Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Now viewing page 7 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Muskies Inc FFS Position Statement |
| Message Subject: Muskies Inc FFS Position Statement | |||
ARmuskyaddict |
| ||
Posts: 2024 | "How can you teach the "professionals" who are the ones beating the fish down the most? They have been ridiculed steadily all over social media and they don't care. I'm not going to name names but you have heard of most of them I bet. But one of them did kill a legal for recognition. He claimed it just died. But fish rarely die in November and it happend to be the state record. Hmmmm" Guides and youtubers are promoting FFS the most. Require guides to have licenses and double, triple, heck, even quadruple any reasonable fees they pay to go directly to stocking. They take advantage of a basically free resource to earn a living. Any sales taxes they pay do not go towards muskies. I understand the costs of running a business, the taxes go to the state, which do not fund DNRs, much less direct muskie stocking. Bump up the cost of a license, or require a muskie stamp. Any rod in the boat 8 foot and over requires the stamp, unless it's a catfish rod. Bass guys are typically topped out at 8 feet, so much less confusion. Maybe require a musky stamp for a boat to have FFS on it. I was on Vermilion a week and a few days last year. Not 1 floater spotted... The sky hasn't quite fallen... yet. I may change my mind mid July though. All this arguing, and I fear the possible realities are, and neither is desirable for musky fishermen: 1-Allow FFS to continue and see a slow crash in muskie populations, due to delayed mortality. Along the way to that crash we get an even more educated fish that are more difficult to catch. 2- Ban FFS and see a vast decrease in new fishermen and fisherwomen being recruited to the sport. Which will lead to a further decrease in stocking and eventual crash in stocked lakes. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 336 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | It's up to you guys and other like-minded folks who sort of have the inside-knowledge as to the negative effects to take if forward and push with the folks with influence. Organized stakeholders have the power (which is that they represent a multiplier of folks that are quietly in the background but have the same view). As far as legislation, Garmin et al. has 0 votes when it comes to the folks who ultimately make policy. All the power is with you - you are the primary stakeholders, not Garmin. In a case of something like a resource that is very slippery to get meaningful data (ie catch rates going up, not down - and really hard to interpret), really the folks that know what's going on are those on the ground (water) as it were. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER STUDY - the data is already available to make a very well educated prediction on the outcome. None of the posts are arguing with the concept that there is not going to higher mortality rates on big fish - entirely the arguments are the A and B arguments outlined by BNelson. I would argue there is a C group as well, that just hasn't seen a tube deep in the throat of a big muskie - these pelagic fish are there to eat, not strike a bait in reaction mode. I would call this group the skeptical uninformed. They need to trust the Kirbys and the BNelsons who know what's going on - I mean you really don't need much to see much more than the little clip of Jimmy Houston. Like any deer hunting show - they don't show the unshowable: gut-shot deer or in the case of muskies shows or videos, big muskies caught in the gills or exhausted floaters that are going to die off camera. Really all that is happening is you are kicking a decision that needs to be made NOW down the road. It will be too late. For what? Freedom to use what you want? You already don't have the freedom to do what you want: they are called fish regulations and seasons and catch and size limits. Ban it, don't accommodate it. PS.. Need a Facebook reporting page dedicated to musky floaters - pike included. Nothing more helpful to a cause than visual aids. PSS Earlier in these threads I mentioned that a lodge owner asked me what I thought of FFS (a few years back). I had my thoughts about it then (same as now) given I could see how effective it could be in certain scenarios. "What can we do?" I took the Muskie Inc Statement to him a week or so ago. He gave me a sort of chagrined look, laughed. "Too harsh?" He laughed hard.. Well his response was he couldn't believe that is wasn't more strongly worded*. Showed him the Jimmy clip. He then on his own time checked out Maina's discussion and really appreciated Scott Keiper's views on it. Point being is this is a wise fellow that has seen it all and so I can reliably say that he would want the Muskies Inc statement to be much more strongly worded. *new edit Edited by Angling Oracle 6/27/2024 10:08 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32833 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Well his response was he couldn't believe how weak it was.' Show me another conservation organization that took ANY stand. I promise you that statement has cost us membership, a risk we were willing to take, as conversely, it may encourage others to join. Insulting the effort won't help the cause. There's your idea of how to handle FFS, and then there is what is reality and WAY more likely to happen. Our stance is the one a non-profit may take in the US and offers a realistic solution, and from the posts here (yours included), it's working exactly as we hoped. Without MI, muskie conservation would not be where it is today. Southern states are already reacting to FFS by dropping crappie limits dramatically. There's the likely legislation expected for other species as the tech progresses. Reality might suck, but it is what it is. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32833 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'He claimed it just died. But fish rarely die in November and it happend to be the state record. Hmmmm" There's more to that story, and that particular fellow presented an issue not related to FFS at all. Read the posts here and the last AO post, the MI statement is working and social pressure is already being applied. | ||
| xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 18 | I really don't see your second scenario as that likely. Musky fishing is as popular as ever and after Larry Ramsell's podcast with Meateater I bet there will be another non-negligible jump in musky fishing interest. Additionally, one of the biggest areas of growth is in fly fishing, which is evidence that some portion of anglers is already self-limiting to increase the challenge of musky fishing. Much of this interest is from younger anglers too. Thus, I think it's far more likely that the future of musky fishing hinges on healthy fisheries, not unlimited technology being allowed. Also, I personally struggle with the idea that the solution to increased technology in waters with native and naturally reproducing muskies is increased stocking. I believe these populations are far more valuable than musky lakes that either historically had no muskies or a non-fishable populations. In the latter scenario, I see stocking as a much more reasonable solution, however, it still probably makes sense to enforce some limitations on these waters considering we're already struggling to satisfy stocking demands. Edited by xcskier_hunter 6/27/2024 9:35 AM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 336 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 6/27/2024 9:17 AM 'Well his response was he couldn't believe how weak it was.' Show me another conservation organization that took ANY stand. Look at my profile and you will see what my position is with MI. There's your idea of how to handle FFS, and then there is what's reality and WAY more likely to happen. Our stance is the one a non-profit may take in the US and offers a realistic solution, and from the posts here (yours included), it's working exactly as we hoped. Without MI, muskie conservation would not be where it is today. I revised the wording as comes off a bit harsher than intended. I personally think the stand is a good start. One has to start somewhere. I was surprised by his response as well given he is not really even a musky fisherman (he hosts lots of them), but the Jimmy Houston video really shocked him and he went and studied it further on his own volition. I think that was a signal from him to us (my musky partner is consistently involved in defending hunting/fishing access, conservation issues up here) to push ahead and explore where to go with it. The Muskies Inc. stance will help in that. We will be back there in a couple weeks so will hopefully discuss it further. I really appreciate what you and Muskies Inc. have done and it is a courageous move given sort of the mixed views on what to do from some folks who certainly want their musky fisheries to be sustainable, but still sympathetic to those who use FFS as they want. Edited by Angling Oracle 6/27/2024 10:10 AM | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7020 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | BNelson - 6/26/2024 4:54 PM Slamr you go to Eagle right. Hire any of thr guides that are using it and see for yourself. Lots of those guys are sharpshooting too. Totally sure you're right. BUT, I really believe that to get this movement of either banning the tech or moving to get muskie fisherman to stop the deep water mortality we have to have data that supports fish are dying. If the argument is that "it makes muskie fishing TOO easy" and that's why it should be banned, that's not going to fly. Maybe the world has turned to being more "instant gratification" focused versus working for a goal, but telling the DNR you need to stop letting people use this because it helps people catch fish (the exact reason the DNR/MNR manage the fisheries), the DNR is going to ask to have you put on a seminar so that they have more happy people using the resource. Bad news. that's their goal, to have more people be able to catch fish. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 336 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Slamr, if you want to make it "easy" to catch trout you put out a bobber with a minnow, worm, grasshopper, maggot. Trout that are naive to lures are suckers for spinners, little crankbaits. Trout are dumb in the same way muskies are. Trout fisherman and their regulators decided that in certain places best to make it "harder" to catch them: fly fishing only, barbless flies, no streamers, no nymphs, flies of a certain size, single flies only, etc. Quality, not quantity. Muskies are just another fish to everyone else - they are just really special to us, the musky angler. We can make the rules as we want if we have the will to do so. Edited by Angling Oracle 6/27/2024 11:22 AM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 336 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | xcskier_hunter - 6/27/2024 9:32 AM Also, I personally struggle with the idea that the solution to increased technology in waters with native and naturally reproducing muskies is increased stocking. I believe these populations are far more valuable than musky lakes that either historically had no muskies or a non-fishable populations. In the latter scenario, I see stocking as a much more reasonable solution, however, it still probably makes sense to enforce some limitations on these waters considering we're already struggling to satisfy stocking demands. We need only to look at the St Lawrence (the Larry) and Lake Simcoe to see where things can go. Simcoe had muskies, trying to bring them back but they won't take. The lake already has a new predator equilibrium. The Larry had VHS - wiped out a lot of the fish way back when. Mr. Ramsell probably can give better insight as to where it is at. I read some of the studies where they are seining for the last year classes, very hard to find. Again, probably in tough with new equilibrium and goby introductions. VHS and stocked fish (homogenous genetics), not a recipe for long term sustainability. We are at the fork in the road: take the safe, sure road and get where you want to go, or go the risky route, the one that the tipsy stranger in the backseat says it will be a lot of fun, but a lot of experienced folks at the intersection are telling you not to go... Edited by Angling Oracle 6/27/2024 10:22 AM | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Now viewing page 7 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |