I have only used mine twice so far so no ban for me. I understand the argument about it making it easier to find fish. However like mentioned before isn’t that what all the tech that has come out supposed to do, otherwise why the hell am I spending all this money on this stuff?
Im kind of on the fence on this one so I really dont wanna spend money on something im not sure if I agree with, so im thinking in order for me to make a proper educated decision you all should join together and purchase me the best unit available and I will report back in one year with my thoughts on a ban.
In terms of fisheries and it’s effects, you can’t ban one technology and look the other way on others. Dump FFS but give a thumbs up to a 30ft wheelhouse parked on a school of fish using an underwater camera and a 65″ flatscreen to catch them?
Cmon guys really? 
Let the market decide on this. If tournaments want to ban them fine, it will all trickle down and work itself out. But if you are going to ban any form of sonar, then you must ban ALL forms of sonar. Good Luck with that 
People are REALLY going to lose their lids when the major players in the game decide to release the individual fish tracking software they have (click on a specific fish and your motor and sonar will lock on and follow). It’s ready to go, just a matter of if, when and where.
I have a Livescope, and buy conservation licenses. I’m in it to have fun, catch and release 99% of the time, and learn new tactics/spots and all that.
If the issue is people decimating fish populations, that’s a human behavior and human choice issue. Not the technology.
I’d completely be on board with low bag limits.
Ban it, or don’t ban it. It really doesn’t matter. The first generation or 2 of FFS is nothing compared to where the sport is headed with regards to technology and finding fish. Hell, 2 nights ago my wife and I ate at a small town restaurant in a SE MN town of 2500, and our food was brought to the table by a robot that also busses the table afterwards – I’m not joking.
I think you are right in terms of the fact that the point isn’t where are we now. IMO, the point is where is this trend going?
To me, looking at how effective this live sonar technology is AND looking at the way that it has changed fishing over just a very short period, the conclusion is obvious. This technology will only get more precise and easier to use and probably cheaper as well.
So the question isn’t “if”. It’s how and how soon will it need to be regulated.
On the issue of does it cause more fish to be kept, here’s the way I see it. Let’s say 25% of the anglers on a given lake would keep Species X if they caught it.
So the live sonar does NOT make more people want to keep fish. It just makes that 25% of the population more effective in finding and therefore keeping fish. Right now, that may of may not translate into significantly more fish being killed. However. Here we are again at the question of “Where is this headed?”
And even if you argue that let’s say live sonar “only” increases the fish kill by some single digit %. Well if the lake is already in a population decline, then 3% greater fish kill per year isn’t going to be a good deal in 10 years, is it?
At some point, a line has to be drawn on technology. This is NOT to say there aren’t other issues, but this has always been the case.
I don’t know about a ban. I do know when I fish with my buddy with live scope it takes all the guess work out of locating fish. What used to take a hour some times 2 hours some times 6 hours now takes minutes to find them. That doesn’t mean catch them but it does mean locate the fish. Which is half the game. I can see it hurting fisheries for sure. And for my grandpa to go out in his 12 ft tin boat and not be able to take his hard earned fish home is unfair because we have livescope so they cut the limits. But it is a learning curve for sure. I watch lots of guys get right on top of fish and that wasn’t always a thing. I’m no expert so my opinion is meaningless any ways
And even if you argue that let’s say live sonar “only” increases the fish kill by some single digit %. Well if the lake is already in a population decline, then 3% greater fish kill per year isn’t going to be a good deal in 10 years, is it?
At some point, a line has to be drawn on technology. This is NOT to say there aren’t other issues, but this has always been the case.
Better question would be why is the lake in decline in the first place no?
How about if you use FFS you can only catch and release?
What used to take a hour some times 2 hours some times 6 hours now takes minutes to find them. That doesn’t mean catch them but it does mean locate the fish.
Same thing I was trying to say. People are spending the same time on the water and the fish sees more pressure since they are easier to find.
It boils down to jealousy, the people who can’t afford one of these units, ( like me 
) don’t understand how use or read one of these units ,and don’t think anyone else should have one of these units either Just because you have a license doesn’t mean you have to keep everything you catch. I’ve seen it here deer hunting in Wis. Just because the DNR gives you doe permits when you buy a license, doesn’t mean you have to shoot everything that is brown just to fill those tags. it’s just my opinion, but the Wis DNR is very poorly managed. I have gone to these meetings and voiced concerns about different things and to listen to they’re explanations why they do what they do goes beyond belief and common sense. but they’ll listen to any association that’s backed with money.
How about if you use FFS you can only catch and release?
The honor program only works with honest people.
The honor program only works with honest people.
True but that would be pretty easily enforceable I think. Pretty tough to hide all the equipment while a CO pulls up, and your livewell is full.
We are still learning about hooking mortality, so even though folks may claim catch-and-release– FFS will affect muskies or other large targets. I watched people casting at open-water fish on hot days last year and had concerns. I say focus on what can be done, educate on fish handling, promote selective harvest, and invest in water quality/habitat. The fisheries are only going to be as good as the habitat and forage base allows.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
Ban it, or don’t ban it. It really doesn’t matter. The first generation or 2 of FFS is nothing compared to where the sport is headed with regards to technology and finding fish. Hell, 2 nights ago my wife and I ate at a small town restaurant in a SE MN town of 2500, and our food was brought to the table by a robot that also busses the table afterwards – I’m not joking.I think you are right in terms of the fact that the point isn’t where are we now. IMO, the point is where is this trend going?
To me, looking at how effective this live sonar technology is AND looking at the way that it has changed fishing over just a very short period, the conclusion is obvious. This technology will only get more precise and easier to use and probably cheaper as well.
So the question isn’t “if”. It’s how and how soon will it need to be regulated.
On the issue of does it cause more fish to be kept, here’s the way I see it. Let’s say 25% of the anglers on a given lake would keep Species X if they caught it.
So the live sonar does NOT make more people want to keep fish. It just makes that 25% of the population more effective in finding and therefore keeping fish. Right now, that may of may not translate into significantly more fish being killed. However. Here we are again at the question of “Where is this headed?”
And even if you argue that let’s say live sonar “only” increases the fish kill by some single digit %. Well if the lake is already in a population decline, then 3% greater fish kill per year isn’t going to be a good deal in 10 years, is it?
At some point, a line has to be drawn on technology. This is NOT to say there aren’t other issues, but this has always been the case.
I don’t think we are far from FFS/live imaging that not only clearly shows you what’s present, but interprets it and simplifies things more. The days of tweaking settings, 25# cases, and learning curves will be gone. If you put a pole in the water and power up the unit…it’s going to be hands off and telling you with relative accuracy approximate fish size, species, and location. That doesn’t leave a lot left to uncover.
As far as the “you still have to make them bite” argument I agree, but even if an angler cannot get negative fish to go…they will be onto an active pod of fish in no time and that struggle or tendency to throw the entire tacklebox at fish will be gone.
I’m sticking to my original response that people will have to make up their own minds and see if what fishing becomes or is becoming still peaks their interest. I’ll be shocked if I don’t have a different “main” hobby by the time I retire, solely because fishing will look nothing like what I grew up doing…and that’s a decision everyone will get to make on their own.
And even if you argue that let’s say live sonar “only” increases the fish kill by some single digit %. Well if the lake is already in a population decline, then 3% greater fish kill per year isn’t going to be a good deal in 10 years, is it?
Care to cite your sources that livescope increases fish kill? Because the only creel survey I’ve seen that addressed FFS was done by the Glenwood Area Fisheries Offices this year and actually showed reduced fish harvest numbers by livescope users when compared to non-livescope users.
Nothing on the ban is based on science, it is personal bias. Writing laws based on personal bias is wrong.
to be fair, the DNR on this side of the Mississippi rarely uses science when writing fish and game laws.
Care to cite your sources that livescope increases fish kill? Because the only creel survey I’ve seen that addressed FFS was done by the Glenwood Area Fisheries Offices this year and actually showed reduced fish harvest numbers by livescope users when compared to non-livescope users.
You care to share the link to that Creel survey? I’m having no luck locating anything on such a survey.
I have talked to quite a few people who are opposed to FFS and I have always got the sense that they are opposed because they either can’t afford it or don’t want to spend the money for it. If they can’t have it, they don’t want others to. Same as it ever was. A poor trait in human nature.
I’d say your sense is not all that good. I know lots of people who could more than afford it, but simply choose not to. Cost is not a factor to me at all. With the amount of $’s I spend on fishing in a years time, the cost of one would hardly make a difference. I fish for the enjoyment and challenge of it. If I feel like having some fresh fish, I don’t often have a problem getting some to do so. I simply don’t see how a FFS would increase my fun and certainly not increase the challenge of it at all. To each their own
You care to share the link to that Creel survey? I’m having no luck locating anything on such a survey.
I’ll see if I can get my hands on it. It was recently being presented at a conference earlier this year and not sure it’s released to the public yet. You can listen to Hutchinson Area Fisheries Office Supervisor Scott Mackenthun talk about it on the Jan 15 episode of the Paul Bunyan podcast if you’d like.
nevermind
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ripjiggen wrote:</div>
If it is not a big issue for you then why are you in favor of banning it?Is it simply you don’t use it so others should not?
I have stated my reasons several times. It has nothing to do with if I don’t have one, Others should not. I do know if my whole goal every time I go fishing was to catch and keep limits of fish, you can bet I’d own one. It may surprise you but there are a fair # of fishermen who that’s their goal every outing.
Isn’t it everyone’s goal to catch as many fish as possible? Heck I want to catch a fish on every cast. I know it won’t happen, except for the occasional hot bluegill bite, but I’m not out there for casting practice. Now if you’re talking about a goal of KEEPING a limit every time, I agree.
BTW doesn’t Wisconsin still have trolling bans on some lakes? That one always made me shake my head.
If 80% of the fish are in 10% of the lake…FFS can concentrate 80% of the fisherman in that same 10% of the lake and provide more room for the recreational boaters!
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>FinnyDinDin wrote:</div>
I have talked to quite a few people who are opposed to FFS and I have always got the sense that they are opposed because they either can’t afford it or don’t want to spend the money for it. If they can’t have it, they don’t want others to. Same as it ever was. A poor trait in human nature.I’d say your sense is not all that good. I know lots of people who could more than afford it, but simply choose not to. Cost is not a factor to me at all. With the amount of $’s I spend on fishing in a years time, the cost of one would hardly make a difference. I fish for the enjoyment and challenge of it. If I feel like having some fresh fish, I don’t often have a problem getting some to do so. I simply don’t see how a FFS would increase my fun and certainly not increase the challenge of it at all. To each their own
I’d say your reading skills aren’t all that good. You fall in to the ‘don’t want to’ category. And that’s cool.
If you really believe ‘to each their own’ why do you want FFS banned? Seems hypocritical.
“I’m sticking to my original response that people will have to make up their own minds and see if what fishing becomes or is becoming still peaks their interest. I’ll be shocked if I don’t have a different “main” hobby by the time I retire, solely because fishing will look nothing like what I grew up doing…and that’s a decision everyone will get to make on their own.”
That’s your choice like you said. you can make fishing however challenging you want.
Don’t blame others and tech for not wanting to or what it looks like now vs when you were a kid. You can go cast a Zebco off a dock any day.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ripjiggen wrote:</div>
And even if you argue that let’s say live sonar “only” increases the fish kill by some single digit %. Well if the lake is already in a population decline, then 3% greater fish kill per year isn’t going to be a good deal in 10 years, is it?Care to cite your sources that livescope increases fish kill? Because the only creel survey I’ve seen that addressed FFS was done by the Glenwood Area Fisheries Offices this year and actually showed reduced fish harvest numbers by livescope users when compared to non-livescope users.
Can’t answer that I was quoting someone else but quotes don’t always work.
You may have missed
my response.
I agree banning it is a slippery slope. What if they limit the reach? Like limit it to 60-80’ or the length of a typical cast?
Its not a cost thing for me either, I have not decided if I want to stare at a screen even more than I already do with my current set up.
I wish it was as simple as “to each their own”, but this technology is going to start (or has started) impacting fisheries. I can definitely feel the divide in the muskie world, fish are seeing far more baits than pre FFS, which hurts success rates for anglers fishing without it.
I completely understand the hesitation to give the DNR more power, but if we are being honest, fishing and hunting are already heavily regulated. Eventually every sport has a moment where they need to limit technology, whether its golf clubs/balls, baseball bats, or only allowing 3 shells when duck hunting. There’s countless examples technology being limited for the betterment of the sport, fishing should be no different.
“I’m sticking to my original response that people will have to make up their own minds and see if what fishing becomes or is becoming still peaks their interest. I’ll be shocked if I don’t have a different “main” hobby by the time I retire, solely because fishing will look nothing like what I grew up doing…and that’s a decision everyone will get to make on their own.”
That’s your choice like you said. you can make fishing however challenging you want.
Don’t blame others and tech for not wanting to or what it looks like now vs when you were a kid. You can go cast a Zebco off a dock any day.
I must’ve missed where I “blamed others”??? Maybe it was the part in 2 separate posts where I said to ban it or not, it doesn’t matter?
Its not a cost thing for me either, I have not decided if I want to stare at a screen even more than I already do with my current set up.
I wish it was as simple as “to each their own”, but this technology is going to start (or has started) impacting fisheries. I can definitely feel the divide in the muskie world, fish are seeing far more baits than pre FFS, which hurts success rates for anglers fishing without it.
I completely understand the hesitation to give the DNR more power, but if we are being honest, fishing and hunting are already heavily regulated. Eventually every sport has a moment where they need to limit technology, whether its golf clubs/balls, baseball bats, or only allowing 3 shells when duck hunting. There’s countless examples technology being limited for the betterment of the sport, fishing should be no different.
Valid points.
How about if you use FFS you can only catch and release?
Ultimately, I believe this will be the answer. For those that want to have a meal, just learn to fish.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
