|
|
| Can't believe no one has commented on this yet. Posession limit of 6 for the Merc. this year. Why? Don't get me wrong, this is an awesome tournament that I have fished for 20+ years and is run by the best people in the business, but why 6 in the livewell and you are done? I am an honest tournament angler, always have been and will abide by this new rule. Just don't understand it. Don't even want to think about the number of teams that will break this rule. If I am incorrect on the intepretation of this rule, I apologize. |
|
| |
|
| Is that really a bad thing for 6 fish in the livewell? I'm fishing the weekend before you and I've see conversation threads about cull tags. Now I've never fished an event where cull tags were issued so I'll be curious.
But, MWC/NTC then Merc, then Otter St and finally a couple weeks later the FLW Walleye Tour. I've had a conversation w/ my partner who's fishing the MWC and then Merc w/ his black motor partner and he said there's plenty of fish in the system.
All I can tell you is the Winnebago system is going to get fished hard for a long time by the best walleye fishermen around.
I feel for ya, and hope the MWC/NTC has 10 fish limit (I seriously doubt it!). Be it what ever, have a good event and enjoy being in the boat!!!
Dave |
|
| |
|
| Why is this a bad thing? It makes the tournament more competitive it will make you think should I put this fish in the livewell or let it go. I wish every tourny was run this way and enforced top 5 teams should have lie detectors to see if they culled or not! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| Bill - 3/1/2010 7:35 PM Why is this a bad thing? It makes the tournament more competitive it will make you think should I put this fish in the livewell or let it go. I wish every tourny was run this way and enforced top 5 teams should have lie detectors to see if they culled or not! This is not a bad thing if every team followed the rules. Unfortunately, there will be cheating, and that is a bad thing. |
|
| |
|
| This is a bad thing. Thumper is right about the cheating and if the DNR says we can have 10 in the livewell between two anglers, why not.
Look at what AIM is doing, letting the angler catch fish. These tournaments do not hurt the walleye population in the system and never will. At least Otter Street is letting us keep 8. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | The AIM CRR process would be interesting to implement for the Merc National. It would take a couple serious adjustments as to what goes on in that trailer during weigh in, though.
I have a question...if 6 is what the livewell limit is, and it was 10, what was the mechanism that stopped folks from culling illegally when ten were in the well? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 192
| I don't see it as a bad thing either. My guess is they are doing it because of the long wait before you way in with your fish. The less fish in you livewell, maybe the better chance they have of survival. I've always followed the rules and do realize that some people won't. That doesn't bother me because in my experience most of them usually get theirs at some point along the way anyways. I just worry about what I do. Looking forward to the tournament again this year. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| Obviously the higher mortality of a couple recent Merc Nats has had an impact on the decision to go to 6 fish livewell limit. And that's not a bad thing. The people who cheat are going to cheat no matter, so that is a moot point.
Going to a CRR format would eliminate this mortatlity issue all together. It's just a bad situation keeping those fish in the livewell in that lagoon that long. Then again, the fishery is healthy, and if some fish die, and are given to pantry's, that's OK by me, too. The mortality from previous Merc Nationals has not hurt the fishery it appears.
I'll get off my fence now. hehehe |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| but your so comfortable up there! it must be a picket fence!!! hehehehe
Oh and your right....less mortality! 50-75% mortality did not fair well with many!
Edited by tyee 3/2/2010 11:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | tyee - 3/2/2010 11:53 AM
but your so comfortable up there! it must be a picket fence!!! hehehehe
Oh and your right....less mortality! 50-75% mortality did not fair well with many!
However, the many it did not fair well with have a 100% mortality rate in there boats. Maybe even 3 or 4 times a day 100% motality rate. |
|
| |
|
| Do you not understand the rule they are not saying you can only catch six fish. What they are saying is as soon as you catch a fish and put it in your livewell it counts as one of your six. You could go out and catch 40 walleyes in a day but you can only keep six out of the forty, the six you first put in your live well. Understand?  |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Bill,
'Why six in the livewell and you are done'?
I think it's understood just fine. |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 3/2/2010 1:31 PM
Bill,
'Why six in the livewell and you are done'?
I think it's understood just fine.
If it is understood just fine then what is all the complaining about? Look at the last comment Guest made about Aim letting the angler catch more fish. The rules at walleye weekend do not state how many fish you can catch it just says how many you can keep. What is all the fuss about? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| The fuss is because with only 6 allowed in the livewell, the honest anglers will have to decide whether to actually put a fish in the livewell. The people that culled when 10 were allowed? That'll just happen 4 fish earlier this year for those guys.
Edited by Shep 3/2/2010 7:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Bill,
AIM uses CRR which allows any fish the angler releases to count. The Angler chooses the largest caught to count against the allowable total number of walleyes of the day. There IS no possession, so there is no culling regulation to worry about.
If the total one can livewell goes from 10 to 6, the decision making process shortens by 4 as to which to livewell and which to toss back.
But, you already knew that. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| Bill - 3/2/2010 7:30 PM sworrall - 3/2/2010 1:31 PM Bill, 'Why six in the livewell and you are done'? I think it's understood just fine. If it is understood just fine then what is all the complaining about? Look at the last comment Guest made about Aim letting the angler catch more fish. The rules at walleye weekend do not state how many fish you can catch it just says how many you can keep. What is all the fuss about? Bill- No one is complaining about the 6 fish limit. I am saying it is hard for the honest anglers to compete against the cheaters, and the 6 fish limit will make that desparity even greater. |
|
| |
|
| What years are you talking about high mortality rate? Merc National has never had a 50%-75% mortality rate. |
|
| |
|
| Congratulations to the MWC. They got this one right. Weigh your best 5, "following local Wisconsin regulations." That means 10 through the livewell. Thanks MWC. Can't wait for June. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Guest, the earliest records I have are 2006 so lets look at that one. (10 fish limits brought to the scales.
see the chart to see that even then it was at 40% mortality and has not improved it has only gotten worse. (I am still looking for the other years but they have been posted here before) I believe last year was the worst yet. Otter changed their amounts last year which was a blessing to many and many are applauding Mercs change now!
BUT...has it effected moral or social views of the people or the companies vested in the industry?.........catch 10? catch 8? catch 5? catch 1? whats the difference? Just make sure you abide by the rules or DON'T PLAY THE GAME!...unless you adopt a 100% release system like AIM your sport will continue to be just a hobby.
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 3/3/2010 4:53 PM
Attachments
----------------
 eye mort.jpg (50KB - 158 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Tyee,
In all fairness... That chart is almost worthless. Carefully look at the middle, orange, number... "ASSUMED" is the word used. I have yet to see a valid scientific tournament mortality study (and I really wish that there was one out there). The Wisconsin DNR tournamment study was seriously flawed and contained "assumed" results. You cannot have an assumption as a major part of your scientific argument. No matter who publishes it. I would love to have two five pounders in my live well and then "assume" I would catch three 12lbers and therefore have a total weight of 46lbs recorded for my "score"... Also, the DNR has carefully studied Winnebago and has concluded that tournament (mortality/and non-mortality) fishing has no harmful effect on the population...just ask them. "Exploitation" (removed from all sources) is factored into the management equation every year. And, every year in the last 15-20 years (don't have the exact dates in front of me) they declare the population of walleye in the system to be healthy.
Edited by hgmeyer 3/3/2010 7:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Let's look at this as it is...a reduction of the number of fish that will be livewelled and brought to shore and a predictable move most events in Wisconsin will eventually adopt by choice or by regulation. As such, mortality will be, by ratio at best, that much less.
The issue of culling isn't one of the number of fish allowed in the well, it's a matter of personal integrity. Each team should be subject to a polygraph, and most events have a provision for that or something like it.
There's nothing new about this discussion. The one major weakness of Team events held where culling isn't legal is the prospect that some may cull anyway, and the only thing I know of to discourage any activity of that sort is the promise of the use of a polygraph.
I'm not sure 6 is any worse or better than 10 to 'discourage' culling. If a team is disposed towards that activity, whether the livewell has 6 or 10, there you are. That said, the choices a Team has to make about which fish to livewell, and which to release, get's more 'interesting' as the number allowed shrinks.
So Bill has a point, what's the worry...it is what it is.
I think that the VAST majority fishes legally, MWC and Merc, etc. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| What Steve said.
The problem with the Merc and other team events is the cheaters. And the threat of polygrapgh is not there, except for the top placing teams or two. At the Merc, they pay down 50+ spots, and the cheaters do have an effect on those spots. So yes, I agrre, the threat should be for all teams to be poly's, but that would be cost prohibitive.
That said, if the Merc had 100% mortality, ie.,catch and kill, it wouldn't affect the fishery negatively. Public perception? Absolutely.
I think CRR is the obvious next step. Easy to implement, too. Require every boat to have a digital camera that accepts a memory card, and a standard bump stick. The Tournament will hand out fresh memory cards at boat check in the AM. Memory cards are cheap, and that shouldn't be an issue. Have a check box on the entry for a couple different memory card options. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Steve, I concur! your absolutely right. AND I do not disagree with any of you, although HG, The post mortality numbers are accurate in the studies I have read on other species in warm water enviroments, yes the WI DNR study for Bass was flawed in some cases but that data wasn't used in their new calculations on released mortality figurers. In addition there has been an EXTENSIVE study in MN on post mortality from ordinary fishermen and I believe the percentage came out pretty close to that of which the WI DNR uses, I do not have those results, maybe someone can enlighten or correct me.
Either way tournament fishing does not have an impact on the fishing and we all agree. BUT the question is more towards ethics and the perception of the general public that we should be more concerned about don't ya think?
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | tyee - 3/4/2010 3:53 PM
BUT the question is more towards ethics and the perception of the general public that we should be more concerned about don't ya think?
Good Luck
Tyee
I would like to hear a good argument from you Tyee to support this statement that you make. Lets get a good one going. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 132
| Of the tournaments that allow the fewest fish in the live well for weigh in makes it too easy for the teams that aren't on consistent catches to slop out with a pair of big fish and be closer in the race than if it was the most fish in the livewell for weigh in.
Lawrence |
|
| |
|
| Cell phone usage is also rampant in events such as merc and otter which is unfortunate. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | OK Tyee, what you got? You have logged in on the 5th and did not answer. I am so sick of you and some others throwing out a blanket statement and never explaining or backing it up. I want to know. This is not a argument, its a discussion. I want to know why we need to do what you say.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 182
Location: Green Bay, WI. | That's scary, I have an X-wife that would check when I logged in on another site just to argue. Pat Cavins |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| ya pretty scary Pat you should steer clear of those other porn sites, this walley porn is all you need to get the wife in a tizzy. I log in often and dont always check a thread! But to "discuss" it with you Stacker.....Public perception is what it is! lots of dead fish at a tournament does not help the sport. believe it or not but the Bass guys figured this out long ago! If you want to argue that tournament fishing has no impact on the fishery...well I wont go there because we both know it doesn't. but when there is a 50% mortality of mostly females at a tournament people get upset! No argument there whatso ever! Improving the image of tournament fishing INCLUDES reducing the number of dead fish!
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 3/6/2010 11:28 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Okay, since we all agree on two points... 1) That reasonable tournament usage of Winnebago has no detrimental effect on the fishery, and 2) it is only about "perception" not reality... Then, let's fix the perception issue.... We can play a game, and use release boats that sprinkle the fish all over the lake far away from the weigh-in site or we can simply kill and clean everything weighed (no floating dead fish) by requiring the anglers to take away (home) their legal limits.
Or, let's all work to educate the "public" and support the sport of tournament fishing and recognize the contribution of tournament anglers to the health of the resource and the sport of fishing in general. An anti-tournament bias serves no one.
Edited by hgmeyer 3/6/2010 12:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | tyee - 3/6/2010 11:21 AM
But to "discuss" it with you Stacker.....Public perception is what it is! lots of dead fish at a tournament does not help the sport. believe it or not but the Bass guys figured this out long ago! Tyee
here is where you always seem to be the spokes man for the PUBLIC. I know where the sportsman come from, walleyes for tomarrow and the many many other clubs around the world. They have a voice as they put money into there fisheries and voice there opinions on rules for the system when they come up. Otter street puts thousands more fish back in the system than the few walleyes that die over them making the moneys needed to put them fish back. Now, this public that you state is up in arms, can you direct me to there website where they have united agaist tournaments? Can you give me a phone number of just one united effort to stop this cruelty to animals and fish that have been killed for the sake of entertainment? Or do we all just sit back and let you tell us how they are all UP IN ARMS and you guys JUST BETTER believe me when I speak? I have yet to see people pickiting outside a weigh in for it to stop. Show me something that makes you right. Just because you believe it does not make it the truth.
This is not an attack on the man, but the mans words. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| HG, don't forget the third and best choice......you don't even need to take them into posession
which of those three do you think the public would be more receptive of?
Good Luck
Tyee
Stacker oh yes it is an attack on the man! Or have you just spent your life selling water ski toys and are oblivious to the truth? I belong to many groups that don't necissarly share my views and some that do but to back up MY statements and what I know, I'll point you in the direction so you can seek out the truth yourself, otherwise it's a pointless discussion:
Search the net dude, it's an amazing tool that lots of people use to voice their displeasure! There are a lot of websites where polls have been done, there are numerous articles for all kinds of species bass, redfish, walleye and even the deep sea Marlin tourneys south of the border where someone has vented thier displeasure in competative angling or a fish kill publically, tarnishing the image.
News channels have repeatedly reported every competitive "fish kill" and only recently have they started showing both sides. The Bass guys improved their "image" problem years ago, now others have to step up to the plate and many are and some are being forced by new regulations.
You can argue that this is just one mans perception. And you have read my rants on the subject right here on this website and others for nearly 10 years. As for being the voice of the public, I'd rather that you consider that the voice being used is one that has helped to improve this perception over those years and tourney directors are making those changes to better inform the public that the bennefits outweigh the shortcommings. Merc nats are evidence of that today!
My credentials are short but contain a fair amount of knowledge on the subject. Numerous people in my family work in the public eye of this industry and I deal with people around the midwest daily in all industries including this one so I "hear" it ALL, the good the bad AND the fugly, SO to your point,,,,,,,,these are NOT only my views my friend, they do call that hearsay. If you are my judge and jury I AM guilty
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 3/7/2010 8:04 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I as well as others should not have to do a "Internet Search" for these so called polls, be the MAN you say you are and post the links to the facts. show your cards or everything you say is just hearsay. period. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Tyee,
What is it that gives you the right to go out onto the water any time it is legal, catch a limit of fish for you and anyone else in the boat, take them home, forever removing EVERY one of those fish, forever, from the lake, but does not give me the same right to go out and catch a limit of fish for me and the other guy in my boat that we release, giving all or some of those fish back to the lake?
Simple question. Even using your numbers I am putting back at least 50-60% of what I catch. Your logic seems flawed. If you are arguing about "rights", I do not have fewer or lesser rights. If it is "damage" to the resource you have agreed none is really done. If it is "perception" why not educate? What do you really want? What IS your goal?
Somewhere, the answer has to be articulated by you, not me. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | As a separate issue; I AM part of the PUBLIC, so what I "want" is just as relevant as what you or the mythical/generic "public" want in this discussion. As a matter of fact, if anything, based on what I contribute to conservation, directly, and indirectly, I probably have a whole lot more positive impact on the viability of the resource than your generic "public", so maybe I ought to have more "say". |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 197
| I fished Merc for 9 years and Otter for 16. I also heard people talking about what percent of the fish released died. Yet I never seen one walleye floating around the lake. A simple solution is to make a giant boom net in a circle. Netting will sink down about 4 feet. The live walleyes will swim out under the net and the dead stay floating and contained. Now count them. If this is not done then everyone should keep there numbers to themselves because they are just lies. I also know more fish survive from tournament fishermen then the weekend people who need to fill the freezer. |
|
| |
|
| MDNR did a kill survey at Mille Lacs in the 90's, they kept all walleye in containment and it was something like 50% kill the day after and 100% kill 3 days after the tournament. When I get back out there in a couple of weeks I'll see if Gary can dig up the paperwork. Not saying containment may not have had a percentage to do with it.
Tyee is correct about the perception...however I think it is not directed broadly at tournaments as it is in the organized competition for money on the water. This is no different than how a greater share of the public views parties driving for deer or hunters using dogs to track bear. It looks like a gross abuse of the public recourses, warranted or not.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | RNT... I know of only one published "study" that had good scientific protocols. (Systematic steps, repeatable results, and tight controls on variables). That did "see" a correlation between water temp and post release mortality. It was done on Francis Case. It ended with a conclusion that further study was needed to derive better results before all factors could be considered and definitive data correlations could be published. However, it did have one factor that impressed me, no mortality in the non-tournament captured control fish. That was absolutely attributed to the fact that the control fish and the tournament captured fish were kept in moving water. They were not kept in containment nets in still water. That study noted that in "other studies' with control fish kept in nets, pens, tanks, etc. without moving water there was statistical mortality of the control fish. They concluded that the stress of containment without moving water caused the mortality. So, the MDNR study you reference, with static pens, was discredited in two ways, there were no control fish kept in identical circumstances which exhibited no mortality to compare to the mortality of the tournament fish and the Francis Case study trends to prove that containment under some circumstances causes mortality without adding a factor of having been caught and kept in a livewell.
Also, let's discuss a plan to change 'PERCEPTION" (better defined as an unreasonable, unjustified 'PREJUDICE' against tournament fishing) that tournaments cause harm to the fishery. |
|
| |
|
| With regards to previous posts on cheating, how about just providing each team with Cull Tags like the MWC is doing? In my eyes that is the way to go if you are gonna limit it to 6 fish in the livewell and done. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Oh, and bye the way, I want only the studies or comments from the public on the winnebago chain. We are discussing the perception of the merc national not some southern redneck refish guys. Not some minnesota studys and not studies in general. I want actual groups that have formed or tv time given to these groups OUTRAGED at the kill during winnebago tournaments. |
|
| |
|
| http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/wnrmag/html/stories/2006/jun06/fishcon.h...
http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%281996%29016%3C036... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Read carefully, the first citation is an "opinion/exposition" piece. Not a scientific study. The second, while bearing the very well respected name of Kendal Kamke...read the abstract carefully... The word "estimated" is used before any statistics. Enough said, and the fact that it is cited in a long list of articles is only repeating the estimates.
Also, Kamke's opinions from 1996 is far different than those held today.
I hate to be such a skeptic, but the science is not there... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | I have repeatedly asked for a study of "hooking" mortality of walleyes to see if just being caught is the cause of post release mortality. I do not know of any such study, but am interested if someone does.
There are so many variables and factors to examine... is it being caught by hook and line... is it being in a livewell... does adequate oxygenation and temperature control negate the effects, if any of the livwell "experience? How about "netting"... do certain kinds of nets do harm or some less harm? Depth caught? Time in the livewell... And, on and on... Then there are the pre-weigh-in tanks... If they are too cold or too hot... oxygenenated or not... See what needs to be studied.
I am all for improvements... I am all for striving for "0" mortality... But, progress will only come from scientific effort not emotion of estimates. |
|
| |
|
| hgmeyer,
Asking for a specific scientific study on public opinion for the Winnebago system is chasing a dog you know is not there and never will be. The DNR does recognize that public opinion of tournaments is in the negative, and ignoring it because of a lack of a science study is puzzling.
If there is a need of a study to verify or debunk the issue of public perception then that funding should be coming from the fishermen. If a survey were done today I am willing to wager that 80% of the public would be in two categories when it comes to tournaments...they either dislike them or they could care less about them...and both categories would probably say tournaments hurt the fishing.
I don't think the greater portion of tournament fishermen seem to care too much what the public thinks anyhow. It is shown that the tournaments do not affect the fisheries in any major way...so why waste time on people who are just plain wrong.
This industry just plain old sucks at public relations.
|
|
| |
|
| As for the mortality rate, for Winnebago there is not a study I know of. Not sure why other studies should not be looked at as a basis. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| in a ten minute search i found a few while not Winnebago it is the closest resemblance...these are numbers from professionals and what they are doing about it.
http://www.perm.org/pdfs/TreatyManagement.pdf
This is one from Canada in the winter even the cold weather they had 10%
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E005345.pdf
Heres an article claiming 25% in MN warm water!
http://www.minnesotaoutdoornews.com/articles/2010/01/21/top_news/ne...
Mille Lacs adjusts its management plan for warm water months
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/07/13/millelacsli...
http://www.minnesotaoutdoornews.com/articles/2010/01/21/top_news/ne...
Most all other studies I have seen around the country claim between 10 and 25% ....so it is what it is! It can be picked apart in many ways but you have to use some sort of number. MN did a great 2 year study in '04/'05 on Mille Lacs where officers and the genearal public participated in a $175k mortality study and while it showed great success in cold waters, the mid summer months were not so successful. I have not found the whole study but have read excerpts of it and the above management plans appear to use the data from that study.
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 3/8/2010 11:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 650
| At least you got Walleye tourneys to fish. regardless of the rules... I can find about a half dozen here in NY but some still have the word derby... Enjoy... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| Guest - 3/8/2010 9:39 AM With regards to previous posts on cheating, how about just providing each team with Cull Tags like the MWC is doing? In my eyes that is the way to go if you are gonna limit it to 6 fish in the livewell and done. Bingo. Cull tags are the first step, and then actually checking boats is the second. They simply must be able to enforce the rule or you may as well not even have it. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Tyee,
I read every word of the artiucles and monographs you posted.
Unfortunately, any of the so called studies have huge holes in the science. I know you will have a hard time swallowing this, but, the usual methodology of employing holding pens and observing mortality will result in 15-25% or more mortality of fish period. It has been proven that that method, holding fish in pens kills many of the fish.
RNT,
I don't think I asked for a study on perception, although that would be a good idea. Also, a focus group and a before and after survey would be very useful. But, if the DNR would be honest as opposed to PC, they would be on the edge in educating the public that tournaments are not bad for the resource. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | If a team is disposed to be less than honest, the tags won't guarantee anything. Gotta actually attach the tag to make the system work, and there has to be a credible risk boats may be checked during the event to force that issue.
Changing the format to Boater/Co Boater would help, AIM's CRR format would lock the issue up. Both would be difficult to get done for a bunch of reasons. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | RNT, not looking for a scientific study of public opinion. Looking for a group that has formed to contest these events. Looking for the HORDES that TYEE speaks of that CANNOT STOMACH the tourneys any longer.
TYEE, you cannot dodge your words with lengthy reads that are about mortality. We are not discussing mortality. I want the reads that state the general public IS UP IN ARMS as you said about the tournaments on bago. I want numbers so I may have a percentage of the PUBLIC that hate these events. Come on, you made the statement now produce the goods.
Edited by stacker 3/9/2010 10:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| HG,
I suppose the only study you would believe would be one where every fish caught was radio tagged and monitored huh? That could be expensive and i doubt there is any tournament out there that could afford to do such a study Unless of course you know a political group willing to fork out some of the cash?.
Like I said it is what it is and a number HAS to be used. You can argue any way you want but until funding is available we have to work with what we have. Hows this? Remove all the speculation and go strictly catch and release...you solve both issues (mortality and perception). CRR IS the only course of action for tournament image improvement!
There will still be some (jealosy probably) that will hate tournaments but this would be a huge step forward.
Good luck
Tyee
DEBBY DENNY DENNY...............You need to get out more and talk to your customers.....hows the ice look?
Edited by tyee 3/9/2010 10:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin |
DEBBY DENNY DENNY...............You need to get out more and talk to your customers.....hows the ice look?
I talk to alot of fisherman, alot, and have yyet to hear them say what you say.
The ice is wet hahahaha I will look at it weds. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Tyee,
Only a real scientific study can be used to prove a point statistically. Anything else, anything, is just "best guess" speculation. I can do that. And, I have some data to back it up. Pen kept fish die, regardless of whether they have been caught in a tournament, electro-shocked or netted. So, no, I will not and you should not either, rely on any study that used "pens" or tanks that do not require the fish to maintain at least moderate movement through water flow (artificial current). You might as well be relying on mythology and witchcraft. Furthermore, unless the possible variables are controlled and monitored, how do you know what is influencing/causing the mortality? If pen kept electroshocked "control" fish have 15-65% mortality (the Wisconsin Bass "study") and in one instance higher mortality than the tournament fish what is killing the fish. Wake up! Referring to flawed studies as authoritative because that is all that is available is accept the argument that the world is flat because it was written up that way by somebody who said it was so.
What is killing the fish is my concern. Is it netting, handling, water quality? What? Only when we know that can we "fix" it or if it can't be fixed "deal with it".
See, what if getting "hooked", regardless of any other factor, that is causing most of the mortality? Then does CRR make any more sense? No, not from a "mortality" point of study. What if it is weigh-in procedures? Then those can be modified. What if it is livewell function? Then those can be modified. Regardless of what, until proper scientific protocols are utilized, we won't know. So, stop using phrases like; "it is what it is" that mean nothing. Start demanding that decisions be made on scientific data only, no PC or emotion.
Read the entire Mille Lacs analysis again. They are being critical of non-scientific factors and guess work being used as the basis for management decisions. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 49
| The comment that the MWC/NTC got it right is subject to dscssion. If it is run with cull tags which are attached by cutting a slit in the lower jaw and attaching the tag like they did in Nort Dakota does it make it a kill tournament. ( North Dakota was ). Do the DNR rules in Wisconsin allow for a fish to be released after it has been tagged in this manner.
Also if CRR is the way to go and cheating is your concern. What is the difference between culling ad a team that catches a big fish then puts it in the livewell and takes another picture of the same fish an hour later. AIM has other things in place to stop thisfrom happening. Without an observer in every boat it would be just as bad as culling.
Just one more question. Why not remove the culling rules in Wisconsin. The sooner you release a fish back into the water the higher survival rate should be. |
|
| |
