nutritional forage for Bass (and other minnow eating fish)

[MoCarp]

This guy says it far better than I can

 

 

 

[SpoonDog]

That's the trouble, MOCarp- I've never owned a bowfishing rig.  I've never held a bowfishing rig.  I've never been bowfishing a day in my life, and I've mentioned at least twice I like fishing for carp. Your position on this issue requires misrepresenting the information available- and if it were more reasonable, more rational, really just a better position over all, you wouldn't have to.

I'm not opposed to asking the question or finding the answer in an objective way, and that's already been done.  People have already objectively looked at fish stomachs.  People have already looked objectively at how carp removal or exclusion effects aquatic communities- on some level you understand that, because you mentioned one such study on page three.  The questions you're asking have already been answered objectively, and for whatever reason you will not accept that. You want to answer the same question with lower quality, subjective, biased data- and then claim the results are more precise than existing studies using higher quality, objective, unbiased data.  I'm not afraid of the answers, MOCarp.  The way you're trying to answer the question is totally asinine.

There's an abbreviation in science, CICO, in keeping with the board's profanity policy we'll say it means "carp in, carp out."  Finding the photo of the skinniest fish and claiming it's the average fish is bogus.  It's junk.  Pretending I didn't provide the gizzard shad info in my response and that it's still unknown is bogus.  The guy in the blue cat video doesn't positively ID that pile of goo in the fishes' stomach, and if digested carp are so tough to ID that a biologist in a research paper can't be trusted, it's ridiculous to think the dude in the armchair watching a youtube video can.  Insinuating the only reason I object is because I'm a bowfisherman, when I'm not a bowfisherman, is bogus.  You can take garbage information, put it into a well designed study, and all that comes out the other end is a garbage study.  CICO.  Garbage studies have no value.  To me it's a smarter use of limited money and resources to create something WITH value, as opposed to something WITHOUT value. 

If you want a study done, make a stronger argument.  But if you're not interested in looking at the information out there honestly or objectively, if you're not interested in thinking critically about your own position, if all you want to do is spin your wheels on bad analogies comparing carp to trout, or carp to gar, or carp to wild horses...there's really no point in pretending you're interested an actual, honest discussion.  If you're only interested in doubling back on trivia about how carp are more nutritious than trout, as though that has any bearing on the topic at hand and in spite of any new information presented, there's no point in pretending you're interested in an actual, honest discussion.  I'm bored, and it's lunchtime.

 

 

 

Have fun.

 

[MoCarp]

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

That's the trouble, MOCarp- I've never owned a bowfishing rig.  I've never held a bowfishing rig.  I've never been bowfishing a day in my life, and I've mentioned at least twice I like fishing for carp.

Why so salty then at the possibility of potental new regulations on harvest of common carp and buffalo? 

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

 Your position on this issue requires misrepresenting the information available- and if it were more reasonable, more rational, really just a better position over all, you wouldn't have to. I'm not opposed to asking the question or finding the answer in an objective way, and that's already been done.  People have already objectively looked at fish stomachs. 

perhaps, however I pose the question, and no study has been done on Ozark highland lakes as to what eats common carp/Buffalo eggs/larva/YOY?

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

  People have already looked objectively at how carp removal or exclusion effects aquatic communities- on some level you understand that, because you mentioned one such study on page three.  The questions you're asking have already been answered objectively, and for whatever reason you will not accept that. You want to answer the same question with lower quality, subjective, biased data- and then claim the results are more precise than existing studies using higher quality, objective, unbiased data.  I'm not afraid of the answers, MOCarp.  The way you're trying to answer the question is totally asinine.

"Common Carp are not always invasive"*.... Dr Prezemek Bajer Phd, University of Minnesota*..... he basically says in hypereutrophic lakes is where common carp (and buffalo that feed the same ways) can cause issues...Crappie a beloved fish in our area can be a bane by overpopulation, in a sense any fish can be a problem in some waters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P58Hjr3T6sU

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

 The guy in the blue cat video doesn't positively ID that pile of goo in the fishes' stomach, and if digested carp are so tough to ID that a biologist in a research paper can't be trusted,

EXACTLY! the fact that a YOY bluegill and carp look very close to size and body shape...in digested form its difficult to know what the contents are.... there are ways, but it will take a more taxonomic approach to ID-ing whats eating all those baby carp/buffalo.....walked right into that one didn't you slappy?

 

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

To me it's a smarter use of limited money and resources to create something WITH value, as opposed to something WITHOUT value. 

If you want a study done, make a stronger argument. 

 

perhaps Korda or one of the other big time carp tackle companies in the UK can fund a study...perhaps I can convince ACS or CAG to pony up some $

as a stronger argument hows this     1) how many pounds "rough fish" are being harvested in the area lakes?  2) is it having a impact on game fish populations?

perhaps a regulation like in TX and now in CT to protect quality common carp/Buffalo fishing?

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

 If you're only interested in doubling back on trivia about how carp are more nutritious than trout, as though that has any bearing on the topic at hand and in spite of any new information presented, there's no point in pretending you're interested in an actual, honest discussion.  I'm bored, and it's lunchtime.

My agenda is simple; To gain acceptance of the carp as an exciting and challenging sport-fish. B) To become better carp anglers, assist others in learning to catch more and bigger carp and encourage others  C) To treat the carp with respect, promote the release of trophy-size carp and encourage others to do the same. D) Most of all: go fishing, share with others, and have fun.

Euro Carpers are not going away, we have grown exponentially since the implementation of the 33" trophy regulations in Texas, new big carp hot spots have come to the front in Lake fork Texas, Dale Hollow in TN  beaver Island carp MI fly fishing and numerous waters in the North Eastern US complete with guides. new carp regs are coming online in many states in 2018.

Its not going to be the end of the world, because common carp have been around for 140 years in our area waters. and it won't kill you or even the Bfers to give up a little on some special waters....this isn't a zero sum game, as I have been trying to show with as much hard data as I can find...

hope your lunch was tasty

 

[SpoonDog]

19 hours ago, MoCarp said:

 

Quote

 The guy in the blue cat video doesn't positively ID that pile of goo in the fishes' stomach, and if digested carp are so tough to ID that a biologist in a research paper can't be trusted, it's ridiculous to think the dude in the armchair watching a youtube video can

 

EXACTLY! the fact that a YOY bluegill and carp look very close to size and body shape...in digested form its difficult to know what the contents are.... there are ways, but it will take a more taxonomic approach to ID-ing whats eating all those baby carp/buffalo.....walked right into that one didn't you slappy?

You made a decision to misrepresent what I said, to take my words out of context- and that speaks volumes.  You're confusing dishonesty with a rational response.

Good science requires a commitment to integrity you haven't demonstrated.  It doesn't matter who funds the study if the underlying data is garbage.  A garbage study doesn't become a great study just because you change the name on the check. The outcome hasn't changed, you've just found a different way of doing the same dumb, nonsensical, useless, worthless thing. 

Quote

here is a single Tourney that boasts dumpstering 287k pounds of fish...thats TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDS IN ONE TOURNEY

'Over the past 33 years these participants have broken the previous World Record set out in California for the most fish by a bowfishing tournament sixteen times. They currently hold the world mark at an astounding 278,871 pounds!"

 

http://www.glbc-caseville.com

I want to think really hard about what you're saying here...harder than anything you've thought about on this thread.  Just focus all of your mental energy on what this says, and what this means. 

They've been doing this for thirty years.  Sixteen of those thirty years, they've set the world record.  Since 2000 they've been killing at minimum, around 40,000 lbs of carp annually.  They're still killing a ton of carp.  They're still killing as many carp as ever- and the number of anglers participating hasn't changed much.  If bowfishermen are decimating carp populations, we should see them catching fewer carp through time.  We don't.  We don't see any relationship in carp catch through time, much less a negative one. 

We asked a question: Do bowfishers negatively impact carp populations?

We collected data: number of carp killed by bowfishers in over a 30 year period

We analyzed that data: looking for a relationship (trend) between the year, the number of carp anglers, and the pounds of carp harvested.

We interpreted our results: Even with the number of anglers participating relatively constant, the pounds of carp harvested didn't show any relationship with year.  They were killing more carp in 2016 than 2014, or 2013, or 2008, or 2005...

We can then draw a conclusion, from our results: Bowfishing has less effect on carp populations than some other factor that we're not considering.

 

Congratulations, MOCarp!  We just did your study.  We just answered your question- with data you helped provide.  Granted it isn't Missouri- but neither is Texas or California or Minnesota  or the northeast US, so we can quit pretending that's ever honestly been an issue for you. 

 

Quote

My agenda is simple; To gain acceptance of the carp as an exciting and challenging sport-fish.

And that's a really noble goal.  But there's a lot of folks out there advocating for carp as a sport fish, and they're doing it with integrity.  They're arguing carp aren't going anywhere, that they're one of the few sportfish which can persist in highly modified human environments, that they're readily accessible to anglers in urban areas.  They're not making up stories about how important carp are to trophy bass and they're not misrepresenting information to further their cause.  They're taking carp and carp fishing for what it is, not what they may want it to be, and that's diametrically opposed to your approach.  When you do what you do (and you do it consistently) it raises big, glaring questions about your credibility.  When you've wrecked your own credibility, it makes folks less likely to buy the story you're trying to sell them.

 

Maybe your approach is an impediment to your objective, instead of an asset.

 

[MoCarp]

1 hour ago, SpoonDog said:

You made a decision to misrepresent what I said, to take my words out of context- and that speaks volumes.  You're confusing dishonesty with a rational response.

Good science requires a commitment to integrity you haven't demonstrated.  It doesn't matter who funds the study if the underlying data is garbage.  A garbage study doesn't become a great study just because you change the name on the check. The outcome hasn't changed, you've just found a different way of doing the same dumb, nonsensical, useless, worthless thing. 

I want to think really hard about what you're saying here...harder than anything you've thought about on this thread.  Just focus all of your mental energy on what this says, and what this means. 

They've been doing this for thirty years.  Sixteen of those thirty years, they've set the world record.  Since 2000 they've been killing at minimum, around 40,000 lbs of carp annually.  They're still killing a ton of carp.  They're still killing as many carp as ever- and the number of anglers participating hasn't changed much.  If bowfishermen are decimating carp populations, we should see them catching fewer carp through time.  We don't.  We don't see any relationship in carp catch through time, much less a negative one. 

 

If several of Taneys Trout Guides tell you trout fishing has become horrible, and has been getting worse, and they spend over 300 days a year on the water, because they think a huge catch and kill trout tourney each year where 287k pounds of trout are killed  in ONE WEEKEND,  its like saying all the crappie harvested on TR from on weekend tourney is the whole harvest number when its 100 fold......it is disingenuous of you to poo poo those carp guides observations, even though anecdotal, come from years of on the water observations

 

http://news.jrn.msu.edu/capitalnewsservice/2017/08/16/anglers-target-bowfishing-for-carp-decrease/

http://michiganradio.org/post/northern-michigan-fishermen-wrestle-over-catching-carp

[MoCarp]

2 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

We can then draw a conclusion, from our results: Bowfishing has less effect on carp populations than some other factor that we're not considering.

I link sources for every claim I make...and you outed your self in your saltyness, and attempts to silence the issue......you have a vested interest with the status quo of Bfing...

 fish as once Reviled as the alligator Gar, is getting protections....and the number of anglers are tiny..what do you thing will happen with the multi billon euro carp business???....again whats eating all the baby buffalo and common carp?

[MoCarp]

20 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

And that's a really noble goal.  But there's a lot of folks out there advocating for carp as a sport fish, and they're doing it with integrity.  They're arguing carp aren't going anywhere, that they're one of the few sportfish which can persist in highly modified human environments, that they're readily accessible to anglers in urban areas.  They're not making up stories about how important carp are to trophy bass and they're not misrepresenting information to further their cause.  They're taking carp and carp fishing for what it is, not what they may want it to be, and that's diametrically opposed to your approach.  When you do what you do (and you do it consistently) it raises big, glaring questions about your credibility.  When you've wrecked your own credibility, it makes folks less likely to buy the story you're trying to sell them.

 

Maybe your approach is an impediment to your objective, instead of an asset.

 

like most who start losing an argument alway stoop to personal attacks....its no coincidence huge even RECORD size LMB come from waters that produce huge common carp and buffalo where both exist together....that Yatch slaps the classic argument that "carp = poor game fishing".......and also no carp/buffalo = great game fishing ......it even seems the REVERSE may be true and is worth a legitimate look.....

I get questions about carp angling and interest from this forum or people direct people to me from this forum so some-ones buying how fun it is to do this kind of fishing.....

and show me one fact I have posted not-linked to the source? you can try and draw your own conclusions from the data as you see fit.

I lucked into the nutritional information on carp vs panfish vs trout, I suspect someone right now is planning on growing 15 pound LMB on a diet of cheap baby carp....in a climate that can't feed them rainbow trout (like southern Missouri) wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

I have spent a great deal of my life volunteering, helping others with my own personal time and treasure & will continue to do so.....I and others like me are not going anywhere

I keep this quote I snagged from a bow-fishing forum, it motivates me when people like you question my credibility....I have no ego to bruise, and I just dig in and work that much harder.....

"If we let MoCarp tell people how much fun it is to catch carp, Everyone will want too, then we will be outnumbered & they will treat them just like bass & walleyes"

 

[SpoonDog]

Cool.  I guess if you had a better argument, you'd make it. 

 

 

Best of luck!

[MoCarp]

here is my better argument is fish that do this....

 

 

[MoCarp]

and for all you Fly fisherman..ever catch a 10 pound brown on a fly? wish you could have that fight every trip? how about 20-30 times in a day?