What do they do with all the fish?

[CaptainMusky]

Exactly. Just because you may not have broken any laws by "donating" your possession limit of fish so you can fish more but at the same time it doesn't make it right from a conservation standpoint.

[bigpike]

I agree with nolte's train of thought. Way too many assumptions on here. Very tough to compare the impacts without knowing how often each person fishes. The guy that fishes 6-10 times a year, keeps 5 limits and gifts 3-4 away vs the guy that fishes 75 days a year, catching and releasing a few hundred fish, knowing several die, plus keeping a couple eaters on occasion. Apples vs. Oranges.

Kind of like saying "I don't drink a lot, just a little every day".

[Igor Drackenwolf]

Exactly. Just because you may not have broken any laws by "donating" your possession limit of fish so you can fish more but at the same time it doesn't make it right from a conservation standpoint.

What is "right from a conservation standpoint"? If "right from a conservation standpoint" is not defined by the legal limit, then who gets to decide? Who gets to be the judge?

We live under the rule of law fellas. Any other extra-legal self-imposed limits are exactly that: self-imposed. But those self-impositions are based on ones own personal ideals, values, preferences, and traditions.

Because one guy views it as his moral duty to harvest 6 fish a year, never share a limit, never pull a wallye up from water deeper than 10', and practice catch-and-release like a religion, does not mean that it is right or moral for ANYONE else.

The law. That's the only true common denominator. Everything else is totally subjective. Anyone who seeks to define what is "right from a conservation standpoint" outside of what the law tells us we can harvest is a busybody.

Please forgive my directness. But this thread is going nowhere. On one hand you have people saying "I will judge whether others are harvesting the legal limit responsibly" and on the other hand, you have people saying, "How I legally harvest fish is none of your business."

Stop trying to manage the behavior of other people. You see somebody poaching? Turn them the heck in. Otherwise, it's simply none of your business.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

Exactly. Just because you may not have broken any laws by "donating" your possession limit of fish so you can fish more but at the same time it doesn't make it right from a conservation standpoint.

I agree with conservation, just not the idea of people thinking catch and release is the overall answer. Or that it's wrong to harvest fish. Conservation is way more then harvesting or releasing fish IMO. Not only that, but how do you know if the guy who catches/harvest his limit and goes home is doing any more harm then the guy that does catch and release all day long? While he may not harvest any fish, he might just kill more fish in that day then the guy who harvested fish due to mortality rates?

Just a few questions i'd like to get your take on.

What do you think of fishing guides/resorts that take paying customers out every possible day of the year and harvesting within DNR guide lines? What about a resort doing multiple guides a day? Are they bad for conservation because of the pressure and harvest they contribute to the lake?

What about harvesting on a lake that has no natural reproduction of a species and is dependent on DNR socking which occurs every year?

What about lakes dependent on DNR stocking & are opt to have liberalized fishing every 5-10years depending on water/oxygen levels? Are we better off to let these fish die off and go to waste?

What if a guy takes his limit but fishes different lakes every time he goes out?

What if your dealing with a small pond that has very few predator fish? Should one harvest has often has possible to keep quality size fish and stunting from happening?

What about public waters where commercial fishing is allowed?

Is your view different on harvesting if you fish a lake vs a river?

To say a person or people that harvest fish, and give fish away for people to eat has being against conservation is a pretty judgmental stretch without knowing much for facts. I'd be more concerned about waste and wasteful people of the resource then those harvesting fish within the laws.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

What is "right from a conservation standpoint"? If "right from a conservation standpoint" is not defined by the legal limit, then who gets to decide? Who gets to be the judge?

We live under the rule of law fellas. Any other extra-legal self-imposed limits are exactly that: self-imposed. But those self-impositions are based on ones own personal ideals, values, preferences, and traditions.

Because one guy views it as his moral duty to harvest 6 fish a year, never share a limit, never pull a wallye up from water deeper than 10', and practice catch-and-release like a religion, does not mean that it is right or moral for ANYONE else.

The law. That's the only true common denominator. Everything else is totally subjective. Anyone who seeks to define what is "right from a conservation standpoint" outside of what the law tells us we can harvest is a busybody.

Please forgive my directness. But this thread is going nowhere. On one hand you have people saying "I will judge whether others are harvesting the legal limit responsibly" and on the other hand, you have people saying, "How I legally harvest fish is none of your business."

Stop trying to manage the behavior of other people. You see somebody poaching? Turn them the heck in. Otherwise, it's simply none of your business.

very well put!

[Igor Drackenwolf]

Let's face it: The PRIMARY thing we do as fishermen to be good conservationists is BUY A FISHING LICENSE. That puts money into the DNR's hands, and theoretically their responsibility and expertise is to maintain the health of the resource. That license comes with a set of rules AND privileges. Those rules and privileges include harvesting up to the daily legal limit.

I wouldn't suggest that our responsibility as conservationists begins and ends with the purchase of a fishing license. But I would suggest that since the purchase of the license is our PRIMARY contribution to statewide conservation, and since inherent in that license is the privilege to legally harvest fish, we all have the exact same starting point. And that's the only thing guaranteed that we have in common. Everything else is just... PERSONAL OPINION.

[CaptJohnWis]

I'd rather be casting than cleaning.

Headed out right now to do just that. Video at 10.

[Kyhl]

This is a forum where "sportsman" discuss sporting topics. As such, I expect sporting discussion not arguments to exploit resources within the confines of the law.

Leaders cannot legislate morality. Just because behavior is within the bounds of the law does not make it ethical. As sportman, I would think we are here to be stewards of the sports and the habitat. Not arguing who can take the most without getting busted.

Take what you will within the law and watch all our lakes turn into bass, pike, and panfish lakes just like they are in the metro. How do you think the metro lakes became bass, pike, and panfish lakes? Combination of harvest of one species and C&R of the others.

Those that say C&R and conservation are as harmful as harvesting are lying to themselves to justify their actions. To see the truth, all you have to do is look at the metro lakes.

By metro, I mean all of the lakes around metro (Lakeville to Maplewood, and Minnetonka to the WI border) excluding downtown where fishing is mostly relegated to shore fishing.

The best walleye fishery I know of in the metro is C&R by law. Coincidence? I don't think so. I bet it would be decimated in a year if they removed the C&R rule.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

This is a forum where "sportsman" discuss sporting topics. As such, I expect sporting discussion not arguments to exploit resources within the confines of the law.

Leaders cannot legislate morality. Just because behavior is within the bounds of the law does not make it ethical. As sportman, I would think we are here to be stewards of the sports and the habitat. Not arguing who can take the most without getting busted.

Take what you will within the law and watch all our lakes turn into bass, pike, and panfish lakes just like they are in the metro. How do you think the metro lakes became bass, pike, and panfish lakes? Combination of harvest of one species and C&R of the others.

Those that say C&R and conservation are as harmful as harvesting are lying to themselves to justify their actions. To see the truth, all you have to do is look at the metro lakes.

By metro, I mean all of the lakes around metro (Lakeville to Maplewood, and Minnetonka to the WI border) excluding downtown where fishing is mostly relegated to shore fishing.

The best walleye fishery I know of in the metro is C&R by law. Coincidence? I don't think so. I bet it would be decimated in a year if they removed the C&R rule.

I'm not sure what the MN DNR does, but we have a lot of lakes/ponds/pits in Iowa that the DNR doesn't put or manage walleye in. Bass, panfish, catfish are what they manage with/for. Does the MN DNR manage the lakes you talked about for walleye?

[Kyhl]

I'm not sure what the MN DNR does, but we have a lot of lakes/ponds/pits in Iowa that the DNR doesn't put or manage walleye in. Bass, panfish, catfish are what they manage with/for. Does the MN DNR manage the lakes you talked about for walleye?

Yes, the MN DNR stocks boat loads of walleyes all around the state. IMO, they can't keep up with the have harvesters in the metro because there are too many of them with daily access.

When you get out of the metro the walleye fishing gets better. In the metro it's pretty much pan, pike, and bass fishing. My theory only: is because the pike and bass are mostly C&R where the walleyes are harvested to near extinction.

[CaptainMusky]

Well put Kyhl! Laws do not and should not define morals. The entire existence of game and fish laws is a direct result of the few who couldn't control themselves. They always thought it was an endless supply of whatever creature was in the water, woods or field. Where did that get us? Some species brought to near extinction and the conservation minded sportsmen came to action to create rules which included seasons and limits.

Some folks have more opportunity to have a greater impact than others because they have ample time. Guides are one of these groups. Many guides are great stewards preaching selective harvest catch and release and taking measures to stock fish in lakes they frequent. I applaud them for this.

A sportsman isn't someone who just hunts and fishes its someone who thinks about and respects the resource and aims to help create a sustainable resource. Not rape and pillage because the law allows them to.

[FshBloodRiverMud]

Worried about walleyes...I'm so glad that with each coming year i'm less and less interested with catching walleyes. Lakes are becoming put and take. It's annoying watching lakes get good and get depleated; cycle moves from lake to lake, year to year. Besides all that, the darn things just can't put up a fight.

[fishnowworknever]

Worried about walleyes...I'm so glad that with each coming year i'm less and less interested with catching walleyes. Lakes are becoming put and take. It's annoying watching lakes get good and get depleated; cycle moves from lake to lake, year to year. Besides all that, the darn things just can't put up a fight.

We need more people like you so us walleye guys have a better chance at catching some around the metro.

In all seriousness, I'm in the same boat, we have places to go up North with much better walleye fishing. Down here early and late are great times to target them, otherwise it's panfish, pike and muskie for me around the metro.

[amateurfishing]

For those preaching conservation I have a big question, DEFINE IT other than what is in the DNR regulations. To me it would mean anti c & r for hooking mortality, if u truly believe in conservation, leave the fish alone, period! Otherwise if selective harvest fishing, does it depend on the lake, species, time of year, etc? Too many people have their own idea of definition of good sportsman or stewardship. Example. 7 inch crappie...keeper cause too.many dinks in lake, release and let grow bigger? All depends on who you ask, time of year, hot bite or not, history of lake maybe, etc, right?

Dont worry bout my mantra, imfar from a fish hog. Maybe get out 30x a year, 80% of time is skunked or too small with the rest 1-6 fish kept. I have never seen a,limit in my bucket in my life.

[CaptainMusky]

For those preaching conservation I have a big question, DEFINE IT ...

How about ethics that include the use, protection and management of a resource.

[OnAFly]

"To me it would mean anti c & r for hooking mortality, if u truly believe in conservation, leave the fish alone, period! "

This looks like a straw man fallacy to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

I do not have the data to prove it, but I really doubt that CR is significantly affecting fish populations in general. There are situations where hooking mortality may be increased (deep water fishing), but I still do not believe that those situations occur frequently enough to have a large impact on fish populations, not to say that this makes them OK.

[amateurfishing]

Captain musky, can you plz define protection and management of a resource? Is that not what the DNR is for and no one can agree on their policies already. 10 ppl could easily have 10 different answers than you on this. It is as vague as dnr regs sometimes.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

"To me it would mean anti c & r for hooking mortality, if u truly believe in conservation, leave the fish alone, period! "

This looks like a straw man fallacy to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

I do not have the data to prove it, but I really doubt that CR is significantly affecting fish populations in general. There are situations where hooking mortality may be increased (deep water fishing), but I still do not believe that those situations occur frequently enough to have a large impact on fish populations, not to say that this makes them OK.

Keith Reeves is a biologist with the DNR. He says it was important to put the DNR's observations about hooking mortality to a rigorous test.

"Last year hooking mortality accounted for more than half of the total harvest," he says. "We wanted to find out if that number was accurate."

Debatable, but looks like Hooking mortality does make an impact.

from : MPR:article

[CaptJohnWis]

Keith Reeves is a biologist with the DNR. He says it was important to put the DNR's observations about hooking mortality to a rigorous test.

"Last year hooking mortality accounted for more than half of the total harvest," he says. "We wanted to find out if that number was accurate."

Debatable, but looks like Hooking mortality does make an impact.

from : MPR:article

My guess (no actual data in story) is that most of these fish were caught deep and/or on live bait. Live bait leads to many more gut/gill hooked fish than lures. When you catch them in the lip out of shallow water, and release quickly almost none will die. I sometimes catch lively fish that have huge scars from pike or musky. If they can survive that, I doubt one little hole in their lip is going to kill them.

[Igor Drackenwolf]

...Laws do not and should not define morals.

[CaptainMusky]

Igor if you haven't noticed there are people that fish more often and less often then you. Some that have better success rates while others who have lesser success rates. I really do not need to explain this to you because I know you know the answer but some people can spend every day on the water while others cannot. They use angler hours etc to figure this stuff out.based on how many people typically fish the water etc. Its not like they throw a dart at the wall though it may be close.

[CaptainMusky]

Captain musky, can you plz define protection and management of a resource? Is that not what the DNR is for and no one can agree on their policies already. 10 ppl could easily have 10 different answers than you on this. It is as vague as dnr regs sometimes.

why not ask 10 others' opinion since based one your own admittance its worth the same..

[Agronomist_at_IA]

Quote:

My guess (no actual data in story) is that most of these fish were caught deep and/or on live bait. Live bait leads to many more gut/gill hooked fish than lures. When you catch them in the lip out of shallow water, and release quickly almost none will die. I sometimes catch lively fish that have huge scars from pike or musky. If they can survive that, I doubt one little hole in their lip is going to kill them.

What percentage do survive an attack like you talk of. Pretty low percentage i would guess just from the numbers i see from the fish i've caught. Also, they aren't pulled out of the water.

I don't believe that a true hooking mortality percentage can be figured exactly, to many variables. Water temperature, handling, lure/hook type, bait type, water type, water flow all play a roll. The point I was getting at is that people are mislead to think C&R is the answer. Shallow water fish are typically in warmer water, and warmer water was shown has one of the largest negative factors for the fish survival. Is your mortality rate really different vs a guy pulling fish out of 30ft water where its cooler? I have no idea, but wouldn't rule out the deeper cooler water fish would survive better. either way, C&R does impact a fishery. Who would be a worst conservationist.......a guy who goes and catches his limit of 3 walleye and goes home, or the guy that stays out for an entire day and catches 30 fish.......at 10% mortality he kills 3 at 30% he kills 10..........who did more damage?

I'm for conservation and protecting Resources. However, It's not has clear cut as it seems. Conservation to me is taking steps to support the resources in an effective way. Anglers C&R mortality and harvest does and will continue to out way natural reproduction in most lakes. Man's impact on watersheds hasn't helped this. The only way to sustain is by man introducing breeding and stocking programs. Could you imagine us trying to feed people with cattle and buffalo in a free range today vs producers breeding and feeding wouldn't work...wouldn't even be close to happening. If you think all but a select few fisheries are different, keep dreaming. Fish are their to be used, and we have the programs to put them back. My view is harvest within limits, and use the resource we paid for without wasting the resource. If you like to eat eat if you like to catch catch and let go.

On a bit of a different note, due to the popularity of Walleye they have been placed and stocked into lakes and areas that they really shouldn't be in. Many of these have no natural reproduction, and are there due to angler popularity of table fair. The reason people want them in the lake is to have edible fish to eat. Its hard for the DNR to keep a solid population in these type of lakes due to many issues. However, they seem to keep a decent population in them with a good stocking regiment. What really puzzles me is when a slot is put on a lake like such. Why put a slot on a lake where breeding stock won't naturally reproduce? Do they do this and then harvest/strip the breeding stock for eggs to create fry and fingerlings? If not why not just put a 14in min. and let people harvest eaters. Or are they trying to offer the larger fish for the recreational guy to catch nicer sized fish?

[CaptainMusky]

Without knowing a specific example I find it hard to believe that limits would be out in place on lakes that are solely supported by stocking. I cannot think of a stocked lake that has a slot on it.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

Without knowing a specific example I find it hard to believe that limits would be out in place on lakes that are solely supported by stocking. I cannot think of a stocked lake that has a slot on it.

Well Iowa is a little different. I'm guessing that the slot is to create breed stock that they can then be milked of eggs and use for stocking the lake........its the only thing that would make sense. I'm not sure, but i believe at one time many of the stocked fish were purchased. I think they've changed to try and do more themselves has far as raising stock fish.