Fair Chase Fishing?

It has been impressive to see the advances in sonar technology in recent years. This season of IDO episodes has often highlighted the use of Humminbird live sonar to horizontally scan vast basins to either target stationary fish with amazing precision or continually track the movement of schools. It is easy to see how this technology has helped James and the IDO crew avoid “blind fishing” to increase catch rates.

In a similar fashion, a multitude of pioneering fishing personalities are leveraging side scan and 360 degree sonar to target cast in open water.

Today, the high cost points of these advances sonar systems are beyond the means of most anglers. Those who are able to obtain these units undoubtably enjoy an increased opportunity to catch / harvest game.

I am not concerned with “competing” against fellow anglers. Instead, I think we all need to be concerned about the pressure this technology will create on our shared resources (fish) once the price point of this emerging tech drops and becomes mainstay.

Minnesota’s DNR has the responsibility to enacted regulations intended to conserve shared resources. Regulations to limit anglers to two lines each and outlawing automatic hook-setting devices are great example of these principles in action.

No, these live sonar technologies do not “force” a fish to bite; but they undoubtably increase fishing pressure. Im concerned about how quickly this increased pressure can degrade trophy potential and general fish populations.

Should a movement to restrict this technology be formed?

(PS: I am aware of Humminbird’s sponsorship of IDO and therefore this forum.)

no

Obsession wrote:

outlawing automatic hook-setting devices

Serious question. Is there any evidence this leads to increased harvest or hooking mortality? I would think it would lead to less of both.

Obsession wrote:

Should a movement to restrict this technology be formed?

No, I don’t think that’s necessary. What will almost guaranteed to be necessary will be reduced bag limits and/or slot restrictions though. Especially for species targeted with the intention to be harvested. We’ve already seen this on some of the bigger walleye lakes/river systems. The primary species that I think this applies to right now is panfish like crappies, sunfish, and perch. The DNR recently implemented a 5-fish sunfish limit on over 90 lakes here and there will be more of that coming down the pipe. Just my 2 cents

Personally, I agree that automatic hook-setting devices likely reduce per catch morbidity by reducing the occurrence of deep hookings. That said, I am unaware of a scientific study on this particular aspect.

What I feel more confident on is that automatic hook-setting devices artificially increase the effectiveness and therefore catch rates of anglers. I believe this is why some states have elected to restrict them.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>DST wrote:</div>
Should a movement to restrict this technology be formed?

No, I don’t think that’s necessary. What will almost guaranteed to be necessary will be reduced bag limits and/or slot restrictions though. Especially for species targeted with the intention to be harvested. We’ve already seen this on some of the bigger walleye lakes/river systems. The primary species that I think this applies to right now is panfish like crappies, sunfish, and perch. The DNR recently implemented a 5-fish sunfish limit on over 90 lakes here and there will be more of that coming down the pipe. Just my 2 cents

In the fashion that DNR agencies across the country are funded today, do you think it is feasible for them to monitor fish populations in EVERY lake and adjust bag limits or enact fishing bans accurately?

Currently fish populations in most Minnesota lakes are surveyed every 3-5 years. I fear the effectiveness of these new sonar systems could impact populations faster than conservation agencies can monitor.

It seems to me that more serious fishermen are the ones primarily investing in technology. More serious fishermen tend to not abuse a resource.
Slob fishermen are a bigger threat than technology.
Pressure makes the fish more intelligent, intelligent fish are more difficult to catch, slob fishermen catch fewer fish.
I’m a proponent of technology. But at some point China will start importing Livescope/360 options that turn casual fishermen into slobs. At that point, we already have existing laws that the more serious fishermen need to ensure are enforced.

Pretty good statement mojo

Although I’m not a big fan of all of the new technology and the additional strain it will put on our fish populations. The one thing is there is no stopping or slowing of technology, and technology never goes in reverse, only forward. I don’t know why the DNR is trying to micro manage lakes. It would be far better to simply place a statewide lower limit on Crappies and Sunfish. The one problem I see with lower limits is that some fishermen now will start to target and keep the larger fish in order to get as much meat as possible from their daily harvest. Although I’m in Favor of lower daily limits they need to change the possession limits to at least double the daily limits. With some of the current possession limits it will be almost impossible to have enough fish to have a few family members or friends over for a fish fry. Then again current or lower limits will not have much of a effect if they don’t have enough manpower to enforce the limits.

One thing is almost certain, The quality of the fisheries we now have is likely to change, and not for the better.

Limits need to be reviewed first. But I disagree with “hardcore” fishermen not abusing the resource. This technology is being deployed by every guide service in the state. For example, Big Pine Lake has 3 or so daily/weekly guides going out to the holes and absolutely stacking crappies. These are no C&R operations. These are fish being caught in 30’+ and being kept or thrown back (dead). Closer to commercial fishing than sporting, in my opinion. This technology is and will decimate certain fisheries. Guides and the lack of restrictions is a different discussion.

No. I’m sure others using this new tech will be used as another excuse by SOME anglers for why they don’t catch em or “it’s not like it used to be”. The fact of the matter is there are trophy fish in nearly all of our most heavily fished lakes, including the metro, the issue is people think they should catch them regularly, which ironically wouldn’t make them much of a trophy. We’ve heard this same argument for nearly every technological innovation, yet some guys still find a way to regularly catch nice fish all over the state and some guys rarely if ever do.

If you get rid of live imaging, then get rid of side scan, cameras, gps, etc. The same argument was made for all of them. All these allow fishermen to find, catch and keep (if they want to) more fish. I myself rarely keep fish. In fact last year, on 2 occasions, I spent more time trying to get some fish I found with LiveScope to bite then I did just rigging the flat’s breakline and catching the fish that wanted to bite!!
I remember when cameras first came out. Some people were proposing the legislature take action to ban them. The biggest proponents of them were guides and others in the fishing business. Fancy that!!

Obsession wrote:

In the fashion that DNR agencies across the country are funded today, do you think it is feasible for them to monitor fish populations in EVERY lake and adjust bag limits or enact fishing bans accurately?

Currently fish populations in most Minnesota lakes are surveyed every 3-5 years. I fear the effectiveness of these new sonar systems could impact populations faster than conservation agencies can monitor.

I find it more effective to be proactive than reactive. Once a fishery has collapsed or suffered from over harvest, stunted growth, etc, its much harder and more time consuming to fix the problem. I’d much prefer them to just make things more conservative before the problem really snow balls. Crappie populations are the primary population of fish that I think will suffer in the near future because of new technology, because they receive almost year round pressure, and very few people release them voluntarily. Just looking at some of the threads on this forum indicate this to be true. Not singling any one person out.

Ive always been worried about fish finding technology. And I have always thought it was heading the direction of Star Trek when they could scan for life forms. This particular tech is going that direction and I dont like the inevitable results.

How far off is remote live sonar monitoring? We already have motion triggered live video trail cameras that transmit data via cell phone towers? I have to believe applying that concept to fishing sonar has been scribbled on a product developer’s whiteboard.

I’ve got mixed feelings on it all with the crazy advancements in technology.

My initial thought is that I’d wager 50% of anglers who have the latest greatest Sonar systems the size of TV screens can’t begin to use the technology to its fullest extent. For most it’s simply “cool” and catching their wallets more than it is fish.

As for the future, technology isn’t stopping. There is going to come a day where you are selectively choosing which fish you target in front of or near your boat without having to have a deep knowledge of your sonar unit or expansive money (with unbelievably more precision than anything out there today). The thought of driving over a giant flat on the river and basically picking which particular fish you want to “catch” is crazy, but not that far fetched. When that becomes the norm I won’t lose sleep over it. Rather, I’ll find a new hobby. I’ll have a lot more money to throw at my new hobby when the time comes and I focus on something different. Until then, I remain old school in mindset that some of my most memorable outings are where I’ve struggled first and came across a pattern I worked for.

Exploring and being surprised by the unknown is a great joy in this sport. Christmas morning is not as fun if you already know what’s in the box, will you look if all your brothers look? Of course you will.

Don’t care how others chase, the end game is the possibility of the game itself. Fish size and numbers is the ultimate end goal.

Bag and possession limits will need to be restricted, to the point of even having years of no harvest if necessary.

Average Joe angler has the right to catch an ok amount of fish too. Idfc about the folks who can fish 100x year and complain that others just don’t know wtf they are doing bc they still catch fish. Minnesota pastime is to go up north, catch some fish with a 14′ boat, concrete block for anchor, and can of worms. Lets get back to that.

If fish size and #’s got back to that, just imagine how good the fishing would be to the above average anglers…..

Deuces wrote:

Don’t care how others chase, the end game is the possibility of the game itself. Fish size and numbers is the ultimate end goal.

Bag and possession limits will need to be restricted, to the point of even having years of no harvest if necessary.

Average Joe angler has the right to catch an ok amount of fish too. Idfc about the folks who can fish 100x year and complain that others just don’t know wtf they are doing bc they still catch fish. Minnesota pastime is to go up north, catch some fish with a 14′ boat, concrete block for anchor, and can of worms. Lets get back to that.

If fish size and #’s got back to that, just imagine how good the fishing would be to the above average anglers…..

Brought a tear to my eye.

fishthumper wrote:

One thing is almost certain, The quality of the fisheries we now have is likely to change, and not for the better.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that’s true in all situations. I’ll give you an example too. Smallmouth bass fishing here has gotten to be better and better even with this technology. It may be at the expense of other species, but perhaps the reason is more-so related to the fact that most anglers release them voluntarily instead of harvesting them and there is a closed season.

I would also say that muskie fishing has gotten better too. Maybe not in terms of numbers, but definitely in terms of quality/trophy size. Just last November a state record was broken that had stood since 1957. Again, the voluntary release and close seasons likely playing a role.

I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere, personally I will not ever be buying panoptix or other live image units

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>
One thing is almost certain, The quality of the fisheries we now have is likely to change, and not for the better.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that’s true in all situations. I’ll give you an example too. Smallmouth bass fishing here has gotten to be better and better even with this technology. It may be at the expense of other species, but perhaps the reason is more-so related to the fact that most anglers release them voluntarily instead of harvesting them and there is a closed season.

I would also say that muskie fishing has gotten better too. Maybe not in terms of numbers, but definitely in terms of quality/trophy size. Just last November a state record was broken that had stood since 1957. Again, the voluntary release and close seasons likely playing a role.

I would agree with certain species. Musky stocking has been relatively successful on certain watersheds expanding the fun that can be had. But I also don’t feel muskies harm the resource in which they are in, which is not the case with everyone. Smallies same scenario, although I believe they fill a spot in the food chain that others don’t if they aren’t there(walleyes). I think northerns will be on the rebound with the new experimental regs, getting rid of many of the snakes we are all familiar with. Which is fairly interesting the regs are set that the actual harvest will solve the problem.

Musky and bass fisheries thrive bc the culture itself is CPR and mostly always has been.

Walleyes and panfish have and always will be a harvest culture OVERALL. The tech will only expedite the depletion. As stated already in here, proactive is easier and better than reactive.

Deuces wrote:

I would agree with certain species. Musky stocking has been relatively successful on certain watersheds expanding the fun that can be had. But I also don’t feel muskies harm the resource in which they are in, which is not the case with everyone. Smallies same scenario, although I believe they fill a spot in the food chain that others don’t if they aren’t there(walleyes). I think northerns will be on the rebound with the new experimental regs, getting rid of many of the snakes we are all familiar with. Which is fairly interesting the regs are set that the actual harvest will solve the problem.

Musky and bass fisheries thrive bc the culture itself is CPR and mostly always has been.

Walleyes and panfish have and always will be a harvest culture OVERALL. The tech will only expedite the depletion. As stated already in here, proactive is easier and better than reactive.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say. Thanks Beads

tim hurley wrote:

Exploring and being surprised by the unknown is a great joy in this sport. Christmas morning is not as fun if you already know what’s in the box, will you look if all your brothers look? Of course you will.

I remember one Christmas my friend and I found his presents a couple of months before Christmas. Turns out it was a new Nintendo (dating myself) and 2 games we really wanted to play. Every time his parents would leave he would call me and I’d bike over and play these games for hours. We essentially beat both games and grew completely bored with it all. This happened right up until Christmas. He wrapped everything back up and nobody ever found out, but he told me it was the worst Christmas ever.

Other than ease of use for the $$$$, what’s so different from turning your transducer 60 degrees and rotating it around. I did that 30+ years ago with the ole lowrance green box and it worked perfect to chance crappies.

There will be a small percentage of anglers that will either fork out the money to do it easier or will continue to work harder. The rest will still stir and stare at a blank hole and complain. I think the 90/10 rule will apply

I think this is a really interesting topic. I would argue the biggest advancement in the past 20 years is GPS+contour lines. Many of those “secret” sunken islands, inside turns etc. that took years to find became easily fishable by the masses within the span of a few years.

I am not anti technology – I have a relatively new side imaging unit on my boat, but I am on the fence about live imaging. I know the technology is not going to stop and there’s no clean way to regulate it, but I do believe it is starting to get anti-“sporting”. Crappie and walleye populations will continue to get hit hard and I would be in favor of tighter slot and bag limits.

Others have brought up that muskie populations seem to be going strong, but I have seen a rift in the community form related to open water live scope usage. Go on Vermillion in June and look at how many boats are driving around looking for open water muskies on live-scope. No one even picks up a rod until they mark something. Not saying it should be illegal, but not my cup of tea.

I don’t knock anyone who has the latest. But I’m still rocking some old school 2D sonar. Something about keeping a little bit of the mystery alive.

gimruis wrote:

. Smallmouth bass fishing here has gotten to be better and better even with this technology. It may be at the expense of other species, but perhaps the reason is more-so related to the fact that most anglers release them voluntarily instead of harvesting them and there is a closed season.

Smallmouth have thrived because of Zebra Muscles. And compared to panfish and walleye they are targeted a fraction of the amount. AND they are not on the harvest list for most anglers.

All of this I’m am happy about, being a bass guy…..

Deuces wrote:

concrete block for anchor,

Around 1980 by Grand Rapids we were catching walleyes but the boat wouldn’t hold with the anchor we had. One of the guys in the boat said he saw a cinder block at the access. We went back and got that to add to the anchor. That held the boat pretty well and we caught/kept one short of a three-man limit.

I’m confident that the MN DNR wants to preserve the resources. It’s their mission, their passion and their life blood. They have shown the ability to make controversial and courageous changes to possession limits. We are seeing new panfish limits aimed at protecting the resource, and by the way, IDO has spotlighted those new laws this season! New technology has and will be a challenge to fish and wildlife. Imagine hunting without gunpowder. We, the sportsmen and sportswomen, will not allow the resources to die. I have twin grandkids who will learn how to fish with an attitude of gratitude, and how to enjoy the bounty.