Live Well Ban????

[Some Old Guy 968]

Hi Munshaw,

I think you may have took Tracker's comment a little astray.

I think he meant, With the increasing fees we have to pay...... Meaning the price keeps going up for licences, boat regs gas......etc.

Roger

[mad scientist 140]

One thing that many folks do not realize is that bass and walleye behave very differently in livewells, particularly when the boat is moving or in heavy waves. Bass seem to be good at orienting themselves in the direction of the disturbance, which allows them to ride it out better, whereas walleye are generally disoriented in a livewell, and tend to get beat up when the boat is bouncing around. This has implications for stress and post-release mortality.

Fascinating study: http://fishlab.nres..../FME%202005.pdf

[Some Old Guy 968]

That's why fish bags should be used.

Roger

[James01 223]

Ok....

So, I guess what you're saying is that there are no real solutions for live wells, other than some sort of refrigeration system for both air and water (I add water because I think drawing warm surface water is still an issue - apparently, one among many). How feasible is that? Maybe we stumbled upon the next million dollar idea for Lund or Crestliner, or some other boat company (I call dibs on the idea) - heck, tournament boats already cost as much as a small house, why not a few extra thousand for a cooling system? I am being a tad facetious - but not about calling dibs on the idea.

Refirgeration is not an answer because of thermal shock to fish whether you put them into the live well or release them.

Keeping fish alive for days in a live well, hmmmmmm. Putting the ethical and legal implications of doing this aside, can I find out what brand of marine battery you are using? You don't believe in timers, and your boat is not going to be running all night long (to force water in, nor to charge the battery) so I assume that your live well is running all night long while your boat is docked or beached; and as a word of warning, I wrecked a few pumps running a live well while the boat was beached - sand is not a friend of pumps (I started taking the bait out of the live well, and putting it in the lake off the back of the boat, and my fish were usually on ice in a cooler, so I stopped 'running the well' while I was beached).

For days I mean that the water temp in these shallow lakes vary little to nothing from top to bottom. I don't keep them in my well for days. I was just saying. So for the ethical and and legal implications we can now throw that out the window. As for keeping the bait alive. Battery is on a charger at the dock timer in use on the live well. (My pump will run all day during a tournament 8-4 and sometimes later)

I'm not against culling so long as my fish are alive and kicking. A stressed fish will be kept. In a tournamnet situation the fish would be brought in right away and best efforts will given to try to keep it alive. A dead fish or a stressed fish is the property of the angler and is responsible for it. In other situations many tournaments are run by 1st nations and these fish are not wasted. Even on the very very very off chance that there were hundreds of dead fish.

As for your last comment/question.

Walleye and bass tournaments are a two person team event. The weigh in limit for these are reduced. Meaning only 5 bass (instead of 8) and 6 walleye two over 18 inches and 4 under 18 inches (instead of 8) can be weighed in. These smaller numbers are so the fish are not over crowded in live wells.

There are provisions in the regs so that I can cull. So I do. There are provisions that you can kill 4 walleye per day. If you eat them all in the same day you may go get 4 more and eat them.

I choose not to kill any of them unless they are hooked deep and will die. I eat maybe 10 walleye on any given year and this is mostly ice fishing. (sometimes I am given walleye to eat!!!!!!!)

Roger

Damn, there goes my million dollar idea... and I was going to buy one of those tournament boats that cost as much as a small house .

So, temperature is an issue with live wells... resulting, if I understand your point, in stressed and dead fish. Thus people advocating a province wide kill policy have a dock to stand on. I take these fish-kill-policy-people as wanting the regs to change so people are not culling (at least legally). And this is a separate issue from tournaments (but, obviously, a connected one).

And thanks Roger, I did not know that tournaments adhered to the one over eighteen rule. Makes sense...

[Pro fisherman-Stud Muffin 420]

the kill policy on english river systems helps sustain an industry, it is to keep those areas producing and tourism lively. it was a business decision first and a conservation decision secondly

Livewells do work, but they aren't perfect, the user needs to understand its limits. ive kept fish in livewell for over 6 hours and yes they could have lasted days in there, they couldnt hold them still to be measured at weigh in!!! . i also seldom cull while sport fishing.

tournaments are just silly amounts of fun, frustration, joy and pain, a province wide ban would kill this and the millions in revenues .

[James01 223]

the kill policy on english river systems helps sustain an industry, it is to keep those areas producing and tourism lively. it was a business decision first and a conservation decision secondly

Livewells do work, but they aren't perfect, the user needs to understand its limits. ive kept fish in livewell for over 6 hours and yes they could have lasted days in there, they couldnt hold them still to be measured at weigh in!!! . i also seldom cull while sport fishing.

tournaments are just silly amounts of fun, frustration, joy and pain, a province wide ban would kill this and the millions in revenues .

I am not doubting the fun that is tournament fishing... and I think that understanding the limits of a live well is important.

And the business or economics of it all, well... thats not really an argument one should be hanging their hat on. Its too easy to dismiss by people concerned with conservation. If you are willing to make a commodity out of everything, why rule out anything? Just imagine how far we could run with this line of reasoning: "Come to Ontario, the place with no limits, where you can fish with dynamite!" I am using hyperbole to make a point... I bet the above 'experience' would draw a lot of people and a lot of dollars. After all, the outdoors is just a commodity to take advantage of.

At some point conservation has to be the issue.

[Guest Eye Guy]

I think everyone agrees that conservation is important. I think educating people (and many anglers are now) on the proper handling of fish and the importance of it is imperative. There are no perfect solutions. It's just like birth control....the only perfect means is abstenance. None of us are willing to go to that length (I'm back to talking fishing now), and we all know the consequences of irresponsible behaviour when it comes to fishing. When the limit was still 6, Lake of the Woods was on the brink of being fished out. We learned from that, people became more responsible, and I think if we all use common sense, we can keep the populations of all species healthy. LOTW is an unbelievably thriving fishery again.

I have no doubt that some fish die after being released, and I think most people on here agree with that, but as someone said in an earlier post, nature has a way of cleaning itself up (which some of us could learn from). Will we ever be perfect when it comes to conservation? No, probably not, but if we all adopt a mindset of awareness with respect to it, we can go a long way to maintaining it.

Common sense goes a long way. Peer pressure does too. People like most of us on this forum can go a long way in educating others. If you use a live well - use common sense. If you're fishing for fun - use common sense. If you're tournament fishing - use common sense. We'll never save them all, but we can limit the "damage" we do. And if that damage stays limited, as stated before, nature will gladly take care of the rest, and populations will remain healthy.

[Some Old Guy 968]

Amen Eye Guy!!!!

Roger

[WalleyeWayne 137]

In addition to LOTW conservation, Rainy Lake had the 4-fish walleye limit long before the rest of Ontario reduced to 4 from 6. They also instituted a 13-3/4" - 17-3/4" keep slot size where your 1 over 17-3/4" had to exceed 27.5" to allow for a "trophy" keeper. When we built our cottage on Rainy Lake 15 yrs ago the fishing was slow. Today, the whole lake can be considered a "hot spot". Yes the American side of Rainy Lake continues to suffer from a lack of conservation undoubtedly conservation works. You are being naive to think that business and commerce will not impact any decision. My son plays NCAA College baseball in the States where NCAA decided to eliminate aluminum bats in favor of wood (to supposedly prevent a pitcher from getting kiiled from a ball hit with aluminum). When Easton, TPX, Louisville, etc. (the big aluminum bat manufacturers) found out about the proposed decision, they threatened to pull their entire College sponsorship. The wood bat decision was quickly abandoned in favor of BB-Core bats (a composite style bat to emulate wood). Need less to say, Lund, Crestliner, etc that would lose $$$ by a livewell ban will certainly impact any decision!

[James01 223]

I think everyone agrees that conservation is important. I think educating people (and many anglers are now) on the proper handling of fish and the importance of it is imperative. There are no perfect solutions. It's just like birth control....the only perfect means is abstenance. None of us are willing to go to that length (I'm back to talking fishing now), and we all know the consequences of irresponsible behaviour when it comes to fishing. When the limit was still 6, Lake of the Woods was on the brink of being fished out. We learned from that, people became more responsible, and I think if we all use common sense, we can keep the populations of all species healthy. LOTW is an unbelievably thriving fishery again.

I have no doubt that some fish die after being released, and I think most people on here agree with that, but as someone said in an earlier post, nature has a way of cleaning itself up (which some of us could learn from). Will we ever be perfect when it comes to conservation? No, probably not, but if we all adopt a mindset of awareness with respect to it, we can go a long way to maintaining it.

Common sense goes a long way. Peer pressure does too. People like most of us on this forum can go a long way in educating others. If you use a live well - use common sense. If you're fishing for fun - use common sense. If you're tournament fishing - use common sense. We'll never save them all, but we can limit the "damage" we do. And if that damage stays limited, as stated before, nature will gladly take care of the rest, and populations will remain healthy.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but "limiting damage"? Isn't the point being contested by the fish-kill-policy-people that the use of live wells and culling isn't in fact limiting damage, that, in fact, it is creating more 'damage' than other (and arguably more ethical) fishing practices do?

And nature cleaning itself up isn't an argument for or against anything, it is an account of the way the ecosystem works. Yes, dead fish are consumed by other members of the ecosystem... so what? Does this mean that over harvesting a resource is fine because at some point along the way its going to benefit something or somebody? Japan probably thinks much the same thing about harvesting endangered species.

And we're not talking about abstinence from fishing, we're talking abstinence from a potentially damaging practice. And if people are going to act as advocates for these sorts of practices they better find a better justification than "its a limited amount of damage" or the "fish are going to die anyway... perhaps by an eagle or maybe a large pike." And you're right, it is about common sense, and if common sense seems to suggest that things like live wells and culling fish is an irresponsible practice, then it should be stopped - consequences to fishing tournaments be damned. I am just wanting to see proof that it isn't an irresponsible practice, thats all. Sadly, many people are fine with things like conservation so long as it doesn't limit their own personal 'freedoms' (and I am not pointing fingers).

I am purposefully pushing people here for a few reasons, firstly I enjoy the debate (and I hope you do too)... secondly, I want to see an argument be made that has enough merit as to counter the obvious criticisms - by people like the nut cases from PETA. And don't kid yourselves, they are not all dumb - some are probably quite intelligent, and well schooled in justifying and arguing the PETA cause. And irresponsible practices (IF indeed the practices being discussed are irresponsible) go a long way to putting fishing in general at risk, and that is something I am concerned about.

[James01 223]

In addition to LOTW conservation, Rainy Lake had the 4-fish walleye limit long before the rest of Ontario reduced to 4 from 6. They also instituted a 13-3/4" - 17-3/4" keep slot size where your 1 over 17-3/4" had to exceed 27.5" to allow for a "trophy" keeper. When we built our cottage on Rainy Lake 15 yrs ago the fishing was slow. Today, the whole lake can be considered a "hot spot". Yes the American side of Rainy Lake continues to suffer from a lack of conservation undoubtedly conservation works. You are being naive to think that business and commerce will not impact any decision. My son plays NCAA College baseball in the States where NCAA decided to eliminate aluminum bats in favor of wood (to supposedly prevent a pitcher from getting kiiled from a ball hit with aluminum). When Easton, TPX, Louisville, etc. (the big aluminum bat manufacturers) found out about the proposed decision, they threatened to pull their entire College sponsorship. The wood bat decision was quickly abandoned in favor of BB-Core bats (a composite style bat to emulate wood). Need less to say, Lund, Crestliner, etc that would lose $$$ by a livewell ban will certainly impact any decision!

I am assuming this is directed at me... I know the reality is economical, but the solution is political. And believe it or not, people make the politics... WE have the power to influence and force change (opponents to activities like fishing certainly know this - as do all interest groups, so support yours). Regardless of what Lund, Crestliner, Rapala, or whomever or whatever thinks, the bottom line needs to be about conserving OUR resources and protecting an attribute of our lives that we all cherish. As I wrote above, if the topic(s) being discussed are indeed irresponsible, and they put my chance to fish at risk, then I am in favor of making them go the way of the dinosaur. You cite the change in Rainy Lake, great. And it isn't naive to look past 'big money,' its naive to believe that we cannot do anything about it. Those companies don't speak for me as an angler.

[Some Old Guy 968]

ok. Here's a thought for a lake with a fish kill policy.

What ever the unkeepable slot size is (which is for sucessful reproduction) 17-14 inches or what ever its. I crank a fish in that slot out of 35 feet of water. I can't keep it so I let it go to live another day (or should I say live till the gulls rip it's eyes out)

I take care of my fish in my well. I am mindful of not fishing deep. I monitor the fish in my well. I will weigh the fish down in the well to prevent stress. If it is rough out I will not rip around so the fish take a beating. I take care of the fish to the best of my ability. I use methods to avoid deep hooking fish.

I do not want to kill every fish I catch I don't eat every fish I catch I don't retain every fish I catch I practice catch and release. I make sure everything is working in my boat as to avoid stressed fish.

If you don't think fish (walleye and bass) cannot live in an enclosed environment for a short period of time then let's get rid of hatcheries and those aquariums in big sporting goods stores!

Roger

P.S. I have a fully function live well in my boat and I will use it. You want to kill your fish right away? Go for it!

Also studies have shown, while using the best technology and best care ever with teams and teams of educated specialists, people still and always will come out of the hospital dead.

[McGinnis_Fishing 49]

Some guys have pumps with a long hose that they drop down when they're fishing to get water from deep down. The water is cooler and has more oxygen. Tournament guys use it when fishing deep water.

[Some Old Guy 968]

I have heard of that before.

Roger

[James01 223]

Roger,

If you caught the same fish in deep water, with the functioning live well in your boat, what changes? If it is inside the slot size, you cannot revive it in your live well - even if it were possible. I, for one, am not debating whether you are an ethical angler or not, I assume most of us posting on this board care about the resource - I am interested in the debate about live wells and culling. And even though I have digressed into a tournament debate, my real and only concern is with live wells and culling and the responsibility of it all (genuine responsibility, not perceived). I don't really care if tournaments go the way of the dodo, or not. And most people using live wells are likely doing so because they believe they are doing the best for the fish... I am not even debating this, my concern is with it being a flawed practice, or not.

As for the aquarium example, Mike in the first response in the link, admitted that he worked as a biologist maintaining these big tanks at a Cabela's, and that it was hard to keep fish alive. So, maybe we should push to have those big aquariums removed. Does it qualify as managing a resource? I am not sure... but my concern is with our resource here in Northern Ontario.

[James01 223]

I'd like to know where you get the idea that you can keep more over sized walleye in your live well then is legally allowed.

Bruce

Bruce, I believe you are referring to the part where I ASK "I have a question for..." I did not know what or how the rules worked in a tournament. Hence the inquiry.

[James01 223]

Using a hose to draw water from further down the water column seems like a good idea - more oxygen and its cooler. I wonder if the practice would help even if it were from 10 feet down, or 15, or 8. I don't know how much the water changes, although when swimming in a lake one can usually feel a difference in temperature not far below the surface.

[Pro fisherman-Stud Muffin 420]

[Some Old Guy 968]

My point about the slot fish was it's a wasted fish. I already stated that I don't fish that deep because I know what happens to them. I have seen people rip through many small fish in deep water looking for those perfect ones to keep and litter the surface with future generations of fish to get those perfect eaters.

Once again. You don't like to cull. I do, (for tournament purposes) Rec fishing what goes into my live well stays there.

I don't know what else to say on this. Other than you have your reasons, I have mine.

I have been fishing a long time and have learned many lessons along the way. Good and bad. The bad have always made me rethink what I do. It's how we learn.

I catch a trophy fish and I place it into my live well to get to my dock to take a picture of it. I'm by myself and my wife or kid takes my picture and I release it, this all took less than 10 minutes. If all of Ontario has a fish kill policy what I just did was illegal. I would really hate for that to happen.

Roger

[AB 98]

The arguement behind the question of banning livewells appears to be the culling of fish. That is an ethics question, that should be addressed with education and enlightenment, not restrictions.

If the lodge owner preffers that his guests do not use livewells to retain their catch, it's his perogative while they are using his services. He would be wise to give his guests a little lesson on fish stressors and angling mortality before they go fishing. The lodge owner might even get smart and offer enough free ice dockside for anglers to fill their livewells with to keep their catch nice and fresh all day long.

I don't happen to agree with this lodge owners proposal that livewells be banned outright. I don't like other people forcing their ethics on me for any reasons. Especially when their perception of my personal ethics and how I use my livewell is unkown to them.

Livewells, when used properly are useful tools to keep fish alive. Used improperly they are death traps. Banning livewells is not going to save fish lives.

One thing always leads to another. Start with livewells and one day we'll have to throw everything we catch on ice and bring home for dinner. I wonder if the guys in southern Ontario like fried goby? Any one got a recipe for hammer handle pike soup? How about planked sucker?

If you are an angler, no matter how hard you try, the simple act of angling increases the risk of mortaility for any fish you come in contact with. As anglers ethics evolve and become better educated, angling mortality can be reduced.

chill guys,

iceman

[mad scientist 140]

. The lodge owner might even get smart and offer enough free ice dockside for anglers to fill their livewells with to keep their catch nice and fresh all day long.

Fish (including walleye) are also susceptible to "cold shock". Throwing a fish into ice water can be just as stressful as using warm surface water.

[AB 98]

Fish (including walleye) are also susceptible to "cold shock". Throwing a fish into ice water can be just as stressful as using warm surface water.

I was implying that the fish would be placed on ice, without any water added, to keep them nice and fresh for the frying pan!

A bop on the nogin, or a flick of the fillet knife and it's off to cold storage.

mmmm fresh fillets!

iceman

[Some Old Guy 968]

Iceman......... You said it...... Fresh fillets.

Now I'se be ready to go!

Roger

[James01 223]

Thanks for the discussion folks, I quite enjoyed it.

I will be heading off to enjoy fresh fillets for the next few weeks... North of Graham, here I come.

Happy fishing, J.