Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Minnesota to ban FFS? |
| Message Subject: Minnesota to ban FFS? | |||
Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 390 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 1/28/2025 3:40 PM I don't know, I was told that the ban on night fishing on Eagle was not put in place to help fishery but because lodges were tired of going out to find lost anglers. The improved fishery angle was to sell it. Safety was side benefit from the night ban which was one of a number of measures implemented to improve declining walleye populations given everyone was hitting the same hot reefs at dusk and pounding spots - which made sense for anglers in those low tech days. There are lots of regs that are specifically requested by lodges that are put in place if determined by OMNR / DNR if deemed meritous. Frankly a ban on FFS for muskies could be one of them if a plea was made for conservation reasons by lodges. Edited by Angling Oracle 1/28/2025 4:24 PM | ||
| Clark A |
| ||
Posts: 629 Location: Bloomington, MN | The camps, if willing to possibly lose business can ban it themselves. Cliff, North and Stork, as with a few others are the only ones on the lake. Some camps prohibit marijuana use that is permitted in Canada. | ||
| raftman |
| ||
Posts: 570 Location: WI | Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 11:50 AM You do realize that the spring bear hunt was entirely cancelled (OR BANNED) a decade or two ago in NW Ontario entirely by folks in Toronto that probably have never been to NW Ontario, affecting hundreds of jobs, risking lives, property etc? Those lodges didn't agree on a ban for that, and whatever objections they had ultimately meant nothing. Animal rights folks got that done. Switched with new government or two, but not quickly. I feel like this is a good example of why one shouldn’t always turn to elected officials or bureaucracies to come to the rescue. Those with opposing views have voices too. | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1336 | As muskie fishermen, our focus should be on muskie, not something that would impact others, as we don't need to draw the ire of people who fish for other stuff. We've been down that road. And if done correctly, we may be able to show a path for other angler groups who may start to feel the same way. Start with something that may be isn't the full answer, but may still have some impact. As the reality of depleted populations starts to percolate, momentum from others can help push more effective solutions. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 390 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | raftman - 1/28/2025 4:39 PM Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 11:50 AM You do realize that the spring bear hunt was entirely cancelled (OR BANNED) a decade or two ago in NW Ontario entirely by folks in Toronto that probably have never been to NW Ontario, affecting hundreds of jobs, risking lives, property etc? Those lodges didn't agree on a ban for that, and whatever objections they had ultimately meant nothing. Animal rights folks got that done. Switched with new government or two, but not quickly. I feel like this is a good example of why one shouldn’t always turn to elected officials or bureaucracies to come to the rescue. Those with opposing views have voices too. Can agree with you on that, although we may disagree on other things. Good read here on how it happened and reversed: https://oodmag.com/how-the-spring-bear-hunt-was-lost-and-won/ "The hunt’s cancellation was a wake-up call for the outdoors community. That fateful decision showed that our traditions could be upended. It demonstrated that even friendly governments could buckle under the right amount of pressure. It proved that a dedicated, well-funded campaign based on ill-informed and emotional anti-hunting sentiments could topple sound, science-based policy. Most important of all, it taught us that it is far easier to keep our traditions than to win them back after they have been taken away. " We were prepared here in Manitoba and stopped them when they tried the same thing. There are constantly fish/wildlife issues to be concerned about and frankly I've been critiquing my musky partner's press (provincially and nationally) with regards to some serious land use issues here (similar to the bear issue in that coming from non-locals) the past few days that ultimately will affect hunting/fishing access in large areas for residents and non-residents alike. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 390 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | TCESOX - 1/28/2025 6:02 PM As muskie fishermen, our focus should be on muskie, not something that would impact others, as we don't need to draw the ire of people who fish for other stuff. We've been down that road. And if done correctly, we may be able to show a path for other angler groups who may start to feel the same way. Start with something that may be isn't the full answer, but may still have some impact. As the reality of depleted populations starts to percolate, momentum from others can help push more effective solutions. After reading the 2020 Muskellunge (and Pike) Management Plan, it appears that making things happen is really not that much different than up here in that as a stakeholder group, you can push for fishery managers to come up with management solutions - in this case regs to reduce increased pressure and associated increased mortality. Seems to me that you need to insist you want to have a trophy fishery and need regs to ensure that (obviously open/deep water use of FFS being the best target for regs in my view). Interesting to see how much power the spearing stakeholder group has and ink in the plan with regards to how carefully the regs cater to them (ie. big pike have no chance in Minnesota). Edited by Angling Oracle 1/28/2025 6:25 PM | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1336 | Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 6:20 PM Seems to me that you need to insist you want to have a trophy fishery and need regs to ensure that (obviously open/deep water use of FFS being the best target for regs in my view). It's always been the MN DNRs stated goal, to manage the muskie fishery as a trophy fishery. The now, several years late, 10 year plan, is being finalized, and the discussions regarding FFS are being mapped out, as we speak. | ||
| BrianF. |
| ||
Posts: 285 Location: Eagan, MN | I say MN should ban those who want to ban FFS. Enforcement could be tough but I think it could be done. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32904 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | BrianF. - 2/14/2025 7:22 AM I say MN should ban those who want to ban FFS. Enforcement could be tough but I think it could be done. FFS, in its pure form, is not the problem, I don't expect to see a total ban. In the MI FFS statement, we ask for ethical use of the tech, nothing more. It's here to stay and the impact will be under study. I predict smaller limits for most fish and a stronger conservation message to underpin the ethical use of the tech while muskie fishing. It's already happening. | ||
| muddymusky |
| ||
Posts: 591 | Potential FFS Regs Coming There’s been a lot of chatter this winter regarding potential musky specific regulations being introduced for forward facing sonar (FFS) users. The specific lakes we’re hearing the most about are Lake Vermilion and Leech Lake in MN along with Eagle Lake in Canada. There’s also been talk of possible statewide musky specific regs for Minnesota. We just came across this proposed reg for Leech Lake posted on the Bemidji/Cass Lake Muskies Inc. Facebook page. “The MN DNR is having a meeting on Wednesday, February 26, 2025 about a proposed change to the muskie regulations on Leech Lake.“ Here’s a few excerpts from the current draft of the proposal . . . Reasons for concern: The deep water habitat muskies utilize after spawning make them susceptible to angling pressure in a means that was not historically possible. The improvements in equipment including Forward Facing Sonar(FFS) make locating muskies in this habitat relatively simple. Vast areas of open water can be methodically searched at high speeds until muskies appear as glowing targets on FFS screens. Anglers, furnished with knowledge of congregation sites in combination with advanced equipment, are producing astounding catch rates of large fish. Furthermore, the number of anglers utilizing this resource appears to be growing. Concerned resource users feel this will have long-term, sustained negative impacts to Leech Lake’s naturally reproducing Muskie population. Special Regulation Request for Leech Lake: From the opening of the Minnesota Muskie season through the Saturday following July 4th, angling for muskellunge in 20 feet of water or greater is prohibited. Research: Anglers are willing and excited to partner with the DNR to have a better understand the effects of this “Over Catching” phenomenon. Stakeholders are requesting a partnership with anglers and MN DNR to capture muskies via angling for research in the 2025 muskie season. Enforcement: Enforcement may treat this rule period as an educational opportunity for anglers in violation. Anglers with multiple offenses could be treated with the general penalty provisions of MN Statute 97A.301. There’s more to this proposal than we can squeeze in the newsletter. But that’s a quick overview. It sounds like they’re still looking for feedback both positive and negative on this proposal. You can add your two cents in the comments section of the post right here. But, before you do, be sure you read the entire proposal first. | ||
| JAKET |
| ||
Posts: 46 | Special Regulation Request for Leech Lake: From the opening of the Minnesota Muskie season through the Saturday following July 4th, angling for muskellunge in 20 feet of water or greater is prohibited. Is this a proposal to regulate FFS use or open water fishing all together? If their goal is to regulate FFS use, why not propose some type of ban/limitation on the actual FFS, not just an arbitrary depth limit. It is not uncommon for my boat to be in 25' and my bait landing in 6-8', would that be prohibited with this? I'm all for listening to people's concerns regarding FFS and Muskies, but this is not a good proposal. And I would definitely not consider 20' on Leech Lake the 'pelagic' zone. | ||
| pstrombe |
| ||
Posts: 210 | I suspect MN will ban FFS on selected lakes. I was on Vermillion a few years ago in July when the ciscos are chasing insects on the surface and it is easy to spot and target muskies. I have actually seen them shoot up to the surface and grab individual bait fish while watching the screen. The night we were there were at least 20 boats on the water after dark and it appeared half were trolling and half were sharp shooting. This phenomenon does not seen to happen on my home lake in Wisconsin. I suspect the basins are too small and cisco populations are only a small part of the musky diet. BTW I'm not going out to sharp shoot just merely sharing my observations | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8801 | I'll say this over and over, probably until I'm dead: I can't see how sharp shooting muskies using FFS would be challenging enough to hold anybody's interest for very long. I can see the reason why everyone is so concerned, and I agree that some sort of regulations are in order. There's always a few who just want to catch fish by whatever means possible regardless of the potential damage to the resource. Having not actually done it, I can't say for sure, but... Where's the fun in that? | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 2041 | Who knows? I'm guessing its similar to sucker fishing!  | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1336 | JAKET - 2/21/2025 1:32 PM Special Regulation Request for Leech Lake: From the opening of the Minnesota Muskie season through the Saturday following July 4th, angling for muskellunge in 20 feet of water or greater is prohibited. Is this a proposal to regulate FFS use or open water fishing all together? If their goal is to regulate FFS use, why not propose some type of ban/limitation on the actual FFS, not just an arbitrary depth limit. It is not uncommon for my boat to be in 25' and my bait landing in 6-8', would that be prohibited with this? I'm all for listening to people's concerns regarding FFS and Muskies, but this is not a good proposal. And I would definitely not consider 20' on Leech Lake the 'pelagic' zone. The proposal above, is being driven by business leaders in Walker, and some very successful guides, who are recognizing how damaging the current situation is becoming, on the resource. Other proposals for state-wide regulations are coming from others, as well. Open water fishing in general, while not advisable, isn't really the problem to the resource that open-water fishing with FFS is. It's the difference of a needle in a haystack, versus a neon sign in a hay field. The proposals that have, and will come out, are more of an emergency regulation situation, as the damage to the resource is happening much too rapidly to wait for study data. Valid data will take time, and will be very difficult to gather, considering very little is currently known about actual populations in most lakes to begin with, so measuring impact will be difficult. By the time we have valid data, the damage will be done, and you cannot stock your way out of it. The mortality is not spread out among the population, but focused on the biggest fish in the system. It will take a decade or two, to recover. We also have to consider the advancements of the technology. Currently, FFS transducers have a fairly narrow beam, and does take some time to become proficient with it. That's why some are using 3 or 4 transducers and screens, giving them a very broad viewing field. Literally combing large swaths of water in short periods of time, zeroing in on big fish very efficiently. The second generation of transducers has recently hit the market, which will cause a market for the 1st generation units, at a much lower entry price. This will drastically increase the number of people with access to the technology. It would be a good bet, that within five years, there will be single transducers with very wide fields of vision. This is all moving way too fast for studies to inform us with precise data. Something needs to be done now, and education and social change will not change things nearly fast enough. Catch and release, safe handling, and larger limits, did not happen over night. It took years to come to pass. The current MI statement is not nearly strong enough to take into account the speed at which damage is being done to the fishery, and needs to be updated, if they are to truly be the conservation organization they purport to be. It's about the fish first, not the fishermen. Always has been. If it's good for the fish, it will be good for the fishermen. Edited by TCESOX 2/22/2025 10:53 AM | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 390 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I don't have access to the proposal, can someone provide more detail as to what the depth restriction is? Depth of water or depth of lure? I understand the approach of those groups to focus on their water body, but the DNR needs to focus on and ground-test a reg that is more inclusive of a wider variety of water bodies and be inclusive other species. Any fishing pressure "relief" on muskies is a good thing, and perhaps this is all the experimental reg proposal is trying to accomplish. But if this means shifting the pressure to when the thermocline is more defined, you are just kicking your issue down the road a year or two. As PStrome alluded to, the big ciscoes foray from deep water to shallow following hatches in the summer, while the muskies do the reverse (shallow and follow them deep). Muskies caught during this period have more potential for thermal shock. I wouldn't know the ratios caught deep/shallow in either period, but certainly I would expect the ratio of mortality/morbidity per fish caught in the summer period would be higher than those caught in spring/fall no matter what depth they are caught at. A reg that is going to really protect muskies is going to need to focus entirely creating a refuge in pelagic and deep water areas at all times. Banning FFS (for muskies) far earlier by folks a bit more farsighted would have prevented a situation where we are now at a point where other anglers fishing more traditionally are also going to be affected. It is an encouraging development from where we were from even just a year ago to where we are now though. Edited by Angling Oracle 2/22/2025 12:22 PM | ||
| muddymusky |
| ||
Posts: 591 | https://mailchi.mp/a1b641312636/presidents-note-february17?fbclid=Iw... Ys0Sg4mHxSGRqyckSYeK9CXnVA76fUl34KlGRtSXMw4_aem_olUY8zojJJKbBA7GrvSaew | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 390 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | I read it as depth given the use of the words "pelagic" and shallower environments. This is certainly a better option than lure depth as in general ciscoes are not going to be in shallower areas in any numbers. They should have it all year and make a real difference (make these areas musky refuges). As far as learning something for every jurisdiction's benefit, have musky fishing closed all year in most of those areas mentioned, but isolate one area with the season open for a short duration in the spring and whatever selected periods thereafter and get a some very accurate creel data. Basically the time open conditional on being able to accurately creel it and thus having the funding to do so. Edited by Angling Oracle 2/22/2025 2:19 PM | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1336 | Multiple efforts are being made. This particular effort, is being made by a specific group (Leach Lake area stakeholders,) on a specific resource (Leach Lake)directed toward the DNR, to make a special regulation, which would fall under the DNR's general purvey. This is something that has the potential to be enacted almost immediately, as it should, considering that Leach Lake is the "mother lake", and relies on natural reproduction. To enact broader reaching regulations, the DNR would need actual data that it doesn't have. Other, more broad sweeping regulation, needs to be pursued through the legislative process. Discussions of other possible actions have been ongoing, and input from MI chapters statewide, is being gathered, to determine if and what can be viably brought to the State. | ||
| dickP |
| ||
Posts: 356 | TXEsox is dead on. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 390 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | TCESOX - 2/22/2025 2:46 PM Multiple efforts are being made. This particular effort, is being made by a specific group (Leach Lake area stakeholders,) on a specific resource (Leach Lake)directed toward the DNR, to make a special regulation, which would fall under the DNR's general purvey. This is something that has the potential to be enacted almost immediately, as it should, considering that Leach Lake is the "mother lake", and relies on natural reproduction. To enact broader reaching regulations, the DNR would need actual data that it doesn't have. Other, more broad sweeping regulation, needs to be pursued through the legislative process. Discussions of other possible actions have been ongoing, and input from MI chapters statewide, is being gathered, to determine if and what can be viably brought to the State. A sincere THANK YOU to everyone involved in that. I very much hope it goes through given the parallel interests in preserving the natural reproducing populations up here. Hopefully there is consideration to having some full time pelagic refuge areas while data is being collected given muskies are foraging in the pelagic zone all year round, especially very large fish. | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1336 | Angling Oracle - 2/22/2025 3:52 PM I very much hope it goes through given the parallel interests in preserving the natural reproducing populations up here. Hopefully there is consideration to having some full time pelagic refuge areas while data is being collected given muskies are foraging in the pelagic zone all year round, especially very large fish. This is one of a handful of potential solutions, that have been distilled down from dozens and dozens of ideas. | ||
| kap |
| ||
Posts: 570 Location: deephaven mn | i like the i like plan of banning deep water fishing on leech from opener to the 4th of July. This would be easier to regulate than check each boat for a livescope.It can be done frome shore. I will however effect trolling anglers in this area as well. THe thought is targeting these open water fish has had an negative impact on Muskie fishing for the last five years or more and fish are behaving diffferently throughou the season. This would be test and results may be possitive and helping restore Leech lake fishing to what it once was. Now this maybe exclusive to Leech but it would also work on Vermillion as lakes are simmilar with lots of shallow water and no weed line out to 30 feet. | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2354 Location: Chisholm, MN | Might as well close muskie season through July 4th if you can't fish the open water. | ||
| Tommy |
| ||
Posts: 101 | Kirby Budrow - 2/24/2025 8:36 AM Might as well close muskie season through July 4th if you can't fish the open water. This was my take as well. It's not so much a FFS ban as it is an Open Water ban. | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2354 Location: Chisholm, MN | Tommy - 2/24/2025 11:51 AM Kirby Budrow - 2/24/2025 8:36 AM Might as well close muskie season through July 4th if you can't fish the open water. This was my take as well. It's not so much a FFS ban as it is an Open Water ban. I wonder if they know muskies are in the open water all season too... | ||
| Tommy |
| ||
Posts: 101 | Kirby Budrow - 2/24/2025 12:46 PM Tommy - 2/24/2025 11:51 AM Kirby Budrow - 2/24/2025 8:36 AM Might as well close muskie season through July 4th if you can't fish the open water. This was my take as well. It's not so much a FFS ban as it is an Open Water ban. I wonder if they know muskies are in the open water all season too... lol. Or that they'll hang off structure in 20 feet too. I still think the best way to cast Vermilion at least is 2+ in the boat. 1 casting shallow with blades and 1 throwing rubber off the other side of the boat. Wonder if the latter would be against these rules? Maybe certain areas of lakes become "refuge areas" or something. I think that's a thing in some places for walleyes. IE no walleye fishing at the mouth of X river until June when most of the spawn is over. Saying everything 20+ is off limits seems to broad. But per the attached proposal a few posts back you say like the Paris Trench is off limits, since that's the highest concentration of open water fish, then maybe that's a compromise. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |