Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[Outside Bend]

But those regulations won't fix that. I really don't care if it's made Catch and Release only, you know that. But the people that are the problem will still continue to keep whatever they want, whenever they want and they really don't care.

Precisely. For some folks keeping a stringer of smallies is a form of political speech- a way of stickin' it to the man. Tighter regulations aren't going to alter that mindset. Shoving these regulations down locals throats may make for better fishing, but it just reinforces the locals' anger and resentment towards both government and out of towners. If stricter smallie regs lead to more instances of pissed-off locals performing vandalism, dumping, forest arson, etc- I'm not sure how much we've really won. I'd love to have more quality smallmouth too, but if I don't feel comfortable leaving my car unattended at the access, stricter regs doesn't do me much good. Unless I go buy a gun.....

Like it or not, MDC isn't going to jump for new regs if there isn't local support. The way to forward this agenda isn't burning bridges with other smallmouth anglers, it's trying to bring them into the fold.

[FishinCricket]

Precisely. For some folks keeping a stringer of smallies is a form of political speech- a way of stickin' it to the man. Tighter regulations aren't going to alter that mindset. Shoving these regulations down locals throats may make for better fishing, but it just reinforces the locals' anger and resentment towards both government and out of towners. If stricter smallie regs lead to more instances of pissed-off locals performing vandalism, dumping, forest arson, etc- I'm not sure how much we've really won. I'd love to have more quality smallmouth too, but if I don't feel comfortable leaving my car unattended at the access, stricter regs doesn't do me much good. Unless I go buy a gun.....

Like it or not, MDC isn't going to jump for new regs if there isn't local support. The way to forward this agenda isn't burning bridges with other smallmouth anglers, it's trying to bring them into the fold.

But by your reasoning all laws/regulations/restrictions are useless..

"Why bother having a speed limit? People are just gonna exceed it and we can't possibly catch them all.."

That ideology is silly, truly.

[Flysmallie]

"Why bother having a speed limit? People are just gonna exceed it and we can't possibly catch them all.."

But they have people out enforcing the speed limit.

[Tim Smith]

But by your reasoning all laws/regulations/restrictions are useless..

"Why bother having a speed limit? People are just gonna exceed it and we can't possibly catch them all.."

That ideology is silly, truly.

But that's not what he's saying. All policy is a balance between what is ideal and what can be achieved.

If law becomes too far removed from what most people are willing to follow, it becomes counter-productive and undermines respect for the institutions that enact it.

If you set the speed limit at 55 (or better 45) you have safer more environmentally friendly roads, but virtually no one will follow the law and you get a serious backlash against the credibility of the people making the laws.

Force is expensive both morally and economically and it generates an opposite and equal force against it.

I've watched this play out in Belize where virtually none of the local fishers except for the guides follow the extensive catch and release laws. There's no money to enforce the law and it has brought all of conservation under a cloud. Worse, many fishers with whom you could once have a conversation about how best to manage the resource are now hostile to any notion of regulations. Now you can barely get a hearing with local fishers to fine tune the regulations because they've decided that government is out to get them. They just do what they want and give the Fisheries Department and Park Rangers the finger.

Those laws haven't done much good except with tourists and the backlash has made it harder to get compliance in the future.

[FishinCricket]

Points:

1. Cricket, if you lipped 500 bass in a day, based on normal percentages of hooking mortality you probably killed more than a limit just from the random few that caught a hook in a pulmonary artery or gill or swallowed the hook. Catch and release has effects too. Go fish the Fox River in Chicago and see if you can land something without hook wounds in it's face. Those affect growth and probably contribute to mortality as well.

2. Strongly agree with back caster's practice of keeping panfish only, but there should be limits there too. I remember as a kid when we measured the success of bluegill fishing trips by how many ice chests we filled, not how many fish we caught total. Those trips might actually have paid for the gas and time but they're not sustainable and if those lakes had been properly managed we would not have been allowed to do that.

3. There is more to a slot limit than has been discussed here so far. The back half of the slot can be just as important as the front. Big fish make better eggs with higher lipid content, more eggs, and often have better genetics than smaller fish in the population (they got big and old for a reason). Keeping those few old fish in the population makes a big difference in the overall quality of the resource. I keep seeing people say that very large fish don't reproduce because they are too old but that's really not true until you reach the extreme ends of a fish's life. Keeping harvest pressure off trophy fish has benefits for the population as a whole. It's harder to measure those benefits, but they're probably real.

4. When we were working on the conservation philosophies at the ISA, there was some discussion about how to frame policy about catch and release. The success of catch and release is pretty much undeniable. The fact that it has been embraced so widely is probably one of the more stunning conservation victories of the modern era. So in some ways it didn't make sense to fix what wasn't broke. Keeping that ethic in place and not confusing the message that releasing fish is a good thing was the first goal. It's probably ok that some people take it overboard because there are probably other people out there who might behave destructively if they though no one would take exception. Creeling a supper from time to time isn't a terrible sin but it was decided that it's probably better just to keep things simple and say catch and release is what we support.

Well I said 500 in a season (not a day), and to be frank that's prolly 200 fish lipped 2-3 times each! They're my pets all winter and I NEVER hook em in the throat or lungs, Tim... But I understand your point. My point was simply that they are very vulnerable in these holes and if you're legally allowed to keep 5 a day then the ONLY thing protecting these fish is the daily drive through of the water patrol through the park during catch and release season.

[eric1978]

Yeah, you guys are right. Better to do nothing at all. Wouldn't wanna upset some rednecks.

[Feathers and Fins]

because they have no sympathy for us at present...never have, never will. They don't care, they just do what they want without a single thought of anyone else. They're selfish, and they need to be regulated for the benefit of all.

Eric: I have heard this exact almost word for word expression voiced by people in regards to Catch and release anglers. And the attitude of this:

I wouldn't have the slightest shred of sympathy if they were upset that our will was imposed upon them...because they have no sympathy for us at present...never have, never will.

is counter productive to conservation and in some cases dangerous to anglers as I have seen streams trashed tires slashed of people in clubs and catch and release stickers.

We have to think of the resource and all people who use it and their wants as well.. Its not a one sided game.

[Tim Smith]

Yeah, you guys are right. Better to do nothing at all. Wouldn't wanna upset some rednecks.

I wouldn't say do nothing. Law is only one tool of conservation. Where laws aren't supportable the better course is to make the case for conservation until you have enough consensus that your objectives win support.

You'll never persuade everyone, but you'll get a lot further if you're not determined to deal with people in generalized groups like "rednecks".

[Gavin]

Back in Al's first post...it said 70% of those surveyed were in favor of tighter regulations. That is encouraging!

[eric1978]

Eric: I have heard this exact almost word for word expression voiced by people in regards to Catch and release anglers. And the attitude of this: is counter productive to conservation and in some cases dangerous to anglers as I have seen streams trashed tires slashed of people in clubs and catch and release stickers.

We have to think of the resource and all people who use it and their wants as well.. Its not a one sided game.

I'm not advocating strict C&R, although that's what I'd prefer. Obviously it's not realistic because we have to consider the irrational and shortsighted among us. I'm open to a slot or a 1 fish 18" or 20" per day. That's enough. There are dozens of other species that can be caught and eaten. We're talking about ONE species. It's not too much to ask. If they want to trash streams and slash tires, then local LE needs to be more present. The people we're talking about are ALWAYS resistant to new laws and regulations, even though it's usually in the interest of the greater good or even their own personal interest. They'll get over it eventually.

I wouldn't say do nothing. Law is only one tool of conservation. Where laws aren't supportable the better course is to make the case for conservation until you have enough consensus that your objectives win support.

You'll never persuade everyone, but you'll get a lot further if you're not determined to deal with people in generalized groups like "rednecks".

I admire your optimism, Tim. But the reality is some groups of people won't do what's right unless they're made to. As Gavin just mentioned, 70% of anglers who returned their surveys are in favor of tighter regs...that's as close to consensus as we need to be. I don't know how scientific that poll was, but it doesn't matter. There's always going to be a base of people who are too selfish to realize that if everyone kept fish like they did, there would be no fish left. They're like children, and even though they'll go down kicking and screaming, we adults have to do the right thing even though they don't like it. If they want to rape a body of water, let them take white bass or crappie or catfish or trout park fish or any other abundant species. There's lots of 'em and they grow fast. I'm sick of halfass laws that cater to the morons among us just because they'll throw a tantrum. How about doing what's right for the sake of doing what's right, and they can just deal with it? It's called progress, and it's a good thing, even if some people don't think so.