I endorse the idea that a "Zero Creel" stamp is available to any licensed angling person that takes the course and gets a certification , not just guides. As role models, professional guides could play a big part in being examples to the public by fishing to a higher standard of conservation. I seriously doubt that charter-boat captains , while professional, are going to change their mode of operations. It goes to priorities. In a guide's world whatever is good for the fish is good for guiding. In charter boating, not so much that way as it is about making a buck. Not every charterboat captain as some are quite progressive, but in whole it's more about bringing in the catch, which brings in the dollars. And trolling is a very risky way to catch & release if one is concerned about mortality; it's not the best way to insure survival after release.
However, in a funny sort of way, charterboats have discovered in the last few years that there are a few bucks to be made pre-season if they release the fish . That of course is contrary to their historic tradition of fishing until the creel is met. That also changes the way that they market their services, I mean do they keep fishing(during the pre-season) that day until....when ?
Last edited by Capt Brady Bounds; 08-02-2012 at 02:34 PM.
Zero creel good, catch and release bad, guides good, charters bad, trolling bad,....awesome!.........retarded, but awesome...
I would respectfully disagree with a lot of what is being said.
I think WE (DNR, Fishing Orgs, Individual Anglers, etc.) can do much more in educating anglers in "Best Practices". Creating a special license and fishing areas based on who can pay goes against open access and opportunity. While I agree with this tactic in the private sector, this does not work with respect to the Public Trust Doctrine or the publics ability to access a fishery.
We need as many rec anglers on the water as possible. It is our job to make sure they fish responsibly; we do this through education...not charging more.
Originally Posted by Capt Brady Bounds
Wow! Most access to a public resource goes to the highest bidder??? Why not make a yearly boat license $5,000 or $10,000.. That ought to keep the rif-raff off the water so you "high-standard" fishermen can access it more ..... Wow.
Dont get me wrong, I support being able to catch and release when the season is closed as way of maintaining access for individuals (EVERYONE) to enjoy our states public natural resources... Of course fish handling practices can be advocated through DNR, special interest groups, and other ways.. heck fishing practices seem to be distributed well. (ie. light tackle techniques, live lining techniques, trolling techniques). If you have a problem with our take and think we need to have less impact on our striped bass fisheries, I suggest looking at our large and excessive commercial take first which benefits only a few and sends most of our prized resource out of state. After adjustments are made with allocation and other reductions are needed, I would then suggest adjustments to the open season length, size limits, or bag limits for individuals (sport fishermen).
Wow!! want to sell access to our public resources the highest bidder... Who can go the highest??? Do these additional revenues go towards buying commercial tags or other non-recreational projects???
(I can see it now, I cant fish my boat but I still will be able to hire capt bounds to take me... wow! great! he has higher standards afterall and paid more..)
Last edited by B-Faithful; 08-02-2012 at 03:42 PM.
Originally Posted by paxfish
I dont think there is a "process".. The term "process" is only used to "kick the stone down the road" when they dont want to act on something. Processes are made up on an issue by issue basis...
Last edited by B-Faithful; 08-02-2012 at 04:50 PM.
Mr Smith, I take responsibility having not explained my intentions adequately because it is apparent that you are misinterpreting the main thrust of what I wished to communicate. Some individuals know how to catch & release to the best practices known and they have adopted those practices into their daily fishing habits. Those individuals could in my opinion fish in spawning areas with very little effect on the spawning activity and with near zero mortality. However, they may not do so because under your "Fair Doctrine" if there is such a thing, access must be available to all anglers equally and the more, the better. And I question that premise because as stated from the outset, through education, self-discipline and other attributes, some anglers are conducting themselves at a very high conservation standard. This is not without precedence. Here in Md and throughout the USA many trout streams are dry fly only, or no bait, or zero creel areas. The states regulate those areas to a higher standard of angler conduct and the fly anglers support those programs by purchasing stamps in addition to their regular licenses. I'm simply stating my willingness to support an educational program to get anglers to zero creel by practicing catch & release, and keeping sportfishing-caused mortality down.
Let's jump ahead to something else that was stated. There is is a presumption that my support of zero creel and/or catch & release is profit motivated . It is, but not in the way that is being implied. More fish available for my clients to fish in the future is good for my guiding business. I did not state that I wanted exclusiveness to certain areas and to gain that by being willing to pay more. But I do think folks who are low impact anglers should be encouraged, and they should be emulated.
There are two schools of thought and some folks in between: those who fish for food and those who fish for fun, albeit leisure. The food guys want equal access and they're not very interested in catch & release.Bringing home some fish is very important to them. My observations of MSSA over the years (and remember I co-sponsored the So Md Chapter) is that the majority of MSSA members are in the take some fish home group and they don't support c&r. For example I ask, when was the last time MSSA sponsored a strictly catch,photograph and release tournament ?
On the other hand there are folks who will eat a fish occasionally but they are not compelled to kill fish, nor must they take fish home to feel fulfilled. They interact with nature, enjoy the Bay or the ocean and try very hard to release caught fish so the fish will likely survive, to be caught again, to procreate, and to be enjoyed again and again. Recycling fish makes sense and I think those folks that recycle fish should be encouraged. Just killing and killing fish, where does that leave us in a few years ?
Originally Posted by DaveSmithMSSA
Last edited by Capt Brady Bounds; 08-02-2012 at 05:45 PM.
OMG; I could write a book about my feelings on C/R restrictions and how they came to be. As most of you know, I was, and still am, against one of the restrictions (rod limit). Additionally, I don't know how DNR justifies restricting C/R (the least harmful type of fishing) and then turns around and lables the rockfish population as "sustainable".
BUT, I will throw this "monkey wrench" into the discussion. I feel I try to practice good C/R technique whenever I can. On my private boat, or on my friends private boats, we try to release most of our spring C/R fish while in the water. We do occassinally hold a nice fish (supporting the belly) to take a photo.
When I'm on the charter boat, the sides are so high that it's practically impossible to release a fish in the water because of the higher sides. I don't like to net these fish, but there are few options. Maybe we could use a longer release tool to "pop" the barbless lure free, but on my private boat, I usually lip the fish before using the tool. On the charter, it's too dangerous to lean over the side to lip a fish and possibly fall into the cold water.
Capt. Brady, can you offer a suggestion? I would be interested to know how other charters release. I'll confess to be "dumb" about the proper technique on the charter, and use this as a learning experience.
C&R is apparently a more intense issue than I anticipated because I'm not a C&R fisherman. I agree that it is a great way for fishermen to enjoy fishing and, in theory, it kind of "recycles" fish so more people can enjoy them while minimizing the impacts on the spawning stock. My issue is the shabby way DNR approached this "problem" with absolutely no scientific data or even reliable anecdotal observations to justify their actions. The fact that they chose C&R is just coincidental for me - this type of fisheries management is just wrong and it doesn't matter who bears the brunt of it. I agree that education is a key missing part and that our public resources should be available to the public with some reasonable precautions to protect those resources. As I remember it, DNR promised to collect more C&R data and to concentrate on proper C&R fishing education. Still waiting but not holding my breath. If they had been serious about protecting spawning stock, the Trophy Season would be in serious trouble and I would be objecting to arbitrary management decisions in still another fishery.
This shouldn't be a debate about C&R vs Trophy Season or any other fishery. We must insist on a level playing field and the "best science" we keep hearing about as a basis for management decisions for all our fisheries. Recreational anglers are getting precious little of either.
Originally Posted by DaveSmithMSSA
Ken, I agree this is not about debating the two fisheries, both are great for recreational anglers and we must practice them responsibly. The real issue is our starving rockfish and the excessive commercial allocation.
But you are motivated by preserving catch and kill tournaments and the money that is generated by them. Therefore, your perspective is contaminated.
Originally Posted by DaveSmithMSSA
Tags for this Thread