close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

New NRC commissioner took his seat 1/1/18

Discussion in 'Gear Restrictions and Trout Fishing Regs' started by kzoofisher, Jan 28, 2018.

  1. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    115
    I do not agree. I think you are reading the law too literally. An ordinary law might have words to the effect that "and no future legislation can contradict this", but that does not make them true.
     
  2. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,034
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    It took me a while to get back to the computer but I just wanted to say how off based your last response was Kzoo. Who ever said anything about trying, or needing to regulate how long before one should set the hook, that might qualify for the best attempt at diverting the truth. The TRUTH is, IF you read the report, that 4% of the fish caught and released survived more than 72 hours, and that included those that swallowed the hook and the line was cut. The simple fact is, your whole argument, and that of TU etc is that these fish need protection, "it's a conservation thing", I call B.S. on that. These fish have returned to an acceptable level, if not the level of when this all started way back in the early 1900's. There are other ways of controlling harvest, you could go with slot limits, one fish limit, or any combination you choose, but to just eliminate waters from roughly half, or more of the general population; that is being taxed, at least partially, to maintain these waters, is just simply theft, and the NRC is complicit in it. It's just like QDMA, it's all B.S. The ONLY reason these guys want a 3 point on one side thing is so they can try to have bragging rights, they are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. That and the fact they don't know how to hunt. Look at their argument, they say it's to protect the herd, tell me again how that works. First of all, by their own admissions these deer need to live to be 3 year olds, instead of 2, therefore, it would seem you would have one more year class of animals running about, does that sound like it makes sense for the health of the herd? Especially when added to the fact that we hear of CWD more and more every year, and tell me again, how does that make any sense that it's for the health of the herd? Seems to me whoever sold this load of crap should get into a sales job somewhere, he'd be rich over nite. We can broach the subject of chumming too if you like, the simple fact was these guys wanting to outlaw chumming due to one guide having better success than others, now they end chumming, and guess what happens, some guides (whether involved in the first fiasco or not) now want to bring chumming back because they are losing business. So which is it, losing business due to one guide chumming and catching fish, or no one chumming and catching fish.

    I raise these issues, not in an effort to belabor the point, I bring them up as we see now just how that social issue stuff REALLY is, not some pie in the sky nirvana look at it. There was always a reason to eliminate X amount of deer every year, science said so, science said eliminating X amount of deer was actually good for the deer herd, not more deer, sheesh. As for chumming, I haven't looked yet, but I have my suspicions that the amount of sodium sulfite used the study in Oregon rates right up there with the Coca Cola study years ago, you'll have to look that one up, suffice it to say, it was a joke. Now we come to the flies onlyl issue, why, just tell me honestly why we have it? The fish have been replenished, and perhaps with the addition of the dams over the years, at least on the AuSable, the habitat has reached it's carrying capacity, I suggest it has, especially when you know what happens with leaves picked up off the streets in Grayling every fall. So it seems that another good idea backfired, at least to a degree, and that was eliminating the septic systems from leaching into the river, I AGREE IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO STOP THAT MADNESS, I put that in all caps so you could see where I stand on that. There is always a trade off with everything, this effort actually cleaned up the river too much. Anyways, these are the issues the NRC needs to address, in an honest, forthright, non-biased way. Now the real question is, can they? Doubt it.

    BTW, the only way to get rid of a commissioner is for the governor to remove him/her, or find proof of something illegal, for example, let's say the guides gave them all 3 fishing trips, or whatever, that would be illegal, it's bribery. And that could go for the other subjects as well, and that in one reason I am against someone from within any of the outdoor activities being on the committee. In the forestry products industry, out! Member of TU, FFF, Anglers of the Ausable, out! Just as two examples. Carry on.
     
    Waif, 357Maximum and FREEPOP like this.

  3. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    115
    I don't understand perhaps, but it was a very long comment.
    How are waters "eliminated" and where did they go?
    If a dirt bike or mountain bike or horse is not allowed to use a trail is the trail "eliminated", and have we stolen from these poor victimized anti-walkers?
    If a park in Oakland county is bow-only, has hunting there been eliminated?
     
  4. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,034
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    Good questions the answer is difficult, it could be a matter of safety, it could be a matter of soil erosion, but in this case to ask where the water went is a stupid question. It went no where and we ALL own it for the benefit of all. What part of that do you not understand? Btw my eliminating waters I meant "locking out" those who prefer not to fish witout using bait, its, again, all of our waters and no one owns fish until they are captured.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM
    Waif and 357Maximum like this.
  5. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    115
    "I prefer to use dynamite. So I am locked out, by my own preference. I am being victimized!"
     
  6. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,034
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    Showed your intelligence there. You just don't get it why bother. I have no time to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Typical liberal thinking if you can't understand a cogent argument, go to belittling.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018 at 7:12 PM
    357Maximum likes this.
  7. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    17,668
    Likes Received:
    5,548
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    Toto, I see your point about bias, but I also think that knowledge on an issue like forestry for example could have positive value. Right now Ag interest's hold a majority.

    I don't know what the solution would be.

    The thing that worries me the most would be an anti hunting Governor.

    Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
     
  8. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,034
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    Dont disagree with that at all swamp.
     
  9. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    115
    You are completely ignoring my counterarguments, for example about mountain bikes and horses, where you simply do not answer direct questions.
    Why don't we allow baiting for turkeys and waterfowl?
    And who is belittling really?
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2018 at 6:29 AM
  10. Ranger Ray

    Ranger Ray Smells like, Victory! Premium Member

    Messages:
    22,072
    Likes Received:
    8,354
    Location:
    Muskegon, MI
    Do we allow some baiting of turkeys for people who use 16 gauge shotguns? How about those that use bows. Your comparisons aren't apples to apples. One understands bows only in a high risk area. Its for safety purposes. Fly's only water, because an organization or a small minority wants it, is not the same. If you can't understand the difference in argument. well, there is no reason to have a discussion on it.
     
    toto, Trout King and 357Maximum like this.
  11. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    7,034
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    Rork, as stated by RR, you just don't get it, this is plain and simply an example of people not wanting to use the science, when that science suggests something other than their preferred outcome. In an earlier post, i gave a link to a research paper showing mortality rates are pretty equal, you either didnt read it, or you just disregarded it as it doesnt fit your narrative. Of course you could say, "well thats just one study" yeah and it was only one study that got chumming banned. The bottom line line is, you and others are trying to blame the victims game, "we are victims because we dont have enough of our own water to play in and we have to dhare it with those Neanderthal bait fishermen". Now they are beginning to start again, now they claim they need more water as "their" water is too crowded, I was there when it was said so I know what I heard. Btw I did answer your questions, I stated it could be for safety reasons, it could be for conervation reasons such as soil erosion etc. Did you not read that part either? I'm beginning to think you don't bother to read anything that could educate yourself. I'd give you a link to how and why TU started but I'm confident you don't have an attention span that long.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2018 at 10:11 AM
    357Maximum likes this.
  12. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    115
    I have not mentioned trout mortality at all. I have not claimed any harm to me either, but you respond about that too. My point has been completely different - that you can quit complaining and join us.
    I haven't gone there but there might also be an economic argument = fly tourons spend more money. I'm not saying we need more fly water, but I would not complain if there were, and I am open to arguments on both sides. You arguments against it are not impressing me.

    We don't allow baiting of turkeys and waterfowl because it is too effective. As time passed some outdoor pursuits have gotten more sporting - that's been a trend for at least 100 years. Aldo Leopold noted it in Game Management, 1933. We want it to be fairly difficult and depend on skill. It's true we are backsliding in MI in some cases where we need population control or the money (baiting bears and deer; permitting crossbows in bow season).

    Fly's-only water is not closed water. Bow season is not closed either, but people are free to not go if they prefer - and complain about how we stole from them, which we've all heard before. I hunt public land so bow season suits me better.
     
    summer_doug likes this.
  13. 357Maximum

    357Maximum

    Messages:
    4,036
    Likes Received:
    5,867
    Location:
    S. Gratiot Co.
    I am starting to think having some fly only water is a good thing. It keeps a certain "type" of folk all in the same place and away from where I fish so I don't have to deal with them or their Subaru Brokeback in my way at my favorite parking spot. Not sure a group that will not spring for a few dozen crawlers can claim they are helping the local economy though. Having Orvis on speed dial to order what one needs does not support the local economy any more than buying that Subaru did.
     
    Scout 2 likes this.
  14. rork

    rork

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    115
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02393728 is one source I see sited, but it's pretty old, pretty small reaches, and from Pennsylvania. I can't seem to find a study from MI.
    Economic value per mile per year of catch and release trout fishing:
    Fly-only: 70,515$
    Not fly-only: 14,076$
    That's adjusted to 1988 dollars.
    Amount spent per person per day about 3 times higher. The rest is due to great numbers per mile in the fly only water.
     
  15. 357Maximum

    357Maximum

    Messages:
    4,036
    Likes Received:
    5,867
    Location:
    S. Gratiot Co.
    If I had my way them numbers would be much much higher per mile of water, cause if I had my way there would be a lot less miles of fly only water for all ya all to ply your trade on all the while be supported with money from MY WORM DIPPING LICENSE. Then you could really jump up an toot your own numbers, :lol: wherever you wanna pull them numbers from, just like you did here. You really really like your elitist feather only water...we get that, you do not have to keep saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. We see through you, your point is made clear....very clear.
     
    Scout 2, toto and ridgewalker like this.