Closed season on bass over the winter?

Moss Boss,
You are right
Sharing thoughts and opinions = GOOD
Being mean spirited = Bad (not that anyone has)
ROCK ON!

Sorry Stillakid, the Interstate competition is over. It’s not limited to people living in about a ten mile radius centered somewhere in NE Iowa.

I don’t think anybody crossed any lines either – did I leave that impression? People are free to have thier opinions, but like JC said, kneejerk reactions usually enjoy the same success rate as me peeing in a thimble from 40 feet away (don’t ask if I’ve tried this).

What struck me as being most odd was the immediate leap to a winter ban on bass fishing… How often do we talk about siltation, loss of habitat, and other factors that will have, in the long run, a thousand times more detrimental effect on the fishery. We’re faced now with a unique aquatic invader (the asian flying carp thingy) that could be potentially devastating. Has anyone besides me contacted their elected officials and let them know that the spread of this invader falls under the jurisdiction of both federal and state authority and requires attention?

It’s easy to blame the ‘winter slob’ crew who are taking bass off the river five at a time for a declining fishery, but in the big picture, it’s like me blaming the ants in my yard for moving my car. We all have at least some emotional attachment to the sport, and it’s painful to see someone hauling a stringer of bass off to the cleaning table (why would you want to?). A bit of temprament is in order, though.

—

JC – thanks for explaining – I see now how the comparison is made. I was thinking of the FDR analogy more in terms of reaping what had been sown, as opposed to the more Hemmingwayesque job of the DNR doing battle with an unpredictable mother nature. My bad.

—
Now I was thinking the use of “thingy” lost me the vocab contest, but “Hemmingwayesque” should have put me back in the running.

If you can even spell Hemmingwayesque then I am in your awe. I figured you read me the wrong way at first.
jc

Hemmingwayesque <<<<< JC ? Is this some kind of new BBQ Sauce you’ve invented for bass ?

Hemingwayesque
Hemmingwayesque

I have seen both ways now…
I don’t think anyone really knows.
jc

Hey guys…………….I just saw an open door to have a little fun with ya! You gotta understand, my “knee-jerk” humor reflex is in high gear right now…………just coming off a wonderful ARM event and preluding the GTG weekend! In my world, this is like “Razz Week”!

I’ll get back to fishin’ now.

This issue is definitely in a imbroglio now. I guess I’m the one or one of those who was waxing Presidential, that Jeremy was speaking of and I’ve avoided reposting for a couple of days to allow the issue to come back to us common mountain man types level of understanding. If anyone wants regulations based on personal preference rather than scientific data, and without means in place to undue the situation if reality doesn’t bear the science out… I’m sure I can’t guess why.

That is basically the ploy of both Anti-gun and Peta promoters. I also respect their opinions, but I certainly would not want them chosing my laws for me.

I said sometime ago that in discussions with many fisheries employees that they personally felt that most species of fish could never be unrepairably damaged by fishing. Soon afterwards the comments changed to there is almost an 85% sauger mortality. I thought they contradicted each other, but as I have said repeatably in regards to bass that I have never seen so many on 8 and 9 of any size. I also don’t believe this is the same issue as fishing below dams in the winter, but maybe others feel differently.

If a person has the scientific data to prove an overly general statement such as “damage to a resource” then they certainly should voice their opinion although “unrepairable damage” is actually what is being assumed. I will gladly place myself on the side of the “winter slob crew”…..(not my words), if it means that I am a meateater and feel that a legal limit is a legal limit whether it is consumed or not. That last statement is from a full-time?? guide that in total including customers harvested about 50 fish of any species for consumption in the last year.

But I still can see no justification to belittle others because they chose to eat what they caught. Should they maybe pick some fish that aren’t probably females full of eggs no matter what species. Ofcourse!!! It would be of me and is of anyone who is a meateater/guide/tournament competitor,(three of the worst scourges to fishing I’m told), and an almost daily fisherman quite hypocritical to judge or accuse anyone else of more impact on the Bass resource than I have myself. It’s hard to believe that a avuncular kindly gentlemen such as myself has such a impact on the fishery, but I welcome anyone to prove with the science available that I should change either of the two impacts above to “negative impacts”. I said in a previous post regarding tournaments, that unfortunately the only way to not kill fish is to not fish,”I have no intention of stopping fishing anytime soon.”. If you promote the end of one kind,(or one persons kind of fishing), if that is legal the only logical position to take is to be against all fishing. That also is not going to be a position I will be taking any time soon. If that is standing back and waiting till it is too late. Guilty I am,(Yoda I love the way you talk).

It was so much easier when my indian ancestors moved on to another area when resources either decreased or moved so that nature could regenerate itself, and frankly so they didn’t starve. Today we all live so close together and there is really no place to be the only impact negative or positive on the world around you.

But like I said if the science says that ice fishing bass any more than any other type of fishing is causing unrepairable damage and we have the guts as taxpayers to mandate funds to both monitor and the forsight to include a means of removing the regulation if it is hurting not helping, then I have no problem with the regulation. Otherwise outlawing bass fishing completely is the only way to achieve a equal balance for everyone. This isn’t just idle rambling.. It is the logical conclusions drawn from available information and taking into account all parties involved getting a fair and equitable solution.

Oh YAH Ecnook the two big words are for you. LOL

“Winter slob crew” was my wording, and yes, the first time it was also in quotes.

The reason I included it, in quotes, was because every winter we get a thread on the panfish forum that goes 40 posts about how some guy comes out and takes home a bucket of fish every day. It goes on with “He’s evil, he’s satan, throw holy water on him and he’ll burn” or something to that effect yadda yadda yadda.

Then some (idiot) like me jumps in and says, “But, but, but… the DNR says that what he’s doing is what’s best for the panfishing” and spend the next three or four days trying to defend myself from the onslaught of, “How can you sit in your heated house and defend devil-fisherman while the rest of us can’t find any bluegills” posts.

And thus, “winter slobs,” in quotes; because it’s an opinion. An opinion that after this thread people who think that way know is not popular with me.

Not to change subject, but I’d like to ask MM if the bass firm up in the winter? Fry up nice and crispy?

—

Darn… no big words… I used “asymptotic” in another thread, can I count it?

Gianni,

I think this thread has gone asymptotic

Big Bass Bane

Solutions, solution….
I guess the the emotions are controlling most of the posts with mine included. I guess the point I was trying to make was that there are peak periods that offer fishing sucess that in my opinion take the sport out of it. Times like fishing for spring smallies at the Powerplant in Lansing or icefishing tipups on pool 7. The times when the fishery is vulnerable at its peak should be consdidered. Times when anglers can do real damage to the fishery need to be regulated or at least studied to gain a better perceptoin. Sure we like to catch them and the catching part is all but to easy. Times like these when the sport is lost that makes me wonder what kind of long term effects this will have on our fishery. I am not for banning anything aspecially more regulation however I wish to keep in line the would be evil doers. -grin-
The limits and taking of fish especially in the eating size I will agree is good for the fishery. Raping the land however is not.
jc

I haven’t jumped in on this discussion, but feel I have a comment and hopfully the right people will hear this…

I am not against ice or open water fishing, and I support the DNR regulations. Yes, I believe WHOLE-HEARTEDLY in catch and release. What bothers me is I haven’t ever seen a warden walk around the ice on Pool 7 (Especially this past winter when the ice was thick enough all the way to the landing lights to fish the BASS wintering areas) where ice fisherman are not harvesting there limits, but EXCESSIVE limits, ILLEGAL limits of LARGE bass. I know the size is not a factor (but the larger ones are the breeders), but I know of someone who discusses his friends that commonly talk about the dozen or so 18″ers they were getting on the ice this past winter… Illegal, yes. No more proof, so what could happen… likely nothing, but we CAN learn from this.

Shouldn’t the wardens enforce winter fishing as they do summer fishing? It seems silly to have a warden pull me over in my fully rigged bass boat… the chances that I have fish in my livewell (unless in a tourney) is highly unlikely and I doubt I’m stupid enough to not have a licence… my god, look at the $$$ invested in gear. Go check out the people OBVIOUSLY going out to HARVEST fish and make sure they are following the law… Especially those on the ice.

Just my 2 cents.

Gianni that’s why I left it in quotes and if I accidently mortally wound one this winter, I’ll answer your question.

I have been watching where this thread was going and it seems to be close to a conclusion (I hope!). I think there have been some compelling arguements and issues brought about fishery population dynamics, enforcement, personal ethics, ad nauseum.

I think we need to let the respective natural resource agencies manage the resources based on good science. That being said there are times when science is literally thrown out the window in response to public input and politcal pressure. It is a regulatory nightmare for management agencies when the political pressures are so great as to nullify the science and the respecitive managers just plain give up the fight for what is right in the face of such contention. I am for supporting the sound management principles that each state has for our fisheries and for keeping special interests at bay in the name of sound management.

This thread is all about special interests, OURS and THEIRS and will not be resolved to everyones approval. I am all for letting this issue die quietly and moving on to fishing reports and information sharing.

I still don’t get how this thread is so “distubring”, or even how it is perceived as so contentious, but the recent postings have raised some issues. Since I don’t plan to proofread and re-write this 10 times, I’m going to just type and you can take it for what it is worth.

The idea of not changing regulations unless based on scientific evidence has come up a few time sin this thread. While this would be ideal, where is the money going to come from to conduct these studies. Working in government, I see everday the money is leaving, not coming in, and trying to fund a study to analyze population impacts of all the regulations is a nice dream, but a zero reality. So, we are probably going to have to look at regulations logically, slowly, and through discussion to determine the best course of action. Do we have to very carefully consider the wishes of all fisherman and all types of fishermen in these possible adjustments? Without question. But, why is it so wrong to even propose any kind of change? Can we not try and head off potential problems before they happen? Can we not think of conservation before we have to react to declining populations? I can think of many instances where sportsmen have thought ahead, and erred on the conservative side, even when science said it was safe to do more harvest. I also see some examples of fisheries where the people have decided to make stricter regulations in an effort to make the fishery a “trophy” fishery. Surely this stepped on some “meathunter” toes.

Examples:

Last duck season, the USFWS using their scientific method of population estimation and came up with the recomendation that all states in the Mississippi Flyway could harvest 4 mallards a day, two could be hens. Minnesota decided, even in the face of evidence, they would only take 1 hen. WI decided to take one for the first part of the season, 2 thereafter. A majority of hunters preferred to take the cautious approach, even though there was no evidence taking 2 hens would hurt. MY GOD, some people were stepping on the rights of others in the name of conservation.

What about the smallmouth regulation in place on Chequamegon Bay in Lake Superior? I would like to see the scientific evidence that Lake Superior’s smallmouth population would be hurt be an regulations more liberal than one fish, 22 inch minimum. That regualtion likely came about by responding to the wishes of fisherman to make Lake Supierior a trophy smallmouth fishery. I would bet “the fishery” could withstand a somewhat more liberal harvest of adult fish, but the fisherman wanted to persue the Lake’s potential to produce world class trophy fish.

Are the current bag limits of 5 bass per day based on science? Any current (last 30 years) science anyway? Maybe the fishery would still be “healthy” if the bag limit was higher?

Some questions:

If the bag limit on 14 inch+ fish was higher, would we still not have great numbers of 8 to 14 inch fish in theory? Would this be considered a healthy fishery?

Do we, as anglers, have a right to desire an increase in the size and number of larger fish? It seemed to be OK in Chequamegon Bay and Lake Superior, but the idea of desiring to protect the larger fish is “disturbing” to some it seems in this post.

Anyway, I have went on WAY to long with this. In all actuality, I don’t know if closing the season on bass in the winter, or even reducing the bag limit on them in the winter, is a good idea or necessary. But, the stories of hundreds of large bass being taken from the same place on Lake Onalaska last winter did strike up my concern a bit. BUT, I don’t see where bringing up concerns and POSSIBLE changes could be so offensive to some, so the emotional responses received kinda got my dander up. Anyway, I still don’t get how this thread is so “distubring”, or even how it is perceived as so contentious, but the recent postings have raised some issues. Since I don’t plan to proofread and re-write this 10 times, I’m going to just type and you can take it for what it is worth.

The idea of not changing regulations unless based on scientific evidence has come up a few time sin this thread. While this would be ideal, where is the money going to come from to conduct these studies. Working in government, I see everday the money is leaving, not coming in, and trying to fund a study to analyze population impacts of all the regulations is a nice dream, but a zero reality. So, we are probably going to have to look at regulations logically, slowly, and through discussion to determine the best course of action. Do we have to very carefully consider the wishes of all fisherman and all types of fishermen in these possible adjustments? Without question. But, why is it so wrong to even propose any kind of change? Can we not try and head off potential problems before they happen? Can we not think of conservation before we have to react to declining populations? I can think of many instances where sportsmen have thought ahead, and erred on the conservative side, even when science said it was safe to do more harvest. I also see some examples of fisheries where the people have decided to make stricter regulations in an effort to make the fishery a “trophy” fishery. Surely this stepped on some “meathunter” toes.

Examples:

Last duck season, the USFWS using their scientific method of population estimation and came up with the recomendation that all states in the Mississippi Flyway could harvest 4 mallards a day, two could be hens. Minnesota decided, even in the face of evidence, they would only take 1 hen. WI decided to take one for the first part of the season, 2 thereafter. A majority of hunters preferred to take the cautious approach, even though there was no evidence taking 2 hens would hurt. MY GOD, some people were stepping on the rights of others in the name of conservation.

What about the smallmouth regulation in place on Chequamegon Bay in Lake Superior? I would like to see the scientific evidence that Lake Superior’s smallmouth population would be hurt be an regulations more liberal than one fish, 22 inch minimum. That regualtion likely came about by responding to the wishes of fisherman to make Lake Supierior a trophy smallmouth fishery. I would bet “the fishery” could withstand a somewhat more liberal harvest of adult fish, but the fisherman wanted to persue the Lake’s potential to produce world class trophy fish.

Are the current bag limits of 5 bass per day based on science? Any current (last 30 years) science anyway? Maybe the fishery would still be “healthy” if the bag limit was higher?

Some questions:

If the bag limit on 14 inch+ fish was higher, would we still not have great numbers of 8 to 14 inch fish in theory? Would this be considered a healthy fishery?

Do we, as anglers, have a right to desire an increase in the size and number of larger fish? It seemed to be OK in Chequamegon Bay and Lake Superior, but the idea of desiring to protect the larger fish is “disturbing” to some it seems in this post.

Anyway, I have went on WAY to long with this. In all actuality, I don’t know if closing the season on bass in the winter, or even reducing the bag limit on them in the winter, is a good idea or necessary. But, the stories of hundreds of large bass being taken from the same place on Lake Onalaska last winter did strike up my concern a bit. BUT, I don’t see where bringing up concerns and POSSIBLE changes could be so offensive to some, so the emotional responses received kinda got my dander up. Anyway, I still don’t get how this thread is so “distubring”, or even how it is perceived as so contentious, but the recent postings have raised some issues. Since I don’t plan to proofread and re-write this 10 times, I’m going to just type and you can take it for what it is worth.

The idea of not changing regulations unless based on scientific evidence has come up a few time sin this thread. While this would be ideal, where is the money going to come from to conduct these studies. Working in government, I see everday the money is leaving, not coming in, and trying to fund a study to analyze population impacts of all the regulations is a nice dream, but a zero reality. So, we are probably going to have to look at regulations logically, slowly, and through discussion to determine the best course of action. Do we have to very carefully consider the wishes of all fisherman and all types of fishermen in these possible adjustments? Without question. But, why is it so wrong to even propose any kind of change? Can we not try and head off potential problems before they happen? Can we not think of conservation before we have to react to declining populations? I can think of many instances where sportsmen have thought ahead, and erred on the conservative side, even when science said it was safe to do more harvest. I also see some examples of fisheries where the people have decided to make stricter regulations in an effort to make the fishery a “trophy” fishery. Surely this stepped on some “meathunter” toes.

Examples:

Last duck season, the USFWS using their scientific method of population estimation and came up with the recomendation that all states in the Mississippi Flyway could harvest 4 mallards a day, two could be hens. Minnesota decided, even in the face of evidence, they would only take 1 hen. WI decided to take one for the first part of the season, 2 thereafter. A majority of hunters preferred to take the cautious approach, even though there was no evidence taking 2 hens would hurt. MY GOD, some people were stepping on the rights of others in the name of conservation.

What about the smallmouth regulation in place on Chequamegon Bay in Lake Superior? I would like to see the scientific evidence that Lake Superior’s smallmouth population would be hurt be an regulations more liberal than one fish, 22 inch minimum. That regualtion likely came about by responding to the wishes of fisherman to make Lake Supierior a trophy smallmouth fishery. I would bet “the fishery” could withstand a somewhat more liberal harvest of adult fish, but the fisherman wanted to persue the Lake’s potential to produce world class trophy fish.

Are the current bag limits of 5 bass per day based on science? Any current (last 30 years) science anyway? Maybe the fishery would still be “healthy” if the bag limit was higher?

Some questions:

If the bag limit on 14 inch+ fish was higher, would we still not have great numbers of 8 to 14 inch fish in theory? Would this be considered a healthy fishery?

Do we, as anglers, have a right to desire an increase in the size and number of larger fish? It seemed to be OK in Chequamegon Bay and Lake Superior, but the idea of desiring to protect the larger fish is “disturbing” to some it seems in this post.

Anyway, I have went on WAY to long with this. In all actuality, I don’t know if closing the season on bass in the winter, or even reducing the bag limit on them in the winter, is a good idea or necessary. But, the stories of hundreds of large bass being taken from the same place on Lake Onalaska last winter did strike up my concern a bit. BUT, I don’t see where bringing up concerns and POSSIBLE changes could be so offensive to some, so the emotional responses received kinda got my dander up. Anyway, how did this become an “us vs. them” issue anyway? Wouldn’t all fisherman like to see more and bigger fish? And who are “us”, and who are “them”?

All,

I agree with the point, the Law Enforcement, needs to
enforce the laws we already manage the fisheries by.
I have been CHECKED by wardens when I am tournament
angling, and they seem to be very concerned about my
possible “culling”, but I could pull off the landing with
both livewells packed with fish. Go figure. Also, there
is very little, if any law enforcement presence at the
landings. We can help them, by calling in(1.800.TIPDNR)
suspicious fishers, that may be over harvesting, but I
am skeptical that the response time would allow for
a successful arrest. I also agree with the point that
any changes need to be based on biology, and not from
political pressure from one user group, directed towards
another. If fisheries management says the fishery can
handle a 5 fish per day, per fisher, load, then catch
and keep away boys. Enjoy the fillets. There is more
than one creditable story about survey crews following
bass anglers around, that swear the fishery it dead,
only to watch the shocker float a bunch of fish.
I am content to let management be handled by the
biologists, and as for emotions, and politics,…well
it gives the news media something to do. I have learned to
ignore that noise. But to emphasis my first point, I
sure wish there was more of a warden presence, focused
on enforcing harvest regs. I guess this is effected by
budget reductions that have too few wardens chasing too
many violations.

Big Bass Bane

What’s disturbing to me is that at least two people on this thread accepted a desire for a closed winter season as axiomatic and suggested methods for implementing such. Your initial post was targeted toward discussion of whether or not it would be a good idea, which is a smart thing to do before going off and involving Team Supreme or submitting proposals to the DNR annual meetings.

Quote:

---

I’m not sure that there has been enough evidence collected at this point to show that the bass fisherie is on the decline. However I would support a closed bass fishing season during the winter months.

---

Heck, I think I find juxtaposition of those two sentences somewhat distrubing. Had it been followed with some sort of observations which led to that conclusion, there would be no problem or complaint from me (outside of perhaps questioning whether said observations were reflective of the reality).

As far as how to fund the studies, the DNR (Iowa) has annual survey data from shocking, creel survey, etc. Certianly this would be enough to spot significant trends in the decline or maturation of the fishery. If not, I’ll happily vote to de-fund “art” (such as Crucifix in Urine) and divert the money toward fisheries management, assuming that USFWS wouldn’t just blow it on new tanks for enforcing EPA regulations against private landowners. (Who was that who said opinions were welcome??? I bet their second-guessing that now!)

Disturbing is the tendency to short-circuit study and debate of an issue and jump to resolution.

—

Allright, now “Axiomatic” was good, but “Juxtaposition” had to put me back in the lead, and “maturation” might even give me a little padding.

bbb,
I guess I must have lit your fire by stating the US and THEM issue but that is what it usually boils down to when a citizen or group of citizens want to change the laws regulating any “right” they we have under the regulatory system.

To respond to the lack of funding avialable to conduct studies on fisheries or any other regulated wildlife, I can only say that a certain percentage of our license fee is supposed to go directly for research of these very issues. The management implies that the agency is doing something with the funding isn’t it? Or am I in denial about what happens to my license fees after I pay for a license?

In response to being proactive with respect to management principles I wish this were the case but in my humble opinion our government agencies are pure and simple “reactionary” likely due to many factors not the least of which is lack of funding and the fact that there is always a group that wants to change the rules for what they think is a better management strategy, i.e., special interests (US vs THEM again).

As far the trophy fishery argument goes, there is precious little data to make a broad statement that our “trophy” fish are more or less important to the health of a single or multiple species management scheme. We have very little understanding of how these trophy fish get to this status and even less understanding of whether or not it makes a difference to the population dynamics as a whole.

In closing it appears that you also have fallen into the “emotional response” scenario based on the fact that the reports of the large number of “large” bass were killed in Lake Onalaska last winter. We are all human and all have an emotional response to something or someone that means something to us. This is one of the reasons that we have classified ourselves as being a “higher order” mammal than all the rest. Do emotional feelings and a perception that we are smarter than the rest of the animals on this earth make sense, I guess it does if you are the king of your universe?

Bass423,

I do not have emotional responses to wildlife management.
I prefer my responses to be based on good science.
Proactive to me means going to Conservation Congress
Hearings, and participating in the discussions, demanding
to hear a summary of the science, behind a proposal,
before the proposal becomes a regulation. So if my
comments read emotional, believe me they are not, regarding
wildlife management. On the other hand, I am emotional
about wayward, wasteful, and inept, government, Or
authority, that picks and chooses what it wants to enforce.
Yup, about these things I am emotional.

Big Bass Bane

gentlemen

This has been a very good discussion and a good “read.” Thanks to all for sharing their opinions. I personally thought everyone conducted themselves impressively and although conviction and enthusiasm were clearly evident, I did not think anyone got out of hand in the least.

BBB,
I am sorry for the error in my earlier response, it should have been a reply to the lengthly post from MossBoss. Please accept my apology for the incorrect reference.

I wholeheartedly agree with the content of your reply posting. I inferred some of the same convictions that you presented regarding governmental process. My bottom line is to let the biology and ecology of the situation dictate good management not the politically driven special interest groups. I also have firm convictions that are sometimes emotionally driven by my avocation.

BTW, BBB can you PM me, I think I know you and would like to chat off the record.