Walleye Discussion Forums
| ||
| View previous thread :: View next thread | |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] Walleye Fishing -> General Discussion -> Culling should be allowed |
| Message Subject: Culling should be allowed | |||
sworrall |
| ||
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.  | ||
| |||
| Rick Larson |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| tyee |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| 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 | ||
| |||
| jerry |
| ||
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!!! | ||
| |||
| Richfish |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Dale |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| tyee |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Rick Larson |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| Sunshine |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Rick Larson |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| Dale |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Sunshine |
| ||
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? | ||
| |||
| Rick Larson |
| ||
| Ok Sunshine, a fishing trip is in order!!!:-) | |||
| |||
| Richfish |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
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! | ||
| |||
| Jim Ordway |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Richfish |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Greg Meyer |
| ||
| 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... | |||
| |||
| Richfish |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Ranger584 |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Richfish |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Rick Larson |
| ||
| 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? | |||
| |||
| hgmeyer |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's