|
|
Posts: 31
| Should State and or World Record catches that were caught utilizing Forward Facing Sonar be considered legitimate? Should they be going forward? Boone and Crocket sets limitations on similar technology (cell phone trail cams for instance) when it comes to hunting as it infringes on the idea of what is considered a "fair chase" hunt.
I agree with Boone and Crocket's philosophy when it comes to record fish catches. I'd go as far as to say utilizing live bait also infringes upon the "fair chase" idea. | |
| | |
| So only forward facing sonar? But you are OK with sonar, Mega DI/SI? Maps provided by a third party for a hefty price are OK? Pre pandemic I attended a seminar where a well known guide showed screen shots of two musky below his boat on standard sonar. Clients dropped suckers down to the right depth and boated both. Would that be ok?
I understand forward facing sonar is a hot topic. It is something I don't have and at my age am not likely to buy. But not sure how you make just one electronic aid out of bounds while leaving all others in bounds. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | VV
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/22/2024 3:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | This Hank Parker take is interesting. As far as making rules - lots of limitations.
https://youtu.be/3FJVq90_CYU?si=8bzV4yOxosXmqOzb&t=178
Another take right off the Bassmaster site:
https://www.bassmaster.com/column/keith-combs/the-effect-of-forward-...
Sort of comical out on Lake Winnipeg here watching the FFS equipped snowbears and ice castles do merry-go-rounds checking holes with FFS "Yup, enough fish in range." "Nope, move along - to the the next predrilled hole." "Fish here now, set it down." What a disgrace! Everyone else knows exactly what's going on - if the snowbear stops briefly, no fish in area and best to move on. If it stops...well. All you need is binos, you don't need to do any work on your own. For our main trip we go where no one in sight (or within 10 miles) fortunately.
The dark side (aka FFS) has a strong appeal. It can only get worse. The idea that we should embrace new/technology, what the new kids on the block desire is nonsense. Look at the fly fishing world, they stuck to tradition and fair chase, so can everyone else.
Should be banned.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/22/2024 3:22 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 3/22/2024 2:22 PM
So only forward facing sonar? But you are OK with sonar, Mega DI/SI? Maps provided by a third party for a hefty price are OK? Pre pandemic I attended a seminar where a well known guide showed screen shots of two musky below his boat on standard sonar. Clients dropped suckers down to the right depth and boated both. Would that be ok?
I understand forward facing sonar is a hot topic. It is something I don't have and at my age am not likely to buy. But not sure how you make just one electronic aid out of bounds while leaving all others in bounds.
So when you come up here and you watch two $120K Rangers with 20-somethings chase a musky of a reef topping out at 1 ft out over into 100 ft of water where they commence to start rip-jigging around it with bondies and bulldawgs, you are content with that being okay? (not a typo - two boats at once from different angles).
I couldn't believe my eyes... Happened on a spot I fish up here (a community one).
FFS is a disgrace
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/22/2024 3:28 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3156
| If your fishing with a guide and you catch a record should you get credit for it or the guide | |
| | |
| Angling Oracle - 3/22/2024 3:26 PM
North of 8 - 3/22/2024 2:22 PM
So only forward facing sonar? But you are OK with sonar, Mega DI/SI? Maps provided by a third party for a hefty price are OK? Pre pandemic I attended a seminar where a well known guide showed screen shots of two musky below his boat on standard sonar. Clients dropped suckers down to the right depth and boated both. Would that be ok?
I understand forward facing sonar is a hot topic. It is something I don't have and at my age am not likely to buy. But not sure how you make just one electronic aid out of bounds while leaving all others in bounds.
So when you come up here and you watch two $120K Rangers with 20-somethings chase a musky of a reef topping out at 1 ft out over into 100 ft of water where they commence to start rip-jigging around it with bondies and bulldawgs, you are content with that being okay? (not a typo - two boats at once from different angles ).
I couldn't believe my eyes... Happened on a spot I fish up here (a community one ).
FFS is a disgrace
Again, can't you see something similar with SI? My point is not to defend FFS but just pointing out that all electronics give you an edge. Two years ago I was crossing a lake to hit a reed bed, noticed a bait ball on my SI and just past the bait ball, a big fish mark. Continued on, rigged a trolling rod and on my second pass caught a musky 30 yards past the bait ball. Without SI would not have seen either the bait or the fish out to the side of my boat. The OP would allow a record fish caught using SI in that manner but not FFS. How do you draw a line that fine? | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I know where you are coming from North of 8. I think I can pull you to my side of the anit-FFS argument still, so I see you as more a potential ally on this issue than not.
Sure, all these advances prior have given us anglers advantages as I laid out in the PMTT ban thread that is currently in the recycle bin.
FFS is this sort of perverse fish-radar system that takes most of the skill out of fishing - as shown by the Bass tournament results, crappie populations being decimated, the walleye stuff I mentioned, and so on.
Is everyone ethically challenged that are using it? Of course not. But it's taking fishing to a place that is not good, that is for sure.
As far as the OP - I'm saying the technology itself should be made illegal - so my argument is indirect. As far as the world record, if legally caught, then it's legal. Then it would have to meet the standards of the world record authority being applied for.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/22/2024 4:22 PM
| |
| | |
| Not really on any side. Just an old guy that remembers when folks thought trolling motors should not be allowed, too big an advantage to wealthier anglers, you should either drift or row. First sonars, same thing. I do get that FFS is different and perhaps is not sporting. But need to remember, just finding a musky is only part of it. About 10 years ago, I was getting boat ready to go out, standing on my dock. Neighbor about 200 feet away had been casting, thought he was killing time until his brother got to the boat. He called over that there was musky cruising the shore, headed my way. Grabbed a rod and there it was, about 20 ft away. Pulled a double 8 with brass blades past his nose 4 or 5 times, with only a slight movement on the fish's part. Grabbed a rod with a top water on and on the fourth pass got a follow out of it before it turned away and headed for deeper water. Neighbor put 20 or more casts right in front of it. Same result. | |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Yes. I am ok with sonar. Trolling motors. GPS etc. I think Forward Facing Sonar takes away from the mystique and spirit of "the chase" and gives the angler a more significant edge than the other technologies discussed. The next technology to come out will give the angler an even greater edge than even FFS. At some point we have to decide where to draw the line and ask ourselves what are we really doing. To each their own I suppose, but most importantly we have to be honest about the impact it has on the resource and how that effects everyone who would like to partake. This little discussion I think is a great illustration or microcosm of societies relationship with technology (AI included) at the moment and how it is effecting the human experience for better or worse. It's difficult trying to do the right thing as technology advances in its capability and complexity at an exponential rate. Discussions need to be had before we end up somewhere we didn't expect. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Great take Cabbage.
Instead of enjoying chatting your buddies and watching the eagles, ravens and otters you can do this:
https://youtu.be/pttXok0HTQU?si=1g6_yWx5yFqDFNXf&t=646
"The future is here."
No thanks.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/22/2024 5:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | I guess I don't really care how the record is caught. I just like to see what the potential of the species is. But FFS should be banned. If we're talking about technology being "cheating" from the start like trolling motors, then we should go back to nets and spears or maybe a cane pole. The line needs to be drawn at FFS. It's too much. If you haven't used it then your opinion isn't really valid either. Unless the fish are pinned to the bottom you can almost drive around and take a population estimate of an entire lake in a day. That takes away the mystery and takes away any challenge in catching them. | |
| | |
| Kirby, I have not used FFS. But, they have marvelous technology today that allows you to see folks using it, with screen close ups, etc. Larry Smith did a segment for instance on fishing for salmon in the MKE area using FFS and catching salmon after salmon while nearby boats were not catching anything. They actually had two units operating. So, yes, you can still have a valid opinion if you don't have one.
I don't know if FFS is evil, or not. Over the last 40+ years I have heard a lot of folks condemning new technology. 50 years ago, compound bows were the devil's work. When was the last time you used a recurve or a long bow?
Separating Luddites from those genuinely concerned about a resource is always a challenge. | |
| | |
| I think any new record catches using FFS deserve at least an asterisk or even a whole separate category of records. Just like in MLB baseball with the steroid area and all the homerun records also got an asterisk. I'm actually in agreement with everyone in this discussion but I will say FFS is a bigger advantage than any other technology invented related to fishing up to this point. This winter in MN I saw over half the anglers using FFS on the lakes that I was fishing and to me that was alarming. Great discussion and responses.
Edited by Baby Mallard 3/22/2024 7:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: WI | I feel like this conversation is less about “fair chase” and more about “fishing is changing from what I feel it should be and that’s not fair.” Tough. You all want GPS, side imaging, sonar, 1 foot contour maps, stealthy trolling motors, and whatever else to help quickly learn water and catch more fish but it should just stop at FFS because it’s not “fair chase”? Creating a line at this point seems disingenuous. You all have been feeding the demand for better technology so find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing. Fishing will be fine.
Edited by raftman 3/23/2024 8:02 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | raftman - 3/23/2024 7:37 AM
I feel like this conversation is less about “fair chase” and more about “fishing is changing from what I feel it should be and that’s not fair.” Tough. You all want GPS, side imaging, sonar, 1 foot contour maps, stealthy trolling motors, and whatever else to help learn quickly learn water and catch more fish but it should just stop at FFS because it’s not “fair chase”? Creating a line at this point seems disingenuous. You all have been feeding the demand for better technology so find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing. Fishing will be fine.
Ha! I don't need tech, neither does Kirby, Mallard, North of 8 et al. We'd all get along fine without it.
Did you read your own post? "at this point" What does that mean? You are implying there is a line. But you are fooling yourself, YOU DON'T HAVE A LINE.
We care about the resource, you care about you (in the collective sense, you being the detached from nature crowd). Take a moment to think about what is really important and why you enjoy being outdoors; maybe you will start to get where we are coming from.
FFS and whatever the future developments in it are are not going to be making the collective fishing experience better, it it only going to get worse, much worse here on out. This is why we have made it a line, for no other reason.
"So find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing!" Needs to be put on a t-shirt.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/23/2024 8:56 AM
| |
| | |
| Oracle, can you provide some specifics on how FFS is going to make the collective fishing experience worse? I have no plans to purchase, but would like some objective data on what the technology does to harm the fishing experience.
I have read how in one instance a team in a PMTT event cleaned up using the tech, but in other cases those using it did no better than teams without. It seems that in every tournament before FFS someone figures out a pattern, a bait, etc. and has an edge.
My neighbors from IL a few years ago won the Hodag Musky Challenge, a multiple lake event, by committing to a small section of one lake in the chain I live on. They spent the whole tournament in an area with a less than 200 yard radius. I saw them pre-fishing the weekend before, doing the same thing. No special tech, just deciding that they had a good idea. | |
| | |
Posts: 543
Location: NW WI | Per the few Archery analogies, the archery communities have been having this exact discussion for a long time. Kinda think of it like this.
Boat motor=traditional bow
Trolling motor=Compund
Sonar= Xbow
Modern Sonar = Modern Xbow(Ravens,Mission 1, Ten Points,etc. Capable of 100yd)
FFS=Airbow
The current analogy discussion there is the evolution of airguns/airbows. Fair chase archers argue against Airbows and of those in the "Nay" some are against Modern Xbows and Some argue "what's the difference? Both are just a trigger pull". In my personal opinion the archery season should be managed kind of similar to Spring Turkey. Give the Traditional guys the 1st 1-2 weeks, than weeks 3-4 open to traditional and compound, and than weeks 5-6 open to traditional,compound,Xbow. Than 7-8 open to everyone. Handi cap has entire season. Or something of that nature .
I bring this up because last year Whitetails unlimited and various other archery clubs showed up in numbers and put in the work to have a poorly written bill shutdown because it would've opened Airbows to the entire archery season. The other week Gov Evers did just pass a bill, I have not read the bill yet which I really need to because alot of states have had some just assinine ways of writing these new airgun bills, it's been blatantly obvious those writing them don't have a ****ing clue. But the summary of the new bill stated that airguns are now allowed in any season open to centerfires.
So, all that being said, kinda where I sit concerned on FFS. I do not like the fundamental idea of banning products. I do not like depriving the handicap or the guy that never gets to go out of a successful fun time. But I also don't like that at the end of the day we're talking about a product that has the potential of great negative impact to a resource we all care about, and that truly trumps my prior two opinions at the end of the day. The argument of "the way it was and the way it is now/fair chase" is benign. That's not what legislation cares about. This conversation needs to be had purely on impact. So the way I figure is we sit and wait and gather data and either A:find out we're wrong or B: Find out it's too late and the damage is done and have an even harder time combating a popularized product. Or...we gotta nip it now.
It's gunna be an uphill battle, that I'm not sure we'll win, but I'd be willing Settle for the "Sanctuary Lake*" idea. My county would have no problem I don't think Sanctuarying 10% of its lakes with launch access.
*Someone on here proposed the idea, and I REALLY liked it. Basically the lake does not allow the possesion or use of Sonar or trolling motor.
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Thanks for the question North of 8.
I'm coming at this from a macro holistic viewpoint - that where this FFS tech is going is taking fishing to a place that is "bad" for the fishing experience, not just the micro musky perspective.
One has to define what bad and good fishing is though. FFS and what is to come will mean very high catch per unit effort (CPUE) for those using that tech, and reduce it for everyone else. This is already demonstrated objectively by these tournaments (bass, crappie, any tournament where it is allowed). I recommend anyone to just type in Livescope, FFS etc and just view anything to with it, including the ocean, watching seals, herring, sharks, tarpon, anything. So mean CPUE up for those that have FFS, mean CPUE down for everyone else. Fish can only take so much pressure, can only be caught so much, if they are caught today "out there," they probably won't bite in that weed-bed in the morning. More caught, more mortality. More mortality, less fish to catch. Less fish to catch, worse fishing. I don't define catching necessarily as good fishing, but from a fish management catch rates are going to be the measure.
So what is the line that has been crossed?
Did you read the book about the Kon-Tiki expedition as a kid? Middle of the ocean, where are the going to get food? Flying fish, mahi-mahi, tuna, sharks. Bounty.
The line is - the Pelagic Zone....
This is the line that has been crossed and taking us to a bad place. I've mentioned before, but will mention again here that I did my M.Sc on the ecology of pelagic zone in oligotrophic lakes. Most folks intuitively know there is lots of life out there, but it is sort of comical to listen to some of the bass tournament guys talk like FFS has permitted some sort of revelation that huge bass are out roaming the middle of a lake.
Everything is out there. Most of the production in a lake is in the pelagic zone: algae grow from the sun/nutrients, small zooplanton eat the algae, big zooplanktan and larval fish eat the little plankton, bigger fish... etc. Stuff dies, sinks to the bottom where chironomids, mysis shrimp, scuds, mayfly, caddis nymphs, eaten by sculpins, darters, troutperch. Then we have the ciscos/whitefish, burbot, perch etc. Finally the big predators. Most of the fish biomass is out in the pelagic zone, with the next most in the benthic zone (bottom). The majority of big predators are there too.
Before FFS - sure we could get lucky. North of 8, you spotted that bait ball on your SI. Bait ball = scared baitfish. Scared baitfish = predator. Add in FFS and you follow that fish around, figure out how big the baitfish are, drop your bait into the ball and fall out it, bingo! FFS you just scan around for the next fish, like Kirby said. Who needs a guide?
The pelagic zone was a refuge. The fish you are catching in shallow are the same fish that were in the refuge. Doesn't matter that the FFS folks are not fishing your spot, they are fishing your fish. And they are relentless about it. Take out "musky" and insert any other species, including rough fish.
The pelagic/benthic zone is the big line, but of course FFS can be used in the littoral zone and in cover, even watching fish come in on topwater.
And it is only going to get "better," or worse, if you agree it is a bad thing.
"So find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing!"
* I could go into more detail as to what it can do (what you can learn), but I don't want to sell anymore of these freakin' things **
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/23/2024 11:51 AM
| |
| | |
| Thanks for the response. I do see where you concern comes from. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 3/23/2024 11:27 AM
Thanks for the response. I do see where you concern comes from.
No problem, North of 8.
I agree with Randy here, can't really be on the fence on this issue. Spotlighting has got to go. Randy's comments from 6:20+ is the other line crossed. Just as I mentioned about Jay Siemen's glasses video.
https://youtu.be/9tcKuLJG5wo?si=74w3P9yUswYimdUP&t=225
"So find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing!"
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/23/2024 1:10 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: WI | Angling Oracle - 3/23/2024 8:30 AM
raftman - 3/23/2024 7:37 AM
I feel like this conversation is less about “fair chase” and more about “fishing is changing from what I feel it should be and that’s not fair.” Tough. You all want GPS, side imaging, sonar, 1 foot contour maps, stealthy trolling motors, and whatever else to help learn quickly learn water and catch more fish but it should just stop at FFS because it’s not “fair chase”? Creating a line at this point seems disingenuous. You all have been feeding the demand for better technology so find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing. Fishing will be fine.
Ha! I don't need tech, neither does Kirby, Mallard, North of 8 et al. We'd all get along fine without it.
Did you read your own post? "at this point" What does that mean? You are implying there is a line. But you are fooling yourself, YOU DON'T HAVE A LINE.
We care about the resource, you care about you (in the collective sense, you being the detached from nature crowd ). Take a moment to think about what is really important and why you enjoy being outdoors; maybe you will start to get where we are coming from.
FFS and whatever the future developments in it are are not going to be making the collective fishing experience better, it it only going to get worse, much worse here on out. This is why we have made it a line, for no other reason.
"So find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing!" Needs to be put on a t-shirt.
LOL. At no point in my post did I say I needed the technology. I don’t have FFS and I don’t have any plans to own it. I have a line. Is it legal? Fine with people fishing for whatever reason they want rather that be nature (which is why I participate) or use some fancy technology. I find your “you care about you” comment a bit hypocritical though as you are the one preaching about how fishing should be done. You may profess it to be concern for the resource but seems more of a concern of what people are doing when they fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | raftman - 3/23/2024 1:52 PM
LOL. At no point in my post did I say I needed the technology. I don’t have FFS and I don’t have any plans to own it. I have a line. Is it legal? Fine with people fishing for whatever reason they want rather that be nature (which is why I participate) or use some fancy technology. I find your “you care about you” comment a bit hypocritical though as you are the one preaching about how fishing should be done. You may profess it to be concern for the resource but seems more of a concern of what people are doing when they fish.
Thanks for clarifying.
Not sure how you get that take from any of my posts. All of my posts on the subject explain my rationale and position which has steadfastly been against this specific tech for reasons of conservation and to ensure a quality of fishery experience for all. I am fighting for you and everyone else, not me.
Me? I will do just fine just doing what I do with my hunting and fishing buddies. We fish and hunt in the best place in the world.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/23/2024 2:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 46
| Tried to bring this up (improved technology) sometime ago and where it might take us in the future but it got a little uncomfortable. Glad to see that many of you are still asking questions and willing to discuss it. | |
| | |
Posts: 164
| raftman - 3/23/2024 7:37 AM
I feel like this conversation is less about “fair chase” and more about “fishing is changing from what I feel it should be and that’s not fair.” Tough. You all want GPS, side imaging, sonar, 1 foot contour maps, stealthy trolling motors, and whatever else to help quickly learn water and catch more fish but it should just stop at FFS because it’s not “fair chase”? Creating a line at this point seems disingenuous. You all have been feeding the demand for better technology so find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing. Fishing will be fine.
People aren't worried about there fish catching ability with or without FFS. They are showing concern for the resource and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't agree on everyone's take whether for or against FFS. But your take comes off way more selfish and disingenuous than anyone's take that is against it for good reason and that is protecting the resource and the outdoors. | |
| | |
Posts: 574
Location: WI | colinj8899 - 3/23/2024 4:33 PM
raftman - 3/23/2024 7:37 AM
I feel like this conversation is less about “fair chase” and more about “fishing is changing from what I feel it should be and that’s not fair.” Tough. You all want GPS, side imaging, sonar, 1 foot contour maps, stealthy trolling motors, and whatever else to help quickly learn water and catch more fish but it should just stop at FFS because it’s not “fair chase”? Creating a line at this point seems disingenuous. You all have been feeding the demand for better technology so find another hobby if you don’t like today’s fishing. Fishing will be fine.
People aren't worried about there fish catching ability with or without FFS. They are showing concern for the resource and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't agree on everyone's take whether for or against FFS. But your take comes off way more selfish and disingenuous than anyone's take that is against it for good reason and that is protecting the resource and the outdoors.
Not sure where I’m coming off as disingenuous or selfish. Calling it as I see it with folks trying to draw lines with technology. FFS was not created in a vacuum. Technological improvements to make catching fish easier has been an expectation in our community so let’s not pretend we can put the toothpaste back in the tube and ban it.
Concern for the resource in this chat could probably be more accurately described as concern for their fishing experience. At no point have I disagreed that FFS could have a negative impact on mine. I’m still happy to defend FFS. This resource is as much mine as it is somebody drawn into fishing by the technology and what some idiot influencer did with it on YouTube.
| |
| | |
Posts: 669
Location: Duluth | 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.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1782
| I didn't read all the posts as I think this is a personal question on what is fair chase.
I know guys who think that Barry Bonds is the MLB homerun king.
I also know guys who think Alex Rodriguez is a stand up guy.
FFS is a personal thing in how you look at the fishing resource. I think you will find those who make money off of fishing favor the use if it puts money in their pockets. | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Proclaiming your belief, one way or the other, is fine, and debating it is necessary. NO ONE posting here is anything beyond a person sitting behind a monitor with an opinion, most even using a board name. Post your opinion without being rude and without personal attack. I shouldn't have to ask.
I am VP Communications/Marketing for Muskies Inc. This subject is hotly debated, and a position statement seems necessary as there is little question sharpshooting is adding to the downward pressure on muskie populations. I have no problem accepting the fact the tech is here, I own it both winter and open water. I do believe that the tech is here to stay. There's considerable debate as to whether MI should react officially at this point.
Personally, I think there is a need for all of us to strongly recommend the ethical use of a product that can be used in a manner that can be reasonably argued will damage the muskie population. 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.
I would place sharpshooting in the top 3 threats to sustainable muskie populations IF it becomes widely used in an unethical manner, so I would say yes to the *.
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 3/24/2024 10:02 AM
Proclaiming your belief, one way or the other, is fine, and debating it is necessary. NO ONE posting here is anything beyond a person sitting behind a monitor with an opinion, most even using a board name. Post your opinion without being rude and without personal attack. I shouldn't have to ask.
I am VP Communications/Marketing for Muskies Inc. This subject is hotly debated, and a position statement seems necessary as there is little question sharpshooting is adding to the downward pressure on muskie populations. I have no problem accepting the fact the tech is here, I own it both winter and open water. I do believe that the tech is here to stay. There's considerable debate as to whether MI should react officially at this point.
Personally, I think there is a need for all of us to strongly recommend the ethical use of a product that can be used in a manner that can be reasonably argued will damage the muskie population. 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.
I would place sharpshooting in the top 3 threats to sustainable muskie populations IF it becomes widely used in an unethical manner, so I would say yes to the *.
Thanks for that, Steve. Agree that paramount to keep the discussion cordial and polite so we can keep it going and not put on the back page. Obviously things may veer a bit from the OP.
In Canada with natural reproducing populations (no stocking) the issue is potentially more acute. Although it may seem the pressure is lower (and in some places it is very low, but always very educated), there areas that are very vulnerable to this tech at times. Obviously people having great success do their best to keep it mum, but what I have heard is very concerning.
I think a strong position from Muskies Inc. / Muskies Canada sooner than later would be extremely beneficial to put peer-pressure on the community and perhaps allow some of the lodge owners/guides a justifiable reason to not use it and/or allow it out of their camps.
As as a position on it, one must do what's best for the fishery. Does it improve, detract or is there no change?
Not just muskies, but it seems most other species are at risk from FFS. The board of MI and MCI should also consider that there are going to be bottom and top up effects from shifts in population structure of prey and other predator species. Not just musky anglers using the tech, but for example crappie/perch/bluegill anglers affecting those populations which may affect a musky population indirectly. I think being against it is the only wise choice, not half measures.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/24/2024 11:27 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 669
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: 574
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: 401
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: 669
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: 1369
| 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: 32919
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: 669
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: 32919
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: 669
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: 32919
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: 669
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: 574
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: 401
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: 32919
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: 7068
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: 574
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: 401
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: 401
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: 401
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: 401
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: 3156
| 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: 401
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: 8820
| 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: 574
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: 161
| 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. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
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: 401
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: 8820
| 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: 1369
| 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: 669
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: 373
Location: Browerville, 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: 195
| FFS turns fishing into hunting over a bait pile. No thanks. | |
| | |
Posts: 122
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: 401
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: 122
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: 32919
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: 401
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: 99
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: 32919
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: 633
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: 2370
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: 401
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: 633
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: 122
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: 6
| Any body watch Jimmy Houston roadhunting for musky on Leach? | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| 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: 2056
| 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: 7068
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: 401
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: 7068
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. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
The video link interviewing the touring pro was very good, however, it was also very telling in that the Pro openly acknowledged that he was frustrated that FFS essentially negated all of the skill and knowledge that he had cultivated over a lifetime of angling. This is not dissimilar to candle makers decrying the invention of electricity.
I think that’s at the core of a lot of this. It’s viewed as a lazy shortcut (which is fair) that some people can use to exploit a resource. That of course fuels a lot of other emotions that can overtake our ability to use logic and reason.
Case in point, I definitely don’t support sharp shooting Muskie, but anyone who has fished bass on a bed (totally legal in many parts of the country), or worked a school of walleye on sonar where you can watch your jig on the screen and see how the walleye react to it, or cast to shallow spring pike while sight fishing, has essentially done the exact same thing to the fish that a sharpshooter does. I’m willing to bet that most of us have done at least some of these things at one point or time. None of this is new to fishing and it still requires some ethical decision making on behalf of the angler. FFS is no different.
Obviously we are more sensitive to the subject because of how few Muskies there are to begin with and because of how susceptible they are to mishandling. But we have met this enemy before and they are us. Anyone who has seen how Muskies fled virtually every castable piece of structure on Vermillion for the safety of open water can attest to our ability to harass a fish regardless of wether we have FFS or not.
Take care,
Ruddiger
Edited by Ruddiger 3/29/2024 1:10 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Slamr - 3/29/2024 12:51 PM
" 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.
I have heard stats more impressive - or very sad, depending on how you look at it. Just big, dumb (hungry) fish roaming around open water, very vulnerable at certain places and times. Nothing new. Someone with no musky experience at all can do it opening day. I say regulation required, others say leave it be... | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Thanks for taking the time to post, Ruddiger. That "pro" is very good at his craft.
https://www.in-fisherman.com/editorial/64-Year-Muskie-Record-Falls-i...
Regardless of whether stocked down there or the natural reproducing populations up here, this type of fishing is not sustainable for muskies. It's only going to get more effective and advanced.
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/29/2024 1:39 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | Angling Oracle - 3/29/2024 1:30 PM
Thanks for taking the time to post, Ruddiger. Regardless of whether stocked down there or the natural reproducing populations up here, this type of fishing is not sustainable for muskies. It's only going to get more effective and advanced.
You are correct. People say, "oh you're just bummed because the new kid catches more fish than you after you put in 20 years of work to figure it out". Yup, that's a small part of it. The real reason most of us are bummed is because muskie fishing, as we know it, is going away. There is one thing that can be done to combat what FFS sonar is doing aside from banning it, and that is to stock ALOT more fish. But we all know MN DNR is not going to do it. They aren't going to ban it either so all I can do is hope I can get out and catch the one I've been looking for for 25 years before it's too late. Sounds dramatic, I know. | |
| | |
Posts: 1527
Location: Brighton CO. | I'm a baby boomer and I have lived California, Colorado and have fished all over Wisconsin, Minnesota, and some in Ontario.
I've fished out of Canoes, Row boats with no engine or in row boats with a four horse or a 15 horse, my dads 16 foot Starcraft or lots of rental boats or with guides. I've caught a lot of fish of all kinds fishing in Canoes or small row boats in small Rivers or portaging into small off the beaten path pot holes. No tech required. I love a boat with a set of oars. Our best way to catch a Muskie? Boat control, With a strong trolling motor 24 or 36 volt battery system, point the bow into the wind and follow the shoreline. It was hard to fish behind dad when he was up front (I spent my whole vacation netting his fish)
I like to fish out in open water and when i see bait on my Sonor I mark my map and I go back and the bait is in the same spots over and over. I caught my biggest fish ever out in open water. My Sonor is primitive and portable. If you fish a lot you are going to catch big fish here and there. Record fish?? Of all the time on the water do you really have a chance at a record regardless of tech or boat? For us two chances both by my dad. First chance when my dad was a kid living in Racine Wis. he would go down and fish on Lake Michigan (late1930's and 40's) and catch I think they were Green Perch similar to Yellow Perch in size. He would catch them by the 100's and one time he got one witch was pushing 5 pounds on a bathroom scale.no picture no nothing he ate it. I think they are still in there but quite rare and in some places you can't even fish for them or very have restrictive limits. Maybe I should look into them and report back. The second chance when we lived in California we would fish in the surf or on the rocks. (in the ocean) Where we fished in the surf was a deep water beach witch was a lousy swimming, surfing, boogie boarding place. the waves would break right on shore. We would fish for Corbina in the surf on the sand or if we fish in the surf by the rocks we would catch different types of fish and if we went out on the rocks if was all the different rock fish. when fishing the rocks if you didn't keep a eye on the waves it would be a good place to die. One day in the early 80's my dad took a day off from work and went fishing and I was between College and my first real job. my dad didn't want to wake me up to go on this trip that morning. (I think he wanted some me time) So he went off by himself. He was fishing off the rocks and caught a Corbina (witch we have never done off the rocks) and it was flopping around on the rocks and the rocks cut his line and before he could grab it and wave washed it out to sea and it was gone. Corbina records are like 9-7 pounds depending on line class. This fish looked like a 10-12 pound Walleye and IF he took his kid with him he would have a record class fish. Record fish are very rare regardless of technology. | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm sure some folks are abusing it, but an observation: At around 3000 reads, no one has jumped in and described a crazy successful day sharpshooting muskies. Maybe the two primary reasons why not; a very limited number of folks actually doing it, and anyone who does after reading this thread would not feel empowered to brag about it.
I hope I'm right. | |
| | |
Posts: 1369
| sworrall - 3/29/2024 2:19 PM
I'm sure some folks are abusing it, but an observation: At around 3000 reads, no one has jumped in and described a crazy successful day sharpshooting muskies. Maybe the two primary reasons why not; a very limited number of folks actually doing it, and anyone who does after reading this thread would not feel empowered to brag about it.
I hope I'm right.
I hope you are right, as well. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
To Steve’s point, SHAME can often be a far greater tool to curb behavior than any regulation can. Furthermore, we as Muskie fisherman have proven to be particularly vocal on issues we are passionate about. We changed the world of angling when it came to catch and release, proper fish handling, stocking, spearing, closed seasons, length limits, etc.
Years ago when some resorts were promoting spearing on Cass we made sure word got out on which resorts were in favor of it and which ones supported doing the right thing. We can easily do the same with guides who are sharpshooters. Speaking for myself, I would never hire one who made their living doing it.
It doesn’t take long for word to get around and become a movement, just ask Bud Light.
Take care,
Ruddiger
Edited by Ruddiger 3/29/2024 8:00 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ Great points, Ruddiger. The sooner Muskies Inc / Muskies Canada take some position on it, the easier it will be for guides and lodges to have an out to not have to use it and advertise as such.
I had this link on the moved/binned FFS post, but putting it here again from Pete, Dave and Scott Kieper for those that missed it the first time around. Kirby's concerns sound very much like Scott's where I've got the clip started.
https://youtu.be/9B4JOt3QWfk?si=H3W773j3atdKGkq-&t=1330
Edited by Angling Oracle 3/29/2024 6:48 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Angling Oracle - 3/29/2024 6:46 PM
^^ Great points, Ruddiger. The sooner Muskies Inc / Muskies Canada take some position on it, the easier it will be for guides and lodges to have an out to not have to use it and advertise as such.
I had this link on the moved/binned FFS post, but putting it here again from Pete, Dave and Scott Kieper for those that missed it the first time around. Kirby's concerns sound very much like Scott's where I've got the clip started.
https://youtu.be/9B4JOt3QWfk?si=H3W773j3atdKGkq-&t=1330
I believe this will be brought to a vote at the next Muskies Inc Executive Committee meeting in a few days. | |
| | |
Posts: 356
| Just a comment on the ‘where do u draw the line?’ argument.
U just draw it!!!
Whether a baseball bat,golf ball interior or the draw weight or type of bow,just draw it. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
When I go Muskie fishing in Canada, I often chase walleyes for an hour or two each day to catch numbers of fish (usually to have some midday fun between AM and PM Muskie sessions.) I don’t do it for size, just numbers. I also don’t fish for any fish that may suffer barotrauma due to fishing too deep. I sometimes keep some small fish for a fish fry.
Because I’m not into walleyes hardcore, I rely on my technology and don't drop on structure that may hold fish unless I see them on my electronics. I’ll pick a spot on the Lakemaster chart that looks likely to hold fish, scope it out on 2D sonar, drop waypoints on any larger fish arches I see, and then once I’ve scanned enough areas to rule out dead water, I go back and hover over the arches on the waypoint with spot lock, and drop a jig and worm on them. All of this is done with Lakemasters and 2D sonar.
Using this method, I catch a walleye on my first drop almost every time. I can watch them react to my jig as it moves on the screen in 2D and dial in my presentation to match their mood. When the bite slows, I work around the waypoint or move to the next one and repeat my success. Am I a sharpshooter?
Take care,
Ruddiger
Edited by Ruddiger 3/30/2024 7:50 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 356
| Hi R! Not sure if u were addressing me or not. I have no definition in mind for sharpshooting so can’t answer your question. All i was referencing was the argument one can’t draw the line cause u can’t decide where to draw it- which is nonsense cause we do it all the time in every Sport. Season dates,limits, number of hooks, name it, lines are drawn all the time.
Edited by dickP 3/30/2024 8:26 PM
| |
| | |
| Ruddiger - 3/30/2024 7:21 PM Howdy, When I go Muskie fishing in Canada, I often chase walleyes for an hour or two each day to catch numbers of fish (usually to have some midday fun between AM and PM Muskie sessions.) I don’t do it for size, just numbers. I also don’t fish for any fish that may suffer barotrauma due to fishing too deep. I sometimes keep some small fish for a fish fry. Because I’m not into walleyes hardcore, I rely on my technology and don't drop on structure that may hold fish unless I see them on my electronics. I’ll pick a spot on the Lakemaster chart that looks likely to hold fish, scope it out on 2D sonar, drop waypoints on any larger fish arches I see, and then once I’ve scanned enough areas to rule out dead water, I go back and hover over the arches on the waypoint with spot lock, and drop a jig and worm on them. All of this is done with Lakemasters and 2D sonar. Using this method, I catch a walleye on my first drop almost every time. I can watch them react to my jig as it moves on the screen in 2D and dial in my presentation to match their mood. When the bite slows, I work around the waypoint or move to the next one and repeat my success. Am I a sharpshooter? Take care, Ruddiger Nope. That’s not even close to sharpshooting with FFS in my opinion. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
Hi Dick, no I wasn’t addressing you, I was just raising a larger point about the slippery slope of condemning technology and the acceptance level we have with it in some areas and the discomfort we have with it in others.
In both scenarios (mine for walleye in 2D or what sharpshooters do to Muskies) the technology has given us the ability to pressure the resource in ways that were unheard of when I got into Muskies almost 30 years ago.
My walleye scenario may not be exactly the same as sharpshooting but I doubt the walleye could tell the difference. I also don’t think I would have caught them any faster with mega live.
Regarding the drawing of lines, you are spot on in that we do it all the time wether it be statewide or on a lake by lake basis.
Take care,
Ruddiger
Edited by Ruddiger 3/30/2024 9:58 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 123
| Seems killer app fishing tech arrives once or twice in a generation. The buzz, debate, results from FFS prove it is a killer app.
Four killer app fishing technologies plus maniacal effort and devotion took me from beginner to master angler in about 10 years. I would not be the expert I am without Gps, side-imaging sonar, Torqeedo motor, and Li battery. Some dude with all this same tech, but lacking my 4000 hours on the lake, would not do as well as me.
Now I am trying to fend off the kids with FFS. The kids lack my 4000 hours on the lake, but they might do as well or better than me with FFS.
Therefore I bought the FFS. I plan on using it mostly for trolling up 25lb freshwater Stripers, also throwing big spoons to marks around abyss bait balls. Also largemouth fishing with live crayfish ala Bill Murphy, something I have not done in years.
Fishing will not be same. I don't like they way rich kids will be able "buy" fish by spending enough on even better tech, and not have to spend the 4000 hours on the lake. On the other hand, there is a romance, mystery, memories, weather, mishaps, failures, beauty in those 4000 hours the kids would never see. I did all that! | |
| | |
Posts: 99
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Most of the “pros” spend their entire careers glorifying the catch. Look at all the social media pictures. All for money and fame. | |
| | |
Posts: 777
| Great discussion so far and at this point I had no skin in this game until this morning when I caught the Jimmy Houston Outdoors with the muskie fishing segment in Minnesota. Kind of made me think everything I learned threw books,maps, guided trips, and mostly time and experience on the water, 40 plus years, just got thrown out the window. Kdawg | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | kdawg - 3/31/2024 9:19 AM
Great discussion so far and at this point I had no skin in this game until this morning when I caught the Jimmy Houston Outdoors with the muskie fishing segment in Minnesota. Kind of made me think everything I learned threw books,maps, guided trips, and mostly time and experience on the water, 40 plus years, just got thrown out the window. Kdawg
I really don’t think people understand how much knowledge FFS can give you until you really use it. It would be almost as good as draining the lake and seeing where every fish hangs out and be able to cast on their heads until they bite. It can make you understand seasonal movements, daily behaviors, how they relate to structure, bait and your lure. So it really does take away your 40 years of perceived knowledge. It will change how you fish, and enlighten you to the true nature of the fish. It’s nothing like side imaging, or anything else. People call it a tool. Yes it is. The tool gives you infinite knowledge of the fish which makes you unstoppable unless they really just aren’t biting that day. Which definitely does happen. | |
| | |
Posts: 669
Location: Duluth | Kirby Budrow - 3/31/2024 2:22 PM
kdawg - 3/31/2024 9:19 AM
Great discussion so far and at this point I had no skin in this game until this morning when I caught the Jimmy Houston Outdoors with the muskie fishing segment in Minnesota. Kind of made me think everything I learned threw books,maps, guided trips, and mostly time and experience on the water, 40 plus years, just got thrown out the window. Kdawg
I really don’t think people understand how much knowledge FFS can give you until you really use it. It would be almost as good as draining the lake and seeing where every fish hangs out and be able to cast on their heads until they bite. It can make you understand seasonal movements, daily behaviors, how they relate to structure, bait and your lure. So it really does take away your 40 years of perceived knowledge. It will change how you fish, and enlighten you to the true nature of the fish. It’s nothing like side imaging, or anything else. People call it a tool. Yes it is. The tool gives you infinite knowledge of the fish which makes you unstoppable unless they really just aren’t biting that day. Which definitely does happen.
yea, but thats why it's good and shame on you for being jealous/wagging your finger at the kids. | |
| | |
Posts: 112
| Very interesting discussion everyone. I can see both sides as FFS is an amazing tool, but without extra caution it could be the downfall of certain populations.
One more thing to consider (at least with my knowledge of our fishing regs in N.W Ontario and Manitoba) we have to be careful wishing for bans or more laws. I know it isn't an exact comparison, but Lake Sturgeon were "at risk" and instead of coming up with more protective laws, it was easier to just ban fishing for them overall. I'm ALL for protecting our resources, please don't take this the wrong way. Like sturgeon fishing, musky fishing is still a relatively small part of the overall fishing industry (again relatively!).
What is more likely, the gov't listening carefully to concerns and doing a bunch of research to construct new laws to carefully manage and protect a certain species or simply copying our current regulations and taking sturgeon out and putting musky in? That is a scary thought. It would ultimately protect the muskies forever, but that means no one gets to target them.
Manitoba regs:
Winnipeg River between the Manitoba/Ontario border and the Pine Falls Generating Station – closed to lake sturgeon fishing all year.
Ontario regs:
Lake Sturgeon Season: closed all year
| |
| | |
Posts: 67
| It's funny to me that many people who are against it, actually end up admitting they have it... "but only use it for X purpose." You can't have it both ways. There will always be the occasional unethical person out there who abuses whatever it is. No different than people sitting on panfish beds early in the season and cleaning them out. Is it legal, yes, ethical, no. Also I don't think it's "kids" buying most of this technology. It's middle aged plus people with disposable income. If you don't want to use it fine, but you don't need to tell everyone else what they should do. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Eastman03 - 4/1/2024 9:15 AM
Very interesting discussion everyone. I can see both sides as FFS is an amazing tool, but without extra caution it could be the downfall of certain populations.
One more thing to consider (at least with my knowledge of our fishing regs in N.W Ontario and Manitoba) we have to be careful wishing for bans or more laws. I know it isn't an exact comparison, but Lake Sturgeon were "at risk" and instead of coming up with more protective laws, it was easier to just ban fishing for them overall. I'm ALL for protecting our resources, please don't take this the wrong way. Like sturgeon fishing, musky fishing is still a relatively small part of the overall fishing industry (again relatively!).
What is more likely, the gov't listening carefully to concerns and doing a bunch of research to construct new laws to carefully manage and protect a certain species or simply copying our current regulations and taking sturgeon out and putting musky in? That is a scary thought. It would ultimately protect the muskies forever, but that means no one gets to target them.
Manitoba regs:
Winnipeg River between the Manitoba/Ontario border and the Pine Falls Generating Station – closed to lake sturgeon fishing all year.
Ontario regs:
Lake Sturgeon Season: closed all year
Thanks for the contribution, Eastman03.
The Sturgeon situation was a binary choice, no nuances available:
Conservation closure (sturgeon): no fishing by anyone.
or
No closure: continued netting harvest by rights-based fishers and continued sturgeon decline.
There is no in-between. With a conservation closure there is no possibility of a "catch and release" option. You are still interfering with the resource and possibly affecting reproduction. You don't want to be defending a rec (fun) fishery when you have forced rights-based to stop harvesting - unwinnable position.
The FFS situation (and future improvements) can be regulated with some nuance, but the reality is fishing is going to decline in quality from here on out the more ubiquitous it becomes.
Fisheries that we have like Lake Winnipeg are not going to be affected by something like FFS, the muskies that you and I fish just east of us here are though.
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 3/30/2024 1:49 PM
Angling Oracle - 3/29/2024 6:46 PM
^^ Great points, Ruddiger. The sooner Muskies Inc / Muskies Canada take some position on it, the easier it will be for guides and lodges to have an out to not have to use it and advertise as such.
I had this link on the moved/binned FFS post, but putting it here again from Pete, Dave and Scott Kieper for those that missed it the first time around. Kirby's concerns sound very much like Scott's where I've got the clip started.
https://youtu.be/9B4JOt3QWfk?si=H3W773j3atdKGkq-&t=1330
I believe this will be brought to a vote at the next Muskies Inc Executive Committee meeting in a few days.
A motion to discuss having a position, or are there actually going to some possible positions tabled?
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/1/2024 10:41 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2026
| After reading this thread, my first question is "Who decided what is ethical?" Is it immoral to use FFS? Is it illegal? If not, it's not unethical. Some are now looking to ban it? I am not for FFS, I do believe it will affect fishing big time. But c'mon, the calling this unethical is going a bit far. Use Fair Chase instead.
I also find it hypocritical for guides griping about FFS. Guides fish much more than us, which pressures fish more and will result in more delayed mortality by simply catching more fish. WHich to me is basically what most here are arguing about. SO, let's ban guides. After all, that's the ethical thing to do.
Finally, I was listening to the new Meateater podcast, and the Musky Elite reputation has come to the attention of hunting crews. The fist 30 something minutes were spent on the holier than thou attitude some have regarding muskies. Gave me a chuckle while driving to my first job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve5n8nk1lCc&t=1778s
| |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | ARmuskyaddict - 4/3/2024 8:47 AM
After reading this thread, my first question is "Who decided what is ethical?" Is it immoral to use FFS? Is it illegal? If not, it's not unethical. Some are now looking to ban it? I am not for FFS, I do believe it will affect fishing big time. But c'mon, the calling this unethical is going a bit far. Use Fair Chase instead.
I also find it hypocritical for guides griping about FFS. Guides fish much more than us, which pressures fish more and will result in more delayed mortality by simply catching more fish. WHich to me is basically what most here are arguing about. SO, let's ban guides. After all, that's the ethical thing to do.
Finally, I was listening to the new Meateater podcast, and the Musky Elite reputation has come to the attention of hunting crews. The fist 30 something minutes were spent on the holier than thou attitude some have regarding muskies. Gave me a chuckle while driving to my first job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve5n8nk1lCc&t=1778s
Unethical and Fair Chase fall under the same category. I do actually agree to some extent about guides. They can put more pressure on the lakes and should have to compensate for it some how. They also do good things by introducing more people to fishing and teaching them to be ethical (or teach them fair chase). Healthy release tactics, ethics toward other fishermen, safety, advocate for stocking, limits...all good things. | |
| | |
| To me, if FFS is unethical, then mega SI/DI could be considered the same. If it is decided that it should be banned, fine, I don't plan on buying. But declaring one form of high def electronics unethical and leaving all others unscathed seems problematic to me. | |
| | |
Posts: 31
| ARmuskyaddict,
There are lots of things that are legal but still immoral and or unethical. There are some things that are legal that should be banned but aren't. Calling it unethical is not going too far if that is how someone feels about it.
You and Kirby bring up an interesting point regarding guides impact (positive and negative) on the public resource they benefit from.
Edited by cabbage 4/3/2024 12:13 PM
| |
| | |
Location: SE/WI | Jason Mitchell's thoughts on a Ban. https://youtu.be/zufU3uXJOaY?si=dEW5Zz-Dk_z9MIDk | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Angling Oracle - 4/1/2024 10:39 AM
sworrall - 3/30/2024 1:49 PM
Angling Oracle - 3/29/2024 6:46 PM
^^ Great points, Ruddiger. The sooner Muskies Inc / Muskies Canada take some position on it, the easier it will be for guides and lodges to have an out to not have to use it and advertise as such.
I had this link on the moved/binned FFS post, but putting it here again from Pete, Dave and Scott Kieper for those that missed it the first time around. Kirby's concerns sound very much like Scott's where I've got the clip started.
https://youtu.be/9B4JOt3QWfk?si=H3W773j3atdKGkq-&t=1330
I believe this will be brought to a vote at the next Muskies Inc Executive Committee meeting in a few days.
A motion to discuss having a position, or are there actually going to some possible positions tabled?
I am writing up a simple few-sentence position statement, which will then be presented to the EC for comments and a motion to pass if no edits are recommended. | |
| | |
Posts: 99
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Jason Mitchell is spot on with his opinion. | |
| | |
Posts: 8820
| There was a time when chart plotters were going to be the demise of fishing, and trolling motors, spot lock, name something.
Fished with a guy some years back who didn't even have electronics on his boat, no trolling motor, just your basic tin boat tiller. Saw a bunch, caught a few...
I can see why people are upset over this, but if you don't know where to look to begin with are you really going to catch any more fish by finding one on the screen and casting at it until the cows come home vs driving all over the place and casting at good looking structure hoping to find a hungry one? | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 4/3/2024 1:08 PM
Angling Oracle - 4/1/2024 10:39 AM
sworrall - 3/30/2024 1:49 PM
Angling Oracle - 3/29/2024 6:46 PM
^^ Great points, Ruddiger. The sooner Muskies Inc / Muskies Canada take some position on it, the easier it will be for guides and lodges to have an out to not have to use it and advertise as such.
I had this link on the moved/binned FFS post, but putting it here again from Pete, Dave and Scott Kieper for those that missed it the first time around. Kirby's concerns sound very much like Scott's where I've got the clip started.
https://youtu.be/9B4JOt3QWfk?si=H3W773j3atdKGkq-&t=1330
I believe this will be brought to a vote at the next Muskies Inc Executive Committee meeting in a few days.
A motion to discuss having a position, or are there actually going to some possible positions tabled?
I am writing up a simple few-sentence position statement, which will then be presented to the EC for comments and a motion to pass if no edits are recommended.
We all appreciate what Muskies Inc. and Muskies Canada do for muskies and musky fishing. On a personal note, very much appreciate your contributions on that board as I have had similar positions up here, and although rewarding at times, there is a lot of downside as far toll on your what was your free time, family, work and so on. Thanks again.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | esoxaddict - 4/3/2024 1:50 PM
There was a time when chart plotters were going to be the demise of fishing, and trolling motors, spot lock, name something.
Fished with a guy some years back who didn't even have electronics on his boat, no trolling motor, just your basic tin boat tiller. Saw a bunch, caught a few...
I can see why people are upset over this, but if you don't know where to look to begin with are you really going to catch any more fish by finding one on the screen and casting at it until the cows come home vs driving all over the place and casting at good looking structure hoping to find a hungry one?
Have you used it in a lake where muskies frequent open water? You don't just find one and cast until the cows come home. You find a pile of them and cast until the cows come home.
If the MN DNR would stock more fish it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But the fisheries were already suffering due to lack of stocking and increased fishing pressure. Adding FFS on top only increases the pressure by ALOT. It's not just someone coming out and trying their luck and maybe gets a few follows like it used to me. It now means that any bass/walleye/novice muskie guy, anyone who can use a rod and FFS can now go out and catch as many as they want before they get tired of it over the course of a season. The resources on how to do it are unlimited on youtube. It's so easy.
I am not for controlling people and banning something because it's too good. But if it is not banned (which it won't be) then something else has to give. The only solution is more stocking in my mind. I did state that I think it should be banned, I think even in this thread. What I really mean is I wish it didn't exist. Charts, trolling motors, etc., sure they are game changers. But this is a game changer X10. | |
| | |
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "It now means that any bass/walleye/novice muskie guy, anyone who can use a rod and FFS can now go out and catch as many as they want before they get tired of it over the course of a season. The resources on how to do it are unlimited on youtube. It's so easy."
Seriously guys, this is NOT going to sell to anyone but muskie guides and want to be muskie guides.
Think like a decision maker: you allocate millions (not as many as we'd like) to create a fishable population, the size limits are already "high" compared to what MOST anglers would think a trophy is, and someone is going to tell me that the plans they made are WORKING to well because of this new technology?!
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ Good take, Kirby.
It needs to be regulated in musky fishing, there has to be refuges from it.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/3/2024 3:11 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 99
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Maybe worry more about teaching proper conservation practices. You’re stuck on thinking everyone is going to misuse it. I’ve had it for an entire season and not once did I use it to sharp shoot a fish. Lots of anglers similar. Focus your efforts on teaching proper conservation and practical uses vs trying to ban. Just a thought.
Edited by FishinXtreme 4/3/2024 4:12 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | FishinXtreme - 4/3/2024 3:41 PM
Maybe worry more about teaching proper conservation practices. You’re stuck on thinking everyone is going to miss use it. I’ve had it for an entire season and not once did I use it to sharp shoot a fish. Lots of anglers similar. Focus your efforts on teaching proper conservation and practical uses vs trying to ban. Just a thought.
At least I'm not alone in this thinking... | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | Slamr - 4/3/2024 3:57 PM
FishinXtreme - 4/3/2024 3:41 PM
Maybe worry more about teaching proper conservation practices. You’re stuck on thinking everyone is going to miss use it. I’ve had it for an entire season and not once did I use it to sharp shoot a fish. Lots of anglers similar. Focus your efforts on teaching proper conservation and practical uses vs trying to ban. Just a thought.
At least I'm not alone in this thinking...
That’s been my main focus for many years. The problem is you have people who simply will not listen. They are stuck in their own way. They say things like, “oh you’re just jealous because you can’t afford it”, or “we release them all anyway”. Sounds familiar right? Those few people catch more fish scoping one season than most people do in 5 years. Or more. I’m not trying to ban it either. I just wish it didn’t exist and the DNR would stock more to make up for what it’s doing. | |
| | |
Posts: 99
Location: Eau Claire, WI | That’s only a small percentage. All this discussion is only going to make anglers want it more. Education needs to be priority. Have the big organizations denounce the main issues with it. Teach how to use it properly. When SI came out it was the same game changer. More cribs and structure was found than ever imagined. Panfish took
A beating. This only will be solved by teaching proper etiquettes and not glorifying the catch. Fishing is so much more. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Kirby Budrow - 4/3/2024 4:21 PM
Slamr - 4/3/2024 3:57 PM
FishinXtreme - 4/3/2024 3:41 PM
Maybe worry more about teaching proper conservation practices. You’re stuck on thinking everyone is going to miss use it. I’ve had it for an entire season and not once did I use it to sharp shoot a fish. Lots of anglers similar. Focus your efforts on teaching proper conservation and practical uses vs trying to ban. Just a thought.
At least I'm not alone in this thinking...
That’s been my main focus for many years. The problem is you have people who simply will not listen. They are stuck in their own way. They say things like, “oh you’re just jealous because you can’t afford it”, or “we release them all anyway”. Sounds familiar right? Those few people catch more fish scoping one season than most people do in 5 years. Or more. I’m not trying to ban it either. I just wish it didn’t exist and the DNR would stock more to make up for what it’s doing.
The "or more" sounds about right.
The lodge owner then asking me what we should do about it. So here I am.
Honestly we don't think anyone here is going to abuse it. Probably most of you enjoy the way you are fishing now and will be repulsed by how easy it will be if you go this way (when I mean easy - it is not right now easy, but you will figure it out quick). Maybe you will catch one or two and then decide it is not for you (until you don't catch going back to the usual ways). Jigging muskies (or pike) using no tech or using FFS and getting railed is addictive - and there are folks that succumb to that addiction. Then they tell a friend, then they tell two friends, etc. Then your lake is #&*!*d. Sounds like Wabigoon...
I hope whatever Steve is proposing gets some traction.
Do you think if we didn't say BAN anyone would pay attention?
PS - it should be banned, as this is just year 4 or 5 or whatever. They are just getting started with it and are at version 3 of Livescope now (the other two are not close yet). It's going to get much more effective and easy to use than the primitive stuff they have dribbled out now.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/3/2024 5:02 PM
| |
| | |
| If a law is passed banning FFS, law suits will follow, without a doubt. Could be tied up for years on appeal. Another possibility is that legislators, to avoid said litigation, could include all electronics that could be used to spot fish, including SI/DI in the ban.
Are you sure you want to go down that path? | |
| | |
Posts: 8820
| The answer, as always, is more fish in more places. Looking at what's happened in MN over the last 20 years solidifies a few things. We all said it was going to be amazing and it was. We all said it wasn't going to last, and it didn't. Not to the extent of what everyone got used to anyway, and that was going to happen either way - new reservoir syndrome being what it is.
The other thing we all saw coming was the resistance from all the wealthy riparian land owners who don't want those awful fish in "their" lakes. Come on.. We all know who is eating all the walleyes. Look down the bar at all the guys who haven't seen their johnsons in 20 years. So what is it? Misinformation about what muskies do and don't do to a lake? Or maybe they just don't want US around the lakes. Why would that be? | |
| | |
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | SO the thought is that livescope skips the learning it takes to get Joe Shmoe on a fish. Isn't that also what guides do? Spend money for Joe Guide, he puts you on fish, you get pics and you pay your $400-700 + tip.
Since there are a few guides advocating to ban FFS because it makes fishing too easy...if YOU all stopped fishing, same result, right? Less unskilled people catching, handling, and injuring fish.
Oh, will that hurt your business? You're ok saying that it's ok to hurt the people who create and sell the tech that destroys the resource so I figure you're ok losing money, too. | |
| | |
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Slamr - 4/3/2024 5:48 PM
SO the thought is that livescope skips the learning it takes to get Joe Shmoe on a fish. Isn't that also what guides do? Spend money for Joe Guide, he puts you on fish, you get pics and you pay your $400-700 + tip.
Since there are a few guides advocating to ban FFS because it makes fishing too easy...if YOU all stopped fishing, same result, right? Less unskilled people catching, handling, and injuring fish.
Oh, will that hurt your business? You're ok saying that it's ok to hurt the people who create and sell the tech that destroys the resource so I figure you're ok losing money, too.
Or will you all at least sign a pledge that you won't use FFS, SI, Downscan, or regular old sonar....don't want to be using this new fangled tools to cut out the spirit of the chase. FFS is live, the others show you an instant ago. | |
| | |
Posts: 8820
| If any swinging dick can catch all the fish with nothing but a piece of equipment, what good is a guide? What about the you tube segment of the musky fishing population? If anybody who can fog a mirror can go out and catch muskies, they'll be standing on a street corner in a trench coat flashing people and yelling "HEY, LOOK AT ME!!" Then there's the folks who rely on selling lures (that are mostly junk) to naive anglers who don't know it doesn't matter what you throw as long as you put it in front of a fish. I guess I'm old, but I just want to go out there and fish, maybe catch a few, preferably in the company of as few people as possible. I don't care what the great unwashed public does unless it diminishes my enjoyment of the sport, and I only care about the fish and the fisheries because I like to catch fish. If I cared about the fish that much I'd trade my fishing gear for scuba gear, or sell everything I own and open up an aquarium... | |
| | |
Posts: 669
Location: Duluth | Slamr - 4/3/2024 3:04 PM
"It now means that any bass/walleye/novice muskie guy, anyone who can use a rod and FFS can now go out and catch as many as they want before they get tired of it over the course of a season. The resources on how to do it are unlimited on youtube. It's so easy."
Seriously guys, this is NOT going to sell to anyone but muskie guides and want to be muskie guides.
Think like a decision maker: you allocate millions (not as many as we'd like) to create a fishable population, the size limits are already "high" compared to what MOST anglers would think a trophy is, and someone is going to tell me that the plans they made are WORKING to well because of this new technology?!
I can't disagree with this statement, the frustrating part is translating the uptick in interest to an uptick in membership/participation in orgs that maintain the fisheries.
I think we need to take a very hard look at what management looks like, whether it's sanctuary fisheries, strict technology regulations, or acceptance that we will have fewer fisheries period. I do think it's abundantly clear that the resources and political will aren't there to expand fisheries.
Also would not mind it one bit if we went back to the stoneage electronically, as long as we get to keep modern rods and reels | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
Musky fisherman (myself included) are a hypocritical enigma. We spend most of our time preaching proper fish handling techniques and worrying about how OTHER people may harm the fish, and then spend the majority of OUR time and money trying to violently stab 5/0 hooks into a fishes face with as much force as possible.
Catching fish hurts fish. Catching fish occasionally kills fish even after they swim away. In many ways, we would do a lot more good for the resource by simply banning all barbed hooks and requiring all barbless hooks. Same goes for mandatory catch and release. This makes a lot more sense than banning electronics.
Take care,
Ruddiger
Edited by Ruddiger 4/4/2024 9:25 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 100
| All I hear when I read most of these posts is a bunch of old guys yelling "stay off my lawn!" | |
| | |
Posts: 1527
Location: Brighton CO. | We are the problem there is just too many of us, homes build in swamps (homes everywhere) Bigger boats, Jet ski's, Wake boats, and if you are looking for quietness you really have to pick your spots and same goes for the fish. (they like it quiet too.)
Fall 1984 still lived in California went up North for the first time in the fall when school career was over. One evening during the work week I walked out on a pier at a resort of some friends where I could see the whole lake I it was dark I could only see three places that were lit up. 2009 (25 years later) I did the same thing and it looked no different then summer. | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | https://www.outdoorsfirst.com/bass/article/fine-tuning-for-success/
Interesting piece on using the tech. | |
| | |
Posts: 633
Location: Madison, WI | To all those saying how any Joe angler can now just beat up open water fish with FFS I think you're clueless. Open water fish of all species are the EASIEST to find with all electronics! Kirby said how people will find a pack of fish and beat them up to catch as many as you want. That same pack of fish is easily found with SI. If those open water fish are so easily catchable, I guess it doesn't matter if FFS is banned or not. All anyone needs to do is drive around with SI, find that same school or pack of fish, drop a waypoint and beat them up?
So none of you guys have ever cast rubber at balls of bait before? It's ok to cast at that bait if I find it with my SI, but if someone finds it with livescope they're the devil, or cheating? | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Gregoire - 4/4/2024 9:32 AM
All I hear when I read most of these posts is a bunch of old guys yelling "stay off my lawn!"
The lawn where we caught all our muskies last year was 3 feet deep or less. Some of our spots hit daily many times by all kinds of anglers, including perhaps twice by us. Have at 'em.
I want the open water refuge to be left alone (from FFS), it is too susceptible to over -exploitation.
https://youtu.be/9B4JOt3QWfk?si=oIP2pYvdKhoym6rS&t=2533
Make sure to check out Pete's comments at: 54:18 to 55:18
Greg, do you have something useful to contribute as far as counterpoint, like "I won't sharpshoot muskies in open water." Most of the old guys here are defending tech out of principal on your behalf. The not so old guys are trying to keep musky fishing sustainable.
Kieper's point about about the bloating is dead on, but equally as important is that the temp difference between the surface and the bottom of the early thermcline is about 20 F (difference) 73 F -53 F. I know this as I personally had to study this stuff. The forage (ciscos) are in the colder layer the majority of the time. The spring is the only time where both kind of naturally overlap. Lucky musky have a REFUGE during the spring - we made a reg to protect them. I wonder why that was done?? Oh, yeah, because fishing them probably not a good idea, just like targeting them in open water with FFs is a bad thing.
Ruddiger - Manitoba is all barbless and has been for a long time. Barbless would reduce handling and mortality in muskies. Their head shaking and jumping would be effective in getting away more often for sure. Rarely lose pike with barbless as they tend to try and go deep to cover, head shake a bit less often.
If they banned all tech for muskies, fine with me. Be fine with a tinner with a 15 hp and a topwater with a single barbless hook. Would be Nirvana.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/4/2024 11:29 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | danmuskyman - 4/4/2024 10:28 AM
To all those saying how any Joe angler can now just beat up open water fish with FFS I think you're clueless. Open water fish of all species are the EASIEST to find with all electronics! Kirby said how people will find a pack of fish and beat them up to catch as many as you want. That same pack of fish is easily found with SI. If those open water fish are so easily catchable, I guess it doesn't matter if FFS is banned or not. All anyone needs to do is drive around with SI, find that same school or pack of fish, drop a waypoint and beat them up?
So none of you guys have ever cast rubber at balls of bait before? It's ok to cast at that bait if I find it with my SI, but if someone finds it with livescope they're the devil, or cheating?
I agree with you 100% REFUGE in open water. I doubt FFS will be banned, so whatever way the issue is going to be solved, it will have to be nuanced. FFS is a far greater problem given SI does not have any of the feedback attributes of FFS. The FFS guys get on a fish and follow it around and harass (like I mentioned in my first post or two in this thread). The CPUE comparisons between the two are not even close.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/4/2024 11:14 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
Oracle, I’ve fished barbless for northerns in Ontario by choice since ‘94 and genuinely don’t feel it’s cost me any fish.
Admittedly, I don’t do it for Muskies but I probably should. Sadly, the bites come so rarely for me that I feel compelled to put all of the odds in my favor. It kills me every time I lose a fish so going barbless by choice turns into an agonizing “what if” situation for me.
Realistically though, it’s selfishness on my part that I don’t go all barbless for all fish, not just muskies. Objectively speaking, barbless would probably do more to help all fish than any bans would.
Take care,
Ruddiger
Edited by Ruddiger 4/4/2024 12:57 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 633
Location: Madison, WI | Angling Oracle - 4/4/2024 10:40 AM
danmuskyman - 4/4/2024 10:28 AM
To all those saying how any Joe angler can now just beat up open water fish with FFS I think you're clueless. Open water fish of all species are the EASIEST to find with all electronics! Kirby said how people will find a pack of fish and beat them up to catch as many as you want. That same pack of fish is easily found with SI. If those open water fish are so easily catchable, I guess it doesn't matter if FFS is banned or not. All anyone needs to do is drive around with SI, find that same school or pack of fish, drop a waypoint and beat them up?
So none of you guys have ever cast rubber at balls of bait before? It's ok to cast at that bait if I find it with my SI, but if someone finds it with livescope they're the devil, or cheating?
I agree with you 100% REFUGE in open water. I doubt FFS will be banned, so whatever way the issue is going to be solved, it will have to be nuanced. FFS is a far greater problem given SI does not have any of the feedback attributes of FFS. The FFS guys get on a fish and follow it around and harass (like I mentioned in my first post or two in this thread ). The CPUE comparisons between the two are not even close.
So if open water should be a refuge as you say, would salmon fishing the Great Lakes be banned as well? Not many guys beating the banks for kings all summer. Lake Erie walleye? Just because some people want to fish differently than you and are successful doesn't mean it needs to be banned. For what it's worth, I'm not for sharpshooting muskies either, but banning something that a few people misuse is ridiculous | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ Dan, I'm focusing on muskies -- not here to fight the crappie, bass, pothole perch and everything else battle. I personally believe from an "ends justfies the means" point of view that outright banning this particular tech is easier than the other solutions that are going to be needed to protect these other fisheries, but there is no resilience in naturally reproducing populations of muskies. Sure a ban will work, but whatever we need to do to give these fish a refuge in these higher mortality scenarios. Big muskies in allopatric systems certainly have a top-down influence on the predator composition (in particular pike/musky ratio), so really need to be proactive in protecting them - implicated by the LOTW (NW part of the lake - Ptarmigan to Shoal) where pike started to dominate and muskie numbers declined. I don't know much on what the Wabigoon recovery situation is - but if recovered we are 40 years on. Some of the muskie population I'm concerned with in cisco systems are not going to be able to sustainably support the kind of mortality that is inevitably build over time, especially as this tech improves. We have to act now, not wait for negative feedback. We do not have musky biologists up here, they are concerned about walleye, probably rightfully so give it is the $$-maker. It requires Muskies Inc. down there to start it off with a position on it and the community will follow, just like it has for size limits, handling, CPR, etc.
Needs to be a working group put together to work out what's best. The industry should get involved and not pretend it is not an issue just because they have fans cheerleading for them.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/4/2024 1:56 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 100
| Angling Oracle - 4/4/2024 11:33 AM
Gregoire - 4/4/2024 9:32 AM
All I hear when I read most of these posts is a bunch of old guys yelling "stay off my lawn!"
The lawn where we caught all our muskies last year was 3 feet deep or less. Some of our spots hit daily many times by all kinds of anglers, including perhaps twice by us. Have at 'em.
I want the open water refuge to be left alone (from FFS ), it is too susceptible to over -exploitation.
https://youtu.be/9B4JOt3QWfk?si=oIP2pYvdKhoym6rS&t=2533
Make sure to check out Pete's comments at: 54:18 to 55:18
Greg, do you have something useful to contribute as far as counterpoint, like "I won't sharpshoot muskies in open water." Most of the old guys here are defending tech out of principal on your behalf. The not so old guys are trying to keep musky fishing sustainable.
Kieper's point about about the bloating is dead on, but equally as important is that the temp difference between the surface and the bottom of the early thermcline is about 20 F (difference ) 73 F -53 F. I know this as I personally had to study this stuff. The forage (ciscos ) are in the colder layer the majority of the time. The spring is the only time where both kind of naturally overlap. Lucky musky have a REFUGE during the spring - we made a reg to protect them. I wonder why that was done?? Oh, yeah, because fishing them probably not a good idea, just like targeting them in open water with FFs is a bad thing.
Ruddiger - Manitoba is all barbless and has been for a long time. Barbless would reduce handling and mortality in muskies. Their head shaking and jumping would be effective in getting away more often for sure. Rarely lose pike with barbless as they tend to try and go deep to cover, head shake a bit less often.
If they banned all tech for muskies, fine with me. Be fine with a tinner with a 15 hp and a topwater with a single barbless hook. Would be Nirvana.
You want the open water to remain a refuge for muskies, maybe we should ban boating.. I'm obviously not serious. The technology changes, it has been changing pretty rapidly. People have always targeted open water musky. If more people start doing this, the fish will adapt. Those who use live sonar have already noticed that some fish are adapting and running from it. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Ruddiger - 4/4/2024 12:55 PM
Howdy,
Oracle, I’ve fished barbless for northerns in Ontario by choice since ‘94 and genuinely don’t feel it’s cost me any fish.
Admittedly, I don’t do it for Muskies but I probably should. Sadly, the bites come so rarely for me that I feel compelled to put all of the odds in my favor. It kills me every time I lose a fish so going barbless by choice turns into an agonizing “what if” situation for me.
Realistically though, it’s selfishness on my part that I don’t go all barbless for all fish, not just muskies. Objectively speaking, barbless would probably do more to help all fish than any bans would.
Take care,
Ruddiger
Good stuff, Ruddiger.
I'm right there with you. All my bass and walleye, pike stuff is barbless I use in Ontario as same stuff I use in Manitoba. All my musky stuff barbed. I often keep fishing with a cut off tine though.
Ruddiger, honest answer now please.
Lets say that you entirely agree with me that this is a problem for our musky fishery that needs a solution.
Solution one is mandatory barbless (and you personally will definitely catch fewer muskies than you do now, lets say a third less, and some real heartbreakers).
Solution two is a ban on using FFS for muskies in the open basin.
You have to make a choice. You are the fishery manager here. Both choices you are infringing on how other people want to fish, and in both cases you are reducing musky mortality (probably more with the FFS ban given the temp, depth issues).
You don't really have to answer of course, kind of rhetorical question. But to me this is why I am vehement in making something happen. Something has to give.
Gregoire, banning the use of FFS in open water would be the ask.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/4/2024 2:26 PM
| |
| | |
| To those who support a ban, how much money are you willing to pay out to see it put in place? Even if a legislature passes a regulation, the industry will fight in court. They have invested a great deal of money in this technology, they will not give up without exhausting all legal avenues. Lawyers are expensive. Ask Trump and Rudy G. about that. Frankly, unless the legislature were to ban all sonar, SI/DI, I think it would be very tough to pass the legal test. Are you willing to give up all tech with perhaps the exception of GPS to get a ban on FFS.
Don't mean to be rude, but as they say, talk is cheap, takes money to buy good whisky. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ North of 8, most of the type of lawsuits of that nature are the other way around, where groups sue because government agencies do not ban something - ie lead shot, etc.
We ban all kinds of thing up here. The wording typically is going to be non-specific to cover future developments.
I mean you guys had a rowboat rule down there until just a few years ago. All kinds of restrictions on gear.
I don't have the answers as don't know your system, but folks are proposing a ban, which apparently is not even musky related.
Really I think the exercise here it to think about the future of musky fishing and what it is going to be. No ban FFS petition here.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/4/2024 2:53 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | No8, I'm willing to give up all electronics as long as everyone else does.
It's really not worth discussing when the argument goes to "stay off my lawn" or "then you should ban SI as well then because it's the same thing". | |
| | |
| My point is that unless you want all electronic aids banned, language would have to be very specific and regardless, manufacturers will take it to court. They will not sit idly by. Yes, northern WI banned motor trolling but comparing that to banning one type of electronic fishing tech is an apples to elephants analogy. I think plaintiff lawyers would have a field day comparing SI images to FFS images in a court room and telling judges "they want to ban one but not the other". Garmin, Humminbird, all will fight such a ban and they will have standing. | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | You are right. It will never happen. | |
| | |
Posts: 633
Location: Madison, WI | Either go fishing and realize that what your doing may potentially harm whatever fish your after, or stop fishing all together. I just don't get the argument that fish up shallow are fair game and once they swim out in open water nobody should fish them? Fish go shallow to digest and soak in warm water but I'm allowed to harass those fish all I want?? I know of two tournaments that were won in the spring by guys throwing pounders in water 3' and less. I was told those fish that "ate" must have swung and missed because they were foul hooked. Guys can abuse any situation so let's just make all fishing banned.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1369
| The single biggest problem we face is not enough lakes with muskies, and not enough muskies in the lakes we have, compared to the number of people fishing for them.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a ban on all the technology. That's how I started, and that's kind of how I'm finishing. I have everything except FFS, and find I'm really not using it all that much anymore. Fish by myself most of the time, and I find I have a choice. Watch the screen looking for fish, or just fish. I'm watching the screens less and less all the time, and I don't think I'm catching fewer fish because of it. | |
| | |
Posts: 122
Location: Twin Cities Metro | Please don’t act like there is some sort of consensus on the effects of live sonar on muskie populations. What you have are some fears and a few anecdotes. And there certainly isn’t a consensus that live sonar is particularly harmful even on this discussion board. Don’t mistake the volume of posts by one side as assent to that position.
And I would be very wary of issuing a position statement as an organization where the general membership of that organization has not had a chance to offer feedback. I am a member of Muskies, Inc, haven’t missed more than a local meeting or two in the last 6 years. I haven’t heard anything about a live sonar position statement other than a vague wondering about whether maybe we should have one. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
Oracle, that’s an easy hypothetical. Barbless all day long. Overtime I’m confident rod technology would evolve to accommodate for and offset the impact of barbless on lost Fish. It already did so when we went to longer more parabolic actions to accommodate super lines.
The upside and long term benefit would be the obvious decrease in delayed mortality from difficult releases, which I think would more than make up for any negative consequences from lost fish. I also don’t think that people would lose that many muskies to begin with. I think the impact of going barbless is more psychological than practical.
Take care,
Ruddiger | |
| | |
Posts: 100
| Has there been any studies done on the mortality of open water fish vs fish caught off structure?
I completely agree with the idea that proper fish handling is the key, that is one of the only thing that is backed by research proving to decrease mortality.
It just seems to me that, as has been mentioned before, the people who view themselves as part of a club of exclusive musky anglers are getting angry because their club is getting big and isn't exclusive to them and their friends any longer.
Edited by Gregoire 4/5/2024 9:29 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Ruddiger - 4/5/2024 9:01 AM
Howdy,
Oracle, that’s an easy hypothetical. Barbless all day long. Overtime I’m confident rod technology would evolve to accommodate for and offset the impact of barbless on lost Fish. It already did so when we went to longer more parabolic actions to accommodate super lines.
The upside and long term benefit would be the obvious decrease in delayed mortality from difficult releases, which I think would more than make up for any negative consequences from lost fish. I also don’t think that people would lose that many muskies to begin with. I think the impact of going barbless is more psychological than practical.
Take care,
Ruddiger
It would dramatically reduce the mortality rate due to less handling time. Catch rates would reduce but as you say, folks would adjust. I'd prefer both options actually, but one is better than none.
The folks that know me here are aware that I am more about clearing out archaic regs or restrictions than putting in new ones (not easy to do either way). What is guiding me on this issue is my experiences in pike and musky fishing and the precautionary principle: "Which has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making."
We are doing some of this stuff on this forum. The industry needs to step up and start educating rather than entirely promoting. All of I've seen from them is making April fools pranks about states banning FFS. Not wise to make fun on your consumers.
Muskies Inc. et al. has wise enough people who are already considering this stuff. Hopefully some of their board members who are unsure can go out with some open water FFS experts and see what it's about. They already have all the mortality studies in hand and know what those numbers are.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/5/2024 9:55 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 100
|
Muskies Inc. et al. has wise enough people who are already considering this stuff. Hopefully some of their board members who are unsure can go out with some open water FFS experts and see what it's about. They already have all the mortality studies in hand and know what those numbers are.
What mortality studies are you referring to. Have the results of the recent mortality study examining warm water been released? | |
| | |
Posts: 100
| Muskies Inc. et al. has wise enough people who are already considering this stuff. Hopefully some of their board members who are unsure can go out with some open water FFS experts and see what it's about. They already have all the mortality studies in hand and know what those numbers are.
What mortality studies are you referring to. Have the results of the recent mortality study examining warm water been released? | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | It's not about stopping open water catches. It's about reducing the amount of fish caught per year, per person. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Gregoire - 4/5/2024 9:38 AM
Muskies Inc. et al. has wise enough people who are already considering this stuff. Hopefully some of their board members who are unsure can go out with some open water FFS experts and see what it's about. They already have all the mortality studies in hand and know what those numbers are.
What mortality studies are you referring to. Have the results of the recent mortality study examining warm water been released?
Here is one:
https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tafs.10418
Interesting "anecdote" by a walleye guy fishing Vermillion (a walleye board). Take it for what it is (you can go find it). but the reality is where there is smoke, there is fire:
"Mortality And Live Scope Out of Deep Water Lake Vermillion Minnesota
Hi guys,
I am writing to let you know what I have been observing here in Head O Lakes (my cabin is in this basin). As you may be aware, there is an open water muskie bite that occurs mid-June into the first half of July that seems to correspond with post spawn recovery and then as the mayfly hatch occurs. The population of muskies in open water increases as they congregate and they can be targeted and caught but it took a bunch of hard work and time on the water to do so in the past. This bite has been going on for years at this time.
The live imaging tech has now radically changed this. Anglers and guides now drive around at 5-7 mph in open water with forward facing live sonar and sharp shoot them. They will see how far down they are in the water column and drop a bait right on them, sometimes pulling fish up from 20 feet or more. The net result is they have become much more susceptible to angling pressure and the mortality appears to be spiking as the fish in HOL are kind of bottled up in that basin. I have seen at least a half a dozen dead muskies in HOL in the past couple of weeks. They just can not handle getting caught 6 times in a three week period. Some of these are true trophy fish. So far a dead 56, 55, 54.5, 47, 46 and a 44 inch in HOL. I have some pictures. For context, I will not see that many dead muskies in an entire year or two for that matter. The population of muskies cannot sustain this rate of mortality. Fingers crossed that it subsides. I personally have stopped fishing them in HOL due to this but I will continue to monitor it.
I bring this up to you folks to get this in front of the Pike and Musky working group as a topic for discussion.
Happy to chat if it helps,"
If this was up here, we would probably be contacting this fellow given he does have supporting photos and get the story directly from the source.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/5/2024 10:15 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 633
Location: Madison, WI | Kirby Budrow - 4/5/2024 9:51 AM
It's not about stopping open water catches. It's about reducing the amount of fish caught per year, per person.
Every musky angler out there wants to catch MORE fish than the previous year. Not one person I've ever talked to says "boy I sure hope next season is worse for me than this one"! Your signature says you take guided trips in northern MN. Are you going to stop taking clients out once you catch a predetermined number of fish? Who decides how many fish I can catch in a year? Is it ok for you to catch as many muskies as you want but just not others or new anglers? | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | danmuskyman - 4/5/2024 11:44 AM
Kirby Budrow - 4/5/2024 9:51 AM
It's not about stopping open water catches. It's about reducing the amount of fish caught per year, per person.
Every musky angler out there wants to catch MORE fish than the previous year. Not one person I've ever talked to says "boy I sure hope next season is worse for me than this one"! Your signature says you take guided trips in northern MN. Are you going to stop taking clients out once you catch a predetermined number of fish? Who decides how many fish I can catch in a year? Is it ok for you to catch as many muskies as you want but just not others or new anglers?
Nope, we're talking about the big picture here. Catch as many as you want as long as it's fair chase.
Side note, yes I guide. I take about 10 guide trips per year to help offset inflation. I work full time otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Bkq0txu0o&lc=UgybriFgIfC01opFaDt4A...
If anyone cares to watch, or maybe the link has been posted previously, this is the kind of thing I am talking about. This is what isn't fair to the fish. I hope new people get into muskie fishing and do great. Better than me even. But this is what is going on. This guy is not a muskie fisherman. He's a bass youtuber. Someone showed him how to sharpshoot muskies so he goes out and lights them up. How many of you went out and caught 3 good fish in 2 hours without putting in work to learn how to do it? And I am not jealous of him. I'm sad for the fishery. He's barely excited with his catches, lays the fish on carpet and he doesn't even know what the name of the bait he's throwing. The point I'm making with that is that he has no idea what he's even accomplished. That's generally ok, but the point is that FFS allows more people to go out and have amazing success. That happens with guide trips too and I don't want to take away someone else's experience. It's just that something has to change. You just can't sustain a fishery this way. | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | One more thing to state my position. I don't think it should be banned and I don't even think we can restrict people from using it to target muskies. I wish it didn't exist but it does. The only thing to do is stock more fish and possibly create sanctuaries. Before I said it's about limiting the amount of fish caught. I wish! But that can't be done either.
Edited by Kirby Budrow 4/5/2024 12:42 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | The video that Kirby posted is very telling.
Someone who's never fished for muskies in their life goes out with Livescope and catches three giants in 2 hours. | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | Grass - 4/5/2024 1:04 PM
The video that Kirby posted is very telling.
Someone who's never fished for muskies in their life goes out with Livescope and catches three giants in 2 hours.
And to be fair, it's really not this guy's fault. He doesn't know any better and it's public water. It's legal and he has the right to do it. I can't harp on him personally. It's just the culture we live in now.
Now everyone is worried about the Madison Chain. There's one more fishery suffering. The hits just keep coming. | |
| | |
Posts: 46
| Lighten up, guys. Four more years of what we have now nothing musky etc. will matter. | |
| | |
Posts: 67
| Grass - 4/5/2024 1:04 PM
The video that Kirby posted is very telling.
Someone who's never fished for muskies in their life goes out with Livescope and catches three giants in 2 hours.
Good for them. Sounds like an awesome day. | |
| | |
Posts: 633
Location: Madison, WI | jamesb - 4/5/2024 6:38 PM
Grass - 4/5/2024 1:04 PM
The video that Kirby posted is very telling.
Someone who's never fished for muskies in their life goes out with Livescope and catches three giants in 2 hours.
Good for them. Sounds like an awesome day.
Exactly! Bet they can't repeat it consistently. Everybody is so worried that this will kill a fishery, but I bet the fish catch on quickly and that bite dies as fast as any shallow water deal that gets pounded! | |
| | |
| danmuskyman - 4/5/2024 8:17 PM Everybody is so worried that this will kill a fishery, but I bet the fish catch on quickly and that bite dies as fast as any shallow water deal that gets pounded! You can count on the bite dieing alright. The more frequently the fish are caught will result in more dead fish. It takes 10 to 15 years to replace a nice sized muskie. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | From the Target Walleye site:
Re FFS.
"Overall, says Lindner, it is too early to fully comprehend the magnitude of what we are dealing with, but he has already seen at least two fishing situations where it has clearly demonstrated a negative impact. “The harvest levels and damage to crappie populations on some very popular waters around the country have been staggering because the fish can no longer escape our vision…especially when they winter in tight schools. It used to take some effort to stay on crappies when they moved. That is no longer the case when you use FFS. Some crappie populations have been greatly impacted.”
Muskie is another species taking a hit, expands Lindner. “These used to be the fish of 1,000 casts. Now, you move around with your trolling motor, look at the screen and they stick out like a sore thumb because they are so big. You cannot miss them – and when you find them you many times catch them!” According to Lindner, many people in the fishing industry are seeing similar results – and he, like Neu, believes that FFS technology is now beginning to take a bite out of the walleye fishery as well. Both agree the time for fisheries managers to act is now, preemptively, before the effects of FFS technology are compounded by greater availability, additional improvements, and more usage.
Al Lindner: “It’s been my experience that state agencies and fisheries managers usually don’t move until fisheries collapse. We need to get out in front of this before it becomes a genuine problem. There is no time to waste.”
Well said... | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm a lifetime honorary member of the NPAA. Here's what Pat Nue, the president of that organization had to say in his newsletter:
The Inside Scoop- March/April 2024
Wisconsin DNR Spring Hearings May Affect All NPAA Members
How can the Wisconsin DNR Spring Hearings affect all NPAA Members? Well, that is an easy question to answer. The Spring Hearings are part of a process that allows the Wisconsin DNR to make laws affecting the resources and use of the
resources by the public in the state. This process has been used for years and though it works, the general angling and hunting public need to pay close attention to what is being proposed. The first step in the process is to get public input on questions concerning potential legislation. That first step will take place this coming week for 2024, with the in-person meetings taking place in each county on April 8th, followed up by a period of online comments the remainder of the week.
So, why do I mention this in my Inside Scoop? Well, this year there are two questions that could affect the future of angling for many of our members. Question #22 is the most controversial. The Spring Hearing question is below: 22. Background: Ban live scopes and 360° imaging locations in Wisconsin waters (280123). With the ability of these types of units to detect fish as far as 180’ from the user, anglers have become more efficient at locating and catching fish. This type of pressure could reduce fish populations, which may lead to reduced bag limits for anglers.
22. Would you support banning the use of live scopes, and similar 360° imaging electronics in all Wisconsin waters?
Technology, especially Forward-Facing Sonar, has been very controversial throughout the country over the past year plus. Should those of us who utilize the technology when we fish chose not to voice our opinion on this question, and it
goes through the process needed to become law it will affect angling throughout the United States. A law banning technology by one state, especially one like Wisconsin, could create a snowball effect nationwide. If these technologies
are outlawed what will be next?
The controversial nature of this technology is dividing our sport, and that is concerning. Whether you like this technology or do not we need to understand that a regulation to make a certain technology illegal to use as an angler will be
detrimental to the sport. This technology is used by guides, captains, tournament anglers and the general angling public to increase success on the water. It has attracted many younger anglers who embrace technology, but it is also being
utilized by anglers of all ages who want to have increased angling success.
If you choose not to use recent technology, that is great, if you use it and understand it to the level that allows you to catch more fish great, but with that use you need to respect the resource and harvest fish at an ethical level. Just because you
can catch species that are harvested for table fair at a higher rate, does not mean you should keep a limit every time you fish. Responsible harvest is the key whether using the technology or not.
To that end, question #1 on the same Spring Hearing Questionnaire will give the WI DNR the ability to instate regulations on an emergency basis based upon data that is collected. I have spoken with fisheries managers about this proposal, and
all agree that is necessary to allow them to protect the resource. As such I recommend that our members vote yes on this proposal. This would be a valuable tool in the DNR’s toolbox and to become permanent law it would still need to go through the Spring Hearing and law-making process.
Finally, these April 8th hearings and the input process next week are especially important to the future of our sport. Please participate in this process by going to the hearings and by leaving comments online. Thank you and feel free to contact
me if you have any questions by calling or e-mailing me.
“It’s All about the Sport!" | |
| | |
Posts: 633
Location: Madison, WI | ^^^ well said Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 20
| First post but as a youngish angler in my 20s I thought I'd offer my opinion on FFS/technology in fishing in general. First, in my opinion people that believe fishermen will self-regulate and not use FFS and other legal technology to its full capacity are fooling themselves. It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons where people act in their own self interest to the detriment of a public resource. Thus, as technology improves it will either need to be regulated or bag limits will need to be reduced. C&R is not immune to this either as mortality in C&R is not trivial. Perhaps I'm an outlier, but I'd rather seasons/bag limits remain the same and place limits on technology. I've seen people say they'd rather not limit technology and adjust season/bag limits though.
My other thought it that if there no limit placed on technology like FFS we will eventually reach a point where the location of every musky in the lake is known and musky fishing will purely become driving from fish to fish trying to entice them to eat, probably waiting in line behind other anglers to do so. Thus, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere on FFS/fish finding technology just like hunting is doing now with drones, thermal imaging, and cell cameras.
Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/6/2024 7:55 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 633
Location: Madison, WI | Ok fine, let's limit FFS on musky fishing like some of you suggest, but let's do it opposite. All musky fishing is banned in water 15' or less and now we can only fish open water. I'd argue there are lots of fisheries where muskies feed primarily in open water and go shallow to relax/digest. This should effectively reduce the number of catches and handling as well right? Plus leaving fish alone from harassment when they are neutral or negative.
Oh wait, most of you guys only want to cast structure so this would interfere with your style of fishing so you'd never vote for that! | |
| | |
Posts: 8820
| xcskier_hunter - 4/6/2024 7:49 PM
[...] My other thought it that if there no limit placed on technology like FFS we will eventually reach a point where the location of every musky in the lake is known and musky fishing will purely become driving from fish to fish trying to entice them to eat, probably waiting in line behind other anglers to do so. Thus, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere on FFS/fish finding technology just like hunting is doing now with drones, thermal imaging, and cell cameras.
That would seem to be a likely outcome, but it goes against what musky fishing is all about for most of us. Yes, we all want to catch more and bigger fish, but we know when we go out there there's a good chance we won't even see one that day. And we spend the money anyway, to stand out there in #*#*ty weather, throwing lures and eating advil so we can throw some more lures, and get all excited when we see one after 6 hours...
Self regulation? Doubtful. But if that's what musky fishing becomes, how many people will actually do it? | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | xcskier_hunter - 4/6/2024 7:49 PM
First post but as a youngish angler in my 20s I thought I'd offer my opinion on FFS/technology in fishing in general. First, in my opinion people that believe fishermen will self-regulate and not use FFS and other legal technology to its full capacity are fooling themselves. It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons where people act in their own self interest to the detriment of a public resource. Thus, as technology improves it will either need to be regulated or bag limits will need to be reduced. C&R is not immune to this either as mortality in C&R is not trivial. Perhaps I'm an outlier, but I'd rather seasons/bag limits remain the same and place limits on technology. I've seen people say they'd rather not limit technology and adjust season/bag limits though.
My other thought it that if there no limit placed on technology like FFS we will eventually reach a point where the location of every musky in the lake is known and musky fishing will purely become driving from fish to fish trying to entice them to eat, probably waiting in line behind other anglers to do so. Thus, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere on FFS/fish finding technology just like hunting is doing now with drones, thermal imaging, and cell cameras.
Thanks for that first post. Thoughtful and well written.
Can add electronic calls to that list - something I just noticed we are allowed to use for a very brief spring Canada goose season up here (not for Canada's in fall though) Can be used for snows and predators, but not for other big game, turkeys. Yeah, hunters somehow work out how to manage/regulate these technology issues.
Re. the Pat Neu comments that Steve posted above, sort of an odd argument to worry about doing something in your state (or province) and how it might affect the ones around you. Ontario banned spring-bear hunt for a few years, we shrugged over here. We banned barbed hooks, the provinces on either side shrugged. Tech, well Arkansas banned roboducks, and then a few years they didn't. In general though the process is not really the best way to manage fisheries etc. (voting on propositions to force the DNR to study and make recommendations), so in that sense it does kind of create this kind of odd US vs. THEM scramble we are seeing here on this thread. I would assume animal rights types would have as much a right to put up propositions as well.
It is very likely that even right now, but certainly in the very near future these tech companies could put limiter setting on these live sonar units (ie. for refuge areas, depth) if it were demanded. Someone just needs to ask...
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/7/2024 9:25 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 20
| Self regulation? Doubtful. But if that's what musky fishing becomes, how many people will actually do it?
Right, this is another point that frustrates me. In much of the outdoor industry it's argued that new technology whether it be FFS or crossbows in hunting is necessary to recruit new people into these pursuits, but in reducing the challenge we cheapen the overall experience that keeps people hooked long term. Nobody musky fishes because it's the easy way to catch numbers of fish. And locating muskies is a huge part of the challenge, which I assume is why musky fishing and musky hunting is used interchangeably.
Furthermore, recreational fishing in the U.S. is getting more popular so the focus should not even be on how to create more and more effective fishermen, but rather how can we maintain the resource for a quality experience and as conservationists in general. Personally, the band-aid of stocking, particularly in native musky waters that should be self-sustaining, is not that appealing or even a sustainable a solution. I know muskies and salmon are not the same species, but the science seems clear with salmon that stocking hurts the existing wild population. I recognize that stocking is necessary in many places and can also be used to spread out pressure, but as a young angler, I wish more focus was put on the long term sustainability of these fisheries rather than short term solutions to catching more fish.
Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/7/2024 8:04 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | xcskier_hunter - 4/7/2024 7:57 AM:
Furthermore, recreational fishing in the U.S. is getting more popular so the focus should not even be on how to create more and more effective fishermen, but rather how can we maintain the resource for a quality experience and as conservationists in general. Personally, the band-aid of stocking, particularly in native musky waters that should be self-sustaining, is not that appealing or even a sustainable a solution. I know muskies and salmon are not the same species, but the science seems clear with salmon that stocking hurts the existing wild population. I recognize that stocking is necessary in many places and can also be used to spread out pressure, but as a young angler, I wish more focus was put on the long term sustainability of these fisheries rather than short term solutions to catching more fish.
^^ There are not enough muskies to sustain pressure from FFS sharpshooting, especially in naturally reproducing populations like we have here. Muskies are not a put and take fishery given they are the top of the food chain and whether they are natural or stocked, they heavily influence the population structure of other predators and prey in the lake. If big muskies are over-exploited there is never a quick recovery (if they recover at all) in either situation.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/7/2024 8:30 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 20
| Angling Oracle - 4/7/2024 8:28 AM
xcskier_hunter - 4/7/2024 7:57 AM:
Furthermore, recreational fishing in the U.S. is getting more popular so the focus should not even be on how to create more and more effective fishermen, but rather how can we maintain the resource for a quality experience and as conservationists in general. Personally, the band-aid of stocking, particularly in native musky waters that should be self-sustaining, is not that appealing or even a sustainable a solution. I know muskies and salmon are not the same species, but the science seems clear with salmon that stocking hurts the existing wild population. I recognize that stocking is necessary in many places and can also be used to spread out pressure, but as a young angler, I wish more focus was put on the long term sustainability of these fisheries rather than short term solutions to catching more fish.
^^ There are not enough muskies to sustain pressure from FFS sharpshooting, especially in naturally reproducing populations like we have here. Muskies are not a put and take fishery given they are the top of the food chain and whether they are natural or stocked, they heavily influence the population structure of other predators and prey in the lake. If big muskies are over-exploited there is never a quick recovery (if they recover at all) in either situation.
I fish mostly in N WI on lakes and rivers with natural reproduction and little to no stocking and I completely agree. It's not easy to replace a large 20+ y/o fish and its genetics. When I mentioned stocking I was mostly responding to what I've seen thrown out as solutions from people that don't want technology limited. Skipping over the debate of whether stocking has detrimental effects on native/wild populations, which is tangential to the topic, even now stocking can't meet demand in states like WI and MN yet many don't want to limit any technology and actually want to legalize additional fishing methods. In the same questionnaire with the FFS proposal, there is a proposal to legalize 3 line trolling where currently only 1 line is legal (mostly the counties in N WI with the best natural reproduction).
Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/7/2024 10:03 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I clearly remember when C&R became a thing due to Muskies Inc. The resistance was more than considerable, reminding me of this thread (you can find discussions on it here in our early years), and the same arguments about making it law were tossed about. In the end, it became an ethics question and it WORKED. Since it worked and was accepted as a social more ( a specific socially constructed idea that defines morally acceptable behavior), slowly, MI and other special interest groups and natural resources departments began increasing size limits to as much as 54"on trophy-producing waters, making most days forced C&R.
When I first started guiding in the 70's, we killed every legal we caught, and the size limit was between 28" and 30". Sport shops had coolers out front full of recently caught muskies, and
that was popular. There is hope either way. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 4/7/2024 9:50 AM
I clearly remember when C&R became a thing due to Muskies Inc. The resistance was more than considerable, reminding me of this thread (you can find discussions on it here in our early years), and the same arguments about making it law were tossed about. In the end, it became an ethics question and it WORKED. Since it worked and was accepted as a social more ( a specific socially constructed idea that defines morally acceptable behavior), slowly, MI and other special interest groups and natural resources departments began increasing size limits to as much as 54"on trophy-producing waters, making most days forced C&R.
When I first started guiding in the 70's, we killed every legal we caught, and the size limit was between 28" and 30". Sport shops had coolers out front full of recently caught muskies, and
that was popular. There is hope either way.
Mortality is from: overhanding, (lack of oxygen, injury from handling), mortality from hooking injury, barotrauma, , thermal shock or combinations thereof.
FFS the issue we are primarily concerned with is that there are windows and/or scenarios where the cumulative catch-rates from using this tech sharpshooting is so much higher than any other methods. It will become more effective in other scenarios over time (eg. PMTT guys finding a shallow active pattern with FFS).
The primary difference between deep water and other scenarios is that even novice musky and non-musky anglers (who unlike musky anglers, do not have appropriate release gear and an understanding of the rarity of the species), can be equally proficient at targeting them, certainly more so than with any other type of technology or method (ie. trolling, jigging, using SI). Other anglers are going to push the envelope regardless of the ethical more of the greater musky community to get the "grin and grab" as Pete Maina talks about. Long winded way of saying it is much tougher to come up with something like the C&R scenario that is going to achieve what we need it to achieve given that unlike C&R (where there is the corpus delicti - thanks LR) - the peer pressure is not in-your-face.
I'm interested to hear what is considered to be an unacceptable use of FFS within the musky community. It is very hard to gauge from the comments. Many really don't know its potential.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/7/2024 11:03 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
I have used 360 since it came out and added mega live last fall. I can honestly say that the next fish I see and catch with either of them will be the first one. To be clear, what I mean by that is “see fish, catch fish.” I’ve yet to use it that way and do not intend to.
When I go to Canada I am using both tools for boat control and to properly find and work weeds and to better fish rocks (and not put my trolling motor on them). If I’m looking to harvest fish, I’m using 2D and only keep small walleye or pike under 24 inches.
I grew up in Ohio in the 70s and 80s. Fishing sucked back then on the public waters we fished (note we didn’t have a boat to go on Erie so we fished inland lakes out of rental boats and we used a transom trolling motor.) if we wanted to have good fishing, we went to a farm pond owned by a family friend.
Flash forward to today, and for the most part fishing is better for everyone everywhere despite all of the technological advances we have. The key to all of this was conservation and angling ethics. They go hand in hand but neither works unless they work together.
It’s easy to point to FFS as the problem. However, that ignores all of the “damage” that DI and SI can do. Add in boats and motors being bigger than ever, spot lock, power augers, state of the art mapping, GPS, and advanced in rods, reels, and line and the sport is light years away from what I grew up doing with mono, some rapalas and a DAM spinning reel (for the young folk that was the reel company, not a swear word).
We can easily live in a world with technology like mega live and 360. But we can’t live in a world with over harvest, poorly managed fisheries, generous bag limits, 365 open seasons, low length limits, a lack of angling ethics, and a meat hunter mentality to have a freezer full of fish.
Fortunately, most fisherman get it and despite the rhetoric, do adhere to ethical practices above and beyond what the law requires. Just ask the DNR when they encourage hardcore bass anglers to harvest fish in some lakes (it rarely works as they still release them.) Yes, we need fisherman to step up their ethics game as technology evolves, but the same goes for fisheries managers and the regulations we have in place.
Finally, I think a little honest perspective needs to be added when it comes to how we measure abusing a resource. Like many people on this forum I work a lot more than I want too and do not have time to fish nearly as much as I would like. On the flip side, there are people who fish all the time (guides in particular) who do far more damage to the resource in a month than I will do in five years on the water. Those are just facts.
To be clear, I don’t mention that from a point of jealousy as I applaud their ability to fish. I chose my career and they chose theirs. But I’m also not going to pretend that if you put a couple hundred musky over the side of the boat every year that they all swim away with no delayed mortality. Not to mention the fish that are harvested by side trips that they guide clients to for walleye, perch or bass. It’s all putting a significant strain on the resource.
Take care,
Ruddiger | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The primary difference between deep water and other scenarios is that even novice musky and non-musky anglers (who unlike musky anglers, do not have appropriate release gear and an understanding of the rarity of the species), can be equally proficient at targeting them, certainly more so than with any other type of technology or method (ie. trolling, jigging, using SI). Other anglers are going to push the envelope regardless of the ethical more of the greater musky community to get the "grin and grab" as Pete Maina talks about. Long winded way of saying it is much tougher to come up with something like the C&R scenario that is going to achieve what we need it to achieve given that unlike C&R (where there is the corpus delicti - thanks LR) - the peer pressure is not in-your-face.'
If sharpshooters are called out en masse whenever they post the grip and grin images, on social, places like this, at the bar, muskie shows, and anywhere else muskie discussions occur, they will stop. The motivation is to look cool and talented, not unethical and lacking talent. All the other bloviating aside, let's talk about what else we can do if the tech is not controlled by regulation. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 4/7/2024 11:23 AM
'The primary difference between deep water and other scenarios is that even novice musky and non-musky anglers (who unlike musky anglers, do not have appropriate release gear and an understanding of the rarity of the species), can be equally proficient at targeting them, certainly more so than with any other type of technology or method (ie. trolling, jigging, using SI). Other anglers are going to push the envelope regardless of the ethical more of the greater musky community to get the "grin and grab" as Pete Maina talks about. Long winded way of saying it is much tougher to come up with something like the C&R scenario that is going to achieve what we need it to achieve given that unlike C&R (where there is the corpus delicti - thanks LR) - the peer pressure is not in-your-face.'
If sharpshooters are called out en masse whenever they post the grip and grin images, on social, places like this, at the bar, muskie shows, and anywhere else muskie discussions occur, they will stop. The motivation is to look cool and talented, not unethical and lacking talent. All the other bloviating aside, let's talk about what else we can do if the tech is not controlled by regulation.
I don't know what level of influence this or similar threads have on moving folks in one way or the other - but certainly we can see from threads here and elsewhere when FFS first came out to now some have moved in their thinking about it. As I mentioned before, ends justifies the means, and if the ends are a position statement from Muskies Inc. that can give lodge owners, guides and Muskies Canada Inc. some direction, then that will be a win. | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | sworrall - 4/7/2024 11:23 AM
'The primary difference between deep water and other scenarios is that even novice musky and non-musky anglers (who unlike musky anglers, do not have appropriate release gear and an understanding of the rarity of the species), can be equally proficient at targeting them, certainly more so than with any other type of technology or method (ie. trolling, jigging, using SI). Other anglers are going to push the envelope regardless of the ethical more of the greater musky community to get the "grin and grab" as Pete Maina talks about. Long winded way of saying it is much tougher to come up with something like the C&R scenario that is going to achieve what we need it to achieve given that unlike C&R (where there is the corpus delicti - thanks LR) - the peer pressure is not in-your-face.'
If sharpshooters are called out en masse whenever they post the grip and grin images, on social, places like this, at the bar, muskie shows, and anywhere else muskie discussions occur, they will stop. The motivation is to look cool and talented, not unethical and lacking talent. All the other bloviating aside, let's talk about what else we can do if the tech is not controlled by regulation.
I like your optimism Steve. I don't see it happening though. Even on this board is seem the anti scopers are outnumbered. It really does make me happy to see a handful of you guys on here that understand whats going on though. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
I agree with Steve. I can easily see a point where people will be ashamed to sharpshoot fish, the same way we treat people who harvest a muskie like bald eagle poachers.
Honestly, with all of the hype about the effectiveness of forward facing sonar (hype that is vastly overblown outside of open water) I can see a time where some people will be embarrassed to have it on their boat. I know I feel a bit uncomfortable about how I’ll be perceived every time I have a good day on the water doing what I’ve always done (“he only caught that because he has mega live.”)
On the positive side, and this applies to Great Lakes walleye, I was at my friends bait shop the other day and he was telling me how more and more people on Erie are casting again instead of trolling. Basically they are using FFS to find large schools of bait and walleye and casting at the schools for the fun of it.
As a person who hates trolling and hasn’t fished Erie in years because trolling became a necessity for a long time, I saw this as a positive application for FFS. Trolling with planer boards and two lines per angler still remains a far more effective way to catch numbers of fish on Erie, however, it’s nice to see FFS being used in a way to help people be productive casting again.
Take care,
Ruddiger
Edited by Ruddiger 4/7/2024 12:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 46
| Going way back on this issue ( prior posts) when I thought the most misdirected comment I every heard was to say that the ' paper graph' didn't kill the sport of fishing so as to say hello to todays and tomorrows technology. This is to say that technology in the generations yet to come 2, 3, 4, and beyond etc. will be fine for sport angling. I disagree, hope I'm not alone. We do tend to kill what we love. It's human and it's in all of us as we strive to be more efficient in our time afield. Hope we all do the right thing soon because it will be impossible to correct later. | |
| | |
Posts: 543
Location: NW WI | Just going to throw out another possible middle ground idea and listen to your comments. Nearly all of us can agree education is positive change, regardless of which side of this specific fence you stand on. So, what about a mandatory "fishers education" to be attended in order to aquire a license? No different than your boaters,drivers,or hunters license. | |
| | |
Location: Vilas | Is every fish boated now going to be looked at as if sharpshooted, simply because they have FFS on the boat? Reading through the comments, many guys are using FFS for boat control... but if he catches a jumbo, is he going to be believed?? Will he be called a sharpshooter anyway?? | |
| | |
Posts: 99
Location: Eau Claire, WI | How would a ban actually be enforced? | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Howdy,
Presumably the ban would be enforced by conservation officers, however, the logistics of it would be chaos for FFS owners who travel from body of water and state to state. Realistically, however, the COs don’t have the resources to enforce it as they can barely enforce the existing rules now.
I keep going back to the fact that all of this talk about a ban is totally misguided. This is no different than the green box days of Carl Lowrance when people wanted to ban that. That was a far bigger game changer than FFS ever will be and fishing survived and thrived with continued innovation, better resource management, and evolving angler ethics.
There are SO MANY other low hanging fruit things that can be done from a resource management standpoint for all fish species that would do far more for the sport than banning a type of sonar. Mandating all barbless hooks, 100% catch and release for Muskies or at least creating 60” limits to only allow record fish to kept, making proper release tools be mandatory on all boats just like a fire extinguisher, kill switch, or a life vest. Banning live bait, closed seasons, slot limits, none over limits, lower bag limits, adjusted seasons to protect fish in open water, adding a FFS registration fee to add to stocking efforts (we register boats so why not certain tech) the list goes on and on.
Furthermore, we are still ignoring all of the other ways a resource can get stressed and exploited by good ole fashion 2D sonar or simple over fishing or even sight fishing. Fishing bass and panfish on beds is common place in many areas of the country but does tremendous damage to recruitment. We tolerate so many other things that are way worse for the sport. Focusing our efforts on raising the bar across the board makes a lot more sense than arbitrarily banning one type of tech.
Banning FFS but ignoring all of the other common sonar tech on boats reminds me of the assault weapons ban in 94 when they arbitrarily banned some deadly weapons but allowed other deadly weapons to be legally available. Even if people are sincere in their intentions it doesn’t always have the desired effect.
Take care,
Ruddiger | |
| | |
| Thinking about what it would take to get a regulatory ban, look at what is going on with efforts to limit wake surfing boats. In Oneida County, the county board was asked to pass a resolution asking the state to limit wake boats. One board member pointed out that the "evidence" provided by those wishing to limit the boats was anecdotal in nature and did not really have any statistical datal to support it. He was adamant that he would not support until he could see clear, unbiased data regarding damage to the lake and surrounding area. The resolution passed but imagine legislators asking for scientific data supporting the ban. Does anyone have this? The fact that a team did well in the PMTT does not mean much. The same team had used the FFS in prior tournament and did not place high.
I am not opposing limits on FFS, just pointing out that a bunch of fishermen saying it is bad is not going to be enough, in particular if manufacturers like Garmin hire a platoon of sharp lawyers to oppose such bans. Like our county board member, they will demand scientific data, not stories or individual observations. | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | Enforcing it would not be a problem. Do people go out and troll 3 lines in MN? Yeah a few but people get busted all the time for it so most people don't even attempt it for fear of a fine. Not hard to do. Also it's pretty obvious whos doing it. I still don't think ban it though. I'm just saying it would be easy to enforce. Getting it banned in the first place would be a huge undertaking and I doubt the DNR or legislators would consider taking it on until the resource is completely destroyed. Since resource managers are "reactive", not "proactive", the resource will have to be destroyed before anything is done. | |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 4/8/2024 8:58 AM
I am not opposing limits on FFS, just pointing out that a bunch of fishermen saying it is bad is not going to be enough, in particular if manufacturers like Garmin hire a platoon of sharp lawyers to oppose such bans.
"Generally, suing a state agency or board is considered an action against the state; thus, sovereign immunity usually protects state entities from suit."
From page 5:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2016/im_2...
It is pretty standard for any government level really, right down to municipal. Doesn't mean you can't get a day in court, but if the immunity is invoked for legitimate reasons, then a losers bet. Legislation to protect a fishery proactively I would suggest is probably immune.
I doubt will be banned. We should focus now on protecting the resource and not focus on protecting FFS.
The DNR probably has some "floater" data. Strictly a correlation to uptick in FFS use. Floaters could be from other fishing methods as well. Ultimately floater number basically would indicate that the musky fishery is at risk, so the causes of the floaters (mortalities, whatever those may be, need to be mitigated.
Education in combination with refuge areas probably is the best answer. Education would be Muskies Inc. taking a stance and the industry itself adding material with every sale of units capable of high frequency sonar, be it live or otherwise.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/8/2024 11:31 AM
| |
| | |
| Angling Oracle - 4/8/2024 11:21 AM
North of 8 - 4/8/2024 8:58 AM
I am not opposing limits on FFS, just pointing out that a bunch of fishermen saying it is bad is not going to be enough, in particular if manufacturers like Garmin hire a platoon of sharp lawyers to oppose such bans.
"Generally, suing a state agency or board is considered an action against the state; thus, sovereign immunity usually protects state entities from suit."
From page 5:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2016/im_2...
It is pretty standard for any government level really. Doesn't mean can get a day in court, but if the immunity is invoked for legitimate reasons, then a losers bet. Legislation to protect a fishery proactively I would suggest is probably immune.
The lawyers would become involved at the discovery stage, well before legislation is passed. The legislature typically seeks input from impacted parties, and the lawyers would both present data and challenge non-scientific input from those in the fishing community. And that was my point. If you wish to get FFS banned, you better have you data lined up, in an organized, scientific manner and be prepared to counter industry arguments. Personal opinions and anecdotal evidence will not be enough.
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ A presentation by a young person like xcskier_hunter above would crush any lawyer in such a hearing (in my experience, but my experience entirely Manitoba-centric).
Lawyers are experts on law, not fishery science. DNR biologist vs lawyer would be a very uneven fight. Lawyers would be useful on strategy, but DNR has been in this rodeo before and knows how to get rules through. I doubt will get to that point.
Again, I have no skin in the fight to ban FFS there, and don't need it banned here in Manitoba. Would it be better if it were banned in my opinion and would I be glad if it were? Yes. Ban though is not the objective.
As far as Jay 7.62 - education. Would be a great idea. Should be an optional class in school, outdoor ethics perhaps.
I'm going to Germany next week, just inquiring last day or two with a fishing clubs on the Danube regarding day passes. As a tourist, I can get a tourist licence which allows me then to get day passes for club waters (if available, as limited number). Germans or perhaps folks there for awhile (military) would have to take in essence a two day paid course covering ethics, fish ID, gear used, dispatching fish properly, cleaning, proper care of dead fish, not disturbing spawning areas, shorebird nests, etc. You take a test, and you get the Fischereischein, you then have a lifetime license can use to join a club or to acquire a guest pass in other areas. As part of these clubs, it is your duty to check and enforce rules on the water, and the police can enforce as well. Different system for sure, but for a small country with a lot of folks and limited, mostly private waters - it works.
The education end of things is one thing that we could take a lesson from there, especially on the ethical front.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/8/2024 12:18 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Kirby Budrow - 4/8/2024 11:15 AM
Enforcing it would not be a problem. Do people go out and troll 3 lines in MN? Yeah a few but people get busted all the time for it so most people don't even attempt it for fear of a fine. Not hard to do. Also it's pretty obvious whos doing it. I still don't think ban it though. I'm just saying it would be easy to enforce. Getting it banned in the first place would be a huge undertaking and I doubt the DNR or legislators would consider taking it on until the resource is completely destroyed. Since resource managers are "reactive", not "proactive", the resource will have to be destroyed before anything is done.
Ice fishing with too many lines here in Manitoba?
"Up here in space
I'm looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do
You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time"
-- Electric Eye, Judas Priest
Cops have drones, firefighters have drones and yes, Conservation Officers have drones. Way cheaper and far more effective than chasing someone around with a truck, quad, skidoo, boat, helicopter or plane.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/8/2024 12:30 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 20
| I think a key point many are missing is that it's not just FFS in its current form that should concern us but rather looking ahead into the future, recognizing that this technology will get less expensive and better over time. This is just the beginning. A great example of this is with cell cameras in hunting, which used to be crappy and expensive but are now 10x better, close to 10x cheaper, and ubiquitous even for a typical public land hunter. In fact, a handful of states have taken to banning trail cameras altogether (AZ, UT, Kansas on public land etc.), so it's not like limitations from the DNR are an impossibility. An interesting anecdote about AZ that I've heard is that with trail cameras pretty much every big mule deer in the best management units is known, which has increased hunters' abilities to kill specific top end deer but has consequently reduced the number of true super giants living long enough to express their potential. I could see a similar trade-off in musky fishing where our increased efficiency ultimately limits our chances of catching a true super giant (and muskies need to live much longer than deer to express their peak potential).
However, I think the best hunting analogy would be drones. Most states saw the writing on the wall as drone technology emerged and preemptively banned it so we did not end up in the situation we are in now where people have invested money in a technology like FFS, making it tougher to retroactively limit. I will also admit that the lines are harder to draw in fishing with 2D, SI, and 360 already existing but I don't think it's impossible. And enforcement might be tough but most people follow the laws anyways and just as we have modern tools for fishing, enforcement also has modern tools. A cell phone is probably the greatest technological deterrent to wildlife crime ever created.
Another strategy rather than an outright ban could be lake specific or seasonal limitations on technology in the same way some lakes don't allow motors. In my experience, lakes with limitations like these tend to have the best fishing. It's my belief that people willing to forego the use of certain technologies should be able to enjoy less restrictive regulations, rather than being forced to comply with stricter regulations just because one portion of anglers is unwilling to accept technological limitations. Ultimately, it may be the case fishing with some electronic/technological limitations will be akin to bowhunting, which enjoys longer seasons and greater tag availability than rifle hunting.
I also agree with others that strategies to reduce C&R mortality such as using barbless hooks are a great idea. Ultimately, we are musky fishing for sport, not survival, so the intent to make things easier and easier is odd, although perhaps is also just human nature.
Also, I'm not on a crusade to ban FFS or to even single it out in particular, I just think it's important to think about whether certain technologies that increase angler efficacy or shorten the learning curve are truly a net positive for musky fishing or fishing in general in the long term, considering the challenges and pressures our fisheries already face.
Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/8/2024 3:41 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8820
| When I was growing up, every boat on the lake had a "knocker" Usually a piece of conduit filed with concrete or mini baseball bat, always with a handle made out of 1/2 roll of electrical tape. Guys were still complaining about not being able to shoot them at boatside. So you bonked them instead and put them on a stringer. We figured out that wasn't a good idea. We figured out that 30" size limits weren't a good idea, we figured out that catch and release definitely a good idea. More recently we figured out that the standard vertical hold wasn't good, and fishing for them in hot water wasn't good. Big nets, hook cutters, not using light tackle, not using single hook sucker rigs, additional stocking, habitat restoration, water quality monitoring...
Legislation is one thing. It's effective when you can enforce it and when the danger of getting caught makes it something you don't even consider doing. But it's really up to US to steer the boat forward. We're talking about a low density fish that is not really a food source that's expensive to stock, that relatively few people really care enough to fish for. You still got guys who kill every one they catch because of the damage they supposedly do to the other fish. No matter what we all disagree on we have the advantage of one common goal: We all want to be able to go out and catch them, and when we do we do everything in our power to put them back, so we can catch them again. | |
| | |
Posts: 24
| Professional guides, tournament fisherman, and the high end content producers receive ample opportunity to use new tech before manufacturing costs go down enough to see a retail market for these devices. In some ways, it's hard to argue that by necessity, these examples are required to keep up with the latest and greatest technological marvels - their livelihoods depend on it. And as a result of their involvement which is an order of magnitude greater than any regular fisherman whose dedication regardless of devotion is recreational at best comparatively, I would assume that by the time advanced transducer tech becomes less than prohibitively expensive to mostly everyone, the effects on the fishery will already have taken place.
I hear a lot of people in my area who don't fish for these creatures refer to them as "dinosaurs". I can't help but feel that a certain Jurassic Park quote seems fitting here - man became so preoccupied with if he could, he did not stop to think if he should. There's an almost cyclical nature to how our pursuits of an elusive animal creates an elusive behavior in the people who pursue them. Maybe I would feel differently if I had the resources to utilize this technology. Perhaps I would still feel the same, and I would hope that most others do, too - there is far more to the entire experience than zeroing in on where they are.
We have a legal system, not a justice system. I do not believe a ban would be enacted in a way that anybody could agree with. And the right to access equipment has more legal standing than the ethical boundaries of fair chase. For me, this tends to extend as far into the water as I can see and understand as best I can. The unknown is part of the thrill. If we continue to push to know all, the technological advancements into things we maybe, possibly, weren't meant to understand will almost certainly take away the thrill and the fish with it. | |
| | |
Posts: 2056
| Let’s really protect these fish boys! :
1) No live bait - artificial only.. it been done before in fishing
2) you must draw a limited tag to target muskie (just like Elk hunting in some zones).. been done before
3) you must use a single barbless treble hook, yep barbless lakes already exist
4) no night fishing .. again been done
5) Season is only open in October, let’s keep water temps under 70. Short season like hunting
6) 100% catch and release , fairly common in fishing
Problem Solved! | |
| | |
| IA Justin's post sums it up. There are folks that support many if not all of the 6 items he lists.
But, for those of you who fish lakes that depend on stocking, as opposed to natural reproduction, stop and think, is that really what you want? I live on a lake that depends on natural reproduction but stocking costs money, lots of money. If you make it too difficult to pursue musky, you will also reduce the support for funding of stocking or any state sponsored efforts to improve musky fishing.
It is a fine line. And remember, musky fishermen are a small minority of those that fish. Complain too much, you may actually harm the sport. | |
| | |
Posts: 20
| North of 8 - 4/11/2024 4:33 PM
IA Justin's post sums it up. There are folks that support many if not all of the 6 items he lists.
But, for those of you who fish lakes that depend on stocking, as opposed to natural reproduction, stop and think, is that really what you want? I live on a lake that depends on natural reproduction but stocking costs money, lots of money. If you make it too difficult to pursue musky, you will also reduce the support for funding of stocking or any state sponsored efforts to improve musky fishing.
It is a fine line. And remember, musky fishermen are a small minority of those that fish. Complain too much, you may actually harm the sport.
I'm fine with using barbless hooks. All else equal, lakes that require barbless hooks tend to have better fishing anyways. However, the insinuation that pushing for any sort of regulations to conserve a natural resource means you're for limiting everything is non-sensical.
Musky fishing has never been easier or more popular than it is now. Still, people bemoan the current musky stocking in WI and MN. I don't see how making musky fishing even easier is the solution to this. Personally, I'd rather see increased focus on more sustainable solutions like improving spawning habitat rather than trying to out-stock increasingly efficient fishermen. Either way, I don't think any minds are being changed at this point. Thankfully, it's almost musky season.
Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/11/2024 9:29 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Musky fishing has never been easier or more popular than it is now. Still, people bemoan the current musky stocking in WI and MN. I don't see how making musky fishing even easier is the solution to this. Personally, I'd rather see increased focus on more sustainable solutions like improving spawning habitat rather than trying to out-stock increasingly efficient fishermen. Either way, I don't think any minds are being changed at this point. Thankfully, it's almost fishing season.'
Depends on the water you are referring to. As long as the money is as tight as it is in WI and MN has seriously cut back their program and fisheries are suffering, I'll be looking for solutions. Muskie fishing on many lakes close to me certainly isn't even close to easier than it's ever been. Ask the Cap City MI Chapter about the Yahara Chain.
Mille Lacs, the Metro lakes, Vermilion, and so on in MN. | |
| | |
Posts: 20
| sworrall - 4/11/2024 9:34 PM
'Musky fishing has never been easier or more popular than it is now. Still, people bemoan the current musky stocking in WI and MN. I don't see how making musky fishing even easier is the solution to this. Personally, I'd rather see increased focus on more sustainable solutions like improving spawning habitat rather than trying to out-stock increasingly efficient fishermen. Either way, I don't think any minds are being changed at this point. Thankfully, it's almost fishing season.'
Depends on the water you are referring to. As long as the money is as tight as it is in WI and MN has seriously cut back their program and fisheries are suffering, I'll be looking for solutions. Muskie fishing on many lakes close to me certainly isn't even close to easier than it's ever been. Ask the Cap City MI Chapter about the Yahara Chain.
Mille Lacs, the Metro lakes, Vermilion, and so on in MN.
I completely agree with your point that some waters are not "easier" at the moment and had considered clarifying that what I really meant was that there is more info readily available and better tools/technology than ever before. What I find nauseating is the increased push to improve angler efficacy as a solution to better fishing rather than improving the actual fisheries long term. I'd much rather have superior fisheries and fewer tools than fisheries that are in such poor shape that I need the best tools/technology to have a chance. In our current landscape I see most new technology as improving the pump but not the well (a saying WI conservationist Aldo Leopold coined). I know there are many like you doing far more than me at the moment to improve the well and I thank you for it. | |
| | |
| Just a thought: If folks really want to make fishing better, maybe spend some money on stocking, habitat improvement, etc. instead of multiple graphs, etc. I see what trout fishermen do to improve streams, Walleyes Forever does something similar for walleye,
They spend their own money rather than depending on financially strapped state agencies. Volunteers go out at night in the spring to make sure poachers don't take sturgeon that are on spawning runs on the Wolf.
Musky fishermen do some things, but maybe instead of 30 Bulldawgs, buy 15 and donate the difference to stocking and habitat improvement.
This winter, on one of the few truly cold weekends we had, a group of folks from the lake association spent the weekend creating 'fish sticks'. They cut large hardwoods near shore, cable them together, attach concrete blocks and when the ice melts they sink near shore, creating a place where fry of all species can hide. I didn't help with the labor but donated money to the effort. All required permits had to be obtained in advance, etc. | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | North of 8 - 4/12/2024 8:05 AM
Just a thought: If folks really want to make fishing better, maybe spend some money on stocking, habitat improvement, etc. instead of multiple graphs, etc. I see what trout fishermen do to improve streams, Walleyes Forever does something similar for walleye,
They spend their own money rather than depending on financially strapped state agencies. Volunteers go out at night in the spring to make sure poachers don't take sturgeon that are on spawning runs on the Wolf.
Musky fishermen do some things, but maybe instead of 30 Bulldawgs, buy 15 and donate the difference to stocking and habitat improvement.
This winter, on one of the few truly cold weekends we had, a group of folks from the lake association spent the weekend creating 'fish sticks'. They cut large hardwoods near shore, cable them together, attach concrete blocks and when the ice melts they sink near shore, creating a place where fry of all species can hide. I didn't help with the labor but donated money to the effort. All required permits had to be obtained in advance, etc.
I think if the DNR would do it people would gladly donate but the opportunity is limited. | |
| | |
Posts: 1369
| Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime. | |
| | |
| TCESOX - 4/16/2024 5:19 PM
Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime.
That's interesting. What is their rationale? I would think as long as the fish come from a hatchery that meets certain standards, they would welcome supplemental stocking. | |
| | |
Posts: 8820
| We ran into this with our club. I believe when we went to use our funds to stock some area lakes, the DNR indicated that they would reduce the amount of fish they were stocking that year by the same amount. We wound up using that money to stock lakes in another state instead. | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | North of 8 - 4/16/2024 6:09 PM
TCESOX - 4/16/2024 5:19 PM
Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime.
That's interesting. What is their rationale? I would think as long as the fish come from a hatchery that meets certain standards, they would welcome supplemental stocking.
That is a very good question. You'd hate to have a fishery be too good! | |
| | |
Posts: 532
| North of 8 - 4/16/2024 7:09 PM
TCESOX - 4/16/2024 5:19 PM
Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime.
That's interesting. What is their rationale? I would think as long as the fish come from a hatchery that meets certain standards, they would welcome supplemental stocking.
I am not coming from a place of authority on this topic. I feel that some of rational for not wanting the public to stock muskies in to lake is because the state has biologists on staff that work to keep a balance of top tier predators. The biologists have a goal to maintain a level of muskie based on the prey density of each lake.
By letting the public randomly stock lakes will alter trends and data that might have been watched for decades by the state. The added stocking would muddy the waters so to speak on management decisions, and could have a long term effect on any information collected and could affect the future of the fishery.
A body of water can only support so much biomass. If a lake is known for putting out giants at 1 muskie per 2 acres of water, you would be foolish to think that raising the density to 2 fish per acre will continue to produce giants long term. I'm sure we all have seen a natural pike density make a factory of 22" hammer handles, and struggle to find anything over 28". Muskies can do the same thing.
I say let the state manage the fisheries, you might not agree with what they do. But im sure their results will turn out better than letting the public do what they think is right. | |
| | |
Posts: 2370
Location: Chisholm, MN | anzomcik - 4/18/2024 6:07 AM
North of 8 - 4/16/2024 7:09 PM
TCESOX - 4/16/2024 5:19 PM
Our chapter has a dedicated stocking fund. I believe right now, it's sitting around 10k. DNR is very finicky about allowing extra stocking for musky. They let outside groups stock walleye practically anywhere, anytime.
That's interesting. What is their rationale? I would think as long as the fish come from a hatchery that meets certain standards, they would welcome supplemental stocking.
I am not coming from a place of authority on this topic. I feel that some of rational for not wanting the public to stock muskies in to lake is because the state has biologists on staff that work to keep a balance of top tier predators. The biologists have a goal to maintain a level of muskie based on the prey density of each lake.
By letting the public randomly stock lakes will alter trends and data that might have been watched for decades by the state. The added stocking would muddy the waters so to speak on management decisions, and could have a long term effect on any information collected and could affect the future of the fishery.
A body of water can only support so much biomass. If a lake is known for putting out giants at 1 muskie per 2 acres of water, you would be foolish to think that raising the density to 2 fish per acre will continue to produce giants long term. I'm sure we all have seen a natural pike density make a factory of 22" hammer handles, and struggle to find anything over 28". Muskies can do the same thing.
I say let the state manage the fisheries, you might not agree with what they do. But im sure their results will turn out better than letting the public do what they think is right.
It would not be random. It would, of course, be approved and administered by the DNR but Muskies Inc or whoever could help fund additional stocking. There are also many seasons where the DNR does not actually stock as many as they would like to. Random stocking of lakes is not the objective of anyone. | |
| | |
| Had the opportunity to speak to warden about this. He is also a musky fisherman, and feels it could really be a difficult reg to enforce. He did understand the concern and has heard it from anglers. | |
| | |
Posts: 1369
| To be clear, all stocking needs permission from the DNR. When the DNR has allowed outside muskie stocking, it has primarily been in a couple metro lakes. The TC chapter has done some in tonka, and we have done some in Bald Eagle. I believe a lake or two out west, has been allowed as well. Many requests have been turned down, even on lakes that have not even been stocked to their planned quota. Pretty much any lake association that wants to stock more walleye, even when it's in excess of the planned stocking, is given the OK. To be fair, I have been told by DNR personnel, that with walleye, it really doesn't matter, as any over stocking is just feeding fish, and if people want to waste their money, they are not going to stop them.
Regarding muskies, when discussing some of the items in the MMPA letter to he and the commissioner, the head of fisheries said he didn't know of any muskie requests that had been denied. This caused some jaws to drop, as it has happened frequently. Don't know if it's a CYA situation, complete ignorance of the situation, or blatant obfuscation and dishonesty. This was a couple weeks ago, and I believe there was a scheduled meeting, since then, and I haven't heard how that went, yet. Up to now, anyway, for the last several years, communication with stakeholders has been almost non-existent. Used to be exemplary. | |
| | |
Posts: 669
Location: Duluth | Have now seen two different groups Livescoping the Bois Brule and had heard one other report. I dont suspect it will last long. | |
| | |
| CincySkeez - 4/29/2024 5:30 PM
Have now seen two different groups Livescoping the Bois Brule and had heard one other report. I dont suspect it will last long.
Whew. Who goes on a beautiful river and uses that kind of technology? | |
| |
|
state record catches and forward facing sonar