|
|
Posts: 591
Location: Duluth | Everything is fractal. |
|
| |
|
| Ok, I have to believe that was the first time fractal was used on a fishing bulletin board. It is an apt description. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 516
Location: WI | CincySkeez - 3/24/2024 7:53 AM
Its hilarious that some see resource management as an infringement on their freedoms, truly brain poisoned country.
As stated many times before, if we wait to gather the data it will already be too late.. The largest cause of musky mortality is handling, FFS means more fish handled. Not a hard chain of events to understand.
So the powers within the musky community begin pushing for an FFS ban . Any risk for unintended consequences of that well intended action in places like Madison or St Paul? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Watch any part of this.
Then when you've seen enough, please make sure to listen through Jon B's bit at 20:15+
https://youtu.be/kwMhaizZY-8?si=14K5pKq0vrB3bZCp&t=973
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/24/2024 3:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 591
Location: Duluth | raftman - 3/24/2024 2:53 PM
CincySkeez - 3/24/2024 7:53 AM
Its hilarious that some see resource management as an infringement on their freedoms, truly brain poisoned country.
As stated many times before, if we wait to gather the data it will already be too late.. The largest cause of musky mortality is handling, FFS means more fish handled. Not a hard chain of events to understand.
So the powers within the musky community begin pushing for an FFS ban . Any risk for unintended consequences of that well intended action in places like Madison or St Paul?
With a ban Im not sure how fishing could get worse. Please elaborate on unintended consequences. |
|
| |
|
| Well, on unintended consequence I could think of is the banning of SI/DI. Not saying it will happen but you go to the legislature to ban one type of electronics, might they do even more? And if you get too specific, a manufacturer could take you to court for singling them out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
| sworrall - 3/24/2024 10:02 AM
In the current atmosphere with negative stocking issues so paramount in WI and MN, I'm concerned that on some lakes, enough unethical use of the tech will create a tipping point we will not be able to recover from in my lifetime, if ever.
The first concern is the primary issue facing these two states. If that is not addressed, you will have to use FFS to find one of the two fish still in your lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32792
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | TCESOX - 3/24/2024 6:34 PM
sworrall - 3/24/2024 10:02 AM
In the current atmosphere with negative stocking issues so paramount in WI and MN, I'm concerned that on some lakes, enough unethical use of the tech will create a tipping point we will not be able to recover from in my lifetime, if ever.
The first concern is the primary issue facing these two states. If that is not addressed, you will have to use FFS to find one of the two fish still in your lake.
This. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 591
Location: Duluth | 8 if SI and DI were banned would fishing get worse, I think not.
All of this sonar tech is rebranded DOD tech that all of our hard earned dollars payed for anyway. I don't give a hoot for the holding companies that own the electronics company. Only value they provide is subsidizing this forum.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32792
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CincySkeez - 3/24/2024 7:50 PM
8 if SI and DI were banned would fishing get worse, I think not.
All of this sonar tech is rebranded DOD tech that all of our hard earned dollars payed for anyway. I don't give a hoot for the holding companies that own the electronics company. Only value they provide is subsidizing this forum.
Wrong, not one electronics company pays us a cent.
Since this came up, I'd point out MuskieFIRST barely supports itself. Not a money maker on it's own, that's for sure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 591
Location: Duluth | sworrall - 3/24/2024 8:01 PM
CincySkeez - 3/24/2024 7:50 PM
8 if SI and DI were banned would fishing get worse, I think not.
All of this sonar tech is rebranded DOD tech that all of our hard earned dollars payed for anyway. I don't give a hoot for the holding companies that own the electronics company. Only value they provide is subsidizing this forum.
Wrong, not one electronics company pays us a cent. Your welcome here has been really thin for a while, and it seems you are less than appreciative for the forum access so maybe it's best you go find another muskie forum.
Brunswick hasn't advertised on this forum?
I have no problem with you Steve, but dont tell me the Merc pro kicker has a different gearcase than any other 9.9 Merc. Its the ECU that does the magic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32792
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, Brunswick has not and if you are inferring advertising by proxy on the web is productive, you are incorrect. Lund boats did have bannners here unpaid as part of a personal promotional effort, and it's Brunswick that decided we were not worthy to support this board with paid advertising. What the rest of that means is a mystery, I didn't express that one brand is 'superior' to another or misrepresent what any of them do. I run 'Bird, and love them, others run other brands and love them. I believe it's competition between those brands that drives improvement. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 591
Location: Duluth | sworrall - 3/24/2024 8:28 PM
No, Brunswick has not and if you are inferring advertising by proxy on the web is productive, you are incorrect. Lund boats did have bannners here unpaid as part of a personal promotional effort, and it's Brunswick that decided we were not worthy to support this board with paid advertising. What the rest of that means is a mystery, I didn't express that one brand is 'superior' to another or misrepresent what any of them do. I run 'Bird, and love them, others run other brands and love them. I believe it's competition be8tween those brands that drives improvement.
I absolutely appreciate the transparency and will not be antagonistic anymore. You have a dog in this fight and I think people now have a better idea of where you stand. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 516
Location: WI | CincySkeez - 3/24/2024 5:50 PM
With a ban Im not sure how fishing could get worse. Please elaborate on unintended consequences.
Seems a bit naive to think there wouldn’t be a cost to those advocating for a ban on a widely used technology. I wouldn’t think the fish that eats all the walleyes (talk about brainwashed, eh?) and needs its reproduction subsidized for it to even exist in most lakes would need any more enemies within state capitals.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | raftman - 3/25/2024 5:05 AM
CincySkeez - 3/24/2024 5:50 PM
With a ban Im not sure how fishing could get worse. Please elaborate on unintended consequences.
Seems a bit naive to think there wouldn’t be a cost to those advocating for a ban on a widely used technology. I wouldn’t think the fish that eats all the walleyes (talk about brainwashed, eh? ) and needs its reproduction subsidized for it to even exist in most lakes would need any more enemies within state capitals.
Widely used is a stretch. Banning before being more widely used is one reason why to ban sooner than later.
Actually the crappie crowd is advocating for a ban, not musky crowd, so this would be just making friends, not enemies.
I hear the walleye fishing is going well in Wisconsin, probably most folks doing that would be in favour of banning given I bet less than 1% of those anglers own FFS technology.
Most walleye anglers are not running out into deep water to chase down the last ones, and probably would prefer folks don't:
https://youtu.be/kwMhaizZY-8?si=E7H31S95Wn1JjPBm&t=450
This couple shilling for it look like they would be more excited painting their ceiling at home than doing what they are doing.
One of your better points raftman, but given you don't own FFS, and given your assertions of being an outdoors type, I still don't get why you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/25/2024 8:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Vilas | Im not an FFS owner.... as of yet. The talk of being used ethically means? Pulling fish from deep water?? I guess my question would be... wouldnt this be more ethical than trolling then? If you`re running baits 12`-15` down, you really have no idea what depth they are coming from. If you see a fish too deep with the FFS, you simply dont go after it.
??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32792
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Angling Oracle - 3/25/2024 8:37 AM
raftman - 3/25/2024 5:05 AM
CincySkeez - 3/24/2024 5:50 PM
With a ban Im not sure how fishing could get worse. Please elaborate on unintended consequences.
Seems a bit naive to think there wouldn’t be a cost to those advocating for a ban on a widely used technology. I wouldn’t think the fish that eats all the walleyes (talk about brainwashed, eh? ) and needs its reproduction subsidized for it to even exist in most lakes would need any more enemies within state capitals.
Widely used is a stretch. Banning before being more widely used is one reason why to ban sooner than later.
Actually the crappie crowd is advocating for a ban, not musky crowd, so this would be just making friends, not enemies.
I hear the walleye fishing is going well in Wisconsin, probably most folks doing that would be in favour of banning given I bet less than 1% of those anglers own FFS technology.
Most walleye anglers are not running out into deep water to chase down the last ones, and probably would prefer folks don't:
https://youtu.be/kwMhaizZY-8?si=E7H31S95Wn1JjPBm&t=450
This couple shilling for it look like they would be more excited painting their ceiling at home than doing what they are doing.
One of your better points raftman, but given you don't own FFS, and given your assertions of being an outdoors type, I still don't get why you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Who decides which side of the argument is 'wrong'? I suspect a hybrid of combined arguments will get us closer to reality. Edit: Hell with it, I'm tired of the sniping. Stop being rude and stick to debating reasonably. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7010
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I get being upset and feeling like people are cheating by buying something you won't and fishing in a way you don't believe is "right".
People lose me when their reasoning is that it makes catching fish easier which leads to more dead fish.
I just think it's a weird proposal to put forth to state/local governments to say "you have to stop people from using this because it means more people catch fish".
If I'm Joe Bureaucrat my response might be something like "and that's bad? we put money into the resource so people can catch fish, now you're telling me shouldnt have people catching fish?" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 516
Location: WI | Angling Oracle - 3/25/2024 8:37 AM
One of your better points raftman, but given you don't own FFS, and given your assertions of being an outdoors type, I still don't get why you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Thanks?
I have a pretty high threshold for any type of ban/prohibition. They’re typically nothing more than something that make folks that oppose something feel good. Crack is banned but if I wanted to go smoke crack, I probably could go find some crack without too much effort. This technology is here. Even if you ban it, folks that want to use it to abuse the resource will get it and abuse the resource. The vast majority of fishermen want what’s best for the fishery regardless of whether or not they use FFS or not. Why not use the energy and resources you want to put into banning and enforcing the ban into reaching the folks that want to responsibly use it?
I think your science based arguments of the risks are great. I don’t disagree. Based on your posts as a whole, it seems you’re motivated by a worst-case scenario and a general disbelief that people want to fish like that. I think there is a middle ground that can be met. Could that still lead to some negative impacts on the number and size of fish I catch? Sure. I’m pretty content catching whatever we catch these days. If I find myself not enjoying it, I’ll take my own advice and take up another hobby. I got into musky fishing when northern Wisconsin deer hunting became a competition of who has the biggest corn pile.
Edited by raftman 3/25/2024 10:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sukrchukr - 3/25/2024 9:15 AM
Im not an FFS owner.... as of yet. The talk of being used ethically means? Pulling fish from deep water?? I guess my question would be... wouldnt this be more ethical than trolling then? If you`re running baits 12`-15` down, you really have no idea what depth they are coming from. If you see a fish too deep with the FFS, you simply dont go after it.
???
It is likely the overwhelming majority here would use the tech ethically as far as absolutely minimizing mortality.
Ethics in relation to fishing is both a personal and societal issue. There are a lot of folks that believe we should not fish for at all, another segment that is okay fishing but not okay with catching for fun, but okay for food, and so on. Within the fishing crowd we would have sort a cline of ethical behaviour with regards to "fair chase" as it were - usually something that changes over time and experience, the same as in hunting. So with regards to the OP, the world or state record, I mean it really comes down to the fish itself being something special, not really how it was caught or the angler whose name is attached to it. The angler does have that special achievement.
The question of whether FFS should be banned is not primarily an ethical one, it is more with regards to conservation and a quality fishing experience and opportunity for all stakeholders. FFS and the improvements in it and related tech are going to make fishing worse. This is not "just another" tech improvement, it has changed what fishing is. There is no reward (to the fisher) in permitting it to be allowed, only risk.
When I read the "defence" on FFS from industry types, the universal sort of response is this: "We can't do anything to stop it, but because it so darn effective, the DNR will need to reduce catch and size limits, educate people not to fish to deep." Hmm. We have to reduce limits because of the people using FFS - a minority???
Or we could just ban it and not have to ask those questions. We know it is too risky to use, so we should not allow it.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/25/2024 12:16 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | raftman - 3/25/2024 10:30 AM
Angling Oracle - 3/25/2024 8:37 AM
One of your better points raftman, but given you don't own FFS, and given your assertions of being an outdoors type, I still don't get why you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Thanks?
I have a pretty high threshold for any type of ban/prohibition. They’re typically nothing more than something that make folks that oppose something feel good. Crack is banned but if I wanted to go smoke crack, I probably could go find some crack without too much effort. This technology is here. Even if you ban it, folks that want to use it to abuse the resource will get it and abuse the resource. The vast majority of fishermen want what’s best for the fishery regardless of whether or not they use FFS or not. Why not use the energy and resources you want to put into banning and enforcing the ban into reaching the folks that want to responsibly use it?
I think your science based arguments of the risks are great. I don’t disagree. Based on your posts as a whole, it seems you’re motivated by a worst-case scenario and a general disbelief that people want to fish like that. I think there is a middle ground that can be met. Could that still lead to some negative impacts on the number and size of fish I catch? Sure. I’m pretty content catching whatever we catch these days. If I find myself not enjoying it, I’ll take my own advice and take up another hobby. I got into musky fishing when northern Wisconsin deer hunting became a competition of who has the biggest corn pile.
I really appreciate that post raftman, very enlightening.
To be very sincere, it is not unethical anglers that are going to be the biggest problem, but they are part of it. Most of the unethical crowd probably not that good at musky fishing and probably not as effective at using this and other tech as ethical, good, musky anglers. There is the sort of a subset of the ethical, good angler crowd that is immature in their outdoor ethical development that is a bigger concern than the unethical crowd. Not about age entirely, as some older folks never move forward in the stages of development, but these are the catch the most, the biggest, shoot limits, numbers over experience crowd - now exacerbated by competing on social media, sometimes even in realtime. Combine both these groups with really ethical and careful FFS anglers fishing more efficiently, and there simple are not the musky populations to support the pressure.
Kirby sort of alluded to it to some degree. I am reluctant to talk about specific scenarios as frankly don't want to advertise these things. There is a little bit in an Ugly Pike podcast with John Gillespie where he talks about Danny Herbeck saying to the effect of, "Hey, do you have another few minutes, we can go get a musky right now." They go into some bay basin and sure enough, using FFS immediately find a big musky roaming in open water, "Cast there" Whammo. Shot called. This not just a small leap in tech, it is not fishing anymore. John B in the video link I posted above is right, I'm very impressed by his summary there about what fishing is supposed to be.
The good news for Eagle (the Gillespie fish above) is it already has a really great reg. I spoke on another thread that if a ban not feasible, then maybe refuge areas another solution - but really, isn't a ban the best solution? You said you had a line - don't you think this is it? You've seen the stupid glasses, etc, pretty soon they will tell you what lure to cast, where, etc.
We need to say enough is enough. This is the line.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/25/2024 12:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 3/25/2024 9:57 AM
Angling Oracle - 3/25/2024 8:37 AM
raftman - 3/25/2024 5:05 AM
CincySkeez - 3/24/2024 5:50 PM
With a ban Im not sure how fishing could get worse. Please elaborate on unintended consequences.
Seems a bit naive to think there wouldn’t be a cost to those advocating for a ban on a widely used technology. I wouldn’t think the fish that eats all the walleyes (talk about brainwashed, eh? ) and needs its reproduction subsidized for it to even exist in most lakes would need any more enemies within state capitals.
Widely used is a stretch. Banning before being more widely used is one reason why to ban sooner than later.
Actually the crappie crowd is advocating for a ban, not musky crowd, so this would be just making friends, not enemies.
I hear the walleye fishing is going well in Wisconsin, probably most folks doing that would be in favour of banning given I bet less than 1% of those anglers own FFS technology.
Most walleye anglers are not running out into deep water to chase down the last ones, and probably would prefer folks don't:
https://youtu.be/kwMhaizZY-8?si=E7H31S95Wn1JjPBm&t=450
This couple shilling for it look like they would be more excited painting their ceiling at home than doing what they are doing.
One of your better points raftman, but given you don't own FFS, and given your assertions of being an outdoors type, I still don't get why you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Who decides which side of the argument is 'wrong'? I suspect a hybrid of combined arguments will get us closer to reality. Edit: Hell with it, I'm tired of the sniping. Stop being rude and stick to debating reasonably.
Hyperbole. But replace "wrong" with the "for FFS" which I don't think is necessarily accurate either. I think we are getting along okay though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Slamr - 3/25/2024 10:04 AM
I get being upset and feeling like people are cheating by buying something you won't and fishing in a way you don't believe is "right".
People lose me when their reasoning is that it makes catching fish easier which leads to more dead fish.
I just think it's a weird proposal to put forth to state/local governments to say "you have to stop people from using this because it means more people catch fish".
If I'm Joe Bureaucrat my response might be something like "and that's bad? we put money into the resource so people can catch fish, now you're telling me shouldnt have people catching fish?"
I come at this completely detached as an angler and entirely as someone with fisheries assessment knowledge.
Can you use unlimited fishing rods where you fish?
I can elaborate more from there, but all of your fishing experience is regulated on the basis of sustainability. This is my only argument. FFS is unsustainable. If the fishery is sustainable now, why would you allow it to become unstainable because of these tech advances? That is what the bureaucrat is going to ask.
How can we keep it sustainable or make it sustainable?
There is one readily available answer.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/25/2024 12:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3136
| Bag limits and size limits are in place
So no reason we can't drag nets behind the boat. |
|
| |
|
| Oracle, yes there are limits set on number of rods you can use. But, the number is clearly dictated by politics, not science in the area where I live in WI. In Oneida County, you can motor troll with 1 rod per angler, up to three rods per boat, assuming 3 anglers. In adjacent Langlade county, you can motor troll with 3 rods per angler. In the county next to Langlade, Lincoln, it is limited to one per angler. There is no science behind that. In southern WI, where lakes containing musky are dependent on stocking, they can use three rods per. Again, not science but rather politics, custom, etc. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Oh geez, I picked the wrong tool as an example.
Point is still valid -- it is about sustainability and long term FFs is not sustainable given the current parameters of use.
It's interesting listening to guides on the musky podcasts, almost all (that are speaking as honestly as they can) are against it, but fatalistic in resigning that it is here to stay. I really think MI down there (and MCI) needs to decide where it stands on it, one way or other. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| Well, it's definitely here to stay. I can't blame Garmin or Hummingbird for manufacturing and selling it. Someone was going to do it. I don't see a ban being placed on a lake to lake basis, statewide, provincial... How would you enforce that, especially in areas with 100 lakes and one warden??
Does it bother me? Well, I've got a few decades under my belt learning to catch them the "old" way - weather patterns, seasonal migration, wind, current and waves... Knowing which 10% of the water should be holding fish at any given time.
All so someone with more money than brains, no ethics, and no sense of responsibility can go out and look at a screen, find a fish, cast at it and catch it without doing the work that we all did to learn how to catch these things?
I don't believe it's going to ruin fisheries. Everything that's come out since I started fishing back in the 70's was going to do that. Simple solution is to tack on $100 to the price of the unit and send that money directly to conservation efforts every time they sell one. $100 isn't going to stop anyone from buying the technology, and $100 from everyone who buys one would go a #*^@ long way. Allocating said money would be a nightmare, though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 516
Location: WI | Angling Oracle - 3/25/2024 11:10 AM
rThis isnot just a small leap in tech, it is not fishing anymore. John B in the video link I posted above is right, I'm very impressed by his summary there about what fishing is supposed to be.
You actually lose me on this. I have zero interest in a ban for the sake of defining what fishing is. Ultimately the folks participating should determine what fishing becomes. We are world of screens so if fishing becomes screens and goggles in some virtual dinosaur land…whatever. I do wonder if the things you are most concerned about related to FFS are more fad than trend. Driving around a lake until you see a fish and casting at it seems like a technique for uncommitted folks that will move on to the next fad sooner than later.
In regards to your ban, what’s your plan? You can’t stop the manufacturers from making it and the country on your southern border is made up 50 states that would need to follow suit which is not happening. How do you possibly enforce it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 103
| To the original question here, on the record fish if its caught using live sonar or not...yes, its legitimate because its legal.
Personally I think sitting there with a big sucker or trolling is worse than using live sonar to catch a fish. But that's just me.
At least in the muskie realm, fish are targeted and caught with the intention to release. Definitely not the case with other species like walleye and crappie. Ice fisherman are after panfish purely as meat hunters. Catch and release does not exist. That's the species I would be more worried about than muskies at this point. |
|
| |
|
| Huh, I must be doing something wrong. I release more crappie than I keep. And I also supported the reduction of the limit for panfish on the chain where I live, as did the overwhelming majority of those property owners who responded to the DNR survey after it had been in place for five years. Kind of like the folks who supported a five year ban on keeping any walleyes on Lake Minocqua. |
|
| |
