|
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ North of 8, most of the type of lawsuits of that nature are the other way around, where groups sue because government agencies do not ban something - ie lead shot, etc.
We ban all kinds of thing up here. The wording typically is going to be non-specific to cover future developments.
I mean you guys had a rowboat rule down there until just a few years ago. All kinds of restrictions on gear.
I don't have the answers as don't know your system, but folks are proposing a ban, which apparently is not even musky related.
Really I think the exercise here it to think about the future of musky fishing and what it is going to be. No ban FFS petition here.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/4/2024 2:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2279
Location: Chisholm, MN | No8, I'm willing to give up all electronics as long as everyone else does.
It's really not worth discussing when the argument goes to "stay off my lawn" or "then you should ban SI as well then because it's the same thing". |
|
| |
|
| My point is that unless you want all electronic aids banned, language would have to be very specific and regardless, manufacturers will take it to court. They will not sit idly by. Yes, northern WI banned motor trolling but comparing that to banning one type of electronic fishing tech is an apples to elephants analogy. I think plaintiff lawyers would have a field day comparing SI images to FFS images in a court room and telling judges "they want to ban one but not the other". Garmin, Humminbird, all will fight such a ban and they will have standing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2279
Location: Chisholm, MN | You are right. It will never happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 626
Location: Madison, WI | Either go fishing and realize that what your doing may potentially harm whatever fish your after, or stop fishing all together. I just don't get the argument that fish up shallow are fair game and once they swim out in open water nobody should fish them? Fish go shallow to digest and soak in warm water but I'm allowed to harass those fish all I want?? I know of two tournaments that were won in the spring by guys throwing pounders in water 3' and less. I was told those fish that "ate" must have swung and missed because they were foul hooked. Guys can abuse any situation so let's just make all fishing banned.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1186
| The single biggest problem we face is not enough lakes with muskies, and not enough muskies in the lakes we have, compared to the number of people fishing for them.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a ban on all the technology. That's how I started, and that's kind of how I'm finishing. I have everything except FFS, and find I'm really not using it all that much anymore. Fish by myself most of the time, and I find I have a choice. Watch the screen looking for fish, or just fish. I'm watching the screens less and less all the time, and I don't think I'm catching fewer fish because of it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
Location: Twin Cities Metro | Please don’t act like there is some sort of consensus on the effects of live sonar on muskie populations. What you have are some fears and a few anecdotes. And there certainly isn’t a consensus that live sonar is particularly harmful even on this discussion board. Don’t mistake the volume of posts by one side as assent to that position.
And I would be very wary of issuing a position statement as an organization where the general membership of that organization has not had a chance to offer feedback. I am a member of Muskies, Inc, haven’t missed more than a local meeting or two in the last 6 years. I haven’t heard anything about a live sonar position statement other than a vague wondering about whether maybe we should have one. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 261
| Howdy,
Oracle, that’s an easy hypothetical. Barbless all day long. Overtime I’m confident rod technology would evolve to accommodate for and offset the impact of barbless on lost Fish. It already did so when we went to longer more parabolic actions to accommodate super lines.
The upside and long term benefit would be the obvious decrease in delayed mortality from difficult releases, which I think would more than make up for any negative consequences from lost fish. I also don’t think that people would lose that many muskies to begin with. I think the impact of going barbless is more psychological than practical.
Take care,
Ruddiger |
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
| Has there been any studies done on the mortality of open water fish vs fish caught off structure?
I completely agree with the idea that proper fish handling is the key, that is one of the only thing that is backed by research proving to decrease mortality.
It just seems to me that, as has been mentioned before, the people who view themselves as part of a club of exclusive musky anglers are getting angry because their club is getting big and isn't exclusive to them and their friends any longer.
Edited by Gregoire 4/5/2024 9:29 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Ruddiger - 4/5/2024 9:01 AM
Howdy,
Oracle, that’s an easy hypothetical. Barbless all day long. Overtime I’m confident rod technology would evolve to accommodate for and offset the impact of barbless on lost Fish. It already did so when we went to longer more parabolic actions to accommodate super lines.
The upside and long term benefit would be the obvious decrease in delayed mortality from difficult releases, which I think would more than make up for any negative consequences from lost fish. I also don’t think that people would lose that many muskies to begin with. I think the impact of going barbless is more psychological than practical.
Take care,
Ruddiger
It would dramatically reduce the mortality rate due to less handling time. Catch rates would reduce but as you say, folks would adjust. I'd prefer both options actually, but one is better than none.
The folks that know me here are aware that I am more about clearing out archaic regs or restrictions than putting in new ones (not easy to do either way). What is guiding me on this issue is my experiences in pike and musky fishing and the precautionary principle: "Which has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making."
We are doing some of this stuff on this forum. The industry needs to step up and start educating rather than entirely promoting. All of I've seen from them is making April fools pranks about states banning FFS. Not wise to make fun on your consumers.
Muskies Inc. et al. has wise enough people who are already considering this stuff. Hopefully some of their board members who are unsure can go out with some open water FFS experts and see what it's about. They already have all the mortality studies in hand and know what those numbers are.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/5/2024 9:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
|
Muskies Inc. et al. has wise enough people who are already considering this stuff. Hopefully some of their board members who are unsure can go out with some open water FFS experts and see what it's about. They already have all the mortality studies in hand and know what those numbers are.
What mortality studies are you referring to. Have the results of the recent mortality study examining warm water been released? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
| Muskies Inc. et al. has wise enough people who are already considering this stuff. Hopefully some of their board members who are unsure can go out with some open water FFS experts and see what it's about. They already have all the mortality studies in hand and know what those numbers are.
What mortality studies are you referring to. Have the results of the recent mortality study examining warm water been released? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2279
Location: Chisholm, MN | It's not about stopping open water catches. It's about reducing the amount of fish caught per year, per person. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Gregoire - 4/5/2024 9:38 AM
Muskies Inc. et al. has wise enough people who are already considering this stuff. Hopefully some of their board members who are unsure can go out with some open water FFS experts and see what it's about. They already have all the mortality studies in hand and know what those numbers are.
What mortality studies are you referring to. Have the results of the recent mortality study examining warm water been released?
Here is one:
https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tafs.10418
Interesting "anecdote" by a walleye guy fishing Vermillion (a walleye board). Take it for what it is (you can go find it). but the reality is where there is smoke, there is fire:
"Mortality And Live Scope Out of Deep Water Lake Vermillion Minnesota
Hi guys,
I am writing to let you know what I have been observing here in Head O Lakes (my cabin is in this basin). As you may be aware, there is an open water muskie bite that occurs mid-June into the first half of July that seems to correspond with post spawn recovery and then as the mayfly hatch occurs. The population of muskies in open water increases as they congregate and they can be targeted and caught but it took a bunch of hard work and time on the water to do so in the past. This bite has been going on for years at this time.
The live imaging tech has now radically changed this. Anglers and guides now drive around at 5-7 mph in open water with forward facing live sonar and sharp shoot them. They will see how far down they are in the water column and drop a bait right on them, sometimes pulling fish up from 20 feet or more. The net result is they have become much more susceptible to angling pressure and the mortality appears to be spiking as the fish in HOL are kind of bottled up in that basin. I have seen at least a half a dozen dead muskies in HOL in the past couple of weeks. They just can not handle getting caught 6 times in a three week period. Some of these are true trophy fish. So far a dead 56, 55, 54.5, 47, 46 and a 44 inch in HOL. I have some pictures. For context, I will not see that many dead muskies in an entire year or two for that matter. The population of muskies cannot sustain this rate of mortality. Fingers crossed that it subsides. I personally have stopped fishing them in HOL due to this but I will continue to monitor it.
I bring this up to you folks to get this in front of the Pike and Musky working group as a topic for discussion.
Happy to chat if it helps,"
If this was up here, we would probably be contacting this fellow given he does have supporting photos and get the story directly from the source.
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/5/2024 10:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 626
Location: Madison, WI | Kirby Budrow - 4/5/2024 9:51 AM
It's not about stopping open water catches. It's about reducing the amount of fish caught per year, per person.
Every musky angler out there wants to catch MORE fish than the previous year. Not one person I've ever talked to says "boy I sure hope next season is worse for me than this one"! Your signature says you take guided trips in northern MN. Are you going to stop taking clients out once you catch a predetermined number of fish? Who decides how many fish I can catch in a year? Is it ok for you to catch as many muskies as you want but just not others or new anglers? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2279
Location: Chisholm, MN | danmuskyman - 4/5/2024 11:44 AM
Kirby Budrow - 4/5/2024 9:51 AM
It's not about stopping open water catches. It's about reducing the amount of fish caught per year, per person.
Every musky angler out there wants to catch MORE fish than the previous year. Not one person I've ever talked to says "boy I sure hope next season is worse for me than this one"! Your signature says you take guided trips in northern MN. Are you going to stop taking clients out once you catch a predetermined number of fish? Who decides how many fish I can catch in a year? Is it ok for you to catch as many muskies as you want but just not others or new anglers?
Nope, we're talking about the big picture here. Catch as many as you want as long as it's fair chase.
Side note, yes I guide. I take about 10 guide trips per year to help offset inflation. I work full time otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Bkq0txu0o&lc=UgybriFgIfC01opFaDt4A...
If anyone cares to watch, or maybe the link has been posted previously, this is the kind of thing I am talking about. This is what isn't fair to the fish. I hope new people get into muskie fishing and do great. Better than me even. But this is what is going on. This guy is not a muskie fisherman. He's a bass youtuber. Someone showed him how to sharpshoot muskies so he goes out and lights them up. How many of you went out and caught 3 good fish in 2 hours without putting in work to learn how to do it? And I am not jealous of him. I'm sad for the fishery. He's barely excited with his catches, lays the fish on carpet and he doesn't even know what the name of the bait he's throwing. The point I'm making with that is that he has no idea what he's even accomplished. That's generally ok, but the point is that FFS allows more people to go out and have amazing success. That happens with guide trips too and I don't want to take away someone else's experience. It's just that something has to change. You just can't sustain a fishery this way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2279
Location: Chisholm, MN | One more thing to state my position. I don't think it should be banned and I don't even think we can restrict people from using it to target muskies. I wish it didn't exist but it does. The only thing to do is stock more fish and possibly create sanctuaries. Before I said it's about limiting the amount of fish caught. I wish! But that can't be done either.
Edited by Kirby Budrow 4/5/2024 12:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 611
Location: Seymour, WI | The video that Kirby posted is very telling.
Someone who's never fished for muskies in their life goes out with Livescope and catches three giants in 2 hours. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2279
Location: Chisholm, MN | Grass - 4/5/2024 1:04 PM
The video that Kirby posted is very telling.
Someone who's never fished for muskies in their life goes out with Livescope and catches three giants in 2 hours.
And to be fair, it's really not this guy's fault. He doesn't know any better and it's public water. It's legal and he has the right to do it. I can't harp on him personally. It's just the culture we live in now.
Now everyone is worried about the Madison Chain. There's one more fishery suffering. The hits just keep coming. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
| Lighten up, guys. Four more years of what we have now nothing musky etc. will matter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 64
| Grass - 4/5/2024 1:04 PM
The video that Kirby posted is very telling.
Someone who's never fished for muskies in their life goes out with Livescope and catches three giants in 2 hours.
Good for them. Sounds like an awesome day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 626
Location: Madison, WI | jamesb - 4/5/2024 6:38 PM
Grass - 4/5/2024 1:04 PM
The video that Kirby posted is very telling.
Someone who's never fished for muskies in their life goes out with Livescope and catches three giants in 2 hours.
Good for them. Sounds like an awesome day.
Exactly! Bet they can't repeat it consistently. Everybody is so worried that this will kill a fishery, but I bet the fish catch on quickly and that bite dies as fast as any shallow water deal that gets pounded! |
|
| |
|
| danmuskyman - 4/5/2024 8:17 PM Everybody is so worried that this will kill a fishery, but I bet the fish catch on quickly and that bite dies as fast as any shallow water deal that gets pounded! You can count on the bite dieing alright. The more frequently the fish are caught will result in more dead fish. It takes 10 to 15 years to replace a nice sized muskie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | From the Target Walleye site:
Re FFS.
"Overall, says Lindner, it is too early to fully comprehend the magnitude of what we are dealing with, but he has already seen at least two fishing situations where it has clearly demonstrated a negative impact. “The harvest levels and damage to crappie populations on some very popular waters around the country have been staggering because the fish can no longer escape our vision…especially when they winter in tight schools. It used to take some effort to stay on crappies when they moved. That is no longer the case when you use FFS. Some crappie populations have been greatly impacted.”
Muskie is another species taking a hit, expands Lindner. “These used to be the fish of 1,000 casts. Now, you move around with your trolling motor, look at the screen and they stick out like a sore thumb because they are so big. You cannot miss them – and when you find them you many times catch them!” According to Lindner, many people in the fishing industry are seeing similar results – and he, like Neu, believes that FFS technology is now beginning to take a bite out of the walleye fishery as well. Both agree the time for fisheries managers to act is now, preemptively, before the effects of FFS technology are compounded by greater availability, additional improvements, and more usage.
Al Lindner: “It’s been my experience that state agencies and fisheries managers usually don’t move until fisheries collapse. We need to get out in front of this before it becomes a genuine problem. There is no time to waste.”
Well said... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32798
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm a lifetime honorary member of the NPAA. Here's what Pat Nue, the president of that organization had to say in his newsletter:
The Inside Scoop- March/April 2024
Wisconsin DNR Spring Hearings May Affect All NPAA Members
How can the Wisconsin DNR Spring Hearings affect all NPAA Members? Well, that is an easy question to answer. The Spring Hearings are part of a process that allows the Wisconsin DNR to make laws affecting the resources and use of the
resources by the public in the state. This process has been used for years and though it works, the general angling and hunting public need to pay close attention to what is being proposed. The first step in the process is to get public input on questions concerning potential legislation. That first step will take place this coming week for 2024, with the in-person meetings taking place in each county on April 8th, followed up by a period of online comments the remainder of the week.
So, why do I mention this in my Inside Scoop? Well, this year there are two questions that could affect the future of angling for many of our members. Question #22 is the most controversial. The Spring Hearing question is below: 22. Background: Ban live scopes and 360° imaging locations in Wisconsin waters (280123). With the ability of these types of units to detect fish as far as 180’ from the user, anglers have become more efficient at locating and catching fish. This type of pressure could reduce fish populations, which may lead to reduced bag limits for anglers.
22. Would you support banning the use of live scopes, and similar 360° imaging electronics in all Wisconsin waters?
Technology, especially Forward-Facing Sonar, has been very controversial throughout the country over the past year plus. Should those of us who utilize the technology when we fish chose not to voice our opinion on this question, and it
goes through the process needed to become law it will affect angling throughout the United States. A law banning technology by one state, especially one like Wisconsin, could create a snowball effect nationwide. If these technologies
are outlawed what will be next?
The controversial nature of this technology is dividing our sport, and that is concerning. Whether you like this technology or do not we need to understand that a regulation to make a certain technology illegal to use as an angler will be
detrimental to the sport. This technology is used by guides, captains, tournament anglers and the general angling public to increase success on the water. It has attracted many younger anglers who embrace technology, but it is also being
utilized by anglers of all ages who want to have increased angling success.
If you choose not to use recent technology, that is great, if you use it and understand it to the level that allows you to catch more fish great, but with that use you need to respect the resource and harvest fish at an ethical level. Just because you
can catch species that are harvested for table fair at a higher rate, does not mean you should keep a limit every time you fish. Responsible harvest is the key whether using the technology or not.
To that end, question #1 on the same Spring Hearing Questionnaire will give the WI DNR the ability to instate regulations on an emergency basis based upon data that is collected. I have spoken with fisheries managers about this proposal, and
all agree that is necessary to allow them to protect the resource. As such I recommend that our members vote yes on this proposal. This would be a valuable tool in the DNR’s toolbox and to become permanent law it would still need to go through the Spring Hearing and law-making process.
Finally, these April 8th hearings and the input process next week are especially important to the future of our sport. Please participate in this process by going to the hearings and by leaving comments online. Thank you and feel free to contact
me if you have any questions by calling or e-mailing me.
“It’s All about the Sport!" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 626
Location: Madison, WI | ^^^ well said Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 6
| First post but as a youngish angler in my 20s I thought I'd offer my opinion on FFS/technology in fishing in general. First, in my opinion people that believe fishermen will self-regulate and not use FFS and other legal technology to its full capacity are fooling themselves. It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons where people act in their own self interest to the detriment of a public resource. Thus, as technology improves it will either need to be regulated or bag limits will need to be reduced. C&R is not immune to this either as mortality in C&R is not trivial. Perhaps I'm an outlier, but I'd rather seasons/bag limits remain the same and place limits on technology. I've seen people say they'd rather not limit technology and adjust season/bag limits though.
My other thought it that if there no limit placed on technology like FFS we will eventually reach a point where the location of every musky in the lake is known and musky fishing will purely become driving from fish to fish trying to entice them to eat, probably waiting in line behind other anglers to do so. Thus, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere on FFS/fish finding technology just like hunting is doing now with drones, thermal imaging, and cell cameras.
Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/6/2024 7:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 626
Location: Madison, WI | Ok fine, let's limit FFS on musky fishing like some of you suggest, but let's do it opposite. All musky fishing is banned in water 15' or less and now we can only fish open water. I'd argue there are lots of fisheries where muskies feed primarily in open water and go shallow to relax/digest. This should effectively reduce the number of catches and handling as well right? Plus leaving fish alone from harassment when they are neutral or negative.
Oh wait, most of you guys only want to cast structure so this would interfere with your style of fishing so you'd never vote for that! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| xcskier_hunter - 4/6/2024 7:49 PM
[...] My other thought it that if there no limit placed on technology like FFS we will eventually reach a point where the location of every musky in the lake is known and musky fishing will purely become driving from fish to fish trying to entice them to eat, probably waiting in line behind other anglers to do so. Thus, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere on FFS/fish finding technology just like hunting is doing now with drones, thermal imaging, and cell cameras.
That would seem to be a likely outcome, but it goes against what musky fishing is all about for most of us. Yes, we all want to catch more and bigger fish, but we know when we go out there there's a good chance we won't even see one that day. And we spend the money anyway, to stand out there in #*#*ty weather, throwing lures and eating advil so we can throw some more lures, and get all excited when we see one after 6 hours...
Self regulation? Doubtful. But if that's what musky fishing becomes, how many people will actually do it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | xcskier_hunter - 4/6/2024 7:49 PM
First post but as a youngish angler in my 20s I thought I'd offer my opinion on FFS/technology in fishing in general. First, in my opinion people that believe fishermen will self-regulate and not use FFS and other legal technology to its full capacity are fooling themselves. It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons where people act in their own self interest to the detriment of a public resource. Thus, as technology improves it will either need to be regulated or bag limits will need to be reduced. C&R is not immune to this either as mortality in C&R is not trivial. Perhaps I'm an outlier, but I'd rather seasons/bag limits remain the same and place limits on technology. I've seen people say they'd rather not limit technology and adjust season/bag limits though.
My other thought it that if there no limit placed on technology like FFS we will eventually reach a point where the location of every musky in the lake is known and musky fishing will purely become driving from fish to fish trying to entice them to eat, probably waiting in line behind other anglers to do so. Thus, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere on FFS/fish finding technology just like hunting is doing now with drones, thermal imaging, and cell cameras.
Thanks for that first post. Thoughtful and well written.
Can add electronic calls to that list - something I just noticed we are allowed to use for a very brief spring Canada goose season up here (not for Canada's in fall though) Can be used for snows and predators, but not for other big game, turkeys. Yeah, hunters somehow work out how to manage/regulate these technology issues.
Re. the Pat Neu comments that Steve posted above, sort of an odd argument to worry about doing something in your state (or province) and how it might affect the ones around you. Ontario banned spring-bear hunt for a few years, we shrugged over here. We banned barbed hooks, the provinces on either side shrugged. Tech, well Arkansas banned roboducks, and then a few years they didn't. In general though the process is not really the best way to manage fisheries etc. (voting on propositions to force the DNR to study and make recommendations), so in that sense it does kind of create this kind of odd US vs. THEM scramble we are seeing here on this thread. I would assume animal rights types would have as much a right to put up propositions as well.
It is very likely that even right now, but certainly in the very near future these tech companies could put limiter setting on these live sonar units (ie. for refuge areas, depth) if it were demanded. Someone just needs to ask...
Edited by Angling Oracle 4/7/2024 9:25 AM
|
|
| |
