MIAA email form for LD 163

[fshnfool]

 Blindly opposing it based simply on whether they are native or not seems a little short sighted to me.  Just another opinion 

so is blindly proposing it...

[JimP]

The intent of the letter was not for the purpose you stated. It was just intended to be an easy way for folks to send an e-mail to the committee. The rest of your logic is faulty as well. You're support could be also called blind allegiance. Go read the other threads where we discussed the pros and cons to this LD. Folks know what is going on. This is like the 4 or 5th thread.

They might has well picked these 4 species out of a hat. No one anywhere is saying that these 4 are any more likely to flourish if moved than any other. I think you're graping at the old straw friend.

[Loves To Fish]

bbpinecone,
                Where are these experts? that would surely help eliminate all the confusion. You don't suppose that now the cat is out of the bag, they have gone into hiding. I agree with fsnfool, this legislation was proposed before doing all the research and is a waste of the legislative process.

[bbpinecone]

Easy now, folks.  I didn't propose this bill, nor did I say that I supposted it.  I just want all the facts before I support or oppose it. 
Loves To Fish -
I agree.  If there are experts on this, I wish they would add to the disscussion.  It would clear up a lot of questions I have.
Jim P -
Again, I never said I supported the bill.  I just have questions that need answering before I can make a decision about it.  I've read all the threads.  The back-slappin' rally the troops posts do nothing to answer these questions.  Also, Are you saying that all bait fish species are equally likely to become invasive when introduced to new water?  If asking questions is the same as 'graping at the old straw', then I guess you are right.

[JimP]

Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers... You have a valid question. I don't have the absolute answer. It is so instance specific as to what species have the advantage that it is really hard to predict what baitfish might tend to do better or worse. You have to remember that trout, bass, etc. eat these baitfish. They are critical for fish growth. They are not the evil invasive that people are claiming they are. That ought to be reason enough to tank this bill. I am not an expert.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to rally the troops. I thought most had made up their mind. Again I intended no offense.
 

[toguefisha]

You have to remember that trout, bass, etc. eat these baitfish. They are critical for fish growth. 

That is only partly true, many baitfish actually compete with trout.  Which in theory is why the bill was introduced.  I'm not taking a stand either way on this one, I just don't like when only half the truth is told.

[yukoncornelius]

alec is right......IF&W biologists HAVE identified invasive bait species as a huge threat to wild brook trout......many bait species will outcompete young BKT or eat the young.....

you don't have to look to hard to see several recent reports out of forrest bonney and other bios illustrating this point.....

[bbpinecone]

You have to remember that trout, bass, etc. eat these baitfish. They are critical for fish growth.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to rally the troops. I thought most had made up their mind. Again I intended no offense.

Jim,
No worries.  I think it's great that folks are getting involved with the process.  I would just encourage everyone to try and see both sides, become informed (and not by internet messageboards), and to make up their own minds.  

I think most people know that these fish provide forage for many of our 'sportfish' and could care less what species are filling their bellies.  The question is are these species more likely to feed on zooplankton, or tender little trout fry.  One species isn't neccesarily the same as the next.  Also it isn't just the game fish we should be concerned about.  Are these species more likely to out compete with other (if not native, already present)minnow species?  I want to to know more about these four.  I find it hard to believe they were randomly selected (out of a hat) as a way to get a foot into the door.  

If there is no science behind this LD at all, I agree it is a waste of time.  But just because a few people here on ice shanty tell me this is the case, doesn't make it so.  Hopefully the people who will make this decision are more well informed than us.  

[Loves To Fish]

Yukon says: "alec is right......IF&W biologists HAVE identified invasive bait species as a huge threat to wild brook trout......many bait species will outcompete young BKT or eat the young.."

I agree, except our biologists were talking about white perch, bass, pickerell, and other trash fish. None of these are legal to use anyways and the 4 species of baitfish this bill is trying to eliminate the use of, are not even mentioned by the IF@W. I can see protecting the brook trout from invasives, but when our own IF@W doesn't even list them by name, something is wrong. I don't like people blowing smoke up my arse!!!

[toguefisha]

I agree, except our biologists were talking about white perch, bass, pickerell, and other trash fish. None of these are legal to use anyways and the 4 species of baitfish this bill is trying to eliminate the use of, are not even mentioned by the IF@W. I can see protecting the brook trout from invasives, but when our own IF@W doesn't even list them by name, something is wrong. I don't like people blowing smoke up my arse!!!

Here is a direct quote from Fisheries Biologist Forest Bonney on his Brook trout report.  "The often inadvertent spread of white suckers and a number of minnow species caused still further loss and remains a chronic problem to this day because of their extensive use as live bait.  You are right it does not mention those four bait fish species specifically, most likely because it isn't just these four bait species that are causing issues, it's a bunch more as well, but you could always email Forrest and find out for yourself.

[JimP]

I just don't like when only half the truth is told.

Look Alex it seems like you are getting pretty close to calling me a liar there bub. I could say the same of your post.  I never attempted to paint a complete picture and said as much. I'm getting sick of things taken out of context. I am sick of the PFA talking points.

You saying that baitfish species outcompeting brookies is a gross oversimplification. Sometimes it can, some time it can't. Show me where Forrest or anyone else said that these 4 baitfish are the problem. Is what you are advocating that all bait be banned? If not why post the Bonney quote? Oh yeah, I think that Forrest was refering to wild trout not stocked trout.

How about responding to this... This is actually a fact. Not a pie in the sky what if scenerio....

A guy traps a few dozen shiners in a lake or pond that contains one of these 4 baitfish. Heads out on the very same body of water he caught the bait to do some ice fishing later that day. If one of those shiners that he has in the pail is an Emerald or one of the other 3 he will be guilty of violating this law. He is now the posterboy for the anti invasive campain. What if you have a bath tub full of 300 and one is an Emerald? You that good at telling them apart? My point is that if some are still going to be using Emeralds as much as they are trying not to why make a criminal out of them?

[buddah]

How about someone actually naming the mysterious 4 baitfish?

[JimP]

These are the species from the currently allowed list to be banned:

B.   Eastern silvery minnow, (Hybognathus regius);

D.    Emerald shiner, (Notropis atherinoides);

H.   Spottail shiner, (Notropis hudsonius);

W.   Blackchin shiner, (Notropis heterodon).

[Bluefinforme]

These are the species from the currently allowed list to be banned:

B.   Eastern silvery minnow, (Hybognathus regius);

D.    Emerald shiner, (Notropis atherinoides);

H.   Spottail shiner, (Notropis hudsonius);

W.   Blackchin shiner, (Notropis heterodon).

you forgot Notropis thisissolame

[Hoodoo]

I think I counted 22 different bait fish that is allowed I know the difference between a golden shiner,smelt ,sucker and an eel. if you lined up the other 18 I wouldn't have a clue which one is what, I guess maybe I was looking up to many skirts in Biology class to learn fish types...........  but I wonder if the people that are for this bill could pick the illegal four out of the line-up

[Loves To Fish]

Bluefinforme, why is this discussion so lame?
               

[toguefisha]

Look Alex it seems like you are getting pretty close to calling me a liar there bub. I could say the same of your post.  I never attempted to paint a complete picture and said as much. I'm getting sick of things taken out of context. I am sick of the PFA talking points.

You saying that baitfish species outcompeting brookies is a gross oversimplification. Sometimes it can, some time it can't. Show me where Forrest or anyone else said that these 4 baitfish are the problem. Is what you are advocating that all bait be banned? If not why post the Bonney quote? Oh yeah, I think that Forrest was refering to wild trout not stocked trout.

How about responding to this... This is actually a fact. Not a pie in the sky what if scenerio....

Holy cow man, calm down.  I'm not calling anyone a liar.  I'm just adding in some facts that I felt were missing from the argument being discussed.  For me this hole thing is just a non-issue.   Most of  the native and or wild trout ponds have already been closed to the use of live bait.  This whole argument has been very one sided though, and I get annoyed when both sides of the argument aren't discussed thats all.  The reason I posted the forrest quote was to counter another poster stating that "except our biologists were talking about white perch, bass, pickerell, and other trash fish. None of these are legal to use anyways"  I was simply stating that it wasn't that simple, that baitfish compete as well in some cases, talk about taking things out of context.  As for accusing me of wanting all bait banned, come on.  I already stated that I had about 300 baitfish swimming around in the bath tub,  I'm not a hypocrite.   Why do these things always come down to personal attacks, I was just stating some facts that I felt had not been properly addressed.  I wasn't calling anyone a liar so please calm down.  When are we having that beer anyway.
-Alec

[Bluefinforme]

Bluefinforme, why is this discussion so lame?
               

read and you'll see

[JimP]

Alex, I think I understand you now. FWIW I am always calm. I think if you go back thru the thread it sure looked to me like you thought I was trying to spread the bullcrap, reverse our posts and what would you think? IMO there is no reason to shade things. This bill. LD 163 seeks to ban these four fish statewide, not just a few trout ponds. It is a bad idea. I hope more guys send in E-mails...

You got any Emeralds in the tub?

[toguefisha]

Alex, I think I understand you now. FWIW I am always calm. I think if you go back thru the thread it sure looked to me like you thought I was trying to spread the bullcrap, reverse our posts and what would you think? IMO there is no reason to shade things. This bill. LD 163 seeks to ban these four fish statewide, not just a few trout ponds. It is a bad idea. I hope more guys send in E-mails...

You got any Emeralds in the tub?

I can see where you are coming from, I'm not super eloquent when it comes to text only I guess. I hope we can agree that it's sometimes difficult to express yourself over the internet.  Nothing personal, truely, and if you took it that way I apologize, no harm intended.  No, I don't have any emeralds in the tub, they aren't in the farm pond that I trap them out of. talk to you later man,
-Alec

[JimP]

No harm, no foul. I am sorry as well.

[Ice Time]

This bill is a sledgehammer where a finish nail is needed.

Jim I still wonder what you mean---- you think this bill is to drastic but at the same time you imply something is needed. Could you explain Do you think LFAB is ok everywhere

[Butch Moore]

Somebody, somewhere, who knows more about this than I do, selected these four species as a particular problem.

Actually, the DDAS created this bill and it's quite likely they don't know more than you. 

[Steve...]

These are the species from the currently allowed list to be banned, all are plankton Eaters and have been deemed to be safe by the Biologist of the state. And have  been on the legal to use list for over thirty years.
Steve...
   
Eastern silvery minnow, (Hybognathus regius);
Emerald shiner, (Notropis atherinoides);
Spottail shiner, (Notropis hudsonius);
Blackchin shiner, (Notropis heterodon).

[Ice Time]

and have been deemed to be safe by the Biologist of the state.

Steve where is that from I have been looking for some information and have not run across that anywhere.
Could you give us a refernce Who said it

[Loves To Fish]

Icetime,
           I don't want to speak for Steve, but the fact that none of these proposed baitfish have ever been named specifically as being bad for any waters in Maine for more than 50 years, our biologists must have deemed them safe to use. Otherwise, they would have brought this potential problem up well before now and well before a bunch of flyfishermen ( DDAS ), discovered these really terrible baitfish that need to be banned. Come on now!!

Also, how come SAM has no positon on this bill and how come our own IF@W has no position on this bill. There's got to be a reason why the 2 biggest organizations have failed to say anything in favor or against this bill.

[Ice Time]

how come our own IF@W has no position on this bill.

LTF why would IF@W have NO position on this bill if they "deemed them to be safe" could they not just come out and say "these bait fish are safe" Or is it because they dont know for sure and dont dare to say Think they might just be keeping there fingers crossed I admit I dont know. A hole lot of questions---but where are the answers?

[stacymm66]

LTF why would IF@W have NO position on this bill if they "deemed them to be safe" could they not just come out and say "these bait fish are safe" Or is it because they dont know for sure and dont dare to say Think they might just be keeping there fingers crossed I admit I dont know. A hole lot of questions---but where are the answers?

This is where I have a problem, there seems to be more questions then answers. It seems that it would be better to appose the bill until all of these questions can be answered with facts instead of speculations.

[Loves To Fish]

I guess that's what I'm trying to say also. If there are so many unanswered questions, than why create the bill in the first place.

[Ice Time]

This is where I have a problem, there seems to be more questions then answers. It seems that it would be better to appose the bill until all of these questions can be answered with facts instead of speculations.

stacymm66---you being the owner of Dags Bait Shop I would expect you to oppose the bill---but that doesnt help answer anything.

Steve/Butch/Jim -I read on your chat board that emeralds are now in Cobsee--Messolonski-- Marranacook--and some Belgrade lakes.. I read here on the shanty there in Mollasas and Tunk. Sure does seem like there spreading to me.  Is that called incrementalism