Live bait ban?

[msh]

According to Mr. Jeff L.:  Regarding Your First Question, which I'll paraphrase:  Why Not Allow the Use of Native Live Bait?  The Answer is, in the 39 waters now being put up for protection, there are no native bait species present in the waters in question. Bait species are absent in these ecosystems as indicated by the IFW Biologists

Guess what folks, just a quick look at lake survey information provides info that at least 10% of the present water bodies included in the 39 lakes now listed as NLFAB have the following in them:
lake chub, redbelly dace, finescale dace, white sucker, eel, pearl dace, blacknose dace, common shiner, creek chub, yellow perch, blacknose shiner, banded killifish, slimy sculpin.

I have not had the chance to check the fish population lists for all the waters mentioned, but of the ones I had info on, they all had bate species in them.

Guess he was wrong about that part of his information download....  don't suppose he just might be incorrect about additional information he has stated.

My bet is he over stated the facts...

[dadstacklebox]

Please guys? ALL FISHERMAN ARE CREATED EQUAL, WE USE A HOOK TO CATCH FISH. FISHING IS NOT SOME KIND OF SPORT, IT'S A METHED WE USE TO HARVEST FISH FROM OUR ENVIROMENT. To target one species in the name of sport and kill everything else, is not going to help our quest. When our biologist finds a dead water, please let them do what it takes to bring it back to life. Closed to fishing until further notice!! Most living things eat daily, even in the winter. Also, ALL FISH ARE CREATED EQUAL, another living thing will eat it.
So now I ask you, if a tree falls in the woods, is it heard??

Sorry guys, I had to somehow vent after reading this, now maybe I can sleep. paul 

[Butch Moore]

Thanks for the welcome Esox.  BTW, you missed a couple:

http://www.iceshanty.com/ice_fishing/index.php?topic=31022.msg383227#msg383227

http://www.iceshanty.com/ice_fishing/index.php?topic=37593.msg382362#msg382362

[Butch Moore]

Do a little research about the Atlantic Salmon ESA listing...

Notice that the sign says ALL fishing.

We just found out yesterday the Feds want to add the rest of our rivers to the equation.

One word: INCREMENTALISM

[icecruiser]

UMMM I find the live bait ban a bit different than the endangered species listing of atlantic salmon.  I really don't think you can compare them.  Again this is comparing apples to oranges. 


I think we should be concerned and vigilant about issues limiting ice fishing but don't find this bait ban a problem.  I don't think it is a secret plan to slowly limit bait use and/or ice fishing.  Look at the waters it lists, look at the logic behind it. 

The state has shown we have a very difficult time not having invasives spread all over the place.  I think anything we can do to limit invasives in native brook trout water is a good thing.  I think originally the information was the bait species in these waters have been deemed not threatening or naturally occuring with the brook trout.  Hence they have a natural balance and are not invasive. 

Too many people ice fish and too much noise would be made if more limitations are made. 

John

[Butch Moore]

The last post I made doesn't make as much sense now since the one before it is gone.  For that matter, the one before that doesn't make much sense now either since the post I responded to in that one is gone as well.  I'd try and summarize, but it was a long post.  PM me if you're curious.

Too many people ice fish and too much noise would be made if more limitations are made.

That's what we used to say about salmon, but look where that got us.  And now, look where it's going to get everyone in the Kennebec watershed.  For those who have forgotten, the feds and ASC banned all stocking of rainbows and brown trout in PRIVATE ponds within "endangered" watersheds.  And, back during the listing process, anyone who mentioned that fishing might be banned in part or all of a "salmon river" was dismissed as a nutcase, but look at the sign; it happened. 

The point is, it was incrementalism that got us with the salmon listing, rather than the initial proposal.  They've chipped away a little at a time, knowing they couldn't list all the rivers at once because the public outcry would be too loud, just like they know they can't ban all live fish as bait now.  They'll chip away, a little at a time, just as they've done with salmon.  And why not?  It worked, didn't it?

I think originally the information was the bait species in these waters have been deemed not threatening or naturally occuring with the brook trout.  Hence they have a natural balance and are not invasive.

Then why ban all bait instead of non-native to the pond, provided it really is only about invasive species as billed?

---------------------

The effect of a salmon listing for Kennebec watershed on ice fishing is really a topic for another thread.  The Watts brothers petitioned the feds last year to list the Kennebec, so it's almost a done deal now.  It will most certainly affect the rainbow, splake, and brown trout programs in the watershed, just as it has Downeast (we have none to speak of), and anyone who ice fishes for them is going to be out of luck.  Sad, but true.

[icecruiser]

Well I think when you talk about a species being endangered and we could wipe it off the face of the earth I find the issues a bit different.  Atlantic salmon may never be back but I think trying to bring it back is the right thing

As far as using bait occurring in the ponds already, yeah that sounds great but we can't keep people from introducing pike, walleye, bass, etc so how do you expect the understaffed, underfunded warden's to enforce this.  Are we going to tag each bait fish caught in these ponds so they can be used in those ponds. 

You have to balance the enforcement factor with the regulation and I think that is what you are forgetting. 
John

[Butch Moore]

we could wipe it off the face of the earth

No, only in the US.  Salmon are not endangered as a species worldwide; far from it.  And since the ESA doesn't allow the consideration of Canadian salmon, the only way the feds were able to sneak this misconception past the public was to create consider artificial boundaries (excluding the "big rivers" up until now of course) and say "these are the only 'wild' salmon, so they must be endangered."  They don't even consider the rivers south of the Kennebec, even though they're in the US.  It was a textbook exercise in media and political manipulation, and eventually regulatory incrementalism. 

how do you expect the understaffed, underfunded warden's to enforce this.

As I mentioned in a previous post, wardens are already required to check the bait of each angler to ensure they aren't using an already prohibted bait.  In other words, they're already enforcing what is essentially this law, so what's a few more or less species depending on the pond? 

If you're saying we need more funding for more wardens and  better equipment for them, I'll back you 100%. 

[Butch Moore]

Butch- Have you ever had a warden look inside your bait bucket to see what you were using?

Yes.  They also check my shotgun for a plug when I'm waterfowling. 

It sounds like you're implying that the wardens in your area aren't doing their jobs when you say this.  All the ones I know do. 

Can a game warden walk up to your trap and reel in the line to check your bait, without some kind of probable cause???

You must be a native Mainer too? 

They can check your shotgun for a plug, so probably?  Or maybe they can tell you to pull it up so they can check it?

[icecruiser]

Yes butch you are correct atlantics are not endangered everywhere but I am not going to get into the genetic debate with you about it. 

Again my point is we can't keep exotics and invasives from being introduced with reported harsh penalties and hot lines to call.  I look at this as a very small number of ponds and it gives the wardens an easily (relatively) enforceable rule.  If you see someone with a bait bucket they need to be checked.  I am sorry butch but I don't feel we can expect warden's to be able to check bait and be sure it is from the pond being fished.  I just think what you are proposing in unenforceable.  Unenforceable laws are useless laws. 

Do I support keeping a small number of ponds free of invasives with wild brook trout.  Umm Yes.  I understand the concern of incrementalism.  I just worry that if you always fear that you never will allow any change because it might lead to another change peole don't like. 

My opinion and I am not going to debate more as I don't really think I am trying to convince anyone else of my opinion.  Just stating it.  And I have the feeling this could continue going back and forth for ever and don't really find that the purpose of iceshanty. 

John

[billditrite]

 

My opinion and I am not going to debate more as I don't really think I am trying to convince anyone else of my opinion.  Just stating it.  And I have the feeling this could continue going back and forth for ever and don't really find that the purpose of iceshanty. 

John

Thank you John. these issues are never going to be worked out on an internet forum...people have their opinions and that is what makes our society free.be informative without being judgemental

 

[Butch Moore]

This law is already on the books:

A. Live bait restrictions.  It is unlawful for any person to take, sell, use or possess, either dead or alive, for use as bait for fishing in inland waters, any pickerel, goldfish, yellow perch, white perch, bass, sunfish, crappie, hornpout, carp, alewife, or any spinyfinned fish. The following are legal bait for fishing: Smelt, Lake chub, Eastern silvery minnow, Golden shiner, Emerald shiner, Bridle shiner, Common shiner, Blacknose shiner, Spottail shiner, Northern redbelly dace, Finescale dace, Fathead minnow, Blacknose dace, Longnose dace, Creek chub, Fallfish, Pearl dace, Banded killifish, Mummichog, Longnose sucker, White sucker, Creek chub sucker, American eel, Blackchin shiner.

link

The wardens are already charged with enforcing this law.  All it would take is to change this rule on specific lakes.  If a warden is already checking a pond, they are already supposed to be checking licenses and bait.  The wardens I know are doing this, so changing the species they are already checking is certainly enforceable.  I guess I just have more faith in the Warden Service than some do.

Of course there are some who would ignore this law, just as they'll ignore the NLFAB law.  And there are also some who will illegally stock ponds with invasive species regardless of whatever law is in place, just as they've done in the past.  Banning the use of all live bait punishes only those who will follow and obey the law, just as gun control laws do.  It will do very little to stop criminals, and that's what "bucket biologists" are, from spreading invasive species.  That will take more wardens in the field enforcing the laws already on the books, and I'm all for that.

Yes butch you are correct atlantics are not endangered everywhere but I am not going to get into the genetic debate with you about it.

The reason they aren't "endangered" everywhere has nothing to do with genetics or any other biological consideration, just as that's not the reason they're considered "endangered" in parts of Maine.  It has everything to do with politics, not science.  Science knows nothing of the artificial boundaries put in place by politicians.

[JimP]

You are all correct in observing that politics is the name of the game in Maine Fisheries Management these days. Maine has been a fisheries political battleground for some time. Traditional fisherman have tough choices to make. We can start to learn about what is going on in Augusta or continue to loose more and more good fishing via regulation. When I talk to the state biologists privately they tell me that political pressure is unfortunately part of the job. They observe it getting worse not better. I want hard science to be the determining factor in fisheries management. I get confused, the ones pushing this reg say there are no bait in these ponds, I start to research and I find out there is bait in them. Always has been. It makes it hard not to be suspect. Bottom line is that if I thought that this proposal would be the end of the line I would fully support it. The only hesitation I have is that there is never an end to the push.

Here is an example that may resonate here... This coming year the state enacted a no size limit, no bag limit on northern pike. This was a political decision, The biology makes no sense. In fact this approach contradicts MDIF&W’s own pike report from 2001. I was told by a biologist the reason this was enacted was that the state doesn’t want to seem like they are supporting bucket bio’s by managing these fish as they had been doing. They admit to caving into certain groups. There has been a drumbeat about this issue for several years now. It is in the MDIF&W’s documents who pushed for this so we don’t need to guess who asked for and received this new rule. It is now legal to stack hundreds of dead northern’s on the ice like cordwood. My guess it that some will do that. It makes me sick to my stomach to think this can happen. Many states have a wanton waste law but Maine does not.

Here’s the problem as I see it. There are somewhere like 250,000 fisherman in Maine that fish hard water, spin, bait... etc A very vocal minority of zealots are the ones effecting the changes.

We can all put our heads in the sand if you want... I think those with agenda’s like it that way. I’ll not post on this issue again. If someone want’s to discuss it further contact me via PM.

[Butch Moore]

Butch wants a law that says the only fish that can be used as live bait in a lake are ones that are already there.

No.  I said that would be a reasonable compromise instead of banning all live fish as bait in a lake to stop the spread of invasives.

[Butch Moore]

Huh?   It ain’t reasonable it’s dumb.

You'd prefer banning the use of all live fish as bait instead?

[Butch Moore]

I could have sworn we were told that it was "only 35 waters...yep, we were:

Butch,

   There are 35 waters on the list.

dropper

There are now 300 more being proposed:

Title:  An Act to designate additional wild trout waters for recognition and protection.

Sponsor:  Rep. Ted Koffman

Summary:  This would add an additional “B” list of approximately 300 lakes and ponds in the “Heritage Trout” program, with a prohibition on stocking and the use of live bait in these waters.  This list of waters has already been created by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, consisting of lakes and ponds that have not been stocked in decades, if ever.

http://www.samcef.org/2007Legislation.htm
 

Incrementalism...

[bigfish57]

It is sad when people try to apply the agenda of Special Interest Groups to what could have been good legislation.

I would say someone is owed an apology in this thread.

[yukoncornelius]

just to play devi's advocate, as i have not seen an official version of the bill or list of said waters:

how many of those waters are currently stocker OR allow the use of live fish as bait as it is right now?

i am guessing the impact would be a lot less than it appears



i'll wait to form judgement until i actually see a bill or a list of waters

[JimP]

i'll wait to form judgement until i actually see a bill or a list of waters

The approach that Yukon is taking is a prudent and reasonable approach, it is the same approach I am taking. I wonder that if it turns out that 300 waters are to be included in a bait ban, will he join with me in opposing these changes? Be willing to sign on to a letter that will be sent to the committee stating as much? I hope that we will.

I would be also interested to know if ice shanty members agree that when groups that don't use bait are opposed to bait fishing go after those activities that it looks bad and leads to problems all around? Would TU, DDAS and SAM appreciate it if the Ice Anglers Association took up the same tactics and started pushing for legislation that favored their agenda? It may come to that. It would be sad that it came to that but in the current climate I could see it happening.

How many times have we heard that we need to close a lake during the winter, its for the fish.  Plenty right... I have never heard it proposed that a lake be closed during the summer to enhance fishing for the ice fisherman... You really don't see BASS, or MIA pulling stunts like this...  TU, DDAS and SAM...

TU and DDAS I can understand, they are narrowly focused on trout and are willing to enact regs at the expense of other species. SAM joining up blows me away as many of their members use live bait to fish for splake, bass and pike.

If this turns out to be true, the best thing any of us can do is not join SAM this year out of protest. Once George's checkbook starts heading toward the red he will get the message and reverse his position. A letter written to the Fish and Wildlife Committee at the Legislature is also very effective.

I realize that as fisherman we would rather be fishing than dealing with this nonsense but this stuff is real and it is important to let our representatives know how we feel no matter what side you are on.

[yukoncornelius]

JimP -

i don't think it comes down to being against bait, but wanting to afford protection for wild brook trout

my take is this: maine has the best of a dwindling population of wild brook trout

maine's woods are RAPIDLY changing. the working forest is an endangered species unto itself; we are seeing large chunks being sold off, many have been or will be proposed for development. the population centers are pushing northward. this change is coming quickly and gaining speed exponentially. i, and many others would agree, would like to see wild fish protected.

that being said, i am not sold on the legislative process as a means of wildlife management. it sets some interesting precedents. i am not sold on the general public having much of a clue, and i am not overly trustful of politicians, either. i'd rather work with wildlife biologists to make management decisions based on science, but then again, the IF&W process has long gone the way of fisherman wants over science....but i digress.

i'd also like to see the list of ponds. if they all are truly uncompromised ponds, then i would fight to see them protected. whether i trust the process or not, i am comfortable with affording them more protection.

i just fail to see this as a henny-penny "anti-bait" measure, but one put forth to protect wild brook trout. if one wishes to debate the merits of said bill on those grounds, so be it. but to paint it as an "anti-bait" class war is misguided and dangerous, IMHO.

[Butch Moore]

Tim you were among those who sais this was ONLY about 35 waters before, weren't you?  Ah yes, here it is now:

the only issue at hand is the 39, the rest is pure speculation and conspiracy theory.

And you certainly seemed to imply that no one would be after more at a later date:

...I don't buy into the larger ban theory

What do you say now?  Why is there legislation being proposed instead of the biologists putting forth a rule change?

There's another person in this very thread who said this was only about 35 waters before:

Despite the rhetoric being forwarded to you this is in no way some kind of movement to ban Live Fish as Bait in Maine.

This same person also said this wasn't part of drive to push an "anti-fishing agenda down Sportsmen's throats." 

Yet now the DDAS (Dropper's fly-fishing group that has been quoted many times earlier in this thread) has joined with SAM/FIC to support a ban on an additional 300 waters.   

I'm really supposed to believe this wasn't part of the plan?  Am I supposed to believe that it's all just coincidence?

Maybe I should answer that email promising me a million dollars if I give up my bank account number too... 

[yukoncornelius]

the "issue" at hand, for me, at that time WAS only about 39

i had no knowledge about proposed legislation then, and little now. i'll wait to see the waters proposed and the actual bill before i come up with an opinion.

i spoke for myself then, and again now.

you see it as a ban, i see it as brookie protection.

[JimP]

i don't think it comes down to being against bait, but wanting to afford protection for wild brook trout

I find it ironic that the last remaining vestage of wild brook trout occur in Maine where we have been allowed bait fishing for them since we have been keeping records of things like that. To date there hasn't been a problem. If the bio's needed these regs as a management tool they would seek and probably receive them.

If this latest round isn't an attempt at a back door bait ban then it certainly is a solution in search of a problem... When you look at the past track record of some of the same folks that are pushing this it is certainly proper to pay close attention. That is all I am asking.

Butch,
That is a good recollection of the debate as I remembered it.

[yukoncornelius]

Jim

i think things like increased/easier access, encroaching civilization, increased technology (GPS, etc) and better fishing techniques have all come together to make a different playing field than even 20 years ago

i have a hard time arguing against increased protection for wild fish

i also am not enamored with the legislation concept, any more than i was in love with the concept of the general public having a direct say in bear management

but i will reserve whole judgement until i see the actual proposal, the list of waters, and hear real debate on it

[JimP]

I agree...

That is why, as another poster has said,

It is sad when people try to apply the agenda of Special Interest Groups to what could have been good legislation.

that special interest groups don't over reach. I would be inclined to support efforts to protect real wild brookies. Can we agree that there are not 300 waters that require this protection? Could you support a provision in any new law that prohibited further attempts to restrict live bait? A moratorium on new bait legislation does does three things, the incrementalism issue is off the table, it puts other fisherman at ease and it acknowledges in a meaningful way that live bait fisherman are going to be protected.

IMO many bait fisherman would jump on board. IMO groups need to control themselves and not ask for the moon hoping for the sky. These tactics cause so much division that even if you "win" you have lost.

[pegasus]

You guys won't have a thing to worry about in another ten years if Roxanne Quimby has her way. You'll be able to sit at home every weekend and watch T.V. Hunting and fishing will soon be a thing of the past. You better spend more time with your kids playing computer games.

[Turnbuckle]

I think I'm going to wait to make a decision until the facts are presented. Butch Moore has made quite a name for himself on trying to divide sportsman, it's ongoing and tiresome. Twisting the facts to get everyone up in arms, most of the time with his "allegations" and swirled distortion he creates in his free time.

Let's stick together on this one and see what comes about and make a rational decision. 

We have seen no real facts in the form statistics on this, and I haven't been hit in the head with a piece of the sky yet.   

 ???How many of these waters are currently open to ice fishing? Isn't that important? 

For someone to run over to an ice fishing site from the bomb shelter and tell everyone that the sky is falling on the sport of ice fishing, wouldn't we want to know more facts about the facts? I need some more. Do you have any Alfred?

How many of these waters are open to ice fisherman, how many can be reached in the winter, statistics possibly by game wardens and biologists on winter harvest numbers, etc. Once we get the list, we can do this in short time.

Maybe once we see the list, and determine how many and what waters are open to ice fishing, we can evaluate on if as a group we even fish them.

I'm not ready to declare war with legislation if they are doing a positive measure for wild trout that doesn't really impact anyone's winter fishing. 

I think most importantly we should see any measure to help prevent the spread of invasive species as a step in the right direction to help wild and native trout waters, not a step to work over ice fisherman. If this was a sole attempt to destroy ice fishing, I would be the first one to take my auger to the capital. It isn't. Why would anyone try to pass a law to stop ice fishing as we know it, come on, this is like a bad movie.....

The state has statistics that we are loosing wild and native trout waters every day, should we wait to do something on the day that my boy sits in a canoe and dangles a worm into a void pond and says "Dad, what's a trout?"

We are sportsman first, let's keep that focus, stick together, work together and determine what is right for the resource, and move on it."

[JimP]

nice post 

[Butch Moore]

Turnbuckle, do you deny that there was a proposal to ban the use of bait on only 39 waters this last year?  Do you deny that we were told that this was it, no more?  Do you deny that now, less than a year after we were told it was "only" 39 waters, we now have legislation proposed by SAM/FIC to ban bait on an additional 300 waters?



Here's a link to the proposed legislation again:

http://www.samcef.org/2007Legislation.htm

Summary:  This would add an additional “B” list of approximately 300 lakes and ponds in the “Heritage Trout” program, with a prohibition on stocking and the use of live bait in these waters.  This list of waters has already been created by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, consisting of lakes and ponds that have not been stocked in decades, if ever.

Personal shots at me won't change the facts.  If anything, they just show the lengths some people will go to push the anti-ice fishing agenda that has been documented earlier in this thread.  Don't take my word for it.  Go back and read it again.

Signing off, from the bomb shelter.

[Turnbuckle]

You can put any swirl on it you would like, including a chocolate/vanilla twist if you like , but I think you have underestimated the knowledge here in the Shanty.

You showed up here crying bloody murder when this topic hit the news, coming over from your website, posting this link and that, trying to spin everyone's heads, not revealing that the plan included 6 waters open to ice fishing. 6 waters.

How many does this new one include? I'm going to get some details first before I burn my shack and take my auger to the pawn shop, I suggest you do the same, instead of trying to instill fear into us. We can all read the plan, the articles out there, and hell we can even have conversations with biologists too! Imagine that, we can think and decide for ourselves!! It's wild man.

I don't think we are that naive that you can come over and try to convince us that a bunch of fly fisherman are sitting around trying to strangle us with our traps.

Do you want to know why?

This is just part of the DIFW's strategic management plan for Brook Trout.
http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/managementplans/index.htm
This plan was created by Forrest Bonney, has the support from the department and the biologists, and we should continue to move forward and support as anglers and stop all this Dr. Divider stuff.





Maybe we should also talk about all the other things that SAM is doing to help us as anglers and sportsman. Good stuff to come......

Title:  An Act to Improve Landowner Relations

Sponsor:  Rep. Jeremy Fischer

Summary:  This bill creates a full-time Landowner Relations Coordinator position within the Information and Education Division of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Title: An Act to Eliminate Fees for Young Sportsmen

Rep. Ben Pratt

Summary:  This bill would allow young resident sportsmen under the age of 16 to hunt and fish without buying a license.

Title:  An Act to Create the Maine Fishery Infrastructure Tax Credit Program (MEFISH)

Rep. Thom Watson

Summary:  This bill creates a program at the Finance Authority of Maine (FAME) similar to its Seed Capital Tax Credit Program. Tax credits would be provided to investors who pay for improvements in fisheries, fish habitat, water access and infrastructure that serves the recreational fishing economy.  The improvements would be designated by Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Title:  An Act to Extend Fall Fishing Opportunities

Sponsor:  Rep. Abby Holman

Summary:  This bill would open all stocked moving waters to fall catch-and-release fishing in October and November.

Title:  An Act to Protect Wild Trout from Exotic Species

Sponsor:  Rep. Ted Koffman

Summary:  This bill would prohibit splake from being stocked in waters where they could spread to wild trout waters.  It would also direct the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to produce a list of waters suitable for splake stocking.