Statewide NO CULL RULE for Minnesota

  • jig_n_pig
    Balsam Lake Wisc.
    Posts: 183
    #1328031

    I know this may seem like a long post but well worth the reading, as it effects all of us, tournament anglers or not tournament anglers. Some of you may not even be aware of this.

    The Minnesota DNR is sticking hard to its NO-CULL rule change. This will mean a hard battle ahead. We need everyone to write, call or fax them with our opposition. And to contact your State Legislators. This needs to be done now!!

    Minnesota Bass Federation opposes DNR rule change

    The Minnesota DNR fisheries staff is proposing a State wide, all-species no-cull rule. This new rule is being proposed as a response to last season’s high walleye hook mortality rate on Lake Mille Lacs. Last year, the DNR changed the “slot” rules, causing a large majority of the fish to be released. As the walleye is a very fragile fish and is highly susceptible to hook mortality, this unusually high number of released fish resulted in a large number dead fish (estimated to be more than 100,000 lbs.). The sight of thousands of dead walleye washing up on the shores of Mille Lacs has led to a ground swell of adverse public reaction. The DNR’s answer to this localized Mille Lacs problem appears to be placing a “no-cull” rule on all species of fish, state wide.
    Culling or High grading is generally understood as replacing a fish with a larger fish once the angler has reached the set daily bag limit (for tournaments, one less than the daily bag limit).
    This “no-cull” rule is acknowledged by the DNR to be unenforceable, except for tournaments, and will probably be ignored by the public. The irony of this is, tournament anglers are trained and equipped to ensure the fish’s survivability and have long been leaders in the development and implementation of techniques to keep fish alive over extended periods of time. In fact, the Bass Anglers Sportsmen’s Society (B.A.S.S.) pioneered the concept of catch-and-release and is primarily responsible for the nation-wide acceptance of this practice for all species of fish. Nowadays, all tournament boats are equipped with modern equipment such as oxygenating and water re-circulating systems to keep fish alive for long periods of time. Special chemical additives are used in the live wells to help heal any wounds and to assist in the fish’s speedy rejuvenation. These measures are taken because if a fish dies in the angler’s possession, major penalty points are assessed which effectively eliminates them from the competition. In short, tournament anglers are not the problem here.
    Another point that doesn’t make sense is the fact that walleye, muskie, panfish and bass are very different fish when it comes to hook mortality. Where walleyes and panfish are fragile, bass and muskies are extremely durable fish and documented records show hook mortality rates for bass tournaments to be less than 2%, especially in the cool water conditions of Northern states such as Minnesota. This could be reduced even more if the DNR would allow bass tournament organizers to use live release boats and more selective bass distribution sites after tournaments.
    In Minnesota we are blessed with a robust Bass population. By the DNR’s own admission, the bass population in our State is very healthy. In fact, there are those in this State (and across the Nation) that feel that catch-and-release for bass has become too widespread and the fish population would benefit from anglers keeping some of the smaller bass for the table. The bottom line is this: there are no scientific reasons to limit or restrict bass fishing beyond the current guidelines.
    With all this in mind, why are bass included in this “cover all” rule.
    For some reason, bass tournament anglers in Minnesota are perceived in a less-than-positive light than their counterparts in other parts of the country. For the past few years, the Minnesota DNR appears to be doing everything they can to stifle tournaments and discourage organized bass fishing in this State. This is very curious because in the Southern States where bass is the prime angling target, tournaments are viewed as a major sporting event and are highly sought out by the local communities. The economic benefit is well known and welcomed throughout the region, just as with other major sporting events. A recent survey of bass anglers in Minnesota showed that the average amateur week-end bass angler spends almost $5,500 in support of his/her sport each year. This same survey documented that the mere 550 members of the Minnesota B.A.S. S. Federation alone contributed nearly 4 million dollars to the Minnesota economy during 2001. From another angle, a typical 2-day amateur tournament with 100 boats nets the local community about $140,000 in added spending by the contestants. A “professional” tournament of the same size can be expected to contribute at least twice that. All this is a product of a sporting event that releases the fish back to the water, unhurt, and ready for the next angler to enjoy.
    There are 1.6 million registered anglers in Minnesota. This group’s financial contribution to the State supports more jobs than does 3M (40,840 vs. 32,000). Together we spent 2.17 billion in 2001 on outdoor activities in this State. This has a net ripple benefit effect of 4.18 billion to the Minnesota economy. This should give us anglers a voice in how our resources are managed.
    The Minnesota B.A.S.S. Federation believes that our natural resources should be managed based on sound research and good scientific management principles. Setting “feel good” rules without doing the proper homework does nothing except alienate the population supporting this activity. If a rule change is needed to protect the resource and is backed up by sound scientific research and management principles, we will support it enthusiastically. We will not, however, support rule changes that restrict the rights of anglers if they are based on purely political motives. Instituting a “no-cull” rule for bass in Minnesota is a prime example of a rule without scientific basis. Recently South Dakota exempted B.A.S.S. and other “permitted” tournaments from the no-cull (high grading) rule.
    The Minnesota B.A.S.S. Federation is not alone in its views of the political system in this State. In 2002, the Game and Fish Oversight Committee said: “The Fisheries research division largely works in the dark, without stakeholder input or in many cases knowledge. This lack of information flow can and often does generate mistrust between Fisheries and its’ stakeholders.”
    Minnesota anglers need to speak up about the proposed “no-cull” rule. We need to let the our policy makers, State Legislators, and other State officials know that walleye mortality on Mille Lacs will not be affected by crippling bass,walleye, muskie or panfish tournaments or by weakening fishing in the rest of Minnesota. The only thing that will happen is the economy will suffer and the rift between the DNR and Minnesota anglers will widen.
    Comments on this proposed no-cull rule can be sent to:

    Linda Erickson-Eastwood
    Fisheries Program Manager
    Minnesota DNR – Section of Fisheries
    500 Lafayette, Box 12
    St Paul, MN 55155-4012
    email = [email protected]
    phone = 651-296-0791
    fax = 651-297-4916

    jerad
    Otranto, IA/Hager City, WI
    Posts: 616
    #249775

    so your in-favor of a rule that would kill alot of fish, and you want others to join in in your fight…i guessing your not gonna find alot of support here…i know im definately not giving this one the time of day

    glenn-walker
    Shakopee, MN
    Posts: 858
    #249779

    I don’t feel culling kills fish at all. The majority of the bass tournaments out of Wisconsin have people culling, even though you aren’t supposed to. It is usually not addressed at the rules meeting. And the result is that there is some great bass fishing all across the state. Down south where the FLW, BASS Tour, Everstart, and BFL all have tournaments where culling is legal and there is great bass fishing down there. I agree with Jig N’ Pig that the no cull rule scares off big tournaments from cull waters, and there fore it affects the economy. I have a tape of the 1999 BFL All-American out of Lacrosse, this was the first year of the no-cull rule and many of the competitors complained about the rule and said that the tournament did not test their fishing skills as much as it did their gambling skills. The year before in 1998 the All-American was also out of Lacrosse, but it has not returned since 1999. So I would like to see the no cule rule in Wisconsin abolished and it not established in Minnesota.

    redneck
    Rosemount
    Posts: 2627
    #249781

    To talk to Pro-fishermen about not killing fish is preaching to the Choir.. Pro Bassers treat the Bass alot better than many guys treat their wives. I would guess alot of the guys don’t have a meal of fish very often but they catch hundreds of pounds in a week of pre-fishing and tourneys. No culling doesn’t make sense but we all know the DNR is run by politics and not logic. Tell me who to write to and I’ll shoot of a letter. By the way, I am not a tourney angler but I have alot of respect for them.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #249784

    First off, I searched the Minnesota DNR website and found no mention of this subject what so ever. I would like to know the source of this information…… I do have a big problem with the opening statements blaming hook and release mortality on Culling laws. I doubt very much any 14-16 inch walleyes were tossed back into Mille Lacs for a bigger 14-16 inch fish this last year!

    Second, I support the change 100%. In fact I thought it was already law! It is the Right Thing To Do!! It is currently illegal to Cull on border waters like the St Croix and Mississippi River. Make it easy to remember the law and keep it consistent everywhere.

    Most reputable Walleye Tournaments have gone to no cull even if allowed by law. Why do bass tournaments need to cull? Make that decision to keep the fish or not! It’s part of the game, part of the strategy, keeps it interesting!

    My 2 cents worth.

    Jon J.

    glenn-walker
    Shakopee, MN
    Posts: 858
    #249792

    I would like to thank Redneck for his comment on pro-fisherman. Sometimes tournament anglers get a bad rap, but as he said they take very good care of their fish. Because if they have a dead fish, they get penalized. I fish tournaments and last year I didn’t eat a single peice of fish, so the practice of catch and release is very important to me.
    The cull rule does make an tournament angler think on the spot and it makes them make a decsision right away. This may sound corney, but the cull rule is like gambling on a card game when you don’t even see your cards, that is what a competitor in the 1999 All-American said and I think it sums it up pretty good. You are putting a pay check up in the air when you catch a 15 inch bass and you throw it back because you think you need more, but it turns out you only would’ve needed that 15 incher to win. So now you get second place instead of first .
    The majority of the Wisconsin bass tournament fisherman I know and talk with all disagree with the cule rule, also for the reasons of fairness in a tournament. In many tournaments at the pre-tournament meeting this issue isn’t brought up. So some anglers end up culling and others obide by the rules and don’t. This creates an unfair level of play.
    If the cull rule is taken away, tournaments will be more fair and the great bass waters of the Midwest will be reconized when the FLW and BASS make there way north.

    jerad
    Otranto, IA/Hager City, WI
    Posts: 616
    #249804

    ok..so it is proven that culling has a higher mortality rate on fish and you still are in favor of it…bass boy, let me ask you one question: What if you werent a tournament angler, would you still be in favor of this rule? The only answers you are giving in favor of this is for tournament anglers, for the sole purpose of the tournament.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #249806

    As I said, I believe it’s the right thing to do. Not only for the weekend fisherman, but tourney guys too. In fact, if anything, the tournament fishermen should be held to a higher standard. Meaning, if the DNR choose not to change the law for everyone, they should look at issuing all tourny permits as no-cull.

    I don’t buy the argument that “Guys will do it anyway”. If you have problems with cheaters, deal with the cheating problem. Don’t blame it on laws you don’t agree with !

    J.

    wkw
    Posts: 730
    #249824

    I think the high mortality rate on Mille Lacs that Jig-N-Pig spoke of was not so much from culling, but from anglers pulling walleyes out of 30 feet of water, unhooking them,
    and tossing them overboard right away without taking the time to fully resusitate the fish. I read somewhere that coming out of deep water has a bad effect on their air bladder, but if you take the time to revive the fish, most will make it.
    I’m in favor of a no-cull rule whether it be in a tournament or not. If not a tournament, keep what you what to eat and then enjoy the rest of day catch and release.
    If in a tournament, your pre-fishing info gives you a pretty darn good idea of what it’s gonna take to win,
    so hopefully the culling issue doesn’t become an issue.
    Wayne Webster

    mountain man
    Coon Valley, WI.
    Posts: 1419
    #249842

    Team tourneys really don’t seem like they would be affected much. 2 angler = 2 limits – the last fish of each limit seems to be more than enough leeway. ProAms ofcourse or a little different story. I ran 20 some walleye team events and never heard any complaints about no cull rules. I will fish at least one bass series next year and probably two different walleye series and have absolutely no problem with no cull. But I have a solution. Why do we need to weigh 6 fish in bass or walleye tourneys. Let’s weigh four.
    All of a sudden no cull doesn’t matter so much. I really believe as more and more studies become available about release mortality, some states may even change their rule on forced catch and release for tourneys and let the angler decide. Lawrence

    DONOTDELETE
    Posts: 780
    #249843

    Even with a reduced tourney bag (let’s say 4 for bass), once a fish is put in to possession it counts toward your daily bag. In other words, at least in WI, the reduced tourney bag wouldn’t help much (only 1 bass could be legally culled). After culling the 5th bass, even though your livewell only shows four, you’d be at your daily bag of five.

    mountain man
    Coon Valley, WI.
    Posts: 1419
    #249848

    I was going to do the math down to the ridiculous just to make a point, but I can see it would be a waste of webspace.

    sports_anchor
    Albert Lea, MN
    Posts: 354
    #249849

    This topic was tucked away under the walleye forum, so I nearly missed it! Jon, I and several others have been discussing it on FTL as well.

    First of all… to jerad,

    Show me evidence that culling has a direct, negative impact on the bass population. Culling is currently legal on Minnesota Lakes and despite fishing pressure at an all-time high, I’d like to see any numbers you have that show bass population and size have gone dramatically down. I think you’ll find they’ve risen in most instances because many bass anglers are now very concientious when it comes to practicing catch and release, which is, in a small way, a form of culling.

    I think you’ll find that most all bass tournament anglers will be opposed to a no-cull rule, because it’s a rule that as the post earlier stated can only really be enforced on tournament fishermen and would basically be ignored by your average weekend angler.

    Personally, whether I’m fishing in a tournament or not, if I catch a nice 3-pounder to fill out my limit, why not have the option to try and catch a trophy 6-pounder after that? Or should I be forced to hang up my rods, put away my tackle and load the boat up just because the government thinks a broad brush will fix all its problems? This is America isn’t it?

    I also agree with Bassboy. When you make bass fishing no-cull, tournament time becomes a trip a Vegas. I’d rather prove my abilities to catch fish against other competitors, not who can guess the best fish to keep in the livewell.

    I’m actually surprised there are several anglers out there in favor of no-cull for fishing, in particular, bass fishing. In any no-cull tournament I’ve been to, I’ve never heard one single angler preach the benefits of such a rule. In fact, most, if not all, are very unhappy with it.
    Maybe it depends on which species you like to fish, but the opinions sure do seem to draw a definate line in the sand.

    When they start allowing bass tournament anglers to use live bait during competition like walleye tournaments, I’ll be all for the no-cull, but until then LONG LIVE CULLING!!!!!!!

    birdman
    Lancaster, WI
    Posts: 483
    #249851

    Sports Anchor, one of your statements about about continuing to fish after having your limit is one of the reasons no cull could be needed. Not everyone keeps their fish in good shape before culling. Not everyone is a bass tourney angler. We have no cull in Wisconsin and I think it works. It is illegal to take a trout off a stringer and release it just because you caught a bigger trout later after filling your limit. It’s illegal to put 25 bluegills in a bucket and take one out later because you happened to catch a bigger one. I think the rule may be aimed more at the casual angler than the tournament angler.

    As far as harm from culling bass I don’t know if we hurt the population or not. Currently in Pool 10 and 11 we have a problem with sores on bass from supposed stress. Everyone’s blaming lack of adequate wintering areas as the cause but the DNR stated that it could also be caused by catch and release. Perhaps catching a bass in one area of a pool and transporting him 5 miles to be culled in another area is harmful.

    As someone who also fishes bass tourneys I agree that the format of no cull in a bass tourney does make it a crap shoot. In fact, a team tournament with no-cull rules would be almost impossible to win if your an honest angler. The suggestions for a lower limit for tourneys do make sense to me though.

    Gianni
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts: 2063
    #249852

    In reply to:


    This new rule is being proposed as a response to last season’s high walleye hook mortality rate on Lake Mille Lacs.


    The high mortality of Mille Lacs walleyes is a well-defined, well-documented, and well-known phenomena: When the surface temp is above 70°, released walleyes have a >75% mortality rate. It’s not the ride in the livewell that’s killing these fish.

    The only way to save those fish is to expand the slot and let whitey take more than ‘his fair share’ of the fish, or close the lake during the summer months. Closing Mille Lacs is not really an option because of the public outcry (but note that Iowa is ok with shutting down the tailwaters for three months). Once again the people cry, “Do something,” and their worst nightmare comes true: Somebody “does something.”

    rivereyes
    Osceola, Wisconsin
    Posts: 2782
    #249858

    If I recall the law in Mn does NOT allow someone to continue to fish for a species AFTER they have a limit in the boat… culling is legal… but only while you are under the legal limit…..

    jerad
    Otranto, IA/Hager City, WI
    Posts: 616
    #249859

    sports anchor,
    first of all i have no evidence, but how on earth could this be good for the fish? Instead of stressing your limit of fish your now going to put stress on your limit plus however many fish that you “cull”, and catch and release surely wouldnt put the amount of stress on a fish as it would if it were to ride around in the livewell all day

    “Or should I be forced to hang up my rods, put away my tackle and load the boat up just because the government thinks a broad brush will fix all its problems?”
    hate to say it but you have to abide by this “broad brush”
    until then, you cant change the laws by bitching about them, live w/it

    mountain man
    Coon Valley, WI.
    Posts: 1419
    #249860

    Whitey????- I assume that is a comment on tribal fishing? Don’t make me take my tomahawk out. LOL

    Anyway
    Sports Anchor I “occasionally” fish tourneys and have no problem with no cull, for Bass or Walleye. Ofcource we have practiced it here on the Wisconsin side for some time. And just so you know, if a Wisconsin Warden wants to he or she can fine you if you are on the Wisconsin side of the river, when you cull. That means from Dubuque to Red Wing on the Mississippi. Just a thought to keep in mind for next years Team Supreme.

    Somebody said it will only be enforceable on tourney fisherman???? Everyday guys get fined for it on Pool 9 every year. Including two of my best feinds back when it first started being enforced. I realize it may be different from the Wisconsin Regulation.

    I dislike regulations that “prohibit” fishing all togehter in any area, but have a hard time coming out against a regulation that tends to be more designed to deter unneeded or damaging catch and release,(fish could have gone right back in the water). Ofcourse I would rather the situation was left to nature, and by all means a time limit and the ability for fisheries experts to be able to discontinue it at anytime that they feel it is no longer needed or is actually doing damage, should be in every regulation. Also as I have said already on this site and many others, a fishing regulation, is a bad one if it doesn’t include a mandate to both enforce and monitor the effects, and the funding to do both. With the current budget mess in most states I suppose the funding will be almost nonexistant. So that could be a major problem, but it appears to work over here.

    mountain man
    Coon Valley, WI.
    Posts: 1419
    #249861

    RiverEyes is correct over here as it is enforced anyway. Actually as it is enforced it really isn’t called culling till after you you have already taken your daily bag limit, and chose to return one of the fish you already have and replace it with another. It also doesn’t allow limits to be shared. If I give you one fish I caught it is part of my limit, and apparently yours also since in one case I know of both parties received a fine.

    SlowRoller
    Posts: 4
    #249898

    Pardon me for jumping in on this conversation but I can’t keep myself from responding to some of the garbage posted here.

    First off, does anyone know the history of the “no cull” rule? As I recall, it was put in place to deter meat fisherman from culling fish left to sit on a stringer (or worse).

    Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, have I found evidence that culling (as it applies to the tournament fisherman) kills fish. I’d bet a dollar to your doughnut that a (tournament) culled fish has a better chance of survival than one released by a meat fisherman, simply because the tournament fisherman has a vested interest in its survival.

    WKW raises an nteresting question that the mortality rate may not be associated with culling at all, but the catch and release of walleyes from deep cool water in the hot summer months. Oh no, did I open a can of worms with that statement?! Should we abolish catch and release, too? Should we draw a line and say all fish caught should be kept and killed? That would surely stop them from washing ashore…

    Culling is not the issue here. The issue is the survival rate of released fish. There are many factors in the dead fish equation;
    (1) was the fish sick/weak to begin with?
    (2) was it brought from deep water too fast?
    (3) was it sitting shallow with a stringer through the gills?
    (4) was it sitting in an oxygen depleted livewell?

    …the list goes on as far as your imagination can take it.

    The no cull proposal is a knee jerk reaction to public outcry, simple as that. If you really wish to find a solution the the problem, you first need to identify the cause.

    Gianni
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts: 2063
    #249899

    Whoa! No tomo-hacking please.

    That first sentence that I had quoted before seemed awfully fishy (even on this board) – like this is an appeasement effort related to the Mille Lacs overharvest.

    tony_apisa
    E. Moline Illinois along the Rock River
    Posts: 1180
    #249902

    I really do not think that culling kills off the fish as much as pulling smaller fish from deep water.(25 plus feet) I have read and do believe that the air bladder is compromised when fish are pulled from deep waters. Anglers need to take the time out and revive these fish before releasing them back. It only takes a minute to secure our fishing for tomorrow. Tight lines to all

    Bogsucker
    SE MN
    Posts: 94
    #249977

    Here’s my two cents. If you do not plan to eat a fish return it to the water immediately. I limit my catch and I eat what I keep.

    luv2fish
    Marion, IA
    Posts: 65
    #250045

    My personal opinion…the no-cull rule when it comes to tournaments should be a “don’t ask, don’t tell” or “out of sight, out of mind” policy. The quality of bass fishing on the river is excellent, and at no time do tournament anglers intend to kill a fish. I have a hard time grasping the fact that a warden could feel morally right with writing a tourney angler a citation when he indeed knows these fish are going to be released before the afternoon is over anyway. Let’s just imagine what would happen if bass tournament anglers kept a limit of fish every time they’re on the water to take home and eat. The population on the river would suffer quickly. The DNR should work together with tournament organizations, as these are the anglers that are promoting catch and release fishing and these are the organizations that with the chemical additives and oxygen are putting fish back into the water in better shape than they were prior to being caught. Working together they can monitor populations, encourage catch and release to the rest of the fishing public, and economically benefit from the revenue potential that exists of the larger tournament organziations would come back to the upper midwest.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #250052

    I wrote Linda Erickson and her response is show below. From the sound of it, I don’t think you Bass Tourney guys have much to worry about….. Unless there is more opposition from guys like me!!

    Linda’s Response:
    Thank you for your request. Regarding the proposed no-cull rule being
    considered by the DNR, it is in a rule package that was begun in May
    2001. A request for comments was published in the newspapers and on the
    web site at that time. Since that time, we have been working with
    various groups to come to a decision on what rules to move ahead with
    and what the rule language should be.

    The current proposed language for the no-cull portion of this package
    is as follows:
    Minnesota Rule 6262.0100 General restrictions on taking fish
    Subpart 5. Possession of fish while on state waters
    A. Fish that are taken by angling and not immediately released into
    the water after capture are considered to be in possession and part of
    the bag limit. Once a fish has been reduced to possession, no culling
    of the species is allowed.

    This regulation matches the current regulations on the majority of our
    border waters. With the adoption of this language, we would then repeal

    Minnesota Rule 6212.2600, subp. 2, which states that after a limit of
    fish is reduced to possession then no culling or sorting is allowed.

    Studies have documented that culling practices can contribute to higher
    delayed mortality of released fish (Goeman 1991, Plumb, et al. 1988).
    The change is necessary to help decrease mortality of released fish. It
    is reasonable to ask anglers to make a decision on whether or not to
    release a fish at the time of capture so that fewer fish are wasted. It
    is also reasonable to simplify regulations by having them consistent
    between inland and border waters.

    Your request will be entered into the official rule making file. We
    will also be discussing this topic internally and with participants of
    the Fishing Roundtable, which will be held this coming Saturday. Based
    on the comments we have received to date, it is likely we will delay
    moving forward with a statewide no cull rule until we have had an
    opportunity for additional discussions, particularly with tournament
    sponsors/participants.

    Thanks again for your interest.

    greg-vandemark
    Wabasha Mn
    Posts: 1096
    #250056

    Hey Jon thanks for the Info.
    I was at the DNR site reading all the regs wow ?%&&%$??.. It seems lots of problems with one said blanket coverage. When we have such a diverse set of species to cover.
    Start fishing bass for instance with live bait and the mortality rate will change.. Also fish for walleyes on a tough bite in a lake with live bait and it is hooked deep every time,you dig the hook out dead fish every time. It also has a lot to do with the ability of the fisherman, to detect bites.
    The weather, boats live wells, persons ability to handle fish, plays into the equation.
    I can only speak for myself as a tournament fisherman for the past 15 years, we have in most causes had to use the no cull rule. Up on the northern lakes they used to give us tags, for the fishes lower jaw. You made the decision upon catching the fish to tag and in the well or release it. If you were checked and had an untagged fish in your well you were DQ’d.
    So my impression of this rule is I really don’t believe it can be inforced so I think it is no good.
    If this rule is to help regulate tournaments It is not needed. They do a real good job with self regulation.
    If this is for the everyday fisherman. I really don’t believe they can enforce it.
    Unless the DNR has come into some money and going to hire a few hundred more game wardens.
    Because if your a fisherman and you have your limit you should not be fishing so how can you cull..you’ve already broken the law by continueing to fish..over limit..
    I really think the DNR can find some better things to do with there time instead of pursueing this line of thought on an uninforceable law…
    This is my Dollars worth…call me a redneck rabbit head…lol

    nate-cadwell
    Rochester, Mn
    Posts: 498
    #250058

    Very well put Rabbit Head
    I would have to agree with you 100%
    good job

    riverfan
    MN
    Posts: 1531
    #250079

    This thread demonstrates how differently we see the sport of fishing. It’s clear that tournament fishing is not popular with every angler. It’ss clear that harvest fishing angers many of us. It’s clear that we all have our favorite specie. But the one thing we all share are the rights, within reason, to pursue the sport the way we choose.

    If we look at legislation and rule changes with tunnel vision, i.e., only concerned about our own interest we all eventually lose. Many of the proposed changes in hunting and fishing regulation are not scientifically based. They are emotional, political and in some cases motivated by individual or groups using legislation to promote their beliefs. It’s clear that many lake shore owners and owner associations would like to control their lake for their own use. There have been attempts to close accesses, regulate hours of use and impose unreasonable exotic inspections. Attempts to limit spread of exotics have been used by several groups to propose legislation with the underlying purpose of keeping us off their lakes. Even more important are proposals to loosen water quality standards and turn back the gains we have made.

    Weather you are tournament fisherman or not; weather you fish trout, walleyes, Muskie, bass, panfish we need to put aside our bias and oppose regulation that are not based on documented need. We as outdoor enthusiasts need to support conservation efforts, hunting and fishing rights and even if we don’t entirely agree with detail of the law or group promoting the change. As an angler I find myself at odds with conservation groups that want to ban lead in fishing lures. However, I strongly support the big picture conservation efforts of the same group. I no longer hunt, but I know that the thing hunters support, habitat, are important to me. We find ourselves, as strange bedfellows don&’t we.

    I won’t deny that culling has some negative consequences. I regret harming any fish, but we all have to look honestly at what we do. We all inadvertently kill fish with hooks, we bring fish out of deep water where the pressure change forces their air bladder out of their mouth, we put fish in live well for photo sessions which is particularly bad for fish from deep water. We all regrettably harm fish and the more successful we are the more fish we harm.

    A weakness of all of us is we are not vocal. We don’t present a united group with political clout. Unfortunatly, we appear to be an easy target. Consider this and all future legislation from a big picture viewpoint. We all have a lot to gain or loose.

    To clear the air I am a tournament fisherman and an active member of the Minnesota BASS Federation, one of the few politically active fishing groups in the state. You may not know it but we stand up for all sport fishing causes.

    DONOTDELETE
    Posts: 780
    #250178

    Riverfan,

    Very nice post. While for every issue there are people on the far ends of the spectrum, it’s people that take smart, sensible approaches in the middle that accomplish the most.

    wkw
    Posts: 730
    #250226

    Jon J,
    I couldn’t help noticing the dates of the studies that stated the mortality rate of culled fish. 1991 and 1988.
    What!? Haven’t they checked since then? Don’t we have better ways of aerating fish and a more educated fishing public since that report? I would like to pull a 1988 boat up alongside mine, and let them see the difference.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.