Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I will start with stating that I fish with a fly rod almost exclusively. Besides ice fishing (which i think might be a little hard to do with fly gear :lol:) thats my gear of choice. Now as for gear restrictions i am against all of them but one, barbless hooks. As for bait fishing having a higher mortality rate than using artificials or flies, this is one of the things i dont agree with. I would assume that most all of us that chase trout or any fish for that matter did not start out fly fishing. I personally started with a crawler and a bobber the size of a tennis ball. If I could put a number on the amout of fish I have injured while fishing bait and flies the numbers would be almost identical. Maybe more toward the bait side only because of my lack of experience with handleing fish at a younger age. Any fish I have injured have been the resut of me using barbed hooks and having trouble removing them. The bottom line is we all need to stick together to preserve the sport we all love. If they have it their way the groups that are trying to have all fishing done away with will succeed. we should limit harvest if anything, not the gear we choose to use. if we do continue to limit gear there will be no more young kids out there and in turn fishing will be all but lost. But hey im just a goofball who loves to fish and be outdoors. and like i said before...just my two cents. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,419 Posts
I bait fish alot and keep about 50 percent of what I catch. I do use the smallest hooks possible. If the fish is going to be released and the hook is going to present a problem I cut the line. I have recaught some of the same fish that I have released and the small hook will deteriorate and not harm the fish. It my opinion that many fish die because of how they are handled not so much as to how they are hooked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,453 Posts
Very good post, and I commend you for saying it. The only problem is, in my mind the pro gear regs guys have created an atmosphere that compromise is pretty much off the table, at least for some of us. The fly fishing groups, and thats what they are, of this state and country want no bait, no kill period, end of story. We on the other hand have decided there can be no compromise, as the laws of this country prevent that under most circumstances. The entire problem is: This is a "feel good" idea from the trout groups, its all about emotion, its all about making fly fishing some sort of church. As Tom Brokaw said, and I"m paraphrasing, "If fishing is a religion, than fly fishing is the high church", and thats the attitude that I see from these groups, that they are all "high priests" and somehow closer to God, or whatever high falutin ideas they have.

Bottom line, it isn't our side that created this derision, it is in fact the "high church" side that has done so. When you start taking waters for your own purpose for no other reason that it feels good, thats where the line in the sand needs to be drawn. I will say this, and I'm only speaking for me, but if there were biological reasoning to do gear restrictions, such as the populations aren't there anymore, than I suppose I can get behind them, however, when it is stated by the head of DNR fisheries that this is a "social " issue, that by no means can I condone this, and I will continue to fight this with all that I have. I will fight just hard against these regs as they did to get them.

One more quick note, the state should not be allowed to plant ANY fish in streams/rivers that are gear restricted, period. This is public monies, and should be spent on public programs, and not be spent to have more fish for the "select" few.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
toto, i agree with you 100 percent. personally i dont feel there should be any restrictions whatsoever. my statement about barbless was solely my thought that that could be the only semi-plausable restriction. but in all honesty if we as taxpayers pay for the fish to be there we have every right to catch the however we please. It would just be nice for the few fly guys that feel they are superior to get off of thier high-horse and come together as a group with one cause..preserve the sport of fishing, and this is coming from a fly guy. there has got to be some way for us to get something done about this. theres know way that gear restriction suppourters out number the rest of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,248 Posts
Guess i am going to just get out my old willo pole and bobber; of course I will have to leave off the #2 catfish hook off. I might just as well change my boat name- from catfishhunter39 to non-fisherman. But I just seem to do it. Maby this would make some people Happy. Guess I gave my age away, oh well--so be it....Have a good fishing day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
toto, i agree with you 100 percent. personally i dont feel there should be any restrictions whatsoever. my statement about barbless was solely my thought that that could be the only semi-plausable restriction. but in all honesty if we as taxpayers pay for the fish to be there we have every right to catch the however we please. It would just be nice for the few fly guys that feel they are superior to get off of thier high-horse and come together as a group with one cause..preserve the sport of fishing, and this is coming from a fly guy. there has got to be some way for us to get something done about this. theres know way that gear restriction suppourters out number the rest of us.
I'm one of them "fly guys" but I'm a minority.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
I screwed that all up somehow lol. I'm one of the fly guys who disagree with the restrictions and strongly believe that everyone has the rite to fish as they please. Most of the time I stand alone among fly fisherman in my beliefs. I'm not a high priest. I'm an elitist. I don't expect others to do as I do. I do it for personal reason. Just recently I was in a very heated debate on this topic. Sadly I've came to the conclusion that most fly guys will never see things as I do.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,453 Posts
The problem here seems to be the word "public". Public in this scenario is all of us, not just a certain segment of society. Whenever public is mentioned it is assumed that they are speaking of the whole that uses whatever it is they are talking about. I fail to understand how a few hundred emails can be the deciding factor to decide these rules and regulations.

Now, on the issue of biological science, it is understood in the PTD that conservation rules and regulations should only be made for the purpose of conservation. Couple that with the Northwest Ordinance, which is what you trully have to do, and you can see where the rub comes in.

As I've stated before, the NO is one of the four organic laws of the United States, and without looking it up right now, I believe its article four that speaks of the "publics" right to use the waters from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi and all waters that run into them for public purposes of fishing, swimming, bathing, or any other typical use of water for the general public. In reading up on this particular "law", it appears that most of the pundits agree that this means that the public has the right to use these waters in the above ways, and can only be changed IF it is for conservation purposes, therefore, if the biological science doesn't support these rules and regulations, by law they can't be done. I could understand if you don't want to agree with me on that, IF it were my opinion, but it isn't mine. In fact, this "Law" was used in the final descent decree with the Native Americans and their fishing rights, so therefore this is valid just as much today, as it was at its inception.

What I'm trying to say is, unless the biology dictates changes to the rules and regulations for conservation purposes, it can't be done legally, no matter what the fly fishing groups would like you to believe. At some point in time this whole thing will need to be hashed out in order to get us all on the same page, and as splitshot said earlier, our little group is all for creating new habitat and protecting the waters, and the resource, but we want it protected for all citizens, not just the chosen few. Also, as I've said before, it is the fly groups who have created this divide, and they created it with their attitudes and their snobbery. If you don't believe that, look at the Pere Marquette Watershed website and see what they have to say, or look at the minutes from the orginal meetings to see what these same folks had to say. I would be embarrassed to have said that about my fellow man, not that there aren't a few who may deserve it, but to say it as a blanket statement is just wrong, and that's where this all began. I also have some doubts about the true meaning of TU, they say they are a group of people who want to improve the habitat etc, but have you ever heard of them giving anything away that wasn't fly fishing oriented? Lets call it what it is, they are a fly fishing group that is after getting all the waters they can for thier own personal use, period.

As for biological studies, what we do know is these studies can be skewed in any direction you want them to go. I find it interesting that TU does studies that say one thing, but the DNR says another, so which is correct? I also find it humorous that the Anglers of the Ausable found it important enough to them to mention us in one their newsletters in the letter from the editor. I wonder why they would bother mentioning us, if we didn't make them at least a little nervous, and if we make them nervous, I wonder why. They didn't mention us by name, but the inference was there.

The bottom line is, social science has no place in determining fish and game legislation, and speaking of legislation, in the beginning of the DNR, which was called the Department of Conservation at that time, the administrative procedures act spelled plainly that the legislature was hands off the DNR in terms of how and why they make rules and regs, and this was because they believed at the time, these rules and regs should be drawn up by the experts, and it should be that way today, but we all know it isn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
Fly only catch & release for social enjoyment is more ethical and pure, than fishing with bait for food, sorta sounds like water-boarding isn't torture.
When we we were kids catching June bugs to fly on strings, my father taught us not to harass animals we did intend to eat, or were not a threat to us, we have already outlawed, way too may others out of their preferred method of fishing, enough never seems to be enough.

fishing is fishing is fishing live and let live
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,462 Posts
I ask these questions:

1. Are these fish Native? ( Some are)

2. Why were they put here? (To be caught)

3. Are they renewable? (yes)

Exclusion within the law is also known as desrimination. I do not like to be descriminated against...PERIOD. These laws/rules are excluding people from fishing certain waters, some of those people are kids! I for the life of me can not see why or how the state could consciuosly condemn anyone let alone kids from these waters. In fact the only rules of this nature that I could endorse would be kids only waters.

P.S. Water boarding is not torture, it is a means by which our Govt. can prevent things such as 9/11/2001 from ever happening again. God bless our Troops.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top