. I agree with you that my remark about their fishing skills was out of line so I take that one back as it was very subjective.

I think your statement about giving fish away as being somehow unethical or as you put it sidestepping the possession rule is truly a lapse in judgement on your part. It is the same attitude we often see coming from people who think killing trout is not what fishermen should be doing. By taking that position in your view anyone who shares a fish dinner with friends and family is morally flawed and then you compound it by saying that by giving fish away is somehow not good for the fishery.

The answer to your other question is we should be moved in permanently by the 1st of June.

[Splitshot]

Like I said Dave, I find it interesting that you take what club members say at face value, and question what I said and then ask the question; If I would have talked to you first would you have changed what you said? I get it Dave. You seem to hint that I am the trespasser, that I engage in illegal methods and complain that I have a need for attention or recognition because I can catch fish. It is more than innuendo to me. On one of your first posts in this thread you say you seldom fish parts of the river not within walking distance of your place, but when it suits your purposes, you know many of the club members as you fish with them often.

Actually if members of the Indian Club took issue with what I said, don’t you think they should have said something. I don’t understand why you feel compelled to defend them when the only information you have is what they tell you. Perhaps you enjoy hanging out with the club guys and you think attacking the guy who would have the audacity keep a trophy trout from their river will put you in good stead with them. Do you honestly think a bunch of lawyers, doctors or whatever need you to defend them.

When I was 15, I rode my bike ten miles from Dublin to Indian Bridge. I almost always fished upstream, but that day I decided to fish downstream because someone said a friend had caught a decent trout down there. As I waded about 40 yards from the club headquarters on top of the hill, someone unloaded a high powered rifle into the river directly in front of me. They weren’t shooting at me, but the message was clear. Perhaps next time your over there you can ask them if they think that might have happened? Perhaps you might even get one of them to admit to it or even admit it might have happened.

Apparently things just happen on Indian Club property. Their new property is the best section of the Little Manistee and perhaps the best section of river in the state. It is a section of river I fished often as a kid since the sixties not just the last 12 years. I’m sure the DNR just decided to trade that section of river for a marginal section of river just because it sounded like a good idea to them.

Trout fishing for the general public opens the last Saturday in April to September 30 for all trout streams in the state except for the Little Manistee River from Spencer’s Bridge down stream where the season closed October 31. For some reason the DNR felt that it was good science to close all the other sections of rivers and streams in the state September 30 but allow the season to stay open on Indian Club property until the end of October.

Having decided that October 31 wasn’t long enough the DNR arbitrary without any influence from club members decided October 31 wasn’t long enough so they extended the season again until December 31 just a couple of years ago. No doubt because the DNR felt there was not enough pressure on the winter steelhead on Indian Club property.

Your stated opinion earlier in this thread Dave is steelhead should not be kept in this river since it is the main source of steelhead for the rest of the rivers in the state. I’m sure the members of the Indian Club were just as surprised as the rest of us when the season was lengenthed on in spring and fall and of course had no hand in lobbying for these rule changes.

In the last few years the DNR and again without any influence from the Indian Club members decided to change the status of this section to trophy waters and reduce the limit to 2 fish instead of 5. According to my sources, this section of the Little Manistee holds twice as many fish as the next best section of any river in the state. You know like it holds so many fish, that the DNR felt limits should be reduced even more.

So arguably the best public section of any river in our state is traded to a club made up of well to do members for some of the most marginal trout water. Instead of being open to all legal methods of fishing it is now only open to fly fishermen who represent 2% of the fishermen and women. On top of that the seasons have been changed and the regulations have been changed that seem to reflect the philosophy that most fly fishermen, agree with including you.

Not only do I feel cheated by the system, but so should every other fisherman in this state who will never have the opportunity to hook into a trophy brown trout in this section unless they do it with flies and that is not likely because as you have stated it is very difficult to access.

Next time you over at the club having a martini, why don’t you ask club members if you can review their log and see when the last 24" brown trout was caught. Most members should remember that the last time it happened, as 2 browns 24" or better were caught that day.

No there is no written record of the land deal because I spent a half day going through the DNR records a few years ago trying to piece together what really happened. As far as I know there is no written record of the deal to allow the public access on foot as part of the deal, but my question is why would the club even allowed the public to have access if there wasn’t some deal?

The people who made the deal are no longer with the Department, and even though I don’t have non refutable evidence, just try and convince anyone that club members had no influence in any of the decisions I just discussed and see how many people think it could have happened without smoke and mirrors.

Like you said, they did get a hell of a deal but please tell me how did the rest of the citizens of our state benefit? What part of this deal was good for them?

Even with my bum knee I would have no problem avoiding the increased patrols you mentioned, but I don’t have to trespass. I own 4 of your float boats remember and it is only a 10 minute drive from my house to Spencer’s Bridge and I doubt that even with their influence the club can get the DNR to change the designation of that section of river from navigable to non navigable. I think that any reasonable person who reads this little story, about the special treatment might come to the same conclusions I have no matter how hard you try to defend them.

As far as your other implication, your bias is really shows Dave. In my opinion, if they did not want the fish in the first place, why did they kill them? Maybe they have an need for the attention or recognition that they can catch fish.
Your meaning is clear and you are entitled to your opinion. I just wonder why you never asked me not to post the pictures I took of you.

Over the years here I have posted an average of 200+ pictures a year on this web-site and any one who post pictures knows it takes extra time and effort that goes beyond lugging a camera around and taking the time to take the picture in the first place. I think almost all do it because they want to share their success, story or adventure, not because of their need for recognition. Even before your post I have decided not to post as many pictures as I have in past years because I am fed up with dealing with the envy, jealously and criticism. I just wonder if you think I am seeking attention when I post a picture of a cooper’s hawk, a white deer or a porcupine or is it just posting pictures of fish you have a problem with? I apologize for having a picture of me holding a nice brown trout but I removed it today just for you.

As far as the club members, why don’t you direct them to this thread and if they take issue with anything I wrote they can ask me about it. They can do it through e-mail or send me a PM or just come over to the house. I am one of their closest neighbors.

[DryFly]

This started out as a debate about keeping some or all fish taken in the Little Manistee River.

Then it changed to condemning a private group of property owners about their philosophy on fishing and the claim that they pressured the DNR to change the rules for them.

My intention is not to make this personal but to debate the principals of limiting one's catch.

The club does not care about you or how many fish you catch. They do not want me to defend them and probably would rather me not say a thing.

I happen to have fished with you many times and also with them. Because of this I become aware of fishing habits on each side of the issue.

I do not lie or make up stories so you must let your concience be your guide.

I do not like and did not like you to post pictures of me catching fish on web sites. It is not important to me. If you recall the many times we fished together, I would be fighting a nice fish around the bend from you and you would come running with the camera and say "why did you let it go? You did not let me get a picture.

Why get your shorts in a bind over fishing regulations? You are a good all around fisherman and can catch your limit when ever you want. You also have all types of fishing equipment, so if it is open to be open to all methods or flys only, have at it and enjoy the day. ;)

[Tooters]

need a group hug.

[Fish Eye]

need a group hug.


Actually, I was going to suggest a duel with break action six shooters lol. At least we'd get rid of some "meat heads".

I did kill a nice eating size lake brown last weekend-6 pounder. Stream trout I release nice and gently. Just go catch a nice bucket of perch, maybe a walleye or two instead of killing a stream brown. Call me crazy. I'd just as soon be able to catch some Trout before global warming turns MI into MS.

[Whit1]

The original topic of this thread involved the releasing of fish/steelheads from the DNR egg taking wier on the Little Manistee. It was not, as it has morphed into (and I helped that morphing) into a catch and release of trout.

It has then moved onto other topics which are far removed from the author's purpose.

[skipper34]

Whit, you would probably agree that the egg-taking operations on the Little river are long over and that the steelhead are indeed passing the weir un-hindered as I type this. By the way, for the record, I was on the river last week and the run is pretty much over for this year from what I saw.

[DryFly]

Last weekend a few fish were being caught on the upper stretches of the river and some were fresh but you are correct, it is pretty much over. The fish that came up after they were "handled" at the weir, were quite spooky and did not want to take much of anything.

[Whit1]

The fish that came up after they were "handled" at the weir, were quite spooky and did not want to take much of anything.

Dave, I'd like to relate that in human terms, but I'd have to edit my own post............:lol:

[thousandcasts]

Dave, I'd like to relate that in human terms, but I'd have to edit my own post............:lol:

Well hey, if I were a male steelhead that got milked without having to pay for the cost of dating or what not, I'd be doing circles around that wier. Get released (pun intended), swim back downstream, back up the ladder and right back into the ponds again. Repeat as often as possible. That's what I'd do anyway...

[Whit1]

Well hey, if I were a male steelhead that got milked without having to pay for the cost of dating or what not, I'd be doing circles around that wier. Get released (pun intended), swim back downstream, back up the ladder and right back into the ponds again. Repeat as often as possible. That's what I'd do anyway...

Oh my gosh!!! :yikes: Edit! Edit! Edit!.......:tsk: :Modified_.........:lol: :lol:

[DryFly]

Good idea!
Problem is at my age, I could probably be good if I went through the weir once a day. You Younger guys could make the trip more often;)

Well hey, if I were a male steelhead that got milked without having to pay for the cost of dating or what not, I'd be doing circles around that wier. Get released (pun intended), swim back downstream, back up the ladder and right back into the ponds again. Repeat as often as possible. That's what I'd do anyway...

[DryFly]

[QUOTE=Fish Eye;2115569]Actually, I was going to suggest a duel with break action six shooters lol. At least we'd get rid of some "meat heads".

Splitshot and I are very opinionated people with very different ideas.

We got into a debate that became personal and should not have gone on as long as it did on this web site. For my part of this I apologize to all of you.

We did not, however, lower ourselves to name calling and if you get to know us, we are really not "meat heads".

Good fishing

[Fishndude]

The debate is interesting, at the very least, and somewhat informative for people not as familiar with the river. It is great that you were able to do this without resorting to name calling and slander. Pms might have been a better way to go about this - or a phone call; but I have enjoyed some additional opinionated insight into the Little River. Everyone obviously agrees that it is a river to be treasured.

[Wellston]

The original topic of this thread involved the releasing of fish/steelheads from the DNR egg taking wier on the Little Manistee. It was not, as it has morphed into (and I helped that morphing) into a catch and release of trout.

It has then moved onto other topics which are far removed from the author's purpose.

Oh come on Whit!!! Let the "Old Guys" have some fun. :D :D :D
Jim