|
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Bottom line is anyone utilizing a very limited resource, wether it is for fun or profit should be giving something back. If anything just to secure the future of said resource for one's continued use.
It is amazing, if this was a saltwater species there would be incredible restrictions - Which in my opinion would be a great thing! |
|
| |
|
| Jsondag - 4/2/2010 8:11 PM
Bottom line is anyone utilizing a very limited resource, wether it is for fun or profit should be giving something back. If anything just to secure the future of said resource for one's continued use.
It is amazing, if this was a saltwater species there would be incredible restrictions - Which in my opinion would be a great thing!
What does this have to do with saltwater? It is much easier to stock a lake than an ocean...The ocean is a limited resource for the most part, you can make as many muskies as you can afford....BR |
|
| |
|
| Obviously the guide has the right to refuse his service to the angler who will not agree in advance to releasing every fish. But can the guide afford to turn down people who say they only want to keep a fish if it is a true trophy? What are the odds on catching the true trophy on any one trip? One compromise solution might be for the guide to say it is his policy to release every fish that is not a true trophy according to the standards of his fishing community. Thus he might agree that the client may keep any fish over 45". Or every fish over 48". The problem with total catch and release is that eventually the angler is going to say, "Why go out?" "I need more than just the fun of the catch to motivate me to spend my money." If only 48" fish are removed from a lake or river, how much of a problem does this create? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Cast - 4/2/2010 8:53 PM The problem with total catch and release is that eventually the angler is going to say, "Why go out?" I never say that... If the only thing motivating you to go out and enjoy a day on the water is the possibility of hanging a fish on your living room wall... in my opinion, you're not doing it for the right reasons. There's a million and one other reasons why we all essentially need to agree to disagree. Having a day off work and being out on the water means a lot more to me than putting another nail in the wall just so I can hang up a dead fish I'd much rather see swim away, anyway. Not sure if there's any right or wrong answer. We're just a bunch of avid outdoorsman who love to fish... and love musky. I vote to close this thread. I think I hear the sound of someone beating a dead horse.  see? ...told ya. |
|
| |
|
| Put a fork in it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: Lake of The Woods | A fish is worth a hell of a lot more swimming than it is dead! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | I'm to poor of a fisherman to not keep the odds in my favor!!! So I let them all go...
Come on, admit it... you've all thought that before!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| Although it's a close call, I probably wouldn't hire a guide with a no-keep rule. But considering the odds of catching a trophy, however defined, it's admittedly not the greatest hiring criterion.
In any event, if I ever mount one, it needs to be the real thing. Never quite bought in to the replica movement, they look too synthetic and fake to me. If I ever make the decision to memorialize a fish of a lifetime, it just needs to be the real thing when I'm looking up at the wall. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 814
| scp, while it is your right to keep a legal trophy. Would'nt it be more memorable to watch it swim away? Knowing that you just gave someone else the opportunity to live the dream you just did? What about the guy or gal that released that fish so you could have your shot? What about the up and comers? Just something to think about. While reproductions aren't for everybody I sure know photos speak a thousand words. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 602
Location: Michigan | I am 100% CPR, but am just going to play devil's advocate here for a second. As a guide that is 100% CPR, what would you do if a client wants to keep a fish?? Lets say the client kept quiet about keeping a fish while talking with the guide, but when that giant fish is landed the client says he or she is going to keep it, legally what can you do about it? I don't know too many guides that have a client sign a contract about 100% CPR so I am just asking what can really be done if a client wants to keep a fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| I don't think it matters if he caught it making it "his" fish, or if he paid you to take him fishing. You've clearly stated your position and the rules you've set as the boat operator/captain/guide, and in that scenario it should still be your call. If the subject hadn't came up before him catching a fish, that would be another story. Do you state your full feelings on this matter to all of your customers when you guide? If someone catches a 57x30 would you still follow your policy? I'd be sure to cover all the bases with my customers beforehand to avoid possible conflicts later on. Have a good season Jerry.
PS. Will I see you sturgeon fishing in 2 weeks? |
|
| |
|
| I believe it should be mandatory for all fish to be released that are caught with a guide. It should be absolutely illegal to fish with a guide and keep a fish.
Because of his knowledge and time on the water a guide is responsible for putting many more fish in his boat every year than the average guy. Because of the numbers caught his mortality numbers are also going to be higher. So, IMHO, if you're going to hire a guide all fish caught should be C&R. I know, you're going to say that a guide is more experienced at C&R. Maybe so, but some will still die and because a guide puts more in his boat, more will die.
Spend the day with the guide, enjoy, learn as much as you can, THEN go out and catch and keep your trophy, if you want a skin mount.
BTW, a well done skin mount is every bit as good as a replica and in some ways superior. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | JasonvKop, true story - In 2007, I was out with a gentleman that had a few fish under his belt. He booked me after he found one of my brochures at the local bait shop - The brochure clearly stated 100% C&R. We had a long day, and finally he got one. A plump late september 49.5 inch beauty. I netted it to hear him say "That is gonna look awesome on my wall" I high fived him as I said "lets get a measurement." As I girthed and measured her in the net, I asked who he was gonna get his replica from - as I like to offer my assistance in the matter. He said "Replica? I'm taking her home!" I repeated my policy, and he thought and explained how my policy was BS. I gave him a Lax brochure and my synopsis on why I have this policy - before I could finish he offered me a very sizable tip for him to keep the fish. I declined the then raised his offer - I declined once more - He the became very agitated and told me how it was his right to keep a fish that he caught and he was going to take it home - It must have been the flapping of his gums or something, but magically the net lowered and the fish slowly swam out. Admittedly, he was angered and told me how BS that was - He didn't even get a photo! I told him the last thing I wanted was to put that fish in the hands of someone who would kill it. I dropped him off at the dock and went back out fishing. Thinking I would never hear from him again I wrote him off as a loss, but low and behold, he contacted me the following spring informing me that he did in fact have a replica made since he had the measurements. He has actually fished with me 3 different occasions since, and has released every fish he caught without batting an eye. He said in hindsight, he was happy I let that fish go.
I originally posted this topic with a veiled motive. With such staunch conservation ideals as most claim, I just really wanted to see how may folks really believe it is okay to kill a musky. And admittedly. It is surprising to me to see how many people have come out and basically say that their cool with keeping a musky. Just ponder - Take the people who want to kill one for their wall + those who accidentally kill one + people that want to dispose of them + natural death and predation? It isn't just one fish here and there - it is an epidemic.
As for a 57X30 which roughly is 64-65 lbs and world record class caliber - in the past I would said it was a tough call. It would be cool to have my name in the IGFA books for musky and have half the masses on my jock and half despise me, but then again, Dale McNair released his WR class fish, and still received the praise and punishment - just not the printed kind. Tell you what, when I stick a 67x30 I'll change my policy to 99.9% C&R. |
|
| |
|
| Good Luck with your 67x30....LOL!! |
|
| |
|
| BTW...since you are interested I think it IS OK to kill a legal musky, even if it's not 57x30. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Obviously - your prior post and your guest status say it all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 28
| Epidemic?
Don't overstate your position, it hurts your credibility. |
|
| |
|
| Jsondag - 4/3/2010 9:14 AM
Just ponder - Take the people who want to kill one for their wall + those who accidentally kill one + people that want to dispose of them + natural death and predation? It isn't just one fish here and there - it is an epidemic.
Yep. I think there are far more of those who "accidentally kill one" than we realize. Regular muskie guys, guides, and myself included. Practice CPR (cut out the P if your ego can take it) carefully and keep handling to a minimum is all we can do.
I would agree with epidemic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | I was using epidemic as an adjective, like wide ranging or extensive. Maybe my grammar was off. But as someone who is on the water everyday and sees this behavior constantly, I don't feel using an accurate word like that would overstate my position or hurt my credibility.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| CSI- "Because of his knowledge and time on the water a guide is responsible for putting many more fish in his boat every year than the average guy." More than the "average guy" yes, but I also know some guys who put up numbers that most guides can only dream about, Jerry knows who I'm talking about. Also, don't many guides choose to not fish while they're guiding? Recent research with the "Project Noble Beast" deal is also showing delayed mortality to be far less than what was once thought, although the study is still ongoing. I still say it's up to the guide how he chooses to run his boat as long as he's operating under current law and obiding by it. I used to feel that anyone who wanted to keep a legally caught muskie had the right to do whatever they wanted to with that fish. Now I try to educate them about the value of that fish to the system and wouldn't suggest anyone keep one unless they were 110% positive it was the world record (just to put that whole controversy to bed). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 519
Location: WI | He said his guide's explanation was that he's not "HITLER" in his boat and if his client caught a fish it belongs to him.
Probably the most disheartening thing I've read here. For an individual making money off the resource I would think your actions would represent the best interests of that resource. Considering the growing number of boats coming to MN from both w/ in the state and outside the state to catch their 50, I would think it would be in every guides best interest to have a C&R policy. Like Jerry said if everybody got to keep their one trophy in addition to delayed mortality and nature taking its course, it would be epidemic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm 100% CPR as a muskie guide now. Replicas are so good, I just feel there's no good reason to harvest a Muskie any more. I'd release a WR at this point ( not likely to catch one, so it's easy to say), and part of the reasoning would be to avoid all the sure to ensue chaos from the Muskie Police out there.
That said, there are waters managed for muskie harvest. Obviously, the main reason to let 'em go is to let 'em grow and reproduce, but if they do neither acceptably and the water is basically managed as put and take, I could care less if someone harvests a fish there. The trick is to foster wide spread public understanding why it's OK there, and not Pelican. I would compare these waters to a stocked public trout pond. I don't fish 'em much. I never guide on put and take sterile waters...sort of seems silly to me to.
The point is, it's a fish, not a two year old child and in my opinion everyone needs to remember that when arguing position and philosophy. We will push for management that meets our idea of what that population of fish SHOULD be managed for, and if trophy management is the goal, 100% CPR to the maximum potential should be encouraged. All variables need to be considered, and I find the folks in fisheries management better at that than we are. Once population and overall size distribution is accomplished managing for trophies becomes a social....not biological...issue.
When that happens, sometimes folks feel compelled to attempt to legislate their desires into practice (Bay of Green Bay) because fisheries folks don't necessarily see the need. If 'we' win in that sort of scenario, we are happy, but others who have differing management/harvest goals that are just as biologically sound as 'ours' may not be. Accepting the fact people will disagree and do so from informed view points is to be able to reasonably discuss/debate the subject.
It's not 'ethics' in a literal sense at question, it's acceptance of a 100% CPR philosophy, and whether a Guide can eliminate harvest in the daily operation of his/her business. Short answer is sure, but the client needs to have read and acknowledged that reality in the contract. |
|
| |
|
| Lens Creep - 4/3/2010 11:45 AM
Recent research with the "Project Noble Beast" deal is also showing delayed mortality to be far less than what was once thought, although the study is still ongoing.
I'm only vaguely familiar with Project Noble Beast but keep in mind that the fisherman participating in this study (mostly Mr. Landsman?) are probably very careful and conscientious of the muskie's well-being when practicing or simulating CPR for the study. I don't think I would go as far as to assume the majority of muskie anglers are that careful even if there intentions are good. For example, in the study are they holding these 52" fish vertically if even only for a second? Are they using nets with that thin crappy netting material...like the lower end Frabill nets some of the pros are using on tv? Are they taking them out of the net...taking pics...putting them back in the net to check pics...then taking them back out again for better pics or a video shot??? I really doubt it. Many of the pros even on tv will do that. However, most of that is edited out of course. I'm guessing their CPR tactics will not have the same effect on a muskie as others CPR tactics. The definition of CPR can have very wide parameters.
|
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 4/3/2010 12:22 PM
We will push for management that meets our idea of what that population of fish SHOULD be managed for, and if trophy management is the goal, 100% CPR to the maximum potential should be encouraged. All variables need to be considered, and I find the folks in fisheries management better at that than we are. Once population and overall size distribution is accomplished managing for trophies becomes a social....not biological...issue.
When that happens, sometimes folks feel compelled to attempt to legislate their desires into practice (Bay of Green Bay) because fisheries folks don't necessarily see the need. If 'we' win in that sort of scenario, we are happy, but others who have differing management/harvest goals that are just as biologically sound as 'ours' may not be. .
And that's precisely why "your" fishing isn't as good as "ours". There is no other way that makes biological sense to manage muskies except for trophies. Sorry, but making it into a social issue seems like a defeatest and wishy washy way to manage muskies. |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 4/3/2010 4:50 PM
sworrall - 4/3/2010 12:22 PM
We will push for management that meets our idea of what that population of fish SHOULD be managed for, and if trophy management is the goal, 100% CPR to the maximum potential should be encouraged. All variables need to be considered, and I find the folks in fisheries management better at that than we are. Once population and overall size distribution is accomplished managing for trophies becomes a social....not biological...issue.
When that happens, sometimes folks feel compelled to attempt to legislate their desires into practice (Bay of Green Bay) because fisheries folks don't necessarily see the need. If 'we' win in that sort of scenario, we are happy, but others who have differing management/harvest goals that are just as biologically sound as 'ours' may not be. .
And that's precisely why "your" fishing isn't as good as "ours". There is no other way that makes biological sense to manage muskies except for trophies. Sorry, but making it into a social issue seems like a defeatest and wishy washy way to manage muskies.
I am guessing you are from MN, rock on Al Franken, Rock on... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 715
| "I am guessing you are from MN, rock on Al Franken, Rock on..."
Now thats cold............but as long as you dragged Al into it
My view is simple...my clients release fish, I donate auction trips and $ every season to Muskies Inc to help grow the resource, I help folks catch fish via guided outings seminars, forums and articles....I also use those same resources to teach people the successfull methods of releasing fish.
In my boat last season there were about twenty-five "biggests and firsts" and every muskie landed was special. I don't think we killed any but I KNOW for sure special care was taken to get every fish back healthy including a few fish that maybe deserved a picture but were a bit overstressed so it was not a good option, the customers understod that. My view is that WE are all stewards of the fishing we enjoy and the better we get at the fishing part the better we need to be about the releasing part.
I matched photos of a number of large fish caught in prior seasons to pictures of large fish caught last year.......the smiles the second time were as big as the first....and the fish were bigger!
Would I pass on a client that really wanted to keep one.....absolutly.....would I try to educate him first ....for sure.
Does that make me elitist......I don't think so, I think it makes me someone who wants the great fishing we enjoy to continue for a long time.
BT
Edited by bturg 4/3/2010 5:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
| guest - 4/3/2010 4:35 PM
Lens Creep - 4/3/2010 11:45 AM
Recent research with the "Project Noble Beast" deal is also showing delayed mortality to be far less than what was once thought, although the study is still ongoing.
I'm only vaguely familiar with Project Noble Beast but keep in mind that the fisherman participating in this study (mostly Mr. Landsman? ) are probably very careful and conscientious of the muskie's well-being when practicing or simulating CPR for the study. I don't think I would go as far as to assume the majority of muskie anglers are that careful even if there intentions are good. For example, in the study are they holding these 52" fish vertically if even only for a second? Are they using nets with that thin crappy netting material...like the lower end Frabill nets some of the pros are using on tv? Are they taking them out of the net...taking pics...putting them back in the net to check pics...then taking them back out again for better pics or a video shot??? I really doubt it. Many of the pros even on tv will do that. However, most of that is edited out of course. I'm guessing their CPR tactics will not have the same effect on a muskie as others CPR tactics. The definition of CPR can have very wide parameters.
Guest, In most lakes if a 52'' ski is caught, the least of its worries if it could worry in its nickel sized brain. Is being held vertically, or being in a cheap net, or if it smiled for the camera. You could also worry about the bass guy catching one in the july bathwater. or the ultra lite angler whos into the fight. If they let it go, they let it go. Some swim some die some get kept and make some cry, just be thankful that we get to go try. |
|
| |
|
| I’m going to play the role of Captain Obvious here for a moment, and make some ridiculously plain and simple statements, before making a soap-box summary statement. • It’s fine and dandy if a guide is 100% C & R in his boat, as long as he makes that clear before being hired for the day. I doubt that he'll lose any business over it. • It’s also OK not to hire a guide who is if that’s a problem for you. There are plenty of others. • Most people recognize that this web-site is pro C & R, so posting here to promote it close to preaching to the choir. • But, for the few that visit who are not sold on the concept, it never hurts to be reminded to consider it. However, if you’re going to make a post promoting it, understand that it’s a matter of being good for the future of the sport…NOT an ethical issue. If someone keeps a Musky of any size, they are not committing some ethical or moral sin. Theft, rape and murder are moral issues. Dog fighting is an ethical issue. Keeping a fish is not. Keeping or not keeping a fish is all about doing what’s good for the future of the sport of Musky fishing. It’s about good management. It’s about being realistic that in world today where boats are bigger, and have better electronics, and more educated anglers—if we do not release fish they could easily be desimated. But it is not a matter or question of ethics at ALL. Just think it's important to be clear on that, and not get self-righteous with people.
|
|
| |
|
| Guest #16---I think - 4/3/2010 6:16 PM
Very well put!!
I’m going to play the role of Captain Obvious here for a moment, and make some ridiculously plain and simple statements, before making a soap-box summary statement. • It’s fine and dandy if a guide is 100% C & R in his boat, as long as he makes that clear before being hired for the day. I doubt that he'll lose any business over it. • It’s also OK not to hire a guide who is if that’s a problem for you. There are plenty of others. • Most people recognize that this web-site is pro C & R, so posting here to promote it close to preaching to the choir. • But, for the few that visit who are not sold on the concept, it never hurts to be reminded to consider it. However, if you’re going to make a post promoting it, understand that it’s a matter of being good for the future of the sport…NOT an ethical issue. If someone keeps a Musky of any size, they are not committing some ethical or moral sin. Theft, rape and murder are moral issues. Dog fighting is an ethical issue. Keeping a fish is not. Keeping or not keeping a fish is all about doing what’s good for the future of the sport of Musky fishing. It’s about good management. It’s about being realistic that in world today where boats are bigger, and have better electronics, and more educated anglers—if we do not release fish they could easily be desimated. But it is not a matter or question of ethics at ALL. Just think it's important to be clear on that, and not get self-righteous with people.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 602
Location: Michigan | "But it is not a matter or question of ethics at ALL."
I could see it being an ethical question for some people as it is killing a living creature. |
|
| |
