|
|
Post by tblspoon on Jan 3, 2015 11:40:29 GMT -5
Everyone, I cannot fish as much as I like at SML. I have also never fished for stripers until 2 years ago. I do follow the boards and by far the most frequent issues are the declining fish population, fish mortality, bitching because someone keeps a citation fish etc. If this is such a huge issue, why don't we just outlaw the use of live bait or as a compromise limit the number of active rods being used. On more than one occasion I have not been able to get into the cove where I live because a boat has 8-10 lines out. down lines, light lines, planer boards everywhere. Just a out of the box recommendation. Alright I have my armor on so begin tossing arrows at me. |
|
|
|
Post by tblspoon on Jan 3, 2015 12:38:07 GMT -5
First time replying, wanted to reply and agree with ridge runner. All of the states that I have fished had regulations controlling the number of poles and hooks per pole used.I have had trouble navigating from Hardy bridge to Mormans due to planner boards and floats. Had issues while bass fishing due to boats pulling planner boards down the bank almost hitting my boat.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE striper fishing. Very committed to it and a lot of money invested to fishing for and locating them. I have a degree in fish management. Worked as creel census clerk on Erie and many other mgt data duties.
Bottom line is mgt starts with the fisherpersons themselves. Turn in poachers, cheats and abide by the rules written. It works.
|
|
|
|
Post by 8pointer on Jan 15, 2015 22:21:27 GMT -5
I for one am very sorry to hear , no I'm angry to hear that they saw fit to change the slot. I for one have been catching more and bigger fish every year. This past year was my best year ever for numbers and caught numerous fish in teen to low twenty lb. Range. I have been striper fishing this since 1979 and think it is the best its ever been. I realize the top end is not there. But now you are going to make beginners illegally keep the biggest fish they have ever caught!!!! Assinine!!! This is a dumb move just to make a small group happy. These are the same people who slaughter fish by fishing year round knowing full well catch and release dosn't work in warm weather. I can not support this kind of dumb ass experiment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 8:16:17 GMT -5
I for one am very sorry to hear , no I'm angry to hear that they saw fit to change the slot. I for one have been catching more and bigger fish every year. This past year was my best year ever for numbers and caught numerous fish in teen to low twenty lb. Range. I have been striper fishing this since 1979 and think it is the best its ever been. I realize the top end is not there. But now you are going to make beginners illegally keep the biggest fish they have ever caught!!!! Assinine!!! This is a dumb move just to make a small group happy. These are the same people who slaughter fish by fishing year round knowing full well catch and release dosn't work in warm weather. I can not support this kind of dumb ass experiment. I for one have no clue what the best thing to do is. However, I am certain that folks like you need to express themselves more and take an active role in the future of the fishery. You can't just hope that others feel the same as you and will take action that represent your feelings. Get involved and then get angry! It seems to me that catch rates are not of concern. In fact, this regulation invites people to catch and keep bigger fish so that the big boys can get even bigger. Or.. grow faster? In essence, we fisherman are taking fish out of the system so that less fish will have more bait. Thus, limiting number of poles or doing anything that limits catch and keep rates would counter the purpose of this new regulation. I wish we could just have more bait. I love bait. Others wish that they could get home quicker rather than be inconvenienced by bait pulling factories. Others wish many things. Point being.. The people who win are the people who get involved. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 8:44:10 GMT -5
Yam is absolutely correct....you have to get involved!!!!!! ..... the squeaky wheel always gets the grease!!!!!! When I was out 3 or 4 days new years week, mward stopped by....told him I wasn't sure about the new regs. We caught several bigheaded, fat fish in the 28 1/2 to 29 3/4 inch range. We kept some of the smaller fish to eat, but those fish were released... I'll still go by the old regs....for now.  |
|
|
|
Post by striperjohn on Jan 16, 2015 12:41:53 GMT -5
I still think this regulation should have been explained better by Fish and Game. They must have some target number of fish in the 26 inch to 30 inch range that they feel need to be removed from the lake. Otherwise why make the regulation? If they don't then this is just another wild ass guess on their part. I rarely keep fish but do they want me to keep 26-30 inchers to help the lake? I will if it will help. Anyone have the answer to that?
As far as changing what we as fishermen do or don't do. Let me add this. Santee Cooper where freshwater stripers originate, no longer has a striper season from June 1-September 30. Think about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwardncsu on Jan 16, 2015 12:57:41 GMT -5
I've been trying to stay out of this flaring up again and I don't have time today to get into the full history - though I think it was well explained in the earlier post in this thread and the threads linked/referenced. However, DGIF did reach out on the topic before taking action to a variety of groups to review / explain what he was seeing and solicit input on potential/proposed actions. We discussed this here well before the proposed changes went out for comment period, and then reminded folks again when the comment period was open to get their thoughts in. If you ever have questions/concerns, pick up the phone or email Dan Wilson - he's very approachable and wants to hear input from anglers. But like Yam said- the time to get involved was back before the changes were made- when they were in the proposal phase and the comment phase. But there is no ready not to get involved now - management of the fishery is an on-going thing - though certain actions can be done more frequently (changing stocking rates), and others less frequent (regulation changes).
I actually just came back from meeting with Dan Wilson for 2.5 hours this morning to get an update on various data that has been collected via fish heads, angler surveys, shocking, gill nets, etc. I want to re-review the summary of the data when I have some time in the coming week and I'll try to provide an update here. But if you care about this - then get out behind your computers and get involved with groups doing something to actively participate.
|
|
BentRod
Global Moderator
Posts: 2,252
|
Post by BentRod on Jan 16, 2015 13:57:16 GMT -5
Just to be clear, the changes weren't made to appease a small group who in your mind want bigger fish. That's not true at all. This was a DGIF change that they included our opinions on, but at the end of the day, they felt the need to make a change to ensure the stability of the fishery. This wasn't a bunch of people saying we want bigger fish - it wasn't DGIF saying they want bigger fish - not at all. At the core of the change was the stability of the striper fishery and Dan thought we were headed down a bad, potentially catetrosphic road again. Those are the facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 18:03:42 GMT -5
Just to be clear, the changes weren't made to appease a small group who in your mind want bigger fish. That's not true at all. This was a DGIF change that they included our opinions on, but at the end of the day, they felt the need to make a change to ensure the stability of the fishery. This wasn't a bunch of people saying we want bigger fish - it wasn't DGIF saying they want bigger fish - not at all. At the core of the change was the stability of the striper fishery and Dan thought we were headed down a bad, potentially catetrosphic road again. Those are the facts. BentRod, not trying to disagree or argue, but this post (in my very limited mind), doesn't seem to be factually correct....... 1. raise the slot..... why?, to protect the bigger fish 2. get rid of an unknown and incalcuable number of smaller fish (stunted or not) ..... why?, so the bigger fish can get bigger....... I'm all about doing what's best for the fishery, so take a couple deep breaths before you reply, and be kind.  It would be so cool if we could get Dan Wilson to come aboard for a Q @ A session....... but since he's not here BentRod and you are the head cheese of the site, you (or your lawyer, mward) are the lucky ones who gets to try and answer all the questions..... |
|
|
|
Post by mwardncsu on Jan 16, 2015 22:14:08 GMT -5
BentRod, not trying to disagree or argue, but this post (in my very limited mind), doesn't seem to be factually correct....... 1. raise the slot..... why?, to protect the bigger fish 2. get rid of an unknown and incalcuable number of smaller fish (stunted or not) ..... why?, so the bigger fish can get bigger....... I'm all about doing what's best for the fishery, so take a couple deep breaths before you reply, and be kind. It would be so cool if we could get Dan Wilson to come aboard for a Q @ A session....... but since he's not here BentRod and you are the head cheese of the site, you (or your lawyer, mward) are the lucky ones who gets to try and answer all the questions..... Heck - if I'm his lawyer then most likely we are both going to jail Bigun - when the discussion of changes to regs started about 2 years ago (give or take), it was as a result of the data Dan was looking at that showed a) our fish's growth rate slamming into a wall as they got into the mid/upper 20" range - lots of discuss/theory on why - and to be honest, it's still not certain why - likely will never be - no certain answers in this game. However, Dan was concerned about the growth rate and it never getting to where stripers should be for a healthy fishery. So he was going to make some type of change - options on the table were reducing stocking, increasing the creel limit or changing the slot. No one I talked to wanted to see stocking reduced (less fish into the system period, increase the creel limit (increase the # that come out of the lake every day, year-round - not to mention sending a message that we have too many fish) - and to be honest, no one was wild about moving the slot up either - but it was the lesser of all the evils if you will. So, was this change driven by the desire for more big fish at the sake of less overall or smaller fish - might could see it that way - or you could see it as active management in reaction to conditions indicating something out of balance with the fishery (unnatural reduced growth rate) - and concern to ensure we don't slam into a wall again with an imbalance in the fishery in terms of # of fish vs. forage base and other. So, this part of the action was not about managing for big fish over #s of fish - but rather managing the health of the fishery. On the top-end change - One option on the slot was to change it from 26-36 to 30-36 - leave the top end alone. Almost everyone that was involved in the discussions that I am aware of was in favor of moving the top end up as well to provide more protection to the big fish. Not to put words in Dan's mouth, but I think the feeling was this was honestly not a big-deal change since it only is in play when the slot is in, and there just are not that many fish in the 36-40 range anyway - in the big scheme of things. So can someone now not keep their biggest ever fish - maybe - guess this was also the case when we had a slot at 36 - for many folks a 35 7/8" would be their biggest fish... take a picture and know that you are giving someone else the opportunity to also catch that fish - you want something for the wall, get a replica mount. I have no issues with that position - others may differ - we can agree to disagree. So yes, this portion was done to protect our larger fish by those involved in the discussions - but it was not done in perspective of reducing #s of smaller fish - this was done and viewed as an adjunct protection that could be taken while changes were being made. As to a Q&A - we do get Dan to come to a Striper Club meeting about once a year to give an update on the fishery - always things that are learned and a good discussion there. I'll try and remember to let folks know when that is setup - potentially at the March meeting. I realize that not everyone here can make such a meeting - so we'll find a way to get any notes/comments out - and next time I talk with him I'll see if he'd be open to a "Ask Dan" section here where folks could ask questions / provide feedback / etc if he would/could participate on an on-going basis... may be reasons why he can't - don't know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 4:10:46 GMT -5
BentRod, not trying to disagree or argue, but this post (in my very limited mind), doesn't seem to be factually correct....... 1. raise the slot..... why?, to protect the bigger fish 2. get rid of an unknown and incalcuable number of smaller fish (stunted or not) ..... why?, so the bigger fish can get bigger....... I'm all about doing what's best for the fishery, so take a couple deep breaths before you reply, and be kind. It would be so cool if we could get Dan Wilson to come aboard for a Q @ A session....... but since he's not here BentRod and you are the head cheese of the site, you (or your lawyer, mward) are the lucky ones who gets to try and answer all the questions..... Heck - if I'm his lawyer then most likely we are both going to jail Bigun - when the discussion of changes to regs started about 2 years ago (give or take), it was as a result of the data Dan was looking at that showed a) our fish's growth rate slamming into a wall as they got into the mid/upper 20" range - lots of discuss/theory on why - and to be honest, it's still not certain why - likely will never be - no certain answers in this game. However, Dan was concerned about the growth rate and it never getting to where stripers should be for a healthy fishery. So he was going to make some type of change - options on the table were reducing stocking, increasing the creel limit or changing the slot. No one I talked to wanted to see stocking reduced (less fish into the system period, increase the creel limit (increase the # that come out of the lake every day, year-round - not to mention sending a message that we have too many fish) - and to be honest, no one was wild about moving the slot up either - but it was the lesser of all the evils if you will. So, was this change driven by the desire for more big fish at the sake of less overall or smaller fish - might could see it that way - or you could see it as active management in reaction to conditions indicating something out of balance with the fishery (unnatural reduced growth rate) - and concern to ensure we don't slam into a wall again with an imbalance in the fishery in terms of # of fish vs. forage base and other. So, this part of the action was not about managing for big fish over #s of fish - but rather managing the health of the fishery. On the top-end change - One option on the slot was to change it from 26-36 to 30-36 - leave the top end alone. Almost everyone that was involved in the discussions that I am aware of was in favor of moving the top end up as well to provide more protection to the big fish. Not to put words in Dan's mouth, but I think the feeling was this was honestly not a big-deal change since it only is in play when the slot is in, and there just are not that many fish in the 36-40 range anyway - in the big scheme of things. So can someone now not keep their biggest ever fish - maybe - guess this was also the case when we had a slot at 36 - for many folks a 35 7/8" would be their biggest fish... take a picture and know that you are giving someone else the opportunity to also catch that fish - you want something for the wall, get a replica mount. I have no issues with that position - others may differ - we can agree to disagree. So yes, this portion was done to protect our larger fish by those involved in the discussions - but it was not done in perspective of reducing #s of smaller fish - this was done and viewed as an adjunct protection that could be taken while changes were being made. As to a Q&A - we do get Dan to come to a Striper Club meeting about once a year to give an update on the fishery - always things that are learned and a good discussion there. I'll try and remember to let folks know when that is setup - potentially at the March meeting. I realize that not everyone here can make such a meeting - so we'll find a way to get any notes/comments out - and next time I talk with him I'll see if he'd be open to a "Ask Dan" section here where folks could ask questions / provide feedback / etc if he would/could participate on an on-going basis... may be reasons why he can't - don't know. Mward, First, thanks for sending me a picture of bait. As a result, I got no sleep last night and now I'm sitting out here freezing and wondering about things no one wants to hear. But I will be awake this evening. Second, on fish growth. I take it that Dan has data that supports that a certain growth rate equals healthy. I also suppose that growth rates in the past matched this data. So my question is simple. Was it discussed that this slower growth rate might just be as a result of the one major difference between now and then... That is the parasite? Because if this is the factor, then in effect this new regulation might just lead to less fish that still grow slower than they used too. Third, let's clearly define the term yamtation. A yamtation is a fish that is bigger than a yardstick and has been declared as a citation without conclusive evidence to support such a claim. If others believe this fish to be just shy of 37, then this is a yamtation. Finally, your dedication and passion to this fishery is a thing of miraculous beauty. You have made yourself a legacy and you should be proud! As a token of my appreciation, I will not allow you to spend one cent on your food and drink this evening. If others want to join, cool... Otherwise this evening is on me! I'm off to fix something that doesn't need fixing. |
|
BentRod
Global Moderator
Posts: 2,252
|
Post by BentRod on Jan 17, 2015 6:16:41 GMT -5
I wish you guys would get involved or talk to Dan to better understand it - clearly you're passionate too and that's awesome. Dan's data shows normal growth in our fish from 2004 to 2009 - the fish grew at normal rates with the parasite. Leesville fish with the parasite are growing normal. Tennessee fish with the parasite are growing normal. SML fish are all roadblocking at 28-30". Every growth indicator/piece of data Dan had all suggested the same thing - that we were headed backwards. Dan told us for years that what we had was what we had - (he still doesn't think SML will grow a state record fish even if we fixed the growth). In 2013, he picked up on the growth trending backwards and reached out to several organizations looking for help because what he saw in our fish didn't match what was happening on Leesville or in Tn. He actually saw the same negative growth trend from 1998-2002 before the 2003 fish kill and nobody would listen to him then until the fishery crashed. He was going to take and took action this time regardless of what any of us wanted - he was just nice enough to involve others in the process - in fact every single one of us had an opportunity to be involved in the regulation change. If you didn't get involved then, quite honestly you shouldn't be complaining now.
Bigun, you prove Dan right by saying you catch a bunch of 28-29" fish. I'm with you on losing a bunch of good fish and I don't know what the answer is (if it makes you happy I didn't get the change I even wanted), but I have sat through hours and hours of meetings on this and I do know what the intentions of the DGIF were.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwardncsu on Jan 17, 2015 6:21:53 GMT -5
Yam - I'll quote a buddy from a conversation last night about this....
"it's selffish - but I just want the fishery to be as good or better for my son when he's old enough to enjoy it"
I think that sums it up for many of us.......
|
|
|
|
Post by seajay on Jan 17, 2015 6:56:49 GMT -5
Yam - I'll quote a buddy from a conversation last night about this.... "it's selffish - but I just want the fishery to be as good or better for my son when he's old enough to enjoy it" I think that sums it up for many of us....... Amen! That is the way I feel as well . Anything that can help protect this incredible fishery at SML for us and generations to come I am all for trying. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 22:44:29 GMT -5
I wish you guys would get involved or talk to Dan to better understand it - clearly you're passionate too and that's awesome. Dan's data shows normal growth in our fish from 2004 to 2009 - the fish grew at normal rates with the parasite. Leesville fish with the parasite are growing normal. Tennessee fish with the parasite are growing normal. SML fish are all roadblocking at 28-30". Every growth indicator/piece of data Dan had all suggested the same thing - that we were headed backwards. Dan told us for years that what we had was what we had - (he still doesn't think SML will grow a state record fish even if we fixed the growth). In 2013, he picked up on the growth trending backwards and reached out to several organizations looking for help because what he saw in our fish didn't match what was happening on Leesville or in Tn. He actually saw the same negative growth trend from 1998-2002 before the 2003 fish kill and nobody would listen to him then until the fishery crashed. He was going to take and took action this time regardless of what any of us wanted - he was just nice enough to involve others in the process - in fact every single one of us had an opportunity to be involved in the regulation change. If you didn't get involved then, quite honestly you shouldn't be complaining now. Bigun, you prove Dan right by saying you catch a bunch of 28-29" fish. I'm with you on losing a bunch of good fish and I don't know what the answer is (if it makes you happy I didn't get the change I even wanted), but I have sat through hours and hours of meetings on this and I do know what the intentions of the DGIF were. Why talk to Dan when we can keep asking you the same questions over and over? Thank you for clarifying.  |
|
