Please welcome Eyoyo Underwater Fishing Cameras.https://amzn.to/3siEgXn
I talked to a local warden today, and he says enforcement of what I suggested would be easier than many laws already on the books, especially since they already have to enforce the law that makes some bait illegal now. At most it might take some in-service training for the few wardens who don't already know the bait species by heart, and since they do training all the time he couldn't see how it would be a big deal at all.
I've been told be someone who is usually quite reliable that the IF&W biologists don't know what baitfish is or isn't native in most of their waters. If this is true, how can people make claims of illegal or non-native species being introduced? Why doesn't someone ask for studies to be done on these 35 lakes using volunteers like they're doing on some of the rivers and then restrict the use of bait to only bait "native" to the lake before jumping on the banning bandwagon?The fact is, we have people who have always wanted to be rid of ice fishing jumping on the NLFAB bandwagon now, claiming the "science" supports them. The "science" supposedly supported the salmon listing and the "river-specific" inbreeding program too, but that one is bogus, as is the current rush to judgement.It's all about politics not science, again....
As it has been presented so far, this is more about politics than it is about anything else, otherwise there'd be a push to allow only "native "bait fish to be used statewide (which might even get wide spread support) instead of this limited, yet outright ban. It'd be more honest to just say, "NO ICE FISHING ALLOWED" than go through this ruse.
This is from one of those "progressive" websites:Quotei don't fall victim to the sky is falling conspiracy theories presented by either side, i prefer to look at the individual issues.....i don't think the bear referendum ... was a means to end all hunting, it was a look at that particular practice, period....And banning "Saturday night specials" wasn't a means to eventually ban all handguns and....
i don't fall victim to the sky is falling conspiracy theories presented by either side, i prefer to look at the individual issues.....i don't think the bear referendum ... was a means to end all hunting, it was a look at that particular practice, period....
****, by law I have to distinguish between fish and animal species now, such as between a hen mallard and a black duck (not easy to do unless you know what to look for). I also have to distinguish between an antlered deer with a 2" spike or a 3" spike and have to know where I can and can't hunt with an any-deer permit. Why is this any different?
QuoteNo one PROPOSING THE LEGISLATION is trying to ban all live bait fishing. Well **** I suggest that you talk with who ever is feeding you info, because after these 35 ponds. The usual group of suspects will in fact go after the rest of the waters like Chamberlain, Chesuncook etc... I believe that there is well over a hundred waters such as these.
No one PROPOSING THE LEGISLATION is trying to ban all live bait fishing.
John Glowa of South China, MEAug 13, 2006 8:35 AMIf IFW was truly serious about the stocking of non-native fish species, they would ban the use of live or dead fish as bait and the capture, raising and transportation of baitfish. Unfortunately IFW constantly kowtows to the special interest groups at the expense of the public's fish and wildlife resources and the common good. As long as the outdoors extremists are successful at forcing their agenda, nothing will change.
QuoteDisagreeing with the legislation on the grounds of its being a "stepping stone" is altogether different than disagreeing with it because you agree with its spirit, but think an alternative, less restrictive method is tenable. I think both of the above are reasonable positions that are not mutually exclusive. Does that make me not in my right mind now? :roll:QuoteCould we make a list of all the ponds, the species of baitfish that currently inhabit them (most will probably have none) and permit the use of those baitfish which correspond with the existant conditions? No, although Butch would say "Yes". It is not practical and represents a waste of our severely limited wardens resource. Why isn't it practical? Before banning bait because they might "pollute" a watershed, shouldn't you check to see if the bait is already there? And, exactly what is wrong with using bait that's "native" to a watershed if all you're claiming to be concerned with is the spread of "invasive" species? And how can a warden check to see of the bait you are using is alive and yet not be able to check to see what kind of bait it is you're using? ****, you make it sound like all wardens are bumbling idiots, and I know for fact that's just not true.Now, back to stepping stone legislation, I'm sure you've seen the lists on other websites regarding the "wild" trout waters already since you've obviously posted in the threads that contain them (even though you did miss the quotes about the people wanting to ban LFAB statewide). Now how can you sit there and type with a straight face that these people are going to stop with 35 lakes and not go for the rest at a later date? I'm sure the people pressuring IF&W with hundreds of emails that take reams upon reams of paper to print off (sound familiar?) know how the political process works, even if you don't. And let's face it ****, the more noise they make, the more it sounds like they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are professing their innocence with, "But Mom...I was only gonna take one cookie now and leave the rest for later..."
Disagreeing with the legislation on the grounds of its being a "stepping stone" is altogether different than disagreeing with it because you agree with its spirit, but think an alternative, less restrictive method is tenable.
Could we make a list of all the ponds, the species of baitfish that currently inhabit them (most will probably have none) and permit the use of those baitfish which correspond with the existant conditions? No, although Butch would say "Yes". It is not practical and represents a waste of our severely limited wardens resource.
There are posters here who've indicated that perhaps the DIFW Biologists are driving some kind of anti-fishing agenda down Sportsmen's throats.
As a fly shop owner, C&R proponent, and sustainable fishing advocate, I am not comfortable with ice fishing for wild salmonids.
...there are no native bait species present in the waters in question
The biologists determined 39 of the waters contained wild BKT only or minnow species that posed little or no risk to the resident wild BKT population.
I'll also be contacting John Boland, DIFW Fisheries Director, personally as to whether or not he's aware of any recognized group of mainstream fisheries activists who've advocated the position you note.
Maine’s wild trout waters are far too valuable a resource to continue to allow invasive species to be introduced by way of the bait pail.
It's also tough to identify species when 2 inches long. No one should kid themselves bait pail introductions happen!
The bait is a definite problem and I really dont see why we "need" live bait as a means to catch fish
Using live fish as bait has and will continue to introduce alien species into waters.
Clearly we've identified fish introductions as one of the causes of the Lake BKT fishery decline
It's just something that advocates should consider...this one seems to be a little "social engineering" being disguised as science...so it ain't cut and dry..
While many will rear up against it, I do think that we need to take a serious look at the use of live fish as bait in Maine.
Interestingly New Brunswick does not allow live fish as bait on any of its inland waters...
I just learned that there are 101 "wild" brook trout waters open to the use of unrestricted bait and ice fishing in Maine. Never mind the obvious pressure this puts on the resource as a result of overharvest, what about the potential introduction of bait fish into the water?
Given the mortality rate for the preferred method of fishig thru the ice (as high as 75% in some studies), it seems reasonable to assume that as many as a million (or more) fish were kept/killed during the 1999 frozen water season. 2 out of 3 fish do not survive? It's little wonder waters like Rangeley Lake and Pierce Pond have better open water angling than do waters open to ice fishing.
Clearly, there are people and groups of people claiming that the use of live fish as bait is bad. It is also clear that there are people and groups of people openly advocating for the banning of live fish as bait in brook trout and other salmonid fisheries. It's pretty hard to imagine it will stop with this initial proposal of 39 ponds, regardless of what any "recognized group of mainstream fisheries activists" is saying.
There once was a time when most Americans needed to hunt to put food on the table, but hunting today is a recreational pastime, and worse: waterfowl, pheasant, and dove hunting are no more than shooting at living targets....the killing of wild animals as recreation is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society.