Wisconsin – Spring Hearing Questions – Ban on Live scope and 360 Imaging

Jimmy Jones wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
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.

I think the most likely scenario is they require a live imaging “stamp”, because when push comes to shove, they’ll settle for taking more $$$. That way they can still get money from big companies pushing the product and from the consumer to even be able to use that product.

Here’s a case study for y’all. Annie Battle Lake in Ottertail county has been classified as a “Heritage Fishery” since 1997 which bans the use of ALL electronics and gas powered motors, including augers. Another part of this regulation is that bass and pike are CnR only, and bluegill/crappie limits are 5/piece. Wow, what, no technology and reduced limits?! This lake must be chalk full of 10″ bluegills, 15″ crappies, 22″ bass, and 40″ pike! Well, not exactly. If we use the most recent 2019 DNR lake survey as a point of reference: the bass still average 13″, the pike still average 18″, the bluegill still average 6-7″, and the crappies still average 9″.

hossfisher wrote:

Here’s a case study for y’all. Annie Battle Lake in Ottertail county has been classified as a “Heritage Fishery” since 1997 which bans the use of ALL electronics and gas powered motors, including augers.

1. I didn’t know we had such lakes, so thanks for sharing! 2. That is funny that the fish/fishing is not that impressive on the survey, I just looked at it and wouldn’t go out of my way to fish there. I think oftentimes we think if we just got rid of X the fish would be huge and so numerous they’d be jumping in the boat…

Here’s a case study for y’all. Annie Battle Lake in Ottertail county has been classified as a “Heritage Fishery” since 1997 which bans the use of ALL electronics and gas powered motors, including augers. Another part of this regulation is that bass and pike are CnR only, and bluegill/crappie limits are 5/piece. Wow, what, no technology and reduced limits?! This lake must be chalk full of 10″ bluegills, 15″ crappies, 22″ bass, and 40″ pike! Well, not exactly. If we use the most recent 2019 DNR lake survey as a point of reference: the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>bass still average 13″, the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>pike still average 18″, the bluegill still average 6-7″, and the crappies still average 9″.

Annie Battle lake is less than 400 acres. Regardless of regulations, a somewhat sterile, sandy, clear lake cannot crank out many 40″ pike or 22″ bass. As I said earlier, fishing is only as good as the habitat available to the fish. I want the agencies to protect and enhance the public’s habitat, not reach in my boat and tell me what transducer to use.

I would vote NO to this question. 90% of people voting on this question have little to no knowledge of this technology, so most voting would be emotional based. Questions like this play on the fears of people.
Additionally, these types of bans create a slippery sloaps for the government to use. Dangerous at best.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

If you really believe ‘to each their own’ why do you want FFS banned? Seems hypocritical.

Not hypocritical at all. I do believe in to each their own. Each has a right to a opinion, and each has the right to check a box on a question. Your free to your opinion and your check on a box and I am as well. Or are you one of those that believes everyone is entitled to a opinion – Just as long as its the same as yours.

I don’t care about live scope or 360, but what I do care about is useless, unenforceable regulations.

Just like jaw jackers or whatever being banned in MN, they won’t ban the sale of these items or possession. So it just becomes a game of don’t get caught with it on- totally ineffective, waste of tax money to discuss it, etc.

topshotta wrote:

As I said earlier, fishing is only as good as the habitat available to the fish. I want the agencies to protect and enhance the public’s habitat, not reach in my boat and tell me what transducer to use.

My point exactly, people like to think limiting technology and reducing limits is a cure-all.

Annie Battle is a swimming lake in the middle of Glendalough park. I was aware the motors were banned but not electronics, but its a pond as much as anything. It connects to West Battle Lake through a couple other small lakes and streams. West Battle Lake is the current state record holder for smallmouth. The park is also home to yurts for camping that can only be reached by hiking, biking, or paddling across the lake.

Riverrat wrote:

West Battle Lake is the current state record holder for smallmouth.

That record has been re-classified as of March 1. Its now the “historical” state record.

Why would we consider banning FFS? Is it because you may catch more fish by using it?

If that were the case then why would we not want to ban electric trolling motors? This surely would change how we fish and be less effective overall. Would you desire FFS or your electric trolling?

Ripjiggen wrote:

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?

No. It’s a different question and as it relates to the use of technology, it’s irrelevant.

Regardless of why the lake is in decline, if technology use is accelerating that decline, then it’s making a bad situation worse and it needs to be dealt with.

But my sense is we’re going to spend the next decade debating weather not electronics really are contributing to an increasing of the take and to what degree.

This is what 2025 will look like.

Attachments:

1. 

   the-future.jpg
   

Riverrat wrote:

Annie Battle is a swimming lake in the middle of Glendalough park. I was aware the motors were banned but not electronics, but its a pond as much as anything.

I’d have a hard time calling Annie-Battle a pond. It’s 354 acres and 51 feet deep. That is well above the average lake size of 202.5 acres/lake across Minnesota. This makes it a good case study when talking about fisheries in general because it’s representative of a good chunk of lakes across Minnesota.

gim wrote:

This is what 2025 will look like.

Nope. With the glasses you won’t need any screens in the boat.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

<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?

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?

No. It’s a different question and as it relates to the use of technology, it’s irrelevant.

Regardless of why the lake is in decline, if technology use is accelerating that decline, then it’s making a bad situation worse and it needs to be dealt with.

But my sense is we’re going to spend the next decade debating weather not electronics really are contributing to an increasing of the take and to what degree.

So let’s not figure out the decline in the first place let’s just blame something that wasn’t the issue in the first place.

If the DNR was smart (hahaha), they would use this as a revenue steam and require an additional fee with the boat registration or something along that line if using LiveScope.

This whole topic reminds me of a bumper sticker I used to see on an ole timers truck many years ago. What the Lord Giveth, the DNR Taketh away.

Ripjiggen wrote:

So let’s not figure out the decline in the first place let’s just blame something that wasn’t the issue in the first place.

I nor anyone else that I’m aware of ever said there was not other factors in a decline. All that was stated was that FFS is a factor. Some factors are more controllable than others. I think as much passion as you have about being able to use your FFS, you should really make it a point to make it to any meetings they have to discuss this issue. That is the point of why they are posting discussion topics in advance.

My passion isn’t for FFS my passion is for the DNR to do their job and look at why populations may or may not be declining in the first place. Pretty easy to blame tech. That’s not working that’s just assuming. Let’s take community surveys to manage our resources. Seems like a hell of a scientific way to manage. What could possibly go wrong.

Good luck because this isn’t happening.
The Dormant Commerce Clause and its Purpose:
The Dormant Commerce Clause is a principle derived from the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). This clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that states can’t enact laws that unfairly burden interstate commerce, even if they apply equally within their borders.
The Dormant Commerce Clause prevents states from creating economic barriers between each other and ensures a national marketplace.
How the Sonar Ban Could Violate the Dormant Commerce Clause:
There are two main ways a Wisconsin ban on forward-facing sonar could be challenged under the Dormant Commerce Clause:
Discriminatory Effect:
Even if the ban applies to everyone in Wisconsin, it could be discriminatory if it disproportionately impacts out-of-state businesses.
For instance, imagine the forward-facing sonar industry is primarily outside Wisconsin. A ban on this equipment could unfairly burden these out-of-state companies by limiting their market and potentially leading to job losses.
The law would have to be analyzed to see if it specifically targets out-of-state businesses or products, but even an even-handed law could be challenged if it disproportionately impacts interstate commerce.
Undue Burden on Interstate Commerce:
A state law can be challenged if it creates an undue burden on interstate commerce, regardless of whether it discriminates against out-of-state businesses.
Here’s how this might play out in the sonar ban scenario:
The state of Wisconsin would argue that the ban is necessary to conserve fish populations, a legitimate state interest.
Opponents of the ban would likely argue that it’s an excessive restriction on interstate commerce for several reasons:
The high cost of sonar might already prevent many in-state anglers from affording it, so the ban wouldn’t necessarily level the playing field.
There might be alternative fishing methods that don’t require sonar, making a complete ban unnecessary.
The sonar industry would likely argue that the ban hurts their business and restricts the free flow of goods (sonar equipment) across state lines.
Courts would consider these arguments and weigh the state’s interest in protecting fish against the burden placed on interstate commerce. The ban could be struck down if the burden is deemed excessive compared to the state’s interest.
Examples of Similar Cases:
There have been past Supreme Court cases that illustrate the Dormant Commerce Clause in action:
Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc. (1931): A New York law that favored in-state dairy farmers was found to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminated against out-of-state milk producers.
CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America (1982): An Indiana law that required a certain percentage of a company’s board of directors to be Indiana residents was struck down because it placed an undue burden on interstate commerce by making it more difficult for companies to merge or acquire out-of-state businesses. Good Luck! It isn’t happening!

Because for the last 15 years, the DNR has had selective stocking practices for preferred counties and tourism, it is by design.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Through the ice too?
360 and side imaging tell you what was there. FFS tells you what’s there now, how many, how big, and what direction they’re going. Apples to oranges.
For the record I don’t think 360 should be looped in with FFS

Nope but I also can’t sit with lines in the water for 48 hours straight in open water either. Fairly easy to come up with tech like 360 which is old tech and be able to do the same thing.

It depends, there is huge difference from seconds to milliseconds in return from a $800.00 Helix 7 versus a $3999.00 Apex 12. I think what many of you forget, that many tournament fisherman and guides do not like this leveling the playing field.

I shared this with a friend who is in support of banning FFS because she believes it will cause a decline in overall fish population in lakes. Yet show owns a $4000 livescope setup.

I recently bought a $1200 panoptix setup for ice fishing this last winter, and I do have to say it did help me put more fish topside. But I also don’t harvest fish all that often, and I’m sure not keeping bag limits every day of the season.

I personally would vote NO on the matter. Just my personal opinion.

I seen this today and me think of this thread.

I don’t have live but I do have a 360. I love fishing with it. At times it’s as easy as seeing fish, casting to fish and catching fish. Other times you don’t even see the fish or they move around and not there by the time you cast to them.
I would hate to see the technology banned. For the most part I like less govern over reach not more.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_3989.jpeg
   

Interesting to see such varied responses and opinions.

For better or worse, tech and the markets that drive it aren’t going anywhere. While its affects are easier to tangibly grasp, the largest factor of fisheries’ decline remains environmental degradation – habitat/forage loss, algal blooms and the resulting plummeting O2 levels, chem/pharmaceutical/bacterial exposure, climate change, ag/industrial runoff…

It’s such a monumental issue, and the DNR’s questioning of angling technology seems almost diversionary at best. Is there an impact? Sure. In my opinion though, a fairly negligible impact when compared the major factors previously listed. We hit the iceberg a while ago, in that regard.

So, what do we do? We need farms, we need industry, but we also need clean water to drink/use/recreate upon. Calling for accountability and responsible/ethical use of our watersheds shouldn’t be as heretical as it seems to be, along with supporting bipartisan legislation that does the same.

fishthumper wrote:

For those here in Minnesota, if asked this same question how would you answer?

Ban ’em! We need less screen time, not more. Of course I say that as someone who has rid themselves of all that junk except for a simple mapping DI unit. I felt I was getting away from the reason I go outdoors. Screen time is NOT one of the reasons I’m on the water.

Wade Boardman wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>
For those here in Minnesota, if asked this same question how would you answer?

Ban ’em! We need less screen time, not more. Of course I say that as someone who has rid themselves of all that junk except for a simple mapping DI unit. I felt I was getting away from the reason I go outdoors. Screen time is NOT one of the reasons I’m on the water.

I agree about the screen time in the summer. I tried the open water musky deal in the summer with livescope and didn’t make it an hour. Driving around staring at a screen took all the enjoyment out of fishing in a boat for me.

With winter fishing, I’m going to be staring at a screen anyways. If it’s not my livescope screen it’s gonna be a flasher. There aren’t too many ice fisherman that don’t spend a lot of their time looking at a screen.

Most of the people I know who have them use them in the winter but rarely or never in the summer. Other than the musky guys I rarely see them used in summer in the Midwest and Canada. For a lot of types of fishing FFS doesn’t give much or any advantage in the boat.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

Other than the musky guys I rarely see them used in summer in the Midwest and Canada. For a lot of types of fishing FFS doesn’t give much or any advantage in the boat.

Oh I beg to differ on that. Both of the Bassmaster Elite events held this season already have been nothing but scopefests. If you aint scopin, you’re just hopin’.

When they make their northern swing to smallmouth waters in the summer, it will be nothing but livescoping on offshore structure with a drop shot. 100% that will be the primary tactic.

There is beginning to be a generational gap in pro fishing too. Older fellas that have been on tour for a long time cannot rely on experience and knowledge to keep up with the young bucks that are scoping. New kids on the block that have never fished many of these lakes show up as scope wizards and mop up against the veterans now because of technology.

Gimruis that is tournament fishing. I’m talking everyday fishing for fun.
Do you see a lot of livescopes being used when there isn’t a tournament going on? I don’t but maybe it’s different in the metro.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

Gimruis that is tournament fishing. I’m talking everyday fishing for fun.
Do you see a lot of livescopes being used when there isn’t a tournament going on? I don’t but maybe it’s different in the metro.

My apologies, I misread your previous post.

Honestly I can’t really answer if a ton of people are scoping when I am out fishing. I don’t pay that much attention and I’m generally trying to avoid other boats and people when I am out there lol

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>FinnyDinDin wrote:</div>
Other than the musky guys I rarely see them used in summer in the Midwest and Canada. For a lot of types of fishing FFS doesn’t give much or any advantage in the boat.

There is beginning to be a generational gap in pro fishing too. Older fellas that have been on tour for a long time cannot rely on experience and knowledge to keep up with the young bucks that are scoping. New kids on the block that have never fished many of these lakes show up as scope wizards and mop up against the veterans now because of technology.

That right there is a prime example of why they should be banned. Especially in tournaments. Tournaments are all about skill and knowledge. And you just said these techy boys can beat the pants off of skill and knowledge.

Not to mention that begs the question about the common techy boy, and what he’s doing to the fish population and fishing pressure.