Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 124 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,607 Posts
As some of you guys and gals know there are new gear restrictions for stream trout fishing being considered by the DNR and NRC. They are being pushed VERY hard by at least some by Trout Unlimited and fishing guides. The focus seems to be on the Au Sable R. and much mention is made of the "Holy Waters". However there will be an attempt to move various gear and fish limits to other waters.

The DNR has a Facebook page and I asked about any public meetings. Below is the response I recieved on the page.

For those of you who get fired up about further restrictions on angling practices foisted on the general angling population by a select few this is a topic that needs your attention.

My Comment on the DNR's Facebook Wall.
Are there going to be meetings concerning changing regulations on some trout streams that involve restricting of gear to flies only and/or lures only? If so where can a list of these meetings be found.


DNR's Response

In January, the DNR will be posting an electronic mailbox on www.michigan.gov/dnr to gather input from the public on streams that may be good candidates for gear restrictions (flies-only or lures-only). No public meetings are currently scheduled, although some of the DNR field offices may hold meetings to discuss specific sections of streams that are proposed

The URL:
http://www.facebook.com//midnr?v=fee...d=219367834244
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,843 Posts
Maybe this should be placed in other forums as well. :rolleyes:
this isn't that big of a concern I talked with the DNR and its really not a big issue the only real issue id changing the size limits back to previous limits on the PM. Other than that its reallynot a big deal


Ganzer
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,607 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Maybe this should be placed in other forums as well. :rolleyes:
this isn't that big of a concern I talked with the DNR and its really not a big issue the only real issue id changing the size limits back to previous limits on the PM. Other than that its reallynot a big deal


Ganzer
Adam, I don't agree with that at all. There has been a very quiet and intense movement going on behind the scenes to get gear and limit regs on other streams. That door has been opened and is getting wider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,529 Posts
What I fail to understand is why do they feel they have to fix something, which isn't broken.

A couple of problems that I see are these: 1) If you limit the fishable waters that can be fished as they are now, won't that have an affect to lower the amount of people buying a trout stamp? People would just give up after a while, I would think, and 2) wouldn't this neccessitate having more enforcement problems? They don't have enough CO's to go around now and catch obvious problems, let alone a whole bunch of new ones, just sayin......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,529 Posts
Help me out a little Ralf, what part is broken. Remember I haven't lived up there in like, well lets just say too long. I quess I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. If you are talking about the DNR in general, I couldn't agree with ya more on that.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,772 Posts
The last couple of years the majority of the plants have been in the 4-6" range. Hardly large enough to reach legal size by September. In turn many vanished for the following year. Seems like a waste
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,529 Posts
Okay, so now we are on the same page. Yes it is a waste, but I'm sure the excuse is they can't afford to grow them any larger. Its really silly that Michigans government can't understand the value of the outdoor pursuits they have. I wonder if they even look at the numbers of dollars generated by sportsmen/women in Michigan. It would seem to me to be a self sustaining commodity, but of course, if the state keeps raiding the coffers to help balance their budget, how can they afford to do any more than what they are doing.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,772 Posts
See you mention "self-sustaining". That's the same response I got from the DNR when questioning the size of the plants...LOL

"We are striving for a self-sustained fishery" :lol: Ok, I guess I'll wait another season. Kinda like the Lions :dizzy:

This whole thing doesn't bother me one bit since all of my trout fishing is done with the longrod. It just seems funny that these changes are presented under the disguise of simplifying the rules by eliminating several "classifications".

So what will be the new categories or criteria. Which stretches are being considered? It's way too quiet out there. No media coverage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,529 Posts
What I meant by self sustaining, is the dollars generated by the sportspeople to sustain a decent DNR. I wasn't referring to the fishery itself. I agree with you that the size of the planted fish should be larger in an effort to have a better survival rate. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And George, yes it is, and unfortunately thats the way government works any more, its more important how much campaign funds, or money the politicians put in their pockets than any thing else.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,772 Posts
I knew what you meant. Just a play on words ;)

One would think the angling public would be up in arms over this. Guess not. The crying will start after the fact :help:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,529 Posts
Thats about typical though isn't it. Cry and complain about it, but let someone do the fighting, then when there isn't anyone else, blame the DNR for thier changes. Not being from Michigan any longer, I have 2 problems, 1) who would I contact, and 2) would the listen. But hey, let me know the who, and I'll give it a try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,598 Posts
Whit, I followed your link but didn't see the proposal itself. Can you provide or link or tell us the details? Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
Anyone have more specifics on this? I went to the dnr facebook page, but all i saw was Whit's question and the DNR's "response"?

Any other rivers specifically being mentioned/targeted for reg changes besides au sable?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,607 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Anyone have more specifics on this? I went to the dnr facebook page, but all i saw was Whit's question and the DNR's "response"?

Any other rivers specifically being mentioned/targeted for reg changes besides au sable?
That response was it so far.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,775 Posts
Here's your chance to speak up before all the fly fishing organizations put their word in.

contact Jim Dexter 269-685-6851 or Mary Dettloff 517-335-3014


Trout Streams Reclassified into New Restricted Gear Category

The Department of Natural Resources has reclassified trout streams with differing gear restrictions into a single “gear restricted”
category.

The new category - the major first change in the DNR’s stream classification system that was adopted a decade ago - will allow for more flexible fishing regulations on the streams that have been classified as Type 5, 6 and 7 streams in the past. No immediate regulation changes have been proposed for specific streams.

“Combining the Type 5, 6 and 7 streams into one category simplifies our regulatory framework and creates flexibility for protecting trout populations while allowing diverse fishing opportunities,” explained DNR Fisheries Division Chief Kelley Smith. “With this change, we’re ready to work with trout anglers to review appropriate regulations for specific streams.”

State law allows up to 212 miles of gear-restricted streams statewide.

Anglers who wish to comment on appropriate regulations or to nominate additional waters for the Gear Restricted Category can forward their comments online to [email protected] through Feb. 12.

The DNR’s Coldwater Regulations Steering Committee will review all comments and make proposals available for public comment before making any regulations changes. DNRE recommendations are expected to be sent to the DNRE director this fall for implementation on April 1, 2011.

The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, accessible use and enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
I spoke to Jim Dexter today out of the Plainwell office. He told me that right now the DNR is fielding suggestions (up to the 12th of Feb) for further gear restrictions on Michigan streams and rivers.

He also stated that currently the State of Michigan has a law on the books, as of about 8 years ago, to allow up to 212 miles of gear-restricted water. Currently we have about 100 miles of restricted water. He said, most, if not all of the major organized trout groups are pushing to get further restrictions in place.

Lastly, he said the best thing I could do would be to email [email protected] and voice my opinion. He also mentioned that after the suggestions are in, they will be having local meetings (time and location to be announced via futher press release) to discuss the suggestions. He strongly encouraged me to look for those press releases and go to one of those meetings and speak up.

No specific rivers were mentioned for further restriction, but I'm sure many will be suggested. Maybe yours. Speak up!

fishinDon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,598 Posts
It sounds like there are a lot of unknowns. My first question is what are they proposing when they combine the three regs? Artificial only? 12" or 15" browns? Fly's only? I don't have the regulation book in from of me but I wonder if they combined those sections all into fly only would it be to many river miles and would not be legal.

There is just way to many questions right now, based off their one little statement of combining regs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
It is a little vague, but I was under the impression that they were going to manage the gear restricted category on a river by river basis. I think it stems from the issues they had with the Mio regs on the Au Sable, where they didn't have a category that fit that fishery. It makes sense to me to do it this way.

It will still be confusing when they print the book though. :confused:
 
1 - 20 of 124 Posts
Top