Vultures...what is the popular opinion?

[Greg Clusiau]

Nice meatfish

[reinhard1]

what a great story. your the kind of person that make fisherman proud. good luck.

[castmaster]

Th OP does bring up an interesting point and possibly the solution is to lobby for the DNR to include some higher profile etiquette in with their regulations and with the signs they put at landings etc.

Or perhaps it may be time for our DNR to actually implement a licensing program for guides in this state. Perhaps some of it should include only allowing a certain # of guides on a body of water depending on its size and available resources. Perhaps to some folks this "new abundance" of guides seems somewhat like folks being "vultures" as they earn $$ by utilizing and in some cases exploiting a PUBLIC resource. Back in the days when most guides stuck to one body of water they truly had a vested interest in making sure that water remained in a healthy balance as it was the place that put food on their tables. Now with this "new" type guides that jump to wherever the hot bite is, they no longer remain as vested in protecting those fisheries, once they are depleted they move on to the next hot bite. How is that NOT being a "vulture"? I cant tell you how many listing I saw on teh craig site for "guides" selling outings for panfish talking about how all their customers leave with limits etc. Seems more like "vulturing" than someone using holes that were drileld over a couple acre area!

How bout on some of our larger lakes where resorts place their rental houses covering large areas. Is one a "vulture" to go set up amidst those rentals, or is it the resorts who are "vulturing" large areas of PUBLIC property for their PRIVATE financial gain?

Would any of you view it in this same light if you came across an area in a PUBLIC forest where a big game guide and co opted a relatively large area for his paying clients? Or would that somehow be different?

As for the OP, you do realize that your 2 acre area also represents almost 100,000 square feet of real estate. Gee looks a little different when you put it that way than your "only" using .0018% of the lake huh?

[jigglestick]

hmmm, interesting perspective.

I agree, guides, especially good ones are responsible for more than their fair share of hook and line harvest, but justify it by classifying it as buisness. either way the clients would likely not have a higher harvest % had they not used the guide.

It really doesn't seem fair when you consider the guide pays only for his/her fishing license just as the rest of the states common anglers do, yet is basicly responsible for many times the harvest of any individual angler.

So, what should we do? run to the DNR with check books open asking what sort of restitution we can make to even the ammount of damage we do to the resource?

Just to let you know when I started my buisness, I went to the DNR headquarters and inquired about that very thing, the guide license or fee. there was nothing.

I talked with a DNR biologist on this very topic.

he was not concerned with guides and the percieved extra take they would be responsible for.

I think he view was that it was already figured into safe harvest projections.

So, where do you want to take this from here?

do you want to claim you know better than the fisheries people do?

I don't, though from time to time I do have my opinions on how things could have/should have been done differently. non of my opinions hold water as I am not well educated.

[PurpleFloyd]

[PFUNK]

That would never fly. That would be the advent of "partially public water". Seems like it would make more sense to limit a guide service to how many days it can spend on a given body of water per year, or how many clients it can entertain on that body of water. I could be wrong, but I don't think that the guides are having THAT big of an effect on the fish populations. Sure they put people on more fish, but I don't think it is being done in a detrimental way. Like someone else stated, as long as the DNR has a way of accounting for the increased harvest that guides account for, they will be able to manage our bodies of water adequately. Most important thing seems to be knowing how many guides there are servicing each body of water each year in order to get an accurate gauge on the increase in harvests.

[Northlander]

I think the current law on distance from another person on the ice is crazy! I would like to see it at 30'. I dont even fish that close to my friends most of the time.

[fsnrod]

HOW ABOUT THOSE BOAT LANDING'S ON OPENING DAY

[JakeJ_Mn]

I believe guides should be licensed and insured. Outside of that - it's hard work. Up early - equipment(the latest)- time to secure the knowledge and experience so others may enjoy. Many who make a regular or partial living are working their job and hopefully paying taxes. They enjoy guiding and some fish different lakes summer and winter to fullfill their yearly living expenses.

Remember all their clients must have licenses, most spend money on resorts/motels/gas/food and tourist toys.

Limiting guides to a lake - what a crock. How about drawing a line across the middle of the state keeping the metro in the metro and leaving the north to the it's residents - that would fly in about a minute. We already have a state side and protected other side lake in the north.

If you have suggestions for our DNR there are always public input meetings and oh yes they have email and phones as do your representatives and state senators.

It's not a perfect world, but would be alot better enjoying the outdoors if everyone used the good neighbor approach instead of the "I bought a license I'm entitled to fish and game one"

Our outdoors resources are a priviledge. Have fun - it's alot less stressfull. No of us are perfect and only a small portion are inconsiderate.