|
|
Posts: 568
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4pg6HGH3wU&t=1478s
Thank you Mark Lijewski, one of the greats of the sport of muskie fishing, speaking the truth on spotlighting. | |
| | |
Location: Canada | Not something I've been paying attention to. I haven't read through all the FFS posts in the other forum, and I've never even seen a FFS unit up close. But had an experience a month ago that I can't get out of my mind. Have a cabin on good NW Ont water. Cabin looks out on a well-known muskie spot. People fish it a lot, regularly catch nice fish there. But this was different. Woke up 6 am, heard a boat, looked out the window. Took me a bit to figure out what I was seeing. Guy moving the boat around a lot, staring at the screen. Then a couple of casts. Then back to manoeuvring, screen time, driving back and forth, couple more casts. In an hour he put 3 fish in the net. Wasn't counting but seemed like 30 casts total. Handled them well, released them, can't complain about that. I'm always happy to see people catch muskie but this felt different. It seemed alien. It seemed bad. I honestly suspect it's a curtain call for my muskie fishing. I like casting around structure. A couple years of this and there will be nothing but 30s around structure. People will say I should try new methods, change with the times. But I've enjoyed catching muskie for 20 years casting around structure and don't want to jig over 30' or troll out on the great blue. So maybe my muskie days are winding down. Just seeing that guy, sniping them in a way that I'll never do and will kill the game for me. Feels like the end. Maybe it won't happen so fast and I can squeeze another half dozen seasons out of the lake. Maybe I'm totally wrong. But like I said I can't get it out of my mind and every time I think of it I get a really bad feeling. | |
| | |
Posts: 351
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | mcnewbski - 8/27/2024 3:10 PM
Not something I've been paying attention to. I haven't read through all the FFS posts in the other forum, and I've never even seen a FFS unit up close. But had an experience a month ago that I can't get out of my mind. Have a cabin on good NW Ont water. Cabin looks out on a well-known muskie spot. People fish it a lot, regularly catch nice fish there. But this was different. Woke up 6 am, heard a boat, looked out the window. Took me a bit to figure out what I was seeing. Guy moving the boat around a lot, staring at the screen. Then a couple of casts. Then back to manoeuvring, screen time, driving back and forth, couple more casts. In an hour he put 3 fish in the net. Wasn't counting but seemed like 30 casts total. Handled them well, released them, can't complain about that. I'm always happy to see people catch muskie but this felt different. It seemed alien. It seemed bad. I honestly suspect it's a curtain call for my muskie fishing. I like casting around structure. A couple years of this and there will be nothing but 30s around structure. People will say I should try new methods, change with the times. But I've enjoyed catching muskie for 20 years casting around structure and don't want to jig over 30' or troll out on the great blue. So maybe my muskie days are winding down. Just seeing that guy, sniping them in a way that I'll never do and will kill the game for me. Feels like the end. Maybe it won't happen so fast and I can squeeze another half dozen seasons out of the lake. Maybe I'm totally wrong. But like I said I can't get it out of my mind and every time I think of it I get a really bad feeling.
We get the musky FFS sharpshooters mixed up with walleye guys sometimes. I note the sharpshooters working different "hours" than the rest of us to catch the muskies in transit. It is also amazing to see how clean their boat is compared to traditional musky folks, I think we are starting to see sort of a separate crowd of folks that that is all they do.
And folks ask why they need to pick sides.
Muskies deserve better. Your dismay provides the solution - we need stop it from happening. Your gut feeling is correct - it is bad. Not sustainable and an affront to what musky fishing represents. Ban it up here!!
| |
| | |
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Add the announced reduction in stocking in WI through 2025, and things may get a bit sketchy here. | |
| | |
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Well done podcast. FFS--Ethical?--NO! Fair chase?--NO! Nuff said. | |
| | |
Posts: 2316
Location: Chisholm, MN | mcnewbski - 8/27/2024 3:10 PM
Not something I've been paying attention to. I haven't read through all the FFS posts in the other forum, and I've never even seen a FFS unit up close. But had an experience a month ago that I can't get out of my mind. Have a cabin on good NW Ont water. Cabin looks out on a well-known muskie spot. People fish it a lot, regularly catch nice fish there. But this was different. Woke up 6 am, heard a boat, looked out the window. Took me a bit to figure out what I was seeing. Guy moving the boat around a lot, staring at the screen. Then a couple of casts. Then back to manoeuvring, screen time, driving back and forth, couple more casts. In an hour he put 3 fish in the net. Wasn't counting but seemed like 30 casts total. Handled them well, released them, can't complain about that. I'm always happy to see people catch muskie but this felt different. It seemed alien. It seemed bad. I honestly suspect it's a curtain call for my muskie fishing. I like casting around structure. A couple years of this and there will be nothing but 30s around structure. People will say I should try new methods, change with the times. But I've enjoyed catching muskie for 20 years casting around structure and don't want to jig over 30' or troll out on the great blue. So maybe my muskie days are winding down. Just seeing that guy, sniping them in a way that I'll never do and will kill the game for me. Feels like the end. Maybe it won't happen so fast and I can squeeze another half dozen seasons out of the lake. Maybe I'm totally wrong. But like I said I can't get it out of my mind and every time I think of it I get a really bad feeling.
That's how many of us feel. You're not alone at all. | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | 100% agree with Mark. People will say those of us who aren't out there sharp shooting are jealous of those who are using FFS to catch fish, not in the slightest, I have the means to have as many FFS units on my boat as anyone and I have zero... I fully believe they should be banned for musky fishing and the populations of muskies are going to go down drastically... it truly is simple math.. stocking in WI is being cut 25%... with the clowns out there sharp shooting and the catch rates only going up by 100s of percent it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out it is the worst thing to happen to our fisheries period.... | |
| | |
| I don't have FFS and am too old to invest in it anyway. But, I really don't know how it could be banned, in particular if it is only banned for one type of fish, musky. Or are folks proposing an across the board ban? Maybe I am missing something, but is it really something that could be done? How would it be enforced since some are mounted on the trolling motor? Would wardens require you to lift your trolling motor?
| |
| | |
Posts: 351
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 8/29/2024 12:20 PM
I don't have FFS and am too old to invest in it anyway. But, I really don't know how it could be banned, in particular if it is only banned for one type of fish, musky. Or are folks proposing an across the board ban? Maybe I am missing something, but is it really something that could be done? How would it be enforced since some are mounted on the trolling motor? Would wardens require you to lift your trolling motor?
Can't use barbed hooks here in Manitoba, but you can have them in your box and you can own them. Don't underestimate what enforcement is able to do.
Edited by Angling Oracle 8/29/2024 12:52 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1341
| In the last 50 years I've fished all over Wisconsin, Minnesota, and a bit in Ontario. I've caught muskies in Dark water Lakes beating the shoreline, casting down the middle of clear water Lakes and finding out of the way small rivers where you never see another boat. I fish with 8 and 9 foot rods with modern reels with modern braid. (they are a pain to travel with.) I make my own Bucktails and leaders, however the largest fish I have caught and will catch is out in open water or deep water. depth is relative, it could be 12 to 16 feet in a flowage. I own a lot of divers in the Depth Raider, Ernie, Jake/Grandma and others. I own countdown lures both plugs and plastics and I even modify floating plugs to countdowns. I even buy older lures and modify them to improve there hooking and holding ability. If there in a good spot I will find them without a fish finder. They are in the same predictable locations. I rather cast to spots then look at a sonar. | |
| | |
Posts: 8772
| It's taken me 20 years chasing these fish to be able to look at a map and the calendar and figure out where they probably are. 20 years to figure out what to throw, where to throw it, how to work that lure, and what to do to make 'em eat when one does show up, and what to try next when none of that works. It's the thrill of the hunt, not knowing if there's one in there, or maybe three, if it's gonna be 30" or 50", on this bar or the next, maybe on this or that hump, that's why I fish for them. For me, sniping muskies with FFS would be like shooting the buck that hangs around in our yard. It's not fair chase, its not ethical, and it opens the door to fisheries getting wrecked in short order. Should it be banned? I don't know how that would work, and I still am not convinced it's as big of a problem as some make it out to be. It just doesn't sound like would be much fun. Why would you do something for fun that isn't fun?
| |
| | |
Posts: 630
Location: Duluth | Ive come to think that the easiest way to regulate FFS is to limit users to ONE transom mount or thru-hull ducer. The ability to swing the beam withthe TM and track a cast is what's killing these fish. Would make Sharp shooting harder.
| |
| | |
Posts: 108
| I have owned FFS for 2 years now. I have not yet used it specifically to drive around and to cast at muskies. In fact, I generally never even deploy it when casting for muskies. I guess I don't agree with the sharpshooting aspect of it, and I personally feel I would not enjoy that. I do use the technology sucker fishing in the fall, but just to scan the sucker and see if a fish is following, I don't drive around and find fish to dunk a sucker on. I have seen and heard reports where "sharpshooting" is highly effective, but I am a little old school where that is something I just can't seem to get behind.
I can tell you from using the technology for other species that it is an unfair advantage. It is amazing technology that really makes it hard for fish to hide. Especially in the basin or open water. I feel tool will greatly impact crappie populations when they can no longer hide in the abyss. I can tell you that when I am ice fishing for big greenbacks on Lake Winnipeg, I no longer have to drill 100's of holes a weekend to find fish. I can drill one and drop the unit down and scan around to find the pods of fish. It's a game changer for sure. I am very confident to state that I drill 10% of the holes that I used to in order to find fish...maybe that is a positive...less drilling holes is less power or gas, so that is better for the planet. 
I am not sure how you would regulate "how" to use the technology for muskies. I have read some ideas and posts about using it ethically, but that's really not enforceable and I think a 100% ban would be the only reasonable option, and I would personally be just fine with that.
It will be very interesting to see where things go the next few years with FFS. Many fisheries are in a decline for various other reasons and this technology is not going to create any positive effect on a fishery. Even with fish that are released, the amount of increased handling will surely increase the amount of delayed mortality for all fish species.
Whatever does happen in the future, I hope it errors in the side of caution towards enhancing/sustaining the fishery.
Brett Waldera
| |
| | |
Location: Canada | I emailed the Kenora region MNR, told them my anecdote. People might be interested in the response from Ontario govt:
"Your concern is not unique; the Ministry has received correspondence from other anglers in recent years pertaining to concerns about forward facing sonar technology and whether it should be regulated.
MNR staff have been discussing the appropriate path forward; however, because this technology is fairly new, there is very little published research that demonstrates whether angler concerns are valid, i.e., whether forward facing sonar results in declining fish population health. So for now, all I can tell you is that we’re looking into it."
I find the response interesting because it seems to indicate that regulating the technology is something the govt considers to be possible - it's on the table.
Edited by mcnewbski 8/30/2024 11:10 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 630
Location: Duluth | mcnewbski - 8/30/2024 11:03 AM
I emailed the Kenora region MNR, told them my anecdote. People might be interested in the response from Ontario govt:
"Your concern is not unique; the Ministry has received correspondence from other anglers in recent years pertaining to concerns about forward facing sonar technology and whether it should be regulated.
MNR staff have been discussing the appropriate path forward; however, because this technology is fairly new, there is very little published research that demonstrates whether angler concerns are valid, i.e., whether forward facing sonar results in declining fish population health. So for now, all I can tell you is that we’re looking into it."
I find the response interesting because it seems to indicate that regulating the technology is something the govt considers to be possible - it's on the table.
Sent a similar email to our region fisheries biologist concerning lake trout being taken via jigging and got a very similar response, they just need the funding to look into it. | |
| | |
Posts: 2316
Location: Chisholm, MN | CincySkeez - 8/30/2024 1:38 PM
mcnewbski - 8/30/2024 11:03 AM
I emailed the Kenora region MNR, told them my anecdote. People might be interested in the response from Ontario govt:
"Your concern is not unique; the Ministry has received correspondence from other anglers in recent years pertaining to concerns about forward facing sonar technology and whether it should be regulated.
MNR staff have been discussing the appropriate path forward; however, because this technology is fairly new, there is very little published research that demonstrates whether angler concerns are valid, i.e., whether forward facing sonar results in declining fish population health. So for now, all I can tell you is that we’re looking into it."
I find the response interesting because it seems to indicate that regulating the technology is something the govt considers to be possible - it's on the table.
Sent a similar email to our region fisheries biologist concerning lake trout being taken via jigging and got a very similar response, they just need the funding to look into it.
They're reactive vs proactive. Before anything is done it will be too late. | |
| | |
Posts: 538
Location: WI | Kirby Budrow - 8/30/2024 2:05 PM
CincySkeez - 8/30/2024 1:38 PM
mcnewbski - 8/30/2024 11:03 AM
I emailed the Kenora region MNR, told them my anecdote. People might be interested in the response from Ontario govt:
"Your concern is not unique; the Ministry has received correspondence from other anglers in recent years pertaining to concerns about forward facing sonar technology and whether it should be regulated.
MNR staff have been discussing the appropriate path forward; however, because this technology is fairly new, there is very little published research that demonstrates whether angler concerns are valid, i.e., whether forward facing sonar results in declining fish population health. So for now, all I can tell you is that we’re looking into it."
I find the response interesting because it seems to indicate that regulating the technology is something the govt considers to be possible - it's on the table.
Sent a similar email to our region fisheries biologist concerning lake trout being taken via jigging and got a very similar response, they just need the funding to look into it.
They're reactive vs proactive. Before anything is done it will be too late.
Were you a fan of your proactive government a few years ago? Bravo for them showing restraint and not immediately jumping to restrictions/bans. | |
| | |
| A natural resources unit of government has to answer to many different constituencies.
I would not want them to make changes immediately because they had received a number of letters supporting something. Nor should they make major changes based on number of letters/contacts opposing something. They have to move in a deliberate manner if they are doing their job. Our WI DNR director under Walker approved, without any public input, scientific input, a wealthy donor's request to anchor a floating bog in the Chippewa Flowage. To put it where they, the donors, wanted it. She moved quickly but illegally and found out that there are other wealthy property owners on the flowage, including lawyers.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1257
| The DNR has to have some sort of data, before doing anything, even if it's preliminary or not definitive, they have to have SOME data of some sort. | |
| | |
Posts: 61
| It’s not what it does. It’s it who is using it. And as fishing is the only thing the dnr does not make you take a class for people don’t know what tools they need for release. What fish should be left alone. How to handle a fish. And the importance of knowing how rare some fish are and keeping them in the system. But if they found out they could force you to take a class and charge you for it they will. It’s a tool. Same as a screwdriver or knife or hammer or gun. They are all dangerous but only in some people’s hands. You can limit the technology but you can’t limit the idiots.also the talk of guides and guiding. I see lots of so called guide go to the same lake every day on spawns with boat loads of people. Lakes that should be kept to the locals. But these so called guides aren’t good enough to go and find fish somewhere a bit difficult. So you have guides teaching these people that can’t outsmart a bluegill to go and catch them and show them spots for what ? A few houndred dollars? Than all these boat loads of guys go back and burn out a lake. Today is too full of greed and ignorance. Ffs is great and it sucks. Depends who is behind it. Just like guides should know better and have better common sense. And instead of filling a livewell explain that without proper understanding of the fisheries they won’t last long
Edited by K and M tackle 9/1/2024 4:31 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2024
| The best part of the episode was when Mark said he has a cell phone trail cam, but doesn't use it like the others use/misuse it... Or, the part that guides really put more pressure on the lake and don't pay for the actual resources, just general taxes. | |
| | |
Posts: 40
| FUNNY STUFF, GOT MY LUNCH HANDED TO ME SOME TIME BACK FROM THOSE WHO CHAMPIONED UNBRIDLED TECHNOLOGY IN MUSKY FISHING.
THEY SPOKE FROM A LOFTIER POSITION, BUT THEY WERE WRONG.
| |
| | |
Posts: 351
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Probably lots of places to find out about this bass tournament FFS ban, but good take on it here.
https://youtu.be/cDyQR8Qe2tI?si=MCjWvJ3zKA-e_2Vg
In terms of a McNewbski's point above and the response from Ontario fisheries, based on our experiences with fisheries or wildlife reg changes here in Manitoba, it is sort of a standard response one would get at this stage. I would agree that is a "positive" response, meaning that they could have easily have said the fishery is in great shape and no concern. The fact that other stakeholders have showed concern means it is now something that they have to be ready to answer to the minister should they be asked for an opinion.
The branch itself does not make changes unilaterally, but is certainly well involved in them. Ultimately though, fisheries in all of Canada, even a non-consumptive recreational fishery such as the trophy musky fisheries we are concerned about here, is protected and regulated by the Fisheries Act, which is federal. So any changes that are proposed need to go through them for a approval, but the feds may unilaterally get involved.
Given the abysmal history of allowing fisheries in the past to ultimately collapse (ie east coast cod fisheries), one of the current policies of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the precautionary principle, generalized here in a decision making process to protect fishery stocks:
https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-e...
If you perused through it you will understand that there really is no need for any additional information (ie data) than we already have to have a ban implemented, given the Casselman study has already provided info needed with respect to the impact that small additive increased in mortality will have on a trophy musky fishery.
"In general, the precautionary approach in fisheries management is about being cautious when scientific knowledge is uncertain, and not using the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason to postpone action or failure to take action to avoid serious harm to fish stocks or their ecosystem."
So the silver bullet here is this (when taken in context with the policy in the link above):
"The overarching goal of the Precautionary Approach Framework is to prevent stocks from declining into the Critical Zone in the first place."
*Prevent* - is the key word here.
So Ontario fisheries responsibility (under the Fisheries Act) is to react to prevent a decline, not react to one once it starts happening.
These fisheries are designated as "trophy" fisheries and the management goal is to maintain them as such, not to just ensure the musky fishery exists. They MUST protect the trophy class of fish from excess mortality.
They have to be proactive - ergo Ontario Fisheries MUST ban FFS for musky fisheries up here given the concerns that have been presented to them by stakeholders (such as McNewbski) and the evidence mounting down your way that it is harmful to musky and other fisheries. They do not need data, they just need more folks pushing them to do it now and stop dithering.
Edited by Angling Oracle 9/3/2024 10:40 AM
| |
| | |
| Not familiar with laws in Canada. But, if they are similar to those in the states, a ban on the equipment could be subject to lawsuit from manufactures of FFS. And if the Fisheries division does not have adequate facts to support a ban, I think that would be a big problem in court. It certainly would be in the U.S. | |
| | |
Posts: 351
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 9/3/2024 11:46 AM
Not familiar with laws in Canada. But, if they are similar to those in the states, a ban on the equipment could be subject to lawsuit from manufactures of FFS. And if the Fisheries division does not have adequate facts to support a ban, I think that would be a big problem in court. It certainly would be in the U.S.
I think we have gone through this - lawsuits against the government by companies for regulating against something that it deems to be harmful to the public good are very rare but do happen for sure (ie single use plastics is one I can think of).
However I think it would be foolhardy for them to sue, as once the precedent is set that they actually are harmful to fisheries, then a judge could act to ban for all inland fisheries here, or separate suits could be brought by stakeholders on such a precedent. A think a suit would be foolhardy and PR suicide.
Edited by Angling Oracle 9/3/2024 12:32 PM
| |
| | |
| Angling Oracle - 9/3/2024 12:26 PM
North of 8 - 9/3/2024 11:46 AM
Not familiar with laws in Canada. But, if they are similar to those in the states, a ban on the equipment could be subject to lawsuit from manufactures of FFS. And if the Fisheries division does not have adequate facts to support a ban, I think that would be a big problem in court. It certainly would be in the U.S.
I think we have gone through this - lawsuits against the government by companies for regulating against something that it deems to be harmful to the public good are very rare but do happen for sure (ie single use plastics is one I can think of ).
However I think it would be foolhardy for them to sue, as once the precedent is set that they actually are harmful to fisheries, then a judge could act to ban for all inland fisheries here, or separate suits could be brought by stakeholders on such a precedent. A think a suit would be foolhardy and PR suicide. | |
| | |
| The first thing the companies' lawyers will do is ask "where is the evidence that FFS harms the fishery? Where is the data?" So far, I have not seen scientific data. I agree with those who say it can be a very bad thing. But, is there real data to support that contention? | |
| | |
Posts: 351
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 9/3/2024 1:15 PM
The first thing the companies' lawyers will do is ask "where is the evidence that FFS harms the fishery? Where is the data?" So far, I have not seen scientific data. I agree with those who say it can be a very bad thing. But, is there real data to support that contention?
Not sure when they would be asking that and to whom. They have no standing. What is their grievance exactly?
Not how it works here. The Crown's powers with regards to fisheries and regulating same are quite broad and the case law almost always winds up in the Crown's favour given how all-encompassing the legislation is. I can assure you that this lawsuit bogeyman certainly a non-issue and would get nowhere.
Companies coming up here and trying to tell folks up here how to run things would go over very, very, very poorly. Again, I really don't believe they would consider it given a suicidal play. Cost of doing so: High. Reward: There is no reward.
Keep in mind that I am saying a ban for musky fishing, not an overall ban. How a musky fishing ban would be implemented is its own mess.
Edited by Angling Oracle 9/3/2024 2:27 PM
| |
| | |
| Johnson Outdoors is a very large corporation and MinnKota is just one of their companies. The can afford attorneys. Not sure why any company would want to do business in Canada if the law is truly as arbitrary as you portray. Most nations require a reason for passing laws that harm a business. | |
| | |
Posts: 351
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 9/3/2024 3:25 PM
Johnson Outdoors is a very large corporation and MinnKota is just one of their companies. The can afford attorneys. Not sure why any company would want to do business in Canada if the law is truly as arbitrary as you portray. Most nations require a reason for passing laws that harm a business.
The Fisheries Act is not arbitrary, it covers fish and fish habitat and has water quality protection provisions, so in that sense is very powerful because fish habitat is not a one shoe fits all. Here is some older case law that the Johnson gang can peruse if they want (this is prior to some newer modernized legislation)
https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/217574.pdf
I mean DFO closed an entire provincial fisheries industry down for decades: packaging plants, ships, canning and shipping industry down to protect cod. Decided and done. The law is the law and good lawyers, bad, expensive or cheap, won't change that.
If someone that reps any of those companies wants to say otherwise, lets hear if from them.
Edited by Angling Oracle 9/3/2024 4:20 PM
| |
| | |
| You are making apples to oranges comparisons there. You will allow SI/DI and allow FFS for other fish but not musky. Sorry, without any study, comprehensive data, that is an arbitrary decision. If you were to ban all electronics, SI/DI included, no problem. | |
| | |
Posts: 1257
| I think the apples and oranges are the difference between U.S. and Canada. With the wording of that Federal Canadian fisheries act, it seems to give very broad powers at the Federal level. I think NO8 is correct for the U.S., as pretty much all non-migratory laws are at the state level, which is a huge difference. Plus, even on the state level, I don't think there is any legislation that mirrors the broad powers of that Canadian Act. Basically, Canada has legislation that specifically says they do not require scientific proof or data. We don't have anything close to that, that I am aware of. | |
| | |
| TCESOX - 9/3/2024 5:28 PM
I think the apples and oranges are the difference between U.S. and Canada. With the wording of that Federal Canadian fisheries act, it seems to give very broad powers at the Federal level. I think NO8 is correct for the U.S., as pretty much all non-migratory laws are at the state level, which is a huge difference. Plus, even on the state level, I don't think there is any legislation that mirrors the broad powers of that Canadian Act. Basically, Canada has legislation that specifically says they do not require scientific proof or data. We don't have anything close to that, that I am aware of.
In the U.S. there can be emergency regulations but anything long term requires data, and at the state level public input is often required. | |
| | |
Posts: 568
| Heard it said on this podcast, https://backlashpodcast.podbean.com/ that Chase Gibson took live scope off his boat. Glad to hear it. Some consider him as one of the pioneers for FFS and maybe now he is rejecting this technology. | |
| |
|
Badfish Radio Episode 71 - Mark Lijewski