|
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | Well, this should really liven up the board!!!
But, it is my opinion that the rules governing culling should be thrown out. Plain and simple.
This is a perspective of one who just wants the right to keep or throw back whatever fish he catches.....whether it's while fishing with my family for fun or in a tourney.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!
|
|
| |
|
| Anglers who fish tournaments already get to cull. They get to put fish in the livewell, take them to the weigh-in, and then release them. According to Wis law, if it goes in your livewell, it is part of your bag limit and cannot be released. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | JP,
That's one way of interperting the law, but I don't agree with your logic. Based on what you are saying, all tournaments should be catch and keep.....is that correct? |
|
| |
|
| No, I don't think they should be catch and keep. I should have said it is a form of culling because you cannot upgrade and release fish. But you are releasing fish that have been placed in your livewell which a non-tournament angler can't do. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Jerry,
I belive that you can tell which fish is going to make it.
And can catch and release many fish un harmed.
But 90% of the public fishing can not.
They do not even know what they are fishing for, just ask them....
Fish is the answer.
They would pull small fish off a stringer to keep a larger one.
Have a hard time getting some people to put fish back during the closed season.
I.E. 2 years ago stopped buy LaBelle to see what was biting.
One guy shore fishing had a basket with a 4 lbs smallie in it.
Told them that the season was not open, resp. you ain't the law.(cell call)
A few years back at my favorite lg. bass lake.
A retal boat came in and showed us his 3 man limit of jumbo perch.
He and his two kids had 150 7-12 in lg. bass, not one perch.
Told him what they were, big arguement resort owner came down
And backed me.
Guy dumps them all back in......
About 20 were floating then and there, how many lived, only the
turtles know for sure.
Another time we were in Lime Kiln park grafton.
Guy fishin , stopped to see whats biting...Perch..
He had a basket full of smallmouth bass (7-10in).
Aurgement....guy throws the basket in the trunk and drives off.
"#@"plates on the car.(cell call)
I can go on and on with examples like this that I am witness to, how many unkowns.
Just can not let it become a meat hunter type rule out there.
Think what they did to the good old days.
Personally I think there should be a test to get a fishing License.
With a phyc. profile as part of the test. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | JP,
Why can't a non-tournament angler release his/her fish after they are caught and placed in a livewell? The law says you must count them as part of your daily bag limit. It doesn't say that once thy're in your livewell that you have no right to relase them, if you wish. Once they're in your livewell, they are yours to keep or release. No different than a tournament angler letting his catch go after a weigh-in. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | Richfish,
Your examples are examples of people who need to be made aware of laws and how to identify fish. Culling/sorting would not do anything either way for these people. A culling law wouldn't do anything for someone who cannot I.D. a perch or small largemouth bass, and the current no cull law doesn't do them anything either.
I do agree with the need for more education, but I don't think today's laws do anything to deter the double dippers and overharvesters. |
|
| |
|
|
It's the same old story:
Tournament angler makes decision to keep fish.
Tournament angler catches bigger fish, but can't keep it.
Tournament anlger gets frustrated and blames DNR for his decision to keep early fish.
The truth of the matter is these "uniformed" fisherman will catch one short of their limit and continue fishing. As they catch larger fish, the smaller fish get thrown back, regardless of their condition.
Or maybe it's not a matter of a selfish person, but a person who just doesn't know that the fish will die. A badly hooked or badly handled fish has a high probability of not making it.
The rules are fine as they are, and it is only selfish tournament fisherman who want the changes. Not that I'm saying your selfish jerry... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Jerry, Jerry, Jerry....I read the title to this thread and your post...and can't stop laughing...(Not at your opinion but rather the topic and what your doing to get people active on the board...it's a good one)..Although I don't have time this am to read all the responses..I'll wait a bit to see others opinions. I think I have voiced my position on this one well enough that people know what I think! I'm looking forward to everyones input!
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 874
Location: Neenah, WI | NO CULLING!!!!!!!!!! Part of tournament strategy is making up your mind whether to keep a fish or not. We had this backfire on us in the 2001 Otter St. tourney and quit both days at about noon and took 29th. The fish just kept getting bigger and before we knew it we had 10 in the box. I think weekend anglers are looking for fish to eat and should keep what they want for home but shouldn't swap fish in their livewells due to the fact that they may not survive. At least in tournaments the unreleasable fish go to the needy. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Heres an answer that will twist your mind. The most culling I do is on the rivers I fish with clients. If we're near to our daily limit and catch a nice 17 to 19 inch male eater, any bigger fish I think is a viable spawning female and still in releasable shape, gets taken out and released. I call it transverse culling.  |
|
| |
|
| Gerry
I went back and read the regulations again. I always assumed once a fish was part of your bag limit you can't release it. But the regulations read:• to sort fish. Any fish you take into possession which you do not release immediately is
part of your daily bag limit even if it is released later.
Thanks for making me aware of this and disregard what I posted previously. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Dale:
You say: "NO CULLING!!!!!!!!!! Part of tournament strategy is making up your mind whether to keep a fish or not. We had this backfire on us in the 2001 Otter St. tourney and quit both days at about noon and took 29th. The fish just kept getting bigger and before we knew it we had 10 in the box. "
Doesn't your example give credence to justifying culling? Your example shows that luck played more into the scenerio than your fishing ability. If you and everyone else were able to cull, the best fisherman would win not the luckiest. What am I missing?
I think that this is an old law that could be changed. Now that most people have livewells that keep the fish alive, the law could be changed to read that upgrading is acceptable only if the fish is releasable.
Please do not misunderstand how I feel. I fish more days than most and rarely keep fish for the table. The last thing that I am is a meat hog.
I still believe that 10% catch 90% of the fish. Those in this catagory must learn responsibility to protect the resource.
Don't beat me up too bad, pleae |
|
| |
|
| Hi, my named is Terry and I am a culler.
In non-tourney situations, have placed a larger fish in my livewell on numerous occasions, to see if it were going to be in good enough shape to release. When/if they were, I did.
I don't feel guilty. I have watched Fisheries personnel handle them in ways that deserved a smack on the side of the head.
 |
|
| |
|
| JP, you are mistaken. Here is an example of how a fish can be released after it has become part of your possession limit.
Example 1- Bay of Green Bay - catch BIG fish in 3 foot waves and want to move to safer conditions just around the point for photo's. Put fish in live well - go to spot and photo fish - release fish - bag limit left for the day = 2.
Example 2 - Wolf River - early AM catch one 18" walleye - 1/2 hour later a storm chases you to the boat ramp - you decide not to clean the one healthy swimming walleye in your live well and release it - bag limit left for the day = 4. If you went fishing after the storm you could legally only keep 4 walleyes.
So it IS perfectly legal to release a fish that was reduced to your possesion as long as you don't replace that fish in your daily bag limit. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | First, no culling does not result in decisions on tournament "strategy", rather it creates a guessing game...that's all...no skill, just guessing. You might get a better fish, regardless of your skill as a fisherman or you night not. True, if you are a good fisherman, your odds are better, but that's all.
Next, with the improvements in livewells the mortality is probably the same whether the fish is released at the side of the boat or after being in the livewell. When we put them on stringers...I can understand a rule against culling. But, not now.
Someday, we will have onboard digital scales that will moot this entire discussion. Then, I want the guys who support this rule to stand firmly on the side of not weighing them all... but, rather have them continue supporting "picking" whether to count the fish or not before they are weighed. Duh, won't happen.
Given the availability of digital cameras and their low cost...I am surprised that we haven't experimented with total length tournaments... Same scale, shoot the picture release the fish and be ready to download the "chip" at the "weigh-in" (actually a "measure-in")! |
|
| |
|
|
Hey Doc, thanx for clarifying that rule.! 
Might I add to all who are promoting culling: it is against the law to cull and hope this thread does not encourage some to do so..
This whole culling debate is being promoted by tournament fisherman. Any tournament fisherman who has a Dead fish in the livewell - that is next in line to be culled - will be. This is a waste of the resource and will make for very bad publicity should this be recorded and shared with the general public.
And no culling may make it more of a guessing game, but that is part of the excitement in making choices. Why would anyone feel they have made a good choice, if at some point your choice could be a bad one?
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| If culling would be allowed, that would be fine with me. If not, then for the tourney, some hard choices may have to be made. Last year, Dean Stoflet and I made the hard choice to keep a couple 14's early. Ended up in 7th place on a day with a pretty tough bite. Those 14's were part of only 5 fish we caught, but they were enough for a good finish.
And why shouldn't us walleye guys be allowed to cull fish? The bass guys are going to be able to in their tourneys.
That fact that we presently have no-cull rules, doesn't mean they are followed, ether. You got guys using more rods than allowed, cell phones and radio's, hiding/bopping/planting fish. You think that nobody is culling? I've not done it, and wouldn't. But I'm betting my entry fee everytime, that somebody is.
Edited by Shep 5/25/2004 3:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| Shep hit the nail on the head. It is an almost unenforcable rule in a non-tournament situation and a very difficult rule to enforce even in a tournament situation. I defintely think it adds excitement to a tourney if everyone obeys. I get bored of watching bass guys on TV just keep on fishing and upgrading. Having to watch them think about whether or not to keep an early fish and hear their reasons for it would be very refreshing. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | Rick, Rick, Rick......(May I call you Richard?)
This has nothing to do with the "same old story" theme you presented. It may be how you see it, but it's not fact whatsoever.
I came to this decision based on an event involving my son and a 29" fish we caught a few weeks ago. I told him if he got a big walleye this year he could get it mounted. Wouldn't you know, but the first fish in the boat that day was a 29 incher. He wanted to keep it to get it mounted. I threw it in the livewell. Later, we caught some nice eaters and had our allowed bag limit. My son had second thoughts about keeping that fish (hard to believe an 11 year old would change his mind, isn't it?). I told him we could put it back. Right after we threw it back, we began to break down our equipment for the ride back. A board went back and in came another eater. By law, we were not allowed to keep this fish, as we already had our allowed daily bag limit. I do not agree with this portion of the law. By the way, we did not keep this fish.
Next time Rick, before you jump to poorly developed conclusions, ask questions. You made a very poor assumption. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | Shep your right on with that one some poeple have no conscience or remorse" its a me me world"some day those poeple will wonder "why me" and unfortunatly it is brought on upon themselves it occurs in every aspect of life and living. I feel if more poeple thought of fishing a a gentlemens game maybe the standards and honesty would improve! Just my 2 cents worth
Ritch
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | Jerry what you taught your son will remain with him for life and is far more valuable than the 29" fish that you could have been mounted or that 6 fish that could have gone in the bucket.
Ritch |
|
| |
|
|
No jerry, no assumptions here. It is tournament anglers who are promoting culling. That last sentence to my first post to this thread was meant to exclude you from the tournament fisherman... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | Tyee,
I am not trying to promote interest in this website by starting this thread. It is how I feel. If I was looking to promote more board usage, I would have put this thread under the Winnebago board, which I am a moderator of. I am just giving my opinion after having heard enough opinion to the contrary. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 49
Location: sheboygan,wisconsin | well here goes I also think culling should be allowed nowadays people seem to be much better
educated on our fishery and yes some people will waste fish trying to get something better,but most will not.I will leave you with this, there was a comment a couple of posts up about 10 fish in the livewell how many of those fish got wieghed and what happened to the rest! better to take five to the dock and not ten. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Actually this is a good subject and an even better discussion. Interesting reading, and good ideas from both sides of the subject.
I would like to see culling allowed IF one doesn't have a limit in the well. I don't fish many tournaments, so that isn't the reason, either. The reason is:
I don't keep a limit very often, and actually DOWNGRADE fish now and again. I would drop an 18" female back in when on a trip hunting up dinner if I got a 16" male as a replacement.
I would bet that I am an exception to the rule. |
|
| |
|
|
Only in Nirvana!
Hey sworrall, you have to admit alot of anglers would not use an allowed culling rule to "downgrade". If I truly believed all anglers had the same fishing ethics as you and I, then would also think culling would be no big deal. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| OK Jerry, I'm glad you cleared that up. But as for your post about releasing that 29" (10th fish) and then getting another. What is your concern there? Did you want to keep that eleventh fish for the table and throw back the 29"? maybe #11 was a 30" and possibly a better trophy? Although because of your earlier decission to place that 29"er in the well you should have been satisfied with your catch and as "LUCK" would have it you were fortunate enough to catch another fish (Skill never came into play) which made for an even better day on the water. Weather it is a better trophy or additional table fare it complimented your already successfull trip. Because your not allowed to cull in Wisconsin you were unable to take "ADVANTAGE" of a better circumstance that you put yourself in. Do you consider that a painfull experience that you had to make that choice? Or possibly a potential hazard to the resource?
There are many issues surrounding culling but what comes up the most is the "potential" harm done to the resource. and special regulations for certain people. Lets keep this topic about Walleyes as they are not as strong as a Bass but tournament fishing for both has raised this question all the way to our Govenor. The issue at hand not only affects tourney anglers but all sportspersons and given Ricks and Steves response (like mine) we are the exception where we release larger for table fare when wanted. I don't think it would be as big of an issue for me if that was the case.
Minnesota is undergoing the largest ever study on C&R walleyes and even a hooked fish is sucesptible to dying so bouncin around in a livewell for even a short ride should concern everyone. With water temps fluctuating as they do here in WI and such this is not a good thing unless of course there is evidence that the mortality rate would not increase (no one has submitted anything of the sort to date).
Given the chance to cull for tournaments only is a question that has been discussed at length. WHY NOT.....they are going to be released any way right? You have then introduced a special priveledge to a select group in regards to a resource. That has been my concern on this issue for well over 2 years. There are many states that do not allow culling and more are trying to model their rules similar to what we have in WI currently. For the most part we have had a great resource available to us for many years. Weather the culling rule is part of that or not it makes no difference to me.
I fish for ME and the people I take along. Sometimes for the table and many times not. Being able to cull would not change the way I fish in anyway unless in a tournament situation, and only if I had full support of the people of this state not just money hungary tournament directors. Current tournament rules in many circuits only weigh 6 of ten possible in posession this gets around the rule and limits the "potential" damage to the resource. If you make a rule change for tournament anglers only, you create conflict amoungst sportsmen. If you make the change for all, you give the sportsman the opportunity to really damage a resource... It's a no win situation so why change it! Remember I am talking Bass and Walleye only.
When you have private organizations (for profit) loby or persuade our Legislature to make rules regarding a resource you ask for trouble. Leave it to the professionals! Our DNR exists for a reason and that is to protect the resource. Many I have spoken to are against a rule change and especially against it for a select few...............
Good LUCK
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Sorry that post was so long but it needed to be said again as it is obvious many people don't even know the wording to the current law.....How many boats today have livewells? How many have wells with cycle timers? How many have wells that can sustain 5 fish each for the majority of the day? How many have wells that can sustain 5, 5 pound walleyes all day? How many don't have a backup pump? Do any have climate control for temp? Answer....NONE...now maybe there are a couple of 40k rigs out there that do a pretty good job but how many 40k rigs are really on the water these days?
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | Sorry, Tyee, but I do not agree. And don't bring that horses axx we call a governor into it. As you can see, I am counting the days when we get rid of that clown!!!
I do have some questions: Which two states are considered the top walleye states? I'd take Michigan and Ohio, if it were my choice. Funny, but I do not see their resources being exhausted by culling. Oh yes, by the way, they both allow culling. Call it a coincidence, but it's true. And, come to think of it, which two Midwest walleye states are the most populated? Think it's Ohio and Michigan? And, which two states have the largest population of walleyes in them? Might it be Michigan and Ohio AGAIN???
As for the keep or release of the 10th fish: that didn't have anything to do with me. It is all about whether my son wanted to keep the fish. Personally, it didn't bother me either way. But, I think we should have had a choice as to whether we could keep another fish or not. As I told him when we let it go: "You'll have plenty of opportunities to keep bigger ones this year". And, by the way, I had that fish in the livewell for 7 hours and it swam away like it's tail was on fire!!!
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Jerry,
There are very few walleyes in Ohio proper.
But there are many in Lake erie.
Reduced bags this year .
No fishing after dark in any river.
No more than 1 hook per-bait on the rivers.
No stingers on jigs and no cranks allowed on the rivers this spring.
Sound like some thing is wrong there?
And I just can not get over the fact that lake erie used to catch fire and could not be put out when I was a kid.
And they really are hard to pallete to me, and the people I have given them to.
I think Wisconsin is the top walleye state.
We have more inland lakes than any do.
15,000 named lakes here.
Great lakes not counting as more than one lake.
We are a little lacking on good res. mang. but they are trying.
I have lived else were and really missed fishing while gone.(NM and Missory)
Take some pride in your own fishery man.
Size is not all that matters, catching some is what matters.
How many days would you get on Erie if you han an 16 ft alum.??????
Well I can get on good walleye every day of the year here.
Open water all year or ice if you like.
You are what 1 hour from home grown monster walleyes.
Michigan no offense, but you should be 2 states.
And with out the great lakes what number of inland waters are there.
Have only fished in the UP and not that much.
Heck I catch more walleyes in a day in the wisconsin river, than in the entrie 2 weeks I have spent in canada.
Get out to some lakes this Memorial Day week end, and just look at the majority of the fishing public.
See the 14 foot boats they fish from, no live wells, shoot no lights, but plenty of empty beer cans.
But your intent to get some post rolling is working.
I think if you looked around and took it all in you would be shocked.
Edited by Richfish 5/25/2004 11:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 874
Location: Neenah, WI | Sunshine: Most boats on the water don't have the type of equipment that we have in the way of livewells, etc. When state law and tournament rules say no culling it becomes part of how we fish. An angler makes a decision and must live with it. Did I curse the no cull rule a little bit? You bet I did. We also kicked ourselves a little bit for keeping a couple of 20" fish early in the day. That's fishin' I guess. I've been around tournaments long enough to know that culling takes place along with cell phone usage and other signalling tactics. If culling was to become legal I would do it too. If we could have done it in 2001 we undoubtedly would have moved up and cashed a bigger check. It would have been nice to have a top 15 anyway.
For geo: Otter St. allows 10 fish in the boat and weigh your 6 best. Both days the other 4 were returned to the lake before we headed in.
This is a good discussion with lots of good opinions. Keep up the good work. Today I'll be trolling east of Garlic, stop by and say hi if you see a Crestliner. Deep Jrs. are working anywhere from 75-100 ft. back.
Have a good day. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Jerry, the clown your refering to just made it legal to cull in 8 Bass tourneys with NO help from our DNR. Do you support this test program? Would you support one for Walleyes that are not as strong as a Bass? You also said it would have been nice to have a choice to cull that fish. If you were using live bait, I could ALMOST compare that to me wanting to shoot a bigger buck after taking a lesser one! Obviously not apples to apples because we know the results of a dead deer. BUT untill you prove to me without a shadow of doubt that culling will not have an adverse affect to this sport I am totally against a change not supported completely by our DNR. Take Lake Erie and Lake Michigan out of your picture, now where is the best Walleye state? SD?, MN?, MI?, WI? hummmmm.
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
|
Jerry, what good does it do to call our Governor these names? You insult every person who voted for him with these words...
Culling is a selfish endeavor promoted by people who want to take advantage of the resource. I can not, in good conscience, view it any differently. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Ya’ Know,
This type of discussion is exactly why I like coming to this site. Except for Rick bashing tournament fishermen, no one points a finger and there is great dialogue where we all can learn from one another if we want to.
Tyee, you have great insight and I respect your position. I agree that when making the final decision, the impact on the resource should dictate the final answer. I also agree that specialists who dedicate their lives to the environment should be making the tough decisions and not the bureaucrats sitting behind a desk.
Dale, I agree that “some” boats on the water don't have the type of equipment that we have in the way of livewells, etc. That is why I stated: “the law could be changed to read that upgrading is acceptable ONLY if the fish is releasable.
Rick, you ARE correct if you believe that I am being self-serving here. My ideas or feelings should not be degraded because I am a tournament fisherman however. I’m being self serving because I see the lifting of a culling rule making the playing field more equal for me and others who play by the rules. I still believe that it would help eliminate the “luck” portion of tournament fishing. And I truly believe that I could release fish in a healthy state. I do not think that I would be hurting the resource. But if a law change made it too easy for others to endanger the resource I will be against it.
Tyee, thanks for the great insights. Having open dialogues like this can make all of us grow and learn if we take the time to read and reflect.
|
|
| |
|
|
No, my words do not bash tournament fisherman. You may feel insulted because of my stated beliefs, but in no way should it be made out to be a "bash", nor should you feel insulted, as what one person believes is of little consequence to the direction of the whole.
And there really are alot of negatives to tournaments, and all those fishing them should be looking towards minimizing these. The whole can put every tournament angler out of business, should these negatives be promoted and highlighted.
The truth is, some tournament directors and fisherman are promoting these ideas to bring larger weights to the scales. And small fish, regardless of their condition, will be thrown back.
I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with this culling practice because it does have a negative impact on the resource. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 874
Location: Neenah, WI | Rick said something that I should have said but I couldn't find the right words. Small fish, regardless of their condition, will be thrown back. That would be an awful waste and a black eye for ANY angler doing it.
I'm going fishing now. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Okay Rick:
Maybe I took your written words too serious and I’m a little too sensitive. I took the following statements made by you as a bashing……..
You wrote:
Tournament angler gets frustrated and blames DNR for his decision to keep early fish.
The truth of the matter is these "uniformed" fisherman will catch one short of their limit and continue fishing. As they catch larger fish, the smaller fish get thrown back, regardless of their condition.
The rules are fine as they are, and it is only selfish tournament fisherman who want the changes.
This whole culling debate is being promoted by tournament fisherman.
_____________________________________________________________
Rick, it appears that we are in agreement with wanting what is best for the resource. I’ll leave it that. Sometimes while reading your posts concerning tournaments I get the feeling that you really do not like them but I know that you participate in them. It confuses me. At some point I would like to spend some time with you in a boat and get a better take on your ideas concerning tournaments. For now, I’ll assume that you see problems with tournament circuits that can be corrected from the inside (through tournament fishermen voicing their opinions). But because I am a tournament fisherman I get a little sensitive when I perceive your bashing all of us. I’ll assume that it’s my problem (my perception) and not yours.
Sorry everyone if I sabotaged this thread for awhile. I still believe that most tournament participants have a high regard for the resource and they have the new equipment that will not hurt a released fish. But if allowing culling in tournaments makes it a “us against them’ situation I want nothing to do with it.
Tyee, I do like testing and research. Why not have the DNR allow a test tournament in walleye fishing that allows culling? Their findings could put this discussion to rest. Seeing the delayed mortality that could occur should make the bureaucrats sit and take notice.
Dale, two people have responded that they would throw bigger fish back and keep smaller ones. Not a great scientific poll but interesting? Don't you think? |
|
| |
|
|
Ok Sunshine, a fishing trip is in order!!!:-) |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | For eating fish.
I will only take 15-18 teens.
I will would be guiltily of putting back larger fish for smaller table fare.
But alot of the guys I have taken out are meat hungry.
Don't put that back I'll take it.
Well first you need to catch it yourself.
In the good old days at The Pete.
I would only take 15-16 only and my partners wanted to keep any thing they got and try to.
Well I did put some on the wall.
Ask them how many you got in the live well, cause thats my 4th, 4 they would say.
Lower water level and guess what there was 13, all the bigger ones got put back.
Have even had guys stash them in the storage compartments, only to say well it is hooked to bad to let go.
I am so glad 90% percent of the fish are caught buy only 10% of the fisherpersons.
These are the guys you want culling?
Edited by Richfish 5/26/2004 10:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Tough issue, that is for sure. I have taken to simply not eating many walleyes from up here, mostly because the fish are having one heck of a time keeping ahead of harvest and the limits are tiny. My favorite 'eye factory has been so abused the limit is 1 over 14 and one under. If I want fish for the table I hit my favorite panfish lakes and take home 15, putting back any gill over 9 and any crappie over 12". Any Pike I take between 20 and 25" is table fare, and anything over 25" goes back. Kind of a self imposed size limit. Muskies are ALL released, of course.
Thanks to everyone for the great conversation about a hot button issue! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 538
| Great discussion guys,
As terrible as it sounds as it runs through my mind, but I do not believe that culling will result in anything but unwanted and often dying fish being returned to the waters by many. Yes, there are many times that I wish I could have culled, but, hey, dems da rules. As to thinking that competitors in a tourney may be culling, yes I have considered that too, but briefly. No matter what the rules are, their are likley some that will do anything for fame and a check. The important thing is that most of us will do the right thing and enjoy the sport and comaraderie.
Fishing tournaments is about decisions. Some good results, and many with poor results. I will stick with our current rules and hope for the best, because I believe that it is best for the overall resource.
Take care,
Jim O
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Steve,
I know how you feel.
Used to spend 5-6 weeks a year at family cottage in Haslehurst.
But my Fav. walleye lake was " to death.
2 walleye under 14 has been the limit there since.
I need to fish three lakes a day to fill a daily.
Just to far of a ride for that, with so much good water 2 hours closer.
Heck it is 1 hour more to Lake Erie, from here.
But man do I miss being up there. |
|
| |
|
| The only "difference" now... boat-side release/decision vs. culling is that if culling is allowed some eyes are going to get a boat ride in a livewell before they are released... Is that really going to make a major impact on their survivability. If it does, then we need to completely rethink our entire catch, weigh and then release philosophy. If the livewell ride is causing fish to die I want to change that system as quickly as possible. On the other hand, if I can take the current "experts" at their word... They tell me no, the livewell ride does not significantly increase mortality. If that is true, the anti culling sentiment is just emotional or worse... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Greg,
What I am saying is that is fine and would work for the FEW.
Those who handle fish right and have the equipment.
It would be bad for the MANY.
The many are the weekenders, old boats that are fine to fish from.
The many that put the fish on stringers, coolers and in baskets
Big pictures big bragging rights.
Untill all people could,and would care for there fish as I would I really do not like the fact they can get a license.
You ever fished down stream from some boat and watch 14.5 inchers float by on the surface every 5 mins.
Or had to call the warden because 14 inchers are plied up on stringers, from poeple "south" up here fishing.
Or have them troll up stream past you in a no trolling river, "well your not the warden" they say.
But I call them all the time.
Or the 2 guys that took home 29 walleye in one night from Kosh. this winter.
To brag about it all over the net, boosting there new guide service.
Please lets stop looking at this from inside of your walleye boat, and see the whole picture.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Rich -
Some guys will break the rules no matter what they are. Personally, I see double bagging and people that are WAY over their possession limit as far more damaging to the resource than culling could ever be. I don't really care if culling is legal or not - only that everyone follow the rules as written. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 25
Location: Kaukauna, Wi. | I dont fish tournaments, so i havent thought about culling there. as for my personal fishing, i just try to catch a couple in the 15-17 inch range for the evening supper table. if i do happen to catch larger ones, they go back. but this is just my personal feelings. The largest 'eye i have caught on Bago so far was a female that weighed 8 1/2 pounds. You should have heard some guys in a near-by boat when i threw it back. I told them i threw it back so she could go make more babies the next spring year, and they just laughed at me. I felt good about it, and that is all i care about. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Brad,
You point is good.
But think about this how many fish can a guy kill during the spring run, handling them bad and putting back near dead little ones to keep up grading to fill up with larger ones?
He can keep 5 in the boat the whole day and cycle through 100 fish easy.
Just killed way over the point of double bagging didn't we.
If the fish went in to the freezer they mite get eatten.
And it will all be legal.
Only turtles and crayfish will benifit if the law is changed.
That is what the law is there to stop.
I feel real bad if I know that the 14.95incher I just put back is going to dye, but I have to.
Some spots I fish we cycle through 14.5+s at the rate of 200-300 a day.(at times)
And may not come home with any keepers.
And the most Ironic part of this is back when I started fishing these spots we kept no walleye larger than 12in.
We turn back 4-5 lbers all day long to pick out the little ones we could pallete.
And they were the ones that were hard to come by. |
|
| |
|
|
Greg Meyer, I did have an opportunity to boat past an area that a tournament was releasing the "living" fish after the weigh-in process. Therre were many fish tailing around on the surface that most certainly were going to die.
So yes, the process could be rethunk towards tournaments being kill only. At least tournament directors should consider the weather (like if it's to hot) and/or other circumstances (like very rough water and the fish being hammered in the well), leading one to believe the survival rate of the released fish is low.
Here is a link to support my claims - Please Read the Last Line First!
http://www.cloquetmn.com/journal/index.php?story_id=150261&view=tex...
Otherwise, please elaborate on what your idea of worse is? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | That articles 15% (estimated upper end of the mortatlity rate for livewell kept fish) is what I have heard....
So, I want to keep this in perspective... Last weeks RCL League on Green Bay...101 boats around 460 or so fish... Maximum brought to the scale would have been 505... another 50% could have been caught and then released... Say 750 fish... and 15% of those would be 115 fish... about 1 per angler... If they all prefished two days and did the same, keeping none, some I sure did, but I am also sure the mortality rate is less for prefishing because most are immediate releases... That "bunch" of fishermen would have been responsible for a MAXIMUM estimated 345 fish taken from the resouce area... That is about one limit per angler.... Something the Wisconsin DNR certainly believes is an acceptable loss level... Ponit One... the current (maximum) mortality rate is "acceptable". I don't think we reach anything even close to that level... But, we need a starting point...
Next, and I don't know anyway to be scientic about this... Because it has to be almost anecdotal.... So, I am going to operate from memory of my own experiences in places like Illinois where you can cull... I think it is only ever about 2 or 3 fish on a "high" average (I have too many "0" days when I can't catch a legal fish to save my soul...) So, now that is 2 or 3 fish that get a "livewell ride" for some period of time... But, I will say that for discussion purposes that a "catch and release fish is a 7 1/2% mortality average and a livewell ride fish is between 7 1/2% and 22 1/2 %... time being a factor so an average of 15% could be applied as a maximum factor as opposed to 7 1/2%... so they... the livewell ride fish have an additional mortality of 7 1/2 % (Now I know that this is all guess and speculation... But, its for discussion and comparison... So, on tournament day, only, because most guys just catch and release on pre-fish days... for the 200-300 "culled fish" (a really maximum number) you would get, using my guesses, an additional 300 X 7.5% = 22 or 23 fish.
Now one could argue that 22 or 23 fish added to the already lost 115 fish is just too much... But in three days of prefishing and tourney day that is another 7 fish a day.... Just not a significant number.... And, they will be "smaller" fish released earlier and arger fish kept for a shorter period of time.... I just don't think it is a big enough factor, numerically, to be significant.
I would really rather say that culling would be allowed from some sort of industry standard livewell... A feature I would reaaly like to have on boats period. I would love to have some sort of recirculating system be required... and pumps sized and set for auto timed always... Better livewells ought to be an industry goal. No culling from stringers or baskets... only form "certified" livewells. Think what an improvement that would actually be... nobody would want a new boat without "certified" livewells and therefore no manufacturer would produce a boat without a certifed livewell. That would produce a longterm benefit to the resource.
I look at the Illinois River from Marseilles to Henry... a body of water that gets as much fishing pressure as any body of water could. THere is a liberal limit and culling is allowed... Despite the pressure and culling... the resource is healthy and there are more fish every year. As with most fisheries... poor or mismanagement can have a dramtic effect... but good management can produce outstanding results despite mother nature and all the anglers on the water.
Finally, I don't think you will see much "culling" from the everyday angler... They work pretty hard to get a limit. Any abuses already happening will continue to happen... adding permitted culling to a poacher's available tools is adding nothing... he isn't throwing anything back anyway... Culling will affcet tournament anglers more than the general public... however, they have the up to date equipment, are usually pretty good at handling the fish anyway and have a vested interest in keep the reource strong... So my final opinion, and that is all that it is, an opinion (based on the above analysis and theories) is tha culling would have no real negative impact... and, in fact, coupled with the "certifed liveweel" idea maybe have a positive effect.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| I like your analysis although a "certified" livewell would only be effective if it was able to keep a certain temp. Even a timed circulating well would only take surface temp water which can be much warmer than where the fish came from. Without being able to maintain temps walleyes would be in danger in the later summer months. There is no doubt that tournament anglers do everything they can to release a live fish but nontheless if culling were allowed a dead fish would be released before a live one of similar size because of penalties.
As for the everyday angler not in a tournament, culling would be detrimental beyond comprehension in my opinion. I have seen many a angler catch their limit in a very short time. The added pressure to the fishery with culling would only result in more fish being hooked and potentially killed. Are there enough anglers out there to affect the resource? Maybe not in some areas but others would definately be affected. I know a number of people that get limits daily and they feed many. This would only give them the opportunity to do more harm.
As for tourney culling vs. culling for all. I am against anything that gives one group more access to the resource than any other.
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Well stated Tyee.
Also there are devices out there that use electroisys to bring pure oxygen to the live well .
Seprating the H2O in to H H, and O.
This raises the amout of oxygen in the water and the fish can breath easyier, better that in the lake.
Go to an oxygen bar once and you will see what it is like for a human.
These should be added to those good live wells to make them even better.
During your long runs water is not refreshed and the pumps for recurculation do rasie the temp some as the water passing
through is the coolant.
Also the water drawn in is from the surface layer , which at most times is the warmest water.
Your your Idea about temp control is seconded.
Edited by Richfish 5/29/2004 7:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | If a 12 volt cooler is around $50.00 a "cooler" for the livewell should be a reasonable price... As I said, culling should not be for only tournament anglers... But for anybody with a "certified" livewell... I can see a brisk business in retrofitting them.
Furthermore, no one has addressed my argument that in places like the Illinois River (actually almost all of Illinois except for possibly some specific lake restrictions) where culling is allowed; good resource management has created a better fishery despite severe pressure and culling. I think good targeted resource management has more of an affect that broad general rules. |
|
| |
|
|
Illinois River Saugers caught in early spring have far less to worry about than walleyes pulled from deep water out of Green Bay in July.
Listen Greg, some water ecosystems may be good candidates to allow culling, but many are very poor candidates. Adding in badly hooked and poorly treated fish, and to me, it's just not worth the chance.
In the end, what we must consider is: is it worth destroying fish to allow larger stringers (of fish) to go home to fill freezers and heavier weights to go across the scales for someone's profit.
Please consider carefully as this is the public's resource.
Edited by Rick Larson 5/30/2004 11:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | The Illinois River has a major stocking program that relies on the tournaments for the egg collection.
Mainly the MWC spring valley event.
Also river sauger are some tough dudes.
Alot / 98% of the places I fish have no stocking, it is all natural reproduction.
Il river gets pounded spring and fall, what about mid summer?
It would be interesting to see how many of those fish make it back in the river after the whole ordeal.
I have seen no reports on this aspect of the program.
And if any go through it more than once.
And what is the natual hatch rate in the river.
Walleye taken from deeper water that need "fizzing", would need the livewells
to be decompression tanks to increase there survival rate.
There is a point where caught at depth, all fish should be kept.
Ice fishing and open water fishing.
Catch and donate out at RCL on Eire.
2 years back went to canada in july, all the other guys were fishing lake trout.
They were getting 2-5 lb lakers at the rate of 70-80 fish a day each.
The limit was 2 per day.
The shallowest fish caught came from 70 ft.
They did not under stand why so many were being taken buy seagulls after a quick release.
And no matter how many times I explained it the LaBlaz would not let in sink in that it should
be closed season for lakers at that time of year.
"Well they always made it in the spring when we usally go."
In the spring and fall it almost seems like the fish are indestructable.
I have walleyes living in a pond that were on a stringer all evening,
road home 1 hour and 45 mins in a bucket with no water in the trunk.
And are still living in that pond today.
But in summer , riding in a live well with resurc. pump( that keeps them alive on the 5.5 hour ride from the family cottage),they can not make the ride home from Lakes 30 mins away.
Time of year/ water temp/ fish depth all have a great deal to do with the rate of survival.
And river fish, any river fish is tougher.
Edited by Richfish 5/29/2004 11:11 PM
|
|
| |
Culling should be allowed