|
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Oh stop it, this is getting ridiculous. Double standard when considering Muskies, an extremely expensive very desirable fish to manage, LM Bass, another very desirable game fish, and panfish or Walleyes or Pike? Give me a break, those all have a limit, a season, and are protected by both. Don't try to tell me we are now to the point of CPR where we lovingly caress a dog fish or a carp, and ease it back into the water with a little kiss. PETA, anyone?? Sheesh.
Yes, the Bowfin can be beneficial in 'controlling stunting of overpopulated panfish', and might be a positive influence in some situations. On the other hand, that's because 'it inhabits waters generally populated by panfish or nongame fishes, and its performs the population control necessary to prevent stunting.'
Yes, Dogfish eat YOY and older panfish, walleyes, muskies, pike, and all other species. They eat each other too. They are, by all record I've found, voracious. They are classified as a rough fish most places and can be speared, shot with a bow, stabbed, mutilated, mangled, run over by a school bus full of 2 year old children.....
If you choose to leave them be and release them when you capture one (that's what I do),fine. But as long as the fish is classified as a rough fish, it's not protected, and one would assume there's a reason for that.
They are also a detriment to the system in that they compete for forage, with the possible exception of a controlling factor in Red Rusty infested waters. Bullheads do the same thing. If you have a large population of dog fish, that comes at the expense of gamefish species to some degree in every lake or river, that's the way it works. Will dogfish 'ruin' a Muskie/Walleye/Bass lake? I don't think so, but they sure as hell don't 'help' if those populations are in balance. I suppose Sheepshead qualify for the same classification. Carp too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8776
| sworrall - 3/27/2007 12:14 PM
They are classified as a rough fish most places and can be speared, shot with a bow, stabbed, mutilated, mangled, run over by a school bus full of 2 year old children.....
Hey Steve?
two questions:
1. What would 2 year old children be doing on a school bus? Aren't they a little young for school?
2. I know you're pretty into recording the sound of lures underwater and things of that nature. What sort of sound do you suppose it makes running over a dogfish with a bus? Would "PLOK" be a pretty good description?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Bottom line: it's your legal right to kill that fish if you want to. Maybe the point everyone is trying to make is if you do kill them don't tell anyone on the internet or do it in a fashion where other lake users see the dead fish. Although, would this not be considered wanton waste and punishable by law?
Fact is bowfin are GREAT at controlling panfish populations, and they have even been stocked into lakes by agencies to try and control panfish populations. Although in the studies I have read, the desired effect did not occur because the dogfish were not able to reproduce into large enough numbers to have an effect. |
|
| |
|
| You can say PETA, but I'm not drinkin' that Kool Aid you are mixing. I'm speaking of respect for all members of the aquatic community, and I also lean in favor of native species over stocked muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Successful NR in numbers requires this:
'Unlike nests of sunfish or bass where the male clears a circular depression in the sand, Amia males often build nests in fibrous root mats, clearing away stems and leaves. One male may breed with two or three females. After breeding he continues to guard the nest until the young hatch eight to ten days after deposition. Baby Amia swim in schools and are protected by the male. They retain this schooling behavior until they are about 4 in long.'
Some places they will do very well, others, because of the bottom composition, they will not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Here ya go.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:286–294, 1998
Effectiveness of Bowfin as a Predator on Bluegill in a Vegetated Lake
Neal D. Mundahl, Christina Melnytschuk, Deena K. Spielman, Jason P. Harkins, Kate Funk, and Andrew M. Bilicki
Department of Biology, Winona State University Post Office Box 5838, Winona, Minnesota 55987-5838, USA
Abstract.—Adult bowfins Amia calva were reintroduced (initial density approximately 32 fish/ha) into Lake Winona, Minnesota, from 1984 to 1986 to evaluate their effectiveness in controlling overabundant, stunted bluegills Lepomis macrochirus and other sunfishes (centrarchids) in a system with extensive macrophyte beds. Bowfin catch rates (trap nets, gill nets and electrofishing) declined rapidly after reintroductions ended in 1986. Catch rates and growth rates of bluegill and black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus have not changed since bowfin reintroduction. In 1992, only adult bowfins (average age, 10 years; average weight, 2.4 kg) were captured in Lake Winona, and they were concentrated in or near dense macrophyte beds. The final population estimate for bowfin in the west basin was 114 fish (3.17 fish/ha). Captive bowfins exhibited no size selection when feeding on sunfish and consumed on average less than 5 sunfish/24 h. Bowfin consumption rates declined by 80% when the density of artificial vegetation exceeded 500 stems/m2. Bowfins preferred both fathead minnows Pimephales promelas and virile crayfish Oronectes virilis over sunfish in prey choice trials. Lack of natural reproduction by bowfins in Lake Winona, their rapid decline in numbers after stocking, and their low rate of sunfish consumption may explain why bowfins apparently have been ineffective in controlling the lake’s bluegill population.
Received: July 11, 1997; Accepted: November 13, 1997 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Respect? You are going to lecture me about respect for all members of the aquatic community because I think it's OK to harvest rough fish?? What about crappies? Bluegills?? I jerk those suckers out of the water by impaling a hook in their face, cut the meat off their poor, dead bodies, and cook it up in a pagan ceremony of excess. I still respect the wild and everything in it.
Who said anything about Kool Aid?
Lean in favor of Native Populations over stocked muskies? So what? Where is this mentioned in this thread? Not a logical extension of this debate. Unless you are saying we should consider fish stocked at a huge cost in this state as rough fish, too.
It's up to each of us individually to 'respect' a carp, dogfish, gar, or other rough fish. Completely subjective as a social classification as pbrostuen said, true enough, but I bet you won't find many lake associations in a hurry to stock dogfish. If I choose to Bowfish for rough fish, and put them in the garden, is that 'disrespectful'? PETA comes into the equation when NO harvest of ANY fish becomes the end game, that's a crock, a slippery slope I'll fight until I can't anymore. I'll be bowfishing for Asian Silvers this summer ( trying to hit them in the air), and intend to try canning some, I hear they are excellent. There will be a few carp on the end of the arrow, too. I'll toss those into the garden, I guess, they taste nasty. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8776
| PLOK |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Had a friend over 20 years ago, in WI ticketed by a warden for "wasting a natural resource". He was bow shooting carp and suckers. He shook one off, back into the river. A warden was watching from a park and ticketed him for wasting a natural resource. My advise would not be to kill any fish and just throw it back into the water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Putting them in the garden is using them, leaving them on the bottom of the lake is not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Who said leaving them in the lake WAS utilizing them? Don't think I mentioned that. |
|
| |
|
| Read Ranger's second post to this thread. He said they were on the bottom of the lake after his actions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8776
| He's utilizing them to decorate an otherwise featureless sand bottom, and to provide food for the poor starving crustaceans.
SAVE THE CRAWDADS MY BRUTHAS, SAAAVE THE CRAWDADS!!!
Edited by esoxaddict 3/27/2007 3:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think Tfs's answer was to Ranger, do you? Plus, if you read the rest of Ranger's post, he said he will go gather them up. I know Ranger, and if he says he's going to do that, he is.
Explain the difference to me. Other than the legal repercussions, what's the difference between putting them in the garden or leaving them to the crayfish and other scavengers? I promise you one thing, if a dead fish hits the bottom up here in most of the lakes, the rusty crayfish will have that sucker gone in no time at all.
By that standard, any Northern Pike you release after capture on a Muskie lure that obviously isn't going to make it should be taken in (if no size limit applies) and cleaned for food, right? Same with gut hooked small perch. And, harvest of those fish is regulated... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3863
| Home from work at 1:00am and I went out to get them. Wind's blowing about 15mph and I couldn't find the fish thru the waves. 4:00am now. I'll go back out in the morning.
With the exceptions of black flies and brown recluse spiders, I respect all critters. I'm one myself.
*****************************************************
2:00pm: Just returned from gathering up all the fish, they were easy to find in the daylight. Checked the regs and it is indeed clearly illegal to throw the dead dogfish back into the lake. My buddy wants them for his veggie garden so they will be put to use. He'll get all of them except one. The big one is going on a trailer roof.
Edited by Ranger 3/28/2007 12:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | HAHA! I'd like to hear it hit the trailer roof! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8776
| Hey Ranger
Couple random thoughts, bro...
1. Smells generally travel upward, if the idea is to create a nasty stink, under is better than on top.
2. Just a thought here, but you may not want to advertise publically what your intentions are. The burden of proof is much more difficult with no prior evidence of intent.
3. Seems to me that a single dead rotting fish would be relatively easy to remove. One that was "compromised" into many small fragments, however... I can think of a few ways to accomplish that, but I'll leave that up to your imagination. |
|
| |
|
| I find that doe in heat buck lure poured into a cars vent air intake has a teaching quality also. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | jeffyd - 3/27/2007 9:35 AM
Killing dogfish to "save a few other specimens of more desirable species" is no different than the walleye guys who apply that sentiment toward muskies. .
Although I agree with Sworral that it's legal and people have every right to do it, I also totally agree with the above quote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3863
| I appreciate all the feedback. This was an interesting discussion/debate. Comes down to personal values to guide behavior regarding killing the dogfish. For me, the scales have tipped toward live and let live. |
|
| |
