Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,598 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The NRC is meeting in Lansing on Wednesday. It is indicated that the following is proposed:


1. Burtons to Wakeley will become artificial lures only.
2. Chase to lower high banks will be artificial lures only.
3. North Branch will remain flies only.


The NRC meeting is in Lansing on Wednesday.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
299 Posts
Those that do not like the new fishing reg proposal from out DNR should go tell the NRC commissioners and the DNR director how they feel. They let anyone talk that wants to talk. Last year the DNR Director rejected the lame ass proposal that the fisheries dept head Dr. Kelley Smith proposal for the Mio water. Same thing can happen this year with this issue.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,948 Posts
My question would be what brought about the proposed regulation change? Was it sound science that prompted the proposed change? If so, then why not follow what sound science recommends? If it has politcal motivation, then it should be rejected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,294 Posts
The NRC is meeting in Lansing on Wednesday. It is indicated that the following is proposed:


1. Burtons to Wakeley will become artificial lures only.
2. Chase to lower high banks will be artificial lures only.
3. North Branch will remain flies only.


The NRC meeting is in Lansing on Wednesday.
Anything on the S Branch?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
299 Posts
My question would be what brought about the proposed regulation change? Was it sound science that prompted the proposed change? If so, then why not follow what sound science recommends? If it has politcal motivation, then it should be rejected.
Just like in other cases the last couple years the change was brought on by one persons personal agenda - head of fisheries dept Kelley Smith. I have been told now that he is claiming there are typos in the DNR order and it is going to be changed. Hopefully the Director steps in and does the right thing - again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
For the ones against the change,

I live in these waters and love fly fishing, I also love fishing other methods and see no problem with the changes. Since no-kill has gone into affect the number of smaller fish has dropped drastically, and so has the fishing. When the Orvis guides took Jon Dietch down the holy water for his show they couldn't even put a fish on his line last year. We had to take him to an area open to all types of fishing to make his show. This never would have happened before the no-kill. I strongly agree the river needs a change. A lure fisherman with a spinner will land a fish way faster than a #3 wt. fly rod and if they choose to release the fish it will most likely have a better chance of survival due to the fact it was not as tired out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
299 Posts
For the ones against the change,

I live in these waters and love fly fishing, I also love fishing other methods and see no problem with the changes. Since no-kill has gone into affect the number of smaller fish has dropped drastically, and so has the fishing. When the Orvis guides took Jon Dietch down the holy water for his show they couldn't even put a fish on his line last year. We had to take him to an area open to all types of fishing to make his show. This never would have happened before the no-kill. I strongly agree the river needs a change. A lure fisherman with a spinner will land a fish way faster than a #3 wt. fly rod and if they choose to release the fish it will most likely have a better chance of survival due to the fact it was not as tired out.
I do not see it this way and these water listed will not be changing now or any time soon! Here is letter from the DNR.

Over the past weekend, it was brought to our attention that the latest version of FO-200 contains an error in the section entitled Gear Restricted Streams. To those of you who may have received negative feedback or criticism from your members regarding this issue, I want to personally apologize for allowing the situation to develop. We have taken immediate action to correct what is clearly a mistake on our part. An updated and corrected version of FO-200 will be presented to the NRC this Thursday.The attached letter explains the oversight and the corrective action being taken to address this problem. Again, I apologize for the error and hope that this Division can continue the positive working relationship with all of you who have worked so hard on these regulations over the years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,294 Posts
Hopefully the above statement is wrong and there are going to be some changes to these waters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,598 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
If they ever do change it they need to make it artificial only NO TREBLE HOOKS. Those rapalas with multiple treble hooks are dangerous.

Heartsticker, I think there is more to not catching fish than the location. I would wonder what was going on with weather, daytime, water conditions, hatches and such. I don't believe that catching vs. not catching had anything at all to do with the stretches as they all have fine fish in them.

Also I wonder if you can provide some evidence for,
Since no-kill has gone into affect the number of smaller fish has dropped drastically, and so has the fishing.
I have not seen or heard much of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,294 Posts
If they ever do change it they need to make it artificial only NO TREBLE HOOKS.
I agree 100%. I fish with spinners most of the time and have modified mine with single barbless hooks for easy release. I don't see the issue with me using this set up here. I just hope it gets changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
The proof is in the number of fish we use to catch compared to the numbers now. I have lived in Grayling for over 30 years and spent at minimum 40-60 days on the AuSable & Manistee Rivers every year except 2 years to date. I fish from the headwaters down on each and have seen a huge difference. I have caught 27-28" trout most years, but the number of fish caught, and fish seen feeding during the hatch's are way down especially above Stephan Bridge. I understand weather has a huge impact on fishing, but the day the Orvis Guides fished the Holy Waters top to bottom catching nothing and I fish the same streamers in areas above and below the fly only at the same time catching 19 fish with 3 over 20 inches makes me think hmm... I am by far no expert fly fisherman and they are. Most of the time I do better fishing other stretches. Before the no-kill I caught a lot more fish and just as many big ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,598 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I wonder how your notes compare to the shockings? Hmmm. I'll just say I think there is more to it when it came down to them not catching anything on a particular day. I'd bet on it.

Maybe the fish hide better and are smarter in the No-kill zones?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
299 Posts
The proof is in the number of fish we use to catch compared to the numbers now. I have lived in Grayling for over 30 years and spent at minimum 40-60 days on the AuSable & Manistee Rivers every year except 2 years to date. I fish from the headwaters down on each and have seen a huge difference. I have caught 27-28" trout most years, but the number of fish caught, and fish seen feeding during the hatch's are way down especially above Stephan Bridge. I understand weather has a huge impact on fishing, but the day the Orvis Guides fished the Holy Waters top to bottom catching nothing and I fish the same streamers in areas above and below the fly only at the same time catching 19 fish with 3 over 20 inches makes me think hmm... I am by far no expert fly fisherman and they are. Most of the time I do better fishing other stretches. Before the no-kill I caught a lot more fish and just as many big ones.
So letting people fish hardware is going to increase the number of trout in the section? Heavier pressure and more dead fish and numbers will drop lower. Tell it to the NRC commissioners on Thursday and let us know how it goes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,577 Posts
The proof is in the number of fish we use to catch compared to the numbers now. I have lived in Grayling for over 30 years and spent at minimum 40-60 days on the AuSable & Manistee Rivers every year except 2 years to date. I fish from the headwaters down on each and have seen a huge difference. I have caught 27-28" trout most years, but the number of fish caught, and fish seen feeding during the hatch's are way down especially above Stephan Bridge. I understand weather has a huge impact on fishing, but the day the Orvis Guides fished the Holy Waters top to bottom catching nothing and I fish the same streamers in areas above and below the fly only at the same time catching 19 fish with 3 over 20 inches makes me think hmm... I am by far no expert fly fisherman and they are. Most of the time I do better fishing other stretches. Before the no-kill I caught a lot more fish and just as many big ones.
It's clear your passionate about your position and you have a right to voice it, but it's purely anectdotal at best. Show us a study that supports your contention and I'm sure it would gain considerable attention. Have you seen creel surveys or shocking numbers of these stetches of the Ausable. They don't support your feelings.

Also, why does somebody have to be an "Orvis-Guide" to be given expert credentials?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
I know I've recently posted this pic, i did not take it, it was lifted from a river report a few months back.

Anyway, this is what was shocked up from a 30 to 40 foot run a pitching wedge away from Stephan bridge. Among the very nice tub of trout, were I believe, six fish over 20 inches.

I'm thinking the fish are there...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,771 Posts
Frankly..show me a study that shows fly-fishing somehow is better for the resource than hardware.

When I was a wee lad about 13-16 years of age, us fishing kid gang locals used to fish the Chase to Smith stretch with lures and worms all the weekday long(thanks by the way for releasing the fish that we caught)...never can I remember floating fish after we let alot of them go(we kept our fair share too!)....most swam away in fast order. And before anybody gets their panties all bunched up...most CO and other locals knew we were fishing down there and any flyfisherman we met really had no problems with us, just a quick warning of don't get caught(back in the day when everybody got along)...we were kids fishing for gods sakes!!! I now fish above Chase most of the time, any lure, keep the fish if you choose.....its better fishing!

I'd love to see Chase and below open up...but it doesn't bother me either way keeps you "Orvis guys" down there catching dinks all day!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,577 Posts
Frankly..show me a study that shows fly-fishing somehow is better for the resource than hardware.
Excellent point, which may be an issue to take up with some of the other posters on here other than myself. I was simply pointing out the fact that the waters we are looking at in this thread still have fish populations that are more than adequate for what the system can support. I made no attempt to argue which gear restriction should be employed. Depending on what study your privy to, gear restriction is immaterial.

Anectodal information is not scientific and should not be used to influence decisions that are made regarding resource management. I said nothing about fly vs. lure/bait, no-kill, etc.

Specific management goals should be achieved through sound scientific regulations, irregardless of social pressures, however idealistic that may be.

Here's some interesting numbers that came out of the New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Division:

The effect of terminal tackle (hooks, lures, and flies) and their effect on hooking mortality
on salmonids have been widely studied. Studies have shown that hooking mortality of
salmonids released following capture was higher for natural baits (30-50%) than flies and
lures (5-10%) (Mongillo 1984). While mortality is greatest when fish are deeply hooked
and vital organs are injured, studies have also shown that mortality resulting from bait
fishing can be reduced (33-72%) if the line is cut on critically-hooked salmonids (Schill
1996). Mortality is also substantially higher when synthetic (scented) baits were used (22-
32%) versus traditional artificial flies (3.9%) (Schisler and Bergersen 1996).
Consequently, the development of management strategies that depend upon the release of
trout have traditionally relied upon regulations that impose restrictions on terminal tackle.
However, some evidence suggests that fishing with bait need not be routinely prohibited
in all special regulation waters (Carline et al. 1991). While a bait restriction may always
be justifiable when the stated management goal is to provide the very best quality fishery
possible (in terms of size structure or to prevent imminent collapse), if the management
goal is simply to improve it above current conditions a bait restriction may not always be
necessary (Schill 1996). Hook types used in bait fishing, which depart from traditional
hook designs (e.g. circle hooks), may warrant further consideration if their ability to
reduce hooking mortality in salmonids can be validated by scientific studies.
Scientific investigations have also demonstrated that there is no biological basis for barbed
hook restrictions in artificial fly and lure fisheries for resident (nonanadromous)
salmonids. For flies and lures combined, only minor differences in mean hooking
mortality have been found between barbed (4.5%) and barbless (4.2%) hooks, in ten of
eleven studies (Schill and Scarpella 1997). Because natural mortality rates for wild trout
in streams commonly range from 30% to 65% annually, a 0.3% mean difference in
hooking mortality for the two hook types is irrelevant at the population level, even when
fish are subjected to repeated capture. Restricting barbed hooks in artificial fly and lure
fisheries appears to be a social issue and managers should consider the social costs of
implementing a barbed hook restrictions that produce no demonstrable biological gain.
Anglers may always chose to use barbless hooks because they can be removed more easily
(from humans as well as fish) thereby making the process less stressful and allow the​
angler to resume fishing more quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Unfortunately, this is falling into the same ideological divide as the QDM issues. If you want to take smaller fish, is like shooting a spike. Your an idiot for doing it. They know whats best for the herd/fish. QDM has broke up more deer camps than a mad wife could ever do and I think that the same thing is happining here

Those that use the river to make a living, or TU , or AOA want the regulations to suit them. Problem is, it is not their river. It belongs to all of us.

I am not saying TU or Anglers of Au Sable don't not do a world of good , they do BUT sometimes they forget that the river s belong to all of us. And yes canoers too! . I will say they do more to harm the river than any change in regs would even do.

If the present regulations exclude the rest from benefiting off the DNR stocking programs then that is wrong. We all pay for the stocking programs with our tag fees. The study also says that there is no evidence that a majority of these fish are making it past a certain size anyways. Why not let the size limits go back down and give people the opportunity to keep fish.

Water temps on some of the streams and rivers gets too warm and the fish die off also.

I would also like to see the use of live bait for kids and handicap anglers that may not be able to fly fish or cast.

I fly fish Comins Flats and I probably would not keep any fish anyways but I am not going to stop someone else from doing it if the regulations are changed.

My two cents, let it fly boys
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,598 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
My two cents, let it fly boys
O.K.

I am not saying TU or Anglers of Au Sable don't not do a world of good , they do BUT sometimes they forget that the river s belong to all of us. And yes canoers too! . I will say they do more to harm the river than any change in regs would even do.
Most of the restoration would not have been done with out them. Having that restoration done has done more good than any other thing ever done.

If the present regulations exclude the rest from benefiting off the DNR stocking programs then that is wrong.
They do not stock those stretches. So by your logic it is not wrong.

I would also like to see the use of live bait for kids and handicap anglers that may not be able to fly fish or cast.
I grew up living on two rivers, with family members on others. I wormed fished from shore all the time. There is nothing more detrimental, except toxic spills, to fish than still fishing with a worm. I killed more fish needlessly simply because of that method of fishing. Studies back that up. Nothing liked throwing back an undersized fish that isn't going to live as a result of the damage this method caused.

Right now a fisherman can fish those stretches of water year round. They just must use a fly to do it. They can use a spin rod if they so desire. I guess if they did change the regulations to allow bait they would have to close down the rivers to fishing all year because of the increased mortality. Great!:dizzy:
 
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top