Bold statements, but truthful. I know I've killed muskies after I've turned them loose. I think sometimes its pretty obvious. But, I believe I know which were going to die and which weren't. I also believe they are tougher than we think. I also believe that we (my muskie circle) have gotten better and better at making sure this doesn't happen but it always will. Will, do you have a link to the mortality studies that have been done on hook and line angling for muskies? I think those would be interesting. Once again, I have to go back to my statement about the tag system restricting both anglers AND spearers. Furthermore, we gill hook fish sometimes but spearers loose fish and mortality wound fish with bad throws as well. I've caught more than a handful a fish with spear holes and near miss marks. Here's a look in the mirror at myself……..starting two years ago I purposely will not figure 8 oer throw back on sub legal fish and have actually pulled the bait away from small followers. I do not preach this, its just something I do. Number one, why wound and educate smaller fish if you can avoid it? I've caught enough of those. Number two, instead of messing with the little guy in the net and then spend time dinking with my leader and lure that got all messed up, I'd still be casting to the hot and horny corner where I just know there's a big girl hanging out. How elitist is that?
"Steve Horton" said:
Will, do you have a link to the mortality studies that have been done on hook and line angling for muskies?
There isn't one. There was a captive study done by Casselman and I'll see if I can find that, I think it used to be available at the Trent U site but those studies are no longer there. I have been begging for this study through the Michigan DNR because I want some hard data but I also think a good mortality study would put Michigan on the map as a muskie state.
Since we're now working with U of M on the Elk Chain project hopefully I can talk one of the most well respected muskie biologists in the country to tackle such a beast.
Yes, Will, we have all heard that speech a million times. Do you have a point, of course. Is it the be all to end all, no. Listen, science is nice but so is logic. When you spear a musky it is dead, there is no catch and release…dead fish, period. Do muskies suffer delayed mortality at the hands of line anglers, yes, of course they do. Nevertheless, (if realeased properly of course) do they have a decent chance of making it upon release, yes they do. So, mortality rate 100% for spearing, what 10 to 15% for delayed mortality (that may be a little low as I'm not sure). The bottom line is until Wolf Lake can actually provide enough fish to fully stock all the in-land non-natural reproduction lakes in the state, something needs to be done to protect muskies which are scarce in any watershed anyway given that they are apex predators. The only argument the spearing crowd has in their favor as to why they must spear muskies is because it is tradition. That Will is a bunch of crap. Again, they have pleanty of other fish to spear, they don't need to be spearing muskies. The state doesn't need science to prove that spearing is significantly reducing musky populations more than hand angling. They can justify the ban on a fiscal basis, namely we don't have the money or the facilities to stock to the levels that MN or WI do and until we do we are not going to allow spearing of a scarce resource.
Are you rightfuly gun shy of waging war against the spearing crowd because you and MMA took a beating last time, yes. Should you keep saying that spearing shouldn't be banned until we come up with science to support that proposition, personally I think not. TDNR makes lots of decisions that are fiscally based rather than on science, why require it here?
Logic? How can you use logic when you have no science to base the logic on? Logic tells me that there are more muskies harvested by hook and line than by spearing every year. Spearing is a non-issue unless we can prove it has a significant impact on the fishery. That's it… discussion over.
Am I still going to work the impact of spearing on our muskie fisheries? Absolutely. Do I think we or the DNR is in any position to make a regulation change? Absolutely not.
"Scrappy" said:
They can justify the ban on a fiscal basis, namely we don't have the money or the facilities to stock to the levels that MN or WI do and until we do we are not going to allow spearing of a scarce resource.
Careful there, if we indeed had been stocking like they stock in Minnesota for the last 15 years things would look very different around Michigan. Dare I say that we would be a destination state.
Please remember that WE are not the only user of the resource. And the truth is that sportsmen across the state did not agree with our position to take away the opportunity of another sportsman. Fortunately sportsmen also didn't agree with the move from the Darkhouse group to reduce the size limit on muskellunge.
Yes, I know a speared fish can't be released but that isn't the point. A dead fish is a dead fish right? What does it matter how it died?
What I need to know before making any honest evaluation of spearing is:
– the number of fish really harvested by spear
– the number of fish harvested during the open water season
Once we know that then we can truly evaluate the angling impact on muskellunge populations by all methods and make a recommendation on harvest by all angling methods.
"Will Schultz" said:
…What I need to know before making any honest evaluation of spearing is:
– the number of fish really harvested by spear
– the number of fish harvested during the open water season
Once we know that then we can truly evaluate the angling impact on muskellunge populations by all methods and make a recommendation on harvest by all angling methods.
You'd also need hard numbers for the numbers of fish dying after release by conventional fishermen.
I wouldn't want to be faced with having to perform these studies; I don't think I'd have much confidence that I'd collected unskewed data. You can't follow every darkhouse fisherman or every conventional muskie fisherman (C&R proponent or not) around when they're fishing.
So, how might you envision the data be collected? A sparse, random sampling would not be sufficient, IMHO. Nor would an honor-system of voluntary or mandatory reporting by anglers themselves. Obtaining reliable, believable data would be an extremely difficult nut to crack.
"hemichemi" said:
So, how might you envision the data be collected? A sparse, random sampling would not be sufficient, IMHO. Nor would an honor-system of voluntary or mandatory reporting by anglers themselves. Obtaining reliable, believable data would be an extremely difficult nut to crack.
Unfortunately it will have to be surveys, angler diaries for spearing and collection from taxidermists. The DNR is working on a diary with the spearing community and hopefully it will generate some good data.
Hemi has a great point, the bottom line is you really can't scientifically prove mortality rates with catch and release but you can with spearing. Now don't get me wrong because I don't want a nice long response about how I'm ignorant…can you collect data, do tracking studies of released fish and extrapolate to make reasoned assumptions about mortality rates, sure…but you can't really prove it to any real certaintly like you can with a speared fish. Bottom line, you are missing my point Will, which you just choose to pretty much ignore, every (properly) released fish has a chance to survive there is ZERO chance of survival for a speared fish.
As for MN being a destination, why is that so horrible? Isn't it part of the DNR's job to grow tourism. Do you really think spearing is a big enough sport to draw people to Michigan to spend their hard earned money in this state..No. But it sure as hell would generate tourism dollars for hook and line anglers if we had lakes that consistently put out trophy potential other than LSC.
I am not suggesting (although I would fully support it) a ban on spearing. I am strongly in support of not spearing muskies. There are only what, twenty musky lakes being stocked in this state. Would it be much of a burden on the spearing crowd to not spear muskies in those lakes since the state wants to support fishable musky populations in those lakes but doesn't have the funds to fully do so? I'm not even saying that they can't spear on the musky lakes, I'm saying they can't spear muskies. This taking away a sportsman's rights is a crap argument in this situation. This is not taking away a right it is putting reasonable limits on a scarce resource until such time that musky populations in those lakes are fully established and can be fully maintained. If the spearing crowd were true sportsman they would recognize this fact and agree to it with no hesitation because it is the right thing to do. They refuse to do it because they somehow think spearing fish (any fish) is their birthright. Maybe spearing is a birthright but that does not prohibit the States from putting reasonable limits on said rights.
Scrappy,
I'm with ya dude. There is too much harm that can be done to our waters when unethical spearers are on the prowl. Minnesota and Canada are bringing in a lot of muskie anglers and tourism due to there good management practices. No reason why we couldn't do the same.
Speaking of stocked lakes and spearing bans… Kingston Lake has been getting (over)stocked with fish and now there is group that is targeting it with spears. They have been, admittedly, throwing at fish that are close to legal and I'm sure many sublegals have been and, will be, hit. Normally, there is tons of snow and slush on the lake during the winter which keeps most spearers at bay, but light winters and a groomed snowmobile trail have made it more accessible and it is gaining popularity. I pushed to have this lake on the spearing ban list a while back but the DNR said it wouldn't get speared. Well, it is now, and I'd like to have some of you guys voice your displeasure to the DNR before things get out of hand. If this doesn't get taken care of soon, the spearing ban will be offending a lot more people and the DNR may not ever deal with it.
Scott and all – nothing said in this discussion is personal and shouldn't EVER be taken that way. Keep the feelings out of it and it will remain nothing more than a lively discussion.
"Scrappy" said:
Hemi has a great point, the bottom line is you really can't scientifically prove mortality rates with catch and release but you can with spearing.
Umm… OK, scientifically prove to me that spearing has an impact on muskellunge populations. No? Can't do that? How about scientifically proving the number of muskies speared on one lake in Michigan let alone the entire state. No? Can't do that either?
Management of these resources is going to be based on the "best data". I would suspect that there have been very few, if any, management decisions based on anything but "reasoned assumptions".
"Scrappy" said:
…but you can't really proved it to any real certaintly like you can with a speared fish.
The point here isn’t about proving if a speared fish is dead, it’s impossible to argue against that, it’s a fact. If the number of speared fish is an unknown then how can we possibly ask the Michigan DNR to make any kind of management decision. Honestly, do you want me to call Lansing and tell them that we can prove a speared muskie can’t be released and therefore muskie spearing shouldn’t be allowed. I’m reasonably certain that at the response would be – “Are you kidding me?”
Want it in another way?
Let me go with these scientifically proven facts:
– A speared fish is always dead and it must have an impact on the fishery therefore spearing of muskies should be eliminated.
– A fish harvested during the open water season is always dead and it must have an impact on the fishery therefore open water angling for muskellunge should be eliminated.
"Scrappy" said:
Bottom line, you are missing my point Will, which you just choose to pretty much ignore, every (properly) released fish has a chance to survive there is ZERO chance of survival for a speared fish.
I would never ignore anything you say Scott. It seems to me I actually acknowledged that and said “Yes, I know a speared fish can't be released but that isn't the point. A dead fish is a dead fish right? What does it matter how it died?” I even tried to point out that we could completely take delayed mortality out of the equation and simply focus on harvested fish during the open water season.
The point I’m trying to make, that can’t be argued against, is we can not say spearing is the smoking gun unless we know how many fish are speared. I know you can’t release a speared fish, don’t tell me that again I’m tired of hearing it over and over… that isn’t the point. What you keep telling me is all based on feelings and nothing more.
"Scrappy" said:
ZERO chance of survival for a speared fish
No kidding and a ZERO chance for survival for a fish harvested during the open water season. So what? If it’s only one fish who cares, if it’s 100 fish then there might be a reason for a restriction. Just because it is dead doesn’t mean that it had an impact on the fishery.
If there are 30 fish speared during January and February but there are 50 harvested during the open water season then perhaps our focus should be directed at open water harvest and not spearing.
"Scrappy" said:
As for MN being a destination, why is that so horrible? Isn't it part of the DNR's job to grow tourism. Do you really think spearing is a big enough sport to draw people to Michigan to spend their hard earned money in this state..No.
That isn’t what I was saying at all.
You said:
"Scrappy" said:
They can justify the ban on a fiscal basis, namely we don't have the money or the facilities to stock to the levels that MN or WI do and until we do we are not going to allow spearing of a scarce resource.
I said:
"Will Schultz" said:
Careful there, if we indeed had been stocking like they stock in Minnesota for the last 15 years things would look very different around Michigan. Dare I say that we would be a destination state.
Meaning… that if we, MI, used MN guidelines for stocking we would be in a very different position today. “Dare I say that we would be a destination state.” The 20 some thousand muskies that went into the Titt chain would have been distributed at one fish per acre. Heck, if that had happened we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
"Scrappy" said:
There are only what, twenty musky lakes being stocked in this state.
Who pays for the stocking? Not MMA, sure we help but we help because we care. Hopefully we're never in this because we feel our method of angling is more important or that we are better than any other angler in Michigan. If that ever becomes the position of MMA I'm leaving and joining MDHAA.
I'm even willing to debate that spearing should ONLY be open on stocked water where the resource is replenished and not relying on natural reproduction.
"Scrappy" said:
This taking away a sportsman's rights is a crap argument in this situation.
You may feel that way but there are hundreds of thousands of sportsmen in Michigan that would NOT agree. Do I need to remind you of the Fred Trost fiasco? MMA's poor approach to the spearing situation wasn't met with open arms by anyone other than MMA members. If a change is ever going to be made it has to make sense to the average sportsman because MDHAA will not go down without a fight.
So let's turn the tide….
What if I was to tell you that MDHAA was a much larger organization than MMA and they felt open water anglers were over-harvesting muskies during the open water season and the open water season should only be two months long like the spearing season. I know it sounds absurd but if you really take a step back and think about it that is exactly what we’re saying.
"Scrappy" said:
If the spearing crowd were true sportsman they would recognize this fact and agree to it with no hesitation because it is the right thing to do.
Now we might actually be getting somewhere. Why impose a regulation when education might make as much of an impact. We shouldn’t assume we’re dealing with ignorant people here. In fact the fish that started this whole thread and the angler that speared it sounded like he was someone that we could reach out to that would help support self imposed limited harvest.
There is some proof that has been given to the D.N.R. . Nick Popoff (Poppy) was told last year about one man who harvested on hook and line 13 Muskies from 6 mile lake in one year(2007). Nick told me that the guy has been telling all of his friends and even admitted to Nick that this was true. He is doing the study on Elk and the chain.
Now for me that shows that one man fishing with hook and line can take as many as 13 muskies from one lake in one season. That data alone with known fish per acre should be enough to implement a tag system. This tag system is used for deer, Elk and sturgeon . Muskies are the lowest density fish in every eco system. In this situation this one angler would have been limited to just one of those 13 fish. Most of the spearing community targets pike anyway that is one Idea.
Now the way I see it, it is not elitest to limit harvest all together. This is the only fair way to limit harvest. Anyone seeking to harvest a Musky will need a tag or two tags or three tags. This will give us the first real numbers to judge how many harvesters there are.
This will blow you away ha ha . How about free tags the first year. It doesnt cost anything but you have to have it to keep one. Tags would be picked up where ever licenses are sold. This would give the state a good bit of research pertaining to how many people are actively seeking to kill muskies and even more, how many plan on whacking a dozen or more and where. The tags would be used as harvest data to determine where stocked fish are needed People not keeping one would not need a tag to fish for them.
I feel that a free tag would tell us a lot in one year about how many musky harvesters there are in the state and where they are targeting. This is science right there. The reason given by the D.N.R for implementing the tag system is for stocking data. I would go even further and issue as many tags as anglers want.
In other words the tag doesnt cost them a thing they just have to have one to kill a Musky. This would give us the hard numbers the D.N.R. needs to ban or limit tags the following year. They know about how many fish we have so with accurate kill numbers or tag applications they would now have the science to back any changes up. Mike [smilie=biggrin.gif]
"John E. Sox" said:
Kingston Lake has been getting (over)stocked with fish and now there is group that is targeting it with spears. They have been, admittedly, throwing at fish that are close to legal and I'm sure many sublegals have been and, will be, hit.
If there is an issue call RAP and give them names and addresses. If they have been stocking their freezer with muskies they'll have a problem based on this:
Possession Limit is equal to the Daily Limit. Except a person may possess up to two (2) additional limits of coho, chinook, or pink salmon taken during previous fishing days provided that the additional limits are processed fish (canned, cured by smoking or drying, or frozen). Anglers who have not attained the age of 17 are entitled to the possession limit even though they do not have a fishing license. A person fishing waters bordered by other states or provinces AND possessing multiple
fishing licenses may possess the limit allowed for ONLY ONE license while in transit, but while fishing in Michigan waters, must comply with Michigan possession and size limits.
I like the idea Mike. I'd like to add that the harvest MUST be reported within 7 days. Then the state at least has some data on who actually harvested a muskie and from where. The detailed information doesn't really need to be public but the general numbers of harvested fish would. I'd have to agree with some of the other points you guys made as well. We've got lots of great water but we're dead last in muskie restoration and stocking. We would have even less if it wasn't for the efforts of Will and others in this organization. Yet it seems the state would rather protect a rotting, non-indigenous, chinook than a wild spotty. I hear a banjo……………..
"Kingfisher" said:
In other words the tag doesnt cost them a thing they just have to have one to kill a Musky. This would give us the hard numbers the D.N.R. needs to ban or limit tags the following year. They know about how many fish we have so with accurate kill numbers or tag applications they would now have the science to back any changes up. Mike [smilie=biggrin.gif]
What you are saying would require a mandatory check of harvested fish to get any kind of good data. Just gathering license data could be accomplished by asking a question at the time of license purchse. I'm sure you're all familiar with how that is done on-line or at the license terminal.
A tag only works if anyone fishing for muskellunge is in possession of the license. No tag = no harvest. The problem then starts when you harvest a fish, you would have to quit fishing for the year.
Enforcement is the biggest problem though. If we can't even enforce the current regualtions how will the law division enforce something like a tag?
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea but the logistics of making this happen, combined with enforcement problems doesn't seem like it will make a huge difference.
Here's where I go out on a limb (maybe even a dead limb) the harvest limit should be reduced to one per season for all angling methods. That's it. No tag system, equality for all anglers I would even support reducing the size limit to 36" if it would get the spearing communities support.
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="
A tag only works if anyone fishing for muskellunge is in possession of the license. No tag = no harvest. The problem then starts when you harvest a fish, you would have to quit fishing for the year.Enforcement is the biggest problem though. If we can't even enforce the current regualtions how will the law division enforce something like a tag?
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea but the logistics of making this happen, combined with enforcement problems doesn't seem like it will make a huge difference.
Here's where I go out on a limb (maybe even a dead limb) the harvest limit should be reduced to one per season for all angling methods. That's it. No tag system, equality for all anglers I would even support reducing the size limit to 36" if it would get the spearing communities support.
You would not have to stop fishing for the year. You would not be able to harvest another Musky unless you had another tag. My point was that repeat tags or guys who picked up multiple tags would give data showing where the real harvests are being done .
Example ,Johns spear tossers in the Up. Bill sticks a 43 on saturday. He goes in and gets another tag and spears another one on sunday. He goes in and gets another tag and the following weekend he spears another one and so on. What I am saying is >>>> numbers of tags per county issued coupled with numbers of mutiple tags issued gives us hard data as to where and how many muskies are being speared and killed via hook and line.
Example #1 man and son walk into the store to buy thier fishing licenses. Question ,would You like a Musky tag, these are used for gathering harvest data. they are free but one must be attached to any kept Musky. So if you plan on or may harvest one you need this tag.
Answer#1, well we dont fish for muskies so we dont want one.
Answer #2 I fish for them but release them all
Answer #3 I plan on taking a couple this year yes Ill take one.
Answer #4 We have Muskies in Michigan??
Answer#5 How many can I have now? can I get more as the season goes on?
one half of the tag goes to the fisherman the other half to the state with the information filled out(name or angler, county, date, ice or open water harvest method. These facts can all be on the tags to be analized. Much like gun regisration sorry to say. The tags would give us a good Idea where and how many fish are being harvested. Seeing that the tag is free I doubt many would violate the law. In fact we would get the braggers running around. Yep, I filled 13 tags in one season Im a musky slaying machine. Little does he know he just supplied the D.N.R. with data showing that he picked up 13 tags in one season. This is what I am talking about. Those would be hard facts that the D.N.R. could make better choices for regs and stocking . After one year there would be very good data showing where most of the harvest is taking place. Steps could then be taken to limit and or ban and or stock to offset the take. Mike
Will-
I don't believe that they are keeping the fish… they are 'releasing' them. I suppose if a CO saw them spear a fish and let it go they could still charge them with attempting to harvest a sublegal fish. Either way, it's tough to enforce unless the CO is in the shanty with them. Hopefully some of them will try sneak some sublegals off the ice because law enforcement is watching.
I'm not saying the tag is bad idea it just presents some ver real issues.
Mandatory…
First off the tag couldn't be refused by any angler. You have to be in possession of the tag if you are fishing for muskies. The same reason Canadians don't like Americans buying a conservation license to fish muskies – if you kill one by mistake then you must release that fish (that's bordering wanton waste). Just like the sturgeon tags if you are fishing for them you have to be in possession of the tag. The problem is increased with muskies though becaus accidental catches are much more common than sturgeon. Therefore to make this work a muskie kill tag would have to be issued with every license.
Compliance…
Unless there is a mandatory check in there will be compliance problems. Why do I say this? The premier muskie conservation in the state could only get about 25% of their angler diaries in 2006. Why is the average Joe, who doesn't care about muskies as much as an MMA members, going to comply unless check in is mandatory.
Money is a HUGE factor…
If check in is mandatory then who is going to pay for the additional costs associated with this requirement? The DNR or MMA. How much money is the DNR really willing to invest in a program that only has 1000 anglers statewide? Just the cost of printing kill tags would be in the hundreds of thousands (1.6 million anglers would need one). Wouldn't we rather see that money used for hatchery renovations?
Making a strong case for a one per season harvest limit and maybe even making a deal with the spearing community for a reduced size limit is the best way to approach harvest restrictions (considering all spects of cost/comliance/enforcement/etc). Just as with pike lakes that have the potential for more fish to be harvested muskie lakes could be treated the same way.
"John E. Sox" said:
Will-
I don't believe that they are keeping the fish… they are 'releasing' them. I suppose if a CO saw them spear a fish and let it go they could still charge them with attempting to harvest a sublegal fish. Either way, it's tough to enforce unless the CO is in the shanty with them. Hopefully some of them will try sneak some sublegals off the ice because law enforcement is watching.
So you're telling me they're just spearing for the fun of it? I hate to go PETA on them but that is so F'd UP! Sounds like a sting operation is in order to me.
I wouldn't say just for the fun of it… it's more like just hoping that it might be a legal fish. Hoping for a legal meal, but if it's sublegal, just sink it and try again. This is where I really have a problem with spearing these smaller numbers lakes… when I said unethical people, this is what I meant… people that are totally disregarding conservation and selfishly only thinking about how they can benefit from the resource. I really don't like the thought of spearing at all but I don't have much of a problem with someone just trying stick that one giant… that's a little more conservation-minded and sportsman-like IMO. Even someone that is looking for a meal and is really making an effort to be well over 42 inches… not such a big deal either. It's the aforementioned pigs that ruin it for everyone. Like you mentioned earlier, until we can put a number on their harvest or actually have some proof of the damage they are doing, then probably nothing will be done. The biggest thing we have going against us in this instance is that we are being forced by science to assume that most people are following the law and being ethical.
One point I'd like to make, when you said something to the effect that maybe open water fisherman may be killing more fish than spearing, you have to remember that we outnumber them by a lot and, in a sense, we are more important. Open water fisherman are a lot more important to local economies. I do agree and understand the point you were making though. Improper release methods probably contribute to more harvest on the majority of our waters. Both methods of mortality need to be studied more in depth.
Can't believe I got so far down the chain so fast.
First, I'm sorry if you thought I was getting personal Will (at least in an inapproproate way), that was not my intent. I was certainly being sarcastic but wasn't trying to be rude. In fact, I'm not saying you are completely wrong in what you are saying (in fact while I disagree with parts of your argument your logic is certainly more consistent then mine and devoid of "feelings") although I don't agree completely either.
What I'm trying to stress is the fact that I don't see the spearing ban as an issue of resource management per se (like size limits or closing seasons would be) , I see it as a fiscal justification….there isn't enough money to fully stock muskies the way the DNR would like to so we should eliminate a type of fishing for them that results in certain death until such time as there is enough fish to go around and those stocks can be replentished as the fish are harvested. Now you are spot on that my argument breaks down when you consider that hook and line anglers can keep one legal musky per day and if the angler decides to keep a fish per day that fish ends up as dead as the speared fish. So, staying with that argument, I would totally be for a complete catch and release on muskies or a trophy size limit put on them (one fish over 50 or even 52 inches). Such a restriction would not be "elitist" as it applies across the board. I also highly favor going to the tag system but disagree with you Will that you need to stop fishing after you fill your tag. I think of the tag system to be that if you are going to keep the fish then you must tag it. If you are catching and releasing then that is fine.
"Scrappy" said:
I see it as a fiscal justification….there isn't enough money to fully stock muskies the way the DNR would like to so we should eliminate a type of fishing for them that results in certain death until such time as there is enough fish to go around and those stocks can be replentished as the fish are harvested.
I understand however… I hate to contradict myself when it comes to management issues and to try to justify it fiscally would contradict something more important that I've been working on. I have recently (last couple years) been putting pressure on the DNR (with MN data) that we indeed have the resources already in place but we're making management mistakes. We have made enough mistakes with stocked fish in the past ten years that we should already be on the map as a "muskie state". Don't even get me started on the money being poured into stocked fish when we're doing next to nothing about our natural fish and they really need our help!
"Scrappy" said:
but disagree with you Will that you need to stop fishing after you fill your tag. I think of the tag system to be that if you are going to keep the fish then you must tag it. If you are catching and releasing then that is fine.
The only fish tag system in place is the sturgeon tag. If a muskie tag was ever going to make it off the ground then it would have to be modeled after that (sucessful) program. To even fish for sturgeon you must possess a sturgeon tag. If you use that tag you are done fishing. Who needs to harvest more than one sturgeon or muskie in a year? If you want to catch and release fish you better have that tag just in case you kill one by mistake.
None of these things will address where the real problem lies, non-compliance. Take Kingfishers example of the guy that caught (not speared) 13 fish on Sixmile. He was in violation of the possession law more than one time, I'm sure of it. Where was law enforcement in that situation? John's example of the guys spearing on Kingston is an enforcement issue that a tag or reduced harvest limit will not help.
PLUS… enforcement is always looking for regulations that make things easier for them not more difficult. If they don't like the idead of a tag it would never fly.
Like I said it isn't that I don't like the idea but there are so many problems it creates. I've been through this stuff in my head a million times since the Trost situation. I believe that there is only one way to reduce harvest across the board that everyone can agree with. The problem is I don't have enough (any) real data to make it fly let alone get off the ground.
57
33