Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 7 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> state record catches and forward facing sonar |
| Message Subject: state record catches and forward facing sonar | |||
xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 6 | Self regulation? Doubtful. But if that's what musky fishing becomes, how many people will actually do it? Right, this is another point that frustrates me. In much of the outdoor industry it's argued that new technology whether it be FFS or crossbows in hunting is necessary to recruit new people into these pursuits, but in reducing the challenge we cheapen the overall experience that keeps people hooked long term. Nobody musky fishes because it's the easy way to catch numbers of fish. And locating muskies is a huge part of the challenge, which I assume is why musky fishing and musky hunting is used interchangeably. Furthermore, recreational fishing in the U.S. is getting more popular so the focus should not even be on how to create more and more effective fishermen, but rather how can we maintain the resource for a quality experience and as conservationists in general. Personally, the band-aid of stocking, particularly in native musky waters that should be self-sustaining, is not that appealing or even a sustainable a solution. I know muskies and salmon are not the same species, but the science seems clear with salmon that stocking hurts the existing wild population. I recognize that stocking is necessary in many places and can also be used to spread out pressure, but as a young angler, I wish more focus was put on the long term sustainability of these fisheries rather than short term solutions to catching more fish. Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/7/2024 8:04 AM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | xcskier_hunter - 4/7/2024 7:57 AM: Furthermore, recreational fishing in the U.S. is getting more popular so the focus should not even be on how to create more and more effective fishermen, but rather how can we maintain the resource for a quality experience and as conservationists in general. Personally, the band-aid of stocking, particularly in native musky waters that should be self-sustaining, is not that appealing or even a sustainable a solution. I know muskies and salmon are not the same species, but the science seems clear with salmon that stocking hurts the existing wild population. I recognize that stocking is necessary in many places and can also be used to spread out pressure, but as a young angler, I wish more focus was put on the long term sustainability of these fisheries rather than short term solutions to catching more fish. ^^ There are not enough muskies to sustain pressure from FFS sharpshooting, especially in naturally reproducing populations like we have here. Muskies are not a put and take fishery given they are the top of the food chain and whether they are natural or stocked, they heavily influence the population structure of other predators and prey in the lake. If big muskies are over-exploited there is never a quick recovery (if they recover at all) in either situation. Edited by Angling Oracle 4/7/2024 8:30 AM | ||
| xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 6 | Angling Oracle - 4/7/2024 8:28 AM xcskier_hunter - 4/7/2024 7:57 AM: Furthermore, recreational fishing in the U.S. is getting more popular so the focus should not even be on how to create more and more effective fishermen, but rather how can we maintain the resource for a quality experience and as conservationists in general. Personally, the band-aid of stocking, particularly in native musky waters that should be self-sustaining, is not that appealing or even a sustainable a solution. I know muskies and salmon are not the same species, but the science seems clear with salmon that stocking hurts the existing wild population. I recognize that stocking is necessary in many places and can also be used to spread out pressure, but as a young angler, I wish more focus was put on the long term sustainability of these fisheries rather than short term solutions to catching more fish. ^^ There are not enough muskies to sustain pressure from FFS sharpshooting, especially in naturally reproducing populations like we have here. Muskies are not a put and take fishery given they are the top of the food chain and whether they are natural or stocked, they heavily influence the population structure of other predators and prey in the lake. If big muskies are over-exploited there is never a quick recovery (if they recover at all) in either situation. I fish mostly in N WI on lakes and rivers with natural reproduction and little to no stocking and I completely agree. It's not easy to replace a large 20+ y/o fish and its genetics. When I mentioned stocking I was mostly responding to what I've seen thrown out as solutions from people that don't want technology limited. Skipping over the debate of whether stocking has detrimental effects on native/wild populations, which is tangential to the topic, even now stocking can't meet demand in states like WI and MN yet many don't want to limit any technology and actually want to legalize additional fishing methods. In the same questionnaire with the FFS proposal, there is a proposal to legalize 3 line trolling where currently only 1 line is legal (mostly the counties in N WI with the best natural reproduction). Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/7/2024 10:03 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32798 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I clearly remember when C&R became a thing due to Muskies Inc. The resistance was more than considerable, reminding me of this thread (you can find discussions on it here in our early years), and the same arguments about making it law were tossed about. In the end, it became an ethics question and it WORKED. Since it worked and was accepted as a social more ( a specific socially constructed idea that defines morally acceptable behavior), slowly, MI and other special interest groups and natural resources departments began increasing size limits to as much as 54"on trophy-producing waters, making most days forced C&R. When I first started guiding in the 70's, we killed every legal we caught, and the size limit was between 28" and 30". Sport shops had coolers out front full of recently caught muskies, and that was popular. There is hope either way. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 4/7/2024 9:50 AM I clearly remember when C&R became a thing due to Muskies Inc. The resistance was more than considerable, reminding me of this thread (you can find discussions on it here in our early years), and the same arguments about making it law were tossed about. In the end, it became an ethics question and it WORKED. Since it worked and was accepted as a social more ( a specific socially constructed idea that defines morally acceptable behavior), slowly, MI and other special interest groups and natural resources departments began increasing size limits to as much as 54"on trophy-producing waters, making most days forced C&R. When I first started guiding in the 70's, we killed every legal we caught, and the size limit was between 28" and 30". Sport shops had coolers out front full of recently caught muskies, and that was popular. There is hope either way. Mortality is from: overhanding, (lack of oxygen, injury from handling), mortality from hooking injury, barotrauma, , thermal shock or combinations thereof. FFS the issue we are primarily concerned with is that there are windows and/or scenarios where the cumulative catch-rates from using this tech sharpshooting is so much higher than any other methods. It will become more effective in other scenarios over time (eg. PMTT guys finding a shallow active pattern with FFS). The primary difference between deep water and other scenarios is that even novice musky and non-musky anglers (who unlike musky anglers, do not have appropriate release gear and an understanding of the rarity of the species), can be equally proficient at targeting them, certainly more so than with any other type of technology or method (ie. trolling, jigging, using SI). Other anglers are going to push the envelope regardless of the ethical more of the greater musky community to get the "grin and grab" as Pete Maina talks about. Long winded way of saying it is much tougher to come up with something like the C&R scenario that is going to achieve what we need it to achieve given that unlike C&R (where there is the corpus delicti - thanks LR) - the peer pressure is not in-your-face. I'm interested to hear what is considered to be an unacceptable use of FFS within the musky community. It is very hard to gauge from the comments. Many really don't know its potential. Edited by Angling Oracle 4/7/2024 11:03 AM | ||
| Ruddiger |
| ||
Posts: 261 | Howdy, I have used 360 since it came out and added mega live last fall. I can honestly say that the next fish I see and catch with either of them will be the first one. To be clear, what I mean by that is “see fish, catch fish.” I’ve yet to use it that way and do not intend to. When I go to Canada I am using both tools for boat control and to properly find and work weeds and to better fish rocks (and not put my trolling motor on them). If I’m looking to harvest fish, I’m using 2D and only keep small walleye or pike under 24 inches. I grew up in Ohio in the 70s and 80s. Fishing sucked back then on the public waters we fished (note we didn’t have a boat to go on Erie so we fished inland lakes out of rental boats and we used a transom trolling motor.) if we wanted to have good fishing, we went to a farm pond owned by a family friend. Flash forward to today, and for the most part fishing is better for everyone everywhere despite all of the technological advances we have. The key to all of this was conservation and angling ethics. They go hand in hand but neither works unless they work together. It’s easy to point to FFS as the problem. However, that ignores all of the “damage” that DI and SI can do. Add in boats and motors being bigger than ever, spot lock, power augers, state of the art mapping, GPS, and advanced in rods, reels, and line and the sport is light years away from what I grew up doing with mono, some rapalas and a DAM spinning reel (for the young folk that was the reel company, not a swear word). We can easily live in a world with technology like mega live and 360. But we can’t live in a world with over harvest, poorly managed fisheries, generous bag limits, 365 open seasons, low length limits, a lack of angling ethics, and a meat hunter mentality to have a freezer full of fish. Fortunately, most fisherman get it and despite the rhetoric, do adhere to ethical practices above and beyond what the law requires. Just ask the DNR when they encourage hardcore bass anglers to harvest fish in some lakes (it rarely works as they still release them.) Yes, we need fisherman to step up their ethics game as technology evolves, but the same goes for fisheries managers and the regulations we have in place. Finally, I think a little honest perspective needs to be added when it comes to how we measure abusing a resource. Like many people on this forum I work a lot more than I want too and do not have time to fish nearly as much as I would like. On the flip side, there are people who fish all the time (guides in particular) who do far more damage to the resource in a month than I will do in five years on the water. Those are just facts. To be clear, I don’t mention that from a point of jealousy as I applaud their ability to fish. I chose my career and they chose theirs. But I’m also not going to pretend that if you put a couple hundred musky over the side of the boat every year that they all swim away with no delayed mortality. Not to mention the fish that are harvested by side trips that they guide clients to for walleye, perch or bass. It’s all putting a significant strain on the resource. Take care, Ruddiger | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32798 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The primary difference between deep water and other scenarios is that even novice musky and non-musky anglers (who unlike musky anglers, do not have appropriate release gear and an understanding of the rarity of the species), can be equally proficient at targeting them, certainly more so than with any other type of technology or method (ie. trolling, jigging, using SI). Other anglers are going to push the envelope regardless of the ethical more of the greater musky community to get the "grin and grab" as Pete Maina talks about. Long winded way of saying it is much tougher to come up with something like the C&R scenario that is going to achieve what we need it to achieve given that unlike C&R (where there is the corpus delicti - thanks LR) - the peer pressure is not in-your-face.' If sharpshooters are called out en masse whenever they post the grip and grin images, on social, places like this, at the bar, muskie shows, and anywhere else muskie discussions occur, they will stop. The motivation is to look cool and talented, not unethical and lacking talent. All the other bloviating aside, let's talk about what else we can do if the tech is not controlled by regulation. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 4/7/2024 11:23 AM 'The primary difference between deep water and other scenarios is that even novice musky and non-musky anglers (who unlike musky anglers, do not have appropriate release gear and an understanding of the rarity of the species), can be equally proficient at targeting them, certainly more so than with any other type of technology or method (ie. trolling, jigging, using SI). Other anglers are going to push the envelope regardless of the ethical more of the greater musky community to get the "grin and grab" as Pete Maina talks about. Long winded way of saying it is much tougher to come up with something like the C&R scenario that is going to achieve what we need it to achieve given that unlike C&R (where there is the corpus delicti - thanks LR) - the peer pressure is not in-your-face.' If sharpshooters are called out en masse whenever they post the grip and grin images, on social, places like this, at the bar, muskie shows, and anywhere else muskie discussions occur, they will stop. The motivation is to look cool and talented, not unethical and lacking talent. All the other bloviating aside, let's talk about what else we can do if the tech is not controlled by regulation. I don't know what level of influence this or similar threads have on moving folks in one way or the other - but certainly we can see from threads here and elsewhere when FFS first came out to now some have moved in their thinking about it. As I mentioned before, ends justifies the means, and if the ends are a position statement from Muskies Inc. that can give lodge owners, guides and Muskies Canada Inc. some direction, then that will be a win. | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2279 Location: Chisholm, MN | sworrall - 4/7/2024 11:23 AM 'The primary difference between deep water and other scenarios is that even novice musky and non-musky anglers (who unlike musky anglers, do not have appropriate release gear and an understanding of the rarity of the species), can be equally proficient at targeting them, certainly more so than with any other type of technology or method (ie. trolling, jigging, using SI). Other anglers are going to push the envelope regardless of the ethical more of the greater musky community to get the "grin and grab" as Pete Maina talks about. Long winded way of saying it is much tougher to come up with something like the C&R scenario that is going to achieve what we need it to achieve given that unlike C&R (where there is the corpus delicti - thanks LR) - the peer pressure is not in-your-face.' If sharpshooters are called out en masse whenever they post the grip and grin images, on social, places like this, at the bar, muskie shows, and anywhere else muskie discussions occur, they will stop. The motivation is to look cool and talented, not unethical and lacking talent. All the other bloviating aside, let's talk about what else we can do if the tech is not controlled by regulation. I like your optimism Steve. I don't see it happening though. Even on this board is seem the anti scopers are outnumbered. It really does make me happy to see a handful of you guys on here that understand whats going on though. | ||
| Ruddiger |
| ||
Posts: 261 | Howdy, I agree with Steve. I can easily see a point where people will be ashamed to sharpshoot fish, the same way we treat people who harvest a muskie like bald eagle poachers. Honestly, with all of the hype about the effectiveness of forward facing sonar (hype that is vastly overblown outside of open water) I can see a time where some people will be embarrassed to have it on their boat. I know I feel a bit uncomfortable about how I’ll be perceived every time I have a good day on the water doing what I’ve always done (“he only caught that because he has mega live.”) On the positive side, and this applies to Great Lakes walleye, I was at my friends bait shop the other day and he was telling me how more and more people on Erie are casting again instead of trolling. Basically they are using FFS to find large schools of bait and walleye and casting at the schools for the fun of it. As a person who hates trolling and hasn’t fished Erie in years because trolling became a necessity for a long time, I saw this as a positive application for FFS. Trolling with planer boards and two lines per angler still remains a far more effective way to catch numbers of fish on Erie, however, it’s nice to see FFS being used in a way to help people be productive casting again. Take care, Ruddiger Edited by Ruddiger 4/7/2024 12:31 PM | ||
| fatturtle011 |
| ||
Posts: 39 | Going way back on this issue ( prior posts) when I thought the most misdirected comment I every heard was to say that the ' paper graph' didn't kill the sport of fishing so as to say hello to todays and tomorrows technology. This is to say that technology in the generations yet to come 2, 3, 4, and beyond etc. will be fine for sport angling. I disagree, hope I'm not alone. We do tend to kill what we love. It's human and it's in all of us as we strive to be more efficient in our time afield. Hope we all do the right thing soon because it will be impossible to correct later. | ||
| 7.62xJay |
| ||
Posts: 490 Location: NW WI | Just going to throw out another possible middle ground idea and listen to your comments. Nearly all of us can agree education is positive change, regardless of which side of this specific fence you stand on. So, what about a mandatory "fishers education" to be attended in order to aquire a license? No different than your boaters,drivers,or hunters license. | ||
| sukrchukr |
| ||
Location: Vilas | Is every fish boated now going to be looked at as if sharpshooted, simply because they have FFS on the boat? Reading through the comments, many guys are using FFS for boat control... but if he catches a jumbo, is he going to be believed?? Will he be called a sharpshooter anyway?? | ||
| FishinXtreme |
| ||
Posts: 92 Location: Eau Claire, WI | How would a ban actually be enforced? | ||
| Ruddiger |
| ||
Posts: 261 | Howdy, Presumably the ban would be enforced by conservation officers, however, the logistics of it would be chaos for FFS owners who travel from body of water and state to state. Realistically, however, the COs don’t have the resources to enforce it as they can barely enforce the existing rules now. I keep going back to the fact that all of this talk about a ban is totally misguided. This is no different than the green box days of Carl Lowrance when people wanted to ban that. That was a far bigger game changer than FFS ever will be and fishing survived and thrived with continued innovation, better resource management, and evolving angler ethics. There are SO MANY other low hanging fruit things that can be done from a resource management standpoint for all fish species that would do far more for the sport than banning a type of sonar. Mandating all barbless hooks, 100% catch and release for Muskies or at least creating 60” limits to only allow record fish to kept, making proper release tools be mandatory on all boats just like a fire extinguisher, kill switch, or a life vest. Banning live bait, closed seasons, slot limits, none over limits, lower bag limits, adjusted seasons to protect fish in open water, adding a FFS registration fee to add to stocking efforts (we register boats so why not certain tech) the list goes on and on. Furthermore, we are still ignoring all of the other ways a resource can get stressed and exploited by good ole fashion 2D sonar or simple over fishing or even sight fishing. Fishing bass and panfish on beds is common place in many areas of the country but does tremendous damage to recruitment. We tolerate so many other things that are way worse for the sport. Focusing our efforts on raising the bar across the board makes a lot more sense than arbitrarily banning one type of tech. Banning FFS but ignoring all of the other common sonar tech on boats reminds me of the assault weapons ban in 94 when they arbitrarily banned some deadly weapons but allowed other deadly weapons to be legally available. Even if people are sincere in their intentions it doesn’t always have the desired effect. Take care, Ruddiger | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| Thinking about what it would take to get a regulatory ban, look at what is going on with efforts to limit wake surfing boats. In Oneida County, the county board was asked to pass a resolution asking the state to limit wake boats. One board member pointed out that the "evidence" provided by those wishing to limit the boats was anecdotal in nature and did not really have any statistical datal to support it. He was adamant that he would not support until he could see clear, unbiased data regarding damage to the lake and surrounding area. The resolution passed but imagine legislators asking for scientific data supporting the ban. Does anyone have this? The fact that a team did well in the PMTT does not mean much. The same team had used the FFS in prior tournament and did not place high. I am not opposing limits on FFS, just pointing out that a bunch of fishermen saying it is bad is not going to be enough, in particular if manufacturers like Garmin hire a platoon of sharp lawyers to oppose such bans. Like our county board member, they will demand scientific data, not stories or individual observations. | |||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2279 Location: Chisholm, MN | Enforcing it would not be a problem. Do people go out and troll 3 lines in MN? Yeah a few but people get busted all the time for it so most people don't even attempt it for fear of a fine. Not hard to do. Also it's pretty obvious whos doing it. I still don't think ban it though. I'm just saying it would be easy to enforce. Getting it banned in the first place would be a huge undertaking and I doubt the DNR or legislators would consider taking it on until the resource is completely destroyed. Since resource managers are "reactive", not "proactive", the resource will have to be destroyed before anything is done. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 4/8/2024 8:58 AM I am not opposing limits on FFS, just pointing out that a bunch of fishermen saying it is bad is not going to be enough, in particular if manufacturers like Garmin hire a platoon of sharp lawyers to oppose such bans. "Generally, suing a state agency or board is considered an action against the state; thus, sovereign immunity usually protects state entities from suit." From page 5: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2016/im_2... It is pretty standard for any government level really, right down to municipal. Doesn't mean you can't get a day in court, but if the immunity is invoked for legitimate reasons, then a losers bet. Legislation to protect a fishery proactively I would suggest is probably immune. I doubt will be banned. We should focus now on protecting the resource and not focus on protecting FFS. The DNR probably has some "floater" data. Strictly a correlation to uptick in FFS use. Floaters could be from other fishing methods as well. Ultimately floater number basically would indicate that the musky fishery is at risk, so the causes of the floaters (mortalities, whatever those may be, need to be mitigated. Education in combination with refuge areas probably is the best answer. Education would be Muskies Inc. taking a stance and the industry itself adding material with every sale of units capable of high frequency sonar, be it live or otherwise. Edited by Angling Oracle 4/8/2024 11:31 AM | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
Angling Oracle - 4/8/2024 11:21 AM North of 8 - 4/8/2024 8:58 AM I am not opposing limits on FFS, just pointing out that a bunch of fishermen saying it is bad is not going to be enough, in particular if manufacturers like Garmin hire a platoon of sharp lawyers to oppose such bans. "Generally, suing a state agency or board is considered an action against the state; thus, sovereign immunity usually protects state entities from suit." From page 5: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2016/im_2... It is pretty standard for any government level really. Doesn't mean can get a day in court, but if the immunity is invoked for legitimate reasons, then a losers bet. Legislation to protect a fishery proactively I would suggest is probably immune. The lawyers would become involved at the discovery stage, well before legislation is passed. The legislature typically seeks input from impacted parties, and the lawyers would both present data and challenge non-scientific input from those in the fishing community. And that was my point. If you wish to get FFS banned, you better have you data lined up, in an organized, scientific manner and be prepared to counter industry arguments. Personal opinions and anecdotal evidence will not be enough. | |||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | ^^ A presentation by a young person like xcskier_hunter above would crush any lawyer in such a hearing (in my experience, but my experience entirely Manitoba-centric). Lawyers are experts on law, not fishery science. DNR biologist vs lawyer would be a very uneven fight. Lawyers would be useful on strategy, but DNR has been in this rodeo before and knows how to get rules through. I doubt will get to that point. Again, I have no skin in the fight to ban FFS there, and don't need it banned here in Manitoba. Would it be better if it were banned in my opinion and would I be glad if it were? Yes. Ban though is not the objective. As far as Jay 7.62 - education. Would be a great idea. Should be an optional class in school, outdoor ethics perhaps. I'm going to Germany next week, just inquiring last day or two with a fishing clubs on the Danube regarding day passes. As a tourist, I can get a tourist licence which allows me then to get day passes for club waters (if available, as limited number). Germans or perhaps folks there for awhile (military) would have to take in essence a two day paid course covering ethics, fish ID, gear used, dispatching fish properly, cleaning, proper care of dead fish, not disturbing spawning areas, shorebird nests, etc. You take a test, and you get the Fischereischein, you then have a lifetime license can use to join a club or to acquire a guest pass in other areas. As part of these clubs, it is your duty to check and enforce rules on the water, and the police can enforce as well. Different system for sure, but for a small country with a lot of folks and limited, mostly private waters - it works. The education end of things is one thing that we could take a lesson from there, especially on the ethical front. Edited by Angling Oracle 4/8/2024 12:18 PM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 309 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Kirby Budrow - 4/8/2024 11:15 AM Enforcing it would not be a problem. Do people go out and troll 3 lines in MN? Yeah a few but people get busted all the time for it so most people don't even attempt it for fear of a fine. Not hard to do. Also it's pretty obvious whos doing it. I still don't think ban it though. I'm just saying it would be easy to enforce. Getting it banned in the first place would be a huge undertaking and I doubt the DNR or legislators would consider taking it on until the resource is completely destroyed. Since resource managers are "reactive", not "proactive", the resource will have to be destroyed before anything is done. Ice fishing with too many lines here in Manitoba? "Up here in space I'm looking down on you My lasers trace Everything you do You think you've private lives Think nothing of the kind There is no true escape I'm watching all the time" -- Electric Eye, Judas Priest Cops have drones, firefighters have drones and yes, Conservation Officers have drones. Way cheaper and far more effective than chasing someone around with a truck, quad, skidoo, boat, helicopter or plane. Edited by Angling Oracle 4/8/2024 12:30 PM | ||
| xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 6 | I think a key point many are missing is that it's not just FFS in its current form that should concern us but rather looking ahead into the future, recognizing that this technology will get less expensive and better over time. This is just the beginning. A great example of this is with cell cameras in hunting, which used to be crappy and expensive but are now 10x better, close to 10x cheaper, and ubiquitous even for a typical public land hunter. In fact, a handful of states have taken to banning trail cameras altogether (AZ, UT, Kansas on public land etc.), so it's not like limitations from the DNR are an impossibility. An interesting anecdote about AZ that I've heard is that with trail cameras pretty much every big mule deer in the best management units is known, which has increased hunters' abilities to kill specific top end deer but has consequently reduced the number of true super giants living long enough to express their potential. I could see a similar trade-off in musky fishing where our increased efficiency ultimately limits our chances of catching a true super giant (and muskies need to live much longer than deer to express their peak potential). However, I think the best hunting analogy would be drones. Most states saw the writing on the wall as drone technology emerged and preemptively banned it so we did not end up in the situation we are in now where people have invested money in a technology like FFS, making it tougher to retroactively limit. I will also admit that the lines are harder to draw in fishing with 2D, SI, and 360 already existing but I don't think it's impossible. And enforcement might be tough but most people follow the laws anyways and just as we have modern tools for fishing, enforcement also has modern tools. A cell phone is probably the greatest technological deterrent to wildlife crime ever created. Another strategy rather than an outright ban could be lake specific or seasonal limitations on technology in the same way some lakes don't allow motors. In my experience, lakes with limitations like these tend to have the best fishing. It's my belief that people willing to forego the use of certain technologies should be able to enjoy less restrictive regulations, rather than being forced to comply with stricter regulations just because one portion of anglers is unwilling to accept technological limitations. Ultimately, it may be the case fishing with some electronic/technological limitations will be akin to bowhunting, which enjoys longer seasons and greater tag availability than rifle hunting. I also agree with others that strategies to reduce C&R mortality such as using barbless hooks are a great idea. Ultimately, we are musky fishing for sport, not survival, so the intent to make things easier and easier is odd, although perhaps is also just human nature. Also, I'm not on a crusade to ban FFS or to even single it out in particular, I just think it's important to think about whether certain technologies that increase angler efficacy or shorten the learning curve are truly a net positive for musky fishing or fishing in general in the long term, considering the challenges and pressures our fisheries already face. Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/8/2024 3:41 PM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8719 | When I was growing up, every boat on the lake had a "knocker" Usually a piece of conduit filed with concrete or mini baseball bat, always with a handle made out of 1/2 roll of electrical tape. Guys were still complaining about not being able to shoot them at boatside. So you bonked them instead and put them on a stringer. We figured out that wasn't a good idea. We figured out that 30" size limits weren't a good idea, we figured out that catch and release definitely a good idea. More recently we figured out that the standard vertical hold wasn't good, and fishing for them in hot water wasn't good. Big nets, hook cutters, not using light tackle, not using single hook sucker rigs, additional stocking, habitat restoration, water quality monitoring... Legislation is one thing. It's effective when you can enforce it and when the danger of getting caught makes it something you don't even consider doing. But it's really up to US to steer the boat forward. We're talking about a low density fish that is not really a food source that's expensive to stock, that relatively few people really care enough to fish for. You still got guys who kill every one they catch because of the damage they supposedly do to the other fish. No matter what we all disagree on we have the advantage of one common goal: We all want to be able to go out and catch them, and when we do we do everything in our power to put them back, so we can catch them again. | ||
| Tyendinaga |
| ||
Posts: 2 | Professional guides, tournament fisherman, and the high end content producers receive ample opportunity to use new tech before manufacturing costs go down enough to see a retail market for these devices. In some ways, it's hard to argue that by necessity, these examples are required to keep up with the latest and greatest technological marvels - their livelihoods depend on it. And as a result of their involvement which is an order of magnitude greater than any regular fisherman whose dedication regardless of devotion is recreational at best comparatively, I would assume that by the time advanced transducer tech becomes less than prohibitively expensive to mostly everyone, the effects on the fishery will already have taken place. I hear a lot of people in my area who don't fish for these creatures refer to them as "dinosaurs". I can't help but feel that a certain Jurassic Park quote seems fitting here - man became so preoccupied with if he could, he did not stop to think if he should. There's an almost cyclical nature to how our pursuits of an elusive animal creates an elusive behavior in the people who pursue them. Maybe I would feel differently if I had the resources to utilize this technology. Perhaps I would still feel the same, and I would hope that most others do, too - there is far more to the entire experience than zeroing in on where they are. We have a legal system, not a justice system. I do not believe a ban would be enacted in a way that anybody could agree with. And the right to access equipment has more legal standing than the ethical boundaries of fair chase. For me, this tends to extend as far into the water as I can see and understand as best I can. The unknown is part of the thrill. If we continue to push to know all, the technological advancements into things we maybe, possibly, weren't meant to understand will almost certainly take away the thrill and the fish with it. | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 1971 | Let’s really protect these fish boys! : 1) No live bait - artificial only.. it been done before in fishing 2) you must draw a limited tag to target muskie (just like Elk hunting in some zones).. been done before 3) you must use a single barbless treble hook, yep barbless lakes already exist 4) no night fishing .. again been done 5) Season is only open in October, let’s keep water temps under 70. Short season like hunting 6) 100% catch and release , fairly common in fishing Problem Solved! | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| IA Justin's post sums it up. There are folks that support many if not all of the 6 items he lists. But, for those of you who fish lakes that depend on stocking, as opposed to natural reproduction, stop and think, is that really what you want? I live on a lake that depends on natural reproduction but stocking costs money, lots of money. If you make it too difficult to pursue musky, you will also reduce the support for funding of stocking or any state sponsored efforts to improve musky fishing. It is a fine line. And remember, musky fishermen are a small minority of those that fish. Complain too much, you may actually harm the sport. | |||
| xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 6 | North of 8 - 4/11/2024 4:33 PM IA Justin's post sums it up. There are folks that support many if not all of the 6 items he lists. But, for those of you who fish lakes that depend on stocking, as opposed to natural reproduction, stop and think, is that really what you want? I live on a lake that depends on natural reproduction but stocking costs money, lots of money. If you make it too difficult to pursue musky, you will also reduce the support for funding of stocking or any state sponsored efforts to improve musky fishing. It is a fine line. And remember, musky fishermen are a small minority of those that fish. Complain too much, you may actually harm the sport. I'm fine with using barbless hooks. All else equal, lakes that require barbless hooks tend to have better fishing anyways. However, the insinuation that pushing for any sort of regulations to conserve a natural resource means you're for limiting everything is non-sensical. Musky fishing has never been easier or more popular than it is now. Still, people bemoan the current musky stocking in WI and MN. I don't see how making musky fishing even easier is the solution to this. Personally, I'd rather see increased focus on more sustainable solutions like improving spawning habitat rather than trying to out-stock increasingly efficient fishermen. Either way, I don't think any minds are being changed at this point. Thankfully, it's almost musky season. Edited by xcskier_hunter 4/11/2024 9:29 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32798 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Musky fishing has never been easier or more popular than it is now. Still, people bemoan the current musky stocking in WI and MN. I don't see how making musky fishing even easier is the solution to this. Personally, I'd rather see increased focus on more sustainable solutions like improving spawning habitat rather than trying to out-stock increasingly efficient fishermen. Either way, I don't think any minds are being changed at this point. Thankfully, it's almost fishing season.' Depends on the water you are referring to. As long as the money is as tight as it is in WI and MN has seriously cut back their program and fisheries are suffering, I'll be looking for solutions. Muskie fishing on many lakes close to me certainly isn't even close to easier than it's ever been. Ask the Cap City MI Chapter about the Yahara Chain. Mille Lacs, the Metro lakes, Vermilion, and so on in MN. | ||
| xcskier_hunter |
| ||
Posts: 6 | sworrall - 4/11/2024 9:34 PM 'Musky fishing has never been easier or more popular than it is now. Still, people bemoan the current musky stocking in WI and MN. I don't see how making musky fishing even easier is the solution to this. Personally, I'd rather see increased focus on more sustainable solutions like improving spawning habitat rather than trying to out-stock increasingly efficient fishermen. Either way, I don't think any minds are being changed at this point. Thankfully, it's almost fishing season.' Depends on the water you are referring to. As long as the money is as tight as it is in WI and MN has seriously cut back their program and fisheries are suffering, I'll be looking for solutions. Muskie fishing on many lakes close to me certainly isn't even close to easier than it's ever been. Ask the Cap City MI Chapter about the Yahara Chain. Mille Lacs, the Metro lakes, Vermilion, and so on in MN. I completely agree with your point that some waters are not "easier" at the moment and had considered clarifying that what I really meant was that there is more info readily available and better tools/technology than ever before. What I find nauseating is the increased push to improve angler efficacy as a solution to better fishing rather than improving the actual fisheries long term. I'd much rather have superior fisheries and fewer tools than fisheries that are in such poor shape that I need the best tools/technology to have a chance. In our current landscape I see most new technology as improving the pump but not the well (a saying WI conservationist Aldo Leopold coined). I know there are many like you doing far more than me at the moment to improve the well and I thank you for it. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| Just a thought: If folks really want to make fishing better, maybe spend some money on stocking, habitat improvement, etc. instead of multiple graphs, etc. I see what trout fishermen do to improve streams, Walleyes Forever does something similar for walleye, They spend their own money rather than depending on financially strapped state agencies. Volunteers go out at night in the spring to make sure poachers don't take sturgeon that are on spawning runs on the Wolf. Musky fishermen do some things, but maybe instead of 30 Bulldawgs, buy 15 and donate the difference to stocking and habitat improvement. This winter, on one of the few truly cold weekends we had, a group of folks from the lake association spent the weekend creating 'fish sticks'. They cut large hardwoods near shore, cable them together, attach concrete blocks and when the ice melts they sink near shore, creating a place where fry of all species can hide. I didn't help with the labor but donated money to the effort. All required permits had to be obtained in advance, etc. | |||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > 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 |