Sustainability

[leech~~]

1 hour ago, Paradice said:

Who's gonna feed my kids then?  You have any idea what the payments are on an 8x12 Ridgeline skid house with a trailer?  Throw in my boat and we're pushing $50k I owe to the bank.

 

 

If I'm not hauling in at least two meals for five per outting, I'll go bankrupt.  That usually requires me to hit a multi-species lake to get the livewell full enough.

 

I tried using this on my wife. She an't buying none of it either!

[Wanderer]

1 hour ago, Paradice said:

Who's gonna feed my kids then?  You have any idea what the payments are on an 8x12 Ridgeline skid house with a trailer?  Throw in my boat and we're pushing $50k I owe to the bank. 

 

 

If I'm not hauling in at least two meals for five per outting, I'll go bankrupt.  That usually requires me to hit a multi-species lake to get the livewell full enough. 

 

Why take chances?

 

Save money at Moreys. Com! 

 

But that would cheat you out of a trolling run.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Wanderer

[Borch]

I keep getting conflicting messages in regards to our hunters and fisher people.   Can't get younger folks the join the sport.   Too many "other" things for them to do.  Too many boats.   When I was younger almost every yard had at least one boat in it.  Now there seems to be more recreation boats than dedicated fishing boats.  I just don't know if I buy the buzz about all of this.   Maybe the numbers are out there but I tend to believe my eyes.

 

I like to keep and eat fish.  There I said it.  Some times I get the impression this is becoming unfashionable.   I do my best to follow a selective harvest philosophy.  Release big fish, little fish or fish I don't plan on eating.   If people want catch big fish and release them unharmed that great for them.   Sustainability may have different goals for different people.  Some want trophy fish, others are looking numbers and other may want eater fish.  None are wrong and none are "better" than others.  A lot has to do with what a lake can hold.  Some will be able to meet all possible goals. Most can not.

 

I fish lakes now that have not been as good in my lifetime as they are now.  There are also others that aren't nearly as good as they used to be.

 

Limit reduction.... well I guess that all depends on how crazy it gets.  There's definitely a point of diminishing returns and lower limits doesn't guarantee better results.   I have two lakes near me with 5 sunfish limits.  One is jammed with stunted sunfish after more than 15 years of the restricted limits.  The other does have some dandy sunfish, but then again it always has.

 

Minnesota has the most restrictive rules that I've seen in the region.  Generally lower daily and possession limits and more restrictions on how we catch fish.  I wonder why so many make trips to these other locales?

 

Respect the fishery, and each other.  That'll go a long ways.

[Paradice]

13 minutes ago, Wanderer said:

But that would cheat you out of a trolling run.

Truth be told, I'm only fishing for a reaction from one fellar, and he's eluded me today. 

 

You can box about everyone into one of four buckets:

 

True sportsman/conservationists

Low impact off/on participant

Raging hypocrites

Shameless looters

 

Attempting to save the lakes in MN from collapse is a waste of time.  You'd have a better chance at good fishing again if you'd let them get fished and netted to collapse where meaters go and get skunked time and time again and quit coming.  It wouldn't shock me if the DNR wanted to see the lakes collapsed in an effort to save them from water quality degredation, invasive species, and littering. 

 

The best fishing I ever had on Red was when it was just coming back from the collapse before the limits were rich enough to draw the meaters.  I imagine Mille Lacs will be the same. 

[Jim Uran]

No hipster here, I've been preaching the same message since I've been writing about fishing. Like I said, an occasional limit of eater sized fish has to be sustainable, right?

 

Panfish lakes are especially susceptible to the hoards. Enjoy the hunt, the satisfaction of translating their patterns, and quit worrying about how many likes you get on facebook lol

 

 

 

 

[Wanderer]

12 minutes ago, Paradice said:

Truth be told, I'm only fishing for a reaction from one fellar, and he's eluded me today. 

 

 

 

Maybe he's between home and the lake. 

[PurpleFloyd]

37 minutes ago, Borch said:

I keep getting conflicting messages in regards to our hunters and fisher people.   Can't get younger folks the join the sport.   Too many "other" things for them to do.  Too many boats.   When I was younger almost every yard had at least one boat in it.  Now there seems to be more recreation boats than dedicated fishing boats.  I just don't know if I buy the buzz about all of this.   Maybe the numbers are out there but I tend to believe my eyes.

 

I like to keep and eat fish.  There I said it.  Some times I get the impression this is becoming unfashionable.   I do my best to follow a selective harvest philosophy.  Release big fish, little fish or fish I don't plan on eating.   If people want catch big fish and release them unharmed that great for them.   Sustainability may have different goals for different people.  Some want trophy fish, others are looking numbers and other may want eater fish.  None are wrong and none are "better" than others.  A lot has to do with what a lake can hold.  Some will be able to meet all possible goals. Most can not.

 

I fish lakes now that have not been as good in my lifetime as they are now.  There are also others that aren't nearly as good as they used to be.

 

Limit reduction.... well I guess that all depends on how crazy it gets.  There's definitely a point of diminishing returns and lower limits doesn't guarantee better results.   I have two lakes near me with 5 sunfish limits.  One is jammed with stunted sunfish after more than 15 years of the restricted limits.  The other does have some dandy sunfish, but then again it always has.

 

Minnesota has the most restrictive rules that I've seen in the region.  Generally lower daily and possession limits and more restrictions on how we catch fish.  I wonder why so many make trips to these other locales?

 

Respect the fishery, and each other.  That'll go a long ways.

Great post. There is no shame in wanting to harvest a fair share of fish. And you are correct that not harvesting enough can lead to overpopulation. 

  

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

14 minutes ago, JigSawJimmy said:

 

I think people kind of figured out what was counter productive of fishing forums through out the years and it has corrected it self naturally.

 

I think you mean that the forums used to have the 'I caught tons of fish on this lake in this spot' posts, and those have gone away because people have seen what happens. If that's what you meant, then I fully agree. The forums are slowly dying, but I do think the forums probably have more long time fishermen, in comparison to the Facebook groups. Our sport is booming in popularity, and Facebook is the lounge for newbies. They haven't learned that you can't post your location with a bucket full of fish. 

[delcecchi]

8 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Great post. There is no shame in wanting to harvest a fair share of fish. And you are correct that not harvesting enough can lead to overpopulation. 

  

 

And that is why those remote Canadian fly-in lakes have such terrible fishing, eh?   Not enough harvest?

 

How did those lakes full of stunted sunfish or hammer handle northerns get that way?

[PurpleFloyd]

3 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

 

And that is why those remote Canadian fly-in lakes have such terrible fishing, eh?   Not enough harvest?

 

How did those lakes full of stunted sunfish or hammer handle northerns get that way?

I guess you will have to be more specific if you want a response. Unless you are just trolling again in which case you should switch to better bait. 

 

However if you are eluding to the notion that Canadian lakes have great fishing and low pressure then my reply would be that around here we remove the big northern and walleye and generally they would keep the population in balance as part of a natural ecosystem. If we didn't fish at all our lakes would do the same eventually although it's always cyclical by nature. 

 

So in other words nature balances things out up there while we are in a habit of trying to engineer our lakes to suit our tastes. Like sticking musky in lakes that never had them and the whole notion of stocking Walleye in tons of lakes that cannot support a self regenerating population because there is no place with the right structure for them to spawn in. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by PurpleFloyd

[delcecchi]

Yes, Purple, you got my point.  It is over harvest of the desirable large fish that got us into the mess with too many little fish, in general.   

 

It is not clear to me how stocking walleye in lakes better suited to bass and northern, or musky into lakes that didn't have them before affects the population.    The thing with musky seems to be that they attract musky fishermen, which is a problem or a benefit depending on your point of view.

[PurpleFloyd]

5 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Yes, Purple, you got my point.  It is over harvest of the desirable large fish that got us into the mess with too many little fish, in general.   

 

It is not clear to me how stocking walleye in lakes better suited to bass and northern, or musky into lakes that didn't have them before affects the population.    The thing with musky seems to be that they attract musky fishermen, which is a problem or a benefit depending on your point of view.

It wasn't meant to read that it impacts population but rather it's an example of how we try to engineer lakes vs the way they naturally manage themselves in the lakes you mentioned. 

 

 

[delcecchi]

13 minutes ago, PurpleFloyd said:

It wasn't meant to read that it impacts population but rather it's an example of how we try to engineer lakes vs the way they naturally manage themselves in the lakes you mentioned. 

 

 

 

We have all sorts of people who like to harvest fish out of the lakes.   So engineering them, even if only through seasons and limits, is necessary.  Stocking is another tool of engineering or manipulating fish populations to better please the fishing public.    

 

In fact I would venture that Minnesota lakes have suffered from insufficient management or engineering rather than too much.  In my opinion, of course, and Mille Lacs being an exception.  

[rundrave]

3 hours ago, Lip_Ripper Guy said:

Our sport is booming in popularity, and Facebook is the lounge for newbies. They haven't learned that you can't post your location with a bucket full of fish. 

 

The other part is the narcissistic people on facebook that "have" to upload to the local bait shops facebook page of the 8" perch stating that they hammered them and caught their "limit" just to get their name and pic out there. They are more concerned about the selfy and likes they will get rather than selective harvest.

[Big Dave2]

7 hours ago, delcecchi said:

 

And that is why those remote Canadian fly-in lakes have such terrible fishing, eh?   Not enough harvest?

 

How did those lakes full of stunted sunfish or hammer handle northerns get that way?

 

I don't completely disagree with this but how do you account for the lake I posted about earlier in this thread? In case you missed it, I was talking about a small lake up north but it is as big as some of the smaller ones around the metro that hold larger fish or that we assume only don't because of over-fishing. It is 30 ft. deep which is deeper than some of the metro lakes I know and it has as much or more structure. It never gets fished at all, I mean never, but the fish that are in there are small. Even the DNR report says so. Why isn't it full of larger fish?

[swamptiger]

 

My plan for sustainability is to fish lakes that are off the beaten track or difficult to access.  

 

Sometimes, I'll hit the bigger lakes just for entertainment, but mostly stick to the smaller lakes that are overlooked by the masses.  

 

Of course, it's a little easier when you live in an area where you have 50 to 100 lakes to choose from within an hour's drive....

[Jim Uran]

We all know that there are sacrifices we need to make to sustain this for our kids and grandkids. That's no lie. I'm preaching to the choir though, most people that take time to contribute to this thread already know what's up. 

[DLD24]

5 hours ago, Big Dave2 said:

 

I don't completely disagree with this but how do you account for the lake I posted about earlier in this thread? In case you missed it, I was talking about a small lake up north but it is as big as some of the smaller ones around the metro that hold larger fish or that we assume only don't because of over-fishing. It is 30 ft. deep which is deeper than some of the metro lakes I know and it has as much or more structure. It never gets fished at all, I mean never, but the fish that are in there are small. Even the DNR report says so. Why isn't it full of larger fish?

Not much food in the lake?? Not every lake has the potential to produce big fish... 

[delcecchi]

2 hours ago, DLD24 said:

Not much food in the lake?? Not every lake has the potential to produce big fish... 

 

Genetics?   Shoepack lake?  

 

Got whacked back in the day and got stuck with a stunted population?   I don't know if a lake can get itself back into balance once it gets full of stunted sunnies and hammer handle northerns.   Interesting question.  

[swamptiger]

 

Maybe the natural balance isn't always what we think it should be.  An example is the Isle Royale experiment with wolves and moose.  The idea of the experiment was to let nature take it's course, but when it isn't working out to the satisfaction of some, they want to tweak it a little so it fits their theory a little better.

[delcecchi]

Isle Royale is an interesting situation.   The wolves dying out was due to inbreeding, preceded some years earlier by an epidemic of disease that they caught from some tourist dog.  At least that's what I recall reading a while back. 

 

Maybe for some animals there is a minimum size of habitat and population for all that nature stuff to work properly like we think it is supposed to.    Put some bluegills and not enough bass in a farm pond, or take out too many bass, and you end up with a pond full of little gills.    And it never goes back to the big bass, big gills situation.  

 

It seems as if the same thing can happen with Pike, and you end up with a lake full of hammer handles.   I think the balance of nature in many lakes is more delicate than we realize and was only sustained by our past inability to be effective enough to really change it.  

 

[swamptiger]

 

2 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Isle Royale is an interesting situation.   The wolves dying out was due to inbreeding, preceded some years earlier by an epidemic of disease that they caught from some tourist dog.  At least that's what I recall reading a while back. 

 

 

The theory is the wolves are dying from inbreeding, but it has been pointed out to them that the wolves and moose have been inbreeding there since the beginning of the study.  The moose are doing fine,  So the inbreeding is only an unproven theory.

[delcecchi]

1 minute ago, swamptiger said:

 

 

 

The theory is the wolves are dying from inbreeding, but it has been pointed out to them that the wolves and moose have been inbreeding there since the beginning of the study.  The moose are doing fine,  So the inbreeding is only an unproven theory.

 

I thought they had done genetic analysis of the wolves and shown they were all inbred?   Is that not so?  

 

As for unproven theory, it might be the best explanation they can come up with.   Something happened or was happening, and they came up with an explanation based on the evidence they had.

 

Is there some other explanation or theory floating around?  

[swamptiger]

5 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

 

I thought they had done genetic analysis of the wolves and shown they were all inbred?   Is that not so?  

 

As for unproven theory, it might be the best explanation they can come up with.   Something happened or was happening, and they came up with an explanation based on the evidence they had.

 

Is there some other explanation or theory floating around?  

 

 

I think they already knew they were inbred when they started the study back in the 1950's, since the story was the wolves migrated there sometime in the 1940's.

[rascal23]

I wonder how many people really know that your daily limit, is your possession limit.  20 sunnies in your freezer means you can't keep any more. This goes for all gamefish species daily limits except perch, where possession is double your daily.    And assuming every angler knows this, how many break it.    I've often said that fish possession limits are the most broken game law.