Comment Thread - Shuffling

[gonefishin]

"But populations of gammarus have declined as the area has developed "

I've heard that alot... but the fact remains MDC stocked 1.5-1.7 mil rainbows in the early-mid 80's, admittedly overpopulating the lake and that's why I believe the shrimp declined. In my opinion, they are still stocking too many rainbows for the shrimp population to re-populate. If there were less trout, there would be more food and faster growing rainbows. I think it's that simple.

The question is, then, what do you want- a fishery with less and bigger rainbows or more and smaller? With the tourism base we have, #2 will win out every time.

But you know, we still have a great trout fishery, by anyone's standards.

Just wndering if they, the MDC, are stocking to many trout for the system to handle why did they lower the limit?

[Randall]

as one of the tourist, i say stock fewer. when i came down last fall and got into some big fish, it was a ball. besides, maybe if there were fewer fish in the lake, i wouldn't trip over and step on em when i back up.

[KS - Rhino]

To be honest, I've been fishing for many years and wasen't sure what shuffling was or that it was illegal until I read about it in a forum or possibly in some of the regulations info at Bennett. Trout parks, Northfork by the dam boatramp access and Tanney are about the only places I've run into fish congregating by your feet. Sometimes their so thick you almost trip over them.

A sign by the hatchery would at least educate and you could point it out in case there were any blatant shufflers, you'd like to educate.

[Kansas Fly Fisher]

Some very good comments and suggestions have been made. I would like to put my .02 in. I agree that there are a lot of rules on the books. But that's the case in all avenues of law enforcement and life. Are some un-enforceable? Maybe so, but the fact that their there makes you think a litle harder when contemplating breaking them. Like the highway patrolman and your speed! I think a shuffling law would give some reason to think. Especially if an agent is around. Is he hiding in the bushes and watching? Is the trooper just around the bend in the road? Hummmm. Some just don't care and will do it anyway. That's life. But more, I believe, will give some thought about it before doing it.

I also agree with maybe stocking fewer fish and opting for the better/bigger fishery than overpopulating. The concept of catch all the fish you can regardless of size; is that not what the "trout parks are for?" I'd rather have bigger and better fish in Taney. If I want to catch fish, I'll go to one of the parks. If I want to catch "quality" fish, I'll go to Taney.

Maybe I'm all wrong in my thinking, but that's the way I see it.

John

[Danoinark]

Excellent thoughts John, and something else comes to mind. If you are shufflin, there is a chance you may be doing something else illegal (keeping slot limit trout, fishing without the proper permits, yada, yada, yada.).if shufflin is on the books then it would give the agent something to at least check for other violations, its called probable cause .... Dano

[Randall]

well, an agent can check anybody fishing, hunting, or trapping at any time they please, without probable cause- similar to the way a cop can give a sobriety test (not exactly implied consent, but similar). like driving, hunting and fishing are privelages, not rights. you have to be licensed to hunt, fish, and trap. at any time, an agent may stop and check licenses, fishing rig/ firearm, and any game in possesion of the person.

truth be told, nothing would please me more than to be checked at least once each time i'm on the water. if local agents actively checked fishermen on the water, and hunters leaving the woods, i believe it would decrease the amount of poaching and use of illegal methods. the only problem is that there aren't enough agents to actively check every person. now, if shuffling were made illegal, like dano said, there would be something that agents could easily look for. this would allow them to cover more ground, and watch more fishermen.

now its a hair off subject, but what about having sportsmen police themselves in a way? have volunteer fishermen go through a class or some type of training and be given the authority (and a badge) to check licenses, fish, and rigs while they're on the water. tell me what you think.

[Danoinark]

now its a hair off subject, but what about having sportsmen police themselves in a way? have volunteer fishermen go through a class or some type of training and be given the authority (and a badge) to check licenses, fish, and rigs while they're on the water. tell me what you think.

Randall that scares me just a bit...If those people would not be over zealous it might work. But I would worry just as much about the "citizen" agent as I would the violator. Can any law enforcement officer make arrests for game and fish violations in Missouri. In Arkansas G and F and local law enforcement have reciprocal power. Maybe off duty deptuies, off duty police, area constables, etc could be used in the enforcement program in Mo....

dano

[Randall]

well, anybody couldn't just do it. there would have to be some kind of screening process and training. besides, whats the difference between a civilian and a law enforcement professional? for the most part its training and a job.

its an idea... maybe not my best work ever, but it was worth getting an opinion. if nothing else, conservation minded cops or retired law enforcement could do it. after i get done with college and academy, i'd be glad to volunteer to enforce game laws on my days on the water or in the field- if mdc would allow it.

if a cop sees a person blatently using illegal harvesting methods, such as spotlighting, they can make an arrest. as far as checking licenses and game, i don't know.

[Phil Lilley]

There's already a program in place and active- volunteers that talk to people about MDC code and rules on the water. I'll have to dig for the details.

But I haven't much from the program or people actually doing the duty. Not down here anyway.

[Packman]

I wonder what would happen if we knew this guy that could make a sign to put up at the lake discussing the damage that this act creates, and maybe some ethical issues involved aswell. It could just appear there and we could see how long it would last.