Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Muskies Inc FFS Position Statement |
| Message Subject: Muskies Inc FFS Position Statement | |||
North of 8 |
| ||
gimruis - 5/20/2024 8:49 AM ARmuskyaddict - 5/18/2024 11:10 AM Kill and eat crappie with FFS OK, but Catch more muskies and release them ("possibly" kill them in the process) not OK. That doesn't make any sense. Crappies and sunfish are generally not being released with this technology, especially in the winter during ice fishing. Muskies are being released. Most of us that specifically target muskies are very good about handling and doing it properly so the fish survives. Panfish are the species on the losing end of this and its not even close. Constant, year round pressure and targeted by meat hunters. Bag limits are going to have to come down on them soon. While not statewide, in WI a number of lakes have seen a bag limit reduction on panfish. The chain I live on has had that for 7 years now. The "meat" fishermen that used to hit the crappies hard in late winter no longer show up. They would fill a five gallon bucket with 6 inch crappies and did it with just regular flashers. | |||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 314 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Shooting ducks on the water, turkeys out of trees, pushing deer out of tiny bluffs or shooting over a bait pile (in Sask) lobbing an arrow into an elk at 70 yds... Sharpshooting muskies. All legal (here). Ethical? For many folks and for sure for myself, not at all. Legal does not equal ethical. Do the deer, turkeys, ducks, elk care how they are harvested or wounded? Nope. Dead or wounded ethically or unethically is irrelevant to them. It ultimately is a "fair chase" issue. One has to dig deep and consider why you are out in the woods or water to begin with. If you are pro-sharpshooting you are allowed to go do it. If you are feeling queasy about going and doing it because it just doesn't feel right and/or that you know that others disapprove of it - then this step by MI is achieving what it is meant to do. Edited by Angling Oracle 5/20/2024 12:31 PM | ||
| BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | while ffs will never be outlawed I do hope the tactic of sharp shooting is illegal at some point in the near future... with stocking #s basically everywhere going down, and pressure only increasing I don't see ffs as a good thing .... I have also debated with friends for a long time it is over the line in my opinion of what is considered fair chase... | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8731 | Some guys won't ever get the fair chase thing. From where I sit, sharp shooting just doesn't seem like it would be much fun. Muskies are easy to catch. There just aren't many of them. Not knowing if you'll catch one, or even see one is a big part of why a lot of us fish for them. You actually feel like you accomplished something when you get one to eat. FFS? Not so much... | ||
| Brett Waldera |
| ||
Posts: 103 | I look at the debate on FFS extremely similar to the debate when Vexilar unveiled its new ice fishing sonar and color changing flashers. Everyone thought that the fishery was doomed. How many would go ice fishing for panfish today without some sort of electronics technology? I am not sure I would. I get it, panfish and muskies are not comparable due to population, but the point is, the sky didn't fall when everyone thought it would. The thing I don't understand is why it's so important for people to have to pick a side on FFS? What difference in your life does it really make how/if someone else is using it? If it is a legal piece of equipment to use, then I feel people are entitled to use it as they see fit and how it works for them. I own FFS and I use it for ice fishing, Panfish, walleyes, and I use it in the fall when sucker fishing muskies to know if there is a fish behind my suckers. I do not "Sharpshoot" as that is not fishing, from my perspective. If someone else chooses to use the technology to "sharpshoot", I guess that is their option, but I personally am not going to get upset by it. Why should "I" feel I have to choose how someone else enjoys their time on the water if they are within the law?? If Livesope is proven to have a negative effect on Muskie populations, make the effort to ban or boycott it out of existence like was more or less done with single hook sucker rigs. Let's have the DNR start to monitor the technology and its effects on different fish species and make logical conclusions based on actual evidence and data. Until then, I think many of us should watch our own bobber. Brett Waldera | ||
| 7.62xJay |
| ||
Posts: 488 Location: NW WI | Brett- How would you study it accurately? I spose some lakes could be glassed and recorded as to how many anglers are actively pursuing muskies with FFS, and than compare that data with fish populations and monitor it over years to see how extensive the impact may or may not be. But I'm pretty sure Kirby can already attest to that data on V. Or, the DNR could go out sharpshooting themselves and record their catches and tag the caught fish to record delayed mortality while also contrasting their catch rate to creel survey data to form a figure as to what the "increased catch is". Separately, almost sounds to me that in the future, as a happy medium...We all may be discussing something like "Catch limits". 3 fish per person netted a day, and your done. I can see the clickbait titles already. "WE CAUGHT OUR LIMIT IN THE FIRST HOUR!". Edited by 7.62xJay 5/21/2024 8:54 AM | ||
| raftman |
| ||
Posts: 520 Location: WI | I learned about CPR watching Simply Fishing on PBS when I got home from school. Bob always told me to do it at the end of the episode and I did. Education on the negative impacts of sharpshooting by groups like MI as well as visible leaders in the fishing community is the right approach. | ||
| gimruis |
| ||
Posts: 114 | North of 8 - 5/20/2024 11:30 AM gimruis - 5/20/2024 8:49 AM ARmuskyaddict - 5/18/2024 11:10 AM Kill and eat crappie with FFS OK, but Catch more muskies and release them ("possibly" kill them in the process) not OK. That doesn't make any sense. Crappies and sunfish are generally not being released with this technology, especially in the winter during ice fishing. Muskies are being released. Most of us that specifically target muskies are very good about handling and doing it properly so the fish survives. Panfish are the species on the losing end of this and its not even close. Constant, year round pressure and targeted by meat hunters. Bag limits are going to have to come down on them soon. While not statewide, in WI a number of lakes have seen a bag limit reduction on panfish. The chain I live on has had that for 7 years now. The "meat" fishermen that used to hit the crappies hard in late winter no longer show up. They would fill a five gallon bucket with 6 inch crappies and did it with just regular flashers. Yes, there will be more of this coming in the future. I could see many of them becoming C & R only too. My parents fish on a statewide amateur walleye circuit and a few teams are completely mopping up because they have multiple FFS/live sonar units. The rest of the circuit cannot compete unless they fork over 15 grand to upgrade. Its taking the fun out of it. This is not a pro circuit where sponsors pay for the gear either. | ||
| xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 10 | I agree it would be tough to conduct, even more difficult to convince anglers of the results one way or the other. I don't think anyone can argue that FFS does not increase angler efficacy based on how it's been employed in fishing tournaments, looking at PMTT and particularly the major bass tours (not to mention crappie tournaments). You'd undoubtedly be severely handicapped to not have FFS while competing against those with it. Sure, there may be specific scenarios where it's useless but those seem be less common as the technology improves. The next logical question is whether these increased increased angler efficacy negatively impact the musky population. I think once could argue that even with perfect handling and C&R there is some mortality, meaning anything that any increase in catch rate will hurt the population. But another argument would be that the fish will just adapt over time to the technology. To answer the question on whether the musky population has declined or just adapted with a scientific study is a bit more tricky because many musky populations are already on a downslide, so what'd you be trying to figure out is whether FFS increases the rate of decline. This is exacerbated by the fact that muskies in places like northern WI live 20+ years, so the time-scale of the study to definitively prove the negative effects of FFS might be so long that if FFS is proven to be negative it may be so entrenched that it's difficult to eliminate. This is why many states preemptively banned drones for hunting, rather than waiting for studies to determine their effect. I also doubt that Alaska used studies to determine that hunting on the same day that you fly in was negatively impacting populations. One interesting way to study the effect of electronics in general would be take a set of lakes and designate some as electronics free and others with no limit on electronics and to compare catch rates and other population health metrics over time. This on its own would yield interesting data but what I'd also be interested to see is what would happen if the designations were then reversed. How would anglers with no electronics fare on waters that previously did limit them versus anglers using electronics on waters where they have been limited for an extended time period? If the relative success rates between the two groups remained the same then that'd be good evidence that FFS is not having a negative effect. However, population health metrics may be a more telling result to eliminate the initial performance bump any new tool provides before the fish have become conditioned. | ||
| jasonvkop |
| ||
Posts: 603 Location: Michigan | “Fair Chase” is a concept that hunters have long promoted. This is a practice in that the hunter does not take game with an unfair advantage over the game animal. The same concept applies to muskie fishing. Fair/unfair is always difficult to deal with as it's subjective to the person. One could argue having a 50k boat, 10 rod/reel combos, multiple graphs, GPS, internet information, etc already make it wildly unfair to the fish. | ||
| jamesb |
| ||
Posts: 66 | When you have a rifle and the animal doesn't, I'm pretty sure that's unfair already. I guess you could say certain ways are more "sporting" than others. | ||
| xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 10 | Boone and Crocket's principles of fair chase are interesting to look at and consider how they relate to technology in fishing (not necessarily just FFS): https://www.boone-crockett.org/principles-fair-chase Some particular points of particular interest are: "Defines 'unfair advantage' as when the game (fish) does not have a reasonable chance to escape". This is definitely a gray area as Jason rightly points out and may also depend on the ability of the angler. "Measures success not in the quantity of game taken, but by the quality of the chase". Something I personally believe in and I'd suspect most musky fishermen believe in, since there are many fish that are far easier to catch than muskies. "Embraces the 'No guarantees' nature of hunting (fishing)". If musky fishing was simple, would muskies be as prized as they are today? "Uses technology in a way that does not diminish the importance of developing skills as a hunter (fisherman) or reduces hunting (fishing) to just shooting". Probably the most relevant point in regards to technology like FFS. I think it's also important to point out the idea of "fair chase" is more of an ethic than a strict definition, and it was born out of a need to protect and recover game species that had been decimated by unregulated market hunting. By applying a fair chase ethic, it's possible for a larger number of people to participate an activity such as regulated hunting or fishing without harming the resource, creating user group that can ultimately advocate on the behalf of that resource in a mutualistic relationship. Edited by xcskier_hunter 5/21/2024 2:17 PM | ||
| CincySkeez |
| ||
Posts: 601 Location: Duluth | Most the people I have talked to in person since the MI statement have responded something like this, "Well I don't think the way I use the tech is unfair." Which cool, but I think they are missing the point. If it's available, it will be abused until there are real consequences. Or the new crowd wins and all of us outdated folks can move to a "purer" pursuit until we die. The future is not bright if the overall attitude is "I know it's a problem, but I'm not the problem." | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32810 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I get it, panfish and muskies are not comparable due to population, but the point is, the sky didn't fall when everyone thought it would.' I have seen ice fishing since the advent of sophisticated sonar literally strip entire year classes of fish from some of the lakes I fish. In one case the lake was totally ruined with very few predator fish left and all the pannies severely stunted. I'm betting the 'lake by lake' moves to limit panfish and predator fish harvest will become a thing on most lakes. Most of our muskie lakes are put and take, and stocking is already looking tough for many. It's already happened with strong support on some muskie waters by placing the size limit so high the likelihood of a harvested fish is statistically insignificant. In the not-so-distant future I see a number of put-and-take lakes not getting much if any stocking, and the lakes that do taking on the pressure. I'm a glass-half-full guy and am still concerned. Muskies are crazy expensive to raise and stock, and the money and will just ain't there. One more time....the issue is not the tech. It's sharpshooting by the definition provided earlier, which prompted the MI statement. We were quite aware some would react with -you can't tell me what to do'- and decided that was a good thing, as opposing opinions spark debate. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 314 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | The position and rationale is spot on. Saved this anecdote and thought a good time to tell as doves into Steve's. I've seen some trophy pike fisheries decline rapidly - and never recover. In fact my musky partner and I always reminisce about a particular lake where a member of our group caught two 48" 30+ pound pike in an hour (back in the 90s). These were ice fishing fish. Power ice augers just started being popular, big baits were hard to come by. We ruined it. We told a friend. Which was okay, but... He told a friend, and then a friend of a friend. From one truck, to 10 trucks, the next year 20. A couple years later, you would be lucky to get a flag. We for sure harmed some pike and kept a some small ones to boot - but not as bad as some of the other folks that didn't know what they were doing. Many just lost fish with whatever hooks and line they were using. Others were bonked by some folks who wanted to mount them or eat them - it was allowed then. We though hmm, probably okay. Pike are resilient. Those big girls will be fine. Pike grow fast. But they don't. 30 years on and we hope, but there is far too much educated pressure now. Probably some decent pike in there, but the run of good years we had are never to return. Whatever the equilibrium was with those big predators became unbalanced by their mortality. We learned a lot from that. (xcskier_hunter - we were your age then - fyi). It is one reason why we have a none over 75 cm rule in Manitoba today. My friend told this story to the biologists he managed and probably the minister when getting this reg signed off on. It's a good reg. It also allowed us to justify having an additional spring season opportunity. Equilibrium unbalanced... Recovery is not something that it is going to come quick, if at all. I'm not willing to gamble with our musky fishery, and I'm not willing to have others gamble with it either. For what? Thanks again to Muskies Inc. for taking this position. Edited by Angling Oracle 5/21/2024 6:40 PM | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |