Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 8 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Muskies Inc FFS Position Statement |
| Message Subject: Muskies Inc FFS Position Statement | |||
Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 338 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | No mystery here: https://www.outdoorlife.com/fishing/minnesota-record-black-crappie/ There is no difference between FFS (for any species) and spotlighting deer. Sure you can use it ethically, the same way we used to navigate on LOTW in the dark when only had a spotlight find the buoys to get home, but some folks will not use a spotlight ethically, and some folks are definitely not going to use FFS ethically. No one that despises FFS now is going to suddenly come around to the deflection arguments (ie. other things cause mortality too, we can stock more, create better spawning habitat, I'm good at releasing fish, barbless, 10 hp motors, yadda, yadda, yadda). It is transparent to the FFS "antis" what it is and what it will become: nothing good. BNelson is right regarding the musky fishery decline, although I think he is a bit generous on the timeline for some of the lakes where it is being used in a significant way already. Needs to be banned. The Muskies Inc. statement is a good start. Edited by Angling Oracle 7/2/2024 12:53 PM | ||
| Tommy |
| ||
Posts: 90 | IAJustin - 7/1/2024 10:45 PM BNelson preaching we should all catch “less” muskies, I’ve heard it all now. ;) I'm doing my part catching less I tell ya what. | ||
| CincySkeez |
| ||
Posts: 614 Location: Duluth | Angling Oracle - 7/2/2024 12:47 PM No mystery here: https://www.outdoorlife.com/fishing/minnesota-record-black-crappie/ There is no difference between FFS (for any species) and spotlighting deer. Sure you can use it ethically, the same way we used to navigate on LOTW in the dark when only had a spotlight find the buoys to get home, but some folks will not use a spotlight ethically, and some folks are definitely not going to use FFS ethically. No one that despises FFS now is going to suddenly come around to the deflection arguments (ie. other things cause mortality too, we can stock more, create better spawning habitat, I'm good at releasing fish, barbless, 10 hp motors, yadda, yadda, yadda). It is transparent to the FFS "antis" what it is and what it will become: nothing good. BNelson is right regarding the musky fishery decline, although I think he is a bit generous on the timeline for some of the lakes where it is being used in a significant way already. Needs to be banned. The Muskies Inc. statement is a good start. If anything, this guys is doing his part to raise awareness. Another fish that "wouldn't release" I guess.. | ||
| dbach17 |
| ||
Posts: 86 Location: Des Plaines, IL | The thing that kills me is that I know some very vocal people calling for regulation or banning of forward facing sonar, but those same people will be the first to yell at me about "freedom", "free markets", and "capitalism" when I want regulations put in place to save the lives, or make life better for, other human beings. Should we also ban this tactic? I would assume people agree this is increasing catch rates, yes? And I know the response will be something like: "it's different, you can't actually see the fish moving" or something along those lines. But if the result is the same, and that fish is caught, how different is it really? I'll take a look at the historical example of prohibition. We passed a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to get rid of alcohol (which, by the way, was actually probably a good idea based on the research that shows alcohol consumption is very much not good for humans). Spoiler Alert: it did not go well. How's the "war on drugs" going? But I do agree with people, that progress for progress' sake is not always good. More is not always better. But we live in a world that rewards those things monetarily, unfortunately, and our culture is obsessed with status and money. I'd be happy to see reasonable regulations put in place, but I honestly have no idea how that would be enforceable. Like I've stated previously, I love live sonar for trolling and boat position. It is incredibly helpful to know what's in front of me instead of behind me. I am better with my boat position because of it. I can find the trolling depth of any bait I run with relative ease now. Those two things alone are worth it for me. And those two things have helped me catch fish. I have never once pulled up to a spot and used live sonar to watch my bait in front of a fish. Personally, that's not something I'm interested in. But if someone else wants to do that, and abides by limits and regulations, than who am I to tell them they can't? I know Vermilion is being used as an example. Stocked dropped off dramatically, catch rates increased, and now I consistently hear about how tough it is. But would it still be that tough if there had been more steady stocking for the entire time and there wasn't a decade stretch of people absolutely crushing it on that lake? What if instead of a great 10 years, we had a good 30 years? Again, I didn't get to personally experience any of that, so I'm just going by things that I have read about the "golden era" of MN musky fishing. | ||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1263 | The Vermillion and Mille Lacs fish were pretty much left alone when they were growing up after the first stockings. (everyone drove by on the way Northern Minnesota and Canada.) | ||
| danmuskyman |
| ||
Posts: 631 Location: Madison, WI | IAJustin - 7/1/2024 10:45 PM BNelson preaching we should all catch “less” muskies, I’ve heard it all now. ;) For as long as I've been on this forum, he's been bragging about his success and how many muskies he catches as year/month/day/hour whatever! Now all of a sudden we all need to limit or catch rates to reduce handling fish. Joke! | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32839 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | danmuskyman - 7/3/2024 10:15 PM IAJustin - 7/1/2024 10:45 PM BNelson preaching we should all catch “less” muskies, I’ve heard it all now. ;) For as long as I've been on this forum, he's been bragging about his success and how many muskies he catches as year/month/day/hour whatever! Now all of a sudden we all need to limit or catch rates to reduce handling fish. Joke! Ok that's enough. Context is everything and personal attacks suck. | ||
| BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | Not limiting it at all Dan. But there is a line in my opinion where its simply NOT fair chase. Sharp shooting is just that. By the looks of Slamrs poll most agree...If you dont agree I could care less. Guessing you are a livescoper.... Edited by BNelson 7/4/2024 9:49 AM | ||
| Emptynet |
| ||
Posts: 395 Location: WI | In complete agreement with what Steve said. | ||
| OH Musky |
| ||
Posts: 376 Location: SW Ohio | BNelson - 7/4/2024 10:42 AM Not limiting it at all Dan. But there is a line in my opinion where its simply NOT fair chase. Sharp shooting is just that. By the looks of Slamrs poll most agree...If you dont agree I could care less. Guessing you are a livescoper.... I’m not a “livescoper”, just dammed tired of people who don’t like something saying ”ban it”. Everything used as a “reason” to ban FFS has been nothing but assumptions yet held to be true. Sounds a lot like liberal politics nowadays. This all started with one team catching 10 fish on Eagle River and PMTT banning it the next tourney mid-season. No one said anything about Spencer catching 10 fish on Webster or LSC throwing and ripping pounders in previous tourneys. Yet they used technology to find and target those fish. The same arguments were used when compound bows came out then the crossbows. “The deer will be slaughtered! Ban them!”. Were deer more killed? Sure but more people hunted. The DNR adjusted seasons and limits. There are far more deer today than when compound bows came out. FFS is just today’s easy scapegoat. Whadaya want to ban next? | ||
| CincySkeez |
| ||
Posts: 614 Location: Duluth | OH Musky - 7/4/2024 5:20 PM BNelson - 7/4/2024 10:42 AM Not limiting it at all Dan. But there is a line in my opinion where its simply NOT fair chase. Sharp shooting is just that. By the looks of Slamrs poll most agree...If you dont agree I could care less. Guessing you are a livescoper.... I’m not a “livescoper”, just dammed tired of people who don’t like something saying ”ban it”. Everything used as a “reason” to ban FFS has been nothing but assumptions yet held to be true. Sounds a lot like liberal politics nowadays. This all started with one team catching 10 fish on Eagle River and PMTT banning it the next tourney mid-season. No one said anything about Spencer catching 10 fish on Webster or LSC throwing and ripping pounders in previous tourneys. Yet they used technology to find and target those fish. The same arguments were used when compound bows came out then the crossbows. “The deer will be slaughtered! Ban them!”. Were deer more killed? Sure but more people hunted. The DNR adjusted seasons and limits. There are far more deer today than when compound bows came out. FFS is just today’s easy scapegoat. Whadaya want to ban next? You do realize that if something isn't done our fisheries are headed for the highly regulated scenario you created in the other thread. Of course that doesn't matter to most because they'll be dead or too old to fish. The fishing isn't getting better, habitat is not improving and there is more targeted pressure. No way around the fact that more handling equals more mortality. | ||
| danmuskyman |
| ||
Posts: 631 Location: Madison, WI | There is an easy solution for everyone concerned about more handling of fish - quit. If you stop handling any fish, and so does everyone else who thinks we're in jeopardy, it offsets whatever you're worried about. But that's not the case is it. You're not really concerned about the fish, just want everyone to fish your way. You guys want to continue to catch more and bigger fish, just as long as nobody else does too with a method you don't like. If I use a livescope and catch 10 fish this year, but you don't and catch 25, you've harmed the fishery more than I have by your own admission! I don't agree with crossbows in archery season, but they get the same number of tags I do | ||
| danmuskyman |
| ||
Posts: 631 Location: Madison, WI | There is an easy solution for everyone concerned about more handling of fish - quit. If you stop handling any fish, and so does everyone else who thinks we're in jeopardy, it offsets whatever you're worried about. But that's not the case is it. You're not really concerned about the fish, just want everyone to fish your way. You guys want to continue to catch more and bigger fish, just as long as nobody else does too with a method you don't like. If I use a livescope and catch 10 fish this year, but you don't and catch 25, you've harmed the fishery more than I have by your own admission! I don't agree with crossbows in archery season, but they get the same number of tags I do | ||
| Brian Hoffies |
| ||
Posts: 1700 | Question: How is sharp shooting for any species of fish different than shining for Deer at night? Wasn't the anti shining laws put in to protect Deer herds? Why are there limits in fishing and hunting? Wasn't it done to limit the take and hurting the resource? Why is it illegal in most areas to use a AR-15 on full auto to hunt? Why in most states is there a limit on the number of rods / lines one person can fish? Doesn't it all come back to "fair chase" and preserving the resource? | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2301 Location: Chisholm, MN | danmuskyman - 7/4/2024 7:54 PM There is an easy solution for everyone concerned about more handling of fish - quit. If you stop handling any fish, and so does everyone else who thinks we're in jeopardy, it offsets whatever you're worried about. But that's not the case is it. You're not really concerned about the fish, just want everyone to fish your way. You guys want to continue to catch more and bigger fish, just as long as nobody else does too with a method you don't like. If I use a livescope and catch 10 fish this year, but you don't and catch 25, you've harmed the fishery more than I have by your own admission! I don't agree with crossbows in archery season, but they get the same number of tags I do The difference is if you didn't use the scope you'd catch 1-2 fish and the other guy still catches 25. That's over 30% less fish caught than if you had used the scope. 30% less pressure. 30% less fish stung and possibly harmed. I'll take that any day. Don't you think that 30% more pressure nationwide would have a negative impact on fish? Obviously just pulling numbers out of nowhere here but you get the idea. If I had to guess it's more like 70 percent or more in reality. Edited by Kirby Budrow 7/5/2024 8:18 AM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 338 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | The arguments for FFS are certainly interesting, to be generous Casselman laid out the data with regards to big trophy muskies and the effects of fishing pressure. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321945561_Muskellunge_Popul... "To ensure sustainable trophy Muskellunge populations, fish younger than 15 years should not be exposed to fishing mortality and older fish should not have a fishing mortality rate that exceeds the rate of natural mortality." The situation in your heavily fish lakes by FFS now is that as more big fish are dying, the pressure on the remaining fish increases. In normal fisheries your probability of encounters (and ergo catching) normally would decrease, and with less success by the anglers their effort would decrease. With FFS though your rate of decrease of probability of encounters does not decrease at the same rate as traditional methods of fishing (ie structure/trolling) given you are covering more water spotlighting with FFS efficiently - you are going to encounter fewer fish but at a lower rate than you would fishing traditional spots/methods. Ultimately this means that the decline in CPU by participating anglers will decline slower than for traditional methods, and thus not signal to fishery managers that the fishery is collapsing. Here is Ricker (1975) again. Take some time to peruse catch curves, exploited versus unexploited, selective fishing mortality of older fish. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/1485.pdf If Ricker a bit much, the video link below makes it a fair bit simpler to comprehend. When we consider the mortality of bigger, older muskies, basically you are not going to have many (and eventually none) if this FFS keeps up and gets more advanced and more anglers enter a fishery that would have never conceived of doing so prior to this tech which dumbs it down to spotlighting the lake. https://youtu.be/NTxMqhqlLUE?si=Tw0lyxbJQRecwM5h The 5:29 decline is happening now and only going to get worse. The reality is that the entry into the fishery as a "musky angler" and contribute to the FFS catch requires as much knowledge as the bass guy who caught the three 50s in 2 hours without any prior musky experience. The level of difficulty of traditional methods was a barrier to entry to the musky fishery and has kept musky fishing pressure comparatively significantly lower, and the efficiency of the methods employed significantly less effective than what FFS is and will bring. Combine that with the fact that the fish that are targeted in FFS in open water were in what one considered a refuge by default. Add in the increased mortality rate per fish caught due to baurotrauma, heat shock, and deep hooking (given they are feeding, not striking out of instinct). Equals a big, big problem. For the "pro FFS," some of these things may not apply to you or the waters you fish, but they do apply to the rest of us and the waters we fish. This is not about the tech, this is about sustainability. We need to all figure this out, and so far the solution seems very easy to recognize. Edited by Angling Oracle 7/5/2024 9:40 AM | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2301 Location: Chisholm, MN | Exactly. If the fishery was not affected and everyone had the same opportunity to catch a good amount of big fish then there would not be a complaint. It's the FACT that muskie fishing sucks now and will never recover that is enraging many of us. I remember one morning we caught 4 fish over 45 off the same rock spine within about 20 casts on vermilion. This was in 2012. That's when the open water casting bite started to catch on. Everything went downhill from there and now with the scope it's to the point where you're lucky to have a couple encounters in a day without a scope. | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 1989 | So to Kirby's point fisheries can be ruined with or without FFS, SI did a good job of that on V, Miltona and others MN Lakes WAY before FFS came out!..people driving around "hey look at all these open water fish"...lets put 4-6 people in a boat and troll headlocks. Same could be said on DL area lakes and other lakes sucker fishing...those of us the HATE sucker fishing know that the lure bite got worse..Heck i hear the sucker'ers out there saying many times they follow my sucker for 20 minutes before the poor stupid fish decided well this has hooks but im really hungry.. Danmuskyman is correct IF your true intention is to protect your beloved muskie - Go catch 2 a year and stop, then know... you - yourself are not adding to delayed mortality. | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2301 Location: Chisholm, MN | Yeah you're right about the decline before the scope. We all knew that. This is just one more thing. A finishing shot. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32839 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Remember when folks used to say, 'That's why they call it 'fishing', not 'catching'? That's the rub with me. I own the tech (big time) and refuse to misuse it because I call myself a conservation-minded person. That's ME, and to me that's all that matters. You a sharpshooter? OK, just don't expect me (or others like me) to be all impressed with your next big muskie. Doesn't mean I don't like you personally or think you are a 'bad person', we simply don't share the same beliefs regarding this issue. I also own a LOT of guns some very old and some relatively new and refuse to misuse them. Why do I own guns? Because I want to and I can, and I'll be the last person to even- a-little-bit cause the loss of that. I have faith that this will shake out somewhere down the above road. Until then, some of those who have taken 'sides' will eventually be proven wrong and some right, and that record will be right here for referral. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| Not owning the tech and not knowing many who use it for musky fishing, don't really feel qualified to judge it. But, I do appreciate the many sincere and thoughtful comments that have appeared in this thread. As an old guy, I will stick with what I do for musky. But, I may consider some form of FFS for panfishing. Grandkids getting to an age where they will enjoy going out and catching fish is important to keep their interest. As to any kind of lobbying of legislators, I am going to keep bugging mine about protecting our resources, fighting invasives, keeping the manure out of our lakes and rivers, wells, etc. To me, that is a real crisis. Dead zones in Lake Michigan, caused by runoff, quagga mussels in Lake Michigan have reached the point in some areas where the shells of dead mussels are many feet deep and preclude the growth of native grasses, essential to native fish. Just a couple of issues with implications for centuries to come. Edited by North of 8 7/5/2024 1:54 PM | |||
| Brian Hoffies |
| ||
Posts: 1700 | sworrall - 7/5/2024 1:20 PM Remember when folks used to say, 'That's why they call it 'fishing', not 'catching'? That's the rub with me. I own the tech (big time) and refuse to misuse it because I call myself a conservation-minded person. That's ME, and to me that's all that matters. You a sharpshooter? OK, just don't expect me (or others like me) to be all impressed with your next big muskie. Doesn't mean I don't like you personally or think you are a 'bad person', we simply don't share the same beliefs regarding this issue. I also own a LOT of guns some very old and some relatively new and refuse to misuse them. Why do I own guns? Because I want to and I can, and I'll be the last person to even- a-little-bit cause the loss of that. I have faith that this will shake out somewhere down the above road. Until then, some of those who have taken 'sides' will eventually be proven wrong and some right, and that record will be right here for referral. By mis-use you mean you have no problem locating and pounding a school of Crappies every guide trip but you draw the line at taking more then the limit? What did you do before FFS, how in the world did you ever catch a Crappie? I'm still looking for MnFish's stance on the subject (FFS). Muskie Inc. must work closely with them. Can you post what you know. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32839 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) I only guide when my son needs help with a large group, that being 3 days this year, and we fished a shallow lake where the pannies are heavy cover related. No FFS in use. 2) I have not used FFS to 'locate a school of crappie' in a very long time after discovering the tech usually just confirmed what I already knew, and 3) Most of the panfish I catch are in heavy cover, not good FFS territory 4) I never have been one to keep more than we can eat in a couple sittings, usually around a dozen Someone run over your pet turtle? | ||
| Brian Hoffies |
| ||
Posts: 1700 | Nope, just curious why you would need or want FFS. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32839 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't 'need' FFS or 360. I have it because using and discussing it is part of my job. Therefore, I do my best to balance my job with my personal responsibility to the resource. Much of the time I'm on the water I have the sonar set to 2D or flasher mode. The MI statement was crafted primarily by a gentleman in a committee formed for that purpose, and I feel it's spot-on no matter what I'm fishing for. | ||
| OH Musky |
| ||
Posts: 376 Location: SW Ohio | CincySkeez - 7/4/2024 6:38 PM OH Musky - 7/4/2024 5:20 PM BNelson - 7/4/2024 10:42 AM Not limiting it at all Dan. But there is a line in my opinion where its simply NOT fair chase. Sharp shooting is just that. By the looks of Slamrs poll most agree...If you dont agree I could care less. Guessing you are a livescoper.... I’m not a “livescoper”, just dammed tired of people who don’t like something saying ”ban it”. Everything used as a “reason” to ban FFS has been nothing but assumptions yet held to be true. Sounds a lot like liberal politics nowadays. This all started with one team catching 10 fish on Eagle River and PMTT banning it the next tourney mid-season. No one said anything about Spencer catching 10 fish on Webster or LSC throwing and ripping pounders in previous tourneys. Yet they used technology to find and target those fish. The same arguments were used when compound bows came out then the crossbows. “The deer will be slaughtered! Ban them!”. Were deer more killed? Sure but more people hunted. The DNR adjusted seasons and limits. There are far more deer today than when compound bows came out. FFS is just today’s easy scapegoat. Whadaya want to ban next? You do realize that if something isn't done our fisheries are headed for the highly regulated scenario you created in the other thread. Of course that doesn't matter to most because they'll be dead or too old to fish. The fishing isn't getting better, habitat is not improving and there is more targeted pressure. No way around the fact that more handling equals more mortality. I agree that the fishery is under attack but FFS is the least of what we should be concerned about. It’s just a scapegoat for pent up frustration. Declining water quality, inefficient management practices and steadily declining stocking programs are hurting the fishery more than FFS is. Reduce seasons (oh, the horror), increase licensing fees or introduce musky stamps (people will reduce their gear size and “bass fish” for them thus circumventing the fees). Want to decrease handling? Decrease the number of people fishing for them. Make it economically cost prohibitive. The only the rich and exalted will be able to fish for them, not you or me. As for the comparison of spotlighting deer to FFS, the deer don’t have a chance. They never see or hear the bullet coming. They don’t have a choice whether or not to eat the bullet. You still need to convince a musky to eat. If they come out with remote control lures that attack the fish then you have a fair comparison. If these fish are that treasured, maybe we all should just stop fishing for them. I doubt anyone here would agree with that drastic a measure, though. | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1225 | Brian Hoffies - 7/5/2024 3:44 PM sworrall - 7/5/2024 1:20 PM I'm still looking for MnFish's stance on the subject (FFS). Muskie Inc. must work closely with them. Can you post what you know. I don't know anyone from any chapter, that has worked at all with MNFish. Reach out, see if you get any response from them. Some of them as individuals speak with or work with some individuals that are MI or MMPA members, but not as representing MNFish. It's a bit of a strange "organization" and is quite short on any specifics of what they want or how to go about it, and not very responsive to inquiries. I doubt that MI national has any relationship with that organization. Edited by TCESOX 7/5/2024 7:25 PM | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2301 Location: Chisholm, MN | The whole maybe we should stop fishing for them thing is so childish. You solve nothing or contribute to the conversation. The point is we want to keep fishing for them and not have the fishery destroyed. | ||
| EsoxWanderer |
| ||
Posts: 50 | The spotlighter saying my bullet still needs to hit the deer and the sharpshooter saying the musky still needs to eat my bait | ||
| danmuskyman |
| ||
Posts: 631 Location: Madison, WI | I have never actually caught a musky using my livescope, it's just not the way I fish. But apparently it's a piece of cake! this thread makes me wanna go sharpshoot one over 50'. Think I'll fillet it up as well. I'll post the recipe when I'm done. A lot of you guys screaming the sky is falling have no problem positioning your boat in any depth as long as your casting shallow. Who cares if the fish you catch shot up off the bottom 40' down as long as you don't have a scope. No no, not for you, your SI, DI, gps, auto chart, and 360 are all you need! No cheating!! | ||
| Jump to page : < ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 8 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |