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: 32834 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: 32834 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: 19 | 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: 7023 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 | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 1986 | If your goal is to protect the fish which you keep throwing out - there are 101 ways to do that that would be 1000% more effective than banning FFS. Edited by IAJustin 6/28/2024 9:57 AM | ||
| gimruis |
| ||
Posts: 129 | IAJustin - 6/28/2024 9:51 AM If your goal is to protect the fish which you keep throwing out - there are 101 ways to do that that would be 1000% more effective than banning FFS. I agree. The idea that someone would be against the use of FFS and for the use of a big sucker to muskie fish is completely contradictory. Clearly the use of live bait causes a higher mortality than the use of artificial lures and dozens of scientific studies have backed that up. Increased stocking, improving water quality, and reducing damage from wake boats would go a heck of a lot further for muskie populations than banning new technology being used solely for catch and release. Now if we're talking FFS through the ice for crappies, that's a completely different ball game. Those fish are targeted solely for harvest, not release. And there's a lot more people doing it too. | ||
| xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 19 | The goal is to protect the fish but it's simpler and, in my opinion, makes more sense to limit emerging technologies and methods versus retroactively banning traditional methods that are more effective. By your logic we should focus on banning boat motors rather than regulating FFS. I don't personally fish with suckers or have any interest to but the fact that it's an entrenched tradition has some inherent value compared to emerging methods that even in their infancy (it will only get better) are proving extremely effective and anecdotally harming fisheries (not to mention the fact that FFS is often combined with sucker fishing). Most importantly, none of your solutions are either/or scenarios. I personally have supported wake boat regulations but that does not mean I don't support limiting technology that makes anglers more effective as I don't believe our fisheries can sustain a growing number of musky anglers that are increasingly effective. If we actually want a greater number of anglers that are engaged musky advocates, we need sustainable and healthy musky fisheries to support them. Edited by xcskier_hunter 6/28/2024 12:26 PM | ||
| ManitouDan |
| ||
Posts: 566 | Xcskier, Bnelson and Kirby -- I agree 100% with your positions and statements .. its going to hurt the fish !!!! and fishery .. There is going to stunted sixes , thinner fish , and fish that are waaay harder to catch in the near future .. As for the work thread that Slamr put out I just dont buy it .. its not work to go in debt , or be fortunate enough to pay cash for FFS .. ( it hard to work if you fish 20 days a month ??) yeah slingin' lures is work , but its far less if its throwing 8-10 cast at a fish on your TV . Surely the entire community agrees fish get educated and conditioned .. still some think its a good idea .. to hook and boat a much much higher % of fish in a system .. like a tremendous increae that happened in a 2 year period . and think it wont eventually harm the system . | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 1986 | Banning and limiting boat motor size has already been done, in many places... very good thought to really protect the fish, now we are getting somewhere!!! Anyone else for a 10hp limit on LOTW? Edited by IAJustin 6/28/2024 2:28 PM | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| Not a comment on FFS or the statement. Friday evening just at dusk, noticed a guy in a large boat fishing in front of my place. Large unit on bow, 2 on the console and then a live scope and screen on side of boat, behind the passenger seat. Had all four units on, could see because of how dark it was. He was fishing by himself, and from boat position, seemed to looking down the weed line with the live scope and casting parallel to the weed line. Was moving the boat slowly, in and out from shore. Is that common placement of the live scope and screen? Have not seem them used, so curious about it. Also a little surprised he would leave all the units on. Must have a separate battery just for the screens I guess. | |||
| Rudedog |
| ||
Posts: 613 Location: S.W. WI | gimruis - 6/28/2024 10:40 AM IAJustin - 6/28/2024 9:51 AM If your goal is to protect the fish which you keep throwing out - there are 101 ways to do that that would be 1000% more effective than banning FFS. I agree. The idea that someone would be against the use of FFS and for the use of a big sucker to muskie fish is completely contradictory. Clearly the use of live bait causes a higher mortality than the use of artificial lures and dozens of scientific studies have backed that up..... ******* Edited by Rudedog 7/1/2024 7:02 AM | ||
| Rudedog |
| ||
Posts: 613 Location: S.W. WI | I call B.S. on this statement. ^ I have caught probably near a hundred on suckers, and 10 times that many on artificial lures. In 20 plus years- Not One Time have I been concerned about the survival of a sucker fish I have caught. I have probably killed 5 for sure on bucktails, and many more very deeply hooked on various lures over the years that I was very concerned with. But I am sure I am just lucky, right? These studies you refer to are obviously for single hook swallow rigs. (Not allowed in WI.) Wisconsin has a law you must use "Only Quick set rigs" or offset circle hooks on any live bait over 8". No swallow rig single hooks allowed. Quick set rigs with suckers are Safer than lures for fish survival in my opinion, and also of most experts in our sport. To compare it in any way to FFS CRAP is a joke. Chasing a fish around with live radar, (like using a Drone to hunt deer) is nothing like anything else and should be stopped. | ||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1256 | I thing on mortality only about 1 in ten dead Muskies float! (something about a being a lean fish I don't remember why) If we use Quick strike rigs properly they don't hurt Muskie populations at all. One it's done in the cold water period, and I've never seen a hook by a Muskies eye. How many times when fishing with a lure with three hooks do you see a hook by or in a Muskies eye? I know one guide who will not use a BullDawg because Muskie swim up and inhale them. Any time we hook a Muskie we have a chance to kill them! Fact of the matter who wants a lake full of Muskies if we can't fish for them. There's a lake by a State Park by my home where half the Lake is off limits to fishing and boats. It works well for the fish. It's good to have fishing preserves too. I know places in Wisconsin where you can't fish so many feet below a dam. | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7023 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Honest question to those against FFS (and again, I'm against sharpshooting both ethically and it seems like a lame way to fish). Are you A: FFS should be banned from muskie fishing because increased catch rates cause long terms disruption to the fish population? B. Sharpshooting (as defined as catching open water/deep water muskies) should be banned? Not poised for the attack, honestly curious. | ||
| Rudedog |
| ||
Posts: 613 Location: S.W. WI | chuckski - 7/1/2024 8:59 AM ..... I know one guide who will not use a BullDawg because Muskie swim up and inhale them. . That is bogus too. in that case all small lures that often get engulfed should be illegal. Pretty sure I know that guide. He threw a 5" Curly Sue and frowned on me throwing a Mag Dawg. That's a Joke! | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2295 Location: Chisholm, MN | Slamr - 7/1/2024 9:20 AM Honest question to those against FFS (and again, I'm against sharpshooting both ethically and it seems like a lame way to fish). Are you A: FFS should be banned from muskie fishing because increased catch rates cause long terms disruption to the fish population? B. Sharpshooting (as defined as catching open water/deep water muskies) should be banned? Not poised for the attack, honestly curious. C. I don't know what the answer is but something needs to be done. I don't think a ban would happen but I would be happy if it did. I'm very happy about the muskies inc position statement. More of that kind of thing helps. If anyone watched Doug Wegners video on this he states that fishing open water muskies could be dangerous WITHOUT FSS. That's because you have no idea how deep the fish is that you may be catching. With it, and with restraint, you can avoid catching deep fish. I agree with that. But with the scope, too many fish are being caught for the sustainability of the species in Minnesota. All due to Youtubers seeing how easy it is to be a hero with the scope. There really is no easy solution. | ||
| gimruis |
| ||
Posts: 129 | Rudedog - 7/1/2024 7:02 AM I call B.S. on this statement. ^ I have caught probably near a hundred on suckers, and 10 times that many on artificial lures. In 20 plus years- Not One Time have I been concerned about the survival of a sucker fish I have caught. I have probably killed 5 for sure on bucktails, and many more very deeply hooked on various lures over the years that I was very concerned with. But I am sure I am just lucky, right? These studies you refer to are obviously for single hook swallow rigs. (Not allowed in WI.) Wisconsin has a law you must use "Only Quick set rigs" or offset circle hooks on any live bait over 8". No swallow rig single hooks allowed. Quick set rigs with suckers are Safer than lures for fish survival in my opinion, and also of most experts in our sport. To compare it in any way to FFS CRAP is a joke. Chasing a fish around with live radar, (like using a Drone to hunt deer) is nothing like anything else and should be stopped. Except not every state with muskies prohibits the use of a single hook with a live sucker. Most people are not using a quick strike rig unless they have to. Let the bobber go down, wait 10 minutes, set the hook. That method of fishing has been around for a long time and has been proven to kill a lot of muskies. There is no scientific study out there proving that the use of FFS kills more muskies. Your evidence is purely anecdotal based on your own, and only your, experience. Edited by gimruis 7/1/2024 3:17 PM | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| Which states allow single hook sucker rigs? And are they circle hooks? I have a brother in law who is a commercial fisherman in Alaska and for decades had a long line license for salmon, using circle hooks. Thousands of salmon over the rail and I asked if they were ever hooked anywhere but the mouth and he just scoffed and said "why else would you use circle hooks?" | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32834 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Most people are not using a quick strike rig unless they have to. Let the bobber go down, wait 10 minutes, set the hook. That method of fishing has been around for a long time and has been proven to kill a lot of muskies. There is no scientific study out there proving that the use of FFS kills more muskies. Your evidence is purely anecdotal based on your own, and only your, experience.' --------------------- Intentionally fishing a sucker that way has been seriously not cool for a long time. That debate took place right here well over a decade ago. If we are successful, and we will be, it will also be 'not cool' to catch muskies sharpshooting. If it's 'not cool' and it's being done to brag about it, that will probably not be very fulfilling in the end. If catch rates are increased tremendously sharpshooting, and of course they are, then the accepted average mortality rate after successful release clearly indicates a LOT more muskies will die. With limited stocking in some areas across the range and none in others and the indications that it's not going to improve quickly, that's a concern for anyone except the person looking to impress with wild numbers of fish caught. When even sharpshooting numbers dwindle, we'll all be left with diminishing populations and a sport with a serious social disease with a lot of finger pointing going on. Not rocket science to figure that out. | ||
| Brian Hoffies |
| ||
Posts: 1692 | Steve, I'm sure MI in Minnesota has been in touch with MNFish, what is their stance on FFS? | ||
| BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | I totally agree with Kirby and others who look at simply the numbers being caught going up as a bad thing. It is easy to notice all the guides and 'friends' I have on facebook out sharpshooting this year and their numbers increasing dramatically. There are guides who a couple yrs ago were bragging about 2 fish days now having 5+ fish days routinely. Gee shocker they show pics of the multiple Livescope screens with a simple scroll thru their pics... if we can agree delayed mortality by a certain % IS real and legit, whether that is 5% or 10% it really doesn't matter. The simple # of fish being caught is dramatically being increased by even the relatively small % of people out sharp shooting currently.. wait until that % is 75% or more... we will see a crash in a vast majority of the fisheries in the next 5 to 10 yrs I firmly believe that. will me and others be right? we'll see... imo the stocking can simply can not keep up with the delayed mortality... It is crazy to me how many big fish I am seeing posted on Fbook by sharpshooters in the last month.. that can't be a good thing... why is "more" in our society somehow always deemed better? more caught is not a good thing as it relates to the future populations of the lakes unless stocking is increased and we all know how that goes.... Edited by BNelson 7/1/2024 6:17 PM | ||
| CincySkeez |
| ||
Posts: 610 Location: Duluth | Not throwing a cast until a screen tells you to is loser s***, don't know where I would be today if I knew some of those strikes were going to happen. | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 1986 | BNelson preaching we should all catch “less” muskies, I’ve heard it all now.  | ||
| gimruis |
| ||
Posts: 129 | Sworral, I agree. I don't fish with a sucker, period. Whether its with a single hook or a quick strike rig. I find it to be boring and expensive. A decoy sucker here is upwards of 15 bucks for EACH one and its only a one time use. There's a reason they do not allow it in muskie tournaments. Because all you do is sit there and wait. Stating that one opposes the use FFS but is fine using a decoy sucker which clearly has resulted in a higher mortaility rate makes zero sense and there seems to be several individuals that fall along these lines. BTW I don't use FFS. I'm not completely opposed to it, I just don't want to fish like that. I stare at a screen long enough at work, no need to do it for the majority of time on the water. I could install it in my boat next week if I wanted to. Increased stocking and habitat improvement would go much futher to bolster muskie populations than banning FFS. | ||
| BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | Catching less muskies cheating ya Justin. | ||
| 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 |