If you have ever complained about the DNR’s management of cold water fisheries here is your chance to tell them what you would like them to do in the way of changing fishing regulations for your favorite stream.

From the DNR’s website here’s the introduction.  The whole document can be read as a .pdf by clicking the link at the top.  (Joe Heywood’s blog has a much longer document from the DNR, with more detail and history.  It isn’t available on the DNR website any longer, or they changed the url but not the links.)

FO – 213.04
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF TROUT STREAMS
WITH GEAR RESTRICTION REGULATIONS
Under the authority of Section 48701(m), as amended, being Sections 324.48701(m) of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the Director of the Department of Natural Resources on November 7, 2003, ordered that this criteria be adopted and used in the selection of gear restricted trout streams.
Introduction
Michigan can boast of 36,000 miles of rivers, streams and creeks, of which over 12,000 miles harbor
significant populations of trout. In the early 1950’s, Dr. Albert Hazzard, well-known fisheries researcher and then head of Michigan’s Institute for Fisheries Research, inventoried these trout streams and identified those that were “the best” and suitable for “flies only” regulations. To qualify, the streams needed to have strong, self-sustaining trout populations, have good insect hatches, and be wadeable and wide enough to permit flycasting.  Hazzard found approximately 1,200 miles that met these criteria.
Prior to 2002, fisheries managers were restricted to 100 miles of trout streams on which gear restrictions could be applied. The restriction, contained in PA 451 of 1994, had been in place for many years, dating back to the early 1970s. This changed in 2002 when PA 434 went into effect. Among other provisions, PA 434 increased the number of available miles from 100 to 212 and mandated that the Department prepare a set of criteria to evaluate potential streams for application of gear restriction regulations. This document fulfills that obligation and provides a process and a set of criteria that will be used to 1) evaluate existing waters in stream Types 5, 6, and 7 and 2) evaluate potential streams for inclusion in one of the three available gear-restricted categories.
The information presented here was developed as a tool for fisheries managers to use in the evaluation of trout streams, and to help decide whether gear restriction regulations may be appropriate on those streams.
By design, biological and physical conditions of the streams form the basis of the criteria. However, it is
clearly recognized that other aspects such as social, geographical and even political issues must be
considered prior to making a final decision on a particular waterway. Those involved with the development of the criteria understood that it was important to set up strict enough guidelines to narrow the scope of potential/satisfactory streams, while still allowing managers some flexibility in their decision making.

The arbitrary number of 212 river miles was set, so I’ve been told, because a state legislator got all pissy about not being able to let his kids dunk worms in flies only water.  Another reason to get the legislature out of setting fish and game rules, including license fees, IMO.  Gear restrictions should be implemented where they make the most sense,  along 2 miles or 2000 miles of river.

Me, I like my rivers managed for natural reproduction of whatever lives there best.  Water too warm for trout?  Grow smallies.  Don’t throw good money after bad by stocking fish we know are gonna die in August.  Sheesh!  Who’s stupid idea was that?

I also want them managed for BIG fish, and lots of them.  Based on science, of course.  But all things being equal, BIG, wild, fish.  Native is better, but I’m afraid that ship sailed years ago.  We should get serious about coaster brookie restortion (in fact, watch here for a series of pieces on Coasters in the near future.) in any stream where they’ll grow.  I can hear certain fisheries managers whining that coasters didn’t live in all of the streams tributary to the Great Lakes where they can grow today.  Tough.  Browns, rainbows and salmon didn’t live in any of them until we stocked them.  Get over it.

To make your comments to the DNR, e-mail them at     dnr-gearrestricted@michigan.gov,  before February 5, 2010.

According to MITU the DNR would like you to be as specific as possible in stating the stretch of river you are proposing by using landmarks, GPS coordinates, etc.

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Tight Lines!

JP

###