|
|
Posts: 578
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L99AySv_gV0 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1760
| 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: 331
| Not ban but perhaps restrict. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2336
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: 1307
| 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: 3484
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: 649
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: 8791
| That would seem to be a more likely scenario instead of a statewide ban. It would also be much easier to enforce. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2336
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: 1307
| Rather than restricting the technology, I see something more like restricting times and places you can fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 331
| Yes, time and places. Stay tuned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1307
| 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: 122
| 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: 1307
| Obviously, not everyone understands the gravity of what is going on. That needs to be a part of the mission, as well. |
|
| |
