So, if read you correctly, you’re ok to continue fishing after getting a limit example: deep water or if conditions increase delayed mortality or barotrauma and crappies through the ice caught out of deep water.
Where did I state this please reference.
Where in your original post was this ever stated please reference.
So no you are not reading me correctly.
Please do not put words in my mouth and/or assume you know my fishing habbits.
So, if read you correctly, you’re ok to continue fishing after getting a limit example: deep water or if conditions increase delayed mortality or barotrauma and crappies through the ice caught out of deep water.
Where did I state this please reference.
Where in your original post was this ever stated please reference.So no you are not reading me correctly.
Please do not put words in my mouth and/or assume you know my fishing habbits.
It is a question, so I read you correctly….
Sounds like you guys shouldn’t fish so deep. I don’t see dead fish in the 12 to 15 ft range i stay in.
Sounds like you guys shouldn’t fish so deep. I don’t see dead fish in the 12 to 15 ft range i stay in.
Agree and I don’t think the original people that caught and released 100 were either.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
Pretty sure in MN once you keep that last fish in your limit, you are done. The next fish of that species you catch puts you over the limit. Released or not.-J.
I thought this was the case too but someone pointed out in the manual that you can indeed continue to fish on a catch and release basis even if you have your daily limit.
Not that I condone it, especially in deep water, but its legal.
Correct. It’s legal. And I agree with your sentiments.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>KPE wrote:</div>
Am I the only one reading the statement correctly?“Caught limits AND released 100” is a whole lot different than “caught limits THEN released 100 more”. The author makes no indication as to having caught a limit then continued fishing. This statement is ambiguous and could simply mean it took them 100 catches to reach their limit.
Also even culling is legal in MN provided you aren’t already at your limit. See the current MN regs book, Page 32.
Nope.
Nope to which part?
Now the brain trust of IDO will crucify me for catch and release? I remember people jumping on other because they were not practicing catch and release. Is anyone ever happy?
I had a similar conversation with a friend about the law in Wisconsin about what happens when you get your limit. I talked with the Warden I work with and law in Wisconsin and as it is illegal to keep targeting that species once yu have a limit, it is extremely hard for him to present a case for the local D.A. to prosecute as how do you prove you weren’t targeting northern (assuming you have a limit of eyes). That being said, he looks at intent. If you are taking a picture of every walleye, holding it out of the water, measuring, etc. he would make contact with you and push it further (looking for self incrimination). he said if you simply caught another walleye, immediately unhook and threw back he would most likely look the other way. He was certainly more worried about bringing a citation to a D.A. and giving them “proof” or evidence you were targeting the walleyes.
I’d love to read those incident reports and how he would articulate his reasoning.
This thread is better than most Friday Night Topics. No offense, Dutchboy.
Nope to which part?
To the only part you had a question.
Hooking Mortality exists, obviously, but it does not have an impact on fish populations. There is a reason the DNR does not use it anywhere besides Mille Lacs and it’s boondoggle of “co”-management.
How does hooking mortality doesn’t impact fish populations? If we reduce hooking mortality more fish survive, isn’t it like reducing limits? Help me understand.
Hooking mortality is too variable (season, temperature, depth caught, species etc.) that it does not have a measurable impact on fish populations. Which is why the DNR doesn’t use it, also some of the DNR studies on Hooking Mortality/barotrauma have been demonstrably false (see Aaron Weibe’s Barotrauma videos) and are being reworked as we speak. Yes, hooking mortality COULD impact fish populations, but at this point in time it is far too nuanced to be scientifically valid.
The more sound hooking mortality studies (Talmage/Staples on Rainy, Hoxmeier/Meerbeck on P4 and Brueswitz/Reeves on ML), still have the selection bias of the barotrauma studies (holding fish in a hoop net for days), no baseline (how many fish would die if held in a hoop net for 3-5 days without being caught?), while still showing basically no hooking mortality except for the warmest part of the year AND caught out of deep water. If you want to PM me your email, I will forward you the studies and write up I did on this and sent to MN Fish and many other places to try and get some pushback to the DNR for using it as a management tool on ML.
Earlier in the season I was fishing a 30-34′ basin over a massive school of gills and crappies. The ice was 10″ and crystal clear. I was popping though 8-10 holes over about 200 square foot area. It was a community hole. I was stunned by the number of dead fish under the ice. Most very large crappies. No Snow and good ice coverage provided the ability to see these fish. I started only fishing the top of the school, about 15-16′ down so as not to kill any fish due to barotrauma. What we don see doesn’t hurt us but this year opened my eyes.
If that hot bite was over deep basin, I am sure you can be assured a majority of the fish pulled from deeper waters died.
Doesn’t really matter to me, but if you get on a bite like that, pounding away at it will make it tougher for you in the future. Very similar to overhunting a deer stand or shooting up a roost waterfowl hunting.
Get in, do your business and get out will keep that bite going a lot longer than sitting there and beating up on them.
That said, everybody is free to do what they want and it doesn’t really bother me. I just laugh though when someone hammers them day in and day out and then says: “they quit biting”. No, they didn’t quit, you just took all the biters out or pressured them too hard and now they are wise to you.
Earlier in the season I was fishing a 30-34′ basin over a massive school of gills and crappies. The ice was 10″ and crystal clear. I was popping though 8-10 holes over about 200 square foot area. It was a community hole. I was stunned by the number of dead fish under the ice. Most very large crappies. No Snow and good ice coverage provided the ability to see these fish. I started only fishing the top of the school, about 15-16′ down so as not to kill any fish due to barotrauma. What we don see doesn’t hurt us but this year opened my eyes.
If that hot bite was over deep basin, I am sure you can be assured a majority of the fish pulled from deeper waters died.
I watched a video on guys strategy to catch monster pike in mid winter. They are catching monsters about 2’ below the ice in deep basins. Their theory is the pike are opportunistic and eating dead panfish from barotrauma that had floated up and were just under the ice.
They didn’t say the lake but mentioned it was perch over deep mud basins. I think we can all guess the lake.
Why does deep water and barotrauma keep getting mentioned for 4 pages now? Am I getting a different version of the original post here or what?
On Facebook I saw a post from an individual apparently representing a tackle company fishing on a Minnesota Lake. “WE caught our limits of crappie to eat and released over a 100 more.” When I read this asked myself why an angler would boast about this? Fortunately, the fish weren’t caught out of deep water, so barotrauma impacts kept to minimum. But hooking mortality still can be an issue. How do some of you feel about this? call me what you want, and the world isn’t perfect what I think is right certainly others will not feel the same. But doing this doesn’t leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. Agree any amount of harvest, certainly will result in some waste. It doesn’t make any sense.
Why does deep water and barotrauma keep getting mentioned for 4 pages now? Am I getting a different version of the original post here or what?
The regs state you “may want to accommodate for a deeply hooked fish that increases mortality” when it mentions the legality of continuing to fish when you have a limit, suggesting to stay under it to account for something like that. It doesn’t specifically mention “deep water” or “barotrauma” but one would assume that’s a reason to follow this suggestion.
The original post did not mention it specifically. I posted the specific regulation way back on page 1.
Good question. You are not TSW.
The regs state you “may want to accommodate for a deeply hooked fish that increases mortality” when it mentions the legality of continuing to fish when you have a limit, suggesting to stay under it to account for something like that. It doesn’t specifically mention “deep water” or “barotrauma” but one would assume that’s a reason to follow this suggestion.
Which we also don’t know if they followed this suggestion or not.
The original post did not mention it specifically. I posted the specific regulation way back on page 1.
Did not mention what?
I watched a video on guys strategy to catch monster pike in mid winter. They are catching monsters about 2’ below the ice in deep basins. Their theory is the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>pike are opportunistic and eating dead panfish from barotrauma that had floated up and were just under the ice.
We were on LOTW years ago out of Arnesens and the guy bringing us out to the house was very clear telling us to keep our transducers in the hole because pike were coming through and striking them. Middle of the day the bite really slowed up. My buddy decides to reel up and start ripping his rattlin flyer about two feet under the ice laughing and mocking the guy that brought us out. 10 minutes later we’re pulling a 39.5″ fish out of the hole. They most certainly do like cruising under the ice looking for easy meals.
the fish weren’t caught out of deep water,
PSA, It was an observation based on ice conditions this year. Perfect for seeing how many dead fish are under the surface of the ice. Which we learned are providing sustenance for big pike i guess..
I watched a video on guys strategy to catch monster pike in mid winter. They are catching monsters about 2’ below the ice in deep basins. Their theory is the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>pike are opportunistic and eating dead panfish from barotrauma that had floated up and were just under the ice.
We were on LOTW years ago out of Arnesens and the guy bringing us out to the house was very clear telling us to keep our transducers in the hole because <em class=”ido-tag-em”>pike were coming through and striking them. Middle of the day the bite really slowed up. My buddy decides to reel up and start ripping his rattlin flyer about two feet under the ice laughing and mocking the guy that brought us out. 10 minutes later we’re pulling a 39.5″ fish out of the hole. They most certainly do like cruising under the ice looking for easy meals.
It happens frequently on a couple lakes in my area. Big pike and muskies roaming right under the ice in the community crappie holes. They’ll eat hooked fish being reeled in from time to time. I always assumed they were eating stunned fish trying to get back down after being caught.
I also had a pike bite my ducer on lotw many years ago. Buddy reeled up quick and caught it on a jigging rap, it was 39″. It’s pretty exciting when suddenly your vexilar is sliding across the floor.
Did not mention what?
Deep water and barotrauma.
We regularly have muskies hang out in popular fishing areas on the Ottertail where people shore fish. They sometimes wait until you throw a fish back or they will attack it while your reeling it in. One spot in particular I warn people not to play in the water under a culvert that always has a couple muskies waiting for an easy meal. They dont care about barotrauma or hook mortality they love the commotion from hooking a fish and they learn that hole=fisherman=fish in distress.
The thread was started as “is catch and release bad??” and seems like deep water and barotrauma was brought in so a bunch of people could agree that “yeah, catch and release is bad”. The deep water and barotrauma make it a completely different conversation
I’m just a little taken aback by how many fishermen here seem to feel catch and release fishing is unethical
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tswoboda wrote:</div>
Did not mention what?Deep water and barotrauma.
Gim it was in the OP and I even bolded it in my quote. Direct copy/paste from the OP: “Fortunately, the fish weren’t caught out of deep water, so barotrauma impacts kept to minimum”
The thread was started as “is catch and release bad??” and seems like deep water and barotrauma was brought in so a bunch of people could agree that “yeah, catch and release is bad”. The deep water and barotrauma make it a completely different conversation
I’m just a little taken aback by how many fishermen here seem to feel catch and release fishing is unethical
I do not think C&R is bad, but I do know a LOT of fisherman participate in C&R over deep holes and are unaware or don’t care what happens as long as a fish swims back down their hole out of site. Heck I don’t even keep many fish, I primarily practice C&R. But with Livescope there are a lot of people that are now reaping the rewards and just don’t know that fish are absolutely dying when brought out of deep water. It may take awhile but they die.
but I do know a LOT of fisherman participate in C&R over deep holes and are unaware or don’t care what happens as long as a fish swims back down their hole out of site … fish are absolutely dying when brought out of deep water. It may take awhile but they die.
Agree, as I’m sure everyone else on this site does. Don’t think you’ll find anyone saying that releasing a bunch of bug-eyed crappies is OK. Lots of preaching to the choir here with deep water and it’s just muddying the water of a thread that started with the OP criticizing all C & R fishing. Specifically not in deep water. Because he deemed they caught too many fish??
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>wormdunker wrote:</div>
Earlier in the season I was fishing a 30-34′ basin over a massive school of gills and crappies. The ice was 10″ and crystal clear. I was popping though 8-10 holes over about 200 square foot area. It was a community hole. I was stunned by the number of dead fish under the ice. Most very large crappies. No Snow and good ice coverage provided the ability to see these fish. I started only fishing the top of the school, about 15-16′ down so as not to kill any fish due to barotrauma. What we don see doesn’t hurt us but this year opened my eyes.If that hot bite was over deep basin, I am sure you can be assured a majority of the fish pulled from deeper waters died.
I watched a video on guys strategy to catch monster pike in mid winter. They are catching monsters about 2’ below the ice in deep basins. Their theory is the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>pike are opportunistic and eating dead panfish from barotrauma that had floated up and were just under the ice.
They didn’t say the lake but mentioned it was perch over deep mud basins. I think we can all guess the lake.
Definitely some truth to this strategy. It holds true on the river backwaters as well when you are in an area with one or two deeper community holes. The best pike I have caught (not counting late ice where they push real shallow) is a few feet under the ice near some of the deepest backwater bowls where fishermen target panfish and let dinks go. My PB came on a shiner in ~20′ of water with so little line out that I could see the pike eat it and sit maybe 18″ straight under the hole. This is also why I don’t run up on pike tip ups ever. More often than not we are targeting the active ones just under the ice versus the negative ones lower in the water column.
Agree, as I’m sure everyone else on this site does. Don’t think you’ll find anyone saying that releasing a bunch of bug-eyed crappies is OK. Lots of preaching to the choir here with deep water and it’s just muddying the water of a thread that started with the OP criticizing all C & R fishing. Specifically not in deep water. Because he deemed they caught too many fish??
Now you understand my confusion. 
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
