UPDATED Please take a moment to read and respond. Important

[Bigfoot1595]

I disagree with the creel limit for panfish, just because most lakes that are fished for panfish are over populated, but i would love to see a stocking program for walleyes.

[manitron]

Tafts,

  I applaud your initiative.
  I am not opposed to measures meant to improve our fisheries. I'm concerned about how far in the other direction this could possibly swing. Consider the extremes.  I balk at too much intervention and involvement; you never know what fanciful and ludicrous notions someone may try to impose. I fear for the loss of what I cherish and am accustomed to. Intensive regulation could conceivably ruin fishing in Mass.  I shudder at the thought of sportfishing becoming so rigidly legislated as to have lost all of its charm.
  The decisions made should not be arbitrary or implemented without the unequivocal consent of MA anglers. And some contentious topics are sure to breed division and strife (ie use of soft plastics). How to hurdle that?
  I do not credit politicians and officials with enough temperance, restraint, or prudence to be trusted with this. If they wrest control of this, we will probably regret it.
  To address the topics you mentioned:
  Instating a creel limit on panfish. I support this, provided  ample advance notice is declared, and those most guilty of flagrant overharvest are apprised of the impending change. (We were given a 2 year advance notice before the lead ban took effect. Something similar would be nice in this instance.)
You and others on the site have been outspoken on the subject of the much-reviled "Russians". You deplore the damage they have inflicted on local waterbodies, and are taking steps to preempt further damage, and possibly restore suppressed fisheries to their former glory. Good for you.
 Now, that level of harvest in unjustifiable and unsustainable. I have yet to see anyone starving in the U.S. There is no need to deplete a lake simply because it's possible. It demonstrates a wanton disregard for the fishery. With that said, these folks should not be set up to be victims. While their perspective on harvest if skewed, and needs ammending, in the end, they are also outdoorsmen. I assume they pay for their licenses just as everyone else does. They are drawn to the pursuit of fish, an attraction common to us all.
  Someone may contend that ignorance is no excuse. I don't buy that, in this case. One can't obey the law, if one does not know the law. Willfull transgression, on the other hand, is deserving of punishment. Which segues neatly into the next topic...
  A bolstered and more active environmental presence is a good thing, provided Mass does not become a police state. The law-abiding majority should not be needlessly badgered in the course of enforcing regulations. We should not be confronted every time we venture onto the water. ( The exception being only to verify the possession of a valid license.) We should not be objects of suspicion. A detached, "hands-off" mode of policing would be ideal, wherein law enforcement intervenes when and if a violation is occurring, not merely to justify its existence and expense.
  Diversified stocking. I support this, but again, with reservations. There have been times when I was envious of Connecticut's stocking policies. I believe that state furnishes its anglers with walleye, trout, catfish, and maybe pike. We only get the trout and a shadow of the pike. Still, I'm grateful to be a resident of Mass. I'm legally allowed to pursue trout and bass year-round, from ice-up to ice-up. There doesn't have to be an off season. As a multi-species angler, I would welcome the opportunity to target a new and previously uncaught species. The novelty of a new fish to catch will probably be a significant draw for many. I worry that this could conceivably devolve into something like our pike scene. (This is only my secondhand interpretation; I don't fish for pike. I only know what I've read on this site.) The  fisheries capable of supporting stocking would be plagued with insane fishing pressure, with crowds and clowns abounding,  which would not make for a satisfactory experience. How could this be avoided? How would the fish be doled out?

Wow,great post! Could not have stated my feelings more succinctly!

[MrE1979]

I don't understand why people are opposed to more EPO's.  No one is saying hire 100 and have them drive to every pond and check every license for each person fishing that would be ridiculous.  I think the need for more EPO's has been proven many times when calls have been made and gone unchecked because of lack of staff.  I think they should also have there powers limited to ENVIRONMENTAL  issues ONLY.  They should not be able to look in the window of your car and see an open beer and arrest you for DUI or see you sitting on an ATV drinking a beer and arrest you.  They should need to call local police to handle non ENVIRONMENTAL  issues.   No one is saying make them the Gestapo just staff them so they can be effective. 

People have been saying thay they have been using budget funds to buy land.  That is excellent that there is going to be more land for hunting and other things but without enough monitoring of said lands what is to stop people from poaching on them?   

[rdhammah]

I support creel limits for perch. all those that I have seen catching/keeping perch are going after the big ones which are the breeding ones. I will keep only a few. I have seen guys with a sled full. that's crazy.  EPO's -  definitely need more of them. what are there, like less than 6 for the state? that's ridiculous. no wonder we can't get one when we need one. Like police, where are they when you need one?  do we NEED MORE regulations or just enough people to ENFORCE the ones that we already have? Stocking program - would like to see pike expanded. would love to catch a walleye LOCALLY in my lifetime. 

[rdhammah]

Yes, because you can't tell me that a guy or group of guys, eats every fish they catch! It's like a child being shown a bowl of candy, and after being told they can only have a couple pieces, ends up taking as much as he/she can carry! Just because you can catch that many fish doesn't mean you should keep that many fish!

can't say for the Ruskies that we heard about last year, but I can tell you that the Asians, while they are guilty of doing the same thing, not only keeps some for themselves and their family, they  will share with friends and relatives. it brings good karma. it shows their generosity. I know this does not make it right. just saying. I see it all the time. I do not agree with breaking the law to do so, though.

[manitron]

I don't understand why people are opposed to more EPO's.  No one is saying hire 100 and have them drive to every pond and check every license for each person fishing that would be ridiculous.  I think the need for more EPO's has been proven many times when calls have been made and gone unchecked because of lack of staff.  I think they should also have there powers limited to ENVIRONMENTAL  issues ONLY.  They should not be able to look in the window of your car and see an open beer and arrest you for DUI or see you sitting on an ATV drinking a beer and arrest you.  They should need to call local police to handle non ENVIRONMENTAL  issues.   No one is saying make them the Gestapo just staff them so they can be effective. 

People have been saying thay they have been using budget funds to buy land.  That is excellent that there is going to be more land for hunting and other things but without enough monitoring of said lands what is to stop people from poaching on them?

Ed, I think we are more in agreement than you think. More EPOs doing environmental policing is exactly what I am advocating.There are many other law enforcement agencies  that can  address other types of crime.
Also, I think that mandatory  conspicuous display of licenses should be required again.

[Pike Guy Matt]

Great thread!!!!  It is nice to see people who are willing to at least show the initiative to start the process (hopefully) of improving the state of our freshwater fisheries here in Mass. Here are my 2¢ on the issues you mentioned:
1.   I would fully support a combined creel limit for all panfish species in Mass. I have not first-hand seen anything like you have described that I believe would be a cause of concern for panfish populations in Mass, but I have seen overfishing situations on perch occur in other states. Most ponds and rivers in this state are small and are fragile ecosystems, which can easily be damaged if too many people are removing too many fish from them.
2.   Yes, there needs to be more EPO’s patrolling in the field. I also cannot remember the last time I was checked by an EPO in Mass, but I get checked on a regular basis while fishing in other states such as VT, NH, ME and CT.  I have zero problems with being checked by EPO, and I believe an increased presence will decrease the amount of illegal activity occurring in our freshwater lakes, ponds and rivers.
3.   I believe the state should start a pike and walleye stocking program. It would be relatively easy and cheap compared to some of the other programs to have a pike and walleye stocking program similar to what CT does. For pike, we can utilize the natural spawning marshes in rivers/lakes and shock the large breeder females already living in these same rivers/lakes and then manually place them in the spawning areas to collect the fry. This is a lot cheaper than having to purchase fry from other states or having a hatchery dedicated to them. A walleye stocking program would also be nice to see and I believe there are lakes and ponds in the state where they would thrive. CT has recently expanded their walleye stocking program and it has produced some great results and has drawn a lot of interest from many anglers. I cannot believe the water quality difference between CT lakes and lakes in Mass are so different that they would not survive, but maybe I’m completely wrong on that. Besides, how much time, money and resources could it possibly take to test the water quality on a given body of water to see if the fish being stocked would survive? As Svengalli said, there are already existing hatcheries across the country that sell walleye fingerlings which could be purchased from the state, rather than relying on having to build a new hatchery to grow walleye fingerlings. It has been discussed before on here, but including some type of walleye or pike stamp on a fishing license is a possibility which could help increase the amount of money going towards these individual programs. I don’t think that they should start up another salmon program after the last one failed miserably, but maybe instead they could work on a trophy trout stocking program.

-I also think there should be a bass season implemented where all largemouth and smallmouth bass must be immediately released back into the water from May 1-June 15, when the majority of fish are spawning. This would also mean no bass tournaments are allowed during this time frame.

-Personally I would not mind seeing a significant increase in the price of a fishing license IF AND ONLY IF I was certain the money was going directly towards improving the state of our fisheries here in Mass. I constantly hear about guys complain about the cost of a fishing license, which only has to be purchased once a year, but none of us would even think twice about going to the gas station tomorrow morning and putting $50 or more of gas into our vehicle to drive around. I think most guys would be ok with spending extra money in support of our fisheries if we were seeing improvements being made and seeing politicians actually listening and responding to fishermen in a positive manner for once, but when ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is being done like the past few years in Mass as well as RI, most guys don’t want to hear it.
 
- I think one of the most important aspects of this whole situation is to have partnerships with local schools, various sportsman clubs and other organizations, which would provide the state with additional volunteers, interns and part time workers to help reduce the labor costs of having more programs in the state, rather than having to rely solely on full time workers with full benefits and pensions to do all the work. Also, these same groups could hold fundraiser events to help provide additional funding going towards individual programs, while at the same time increasing awareness and interest amongst others.
 

[Jay Fat City]

Agreed, especially with number two. One thing I'd like to see and I'm sure im in the minority but I'd like a delayed harvest section for stocked trout on some waters. There's just something I find frustrating about having all the master power baiters waiting around for the trucks to arrive, taking three, heading home, only to return a few hours later to grab three more. By the time the weekend rolls around and those who work during the week get a chance to wet a line, some waters are cleaned out.

But that's just me.

In a few weeks I have a meeting with some state senators and representatives and hopefully our incoming governor. I have seen many environmental issues that need to be addressed in this state and too often the get overlooked by politicians and abused by sportsmen. I have finally caught the ear of the powers that be and have the opportunity to have my voice heard one on one with people who can do something to fix it.

Here are my main questions to you as fellow anglers and sportsmen.

1. I feel there should by creel limits implemented on Yellow Perch, White Perch, Crappie, Bluegill. Most states have them but not mass. Could be a combined limit or each species seperate. But something should go on the books. Do you support this?

2. The Mass Environmental Police is grossly understaffed and under budgeted. They need more officers in the field and less behind the desks. I think the vast majority of is as sportsmen encourage law enforcement on the water and in the woods to protect what we love so much. Yes / no?

3. More should be done with the stocking programs in this state. We have a very healthy bass population but species like Walleye and Salmon are big draws for anglers and even if the salmon are not returning to spawn, raising them to be caught like they do for the trout should be a good way to increase license sales and or justify the cost. Good idea? Bad idea?

Please keep comments respectful as I am reaching out for comments and concerns so that hopefully our voices can be heard. Please stay off the soapbox and make your comments suitable to be heard in a political forum

I appreciate your time in responding

[MrE1979]

-I also think there should be a bass season implemented where all largemouth and smallmouth bass must be immediately released back into the water from May 1-June 15, when the majority of fish are spawning. This would also mean no bass tournaments are allowed during this time frame.

I agree with a time frame of mandatory catch and release of bass during the spawning season but not a complete shutdown on bass fishing during that time frame. 

-Personally I would not mind seeing a significant increase in the price of a fishing license IF AND ONLY IF I was certain the money was going directly towards improving the state of our fisheries here in Mass.

I agree totally and would happily pay $50 for my fishing license, ONLY IF ALL the extra proceeds go to improving fisheries in MA, and or educating the next generation of fishermen and women on the importance of preservation of the fisheries in our state. The youth of today are the future of fishing in this state and they need to be educated on how to take care of the fisheries also so that what might possibly be fixed won't get screwed up again.  I would expect the out of state licences to go up in cost also (not sure what the cost is for us in other states). 

[bogtrotter]

(1) No  (We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have)
(2) Yes (See above)
(3) No (Too expensive, don't think it would work)

[minnow1]

Tafts,

1. I agree with all your points although I'm not a panfish guy.  On a different note I have two other points you might talk about.   I would like to see them start pike and tiger muskie stockings again.  The stockings they did were beneficial to the places they put them.  They stopped because the state(PA) they traded trout for pike had a disease within their program.  They must have fixed the problem by now so why not start up the program again.  My big issue with local lakes of Onota and Pontoosuc - the annual drawdown and more specifically, the deep drawdown every three years.  The local lake protection group(LOPA) says its to control weeds by deep freezing the shallows by exposing the bottom during the drawdown.  I've spoken with Mr. Hartley from the state and he says that it really doesn't kill weeds and it does more harm than good to the fish populations.  It also allows shallow areas to increase by eroding and allowing more sediment to move into deeper waters thus creating more weed producing areas.  It also stresses the fish because now you are shrinking the lake and pushing them into a much smaller area.

Thanks for your help.

Jay

[scootybassfish]

Can you ask them to let registered ATV and snow machines launch from boat ramps?

[MrE1979]

Can you ask them to let registered ATV and snow machines launch from boat ramps?

Since when couldn't you leave from a boat ramp?  They launch from the one on Quabog during the lions club derby.  When I had a quad I used to launch from the boat ramp and no one ever said anything. 

[scootybassfish]

I was told it was unlawful to enter by way of a public boat ramp. You could only enter from a residence

[pikeking]

I'm not sure how much fishing you do in western mass scott. There are certain groups who have been fishing here over recent years literally leaving with hundreds and on some days thousands of fish per day depending on how many showed up. I took a picture one day to show to to the EPO of the back of an S-10 truck literally full of bluegill and perch. I'd estimate close to. 5-6 thousand fish from a group of about 18-25 guys fishing on a lake.  There was nothing she could do as they hadn't broken a law.
You might like to think that is an extreme example, I would too. But in varying degrees we see it in the berks from first ice to last ice every year. 

Yes I still have that picture and yes I plan on showing the senators.

And no...the fishing in said lake has never been the same since.

you know they are not going to do anything to them. We all know who they are and where they are from. I saw them go through the ice at Woods last year, get out of the water and go right back to fishing. I don't think they even buy a license.

[tafts ta]

Tafts,

1. I agree with all your points although I'm not a panfish guy.  On a different note I have two other points you might talk about.   I would like to see them start pike and tiger muskie stockings again.  The stockings they did were beneficial to the places they put them.  They stopped because the state(PA) they traded trout for pike had a disease within their program.  They must have fixed the problem by now so why not start up the program again.  My big issue with local lakes of Onota and Pontoosuc - the annual drawdown and more specifically, the deep drawdown every three years.  The local lake protection group(LOPA) says its to control weeds by deep freezing the shallows by exposing the bottom during the drawdown.  I've spoken with Mr. Hartley from the state and he says that it really doesn't kill weeds and it does more harm than good to the fish populations.  It also allows shallow areas to increase by eroding and allowing more sediment to move into deeper waters thus creating more weed producing areas.  It also stresses the fish because now you are shrinking the lake and pushing them into a much smaller area.

Thanks for your help.

Jay

Good points jay.

I've actually spoken to our current governor before about water draw downs. There are two types of draw downs. Those initiated by the state, and those controlled by a lake authority or other local governing body.
The ones initiated by the state, despite what may be said about invasive, weeds, or docks, it's more to do with dams. Basically they remove a certain amount of water from the lake do that the potential for damage to the dam or water control outlet is less in the spring. That's pretty much it. 
As for pike stockings, I am of the understanding that they are done on the basis of need by need only. Last ones were done in 2007 and I can tell you the lakes that were stocked I can personally see a big difference.  I think you need to be careful when stocking a top apex predator into the water.  You can damage the water quickly with too many predators and not enough food.

It comes back to funding. The DCR, mass wildlife, the EPO are ander staffed and under budgeted. Everybody who has commented on this thread brings up valid and important issues. But it all comes back to funding it.

[tafts ta]

I was told it was unlawful to enter by way of a public boat ramp. You could only enter from a residence

Maybe somebody doesn't like you??

It's not a boat ramp....it's public lake access.  If you are in a boat, sled, atv, Snobear, or motorized gerbil ball, you get on the lake at the public access

[F.R.E.D.]

If they need funding just have them use the money from license purchases instead of putting the $$$ in the general slush fund.
We recently had a top executive of Masswildlife caught leaving early in a state owned vehicle to have lunch at the peel pubs in Providence.  Scum bag was pulling down 109k a year and kept his pension. Thats where my money goes in this state, down the drain!
Ask about cutting some of the fat.

[tafts ta]

you know they are not going to do anything to them. We all know who they are and where they are from. I saw them go through the ice at Woods last year, get out of the water and go right back to fishing. I don't think they even buy a license.

First of all. That is a very broad statement. I make a point if talking to everyone on the ice when I go fishing. There are many people who we would broadly sweep into this group who are average sportsmen who are just out for fun. There are also many just teaching their kids how to fish. Then there are also MANY who are creating this problem with over harvest and blatant disregard for the law and law enforcement. Most importantly...every one of them almost always DOES have a license.
One thing that I have learned from actually speaking with many men who I would lump into the "problem" group is that this is a way of life that was handed down to them from previous generations in their home country. If we try to have even a little understanding and compassion for what they and their family have come from we can see that they have learned what it takes to SURVIVE. Just because you move or leave your home country, you don't forget how to survive.
Now instead of worrying about all that, let's solve the problem at hand. The fact that in effect they have broken no law when they leave with 10-15 buckets if fish every day until a lake is fished out.
Is there ANYONE on ice shanty who would be adversely affected if there was a creel limit on the books that said for example, you could only keep 10 perch, and 30 panfish per day in combination of crappie, bluegill, rock bass, red ear?  Can anyone say that if that was law that they or their fishing would be harmed? Yet if that was on the books it would eliminate the problems stated above.

[tafts ta]

you know they are not going to do anything to them. We all know who they are and where they are from. I saw them go through the ice at Woods last year, get out of the water and go right back to fishing. I don't think they even buy a license.

Also P K.  Matt has been trying to get in touch with you.  Give him a call

[GrizlyGarou]

Ask about cutting some of the fat.

The bureaucracy is constantly expanding to fill the ever increasing needs of the bureaucracy......

[PeterSaloom]

I wouldn't be against an increased cost in fishing licenses if the money would go to some of these good causes. Of course, I would also expect a higher level of enforcement in regards to unlicensed fishermen if I am going to pay more money for the same privilege. I mean when I think about it, what price wouldn't you pay for a fishing license each year? $100? $200? I think I would pay it. 

[tafts ta]

I wouldn't be against an increased cost in fishing licenses if the money would go to some of these good causes. Of course, I would also expect a higher level of enforcement in regards to unlicensed fishermen if I am going to pay more money for the same privilege. I mean when I think about it, what price wouldn't you pay for a fishing license each year? $100? $200? I think I would pay it.

In 2007 I qualified for the BASS club World Championship that was held in Louisianna. I paid $70 for an out of state 1 week license. Gladly paid when you see 5 lane launched, lighted ramps, beautiful docks, fresh water wash down hoses free to use.  You get what you pay for as long as the funds don't get diverted.

[PeterSaloom]

That's what I'm saying. I hate to lean towards the idea of making fishing more expensive because I believe that would limit the amount of new people who would get into the sport but at the same time. If you make it more expensive to catch the fish than it is to pick them up at the supermarket, the bucket brigade might slow down.

[masspike]

I went to oregon 2 years ago to fish king and cohos for a week I dint remember but I think I paid near $80 for a weeks license. And they have a great fisheries program

[Capt.Dana]

1. No
2. No
3. No
Less governing please!

[NovaCovah]

The laws we have should be enforced.  But 50 panfish total seems more than fair or whatever the number scientifically calculated totals...

More EPO's - How to pay for it without raping the tax payer?

Stocking programs that would become self sustaining populations make sense - do the science and make realistic self sustaining investments.

While you have their ear:

Keeping bass during spawning season makes no logical sense - close it during spawning!

OPEN THE CHU TO ICE FISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jonnywalker]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes


F.R.E.D - valid point on the general fund, if we could get those funds to actually go to and support the F&G then we probably could afford the new programs, additional officers, etc.  Tafts, do you know if there is any chance this could change?  Who do we write to?

[tafts ta]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes


F.R.E.D - valid point on the general fund, if we could get those funds to actually go to and support the F&G then we probably could afford the new programs, additional officers, etc.  Tafts, do you know if there is any chance this could change?  Who do we write to?

As soon as the meeting takes place I will have more information and hopefully be able to let you know WHO to contact.
One of the most important things to remember if all of a sudden we all start sending letters... we need a unified voice and a unified opinion. If we send a hundred letters with a hundred different opinions nothing will change. It's important to remember that change happens slowly and sometimes things that may have an slight detrimental impact on us immediately, turn out to be in our overall best interest progressively in the long run.


Thank you all for commenting, no matter what the comments are, everyone's opinions matter.

[boulderdash]

I like a creel limit even though I have seen more wanton waste (dead fish on the ice to feed the birds )than people over harvesting down here on the South Shore and Cape but I know its a problem out west with the longer ice season.