Why a live bait ban?

[52lobstah]

My simple question to the live bait after listening to both sides of the debate is this, Why not institute an indigenous live bait rule? That is on waters like Millimigassett and Millinocket (T7R9) lakes, "use of live bait permitted, live bait must be caught on lake X and used only on lake X." 

The Advisory Council and Commissioner Woodcock could have saved great face with the live bait fishing community if they had adopted an indigenous bait rule. Instead they isolated the bait fisherman and privatized fisheries for people who troll hardware, jig or fish with fly's.

[TheDirtyAndro]

If there was a lake, that many people wanted to fish, but they could only use bait taken from said lake, wouldn't there be too much pressure on the bait fish during the winter months trapping them? Also there is no way to prove that your bait came from said lake...it is a good idea, just next to impossible to enforce...

[blacktrap]

Why not just cut the allowable list down to smelts, common shiners, redfins, goldens and dace?  If a lake has smelts in it you can use them, if it has shiners in it you can use them.  The people that are pushing this are not interested in any compromise, they want all use of live bait banned from all waters.  They dont like ice fishing and ice fishermen.

[pegasus]

Because some people will bring in all kinds of fish in their buckets. 

[landlockedsalmon]

jigging is more productive then live bait,whats the big deal about live bait?I haven't used livebait in the last two years.NLFAB about covers it,if they want to protect the brooktrout!just my .02.LLS

[blacktrap]

Again the same question no one that is pushing this crap wants to answer-If a lake already has smelts in or shiners in it how is fishing with them going to introduce a bait fish??

[grub662]

To keep people away? Save the fish for themselves in the summer?

[52lobstah]

If there was a lake, that many people wanted to fish, but they could only use bait taken from said lake, wouldn't there be too much pressure on the bait fish during the winter months trapping them? Also there is no way to prove that your bait came from said lake...it is a good idea, just next to impossible to enforce...

I am talking about catching a few shiners in a trap or jigging some smelts. Commercial guys harvest bait by the thousands not dozens. The only watershed closed to seining bait is Cobbossee Stream. The enforcement argument is weak. What stops somebody from shooting deer out of season, spearing Atlantic Salmon or illegally stocking waters? Human nature that's what. Law enforcement in of itself it not a deterrence for 90% of sportsman. Morale Courage is the real prevention tool. Make a rule and people will follow it especially a fisherman.

[Ice Time]

Because some people will bring in all kinds of fish in their buckets. 

X2

[TheDirtyAndro]

I am talking about catching a few shiners in a trap or jigging some smelts. Commercial guys harvest bait by the thousands not dozens. The only watershed closed to seining bait is Cobbossee Stream. The enforcement argument is weak. What stops somebody from shooting deer out of season, spearing Atlantic Salmon or illegally stocking waters? Human nature that's what. Law enforcement in of itself it not a deterrence for 90% of sportsman. Morale Courage is the real prevention tool. Make a rule and people will follow it especially a fisherman.

Hahaha man, I was unaware that every single fisherman adheres to a law as soon as it is passed into action...it must be hunters who have been illegally stocking all these lakes and ponds all over the state. If that is the case maybe we should just have "suggested bag limits", since all fishermen are such a trustworthy bunch!

Fact of the matter is there are still lakes in Maine that are in good shape, and the absolute only way to make sure that people don't go up there with a mixed bag of live bait to ice fish with, and dump it all in afterwards is to ban it outright. Enforcement is 100% the issue here, the amount of bodies needed to check peoples bait buckets on "indigenous live bait" waters would not only be an astronomical additional cost to us, but just totally unnecessary.

There are some good hearted fishermen out there, but that is FAR from true about all of them.

[blacktrap]

Hahaha man, I was unaware that every single fisherman adheres to a law as soon as it is passed into action...it must be hunters who have been illegally stocking all these lakes and ponds all over the state. If that is the case maybe we should just have "suggested bag limits", since all fishermen are such a trustworthy bunch!

Fact of the matter is there are still lakes in Maine that are in good shape, and the absolute only way to make sure that people don't go up there with a mixed bag of live bait to ice fish with, and dump it all in afterwards is to ban it outright. Enforcement is 100% the issue here, the amount of bodies needed to check peoples bait buckets on "indigenous live bait" waters would not only be an astronomical additional cost to us, but just totally unnecessary.

There are some good hearted fishermen out there, but that is FAR from true about all of them.

If what you say is even close to true, what good is any law banning live bait?  All the scofflaws will just use it anyway

[fishlessman]

if the lake has been legal to fish baitfish in the past, there isnt a legal baitfish in maine that hasnt been tried already, why would bringing in the same bait now be any different

[Ice Time]

Hahaha man, I was unaware that every single fisherman adheres to a law as soon as it is passed into action...it must be hunters who have been illegally stocking all these lakes and ponds all over the state. If that is the case maybe we should just have "suggested bag limits", since all fishermen are such a trustworthy bunch!

Fact of the matter is there are still lakes in Maine that are in good shape, and the absolute only way to make sure that people don't go up there with a mixed bag of live bait to ice fish with, and dump it all in afterwards is to ban it outright. Enforcement is 100% the issue here, the amount of bodies needed to check peoples bait buckets on "indigenous live bait" waters would not only be an astronomical additional cost to us, but just totally unnecessary.

There are some good hearted fishermen out there, but that is FAR from true about all of them.

I think DA is right on.

Other fishermen will help with the enforcement. Other fishermen generally dont like seeing others fish illegally. Fer instance a couple of years ago I was fishing an alo river and i saw a guy fishing  with worms. I politely explained that worms were not allowed. He thanked me and left. Now i dont know if he knew it was illegal or if he just made a mistake. But it was obviuos he was putting worms on his hook and a warden didn’t have to be there to stop him. In other words other fishermen will help enforce a nlfab rule without having to identify the species of live bait being used.

Any way it makes sense to me.

[cap]

here you go Laddies,

http://www.georgesmithmaine.com/articles/georges-outdoor-news/january/2013/look-legislative-bills-governing-fishing

Rep. Paul Davis has a bill to “Preserve ice fishing,” and Senator Troy Jackson is addressing the same issue with his “Resolve, To Allow the Use of Live Bait When Fishing in Certain Waters of the State.” I’ve been told these bills would reverse the recent decision by the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Council and Commissioner Chandler Woodcock to ban the use of live fish as bait on 9 “B List” brook trout waters.

Rep. Joe Brooks is on the same trail with his “Act to Allow Use of Live Bait for Fishing in the Allagash and Fish River Waterways.” Commissioner Woodcock had indicated, after the F&W Council adopted a bait limit on those 9 brook trout waters, that he would seek similar protection for the rest of the “B List” brook trout waters in the Allagash Waterway system.

But I hear he’s having second thoughts about that, possibly pressured by friends of Governor Paul LePage – or maybe even the governor himself. The bill submitted by Rep. Brooks could bring this issue out for a full public debate and put pressure on Chandler to make a decision.

Rep. Larry Dunphy is proposing another bait bill: “An Act to Allow a Person 65 Years of Age or Older to Fish with Bait in any Inland Water.” So much for the “A list waters” where DIF&W is now prohibited from stocking fish and anglers are prohibited from using live fish as bait, in order to protect the native brook trout in those waters.

[Loves To Fish]

here you go Laddies,

http://www.georgesmithmaine.com/articles/georges-outdoor-news/january/2013/look-legislative-bills-governing-fishing

So what's your take on these bills, Cap? Too little, too late to reverse what's been done?

[cap]

My take, Dennis is this, I think that members on this forum ought to friggin' WAKE UP and SEE what is going on around them and they better start to participate and to actively  advocate to protect their sport, since there are those who are actively advocating to take ice fishing opportunities away from us!

I hear people say "t can't happen"...WELL GUESS WHAT? IT"S HAPPENING!

You have folks on this forum claiming to be ice fishermen yet their actions and words imply something different....


Check this out http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/print-edition/2012/12/07/as-mercury-falls-sales-heat-up.html?page=all
I'll highlight a few points...

-While it’s still widely viewed as a small niche, ice fishing has become one of North America’s fastest-growing sports, thanks largely to the product innovation and marketing of Minnesota companies like Clam.

-The company recently sold its headquarters building to the city of Medina for more than $4.1 million and is building a new facility in Rogers, where it will move in April. The Rogers location will be 150,000 square feet, roughly double the size of its current space.

-But Clam still sees more opportunity for growth, particularly in the Northeast, where the sport’s proliferation is about 20 years behind the Upper Midwest.

-Clam isn’t the only Minnesota company banking on a growing ice-fishing market.

Huh? Ain't that sumthin'? You supposedly have a Governor who wants Maine to become more "Business Freindly"...and ice fishing is a burgeoning and emerging market particularly in the Northeast and in Maine and what does he do?...He appoints a Commissioner who gets advice by the likes of George Smith (and other anti ice fishing advocates) and who is hellbent on eliminating ice fishing opportunities in Maine, rather than doing everything he can to PROMOTE IT!

That makes perfect business sense...NOT!

[Loves To Fish]

Cap, I'm trying to do my part as always. I received a petion, from up north, for re-opening those 9 waters to the use of bait. It's going to be used in conjunction with the legislative proposals. I will also be there to testify in Augusta when they do have the hearings.

[cap]

This is the one that needs support from the ice angling community if we wish to reverse the live bait issue in the NMW, and take the issue out of the "playing politics game" and moving it where it should be IE scientific fisheries management!

Live bait species can be used without harm to brook trout, where those species coexist with brook trout,  but  brook trout can also be protected from inadvertent invasive species introductions via NLFAB regulations - WHEN IT IS SHOWN TO HOLD SCIENTIFIC MERIT!

It is just common sense to understand this.....

Jackson is trying TO FIX the problem.


SUMMARY
This resolve directs the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to reverse
recent rulemaking that is effective April 1, 2013. Those proposals prohibit the use of live
bait for ice fishing in specific lakes. The resolve also requires the Joint Standing
Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to review the issue of live bait and authorizes
the committee to submit legislation.

[rude the dude]

sad thing is politicians don't listen to dumb sportsman. I've seen what happens at the public hearings first hand, it's a waste of time. They do what they want regardless. Cap, your just a little peanut in a big bowl of them.

[cap]

Rude..

Yes I may be one peanut in a bowl...but it has been shown that when enough peanuts get together in enough bowls...that they can effect change.

This group at ice shanty just a few years back, with the MIAA's was motivated  enough to stop the exact same rule changes (NLFAB) for the NMW and The Allagash that are now being advocated for.

The difference this time vs last time are significant....1) now there is infiltration on this site by those who advocate against ice angling opportunity,  2) now there is disinterest and apathy on the part of new ice anglers who don't get it yet. 3) there are politicians who do not listen to their constituents  but have their own agendas, and 4) because of 3 there are even more anti ice fishing advocates that are even more vocal now and they have more influence than they had then.

However, there still is opportunity to effect changes provided everyone does'nt just lay down and give up!  Doing nothing will guarantee that anti ice fishing advocates you what THEY want.   

 At least if you fight now for what you believe is right...there is a chance of success.

Just mine... 

[Westerly]

If the "experts" in the legislature are going to spend their time deciding which lakes are appropriate to fish with bait and which aren't, maybe the fisheries professionals at IF&W can figure out how best to balance Maine's budget?   

[blacktrap]

I dont consider former school teacher running IFW to be a "fisheries Professional", so maybe he might be better suited to trying his hand at balancing the budget.

[Westerly]

I don't either, commissioners are usually just managers - I was referring to the biologists.

I'm not fully up to speed with the conspiracy, but I'm guessing that Mr. Woodcock plays the role of the renegade vigilante, pulling the strings of the entire department to suit his personal vendetta against icefishing?  Taking his marching orders in wax sealed envelopes from cloaked members of the Flyfishing Illuminati under the cover of darkness?
(I love this stuff!)

Point is, I have no idea of bait should be allowed in 'Lake X' or not - we pay the folks at IF&W to have those answers.  I'm way more comfortable with that system than having a bunch of suits in Augusta that don't even know what a smelt looks like make those kind of decisions.  Bending to whoever whines the most (from either 'side') is no way to responsibly manage our fisheries.  I figure whatever is best for the fish is best for the people who fish for them, not the other way around.
Done. 

[cap]

Science speaks for itself....no need for all the bluster and blabber....

Bluster and blabber is the language of political machination.

Even a child can understand this :

A person absolutely and without a doubt, cannot introduce a supposed invasive species into a pond inadvertently by fishing with that species in that pond, if the supposed "invasive" species already is present and is extant in the pond.

This ain't rocket science. It is simple as pie.

Everything else is just politics. Most of this political stuff is malarkey. Most is also fomented to restrict tackle and methods of some anglers so that other anglers have a larger slice of the resource pie to exploit for themselves.

Real meaningful science based solutions exist.

Draw a line across the state....Route 2 and the Airline ...or whatever...separating the northern tier of the state where most of the wild and native brookies reside from the southern tier where warmwater species thrive and IFAW throws some mudpuppy cement pond hatchery fish in for put and take fisheries.

Above the line just further restrict what is the current legal list of bait species to something simple, for instance, smelts, shiners, dace and suckers.

NLFAB rules can be put on ponds that do not have bait species present in them, this makes sense. However restricting the use of bait species from ponds that are rife with those bait species is STOOPID, and is obviously a political machination...because the science says it is!