|
|
Posts: 598
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L99AySv_gV0 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1775
| I didn't watch your video but my response to the title of the thread is.......NO.
We have something here called MNFISH who are all about making money. The health of the resource is secondary. They would fight a ban tooth & nail. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 356
| Not ban but perhaps restrict. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2356
Location: Chisholm, MN | No, they are not going to ban it or even restrict it any time soon. |
|
| |
|
| In Wisconsin, such a change would have to come from the legislature. The DNR's rule making authority was severely curtailed under former governor Walker and the Republican legislature has maintained that. What is the situation in MN? Could your DNR make the change or would it have to come from legislature? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| The Minnesota DNR has strong ability to make rules. However, they don't typically do things quickly. Most of their decisions have to be backed up with data, which takes a while to gather. Also, they have to go through layers of authority, so you have to navigate that. Then there is the legislature. They can make laws, but also have big influence, as they have the house and senate outdoors finance committees, which can influence how money is spent. The DNR will not be doing any rule changing anytime soon, but it is a topic that has a great deal of their i(fisheries dept.) interest. There have been productive initial discussions and there is an interest in organizing the discussions. Some are also aware that some aspects may not be able to wait long enough to gather a large amount of data on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3500
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya,
My take: I feel a ban would be extremely difficult to put in place due to the inability to enforce it effectively with the population as a whole. And...IF a ban were to be put in place, what would be an effective deterrent - How far reaching would a ban have to go? Retailers, person-to-person sales, massive tax on sales? Registration and if registered, reduced bag limits? I think it would be safe to say a list could go on and on.
Then, how about the repercussions of getting caught... Was it in use while fishing or simply on the boat but not in use? Is possession alone worthy enough of charges?
I believe FFS will become an integral part of the lower unit of bow mount motors at some point in the very near future...in similar fashion as regular transducers (universal sonar), now transitioned to Down imaging capabilities... It's just a matter of time....
Just too many variables in my humble opinion to see a ban being put in place.
And...there will always be the argument of.. "Well...I still have to catch the fish. Just because I can see it ahead of me doesn't mean I'll catch it."
The technology is here...and it is available to those who have the $$ to pay for it, expensive as it can be. Advantage to those who can afford it? Maybe - maybe not...depends on your viewpoint. Fair chase? Again...maybe - maybe not depending on your viewpoint.
The big question for me is how can FFS be effectively incorporated without hurting the fishery regardless of species? Does it hurt the fishery? Is there evidence to support the theory? This would be the big question I believe any Department/Minsitry of natural resources would have and it becomes a very fine line around abuse/ethical use, damage to fisheries, etc. Way too many variables to consider...
Steve
Edited by VMS 1/23/2025 8:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Duluth | If any ban comes down, I suspect it will be for individual bodies of water. Which will be a good start. |
|
| |
|
| CincySkeez - 1/23/2025 10:21 AM
If any ban comes down, I suspect it will be for individual bodies of water. Which will be a good start.
Interesting idea and one that would seem to be easier to enact. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8814
| That would seem to be a more likely scenario instead of a statewide ban. It would also be much easier to enforce. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2356
Location: Chisholm, MN | I don't see how it would be hard to enforce. It's pretty obvious. I do understand that if they come built in to trolling motors, that could be an issue. But I don't think it's practical to build it into the TM anyway. Then you can't remove it for ice fishing which so many people do. All that said, I highly doubt they will ban it in MN at all. Not even a little bit. Hopefully I'm wrong. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| Rather than restricting the technology, I see something more like restricting times and places you can fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 356
| Yes, time and places. Stay tuned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| Another non-regulatory influence, would be for record keeping entities to not recognize otherwise record fish, if FFS was used. Not fair chase. Already a thing for hunting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| something this hated has got to be worth looking into!
believe it or not, it is fun to use.
also, you can turn it off anytime.
it is a new view on that incredible underwater mystery below our boats.
it is my legally acquired property and I'll use it. come and get it.
never seen fishermen be such a bunch of crybabies and sore sports. geez take up golf, chess, beer making, investing, charity, but just please stop WHINING about the advance of technology. IT HAPPENS. go stick you head in a hole and be happy. take the grandkid bluegill fishing, go noodling, go commercial fishing, float a fly, take a Marlin trip. many other ways to enjoy fishing and not be triggered by us FFS guys.
Edited by curdmudgeon 1/25/2025 6:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| Obviously, not everyone understands the gravity of what is going on. That needs to be a part of the mission, as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| Genuinely shocking that we are in a time where "is it bad for the population of a wild animal to be targetable with near certainty" is considered a serious talking point.
Edited by Tyendinaga 1/26/2025 8:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 661
Location: Duluth | Genuinely depressing, but the increased amount of dialogue I am hearing is turning more and more people. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
| The entire sport is dependent on a finite shared public natural resource. Increased harvest or even catch and release mortality due to advances in technology that push the limits of fair chase (or go beyond it imo) have a direct negative effect on other anglers experience. That's the difference between hunting/fishing and any other hobby and why people care so much about what others are doing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| You know it's bad when one of our states' bigger muskie retailers isn't selling any bucktails, spinners, glides, or crankbaits. Only Red Octobers and Bondi Baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 577
Location: deephaven mn | bass and walleye fisherman want it on their trolling motors so they can pan the area only useing their foot and not taking the hands of rods and reel. so yes buit into the trolling motor is something that will come out shortly.
like i said before technolgy is not ging to stop and before long we will have clear tv pictures on our graphs
and alot of the mystery of fishing will be removed |
|
| |
|
Posts: 398
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Seems to me that outside of the usual folks that would keep shooting Bison until the last one is dead 'cause they a have a big Buffalo gun and they can, seems to be pretty much a consensus here that something more than suggesting ethical conduct needs to be done about FFS and sharpshooting for muskies.
For muskies there are alternatives to banning FFS (and future developments of live imaging) in lakes where it may cause deleterious harm to the fishery in regards to maintaining a sustainable (and trophy) fishery, however these alternatives all require penalizing/restricting everyone else (non FFS users). For example a daily catch/release limit is one I can think of (which is common on Atlantic Salmon streams where all gear is restricted, must release all, but you have to stop fishing after catching 2 for example). Do we want that?
Another possibility is limited access to lakes maybe regardless of what tech you have. Where do folks sit with that?
Both those ideas seem pretty ridiculous compared to the obvious alternative that benefits everyone rather than penalizing the majority.
I think Curmudgeon's thoughts give a great insight into much of the pro use FFS crowd that are the ones that really are not going to be self-limiting in their use of it. This crowd has to be regulated, as they will not regulate themselves.
FFS/live imaging for muskies needs to be banned. This is the only way these fragile musky fisheries are going to remain quality fisheries long-term.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/27/2025 9:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8814
| We all rely on each other to maintain the quality of the fisheries we enjoy. If I mess up and kill a fish, that's a fish you will never catch. No matter how hard we try, some of them aren't going to make it, and that's just a fact we can't change. If a piece of technology allows me to catch 8 muskies in a day when I otherwise would have caught 2, that's 6 more muskies that might not survive. Those speaking out against any sort of regulations regarding FFS aren't willing to accept the responsibility that we all hold to preserve the fish we love to chase. We have all sorts of regulations for when we can fish for what where and how many. Those are there for a very good reason. A few more won't hurt...
Edited by esoxaddict 1/27/2025 3:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1775
| I view FFS much like a scope on a gun. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| More like thermal imaging on a drone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| Brian, man you are old school. Love the way you think. Put my big guns away, a long time ago, and have been filling the freezer with my 30-30 Henry lever. It put new "pa -zaz "in my hunt. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 631
Location: Bloomington, MN | Nothing will happen in the states unless it is private land. Some Canadian lakes have a chance if camps prohibit the use of FFS. Big lakes like L.O.T.W. have too many resorts and private homes. Getting the 5 camps on Cedar to all agree on a ban would probably be impossible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 398
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Clark A - 1/28/2025 11:13 AM
Nothing will happen in the states unless it is private land. Some Canadian lakes have a chance if camps prohibit the use of FFS. Big lakes like L.O.T.W. have too many resorts and private homes. Getting the 5 camps on Cedar to all agree on a ban would probably be impossible.
Uhm... Impossible? Nah, not how it works up here. Actually probably easier to do something with that many lodges given they probably can't agree on anything. But lodges are in the business of making money, not their job to sort out how to sustain fisheries, even when sustaining them is in their best interest.
You do realize that the spring bear hunt was entirely cancelled (OR BANNED) a decade or two ago in NW Ontario entirely by folks in Toronto that probably have never been to NW Ontario, affecting hundreds of jobs, risking lives, property etc? Those lodges didn't agree on a ban for that, and whatever objections they had ultimately meant nothing. Animal rights folks got that done. Switched with new government or two, but not quickly.
You only get things done if you don't even consider "impossible" as a "possible" outcome.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/28/2025 11:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| Impossible, probably hear but maybe not in Canada. Common sense has recently re-surfaced hear so maybe, just maybe we can get it done. |
|
| |
|
| Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 11:50 AM
Clark A - 1/28/2025 11:13 AM
Nothing will happen in the states unless it is private land. Some Canadian lakes have a chance if camps prohibit the use of FFS. Big lakes like L.O.T.W. have too many resorts and private homes. Getting the 5 camps on Cedar to all agree on a ban would probably be impossible.
Uhm... Impossible? Nah, not how it works up here. Actually probably easier to do something with that many lodges given they probably can't agree on anything. But lodges are in the business of making money, not their job to sort out how to sustain fisheries, even when sustaining them is in their best interest.
You do realize that the spring bear hunt was entirely cancelled (OR BANNED ) a decade or two ago in NW Ontario entirely by folks in Toronto that probably have never been to NW Ontario, affecting hundreds of jobs, risking lives, property etc? Those lodges didn't agree on a ban for that, and whatever objections they had ultimately meant nothing. Animal rights folks got that done. Switched with new government or two, but not quickly.
You only get things done if you don't even consider "impossible" as a "possible" outcome.
I don't know, I was told that the ban on night fishing on Eagle was not put in place to help fishery but because lodges were tired of going out to find lost anglers. The improved fishery angle was to sell it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 398
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 1/28/2025 3:40 PM
I don't know, I was told that the ban on night fishing on Eagle was not put in place to help fishery but because lodges were tired of going out to find lost anglers. The improved fishery angle was to sell it.
Safety was side benefit from the night ban which was one of a number of measures implemented to improve declining walleye populations given everyone was hitting the same hot reefs at dusk and pounding spots - which made sense for anglers in those low tech days.
There are lots of regs that are specifically requested by lodges that are put in place if determined by OMNR / DNR if deemed meritous. Frankly a ban on FFS for muskies could be one of them if a plea was made for conservation reasons by lodges.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/28/2025 4:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 631
Location: Bloomington, MN | The camps, if willing to possibly lose business can ban it themselves. Cliff, North and Stork, as with a few others are the only ones on the lake. Some camps prohibit marijuana use that is permitted in Canada. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: WI | Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 11:50 AM
You do realize that the spring bear hunt was entirely cancelled (OR BANNED) a decade or two ago in NW Ontario entirely by folks in Toronto that probably have never been to NW Ontario, affecting hundreds of jobs, risking lives, property etc? Those lodges didn't agree on a ban for that, and whatever objections they had ultimately meant nothing. Animal rights folks got that done. Switched with new government or two, but not quickly.
I feel like this is a good example of why one shouldn’t always turn to elected officials or bureaucracies to come to the rescue. Those with opposing views have voices too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| As muskie fishermen, our focus should be on muskie, not something that would impact others, as we don't need to draw the ire of people who fish for other stuff. We've been down that road. And if done correctly, we may be able to show a path for other angler groups who may start to feel the same way. Start with something that may be isn't the full answer, but may still have some impact. As the reality of depleted populations starts to percolate, momentum from others can help push more effective solutions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 398
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | raftman - 1/28/2025 4:39 PM
Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 11:50 AM
You do realize that the spring bear hunt was entirely cancelled (OR BANNED) a decade or two ago in NW Ontario entirely by folks in Toronto that probably have never been to NW Ontario, affecting hundreds of jobs, risking lives, property etc? Those lodges didn't agree on a ban for that, and whatever objections they had ultimately meant nothing. Animal rights folks got that done. Switched with new government or two, but not quickly.
I feel like this is a good example of why one shouldn’t always turn to elected officials or bureaucracies to come to the rescue. Those with opposing views have voices too.
Can agree with you on that, although we may disagree on other things.
Good read here on how it happened and reversed: https://oodmag.com/how-the-spring-bear-hunt-was-lost-and-won/
"The hunt’s cancellation was a wake-up call for the outdoors community. That fateful decision showed that our traditions could be upended. It demonstrated that even friendly governments could buckle under the right amount of pressure. It proved that a dedicated, well-funded campaign based on ill-informed and emotional anti-hunting sentiments could topple sound, science-based policy. Most important of all, it taught us that it is far easier to keep our traditions than to win them back after they have been taken away. "
We were prepared here in Manitoba and stopped them when they tried the same thing. There are constantly fish/wildlife issues to be concerned about and frankly I've been critiquing my musky partner's press (provincially and nationally) with regards to some serious land use issues here (similar to the bear issue in that coming from non-locals) the past few days that ultimately will affect hunting/fishing access in large areas for residents and non-residents alike. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 398
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | TCESOX - 1/28/2025 6:02 PM
As muskie fishermen, our focus should be on muskie, not something that would impact others, as we don't need to draw the ire of people who fish for other stuff. We've been down that road. And if done correctly, we may be able to show a path for other angler groups who may start to feel the same way. Start with something that may be isn't the full answer, but may still have some impact. As the reality of depleted populations starts to percolate, momentum from others can help push more effective solutions.
After reading the 2020 Muskellunge (and Pike) Management Plan, it appears that making things happen is really not that much different than up here in that as a stakeholder group, you can push for fishery managers to come up with management solutions - in this case regs to reduce increased pressure and associated increased mortality. Seems to me that you need to insist you want to have a trophy fishery and need regs to ensure that (obviously open/deep water use of FFS being the best target for regs in my view).
Interesting to see how much power the spearing stakeholder group has and ink in the plan with regards to how carefully the regs cater to them (ie. big pike have no chance in Minnesota).
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/28/2025 6:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 6:20 PM
Seems to me that you need to insist you want to have a trophy fishery and need regs to ensure that (obviously open/deep water use of FFS being the best target for regs in my view).
It's always been the MN DNRs stated goal, to manage the muskie fishery as a trophy fishery. The now, several years late, 10 year plan, is being finalized, and the discussions regarding FFS are being mapped out, as we speak. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Eagan, MN | I say MN should ban those who want to ban FFS. Enforcement could be tough but I think it could be done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32910
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | BrianF. - 2/14/2025 7:22 AM
I say MN should ban those who want to ban FFS. Enforcement could be tough but I think it could be done.
FFS, in its pure form, is not the problem, I don't expect to see a total ban. In the MI FFS statement, we ask for ethical use of the tech, nothing more. It's here to stay and the impact will be under study. I predict smaller limits for most fish and a stronger conservation message to underpin the ethical use of the tech while muskie fishing. It's already happening. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 598
| Potential FFS Regs Coming
There’s been a lot of chatter this winter regarding potential musky specific regulations being introduced for forward facing sonar (FFS) users.
The specific lakes we’re hearing the most about are Lake Vermilion and Leech Lake in MN along with Eagle Lake in Canada. There’s also been talk of possible statewide musky specific regs for Minnesota.
We just came across this proposed reg for Leech Lake posted on the Bemidji/Cass Lake Muskies Inc. Facebook page.
“The MN DNR is having a meeting on Wednesday, February 26, 2025 about a proposed change to the muskie regulations on Leech Lake.“
Here’s a few excerpts from the current draft of the proposal . . .
Reasons for concern:
The deep water habitat muskies utilize after spawning make them susceptible to angling pressure in a means that was not historically possible. The improvements in equipment including Forward Facing Sonar(FFS) make locating muskies in this habitat relatively simple.
Vast areas of open water can be methodically searched at high speeds until muskies appear as glowing targets on FFS screens. Anglers, furnished with knowledge of congregation sites in combination with advanced equipment, are producing astounding catch rates of large fish.
Furthermore, the number of anglers utilizing this resource appears to be growing.
Concerned resource users feel this will have long-term, sustained negative impacts to Leech Lake’s naturally reproducing Muskie population.
Special Regulation Request for Leech Lake:
From the opening of the Minnesota Muskie season through the Saturday following July 4th, angling for muskellunge in 20 feet of water or greater is prohibited.
Research:
Anglers are willing and excited to partner with the DNR to have a better understand the effects of this “Over Catching” phenomenon. Stakeholders are requesting a partnership with anglers and MN DNR to capture muskies via angling for research in the 2025 muskie season.
Enforcement:
Enforcement may treat this rule period as an educational opportunity for anglers in violation. Anglers with multiple offenses could be treated with the general penalty provisions of MN Statute 97A.301.
There’s more to this proposal than we can squeeze in the newsletter. But that’s a quick overview. It sounds like they’re still looking for feedback both positive and negative on this proposal. You can add your two cents in the comments section of the post right here. But, before you do, be sure you read the entire proposal first. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
|
Special Regulation Request for Leech Lake:
From the opening of the Minnesota Muskie season through the Saturday following July 4th, angling for muskellunge in 20 feet of water or greater is prohibited.
Is this a proposal to regulate FFS use or open water fishing all together? If their goal is to regulate FFS use, why not propose some type of ban/limitation on the actual FFS, not just an arbitrary depth limit. It is not uncommon for my boat to be in 25' and my bait landing in 6-8', would that be prohibited with this? I'm all for listening to people's concerns regarding FFS and Muskies, but this is not a good proposal. And I would definitely not consider 20' on Leech Lake the 'pelagic' zone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
| I suspect MN will ban FFS on selected lakes. I was on Vermillion a few years ago in July when the ciscos are chasing insects on the surface and it is easy to spot and target muskies. I have actually seen them shoot up to the surface and grab individual bait fish while watching the screen. The night we were there were at least 20 boats on the water after dark and it appeared half were trolling and half were sharp shooting. This phenomenon does not seen to happen on my home lake in Wisconsin. I suspect the basins are too small and cisco populations are only a small part of the musky diet. BTW I'm not going out to sharp shoot just merely sharing my observations
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8814
| I'll say this over and over, probably until I'm dead:
I can't see how sharp shooting muskies using FFS would be challenging enough to hold anybody's interest for very long. I can see the reason why everyone is so concerned, and I agree that some sort of regulations are in order. There's always a few who just want to catch fish by whatever means possible regardless of the potential damage to the resource. Having not actually done it, I can't say for sure, but... Where's the fun in that? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2050
| Who knows? I'm guessing its similar to sucker fishing!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| JAKET - 2/21/2025 1:32 PM
Special Regulation Request for Leech Lake:
From the opening of the Minnesota Muskie season through the Saturday following July 4th, angling for muskellunge in 20 feet of water or greater is prohibited.
Is this a proposal to regulate FFS use or open water fishing all together? If their goal is to regulate FFS use, why not propose some type of ban/limitation on the actual FFS, not just an arbitrary depth limit. It is not uncommon for my boat to be in 25' and my bait landing in 6-8', would that be prohibited with this? I'm all for listening to people's concerns regarding FFS and Muskies, but this is not a good proposal. And I would definitely not consider 20' on Leech Lake the 'pelagic' zone.
The proposal above, is being driven by business leaders in Walker, and some very successful guides, who are recognizing how damaging the current situation is becoming, on the resource. Other proposals for state-wide regulations are coming from others, as well. Open water fishing in general, while not advisable, isn't really the problem to the resource that open-water fishing with FFS is. It's the difference of a needle in a haystack, versus a neon sign in a hay field.
The proposals that have, and will come out, are more of an emergency regulation situation, as the damage to the resource is happening much too rapidly to wait for study data. Valid data will take time, and will be very difficult to gather, considering very little is currently known about actual populations in most lakes to begin with, so measuring impact will be difficult. By the time we have valid data, the damage will be done, and you cannot stock your way out of it. The mortality is not spread out among the population, but focused on the biggest fish in the system. It will take a decade or two, to recover.
We also have to consider the advancements of the technology. Currently, FFS transducers have a fairly narrow beam, and does take some time to become proficient with it. That's why some are using 3 or 4 transducers and screens, giving them a very broad viewing field. Literally combing large swaths of water in short periods of time, zeroing in on big fish very efficiently. The second generation of transducers has recently hit the market, which will cause a market for the 1st generation units, at a much lower entry price. This will drastically increase the number of people with access to the technology. It would be a good bet, that within five years, there will be single transducers with very wide fields of vision.
This is all moving way too fast for studies to inform us with precise data. Something needs to be done now, and education and social change will not change things nearly fast enough. Catch and release, safe handling, and larger limits, did not happen over night. It took years to come to pass. The current MI statement is not nearly strong enough to take into account the speed at which damage is being done to the fishery, and needs to be updated, if they are to truly be the conservation organization they purport to be. It's about the fish first, not the fishermen. Always has been. If it's good for the fish, it will be good for the fishermen.
Edited by TCESOX 2/22/2025 10:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 398
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I don't have access to the proposal, can someone provide more detail as to what the depth restriction is? Depth of water or depth of lure?
I understand the approach of those groups to focus on their water body, but the DNR needs to focus on and ground-test a reg that is more inclusive of a wider variety of water bodies and be inclusive other species.
Any fishing pressure "relief" on muskies is a good thing, and perhaps this is all the experimental reg proposal is trying to accomplish. But if this means shifting the pressure to when the thermocline is more defined, you are just kicking your issue down the road a year or two. As PStrome alluded to, the big ciscoes foray from deep water to shallow following hatches in the summer, while the muskies do the reverse (shallow and follow them deep). Muskies caught during this period have more potential for thermal shock. I wouldn't know the ratios caught deep/shallow in either period, but certainly I would expect the ratio of mortality/morbidity per fish caught in the summer period would be higher than those caught in spring/fall no matter what depth they are caught at. A reg that is going to really protect muskies is going to need to focus entirely creating a refuge in pelagic and deep water areas at all times.
Banning FFS (for muskies) far earlier by folks a bit more farsighted would have prevented a situation where we are now at a point where other anglers fishing more traditionally are also going to be affected.
It is an encouraging development from where we were from even just a year ago to where we are now though.
Edited by Angling Oracle 2/22/2025 12:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 598
| https://mailchi.mp/a1b641312636/presidents-note-february17?fbclid=Iw...
Ys0Sg4mHxSGRqyckSYeK9CXnVA76fUl34KlGRtSXMw4_aem_olUY8zojJJKbBA7GrvSaew
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 398
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I read it as depth given the use of the words "pelagic" and shallower environments. This is certainly a better option than lure depth as in general ciscoes are not going to be in shallower areas in any numbers.
They should have it all year and make a real difference (make these areas musky refuges).
As far as learning something for every jurisdiction's benefit, have musky fishing closed all year in most of those areas mentioned, but isolate one area with the season open for a short duration in the spring and whatever selected periods thereafter and get a some very accurate creel data. Basically the time open conditional on being able to accurately creel it and thus having the funding to do so.
Edited by Angling Oracle 2/22/2025 2:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| Multiple efforts are being made. This particular effort, is being made by a specific group (Leach Lake area stakeholders,) on a specific resource (Leach Lake)directed toward the DNR, to make a special regulation, which would fall under the DNR's general purvey. This is something that has the potential to be enacted almost immediately, as it should, considering that Leach Lake is the "mother lake", and relies on natural reproduction. To enact broader reaching regulations, the DNR would need actual data that it doesn't have. Other, more broad sweeping regulation, needs to be pursued through the legislative process. Discussions of other possible actions have been ongoing, and input from MI chapters statewide, is being gathered, to determine if and what can be viably brought to the State. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 356
| TXEsox is dead on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 398
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | TCESOX - 2/22/2025 2:46 PM
Multiple efforts are being made. This particular effort, is being made by a specific group (Leach Lake area stakeholders,) on a specific resource (Leach Lake)directed toward the DNR, to make a special regulation, which would fall under the DNR's general purvey. This is something that has the potential to be enacted almost immediately, as it should, considering that Leach Lake is the "mother lake", and relies on natural reproduction. To enact broader reaching regulations, the DNR would need actual data that it doesn't have. Other, more broad sweeping regulation, needs to be pursued through the legislative process. Discussions of other possible actions have been ongoing, and input from MI chapters statewide, is being gathered, to determine if and what can be viably brought to the State.
A sincere THANK YOU to everyone involved in that.
I very much hope it goes through given the parallel interests in preserving the natural reproducing populations up here. Hopefully there is consideration to having some full time pelagic refuge areas while data is being collected given muskies are foraging in the pelagic zone all year round, especially very large fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1355
| Angling Oracle - 2/22/2025 3:52 PM
I very much hope it goes through given the parallel interests in preserving the natural reproducing populations up here. Hopefully there is consideration to having some full time pelagic refuge areas while data is being collected given muskies are foraging in the pelagic zone all year round, especially very large fish.
This is one of a handful of potential solutions, that have been distilled down from dozens and dozens of ideas. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 577
Location: deephaven mn | i like the i like plan of banning deep water fishing on leech from opener to the 4th of July. This would be easier to regulate than check each boat for a livescope.It can be done frome shore. I will however effect trolling anglers in this area as well.
THe thought is targeting these open water fish has had an negative impact on Muskie fishing for the last five years or more and fish are behaving diffferently throughou the season. This would be test and results may be possitive and helping restore Leech lake fishing to what it once was. Now this maybe exclusive to Leech but it would also work on Vermillion as lakes are simmilar with lots of shallow water and no weed line out to 30 feet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2356
Location: Chisholm, MN | Might as well close muskie season through July 4th if you can't fish the open water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 101
| Kirby Budrow - 2/24/2025 8:36 AM
Might as well close muskie season through July 4th if you can't fish the open water.
This was my take as well. It's not so much a FFS ban as it is an Open Water ban. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2356
Location: Chisholm, MN | Tommy - 2/24/2025 11:51 AM
Kirby Budrow - 2/24/2025 8:36 AM
Might as well close muskie season through July 4th if you can't fish the open water.
This was my take as well. It's not so much a FFS ban as it is an Open Water ban.
I wonder if they know muskies are in the open water all season too... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 101
| Kirby Budrow - 2/24/2025 12:46 PM
Tommy - 2/24/2025 11:51 AM
Kirby Budrow - 2/24/2025 8:36 AM
Might as well close muskie season through July 4th if you can't fish the open water.
This was my take as well. It's not so much a FFS ban as it is an Open Water ban.
I wonder if they know muskies are in the open water all season too...
lol. Or that they'll hang off structure in 20 feet too. I still think the best way to cast Vermilion at least is 2+ in the boat. 1 casting shallow with blades and 1 throwing rubber off the other side of the boat. Wonder if the latter would be against these rules?
Maybe certain areas of lakes become "refuge areas" or something. I think that's a thing in some places for walleyes. IE no walleye fishing at the mouth of X river until June when most of the spawn is over.
Saying everything 20+ is off limits seems to broad. But per the attached proposal a few posts back you say like the Paris Trench is off limits, since that's the highest concentration of open water fish, then maybe that's a compromise. |
|
| |
|
| In the News brief at top of the forum, there was an interesting story about a Major League Fishing bass tournament. For the second day of the tournament, FFS was not allowed, after the being used the first day. Don't know if this is a season long thing or just this one tournament.
Went to an organizational meeting for a musky league here in northern WI last week.
The group voted not to allow FFS. While the vote was a clear majority, it clearly riled some of the folks, with FFS advocates saying side imaging should also be banned if FFS was. Since the days of raising minimum size limits, I don't remember anything as controversial in musky fishing and the size limit issue was actually not that widespread. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 631
Location: Bloomington, MN | I would cut that side scanning transducer off the boat in a minute knowing no one else could use it, but that's NOT going to happen. Wanted to go the Live Forward Facing deal, but always actually thought of it like many as cheating. How can someone refrain from using what they have on their boat? It probably isn't as easy as some say, but on day 4 of a week trip without a fish in Ontario, I would be sharp shooting. I know myself too well! These fish have fallen so short of the important things in life list recently. Basically, I'm finding out how LOTS of GIANT muskies that have been caught by the FFS benefit., It sure wasn't from the Uncle Carl's tossing a Mepp's Giant Killer with the strip of white bathing cap (we actually cut those up and wired them to the hook...back in the days) while using a Lowrance Green Box to stay near the drop off. Muskie fishing has become such a "borderline" sport with the introduction of this technology.
Edited by Clark A 5/11/2025 11:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I just thought it was interesting that Major League Fishing seems to have offered a compromise, at least for this tournament. FFS Ok the first day, but not the second. Wonder if other tournaments might follow suit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 314
| North of 8 - 5/12/2025 8:27 AM
I just thought it was interesting that Major League Fishing seems to have offered a compromise, at least for this tournament. FFS Ok the first day, but not the second. Wonder if other tournaments might follow suit.
I am being lazy here without wanting to look it up myself - but did the bag sizes change dramatically or was there a reduction in the number of fish caught if we compare day 1 to day 2? I understand that it could happen due to a variety of reasons. Just curious. |
|
| |
|
| The leader on day 1 increased his lead on day 2, without FFS. On day three he secured the victory. The story at the top of the forum indicated that many of his close competitors dropped back on day 2. Story does not attribute that to lack of FFS, but seems to make sense. Winner did 26 lbs on day one, 21lbs on day 2.
Winner was quite blunt in saying how FFS has helped his results. But still, 21 pounds on a tough reservoir without it speaks to some skill.
|
|
| |
Minnesota to ban FFS?