Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Frozen Thread |
| Message Subject: Frozen Thread | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'One is the unintended but inevitable consequence of fishing for muskies. We all know that. The other is an illegal act under ANY circumstances. To say that because one is greater, the other should be acceptable, is a leap of logic that is completely beyond me.' 'Before some of you rise to the defense of the darkhouse spearers, you might want to educate yourself a little on the full range of issues, because they're enormously complex.' 'I also have to say I categorically reject the validity of the argument Kirk Schnitker makes (and that some of you have, somewhat to my amazement, given some credence' WHAT????????????????????????? Where do you see that? If you want to enter the debate, PLEASE read what actually has been said and don't post accusations of out of context or completely fabricated comments. Why is it I am able to see exactly what lambeau is getting at, and anti-spearing advocates AND pro spearing advocates cannot? No one 'rose to the defense of' anyone, lambeau and others only made observations based on reality and asked why those observations were incorrect or flawed looking at the big picture. Opposing viewpoints have been voiced, but the threats of 'you had better' and 'playing with fire' are coming from one side, and very ineffectively. Give us real data and supporting commentary so we may take a stand one way or the other, without demonizing one side or both. No one has said that a Muskie speared by a Pike angler is legal OR acceptable, just that it undoubtedly happens. IF that is true, and we all agree it must be, WHAT is the real biological impact, HOW MANY are lost, HOW does that compare to loss from other sources, and can the data be proven to be damaging enough to take that to those who can effect change. Here's what lambeau actually said: 'again, i'm not suggesting spearing shouldn't be regulated in ways that protect both trophy pike and muskellunge populations. it should be. i think spearing gets a very bad image because (as Mr. Webster points out) it kills the fish. so if a muskie gets speared (by accident or on purpose) it's a dead muskie. but is this a real crisis for muskie populations? we don't feel as bad about delayed mortality of released muskies because we don't see it and can delude ourselves that those fish aren't dying. but some do, and Mr. Ramsell (a DNR fisheries expert) is saying that it's many more than we like to think...and i'll bet dimes to dollars it's way way more than the number of muskies lost to incidental spearing.' That's HARDLY an endorsement of the Anti Muskie group, or any one Dark House activist on the extreme opposite of your position. Addressing the Pike issues Mr. Kimm mentions is no less important, but you will need all the data, the full backing of your fisheries management people, and a united front to beat the Dark House folks at the political end of things; they have quite a bit of practice. I might also point out that muskie anglers have traditionally not been the most advanced advocacy group for the management/development of Northern Pike. That may need to be addressed too. If indeed the DHA group outmaneuvered their opposition and had the law changed by the legislature, there needs to be an equal but opposite campaign to get that reversed. Lawmakers have no business regulating fisheries management, IMHO just as fisheries biologists have no truck legislating. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I'm sorry you got dragged into this against your wishes Rob. I did not post your name only directed Mr. Worrall to a another website where you made an excellent post. If he contacted you because of that, that was not my intent. The reason the comparsion between release mortality and illegally spearing is such a hot button issue with Muskie anglers is because it is totally intellectually dishonest. When every Muskie mag, Muskie organization, website and TV show worth their salt is trying to educate for more successful release techniques, spearers leadership is denying the problem even exists, which does nothing to inform their membership of the risks. This denial may also be giving their membership an overconfidence that adds risks to the Muskie fishery. Add to that the dishonesty of the muskytrobles website and our belief that they are working to undermine the remaining designated lakes and you are surely hitting a hot button with that comparison. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The reason the comparsion between release mortality and illegally spearing is such a hot button issue with Muskie anglers is because it is totally intellectually dishonest.' Again, that's emotion talking. What's intellectually dishonest about attempting to determine the ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL impact of illegal/accidental muskie spearing? How, EXACTLTY, do you, or Mr. Kimm, or anyone interested in reversing the current trend expect to debate this with the Dark House group, DNR and perhaps the Legislature without that information nailed down and properly put in the perspective you require for your platform? Do you honestly think a DNR fisheries manager will listen to what you've had to say so far and change ANYTHING based on your comments? You HAVE to know the opposing side will point out exactly what lambeau indicated they will and apparently have already. If they are organized and prepared and you are not, you will lose. Great point about the denial that accidental muskie/illegal spearing is happening by the Dark House Leadership is not encouraging adequate concern within the Pike spearing community. That has good merit. Mr. Kimm didn't contact me, nor did I contact him. I've been active trying to expose the weakness and inaccuracy of some of the Musky Troubles claims, so you are preaching to the choir there. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Luckily the DNR considers LOGIC in their assesments when biological data is impossible to prove. I have already pointed out why this is impossible to prove. If their prepartion is as dishonest as has been shown thus far, they instead of us will have to prove their case. They are the ones that want change anyway. BTW that was rude to demand an apology when Rob criticized the logic in lambeau parroting the muskytroubles stance that release mortality is comparable to illegal spearing. An apology would be called for if it had been a personal attack but it wasn't .I know I was very offended by that comparison whether an emotional reaction or not. Do I deserve an apology. ? | |||
| VMS |
| ||
Posts: 3480 Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I think I do since my questions have yet to be answered... Steve | ||
| jnelson |
| ||
Posts: 181 | VMS, I think that this is some of the statistics that where being used by swarroll, correct me if I'm wrong guys. DOI: 10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020<0239:RDSFNP>2.0.CO;2 North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2000;20:239–244 Recreational Darkhouse Spearing for Northern Pike in Minnesota: Historical Changes in Effort and Harvest and Comparisons with Angling Rodney B. Pierce Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1201 East Highway 2, Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744, USA Mark F. Cook Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2114 Bemidji Avenue, Bemidji, Minnesota 56601, USA Abstract.—A traditional form of harvest for northern pike Esox lucius during winter is darkhouse spearing through the ice. Using a comprehensive evaluation of creel surveys and license sales in Minnesota, we document a long-term decline in this unique sport fishery. The decline in recreational spear fishing effort cannot be blamed on catch rates because spearing catch rates have not changed perceptibly with time. Catch rates for spearing (mean = 0.175 fish/h) are similar to harvest rates by anglers that are targeting northern pike. Conflicts between spearers and anglers have led to questions about relative harvests by each group and their effects on northern pike populations. Creel survey data since 1980 show that summer and winter angling account for most of the northern pike harvest. Spearing accounted for 15% of the average yield of northern pike by number, but spearing is selective for the larger fish. In comparison with population estimates, spearing removes a small proportion of the total population and biomass of northern pike but an increasing proportion of fish with increasing size. Recreational angling, by comparison, removes an even greater proportion of all fish sizes in a population. Management designed to improve the size structure of northern pike populations will need to be directed at reducing harvest by all methods. Received: April 29, 1999; Accepted: July 19, 1999 top Edited by jnelson 2/4/2007 9:38 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Voigt, No. You are again misquoting lambeau and totally misinterpreting what he said, despite the fact both he and I have repeatedly pointed that out. You seem incapable of keeping emotion out of the debate. Rob was out of line, and so are you; neither of you are representing what was said in context. You may not understand this(that's obvious), but you are wasting your time and energy attacking an ALLY, sir. I'll try one more time to get you to look at the facts and intent of what's been said. If it doesn't work this time, I'll leave it to your opposition to shoot your arguments full of holes. The Darkhouse folks point out incidental angler caused mortality in Muskies in Minnesota is probably much higher than any mortality caused by accidental spearing of Muskies; this argument sure sounds like a valid argument socially AND from a biological standpoint when presented to a group that is NOT heavily Pro Muskie. Especially if no opposing data or clear viewpoint can be presented. Tell me it doesn't, and tell me why, show me the data, show me something. That's exactly whats been asked by THREE separate people here. If indeed responsible practice of the Sport cannot be reasonably practiced then we need to find out WHY the MNDNR has not stopped the practice. If they wish to but need social pressure applied, then that is a possible end goal for you. I don't know the guy who is the DHA leader, have no idea whether he actually believes his line of obvious 'stuff' that no muskies are ever speared. Lambeau insinuated repeatedly that if that is an issue, and the DNR is willing to lend you support to effect change, then the only thing left to do is get those wheels in motion. We (MuskieFIRST) support protecting the Muskie population if it can be proven that protection is warranted, and will even help you get the point across to anyone necessary. So show us, please! What we will NOT support is unfounded, he said/she said rhetoric applied blindly to anyone who even slightly questions one stance or the other. I'm all over protecting the rest of the designated lakes, I've already tossed my hat in that ring. I don't see anything from lambeau that would even suggest he would not also support protecting those waters. Lambeau points this out, and asks for data to refute this DHA claim. There isn't any, apparently. So the answer is to attack anyone who asks a question already in play, including me? I helped publish and get into the hands of the Muskie troubles opposition a statement( thanks again, Dave) that shot them right through the center of their bull roar claims, so why go after me? Because you can't or won't defend your claims with facts/data/? How does that tactic further your agenda? HMMM, it doesn't, it simply alienates those who may be on the fence. What in the world would make you think this issue would play out any differently from others here? We search for facts, and apply them as correctly as possible to the story at hand. If indeed the DNR is going to support the Muskie advocates, then why the concern? If the DHA makes a claim and it stands with the legislature( back door claim notwithstanding, they got that done), the DNR, or ANYONE making the decisions, then it was just plain not properly addressed by Muskie advocates. They shouldn't have been able to get that done, no way. We, as muskie anglers LOST this round, that lake is open to spearing now, right? That, IMHO, is a bad thing. This isn't all that complex, it's a social issue that features strong political activism from one side and up until recently poorly organized and splintered activism from the other. Tell me again I am wrong. Better yet, tell us what can be done to correct this 'trend'. And, do so without attacking those who would exercise their legal right to spear Pike with NO intent, and reasonable care, NOT to spear muskies, or your argument is moot out of the gate. If indeed the MNDNR agrees the impact of spearing pike and muskies commands action, why have they not acted to further protect muskie waters and eliminate spearing on those 80 some lakes? Is there a proposal/study/paper/ANYTHING in process that would move the Muskie advocacy forward, and the extremists from the DHA's agenda backward? How did the DHA get the legislature to pass a law that allowed spearing on a PROTECTED lake? Why didn't the Muskie community scream bloody murder and make this a front line political hot button issue? There's your agenda, correct? VMS, I'm sorry, was I supposed to do something for you or was that post directed elsewhere? I'm on the data collection tomorrow, and will see what I can find on the subject. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
Luckily the DNR considers LOGIC in their assesments when biological data is impossible to prove. YES! and what is the DNR currently doing based on their logic? Rob criticized the logic in lambeau parroting the muskytroubles stance that release mortality is comparable to illegal spearing. well, i don't view myself as a parrot...and i think it is comparable, just not in the way that either anti-spearing or muskytroubles wants to present it. my guess is that Mr. Kimm misunderstood me and made some wrong assumptions. this happens when people pre-judge what someone is saying without carefully reading it. just because i raise my hand and say "i think differently" makes me the bad guy? i'm on the side of finding out what's real, not being locked into blindly thinking "muskies good" or "spearing bad." even if thinking that way makes things easier to understand, the issues are just not as simple as that. this is not Packers vs Vikings where things come in bold easy-to-recognize colors. here's what Mr. Kimm said: I also have to say I categorically reject the validity of the argument Kirk Schnitker makes (and that some of you have, somewhat to my amazement, given some credence), that we shouldn't worry about spearing mortality on muskies lakes because muskie anglers cause more mortality than spearers...To say that because one is greater, the other should be acceptable, is a leap of logic that is completely beyond me. i don't believe illegally spearing muskies is "acceptable". i'm not suggesting that there's no problems with spearing nor have i ever said that muskies don't get killed by spears (as some DHA advocates claim). what i've been saying is that i don't think it's something that's having quite the dire consequences for the muskie fishery that anti-spearing propagandists want us to believe. it's simply not big enough. the issues are not nearly so black and white as either side presents them. i live in the gray area in between and attempt to be thoughtful about it. dead muskies are dead muskies no matter how it happens. because we don't try to kill the muskies that we release somehow makes us less culpable if they die? i don't buy that line of reasoning because the result is the same (dead muskies caused by us) no matter how good you feel about yourself in the morning. i never said that spearing muskies becomes acceptable on the basis that angling kills muskies too! what i've been saying is that both are problems that kill muskies, and that if we're to be consistent we need to take a look at both. and guess what? delayed mortality is killing more muskies than spearing and therefore having a bigger impact on the population of fish swimming in the lakes. where's the moral outrage over that? doesn't it make sense to focus our energy on the issue (delayed mortality) that is having the larger impact? or is it just that painting someone else as the bad guys is easier to do than looking at ourselves critically and actually acting on the ethics we claim to hold??? when Mr. Ramsell published his article advocating water releases, no "ego shots", etc. he was widely criticized as an elitist. hmmm, he's a fisheries expert saying that delayed mortality is a significant problem, but one that requires us to change what we're doing. the fact is that it's a bigger problem for muskies than pike spearing but one that muskie anglers don't want to talk about. shouldn't we address the bigger problem with more vigor? if there's no evidence to support pike spearing as a biological disaster for muskie populations, and in fact some evidence to support improving muskie populations (per IR498) in spite of spearing on most lakes that contain muskies, how do you propose to gain ground on that issue? you're tilting at windmills... i think Mr. Kimm makes an incredibly good point about the impact of spearing on the potential for growth of trophy pike. however, it's an issue that's related to pike regulations and not specifically related to whether or not spearing is hurting muskie populations to a significant degree. Edited by lambeau 2/4/2007 9:57 PM | |||
| RK_unlogged |
| ||
| Steve...settle... My point in saying I utterly disagree with the logic Kirk Schnitker presents in using muskie mortality from angling as a red herring for spearing mortality is that it obscures the real issue. It doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not we take delayed angling mortality seriously or not, and accepting it as a part of the discussion is to accept that logic. It doesn't have anything to do with muskie angling at all. But to be clear, I don't think that the leap of logic I described is happening here in this discussion to any great degree... I'm pointing out the tactics SRMM and some in the darkhouse assoc are using to attack the spearing ban in MN. True, as Lambeu said "dead is dead no matter what the source: spearing, angling stress, pollution, whatever." But once again, are we willing to accept spearing mortality as inevitable? I'm not. Why not? Because spearing muskies isn't legal in Minnesota. Period. (For the record, I don't think we do take hooking mortality seriously enough. If you doubt that, look at where the Rod Ramsell article that's being quoted was published...) As far as the 'biological impact' and data on spearing mortality in muskies...other than biologists seeing fish that have survived spearing in spring test nets, anglers catching muskies with spear wounds, or anecdotal evidence, there is no measure of muskie mortality from spearing. How could there be? Spearing muskies is an illegal activity. It doesn't show up in creel surveys, harvest info from tackle shops, or anywhere else. Speared muskies are thrown in the trunk or shoved under the ice. (And yes, that's an enforcement issue too - MN has a drastically underfunded Enforcement division, with many unfilled CO stations state-wide). It's all inference. As to whether or not it's 'significant,' it was significant enough for the DNR to support the initial ban, significant enough for them to support it AGAIN on many of the same waters (the exceptions being lakes which were no longer in the muskie program like Howard, Big Sand and Spider) when it came up for renewal a couple of years ago, and significant enough for them to not want it lifted now. That's why the DHA had to go through the legislature to get the ban on French lifted. To say that's not a valid position because there's no 'hard data,' especially given that the kind of data is unattainable, really isn't much more than a Burden of Proof fallacy on the part of SRMM and some in the DHA. It just doesn't wash. Now, Lambeau is exactly right on one score. Most spearers aren't out to spear muskies. But, when spearing is allowed on muskie lakes, muskies get speared by some spearers. It's especially an issue on lakes where they've been stocked and some locals use them as a scapegoat for what they see is their effect on the fishery. It's where I've seen the worst instances of it, and others have as well. Alexander, Miltona (an especially bad one for this), Pelican, Bemidji, Big... Is that acceptable? That's the crux of the issue. To me it's not. That's why I don't want to see the spearing ban lifted on the 26 lakes that still have it. Whether not having a spearing ban on new waters will happen or not remains to be seen - but I suspect we won't, and that's unfortunate. Steve, you claim to be the only one who sees what's going on here, but I'm not sure you do. Here's what it boils down to: A.) The argument is being put forward (though not, to be clear, by anyone here) that since muskies die from delayed angling mortality, we should accept spearing mortality in the same light. Is that a valid argument? I don't think so, and I've explained why. B.) Part of the motivation behind that argument is to push forward an effort to lift the spearing ban on the 26 lakes that still have it. C.) On top of that, this same group has bypassed the management process - and the decision of the fisheries managers - in Minnesota and gone to the political sausage-maker to get what they want. I'll say again - that's the most disturbing thing of all. I don't have an issue with spearing in and of itself. Like I said, I grew up sitting in a darkhouse with my grandfather - he called the spear hole a 'Norwegian TV set.' What I DO have issues with are denial of spearing's effect on muskies (the 'muskies never get speared' argument), opposition to efforts at developing better pike fisheries here in Minnesota, and the tactics that some in the spearing community have employed to get what the want. I've made no bones about that, here, or in print. I have the hate mail (and a smashed mailbox) to prove it. I make no apologies for it either. If you took my statements as an attack on anyone here, that isn't my intent. Notice too that I've been very careful to say some in the DHA hold these positions. Some don't. It's not a homogeneous community any more than muskie fishing is. But some rather influential members are pushing this agenda very hard. I've spent way more time on this than I meant to or have. I'm behind on about 722 other things, so this is likely my last comments on this... No offense intended, and I hope nobody took any. Rob Kimm | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Rob, point taken and explanation accepted. You said what you said: 'One is the unintended but inevitable consequence of fishing for muskies. We all know that. The other is an illegal act under ANY circumstances. To say that because one is greater, the other should be acceptable, is a leap of logic that is completely beyond me.' 'Before some of you rise to the defense of the darkhouse spearers, you might want to educate yourself a little on the full range of issues, because they're enormously complex.' 'I also have to say I categorically reject the validity of the argument Kirk Schnitker makes (and that some of you have, somewhat to my amazement, given some credence' The 'some of you' is what commanded the question. I didn't say I'm the only one who sees what's going on. I said I seem to be the only one to see what lambeau was very legitimately trying to point out. There's a hell of a difference there. Settle? I don't think so, commentary that is potentially misunderstood and as a result may be damaging to the issues we all are interested in forwarding needs to be addressed and clarified. I think everyone here really is on the same side, but in order for any positive movement to work we have to at least appear to have a handle on the associated issues; and appearance of a reasonable and educated, united front opposing Muskie Troubles and all others intent on doing harm to our sport. Confrontational and somewhat abusive posts that ignore the tone, facts, and line of the debate serve to confuse and harm the desired outcome, nothing else. Let's try to avoid them while we engage this issue. We'll be delighted to report on progress the folks attending the roundtable meetings wish to forward, and assist any way we can. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Just a couple of things: Kirk Schnitker did not compare INCIDENTAL angling mortality of Muskies with illegal spearing of Muskies. He compared CAUGHT & RELEASED angling mortality of Muskies with illegal spearing of Muskies. A big difference and maybe part of the reason we are at a each other's throats over this Check it out it is the last sentence of the second post lambeau made on the other really frozen thread. If your actually in favor of no spearing in trophy class muskie lakes in Mn. lambeau, then you would have to add some to the 26 current desgnated ones. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Leech, Vermilion and Bemidji are being speared? I don't think they, among many others of the 61 Muskie lakes being speared, could be consider any less than having trophy potential. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe Incedental/Angler Caused mortality are considered the same issues in the context of this discussion. lambeau has said a BUNCH of times he supports protecting muskies if the need is there, and supports whatever the MNDNR does toward that end. SO do I. SO does most anyone on MuskieFIRST, Id guess. | ||
| Muskiefool |
| ||
| MN Has very very few trophy pike waters, some not all but some of the 26 lakes hold these fish, those are the specific lakes I feel they are after, they do not seek to spear any of the Brood lakes, Why?? admission that their activity is detrimental to not only Pike but Muskie also is my thought, the fact is there are thousands of opportunity's for them to spear and less than a handful lakes out of 7000 that hold pike considered trophy class, it's not all about Muskies is it, I've seen the pictures of Muskies with holes from these lakes that Rob mentioned were there is some negativity between groups and not all are spear fishermen, I see the 26 I hope back to 27 lakes as a sort of game refuge for Pike and with the level of care and C&R given to Muskie for them to, can you appreciate a Game Refuge, is that a concept you can deal with, that is in essence what the 26 lakes are and how for the most part they are treated, angler mortality is a problem, the point is we try and do make every attempt to release fish with as little after effects as possible, when you get a 42 inch pike you probably will let her swim, if a Spear fisherman sees her 9 out of 10 times she's a mangled mess on the ice, so don't try to compare C&R mortality with incidental harvest of Muskie or spear and release that Ive also heard talk of in the past, WE TRY. | |||
| Sunfish |
| ||
| We all try to have as successful release no one is arguing that. The point here it the DHA and Muskie troubles have already brought muskie/pike angler mortality to the public in major newspapers and other media in some cases pretty much portraying muskie anglers as over-reactionary. The subject has to be dealt with from both perspectives to get the facts of the matter out there. Otherwise, they win.... again. Mebbe an editorial in the magazines and newspapers that are carrying this story might be possible. Mebbe even call the writer if the story has a byline and see if they are interested in the 'rest of the story' stealing a Paul Harvey line. | |||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8775 | I think we need to address how big of a problem spearing represents. No doubt that a speared muskie is a dead musky, no doubt that it's difficult to determine a muskie from a pike in the circumstances under which legal spearing takes place. I believe we all agree that spearing muskies is a bad thing all around. What we seem to be trying to get to the bottom of is pretty clear: 1. HOW MANY MUSKIES are actually being speared? 2. How does that number compare to angling related mortality? Never mind that one is intentional and one is not. Never mind one is legal and one is not. If we are to preserve the muskie populations in MN (and elsewhere) we need to know what causes the most significant amount of mortality. If 10 guys each spear 2 muskies in a season, that's 20 dead fish. If 1000 anglers each catch 20 muskies, and 5% of them die, that's 1000 dead fish. Never mind how they got dead, 1000 is a lot more than 20, and THAT is where we need to focus our energy. Solve the biggest problems first. Can any of you provide any un-biased research, some actual data, something that is primary source material that justifies your position, whatever that position is? I wanna see FACTS that aren't clouded by emotion, agendas, anger, misinformation, and baseless speculation. Going into battle armed with undeniable, fact based information will up your cahnces of actually getting somewhere. Going into battle with a lot of emotion, opinion, and a mouth will probably only get you ignored, and undermine the efforts of the people who actually support your cause. | ||
| AWH |
| ||
Posts: 1243 Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | esoxaddict - 2/5/2007 11:08 AM Never mind how they got dead, 1000 is a lot more than 20, and THAT is where we need to focus our energy. Solve the biggest problems first. Your point that post release mortality has a bigger effect on musky populatons than spearing, I don't think can be questioned. With the amount of musky fishermen on our waters, it definitely has an effect. The pressure is a huge reason why we need to continue to make strides to improve our fisheries. The increase in size limits is a huge win. Additional waters would be another huge wn. But getting back to the point of the quoted portion above..."solve the biggest problem first". What is a reasonable solution here? Post release mortality is going to happen. No matter what species you're considering, it happens. So what's the solution? Education which helps promote better handling is about the only thing that can be done. I think the musky community is already doing an outstanding job of this. Could more be done? Absolutely. Say your above figure of 5% is accurate. No matter how careful you are and how much you educate, there will be post release mortality. I don't know that it's reasonable to expect that you could improve much on 5%, if in fact that's where we're at. So solve the biggest problem first? What more can be done there to have a significant impact? The only thing that would eliminate post release mortality is closing the fishing season, which obviously isn't going to happen. We can improve, yes. But enough to make a significant impact? In most cases, I'm not sure that we can. My opinion is that we can continue to focus on proper handling and successful releases while at the same time addressing other issues. Handling is and will continue to be an ongoing process for the rest of our lives with new anglers entering the sport. There's no reason to let that get in the way with focusing on other issues as well. Aaron | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8775 | Aaron, I made those numbers up as an example to illustrate a point. I have no idea if they are accurate or not. Your points about education etc are well taken -- I don't know how much more can be done in that arena -- some fish are going to be killed unintentionally, and as long as we work to minimize that, I think we have to accept it as a risk, the "cost of doing business" so to speak. Now, as for the spearing issue: It's easy to get worked up over the thought of someone killing the fish we work so hard to protect. Jeez, we talk to them, we make replicas out of them, we spend thousands of dollars on stuff so we can put them back in the water healthy, we have dreams about them, talk about them like they were our friends... What I'm basically getting at is "is this REALLY a problem?" Are enough muskies being killed with the end of a spear that we should rally together and try to do something about it, or are there OTHER things we could focus on that have a much more significant impact on the musky population? If its really a detriment to the future of musky fishing, than by all means, we should address it. As we move forward, we should do everything in our power to try to get legislation passed... But if the impact is trivial, in my opinion we need to "let it go" and work on the other things instead, whether its education pollution, closed seasons, size limits, increased stocking, or something else. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Spearers don't turn themselves in when they spear a Muskie by accident or otherwise. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. There is NO firm data because it is easy to get rid of the evidence. Another logical reason IMO to error in our favor. Release mortality %s are ESTIMATES, not hard facts either. That is IMPORTANT to understand. Logic rather than simple hard facts will be an important factor in this dispute because overwhelming hard data is impossible for either side to obtain. Us falling into the trap of allowing a direct one to one comparison of estimates of release mortality to an illegal act is a huge mistake in MO. The element of intent is completely ignored when we allow that. Intent and our acknowledging and addressing the problem of release mortality will have much weight especially when the other side is in total denial mode. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Are they in denial? I don't think so. I think they are playing off the image we as muskie anglers unintentionally create of ourselves. | ||
| AWH |
| ||
Posts: 1243 Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | EA, Point taken. I don't think anyone will ever know what percent we're at when it comes to post release mortality. Although my "guess" is that your estimate probably isn't too far off. As far as does spearing play a significant effect on muskellunge populations? Personal opinion, as I don't have enough facts to back this up....on many waters, no. But there are some waters that are definitely adversely effected by spearers. Rob mentioned a few of the lakes in one of his posts. I'm very familiar with one of them and it is definitely an issue on that particular lake. It happens to be a lake where all species are thriving. Yet you have your people that are convinced that muskies are hurting the lake and will kill every musky they come across. This is whether it's caught by hook and line or in a spear house. From what I've seen, it tends to be the "newer" musky waters that are hurt the most by spearers. A number of years ago I had someone that worked for me that told me that her husband would spear any musky that swam through his spear hole because all they did was scare his northern away. He knew it was illegal, but he didn't care. Unfortunately, he's not the only one that thinks this way on this particular lake. So how do you go about fixing problems like this when it appears to be only certain waters that are more significantly effected? Do we simply accept that things like this are going on and take action where we can? And manage the lakes accordingly, knowing that this is happening? That's what we're doing now and our musky fishery in MN is very healthy. But is that the best solution? Simply put more enforcement on lakes that are seen as "problem" lakes? I don't see this happening either, as funding really isn't available for something like that. Aaron | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8775 | Guest - 2/5/2007 12:19 PM Spearers don't turn themselves in when they spear a Muskie by accident or otherwise. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. There is NO firm data because it is easy to get rid of the evidence. Another logical reason IMO to error in our favor. Release mortality %s are ESTIMATES, not hard facts either. That is IMPORTANT to understand. Logic rather than simple hard facts will be an important factor in this dispute because overwhelming hard data is impossible for either side to obtain. Us falling into the trap of allowing a direct one to one comparison of estimates of release mortality to an illegal act is a huge mistake in MO. The element of intent is completely ignored when we allow that. Intent and our acknowledging and addressing the problem of release mortality will have much weight especially when the other side is in total denial mode. So with no hard facts and no way to obtain them, how do we make the jump to claiming that musky mortality due to spearing is actually detrimental to the fisheries? "Intent" doesn't matter one bit in the overall outcome. An accidentally speared musky is just as dead is one speared intentionally. Those who choose to willingly break the law will continue to do no matter what we do. If we're going to stand up and say "this needs to be stopped" or "this is a problem" then, we HAVE TO be able to provide something other than "because we say it is" for a reason. | ||
| AWH |
| ||
Posts: 1243 Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | esoxaddict - 2/5/2007 12:41 PM If we're going to stand up and say "this needs to be stopped" or "this is a problem" then, we HAVE TO be able to provide something other than "because we say it is" for a reason. Absolutely. And that's where the problem is. Although most of us know it's an issue on some waters, how do you present a case against it when you can't present any hard facts? My only answer is to allow the DNR to do what they're paid to do. Although public input is great. Sometimes they have to ignore what the public says (whether that's us or other groups) and do what they feel is best for the fisheries. Isn't that what we pay them to do? Whether we always agree with them or not, they have more education and knowledge on these subjects than the public. Aaron | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8775 | Aaron, If spearing of muskies is caused largely by people with little regard for the law, which I suspect is is, than there isn't a lot we can do -- legislation only goes so far, and unless the DNR actually catches them in the act, enforcing those laws is difficult. In that case the only way to effectively put a stop to it is to outlaw the posession of spears all together, and then what happens to the people who spear frogs or carp legally? Not arguing for the sake of starting arguments here, I just would like to see us all come up with some answers, a plan, an idea... | ||
| AWH |
| ||
Posts: 1243 Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | EA, I agree and those are questions that need to be addressed which I don't have answers for. I know what I would do, personally. But I can't say that it's best for our fisheries across the board. Aaron Edited by AWH 2/5/2007 12:52 PM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| by total denial mode I meant currently they say they have no impact at all on Muskies. EA- We didn't start this. We are in a defensive mode to protect the remaining designated lakes. They put out a handout that states all stocking of Muskies and new introductions should stop until more research is done. They are attacking we are defending. Would I like to see a push to include Leech, Vermilion, Bemidji and others in designation.? Absolutely, but right now we have to defend what little we have left. | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
There is NO firm data because it is easy to get rid of the evidence. Another logical reason IMO to error in our favor. Release mortality %s are ESTIMATES, not hard facts either. That is IMPORTANT to understand. Logic rather than simple hard facts will be an important factor in this dispute because overwhelming hard data is impossible for either side to obtain. i think this is actually a very good point, especially when combined with Aaron and Mr. Kimm's points that spearing is differentially impacting certain lakes more than others. this is a good counterpoint to my earlier summarized data from the IR498 report that showed increasing numbers and size of muskies throughout their range in Minnesota in spite of spearing on many muskie lakes. i don't think spearing is a real threat to the muskie population collectively, but i can see how it could very well be a threat to certain lakes - particularly to smaller, shallower waters with a smaller muskie population. notably, in MN these are likely native muskie lakes dependent on natural reproduction since stocking has generally focused on larger, deeper waters. this suggests a strategy that muskie groups might advocate when speaking to decision-makers: one which would rely on logic ("everyone knows it's happening, including the DNR) to set sensible regulations in place specific to those lakes. from what i've seen, the MN DNR is pretty good at taking this sort of common sense approach where necessary. as far as being on the defensive? take the offense instead - move to get more lakes protected from spearing where you can "prove" (through facts or obvious common sense) that it's having a significant impact on that lake. but on lakes where netting and creel survey results show growing numbers and size structure of muskies? good luck. Us falling into the trap of allowing a direct one to one comparison of estimates of release mortality to an illegal act is a huge mistake in MO. The element of intent is completely ignored when we allow that. Intent and our acknowledging and addressing the problem of release mortality will have much weight especially when the other side is in total denial mode. i disagree with this, based on the fact that i've never heard a fisheries expert say that intent matters from their perspective. they're looking at the population numbers in the lake from a biological/ecological perspective and from that perspective dead is dead regardless of intent. people impact the fish by what they DO, not why they do it. if you approach biologists and try to say our point of view is better because of "intent", they'll likely look at you cross-eyed. talk ecology and they'll nod at you and understand. Edited by lambeau 2/5/2007 1:04 PM | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| well I totally disagree with you. I think intent, responsibilty & personal choice is a very important part of this dipute. To ignore them is not in our favor. This may be a poor analogy but it's the only one I can think of offhand, if I go out today and hit a patch of ice and roll my car and am killed, it is a shame. It was unfortunate. Part of the risk we take every time we drive, right? But if instead I am in a head-on with drunk driver who was driving on the wrong side of the road and am killed, I am just as dead right? I may be just as dead but the personal choice made by the drunken driver to drive drunk ADDED to the risk factors that i was already subjected to while driving. They are responsible because they could have prevented my death by making a better choice. Make sense? | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
well I totally disagree with you. I think intent, responsibilty & personal choice is a very important part of this dipute. To ignore them is not in our favor. This may be a poor analogy but it's the only one I can think of offhand, if I go out today and hit a patch of ice and roll my car and am killed, it is a shame. It was unfortunate. Part of the risk we take every time we drive, right? But if instead I am in a head-on with drunk driver who was driving on the wrong side of the road and am killed, I am just as dead right? I may be just as dead but the personal choice made by the drunken driver to drive drunk ADDED to the risk factors that i was already subjected to while driving. They are responsible because they could have prevented my death by making a better choice. Make sense? we can disagree, that's ok. and your analogy makes perfect sense, but it's a bit of a non-sequitur. i'm not saying ethics don't matter, they're just not the right tool for the job you want to do, imho. in this case, the goal you describe is to convince decision-makers that muskies in certain lakes are in need of protection from spearing. the decision-makers are generally trained in science: biologists, ecologists, etc. the thing that will resonate _most_ with biologists is biology, not ethics. imho, the issue of intent is important in an ethical sense, but it's not something that will help achieve the goal of protecting muskies in a place where they might need protection. use a hammer to drive a nail, use a screwdriver to run a screw, use a wrench to turn a bolt. and apply it specifically by identifying the nail that needs driving, not saying "all the nails need driving" when they don't. (ie., muskies in all the lakes open to spearing do not need protection - as demonstrated by population surveys.) make sense? Edited by lambeau 2/5/2007 1:45 PM | |||
| Muskiefool |
| ||
| They are in complete denial, totally and unequivocally saying Muskie do not get speared, that is a fallacy they tell themselves, once again this is about 26 lakes not all lakes, once again this is also about the decimation of the big pike also, once again they want to kill the big fish this is there M.O., fact, we will always have some level of spearing in the state, does it have negative effects, according to some studies it does in the fact that it removes the largest fish from the system, that being said some of those fish would be harvested by other forms of fishing, on Leech the big pike are almost no existent, yes there is a few but for the most part they are rare over 5#, is this due to the spear?, heck I don't know, but the fact that the smallest group removes less fish but as large a biomass from the system as other forms does it cause damage?, and with a whole system of stunted pike breeding you will eventually have a hammer handle syndrome according to a survey I found at Blackwell Synergy the abstract is free but enlightenment will cost you 40 bucks http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.0... .x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28maladaptive+changes+in+multiple+traits+caused+by+fishing%29 if C&R is your bag here is one to keep you busy for awhile, yep 1% with artificial baits, look at the key mortality factors http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html if you have questions do what I do, ask those who know, those who have been around working with these issues, and then Google is a very effective tool for things | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John, Who really cares what state of mind 'they' are in, or not 'in'? You, I, lambeau,VMS< Addict, Mr. Voigt...no one can MAKE them stop saying or doing whatever they decide to say or do. Facts and reality based information supporting our goals, properly presented, marginalizes that sort of tripe, right? What matters is the front we/you and your co-activists as muskie anglers present pro actively. Lambeau probably posted the clearest summary of this entire discussion just a bit ago, it is nearly perfect in describing what needs be done to get what you want. You are at the round tables, you see and hear what's said. How can we assist you in marginalizing the obviously misleading material that is sometimes presented by 'Musky Troubles' and their allies? | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 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 |