|
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | raftman - 3/25/2024 2:29 PM
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?
As far as fad - you have seen what's going on with the Bassmasters?
Fair enough on the definition of what fishing is though. Not the battle I'm fighting.
I just bought some nymphs to take to go fly fishing some karst streams in Germany in three weeks (fam visit)- rather not use them as not very dry fly "purist," but not sure what the hatch will be (if any), and I'd rather catch a truly wild native brown than hope for a hatch that doesn't happen.
Unlike Germany though, we kind of decide collectively on the quality of the fishery, and have to accept some folks are going to use the most effective recent concept that is legal.
I have plenty of ideas for "affected" waters up here. Regs similar to the dusk till dawn rule on Eagle would be beneficial, refuges in portions of lakes. Not a crusade for me, I want to go fishing and hunting and need to go to work, but I believe an issue worthy of attention as affects natural reproducing Canadian musky including waters that our group personally fishes. If I didn't seriously think it would negatively affect the musky fishery long-term, I would not be wasting my time.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/25/2024 4:16 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE/WI | Angling Oracle - 3/25/2024 8:37 AM
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:
How about the Crappie crowd get involved organize and help raise funds to stock more then if they're so concerned about it. The local lakes around me seem to have plenty, I catch them on jerk baits while fishing for walleye or bass.
1. Stock more
2. Set lower bag limits
3. An education campaign on ethical pursuit in deep water
WI panfish limit is 25 total mixed or a single species. Too high in my opinion and lowering would only help matters. Does one person need to take 25 fish home for a meal??? IL has similar restrictions of 25 crappies, but with not more than 10 crappies longer than 10 inches which is to help keep mature fish from being picked clean and reduce the need to have to stock as many because more larger adults were able to remain to naturally reproduce. A single large adult female crappie can lay as much as 150,000 eggs and doesn't take many years for them to grow into adults.
Most WI lakes are put and take fishery's but do have natural reproduction in clear waters but all clear waters are also stocked.
And you are wrong, lots of walleye guys and walleye guides that I know have and use ffs myself included (livescope going on my fifth season) that use it ethically would obviously not want to see a ban on ffs. All of the lakes and flowages/rivers that I fish are in really good shape and a ban is unnecessary in my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^ Thanks for that contribution. I had a typo - "the walleye fishing is "not" going well I meant to say.
I'm sure down there in Wis like here in MB that everyone that has a fishing licence fishes for walleye at some time or other. It's a lot of people, and the number that have Livescope probably more than for any other group, but the percentages of that group would be tiny.
Up here in Manitoba I am not concerned about walleye and the use of FFS in our primary walleye lakes (they are shallow and huge). Crappie are actually well protected up here, and generally an introduced/invasive in any event.
Let me be clear. Do I think FFS in general is a bad thing and should be banned? Yes. This is because it is creating these issue that we are discussing with regards to sustainability, refuges becoming accessible, having to change limits because of abuse, etc.
Do I think it will be banned? No.
Do we really need to be worried about our musky populations with regards to FFS and very important that we act now? Yes.
What actions should be taken if I am right? We need a position on FFS from our stakeholder groups with influence: Muskies Inc. and Muskies Canada Inc. Have them work with other concerned groups and others stakeholders, lodges, guides. Get the industry itself on board.
Many are skeptical, I get it.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/25/2024 4:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| There was some talk years back about implementing a muskie stamp. That was met with mixed reactions as I recall. "Why do I have to pay extra to fish for a fish I'm going to release anyway" and "Won't that encourage harvest since people feel like they paid for the fish?"
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
| esoxaddict - 3/25/2024 4:49 PM
There was some talk years back about implementing a muskie stamp. That was met with mixed reactions as I recall. "Why do I have to pay extra to fish for a fish I'm going to release anyway" and "Won't that encourage harvest since people feel like they paid for the fish?"
The main reason to avoid the stamp idea in Minnesota, is that it was a trap, during the fight against the anti-mukie efforts in our legislature. Smart not to take the bait. There were hooks in it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 591
Location: Duluth | Either the world is your oyster or a place you want to leave better than you found it.
By the time we define the magnitude of harm its too late.I really am baffled that so many anglers have never done cocaine because that's what the scope is. The first time you do it, it doesn't feel right, you know its not right......but its right there in front of you and you know,it might make you feel great for a bit., |
|
| |
|
Posts: 334
Location: Long Prairie, Minnesota | Very interesting reading on this thread. I guess that I am a fence sitter when it comes to the FFS. The old school part of me says it takes away the "thrill of the hunt". Having the knowledge and ability to figure out a pattern and utilize that knowledge to catch fish. Same as deer hunting. I 100% believe it should be banned in tournament settings. GPS and sonar should be the only things allowed. No DI or SI. Know where you are, how deep you are and go from there. Then there is the new school side of me that believes any piece of equipment you can utilize to succeed at the task at hand is nothing but beneficial. I will say however, that the new tech is scary. Have a gentlemen that comes to my bar, bought a live scope and brags about the multiple limits of walleyes/crappies he takes daily. Gave him the speech about how thats how lakes get fished out and destroyed. His response, "Who cares? I pay taxes and the DNR can always restock" Ignorant ahole. |
|
| |
|
| For WI residents, item #22 on the Spring input sessions on April 8 is banning FFS and 360 degree imaging. If not familiar, the DNR holds these sessions every year and gathers input. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 166
| FFS turns fishing into hunting over a bait pile. No thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
Location: Twin Cities Metro | For those who remember it, please explain how calling for a ban on live sonar is different from Wisconsin’s old ban on forward trolling? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | RobertK - 3/27/2024 8:24 AM
For those who remember it, please explain how calling for a ban on live sonar is different from Wisconsin’s old ban on forward trolling?
The Wikipedia explantation of false equivalency is pretty good I think:
"A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."
What we perceive as an illogical ban in the past does not mean all proposed bans in the present or future are illogical.
It is unlikely that a ban will be forthcoming from such a proposal given how that process works, however it will shine a light on the risks of it.
On this forum and others and in the media, it is interesting to hear the "Well, we can't regulate FFS, I'm for not for that, shouldn't regulate things" And then about two sentences later, "But is is so effective that we'll need to (REGULATE) by changing the limits, catch and release only, barbless, refuges - and we need get more money for stocking, habitat restoration to keep to manage the damage it will cause."
I had the first Motorolla walkie talkie cell phone back in early 90s, probably one of like a 100 in a city of 550K - now every elementary kid has a phone more powerful than the most powerful computer in universities of that time. If you were smart, you would be for banning FFS now while it still rudimentary and limited in distribution.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/27/2024 10:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
Location: Twin Cities Metro | The definition of a Straw Man is also appropriate here...
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
If a ban that was issued in the past was flawed in its reasoning, then perhaps (perhaps!) a proposed ban that is being considered for very similar reasons is also flawed. Maybe the reasoning isn't similar, but it sure sounds familiar to me.
Of course, false equivalence goes both ways. Drawing a parallel between live sonar use and cell phone use is emotive, but hardly persuasive. Especially when it can easily be argued that the widespread use of mobile technology has a LOT of upside compared to some rather innocuous downside. That also sounds familiar, but it doesn't make the case FOR the ban.
I might add that the "if you were smart you'd agree with me" line of argument is also hardly persuasive. If we're about to degenerate into that, you'd better be careful of your assumptions about other peoples' comparative intelligence.  |
|
| |
|
| Again, it will be interesting to see how the Spring meetings in WI play out on this issue.
The explanation offered for item #22 on banning of FFS is that it is felt by some to be putting an unnecessary strain on the resource. The spring meetings results don't dictate policy but it does help policy makers know how the sporting public feels about issues. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32789
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'If you were smart, you would be for banning FFS now while it still rudimentary and limited in distribution. '
I don't support a total ban personally, and have no problems with my cognitive abilities. Stop stating everyone HAS to agree with you OR "whatever'. It doesn't fly here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | RobertK - 3/27/2024 11:09 AM
I might add that the "if you were smart you'd agree with me" line of argument is also hardly persuasive. If we're about to degenerate into that, you'd better be careful of your assumptions about other peoples' comparative intelligence. ;)
Apologies, poor choice of wording and unfortunately the wording again came off as personal rather than intended as a collective choice. Instead of walking the dogs, should have done some extra proofreading...
I get that you have an advanced degree from prior posts, so honestly would prefer to engage in some actual debate on where FFS is actually going to take us.
Motorolla sort of a safe choice rather than Skynet or baby H*tler.
I have no illusions about whether a ban is going to happen. It's not.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/27/2024 1:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 92
Location: Eau Claire, WI | I think we all know that it's here to stay. Tournaments is the only place you will see the bans. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32789
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As I have stated, I use FFS, SI and Mega 360. I use it for finding and identifying structural elements for the most part as much of my fishing is weedline related. I have never once used any of the tech to sharpshoot a muskie, as I feel that is unethical. I also don't use it much at all for sharpshooting open water panfish. I just can't stand staring the screen like that. I do use it to locate and navigate to structural elements. As stated before, I DO use what I feel to be much more harmful, and that's Spot Lock. Boat control used to separate the good angler from the mediocre. Now, one tap and one can fish with no concern for winds or conditions and effortlessly park on a spot to cast to a school of fish. I'd say Mega Live is on a screen in my boat about 10% of the time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 626
Location: Madison, WI | I think the percentage of people who actually sharpshoot musky is incredibly small. I put FFS on my boat last season and I'm not sure I've ever even seen a musky on it? It is an awesome tool to follow a weed edge as Steve mentioned. Also it's really not that easy to spot fish on bottom with it (such as walleye) I actually think 2d, si,di, is much easier for that. Open water panfish is a different story however. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2276
Location: Chisholm, MN | danmuskyman - 3/27/2024 2:50 PM
I think the percentage of people who actually sharpshoot musky is incredibly small. I put FFS on my boat last season and I'm not sure I've ever even seen a musky on it? It is an awesome tool to follow a weed edge as Steve mentioned. Also it's really not that easy to spot fish on bottom with it (such as walleye) I actually think 2d, si,di, is much easier for that. Open water panfish is a different story however.
Where do you fish? It's very predominant in northern minnesota and they are extremely easy to see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^ Not hard to find them here either.
Another take on it: bass pro Mark Menendez.
https://youtu.be/wMUbzurFbjA?si=z8vO7XEY4IuccCvC&t=133
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE/WI | I use my livescope for vertical jigging and looking for weed line or open pockets, cribs and ect. I was successful blind vertical jigging years before livescope came out. I don't use mine to look/scan around 150ft forward and cast to the fish aka sharpshooting. If I am casting it's throwing Big rubber, jerkbaits and ect and I do it with either no electronics going or just have my DI humminbird on contour map if spot jogs in and out a bunch. Rarely use my SI on my Garmin even though it's easy to see the fish I do like the mystery when casting plus knowing just about every body of water I am fishing very well so I'm able to fish with confidence. When I am using livescope I'm just looking at my bait in relation to the bottom as it changes as I move around my favorite spots. I don't fish deeper than 24'. I probably see 50% of the fish eat and 50% come out of nowhere. My eyes aren't glued to the screen the whole time your neck will be angry at you the next day.... Because I only do vertical, if it's windy I don't bother wasting my time trying to keep my bait in view. I'd much rather be drifting and casting when it's windy than sit in one area. I'd say that I use livescope vertical 30% of the time that I fish throughout the year, this is including Musky & Walleye mainly along with Flathead and Channel cats in summer and King Salmon in the fall. The other 60% is casting again mainly for Musky & Walleye with some pre & post spawn Bass action & Pike mixed in and then King & Coho in the fall followed by Brown trout and Steelhead in winter/spring. I probably troll 10% of the time. That being said I only keep 4 walleye twice a year for a meal for my old man and myself plus I harvest a female salmon or two for tying spawn sacs. I prefer to CPR for someone else or myself to catch again. I'd rather hit up local bars/restaurants for Friday Fish Fry's.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 626
Location: Madison, WI |
We get it, you're not into FFS. Probably don't need to post every anti livescope video you find on YouTube.
From all of your other posts on this site, it's almost like you're anti musky fishing in general? I get that you want to teach safe handling and release techniques, but come on the fish aren't some brittle piece of glass that can't be touched. Preaching on a website dedicated to musky anglers is probably not the best course of action either since most of us here probably already have big nets, proper tools, cutters, etc and can safely release these fish to fight and swim another day. Maybe your time would be better spent on the bass/crappie/walleye boards informing them on how to handle musky. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
Location: Twin Cities Metro | I've fished with live sonar for a week on a friend's boat. He's no newbie. He's used it for two years. It's a game changer, but not for the reason that folks talk about (i.e. "sharpshooting is easy mode").
It's a tremendous patterning tool. We were able to detect low-slow follows we would never have seen otherweise. In one three-day period, we saw 52 fish follow that never got closer to the surface than the 10-ft-deep mark in stained water. There was not one visual follow. You can use it to refine your presentations...how does your lure's action look out on the cast, how deep is it, etc... The same can be done for trolling: you can see exactly how deep your lures are running and you can detect follows that you'd never otherwise see. We also observed how muskies react to different live bait presentations. That's to say nothing of how useful it is for understanding your boat's position in relation to deep cover (very useful when the cover is not visible from the surface!).
With regard to sharpshooting, we found it pretty unproductive. I'm going much more based on his two years of experience rather than my one week of time fishing with him. My experience where I fish is that pelagic muskies already get a ton of attention, live sonar or no. The pelagic zone is no longer the refuge it was, say, 20 years ago. Muskies anglers have been trolling and casting extensively in that zone around here for 15+ years, most of that time without live sonar.
I've bought the LiveScope+ system for this season, and I think it's going to be really fun to use for patterning. I'm really unlikely to use it much for sharpshooting, but if I find it to be really effective for that I'll let you all know. |
|
| |
|
| The idea of seeing follows in stained waters is one a guy I have fished with is quite intrigued by. He just bought a brand new boat, don't think he will be spending money on FFS this year but that is why he is looking at it. If I was younger, had more years to fish, I might be looking at it as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1
| Any body watch Jimmy Houston roadhunting for musky on Leach? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 261
| Howdy,
This whole debate reminds me of a great quote from Shane:
“A gun is a tool, Marion, no better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”
For those of us who are old enough to remember a time when flashers, marker buoys, and triangulating your location based upon land objects was the norm, and in many instances when accurate paper maps were nonexistent for many waters, this all seems a bit overblown.
Technology we all use and defend today has revolutionized fishing, and created more potential for mischief that FFS ever will. Yet, in many ways fishing is better now than it has ever been. It takes a while, but the sport finds a way to balance things out with ethical changes (catch and release for example) fishery management changes, and fish behavioral changes. Yet none of that required a ban on GPS, spot lock, mapping, side imaging, down imaging, etc.
I have FFS on my boat and it’s helpful in a lot of ways. That said I’ve caught more Muskies because of better GPS and electronic maps than ANYTHING else in my boat, but you never hear people saying we should ban Lakemaster and Navionics.
It’s all relative in fishing and this too will eventually find a reasonable equilibrium.
Take care,
Ruddiger
Edited by Ruddiger 3/29/2024 9:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1970
| Do you catch many muskies a year Oracle? by your logic if you do,, maybe you just stop fishing and you'll help the resource? - the more people you know that catch muskie in your area that you can convince to just stop fishing the less muskies will have sore mouths and less delayed mortality. Is FFS sonar good for muskie? Is sucker fishing good for muskie? Is catching them at all good for muskie? I miss the days on lotw where I could run a 25 mile circle, see 5 muskie boats all day in July  .... We are were we are today and the muskie fishing is good, handle the fish properly the resource will be fine...I've caught the same fish over and over and over, etc....
Edited by IAJustin 3/29/2024 11:08 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7010
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Which has a better chance of succeeding?
A. A ban on FFS
B. People trying to teach better fish handling/care skills?
Both are in hopes of the same outcome. One tells people they can't do something because they will catch more fish and one helps "protect the resource".
Technology marches on. Time to fix problems versus trying to fight the advancement of technology. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | This short little fisheries management video is regarding commercial harvest, but I would say informative to this debate, particularly after the 2:13 mark:
https://youtu.be/Z4AXnZOsrK8?si=7cyT4PsK_rMxgbsz&t=134
I had not seen this Jimmy Houston one before but pointed out in another post above. There are lots of similar videos out there:
https://www.worldfishingnetwork.com/show/jimmy-houston-outdoors/vide...
When we are talking sharpshooting, this is of course what we mean. There is nothing really new here. 16 Leech Lake muskies in 2.5 days in the year 2023. Jimmy basically saying the kind of numbers that I was reluctant to. Not sustainable. I don't think we need to rehash the mortality debate. It's basic math.
I have zero influence on anything that goes on down your way. Hard to gauge, but it certainly appears that you are okay with continuing with the status quo.
The views are certainly very informative though.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/29/2024 12:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7010
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | " 16 Leech Lake muskies in 2.5 days in the year 2023"
And you're saying that THIS statistic is going to STOP people from fishing? Maybe best to keep stats like that under your hat before you cause more people to buy FFS. |
|
| |
