I'm obviously not sure about this, but I suspect the amount of emails they received is erroneous. I highly doubt they only received 15 emails against this. I had 3 of them myself to Dexter, and I suspect that others on here have sent emails as well against. So in the end, where do you think we are going from here???

 

Thanks for the report Don.

Someplace on these boards there is a quote......I believe it was a quote......from a DNR fisheries person and/or document.......that said basically, that bait fishing doesn't have much of an effect on trout populations of a stream over the course of a year. Does anyone know where that is?

 

I'm obviously not sure about this, but I suspect the amount of emails they received is erroneous. I highly doubt they only received 15 emails against this. I had 3 of them myself to Dexter, and I suspect that others on here have sent emails as well against. So in the end, where do you think we are going from here???

Remember that Dr. Smith only showed the emails and letters they received since Sept 12th, after the final proposal came out.

Edit:
One last thing, I was just emailing Jim Dexter and he mentioned that the DNR only counts each person who emails or sends a letter 1 time, regardless if they have emailed 15 times throughout the process. So it sounds like a lot of new traffic was generated right after the final proposal came out.

So, for example, I don't think my opposition was counted in the numbers Dr. Smith quoted above, since my first emails and letters originated prior to Sept 12.

I've asked Jim Dexter to provide me the total numbers from the beginning of the process, if they have that information available.

 

That may be, but with all the furer on this site alone, I got to believe its more than 15. By the looks of thing they have already decided, so I quess we're screwed, AGAIN!!!!!:rant:

 

One should ask themselves, if flies only water has no biological benefit, why are they always going it to the best sections of river?

Per Phlyphisher, I emailed my comments to be on record. I'd suggest other do the same.

Nice to see MOOD sticking it to us

And for once the Resource Stewards are getting it right.

 

That may be, but with all the furer on this site alone, I got to believe its more than 15. By the looks of thing they have already decided, so I quess we're screwed, AGAIN!!!!!:rant:

No, it hasn't been decided yet and there's another NRC meeting on Nov. 4th. I couldn't make yesterday's meeting, but I will be speaking at the Nov. 4th meeting.

Anything could happen between now and December. They could go one way or they could go another. However, it really hasn't been decided on nor is it set in stone that this is a done deal.

I've had some very productive phone conversations with DNR personel and this could go one way or the other depending on what Director Humphries decides. BUT, I will say that the DNR has been great about actually listening and hearing what us "little guys" are saying.

The problem is really this: when it's just ten "little guys" doing all the talking, it doesn't really make a difference, does it? If I've learned anything over the past year or so, it's that talking smack on an internet site doesn't accomplish one single thing. You can't just get on here and say, "f*** flies only" and call that good. You actually have to put some effort into making your voice heard in a polite, yet concise and accurate fashion.

The Fisheries Division is more than willing to hear what we have to say, and in fact, they're eager to hear from the average Joe fisherman. Trouble is...few are making the effort to actually reach out and provide that communication.

 

Another problem with using these forums to speak out against this or that is the fact that anyone can create any alias they want and say whatever they want to say while safely hidden behind the security of their keyboard.

I'm sorry, but it's a fact that the DNR doesn't put much stock in this poll or that poll or this thread or whatever, when basically everyone on here or any other page is just using some handle they created.

Me...I'll lay it out there for anyone to read.

My name is Steven Hutchins and I'm the owner/operator of Hutchins Guide Service. From a personal and business perspective, I am totally and unequivically opposed to any further gear restrictions on the Pere Marquette. My business philosophy is that my guide's license does NOT give me any more rights to the water than the guy standing on shore fishing a night crawler on the bottom. It's not my resource, it's OUR resource. It deserves to be protected and shared by all of us. Decisions need to be based on science and every bit of science provided thus far has proven that there is simply no need for further flies only waters. The other side claims it will help the fishery, but they have yet to provide the science to back up that claim. There for, as a angler first and guide second, I profoundly oppose any further gear restrictions on the PM and I will not support any regulation that segregates our water from people like myself who love to fish and support the fishery via buying a fishing license.

That is the position of myself, Steven Hutchins and it's the position of my business, Hutchins Guide Service.

That's not an advertisement, it's me willing to step away from the safety of the keyboard and say that I not only oppose this from a personal viewpoint, but from a business standpoint as well. Fishing is meant to be fun...not a pissing contest. It's the same thing with my viewpoints about what's going on with Tippy and the cleaning station situation.

 

No, it hasn't been decided yet and there's another NRC meeting on Nov. 4th. I couldn't make yesterday's meeting, but I will be speaking at the Nov. 4th meeting.

Anything could happen between now and December. They could go one way or they could go another. However, it really hasn't been decided on nor is it set in stone that this is a done deal.

I've had some very productive phone conversations with DNR personel and this could go one way or the other depending on what Director Humphries decides. BUT, I will say that the DNR has been great about actually listening and hearing what us "little guys" are saying.

The problem is really this: when it's just ten "little guys" doing all the talking, it doesn't really make a difference, does it? If I've learned anything over the past year or so, it's that talking smack on an internet site doesn't accomplish one single thing. You can't just get on here and say, "f*** flies only" and call that good. You actually have to put some effort into making your voice heard in a polite, yet concise and accurate fashion.

The Fisheries Division is more than willing to hear what we have to say, and in fact, they're eager to hear from the average Joe fisherman. Trouble is...few are making the effort to actually reach out and provide that communication.

How many people does your Facebook page represent? I'd start talking as your Facebook org vs Steve Hutchins.

When the NRC passed a recent waterfowl reg, so guys on MS did some half assed polls and that was acceptable by the DNRE. Maybe we should do a poll and say x% of MS members do not support and provide that.

 

Hutch, that is very well said. We cannot get anything accomplished by doing nothing. We have to make our voice heard, and I did with Mr. Dexter. Believe me, he understands completely where I'm coming from, and reading between the lines of what he responded with, it appears he doesn't want to go there either.

You are correct, that we need to make decisions based on whats best for the fishery, not the class of citizens that wants this or that.

Sent a PM to you as well.

 

How many people does your Facebook page represent? I'd start talking as your Facebook org vs Steve Hutchins.

OK, why don't you just give away my whole plan for Nov. 4th. :lol:

 

After yesterday, I can't stress how right TC is and now is not the time to lay down. Hopefully, after I shake some of the cobwebs out of my head, I will try post some of my observations and perceptions. Needless to say, the gear reg proponents will be back, and after yesterday, I will speculate to say they will be back in force...bet on it.

A couple things I would suggest at this time:
-There were a couple of fractions of truths circulating yesterday that appeared to be assumed as gospel. I think I have a letter or email left in me to explode a couple of them.
- Do contact fishingDon and get on the email list. If anything, it was good to pick out a friendly face in the crowd. I would imagine that most of the usual players knew the others. Get to know your friends, it helps...alot.
-In talking to a few of the commissioners on the elevator down...if they were being genuine, it's not a done deal.

There are a few more tips I would suggest, but please-contact Don.

In all, Mondrella, Randle, Phlyphisher and fishingDon made a good count of themselves. Guys spoke from the heart and I think that fact shone through to the guys seated up front. Mondrella and fishingDon did a great job refuting some of the spin (gee-we are only asking for a 1/10 of a percent of all trout streams in MI) bandied about that I wanted to shout "F#####' A Right!!!"

One note that I will touch on is that the TU Executive Director, I think the name is Bryan Burroughs (very polished ) did acknowledge Flyfisher's point that restricted gear regs can attract more pressure. However, depending on the perspective of the commissioners, this can be viewed as a good (economic) or bad (increased erosion, diminished experience).

 

I may attend an other meeting I failed to even come close in what I wanted to get across. I could have done a much better job. I was really off my game. My mind was on my crew out there working not on getting my point across. I had so many things running thru my head at the time I barely touched on any thing that I had available. If I cannot make another meeting I will be sending out another letter to each commisioner and director. Every one who spoke against the regs did a FINE JOB.

 

Mondrella, you did a great job, don't kid yourself. You spoke from the heart, and, as an angler-at-large, you grabbed their attention as someone who was not representing a special interest group, something that I think they were looking for. You also straightened out two of the main spins/myths brought forth, 1) That we're only asking for a tiny bit of water, never mind you a healthy percentage of the best water (now) and 2)that the published criteria for gear reg water is being followed. That was BIG!

I feel the same as you, and got a good case of the heebie-jeebies, mainly from not having what I wanted to have at the time-explicit data.

 

Yes, always provide expletives...er, I mean...explicit data when presenting your case.

Now, for anyone interested, I can provide an independent study that may or not be relevent to the case at hand.

Independent Test Conducted by Fargin University (or F.U.)

"Which is more effective in gigging Kings on Gravel?"

Study Date: 10/4/2003

Subjects: Steven Hutchins, Beef, and one Cletus Williams.

To find out which method is more effective, the three subjects were sent to the same gravel area--Tunk Hole, on the Big Manistee River. Mr. Hutchins was set up with a 10' leader with a single hook and gummy bears for bait. Mr. Beef was set up with a 10' leader with a single egg fly. Cletus was set up with a Turks Tickler--no leader required.

During the course of the day, many salmon were hooked. In the case of Mr. Hutchins, his take has to be broken down into two parts since he not only used the gummy bears for bait, but he also ate half the bag and thus ended up using a bare hook the remainder of the day...this did not seem to hinder his hook up ratio at all. As such, the data reveals the following:

Gummy Bear/Bare Hook--43 fish hooked (26 foul, 17 fair)

Egg Fly--38 fish hooked (27 foul, 11 fair)

Turks Tickler--11 fish hooked (all foul except for one that was iffy since it was close to, but not quite, somewhere in the side of the face). Note, data is incomplete since Mr. Cletus threw his back out two hours into the study and required several shots of Whiskey to get him back in the water. He then passed out, fell in the water and was unable to finish his portion of the study time.

In conclusion, there was no discernible difference between the long leadered gummy bear and the long leadered egg fly, thus proving that either/or will work just as well for gigging kings on gravel. The Turks Tickler data is still being gathered based on the numerous test cases that are still out using them as of this day.

Feel free to use that study anytime you wish!

 

Why can't they hold a meeting on a saturday?

 

So people like you and I won't attend.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

So people like you and I won't attend.
Posted via Mobile Device

That could easily sum up my life.

 

Thanks for the report Don, and the efforts from our members here. I couldn't make the meeting because of Dr's appointments. Sounds like you boys did a great job.
I will do my best to make the next meeting.

Keep the pressure on guys!

 

It doesn't matter what side of this issue you are on...if you have an opinion on gear restrictions, you NEED to send it to the DNR, and the resource commission.

Email Jim Dexter, Dr. Kelly Smith, Rebecca Humphries and Teresa Gloden (Assistant to the NRC), she will get your email to the commission. Each of those emails are public information, you can look them up at mi.gov/dnr. I will not do each of these the people the diservice of publishing their emails in a public forum. If you can't find them, PM me, I have all of their address.

As I'm sure everyone is aware, this has pretty much boiled down to a social issue and if you don't make your opinion known to the DNR, you lose your right to complain about the regulations after the fact. As Hutch and others have said, complaining about it here literally does nothing.

So I urge all of you, please email the four people above. It can be as simple as one line:

"I am [opposed to/in favor of] further gear restrictions on our Michigan Streams and Rivers."

Be curteous and to the point, and make your voice count.

And if you really want to make your voice count, clear you calendar and attend the resource commission meetion on November 4th. The DNR and the commission are listening to you.


Thank you,
Don

 

Thanks Don and everyone else who attended and spoke at the meeting. I really think we made a difference and it would be great to have more people at the November meeting. I think the NRC had received so much support from the "organized" people...Trout Unlimited etc. that they really didnt expect much opposistion. When we all spoke against the restrictions I think many of the commisioners were surprised and several seemed to react as if they are on our side. Kind of a routing for the little guy type of thing.

I had sent emails to MUCC a couple weks ago asking that they step up and help fight against gear restrictions but never received any response back. I guess I know why now. I was a little ticked when I heard the MUCC rep on the side of restrictions.

Overall a very good meeting and the MS members who spoke did an outstanding job! Nice meeting you all.

John

 

It's great to see that you guys took the time out of your schedules to make it to this meeting. I think you may have surprised the NRC with your appearance there and the way you guys handled yourselves. While I wasn't there to witness your speaking time (it's monitoring season and I'm in the river working every day), I'm certain you guys did a great job.

I am curious though as to your impression of Brian Burroughs, TU Executive Director. I have met him several times and from what I have seen he is the right person to have in charge of this organization. He seems to be very down to earth and willing to listen to any point of view that has facts as a basis. It seems to me that he is on the right track by getting TU back to it's roots of focusing on the conservation of our rivers, not the fishing aspect like so many "old fly fishermen" are.

I think it is these older, set-in-their-ways fly guys that are causing such a divide among anglers. Brian Burroughs seems like he has a different mind set than the stereotypical TU guy. This, in my opinion, is a very good thing for the organization and for Michigan trout and salmon anglers as a whole.

Just curious as to the thoughts you guys have on this. Please let's not make this a bash TU thing. Not my purpose with asking the question.

 

It's great to see that you guys took the time out of your schedules to make it to this meeting. I think you may have surprised the NRC with your appearance there and the way you guys handled yourselves. While I wasn't there to witness your speaking time (it's monitoring season and I'm in the river working every day), I'm certain you guys did a great job.

I am curious though as to your impression of Brian Burroughs, TU Executive Director. I have met him several times and from what I have seen he is the right person to have in charge of this organization. He seems to be very down to earth and willing to listen to any point of view that has facts as a basis. It seems to me that he is on the right track by getting TU back to it's roots of focusing on the conservation of our rivers, not the fishing aspect like so many "old fly fishermen" are.

I think it is these older, set-in-their-ways fly guys that are causing such a divide among anglers. Brian Burroughs seems like he has a different mind set than the stereotypical TU guy. This, in my opinion, is a very good thing for the organization and for Michigan trout and salmon anglers as a whole.

Just curious as to the thoughts you guys have on this. Please let's not make this a bash TU thing. Not my purpose with asking the question.

I did not get the chance to talk to him personally to say what kind of person he is. What he told the NRC is what the groups wants. Would like to have a conversation with him sometime to see what kind of person he is.

 

I had sent emails to MUCC a couple weks ago asking that they step up and help fight against gear restrictions but never received any response back. I guess I know why now. I was a little ticked when I heard the MUCC rep on the side of restrictions.
John

MUCC is an organization of clubs and it is the clubs that hold the power over policy. Those clubs are in it for their own reasons and NOT for the interest of those, who for a variety of reasons, do not belong to clubs and if they do they are not as active as the diehard stalwarts. MUCC is said to represent the sportsmen and women of Michigan and that is a myth. What they represent are the sportsmen and women in Michigan who belong to a club.

Quite frankly, and I'm speaking with some experience, they look after what they deem as their best interests. If those interests mean that others will have fewer opportunities and choices to partake in the outdoors so be it. That is not a goal worthy of being on their agenda.

MUCC's stand on gear regs did not surprise me in the least. What would have shocked me is if they would have come out against any more regs.

 

Whit, I tend to agree after what I saw Thursday.

Downstreamdrift, I am not sure which one Brian was but I would say all of the Trout Unlimited people were very professional and cordial. I spoke to a couple and though we disagreed on this topic, they seemed like good guys. I was not very happy when one of the pro restriction people (Not a TU guy) stated that gear restricted areas would lead to better "conduct and etiquette" for the river. I took that a little personally . He had no statistics from a C.O to back this up and I would like to call him on this. I think etiquette and conduct is more an issue of the individual and not what he/she uses for bait. Ticked me off to say the least.

 

I dont agree with flies only regulations, or increasing the water with those narrow regulations either. Regulations should be inclusive and not divisive. Regulations should seek to protect the resource as much as possible while including as many people as possible in them.

But in places like British Columbia and Alaska where there are gear restrictions they try to be as inclusive as possible like single hook artificial only. This means guys can run pink worms under floats, spinners, spoons and even plugs with single hooks. Then the fly guys are also covered. My point is that if your are going to go with quality regulations then at least avoid flies only and make it as inclusive as possible. In this regard Canada and Alaska got it right, whether or not you agree with quality regs in the first place.

Personally I don't think gear matters but more creel limits. I see guys all the time consistently fish out river stretches under the 3 fish a day rule, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday all 3 fish days, That's what bothers me the flat out greed our current structure allows.

There are many unmentionable streams that cannot support this system, instead of looking at each stream individually we haphazardly apply all rules to most of our waters.

If human greed is allowed any wiggle room it makes it mark and destroys what once was enjoyed by the many for the personal gratification of the few. This is why gear is really meaningless in the end.

The Michigan Grayling was not destroyed by fly fisherman or conventional anglers individually it was destroyed by all, the loggers, anglers, and commercial fisherman. We Michiganders still don't get it do we.