"Joel A" said:
Hey guys I'm getting a 75 gallon tank to hold some suckers for the fall. I haven't been having any luck catching them below Sanford dam but have been killing the pike. I'm looking for where I can by a dozen large sucker. If anyone knows please comment. Thanks
If you catch them below the dam, you can only use them below the dam.
Here are the specifics (#3 and #4 impact fishing with and transporting suckers):
General Statewide Provisions
1. A person shall not stock baitfish, live fish or roe in public waters of the state prior to receiving a Fish Stocking Permit from the department and the permit must be in possession when transporting and stocking the fish. It is unlawful to import any uncertified baitfish species found on the list of Susceptible Fish Species.
2. Fish caught in a waterbody should only be released into the waterbody where originally caught and not transferred into another location where the fish could not have freely moved to.
3. All baitfish or fish collected for personal use as bait or cut bait shall only be used for fishing purposes in the original waters of collection and must be used on a hook.
4. A person who trailers a boat over land shall drain all water from the live well(s) and the bilge of their boat upon leaving any body of water.
These regulations make it very difficult to obtain and properly use suckers for bait. As a result, unless regulations change, 2017 will likely be the last year I offer the use of suckers in the fall for guide trips.
Definitely a pain in the rear. Either gotta keep them quarantined if they don't get eaten, or only use the whole tank in the same lake… as for bait shops, I'm not sure many will be of help. Most refuse to get them, I wasted a fair amount of cash last year on promises that turned out being too small. But, you can always ask and beg!
I don't mind using them below the Sanford dam. When the water level is up and you can get a boat in that's untapped territory. But with my back I almost have to rely on suckers or trolling. I simply can't cast hrs a day anymore which sucks cause the thrill of a follow, figure8 and eat is the greatest feeling in fishing.
"Joel A" said:
I don't mind using them below the Sanford dam. When the water level is up and you can get a boat in that's untapped territory. But with my back I almost have to rely on suckers or trolling. I simply can't cast hrs a day anymore which sucks cause the thrill of a follow, figure8 and eat is the greatest feeling in fishing.
Learn to effectively troll and the time spent fishing for or trying to get suckers can be spent muskie fishing.
"jasonvkop" said:
Is it weird to anyone else how strict rules are for livebait, but then lake associations can chemically kill weeds whenever they want to?
Considering invasive weeds get their hold where weeds have been removed… I agree with your sentiment! I'll stop there, or I'll need more whiskey.
"jasonvkop" said:
Is it weird to anyone else how strict rules are for livebait, but then lake associations can chemically kill weeds whenever they want to?
While I certainly agree that chemical weed treatment is overdone and not controlled effectively there are a couple points to be clarified.
They can't necessarily do whatever they want as there is a DEQ permit required and a $75 to $1500 permit fee, Unfortunately this is totally focused on control of chemicals to be used, not on the need for weed treatment itself or the impact of that.
Lake associations are sometimes responsible for weed treatment and sometimes it is just individual property owners. For example, Murray Lake Association is not involved so about a dozen individual property owners pay one of two local companies to handle the permits and treatment of just their frontage. Big Crooked Lake, just a couple miles north of Murray, has an association program with fees collected as a property tax assessment. There are conflicts on Crooked because problem or traffic areas are treated but residents who paid will find boat access to their property was not treated and plugged with weeds.
If MMA has any energy left after the regulation project maybe we can start on DEQ about more effective permitting. [smilie=bud.gif]
"FIP" said:
[quote="jasonvkop"]Is it weird to anyone else how strict rules are for livebait, but then lake associations can chemically kill weeds whenever they want to?
While I certainly agree that chemical weed treatment is overdone and not controlled effectively there are a couple points to be clarified.
They can't necessarily do whatever they want as there is a DEQ permit required and a $75 to $1500 permit fee, Unfortunately this is totally focused on control of chemicals to be used, not on the need for weed treatment itself or the impact of that.
Lake associations are sometimes responsible for weed treatment and sometimes it is just individual property owners. For example, Murray Lake Association is not involved so about a dozen individual property owners pay one of two local companies to handle the permits and treatment of just their frontage. Big Crooked Lake, just a couple miles north of Murray, has an association program with fees collected as a property tax assessment. There are conflicts on Crooked because problem or traffic areas are treated but residents who paid will find boat access to their property was not treated and plugged with weeds.
If MMA has any energy left after the regulation project maybe we can start on DEQ about more effective permitting. [smilie=bud.gif]
I'd almost agree with that… I have had many conversations with both departments about this in regards to a couple of my favorite lakes.
A couple things:
-It is highly disappointing that there is no required inquiry to the DNR from the DEQ in approval of permits.
-There is required permits, that come along with required follow up, etc.
-That doesn't happen
-There are native species that aren't allowed to be sprayed, and aren't permitted
-Guys on boats, flinging $h!t in the water don't care, don't know anyhow, and can't completely control where it goes.
-Did I mention that there is as close to ZERO monitoring and follow up as there could be?!?!?!
These things get our of control faster than invasive species… and before you know it, you end up with barren wastelands with uncontrollable algae blooms and terrible water quality… maybe if they bothered to ask the DNR their opinion. [smilie=brickwall.gif]
But, like Will said, being diligent is tough but necessary, and we can spread things as fast as anything.
As a footnote, I like the way Murray does it, letting everyone choose themselves. Ironically, there was conversation at a meeting I attended today about lake levels on a lake above a controlled dam. There was apparently never any complaints about lake levels until the local municipality and other governing bodies set a standard of maximums and minimums, and now people are constantly complaining. Some like it low, others not, and no one ever agrees. Seems like the same attitudes with weeds.
368
22