|
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| As the other poll seems to be split 50/50 regarding culling in WI. I thought I would expand on it for a better perception from us walleye anglers.
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | Isn't culling technically the same as catch and release????? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 363
Location: Kaukauna WI | Terroreyes
Yes and no for catch and release is done minute you catch the fish. Culling is done if you wish to upgrade a fish in size and weight.
Michael Dutton
920 766 7372 |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Would have to think if they were to allow culling(cause) here there would be an effect.
Effect would be law changes , other changes to the way we fish.
Like lowering the number of rods we are able to use.
1 like ours next door states, that would cut down the gut hook specialists out there.
Time to think about the whole picture...............
Them BASS guys really do not troll with 3 rods and do not get to use live bait. |
|
| |
|
|
Actually, a better question for a poll is: If you had a limit and continued fishing and culling for bigger fish, would you throw back a smaller fish even if it was dead? And would you if you were entered in a tournament?
An honest answer for all tournament fisherman would be obvious and do not think they would be entitled to calling themselves conservationists... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Interesting implication Rick... Because, it appears that you are implying trhat "most" tournament fishermen would throw back a dead fish... Well, if the rules/regulations said I could, then I would, but, if the rules were you could release only live fish then I would not. And, I bet the overwhelming majority (90+%) of tournament fishermen would not break a culling rule. They are some of the most ethical fishermen I know, they pride themselves on following the rules, as they know them (sometimes the rules are fuzzy or get interpreted a couple of different ways and even the DNR guys sometimes disagree about how a rule is interpreted). So, I think your implication is just a touch unwarranted. |
|
| |
|
|
No, no implication here whatsoever.
In my view, it is a break in the 'conservationist spirit' to throw back a dead fish. A new law allowing culling will force all tournament anglers to follow the best course of action in gaining the largest basket possible - even if having to throw back a dead fish.
And I agree, and hope, that 90+% of the tournament anglers follow the rules. But there are the 10-% who are not kind, will skirt the rules, and give all tournament anglers, and the tournaments they fish, a bad reputation.
Edited by Rick Larson 6/5/2004 8:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 40
Location: Monona, WI | Analogy for catch and release vs. catch and cull later  :
Dude gets arrested, is booked and immediately makes bail vs. dude gets arrested and jailed for 6 months and is then released.
In both cases, the fish or person held in a confined space will likely not do as well after 'release' as one immediately released. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | Weak analogy....comparing an incarcerated individual to a fish......like comparing apples to oranges. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | 10%? You come up with that figure from some kind of cosmic calculator? I have been involved with competitive walleye angling from the Industry perspective since the Manion circuit, and take exception to your comments. 1 out of 10 of all tournament anglers are no good, will do anything to win including waste the resource, and are 'bad' for the reputation of all? No way.
1 out of 100 would be an exaggeration, I submit.
Sometimes folks have a tendency to be a bit to grandiose while making a point.
The very IDEA that 10%, 5%, or even 2% of the competitive anglers out there would take the courses of action you have repeatedly suggested is ridiculous, and goes directly against the grain of the business of competitve angling.
Is it REALLY about winning money? Heck no. It is about the competition for most. It's about being able to hold one's own against the best in that circuit, or it's about the trying, or a combination of the two. It's comraderie, challenge.
How much did you profit from checks you cashed VS paying the expenses and entries? Only a very select few cash enough times in a year to actually make a living, and those folks work very hard and are not exactly making a fortune. Only a few can garner true supporting sponsorship packages and make a living in the trade. Those are by nature very hard working individuals who do not short cut and live by a code that is not necessarily transparent to everyone (as is obvious) but is the ONLY road to total success in this business. Those who do not don't make it. Those who can't afford to compete and do not know how to create and operate the sort of business relationship with those who would clear the road for them (or plain don't 'get it') don't make it. Some are inevitably going to indeed be bad for the sport, and believe me, as is evidenced by one fellow this year, they don't make it.
May be your intent is not to continously blast competitve anglers, but it sure comes off that way.
The sport will continue to evolve over the next few years and the rules will change to meet that evolution. I don't think for a minute the law will encourage any action that becomes a clear detriment to the fishery for very long.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 40
Location: Appleton | I'm with Rick on this one. I'll bet that more than 10% cull already just to get more weight. It's human nature to try to be more competitive. Not sure a new law would change much. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Steve,
Thank you! You put into words what my heart wanted to say. If the tournament circuits were as corrupt as others make them appear to be, I would not be participating. I believe that your figures are more in line with reality.
Rick,
You continually bash tournaments here on WF and at other sites, yet (I’m assuming) you continue to participate in them. What’s up with that? I’ll assume for now that you are trying to fix a conceived problem from within. Is this correct? Your experiences with tournaments do not mirror mine (another assumption on my part). Is there one tournament circuit in general that you draw your conclusions from? There is one tournament series that I have never participated in but have experienced their weigh-ins as a spectator. I also have friends who do this series. I wonder if your negativism comes primarily from your involvement with this circuit (assumption 3). The only reason I ask, is because it was apparent to me (as a spectator) that several participants in this series did not hide the fact that they culled. When I got into the tournament game, my mentor asked me a very pointed question. He asked me what I would do if I participated in this tournament series and knew up front that there was a small minority who culled. They had the advantage, how would I handle it? My answer was simple, do not participate in that tournament series and do not stoop to that level.
Andy,
Do not construed what I have said to mean that there are more than 10% who cheat. I DO NOT believe this. BUT, your argument is weak. If these people are doing it now, obviously they will continue this practice with or without a change in the law.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | I want to toss a dash of reality into this, again, I can't remember for sure back more than four years... about 50+ tournaments... and countless "trips". I know of ONE dead fish, and that one was a "short" 9 or 10" sauger that I knew was not going to make it and it had to be "released"... None died in the livewell...
In the last three tournaments I have been in I think there was one dead fish penalty... 700+ fish to the scales and one dead one...hmmm
So a lot of "drum beating" about dead fish is just so much emotional BS in my opinion. Given the quality of todays livewell systems... Not too many "dead fish"...
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | BUT..... isn't that culled fish going to do much better than the ones that make it to the scale in a tourney in most cases? My opinion is that if competitors are anti-culling, they should also be againts tourney weigh-ins on land. Culling is the lesser of the two evils in that aspect. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | I vote No for any changes to the current law.You guys give me a headache just reading all the post on this string and the other string earlier. I am new at the tourny fishing and one of the first things i notice is that alot of poeple were predicting wieghts that would win top ten.These guys have done there homework and put the time in and know what is in the pond and how to catch them and know what to keep and what not to keep ! Quite frankly to change the cullings rules to fit the needs of tourny fisherman is stupid and would create a choatic confusion and enforcing would be almost impossible.It would be a step backwartds for the DNR.Just my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | There should be a provision in all culling laws that prohibits returning a dead fish to keep another. I have no problem with culling as long as it's done responsibly. Shouldn't even be a tournament issue. It's a matter of plain ole' fishing ethics.
Edited by terroreyes 6/6/2004 1:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | HGmeyer most of the tourny walleye die during warmer weathers.The hotter the temp the more dies.Tthere has been tournys in the past with 40% die off(if not more) in respectable tournaments.The concern should be for the little bar tourny's the have no release requirment.Spring tourny's are the most damaging in my opinion.This past spring for example during the walleye run I personally witnessed 23-27" walleyes either dead from inefficient live wells too the fisherman taking them home to eat after the tourny. |
|
| |
|
|
http://ws3.coopfish.siu.edu/walleye_tech/sum2000mtg.htm
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2002/07/18/news/local/nws2....
http://www.blacklakeny.com/RMtourbass.html
Here Sunshine, read these links and you will better understand my position. And I vehemently disagree that I have bashed tournaments or their anglers. It is only your opinion in how you wish to interpet my posts.
If you really must know my foundation of thought, it is that I will always side with the fish first, anyone who wants to fish from shore, second. And then the fisherman who uses a small boat third. Self-important tournament anglers and those who profit from the public water are behind these aformentioned.
Anotherwords, if one day in the future, we (the general public) find ourselves with so many boats on the water, that new laws would have to be imposed to limit the users, tournaments would be last in line.
Truthfully, I have had enough unkind words typed and spoken to me over the course of the last 2+ years of fishing tournaments by (a few) tournament contestants, and those people who oppose tournaments, to come to this conclusion. And, if humans were so perfect (absolutely right Andy D), why would we need fish and game laws, along with those DNR Wardens to enforce them?
If you really think I have bashed anything tournament, please pick this out of any of my past posts and let me help you understand it. But I'll tell you right here - I am a tournament fisherman opposed to culling, I oppose those tournament anglers who are unkind (you know, like your post calling me out) and dishonest, and I have an idea that our public water can not support this tremendous growth in tournaments.
Sworrall,
I don't know how many tournament anglers are dishonest, I was only using hgmeyer's numbers in the post I replied to.
Edited by Rick Larson 6/6/2004 8:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | I am a competitive angler. Therefore, according to some, I am 'self important'. I have a small boat, and I have a big boat, so sometimes I am a good guy, and sometimes I am not. It's the boat, you see.
Let's see, I know a ton of people who profit from 'public water'. Guides. Bait store owners. Gas station owners. Wal Mart. The State of Wisconsin. The Federal Government. The cities and townships across the state. Marinas. Jet Ski rentals. Boat companies. Outboard companies. Lure companies. The list is endless! At the END of that list is competitive angling, that's for sure. And at the VERY end of THAT list is the angler who actually is competing.
Wait, there isn't any such thing as 'public' when it comes to fishing, fishing is a privelege, not a right, and all 'public' waters are controlled by governmental agencies, who license ME, and License TOURNAMENTS,and build the LANDINGS and create the fishing LAWS; so by association...
What the heck, I see names in events this year, heck, even today. So obviously those names represent those 'self important' folks. I am pretty sure that the way I am interpreting a few of the posts on the culling issue may not hit the mark as far as what the author intended, but tonight my telepathy is failing me, so I am taking comments at face value.
Sorry for the 'rant' guys, I had a tough Sunday. I'm crabby, I guess.
A point:
Thanks to some very hard work by our DNR, and the support and money of the angler, we are living in the 'good old days'. Fishing is better now than it has been EVER in most areas.We are discussing a RENEWABLE resource. It is expected that a certain harvest will occur, and tournaments are a TINY portion of that harvest, even when mortality is very high because of bad conditions at an event.
I weigh in with a no cull vote only because the law was not changed for me anyway. Reality?? The no cull law is unenforcable under most conditions, so why not leave it on the books as an example of a noble idea?   |
|
| |
|
|
Sworrall, all these profiting points you make are valid, regardless if tournaments continue to experience growth.
This discussion seems to have gravitated to my pointing out that some (read that again please, 'some') tournament anglers have a self-important view (a nice way to say, a big ego). They think tournaments have rights over and above the general public in regards to the use of the public waterways. If you wish, I can give you details - with names - of some of these individuals and the acts I have personally witnessed, or been the target of with snide e-mails.
Lumping these bad guys in with the good guys has not been in any of my posts like some seem to want to believe.
And your absolutely right that the use of public water is a privilege. But think of this. Fisherman can have their licenses revoked for untoward behavior. So why not tournament promoters? Now they may have to pass the same muster, depending on the direction of these new rules. This is a positive move (in my opinion). Sunshine and others believe I am bashing tournaments because of my agreement with this, and that is very far from the truth.
The problem here is 'some' tournament anglers do not want to read anything that criticizes tournaments (pointing out something I disagree with doesn't mean my wanting to be rid of them), and now these feelings have overflowed into this culling issue.
All I can say is, I have an opinion too. And any attempt to try and limit it (my opinion) by false accusations that I am bashing tournaments is simply not fair. And trying to put words in my posts by leading others to believe I think all tournament anglers are self-important, is also not fair.
Also, when I speak of those profiting, it is only in context with respect to the resource. If the fish can continue to reproduce at a rate that is self-sustaining, then profit away. But the minute the resource suffers, then the government needs to impose stricter rules to protect the resource. Case in point is the perch of Lake Michigan.
And one other thing, the government does not profit!:-):-):-)
One another, other thing. Tournaments are exciting to participate in and hope anyone who has the desire to try - can do so!
Edited by Rick Larson 6/7/2004 12:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Rick,
The problem may not be with what you are intending to say, but what is actually posted. If a statement is posted (EG. "If you really must know my foundation of thought, it is that I will always side with the fish first, anyone who wants to fish from shore, second. And then the fisherman who uses a small boat third. Self-important tournament anglers and those who profit from the public water are behind these aformentioned. " EG. 2 "But there are the 10-% who are not kind, will skirt the rules, and give all tournament anglers, and the tournaments they fish, a bad reputation." EG. 3 'An honest answer for all tournament fisherman would be obvious and do not think they would be entitled to calling themselves conservationists...' EG. 4 "It is an outside influence that 'encouraged' a few legislators to have this special Culling Rule passed for tournament bass anglers. This is wrong. It is pathetic. I do not know if you personally had any influence on these legislators, but if you did, you are ever more wrong and wish you would either move here, or just mind your own business when thinking about our fish and game laws." EG. 5 'And the guest furthur tries to belittle my point ' EG. 6 ' If I had my druthers (of course I don't to those of you who want to pile on)' etc.
These comments are still in context, and in fact are a bit less forthright removed from the entire post. The problem seems to be in the interpretation of some of your comments. I know what I thought you were saying, and didn't let it ride. Nor will I in the future. One cannot expect to have complete agreement with one's views at all times from a majority or even a minority. If one is willing to speak and post one's views, one should be willing to accept opposing viewpoints without resorting to comments about which it is fairly easy to assume the worst.
But hey, one doesn't have to listen to my opinions, either. |
|
| |
|
|
True.:-)
This is a problem when one wants to generate thought without having very long posts loaded heavy with adjectives, adverbs, and nouns that go on and on in an attempt to make the reader perfectly aware of an idea - and in regard to everyone's sensisbilities - but only serving to stick ideas into the readers head without regard to what's there already- should they elect to read such drudgery.
If anything, my post speaking of illinois keeping out of Wisconsin fish and game business, was not meant to be personal with hgmeyer, but rather, that anyone living outside our state not having a vote towards the direction of what governs our (Wisconsin residents) fish and game laws. And I have already apologized to him and everyone else that may have misconstrued that post as personal and leading to more criticizm of my post - illinois stay out of our business post - posts.
One thing is for sure, this culling discussion has the Fisherman of Wisconsin divided and keenly interested. And still think that tournament promoters outside of Wisconsin are who pulled the right strings to get this thing front and center, to the detrement of our resource. Because culling will kill more fish, not being usable for the table, but to sink to the bottom as a waste food for bottom dwellers and I'm still against it!
And all this because a tournament fisherman is afraid to decide on an early morning small fish! So terrible!!!:-)
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Rick,
I will concede the inevitable; you are correct in concept that, "culling will kill more fish, not being usable for the table, but to sink to the bottom as a waste food for bottom dwellers". It is a renewable and managed resource. Given that it is managed, it is manipulated. The issue for the experts is "how many more"? And, is it an acceptable increase in mortality? How much does a mature walleye cost? Is there going to be an increase in federal funds (Pittman-Robertson Act, http://federalaid.fws.gov/wr/fawr.html) to generate more fish than the projected mortality? And, then there are questions concerning culling... only "live" fish...only at tournaments that pay for a "culling" permit... allowed in certain months... lots of issues that neither you nor I are equipped to answer. (at least I will admit that I am not and state that it is my blief that you are not)
Where we seem to disagree is in the concept that tournaments can be a good thing... even to the point of being a real positive thing for the fish. You seem to believe that everyone but the tournament fishermen are the only things that are good for the resource. I disagree. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | Why will these fish sink to the bottom and not be usable at the table? When will this happen? Sorry, but I don't see this happening at ANY time in my boat.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| There is plenty of reason to continue this discussion although I don't think anyone needs to play devils advocate. I think we all agree that there are a few bad apples in every bunch. The points made may be legit but to say the whole basket is full of rotten apples is not correct.
The thing to remember is that there is a law on the books that gives bass fisherman the right to a resource that no other has at this time. Yes it's a pilot program and quite frankly I think the Walleye associations should be asking for that same right. I think you would see less critisim from the general public if this was put to the test in a controlled environment by professionals.
Culling weather you think its good or bad is just another part of harvest that will need to be put into the equation to set bag limits. No different than when the state of WI changed to a party permit for deer or decides to establish earn a buck rules for a particular zone. If culling means more fish will be "harvested" (or dead as was stated earlier) It means more work and education for our DNR. So I ask you this? Is it worth it? Dad always told me if it ain't broke don't fix it!
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
