I'm Really, Really Sick Of This...

[fishgypsy]

if the fly flingers don’t wake up, they may someday wake up and wonder why they can’t go out and rip hooks through the lips of those poor fish. The fish are living creatures that have feelings too you know. You evil fisherman.

Let’s stick together as sportsman instead and stop bashing the “legal” use of the resources.

I thought all along it was about people who are legally using the resources (people who aren't violating game laws), versus people who are (people gigging sportfish). When did the issue become one of fly flingers versus giggers? Is there anything inherently wrong with wanting the folks who are out there gigging to obey game laws, just the same as I want anyone out there spin or bait or flyfishing to obey game laws?

[joeD]

RIGHT ON!! Stop bashing our ozark brothers! If we're not careful, the government might even restrict their right to use their front yards as a personal landfill. It's a time-honored "tradition," so you city boys stop yer meddlin'.

[ozark trout fisher]

You could ban jet boats after dark.

That's an excellent idea.

[ness]

It's interesting to see how this conversation has devolved into personal attacks, political tirades, tackle bashing, etc. All counterproductive, in my opinion.

Al makes two main points: giggers kill gamefish and it's impossible to police. Seems to me that cutting out all the other nonsense and focusing on these two things just might lead us to some ideas to improve the situation.

One of my favorite sayings is 'If you want to cook an elephant, first you cut it into little pieces'.

In my experience, it's not a widely-known or well-publicized problem. So, that's a decent place to start, no? We've got several assets at our disposal: this forum; MSA; Conservationist; our St. Louis Post friend.

I have no doubt that it's difficult to police, but I'd need more convincing to believe it's impossible. It seems to me CAs have access to jet boats and lights, and might just be able to check creels on the water, or at least at some of the take outs. As was mentioned above, a bust or two, especially if widely publicized, could serve as a wake-up call to those who feel they're unlikely to get caught, and a deterrent to all. I wonder what the CAs would say about that?

There's a precedent for restricting gigging on Blue Ribbon trout waters. How did we get there?

Just some thoughts that, hopefully, may help steer this in a more constructive direction.

[ozark trout fisher]

Let’s see if I got this straight. Below is a list of laws or changes that have been mentioned in this thread.

Outlaw Noodling

Outlaw Spot lighting

Outlaw running deer w/ dogs

Outlaw Deer hunting

Outlaw Gigging in the SMA

Outlaw Gigging

Outlaw motorized watercraft

Ban Jet boats

Ban jet boats after dark

ban jet boats on certain rivers during the winter months

Limit the lighting Lumens

Catch and release only

Bait restrictions

I have a few others to add

Catch and release only

Single hook only

Barbless hooks

Ban fires

Ban wood cutting

Ban ATV use

Ban Canoes on the rivers

Ban the use of the resources

No Hunting

No fishing

No gun ownership

No eating meat

No getting fat (that guy in the boat is in trouble)

No smoking

No drinking (by making all the other rules this one is going to hurt the most what else will we have)

No having fun

No having money

No freedom.

No freedom.

No freedom.

Don’t you love incrementalizm. This is how it happens, one rule at a time. Divide and conquer, get the Indians fighting among themselves, and the anti’s will take over. Guys, we are all sportsmen. Some groups annoy the others. But, we have had enough erosion of our freedoms already. Let’s not keep losing our freedoms one issue at a time. The law breakers don’t care. The laws aren’t enforced anyway.

Law enforcement would have a chance if it was funded, but the lawmakers choose not to enforce the laws in place, just make new ones that the law abiding will follow (easier and cheaper). They don’t have the courage to enforce the laws, and wonder way the laws don’t work. Then what? Make more restrictive laws because the first laws weren’t restrictive enough, therefore, didn’t work. It’s a cycle the keeps the lawyers wealthy.

Quotes from Forsythian:

”Al, you and I have tangled on this topic before. Come talk to me when you get the goofy 5-smallmouth daily limit changed. Until then, you're going to have a hard time convincing people it's a true management issue rather than an anectodal "my sport is better than yours" issue.”

“I don't doubt for a minute that it happens... no more than I doubt other kinds of poaching takes place. But, if you're gonna ban a sport because of the poaching element, we all might as well take up knitting.”

“I suppose you're right. Nowadays, it's backwards to favor personal responsibility and enforcement of existing laws. It's somehow more "progressive" to pass more and more laws. Punish the class instead of the student. “

“I'll take backwards any day.”

“Oh, and keep an eye to your left, because there's plenty of busy bodies who don't care much for your "sport" either.”

I agree with you 100% Forsythian. I hope it never happens, but if the fly flingers don’t wake up, they may someday wake up and wonder why they can’t go out and rip hooks through the lips of those poor fish. The fish are living creatures that have feelings too you know. You evil fisherman.

Let’s stick together as sportsman instead and stop bashing the “legal” use of the resources.

We can't let fear of the PETA folks influence our decisions. Gigging is unsporting, and detrimental to several species of native fish in our Ozark streams. Just because some folks would like to ban fishing altogether, we do not have to stop trying to conserve our resources. I will not "band together" with anglers who are not conservation minded. I think less of them than I do the folks that hate fishing altogether.

[Flysmallie]

It's interesting to see how this conversation has devolved into personal attacks, political tirades, tackle bashing, etc. All counterproductive, in my opinion.

Isn't that how they all end up any more?

[Mitch f]

I've been running into this gigging problem ever since I purchased my jet boat a few years ago. I went to the MDC and was given a stock answer saying that they have no evidence that gigging is reducing the number of smallmouth in the Ozark river chain. This subject seemed so taboo to them that they didn't want to touch it. They assured me that the gigging marks I was seeing on the fish were from a heron, but did encourage me to take a camera with me to record anything I found. I know it's not fun to dredge a stinky 21 inch smallie off the bottom in 12 ft of water but if thats what it takes, I will do it. The gigging lobby must be very strong in Missouri, I know this because many of the agents are giggers themselves. We witnessed an agent giving gigging lessons to people in the trophy trout/smallmouth areas at the MDC Scotts Ford access a couple of years ago. If they could just limit the gigging in the SMA's' the problem would be greatly reduced. Bring a camera and document,document,document. Remember without data, everything is just an opinion to the MDC!

[Al Agnew]

Exactly. I have said several times that banning gigging is neither doable nor the most desirable way to go about it. And there's just not any reason to believe that at this point we can go back and say that gigging can only be done by traditional equipment. I've never seen that happen in any other type of fishing or hunting, and far too many people already have a lot of money invested in the equipment. Would we be better off if there were no jetboats? Probably. Would we be better off if 30 years ago when the technology was first appearing, MDC would hae said, wait a minute, you can't use it because it gives you an unfair advantage? Certainly. It would have been doable back then before many people started using it. That's what I mean about MDC not being proactive. But the horse is long out of the barn.

Kickinbass does have a point...there are lots of giggers who are also anglers and who care enough about game fish to not gig them. Those are the people we want to be on the same side. There are others who obviously don't care about game fish or about anybody else but themselves. The killing (I started to say "taking" but they don't take, they kill and leave) of game fish by giggers is ultimately an act of incredible selfishness--doing it just because you can, and not caring about either the resource or other outdoorspeople. So I have absolutely no desire to "work with" or include those people within the circle of hunters and anglers who need to all work together. What we need is some way of weeding them out of the ranks.

I think that for some, it's going to be a matter of scaring them straight by making a concentrated effort to catch some and punish them. For others, it may be more of an education thing. I'll bet that some of those who gig big game fish simply don't realize that they are cropping off a significant number of the bigger fish. They see these fish in the holes they gig, and maybe they think that the whole river is full of fish like that, not realizing that most of the fish that populate a five mile section of river in the summer are right there in that one pool in the winter.

And it might take some compromise within the ranks of giggers. I've heard it from giggers all over the MO Ozarks that the suckers aren't as big or as plentiful as they once were. And you can see the lack of suckers in the bigger rivers in the winter. Maybe the season needs to be shortened. Maybe some sections of the rivers need to be closed to gigging for a few years to see if both the sucker population comes back and the population of big game fish increases significantly.

The problem here is that this IS both a user conflict and a resource issue. The user conflict is a perception. We smallmouth bass anglers see the dead trophy fish that illegal gigging leaves behind. Frustrated and angry, we want something done about it, and to us the simplest thing to do is to ban gigging. So we become enemies of all giggers, even though we know that many of them are law-abiding and care about the resource as well.

The resource issue is real. Although gigging doesn't threaten the entire fishery, I don't see how anyone could seriously think that illegal gigging of big game fish like smallmouth doesn't depress the population of trophy size fish. While it's all anecdotal evidence at this point, too many of us are seeing it for it not to have a basis in reality.

So, giggers, do YOU have ideas? I've addressed your concerns, I think. Are you willing to address mine?

[Wayne SW/MO]

Wayne, you misread me... I think suckers are vital to stream health.

Sorry about that.

I hate to see talk about banning any historical sport that in and of itself does no harm. The problem is in illegal gigging, and if it harms the legal giggers it won't be the first group to suffer from a few.

Heron marks, the hair goes up on the back of my neck everytime I hear this insult. They need to explain why, there are only Heron marks on smallies during gigging season, why only on streams that allow gigging, and why not on every stream where gigging occurs. They aren't paid to talk to us like we're idiots, they're paid to get, and distribute, concrete answers.

[ness]

We witnessed an agent giving gigging lessons to people in the trophy trout/smallmouth areas at the MDC Scotts Ford access a couple of years ago. If they could just limit the gigging in the SMA's' the problem would be greatly reduced. Bring a camera and document,document,document. Remember without data, everything is just an opinion to the MDC!

Wow! Who's that guy and how do we get him interested in this whole thing?