Live bait ban?

[jacksmelt71]

scottys right. if youre not allowed to use live bait you have no reason to have a bucket on these waters .im a live bait fishrerman but id rather see it a 2 line limit with artificialls only to preserve whats left and to prevent illegal intros. if the state wont increase its stocking up here we need to protect the existing fish. i believe catch and release is the future as much as most people disagree. its the only way to build a trophy fishery without stocking. too many people still want to fill their freezers like the old days. that wont work anymore . we all need to think conservitively. my 2 cents.

[msh]

This is curious conversation, so I got several questions to ask all who have been on this thread.

Would you agree to making the taking of live bait or dead bait by the individual fishermen unlawful??

Would you agree to live/dead bait only being available through a licensed bait dealer who has an ANS-HACCP program in place (aquatic nuisance species-hazardous analysis critical control point).  Keeping in mind that most dealers could not pass muster for such a program.  Would you be willing to pay an additional 10 to 15 % in the cost of your bait for that ANS-HACCP certificate?

What is your reaction to the idea of lake specific baitfish use only?  That being that if a specific lake has only fathead minnows in it, fatheads would be the only species that could be used.

Contray to what some may think, we have had the use of live fish as bait for over 100 years, what and why is there the big interest in banning or reducing the use of live bait?  Seems that some think it is everyone with a bait bucket that is moving the bass, pike, crappie etc around.  Trouble is that there is NO proof of that taking place...none!  In fact, there is ample proof that the original stocks of these species came into Maine by folks that live in other parts of the USA and brought their gamefish with them. 

About 5 years ago there was an effort to reduce the 5 trap limit to 2 traps, it was defeated, now the same like minded are going to be back to try again except this time its going to be your live bait.  Now some will scream its politics and we don't want that here, fine by me, but your sport is in jeopardy if these issues arrive in Augusta this winter.

[yukoncornelius]

John

Honest questions here, as I truly try and stay out of the personal BS.

As a bait dealer, what are your thoughts on the dealer licensing? I think it holds some merit. (Biologists have been the ones to ID baitfish as a threat on the 39 proposed ponds, so I don't buy into the larger ban theory). How difficult would it be to lic. dealers, what would anticipated costs be, etc?

Also, you have been "the man" at this point in terms of actually 'growing' baitfish; is this the wave of the future? Would it be cost effective enough on a large scale to really go this route for most or all live bait needs? I think the pond-specific concept is novel, but an enforcement nightmare, no?

The putting out of bait traps to trap your own bait is a long held tradition; my grandfather had a tank as far back as my dad can remember. I hate to see traditions go by the wayside, especially when in probably 75+% of the instances, there is little to no chance of anything bad happening. There is also no denying that our natural landscape has entered into a far more complex and threatened area. There truly are folks on "both" sides of these issues (while I truly don't prescribe to the "sides" theory) that just want to find reasonable solutions (and we all know there are some unreasonable ones, too) that best serve the needs/wants of all while protecting what we still have for ourselves and future generations. Both can be accomplished, but it is going to take planning, sound science, and a willingness to work together. For some reason we have a hard time satisfying those needs. I look to the recent ongoings surrounding the Coopers Mills dam on Long Pond/Sheepscot River for inspiration. The dam is aging, fish passage doesn't work, and in many years, water storage for fire fighting is left dry. The town needs fire storage, the dam needs fish passage, and the town has little money. All the invovled agencies are working together to find the most cost effective solution that will satisfy all the very real needs. Pretty simple concept, finding the common ground and working to find a reasonable solution, but it is one that for some reason alludes us as sportsmen. That needs to change.
 

[msh]

Tim,

You ask fair questions and I will take the time this evening to reply in full to them.  Some are a little deep and will take time to construct an answer.. but for the rest of the day I'm tied up here with some fish issues.  I do agree that there are fair answers to reasonable questions that can maintain Maine traditions. 

John

[yukoncornelius]

john - thanks, i look forward to hearing your thoughts - i really think there's answers to alot of these issues that can accomodate all

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

for the record, i was an ice fisher long before a fly fisher. i've been a member here long before i was a moderator elsewhere, and fail to see how it has any real bearing. there's even pics of me holding ice caught pike here lurking about, a big shocker i am sure. while my main intent here is to post about ice fishing, and most of my posts have been such, as a diverse sportsman i do not like the actions of some being portrayed as the desires and actions of all. nor so i think it fair to make some of these issues into an us vs. them issue; in this case, if biologists cite live fish as bait as in issue in 39 ponds, i go wit htheir opinion, period.

[Butch Moore]

I hope this isn't a violation of the rules here, but this topic was discussed some time ago on my site.  There are many, many good points that have been brought up relating to Tim's questions there that would take too long to copy over here, which is the only reason I post the links, despite what has been alluded to in other threads:

IF&W to ban LFAB in "wild" brook trout ponds? link removed per request of moderator

This topic discusses the use of live bait as it relates to invasive species:

Ken Allen: Live fish as bait leads to illegal introductions link removed per request of moderator

One thing I will take the time to copy over though is a post I made in response to people saying that using only certain bait on a pond in an unenforceable regulation when I suggested it possibility:

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.

[msh]

Tim,

Lunch break and I 'll comment on your first question:

As a bait dealer, what are your thoughts on the dealer licensing? I think it holds some merit. (Biologists have been the ones to ID baitfish as a threat on the 39 proposed ponds, so I don't buy into the larger ban theory). How difficult would it be to lic. dealers, what would anticipated costs be, etc?
I assume you are talking about ANS-HACCP programs???  We have the only ANS-HACCP program for baitfish in the state (to our knowledge) and it was filed with IFW on 07-23-2003.  Because there was no program set up here in Maine, we went to the Michigan/Minnesota Sea Grant Program and relied upon the program developed by Gunderson and Kinnunen that is used in 5 other states.  Our program is a 64 page document!  Again we had to develop our own program because we do business in other states that have ANS problems and require such a program.  If Maine was to go to this type of program it would mean that the regular fishermen would be eliminated from taking their own bait!  Cost??  The program setup cost is based upon how many species of fish one would grow, each needs it's own ANS-HACCP program.  The real cost is unknown.

You said:(Biologists have been the ones to ID baitfish as a threat on the 39 proposed ponds, so I don't buy into the larger ban theory).  What is interesting is that discussions I have had with IFW seems to throw a different light on this issue.  Until I get a chance to meet face to face and revisit the issue, I have no additional comment!     

[Butch Moore]

As I mentioned, a lot of the questions raised here have been answered on my site, but I've been asked not to link to it.  So, I'm going to try and copy some relevent comments over that will address some of the things brought up here.  Some have been edited to "tone them down" some in hopes that they will be acceptable here.

Here's the first installment:

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:

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....

And banning "Saturday night specials" wasn't a means to eventually ban all handguns and....

****, 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?

No 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.

John Glowa of South China, ME
Aug 13, 2006 8:35 AM
If 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.

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.

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:

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.

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..."

More to come later....

[JDK]

Just an FYI

The list of lakes on that website was the wrong list.

[Butch Moore]

The list of lakes on which website?

[Butch Moore]

ADVERTISE:  September 6, 2006

AGENCY:  Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife

RULE TITLE OR SUBJECT:  Ice and Open Water Fishing Regulations

PROPOSED RULE NUMBER: 

CONCISE SUMMARY:  CONCISE SUMMARY:  The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is proposing regulation changes for the upcoming ice fishing and open water fishing seasons on the following waters:  Kennebec River (2 sections in Waterville/Winslow to tidewater) – changing regulations for striped bass to be more consistent with Department of Marine Resources rules;  Unnamed (Foxhole) Pond, Deblois - Open to ice fishing per group B for persons under 16 years of age; daily limit on trout: 2 fish; fishing restricted to 2 lines per person; 35 waters throughout the state designated as wild brook trout waters which will have either a prohibition on the use or possession of live fish as bait or artificial lures only restrictions placed on them (available by contacting the Agency Contract Person below).  Written comments may be submitted on any of these proposals.

THIS RULE WILL__ WILL NOT X  HAVE A FISCAL IMPACT ON MUNICIPALITIES.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: 12 MRSA §10104

PUBLIC HEARING:  None schedule – one may be requested.  Written comments may be submitted on any of the proposals.

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS:  October 6, 2006

AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Andrea Erskine, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, #41 State House Station, 284 State Street, Augusta, ME 04333
Telephone: (207) 287-5201
Email: [email protected]

[icy mike]

outside of worms and waxies- no live bait in Alaska, PERIOD!

[Jeffus]

Hey Ice Shanty Folks,

This is my first post here, so I 'd like to say Hallooo to everyone.  Red Fin, I love that Avatar...talk about following through on a check.

Unfortunately I feel a little compelled to come post on here because there are a few folks giving you some serious misinformation about what is going on with the Wild Brook Trout Rules changes.  Unfortunately this has been a pattern and I've had to follow these guys around the web to set the records straight.

A little bit of background, I'm Jeff Levesque.  I'm a Fly angler, a Spin Angler, A Smelt Shacker and an Ice Angler...I love it all and I love the natural resources that we have been blessed with in Maine. I served on the SAM Fisheries Initiative Committee and worked with SAM on the Heritage Brook Trout and subsequent Wild Brook Trout Working Group that developed the list of Wild Brook Trout ponds that is now being forwarded to rulemaking to exclude the "Live Fish as Bait".

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 entire process is about implementing the DIFW's Strategic Management Plan on Bpook Trout to ensure that the Native and Wild Brook Trout Resources that we enjoy today are passed on to our children and our children's children.  You can find this plan at the DIFW website at the following link:  http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/managementplans/index.htm.  I encourage to read it rather than listen to some of the shrill voices you are hearing here who are not speaking the truth.

Let's talk about our Brook Trout.  Maine has something like 97% of all the Wild and Native Brook Trout left in the US.  That's it, we are the last stronghold.  They used to be up and down the East, now all that is left is Maine.  The state with the highest amount left, other than Maine, is Virginia, in the Nat'l Parks. We have the vast majority of the Native/Wild Brook Trout Ponds (NY and NH have just a few) and we have all of the Brook Trout "Big Lakes", mostly up in the north country.  If you want more info, Google up the "Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture" or drop me an e-mail at [email protected] and I will get you their latest work.  I have some really nice Brochures and Maps and stuff.

In Maine, we have 1194 Brook Trout Ponds and Lakes with principal Fisheries for Brook Trout.  305(25%) are completely Native, probably unique populations, that have never been stocked.  They are as they were since the last Ice Age.  284(24%) are known as "Wild" where there is at least one record of stocking or where stocked fish from another water may have mingled with the Native stocks.  These waters have not been stocked in at least 25 years.  The remainder 600+ are Stocked waters. 

If you review the report posted in the link above and also read Forrest Bonney's new Book on Brook Trout (highly recommended winter reading) available here: http://www.informe.org/cgi-bin/ifw/merc/showcart.cgi?template_file=catalog.html, you will note that the introduction of exotic competitor/predator (Pike, Bass) species and competitor/bait (Shiners, Smelts, White Suckers) species is one of the gravest threats facing these Wild and Native Brook Trout resources.  Once these species are in Brook Trout waters, the resource suffers and we only have to look to examples like Madawaska Lake, Moosehead Lake, Rapid River and others to see how quickly we can lose these populations forever.  Did you know that Messalonskee Lake and the Belgrade Lakes once had the largest Brookies in Maine?  Look what's in there now.

It was with this problem in mind that the Legislature made it a law to not allow "Live Fish as Bait" in any of the "Native" waters last year.  This was called the Heritage Brook Trout Bill.  It is the intent of the legislation that these unique genetic populations be preserved for future generations without any further introductions of competitor species.

The "Wild" Brook Trout waters, in question in this discussion,  posed a different problem.  Many of these already had competitor Bait species in them.  Right or wrong, it was anglers like you and I who put them in there over the years, either through our poles or traps.  In some cases, guys looking for good bait sources introduced them (get a transcript of last year's smelt hearings to hear what one bait dealer did on Little Cobbosseecontee).  So, the DIFW got together a working group to determine what the best way to deal with these waters was.  We asked the DIFW to assemble a list of the "Wild" waters that did not already have the protection of "No Live Fish as Bait" (NLFAB) on them.  Again, they put this rule in place to prevent competitor species from being introduced.  They came back with a list of about 140 waters.  About 1/2 of all the "Wild" waters.  Next, we asked, how many did not already have competitor Bait species already in them?  The list that was returned is the 39 waters that you see in this proposal.  The entire Working Group agreed that these 39 waters, that are not already compromised, should be protected from the accidental or intentional introduction of competing bait species to save them for the future.  That's it,  period.  There aren't any members of Green Peace or PETA or fringe groups.  The Working Group was all sportsfolk like yourselves who could be a productive part of a discussion looking to protect what we still have from being destroyed. 

There are posters here who've indicated that perhaps the DIFW Biologists are driving some kind of anti-fishing agenda down Sportsmen's throats.  Let me just remind you, the strategies that are being implemented here were created by Forrest Bonney, the same Biologist who is advocating that Tibbetts Pond be open to Ice Fishing for Kids.

I hope this clears the record for everyone.

As to the 100 or so waters listed as "Wild" that already have Bait Species in them, the DIFW is looking for Ice Anglers and other Sportsfolk who want to engage in a productive discussion into "how we can still use Bait and help preserve these unique resources" for the future.  I encourage you to contact John Boland, Fisheries Director to be member of this group. Many of these 100+ "Wild" waters are the bigger lakes up north where Brook Trout are hanging on by a thread, we're going to have to do something to preserve these populations or there will be no more self-sustaining Lake-Brook Trout Lake populations in the near future.  Talk to a long-time Aroostook County resident to see what has happened up there.  Leo Keiffer is a great resource.

Tight Lines everyone!

Jeff Levesque

[Butch Moore]

Jeffus, if this ban on live fish as bait is about invasive species as is claimed, why not use bait that is native to the water in question instead of banning ALL fish as bait?

I've already checked with one warden who said that since they already are required by law to check bait buckets for illegal fish, it would be no big deal to check for species not allowed on a particular pond.  So, again, why push to ban ALL species?

There are posters here who've indicated that perhaps the DIFW Biologists are driving some kind of anti-fishing agenda down Sportsmen's throats.

I don't recall hearing that, though I know some have indicated here and elsewhere that this proposal is being pushed by those "shrill voices" who constantly harrass IF&W biologists with reams (literally) of email and constant FOIA requests.  And we already know that one of these activists is openly against ice fishing:

As a fly shop owner, C&R proponent, and sustainable fishing advocate, I am not comfortable with ice fishing for wild salmonids.

I give the man credit for being open and honest about his intentions, but considering TU's recent stance on ice fishing for kids at Tibbetts pond, I can't do the same with others.  Reports I've seen from a meeting held this week indicate that this is part of a much larger attempt to ban live fish as bait statewide for salmonids.  Those reports have already been posted on my site, and I'm hoping they'll be posted here next.

[Jeffus]

Butch,

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. Again, please reference the Strategic Mgmt. Plan and Forrest's Technical Bulletin.  Bait species, even native to Maine ones,  pose a threat as competitors to Brook Trout.  There's a very cool tab;e in Forrest's book which details which bait species pose the biggest threats. I believe that White Suckers (native) and Smelt (sometimes native to the water, sometimes introduced i.e. Thissell pond, Big Reed Pond) pose the largest threats, with Shiners and Dace coming in behind. Many of these species are native to Maine but not to the waters up for protection and again they are currently absent from the systems acording tio DIFW.[/b]

As far as the "meeting" you indicate occurred, I would be happy to review any minutes of any serious/official meeting where any fisheries group has advocated any position to eliminate fishing with Live Fish as Bait in Maine.  I'm a pretty plugged in guy and I am not aware of any recent meeting where this was advocated. Of course there are folks of either extreme who'll say fish the whole State every water with Bait and then there are those that are dead set against any kind of bait, period.  Some people hate the designated hitter rule too...so what. You have my e-mail addy forward those minutes and I will be happy to review them.  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.  I'll get back to the Ice Shanty to let these folks know.



 

[Butch Moore]

Jeffus, there seems to be some confusion regarding whether or not there are species of bait fish in the ponds in what is likely the first of many proposals by the fisheries activists that you say aren't advocating banning the use of bait.  You said:

...there are no native bait species present in the waters in question

And the DDAS spokesperson says this:

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.

Would you like to clarify this for us?  Or are you saying that all minnow species are harmful to brook trout?

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.

Are you saying that the DDAS is not a "recognized group of mainstream fisheries activists"?  The quote in my post above is from one well known member, and here's a quote from one of the officers of this group:

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.

And another quote by this person:

It's also tough to identify species when 2 inches long. No one should kid themselves bait pail introductions happen!

And here's a quote from someone I'm pretty sure is a TU member:

The bait is a definite problem and I really dont see why we "need" live bait as a means to catch fish

And of course this is what you've had to say about the use of live fish as bait:

Using live fish as bait has and will continue to introduce alien species into waters.

Which you followed up later on with:

Clearly we've identified fish introductions as one of the causes of the Lake BKT fishery decline

You've also trumpet Alaska's NLFAB  rule as well as Canada's on a popular fly fishing website.

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.

[icy mike]

Let's all forget the bait and go spearing!!!

[cap]

Yep exactly ONE post but it's a dissertation....uh huh...

I don't think we should screw up the fish (or the fishing) either, but we'll all eventually see where this all plays out won't we?

I'm not naive enough to think it will stop at 39 Ponds when there are another 100 or so ponds with native trout in them. When I know that there are 100's of free flowing streams and rivers with native trout in them. When there are streams and rivers which are "connected" to ponds with native trout or that "might" have native trout in them.

Hey we have to preserve them right? They are our "heritage fish".....

Native trout are spread out all over the whole state...

I find them in puddles...in fact I catch more of them than I do stockers and I don't even try to look for them.

This is an excuse...the trout have been fine under the watchful eye of IFAW for 200 years...even with all of us evil bait and ice fishers laying into them, even with catch and kill and general law regulations, even before Brad Pitt made flyfishing something "IN" and "cool" with the yupsters.

I don't beleive this will stop any more than the whole "splake thing stopped" when some wanted the splake out of the Rapid and they got it done.

whatever...

enjoy your fishing boys while it lasts....

Hey Icy, why roll your eyes about spearing? I think "spearing" would be a gas! I'd be totally into spearing fish through the ice with fish decoys...Just another fun way to spend some time fishing. Too bad we can't do it in Maine....

[Jeffus]

Butch et al,

I'm sorry I'm not going to address your out of context quotes.  Nor will I address your hysterical charges as to what you imagine are other peoples agendas.  I came here to inform the Ice Shanty forum about the truth of the 39  or is it 35, period.

For references as to the workings of the Brook Trout Working Group, please contact John Boland, Fisheries Director at DIFW.

For information about how Bait Species compete with Brook Trout, please contact Forrest Bonney, Regional Biologist, Region D, at DIFW.  Also, get a copy of his latest Technical Bulletin, it's some good solid work.

I'll leave you with a favorite Teddy Roosevelt quote:

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."
A Book-Lover's Holidays in the Open, 1916


ps...CAP..Reardon says Thank You for the kind card.

[cap]

No worries...I hope Jeff R. is getting better every day...

I'm a big fan of TR myself.

Jeffus...

I understand the issue in it's entirety....

But, as a thinking person, I don't see a good scientific basis against using bait in a water, if the bait is native to the water, or if the bait is in fact an invasive-exotic that has been established as an exotic for some time and the fish population and the whole ecotome has reached a state of dynamic equilibrium, whichever or whatever the fish are or whatever the bait species are.

It just seems foolish, IMHO to say, or even to regulate and manage a water, by saying that you can't fish with "this kind of bait" in "this water" particularly if "that bait" is already existing and established in that water and the fish species that you target are already utilizing it. (Of course this is provided that it isn't impacting the water or your target species negatively...as in ...the smelt in Thissell)

Granted, it might be likely that it is a management nightmare to suggest that each water must have species specific special bait regulations, and illegal or inadvertant intros are something to be wary of and we should want to limit them as best we can.....but truly..... Do you actually think that if someone had a bait trap in a particular water and then that person used that bait which he caught in that water on the fish in that water that there is a negative impact?

Personally I don't think so...nor do I think that even if "said person" didn't trap his own bait on that water but purchased bait and the bait species he purchased was present in that water...his overall effect on the system would be null.

If, as an experiment, these waters work out and everything is hunkydory...I'd support this regulation, in fact I have no problem doing that now.

But.....

I'll see and we'll all see (collectively as ice fisherman and sportsmen) if any of those organizations come fast and hard for more waters to be closed in this way to bait in the near future....you know...like some of the larger waters in the state...say like Chesuncook.....

If that does'nt happen then I guess you'll be right and it's a big bonus for all of us...if it does...then I assure you those organizations who'll be pressing for this will have a MAJOR struggle to contend with, with the rank and file sportsmen of the state.

At least that is how I look at it...

Aloha

 

[cap]

One other thing...

IFAW biologists have always had a NLFAB regulation to use whenever they felt it necessary to protect or preserve the fish or fishery. So this ain't new...They could utilixe the reg as they saw fit...

A NLFAB regulation as a "social issue" is definately another thing.

The invasive species angle on this is kinda a mixture of science (because of the results of an illegal or unwanted introduction) but there also seems to me to be a largely "social program"associated with these waters in this case...

Whenever that happens there are "potential" problems....

When the lines are distinct as to whether it is a biology issue or a social issue...i find it easy to always side with the science...

So if biology and science drives these things there usually is no problem with the sportsmen, and I consider myslef an "average" one...Most sportsmen are reasonable and most want to protect and preserve thier sport...Some will even gladly give up something to protect it, if it is driven by science...but when it's a social issue which drives these things and then one particular group seems to be "sticking it to another group"...that's where the problem lies...whether it's real or imagined....whoever gets "stuck" usually does'nt dig it...

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..

of course that waht makesthings interesting

 

[Butch Moore]

Jeffus, I was asked not to post links to my site, so I assume the same goes for the ones you frequent.  I'm sure if you do a search on on the fly fishing sites you frequent, you'll find the quotes (in context) contained in my previous post.

Still, I'm troubled however with the inconsistency regarding whether or not there are bait species present in the ponds in this first proposal.  Perhaps you can elaborate on just that?

Cap, you hit the nail on the head with this:

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..

Like you, I want to know the science behind banning the use of bait species that are already present in a pond, if the concern is the spread of invasive species as this proposal has been billed.  Despite having a degree in biology I can't figure it out, so I have to lean in the direction of "'social engineering' being disguised as science" as you mentioned.

[yukoncornelius]

butch

simple solution to assuage your fears

contact some biologists for the state

i have personally spoken with john boland, several bios and wardens on the invasive and invasive baitfish issue

i assure their concern is legit, and not something they are being forced into

[Butch Moore]

Tim, perhaps you can answer the question of the day: how will banning the use of baitfish already present in a pond stop the spread of invasives? 

[dropper]

Butch,

   There are 35 waters on the list. They were chosen to be included by the regional biologists staffs. The majority of the ponds have brook trout only in them with no bait fish as of the last survey conducted, making your argument moot. A few of the waters have 1 or 2 minnow species that pose no or little competion to the resident wild brook trout populations. None of these waters are currently open to ice fishing. Most, if not all, are small ponds (under 30 acres).

The following quote is from the 2001 MDIF&W Brook Trout Strategic Management Plan (Bonney):

"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."

MDIF&W also has a policy of enacting NLFAB regulations on any water they reclaim in order to prevent the re-introduction of competing baitfish species. The proposal being discussed here is consistant with current IF&W policy and deemed necessary by the biologists to prevent further spread of competing baitfish species, which is very possible under the current regulations. Even with the proposed change, there will still be 104 wild brook trout ponds with general law tackle restrictions, including the 42 waters that currently allow ice fishing.


dropper

[Butch Moore]

As an FYI to all, Dropper is the spokesperson for the Dud Dean Angling Society (DDAS). 

Dropper, perhaps you can answer the question of the day: how will banning the use of baitfish already present in a pond stop the spread of invasives?

Also, while he is not the "official" spokesperson off the DDAS, one of its founders and most well known members is on record as saying the following:

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.

As a fly shop owner, C&R proponent, and sustainable fishing advocate, I am not comfortable with ice fishing for wild salmonids.

One of the officers of your group is on record as saying this:

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!

Interestingly New Brunswick does not allow live fish as bait on any of its inland waters...

Getting back to the most well known DDAS member again, he is on record as saying this last year, before this proposal came out:

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?

And finally, here's a quote from you on what you seem to think ice anglers do to lakes:

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.

I said this earlier in the thread, but I'll repeat it again in case you haven't read all of it yet:

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.

Given the information that is readily available to anyone who searches the popular fly fishing websites you frequent (don't forget to search the archives of one in particular to see what is said there about Ice Shanty), why should I believe that for proponents of this proposal, including your group, that it is only about these 35 ponds?  Why should I believe that these same people will stop there?

[yukoncornelius]

look kids, big ben, parliament


guys - i know quite a few here from online, i know quite a few involved in this discussion, and i have spoken with the moderator here on occasion.....this site is about ice fishing, guys who exchange info, compare notes and have fun....."None of these waters are currently open to ice fishing" says it all about this discussion and this website......take the politics elsewhere, the same old song and dance out of some, even in the face of contrary information, gets old quick

just a friendly word of advice from someone who has been here....*gasp* actually talking ice fishing for several years

[jrelaxin]

burnin holes in the ice before it even gets formed.........

[LINGUINI]

that is to fry the donuts

[Butch Moore]

For the record, I don't sell bait.  I ice fish, spin fish, bait fish,and fly fish.  I've got a 10" Jiffy auger, an ATV with ice chains, and around 15 or so traps (yes, I'm a native Mainer).  I fish for native brookies and crappie, and about eveything else that swims. 

Most of us are familiar with the concept of incrementalism (a policy of making changes, esp. social changes, by degrees ) as it relates to our outdoor pursuits.  We've all seen it with gun control laws, with hunting laws (remember H$U$ and the bear referendum, anti-trapping proposals, etc.), and more.

There are some who would have us believe that this is not the case with this proposal.  They say that their public statements on the subject is all we should listen to, just as H$U$ tells us over and over again that they aren't anti-hunting, despite what they say on their website:

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.

It seems pretty clear that H$U$ is against hunting, just as it seems pretty clear from the quotes in my previous posts that there are factions here in Maine that are doing the same thing (incrementalsim) with fishing (esp. ice fishing), starting with the use of live fish as bait.  These groups and individual activists who want to see an end to the use of live fish as bait, despite their public claims, don't want you to look beyond this proposal, just as H$U$ wants you to not look beyond their latest sound bite.  They've already said they don't want ice fishing for salmonids, and they don't think live bait should be used, and then they say that this proposal is only about 35 ponds.

So, who do you believe?

It's up to you to decide.