Over the past several years, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has been engaged in the process of evaluating existing cold water (trout) regulations in an attempt to bring these regulations (if ever so slightly) more in tune with the requirements imposed by a tremendous increase in angling pressure and a maturation of the sporting ethic.
The long and short of it, with my apologies for the elimination of administrivia, is as follows. A committee made up of DNR professionals and informed citizens convened sporadically over the course of those years and formulated the regulations to be implemented in the year 2000. Those recommendations were published and distributed for public comment. And they certainly generated public comment.
In general, the proposal calls for a classification system for Michigan’s cold water resources based on a given body of water’s characteristics. Specific angling regulations are keyed to each water type. All of this is good and a step forward. Overall, the net effect is positive in that there is (for the most part) a reduction in the kill limit and an increase in the size limit for trout.
To the DNR, the public commentary which its report generated pointed out that they had misunderstood and under appreciated a major shift in the definition of quality when applied to the angling experience and the modern ethic of the vast majority of the true sporting public – both state residents and tourists.
Through the “process” of public comment, citizen anglers from Michigan and throughout the world made their feelings know. Letters, email, and attendance at a series of public meetings made it clear that several adjustments to the proposed changes were required to bring the DNR’s approach to cold water fisheries management within at least shouting range of the 21 st century.
At this writing (and this is August 25 th ) nothing is final. There is another meeting in Lansing in September and we hope that the DNR will acknowledge its miscalculations and act responsibly. Specifically, we want brown trout protected during extended steelhead seasons, a reduction in the kill limit and an increase in the size limit for all trout in the trophy water section of the Au Sable below Mio, a formal recognition of catch and release-flies only as a viable fisheries management tool, a removal of the archaic and poisonous “100 mile” limit as it applies to trout streams and “special regulations,” and there are others.
We thank all the members of the Federation of Fly Fishers and affiliated clubs, the members of Trout Unlimited chapters, individuals from throughout the United States, and editors and publishers of the angling press who took the time to write, email and speak out on these critical issues.
The process, though excruciating and painful, works. The voices are heard, but as yet we don’t know if they will be heeded. There exists, incredibly in this age, an element within the DNR that holds on to a perception of a long expired sporting requirement – that fish must be killed and eaten to have value. Incredible! These reincarnations of the sustenance mentality of the frontier 19 th century must not be allowed to cripple the future. What value does a dead trout have? The price of a fish dinner in a restaurant. What values does a released fish have – one that will grow and be caught again at trophy size. A released, photographed trophy brown or rainbow is probably worth $3000 per year to a tourist town like Mio.
The final decisions will be made soon. Please keep the pressure on. RWOL
© Copyright 2001, Bob Linsenman. All rights reserved. Last modified January 17, 2002
