As I think about this there may be some truth to the mortality arguement, however I still think that FFO and ALO are tools that have merit for the biologists, not in mortality but in discouraging some people from fishing the waters. There are many fisherman that would rather fish with bait and worms and would just move over to another water if it is designated FFO or ALO. It becomes a tool not for managing mortality directly but instead in reducing fishing pressure. I gain that opinion sitting here watching it snow and thinking of two of my favorite ponds, Otter Pond and North Otter Pond. Both have almost equal access and are near each other. North Otter is designated ALO and has fewer fisherman on it.
[quote]I have had with our fisheries biologists in the past that they use FFO and/or ALO as tools, just as they use NLFAB as a tool [/quote]
Look, that has been the company line for over a hundred years. I've heard it a million times. It was probably even true back in the beginning, probably even valid until the advent of the modern equipment and tactics. Weighted lines, sink tips, dropper rigs. All the new definitions of what is a fly.
To me, from a guy that does both spin and fly fishing for trout, it is a distinction with out merit. What is the difference? Unless you are fishing dryflies with silk line I would say that the original reasoning for FFO has been more or less eliminated in 2007. If you read about the history of the regulation you will find more than a few accusations of Elitism and claims that these areas were created as playgrounds for the Upper Class. Afterall at the time who could afford a stay at such a place?
My point is that there has been these accusations of elitism about for at least I century, I'm betting longer. As a what if? You want the science to decide the rules, I agree. Let's designate all FFO water to ALO single hook.
Think that would fly? Why not?
Please see my post just above yours JimP. We are close to agreement here but I think there is another layer. The truth of the matter is that some folks just won't learn to fly fish, elitism or not. I believe there are fewer fly fisherman so then it becomes a tool to reduce fishing pressure. As I stated above, it is not a tool in regards to fishing mortality but instead one of sheer numbers.
Butch made the point that it is a social construct and I am trying to make the point that it is a tool for managing the waters. That is my opinion and why I think it has merit.
JimP, are you saying that when the biologists actually recommend making a water FFO it is political and not based on their scientific knowledge?
Kennebec, your last post proved my point:
[quote]The truth of the matter is that some folks just won't learn to fly fish, elitism or not. [/quote]
Hence, the push by some FF activists to "eliminate the competition" so to speak by making more waters FFO. As an aside, or perhaps more to the point of the original article, it also "eliminates the competition" by making a water less available to fishing through the ice (NLFAB).
This however, is a false statement in this day and age:
[quote]I believe there are fewer fly fisherman so then it becomes a tool to reduce fishing pressure.[/quote]
The fact is, there is more pressure on FFO waters than general law waters, and that's because people believe the "progressive fisheries activists" when they say that FFO creates a "quality fishery." If it was otherwise in the past, then it's high time to change it now because it is no longer the case.
If sensitive waters are that bad off, close them to all fishing until they've recovered enough for all to enjoy.
Oh, and here's one freebie, but you're going to have to look up the rest on your own:
[quote]There was no significant difference in the proportion of newly injured fish caught with J hooks by fly fishing (57% injury rate) or spin fishing (62% injury rate)
When you think about it, ALL fishing regulations are social constructs based on social preferences. After all, if it were just about catching fish, we could put bass in many more of our waters and catch more fish. No, we have developed a fishing hierarchy that makes trout a "good" fish and bass, suckers, pickerel and perch less desirable. That's why will people travel hundreds of miles to catch a trout, but won't walk across the street to catch a perch the same size. We've devised artificial rules for fishing, too. How many guys do you see using hand lines? Why don't they allow bait in bass tournaments? Why will a guy spend $10 on bait to catch a fish he can buy in the super market for $5? Why does he spend a few hundred $$ on a fly rod to catch and release fish?
The idea that the biologists should be allowed decide how to manage the fishery is silly. We - sportsmen and our representatives - have decided that we should manage waters for trout because we prefer trout over bass. If we decided that we want bass in every water that could support bass, we could make the biologists do it. It's a social preference.
That's what all sport fishing is all about - social preference. Social preference says that if one form of sport is more challenging than another, then it's better. Frankly, it doesn't take a lot of skill to cut a hole in the ice, set a trap, and let a shiner swim around until a fish swallows it. It takes a little more skill to dunk a worm in stream, a little more to cast a lure with a spinning rod (and more expensive, too), and even more to cast a fly, and even more to tie your own flies to cast. (and sometimes lots more expensive).
It's akin to the difference and sense of accomplishment you get from shooting a deer with a bow vs. shooting a deer with a gun. (And also why those elitist bowhunters don't want to allow people to use crossbows). It's all about social preference, and that's OK.
I hear a lot of arguments here but no one will answer my questions. Seems like the thread where Unionman wouldn't answer any questions :-)
From page three, "So my question is, are the folks defending the position that NLFAB will kill ice fishing taking an extreme position just to make a point or are you willing to admit that there may be proper applications of the regulation?".
and from above, "JimP, are you saying that when the biologists actually recommend making a water FFO it is political and not based on their scientific knowledge?".
Butch and JimP, why is it up to me to prove or dis-prove your points? Irregardless, I am willing to agree that the mortality rate is the same for FFO or ALO, that isn't my point.
My observation is that, as I stated in regards to Otter and North Otter Ponds in Pierce Pond TWP, the ALO water has less pressure. No scientific data here, just my observation from fishing trips.
Another observation - two ponds with a couple of miles of each other, both have decent sized brook trout. Thistle Pond - drive right down to the pond, put a boat in, troll, cast, fly fish, use lures. Little Nesowdehunk Pond, carry a boat downhill (and back uphill) 150 yards or so, sometimes over blowdowns, FFO. On summer nights you might not see a boat on Thistle, but you'll see 8 - 10 boats on Little S. People value the challenge it takes to get to Little S, and want to fish FFO waters.
Can you imagine allowing spinning gear on the Rapid?? How about at Upper Dam? Sacrilege. There's something to be said for tradition. Elitist? You bet. How'd you like to cast a fly next to some yahoo with Zebco and a gob of worms at Pond in the River or Upper Dam?
[quote]How'd you like to cast a fly next to some yahoo with Zebco and a gob of worms at Pond in the River or Upper Dam?[/quote]
You certainly don't have to convince me that you're an elitist anymore... :roll:
Thanks, Butch. How do you feel about FFO regs on the Rapid? How about opening the Rangeley region lakes to ice fishing?
Yeah, like "some yahoo with a Zebco" is going to want to cast a gob of worms next to some fly fishing elitist on the Rabid...sheesh... [img]http://www.neoutdoorvoice.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/sarcasm.gif[/img]
Butch, any response to my questions?
Do you agree that the regulations should be in the hands of the fisheries biologists instead of the legislature? That is the one where I think you and I are close to common ground.
You have to tell the biologists what your goal is before they can come up with regulations.
That's the problem with things like LD 285 Dan - the regulations are mandated and not left up to IF&W.
[quote]"So my question is, are the folks defending the position that NLFAB will kill ice fishing taking an extreme position just to make a point or are you willing to admit that there may be proper applications of the regulation?"[/quote]
The extreme position is that one type of fishing is "better" than another, or that one type should be banned through legislative action over another.
Still doesn't answer the question Butch. I haven't said that one type of fishing is better and I still state that the regulations shouldn't be regulated.
Anyone remember this?
[quote] [b]* There Is No Reason To Take Bear Management Decisions Away From Wildlife Professionals[/b]
There are approximately 23,000 bears in Maine, one of the largest populations in the continental United States. Professional wildlife biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife do a superb job of managing bears, ensuring a healthy species population for the enjoyment of Maineâ€™s citizens and visitors; with minimal nuisance complaints and a strong contribution to Maineâ€™s economy.
[b]There Is No Reason To Take [color=red]Fisheries[/color] Management Decisions Away From [color=red]Fisheries[/color] Professionals[/b]
Ask the JSC to vote "ought not to pass" on LD 285:
So you still won't answer the question? I agree that there is no reason to take the fisheries decisions from the fisheries professionals. What is your point or are you just helping me make my point?
((and I meant to say legislated, not regulated above. I've decided not to edit the post lest the edit be mis-interpreted.))
Kennebec, I've answered lots of questions, or at least the valid ones. Others made no sense because they started from false assumptions. Have you sent in your email to the JSC yet?
Bottom line - it really doesn't matter what type of fish is in a particular stream or lake. It just matters to a fisherman.
[quote="Butch Moore"][quote]"So my question is, are the folks defending the position that NLFAB will kill ice fishing taking an extreme position just to make a point or are you willing to admit that there may be proper applications of the regulation?"[/quote]
The extreme position is that one type of fishing is "better" than another, or that one type should be banned through legislative action over another.[/quote]
No it's not, Butch. The extreme position is that all types of fishing should be allowed in all waters open to fishing. That kind of thinking goes against over a hundred years of fisheries management in Maine. Try reading the history of Richardson Lakes, and you'll understand (maybe) the tradition that's grown there over the last hundred years. Maybe you just don't care.
The Maine legislature decided long, long ago that some waters, particularly trout waters, should be managed as FFO, for both fisheries management and political reasons. Certainly many waters, especially salmonid waters, should be closed to ice fishing, especially ice fishing with bait, because of fish mortality - and the fact that ice fishermen are more interested in taking fish home than practicing catch and release.
As for one type being better than another, there's certainly more skill involved in learning to fly fish than to bait fish or spin fish. My own opinion is that fly fishers today are more apt to practice catch and release than bait and spin fishermen, too. That produces more quality fishing (quality = more and bigger fish). Does that make it "better"? If the goal is to protect fragile fisheries - yes, it is.
You never answered my questions re: the Rapid or Upper Dam. Open them up to worm dunking and spin casting?
If the Rabid is as fragile a fishery as we've been told by those trying to garner more and more dontations and grants to "save" it, then it should be closed to all fishing.
Yes Butch I have voiced my opinion to the JSC regarding no longer legislating the regulations but instead allow the biologists to use the tools as they see fit to meet their mission. As I said on an earlier page i do not need a form letter to express my opinion.
So you don't think my question regarding NLFAB as a tool to manage the fishery is a valid question? Then so be it, it is still my opinion that NLFAB does not end ice fishing as has been stated earlier (page 1) in this thread.
[quote][i]If sensitive waters are that bad off, close them to all fishing until they've recovered enough for all to enjoy.[/i] [/quote]
There are two extreme positions on a fishery that the biologists deem worthy of careful management. One is to open the fishery to all types of fishing the other to close the fishery to all types of fishing.
Butch is advocating that if a fishery canâ€™t withstand being open to all types of fishing it should be closed to all fishing. I deduce Butch is an extremist.
C'mon Tom, if you're going to label me, keep up. Ken Allen says I'm a â€œRight-Wing Sportsmanâ€:
BTW, My position is that the FFO designation should be done away with and replaced with ALO:
[quote]The fact is, there is more pressure on FFO waters than general law waters, and that's because people believe the "progressive fisheries activists" when they say that FFO creates a "quality fishery." If it was otherwise in the past, then it's high time to change it now because it is no longer the case.
If sensitive waters are that bad off, close them to all fishing until they've recovered enough for all to enjoy. [/quote]
[quote]BTW, My position is that the FFO designation should be done away with and replaced with ALO:
ALO and FFO are both tools that the biologists use to manage a fishery. You are advocating taking away a method that biologists (read professionals) know as useful to manage fisheries.
You have mentioned studies of hooking mortality being similar. Fine. Where are the studies of the different catch rates using both styles? Iâ€™m talking studies here not assumptions.
Even beyond fishery science, part of the fisheries managerâ€™s job is managing fishermen. FFO puts less boots in the water.
[quote]C'mon Tom, if you're going to label me, keep up. Ken Allen says I'm a â€œRight-Wing Sportsmanâ€:
I read Allenâ€™s piece. I donâ€™t agree with the â€œleftyâ€ â€œrightlyâ€ thing. Are you saying you are part of Restore- SAM?
Tom, as I told the others, look them up for yourself. I've provided a link earlier to links and quotes from a couple, but from there it's all about you and your talking points from the "progressive fisheries management" boys. The fact is, FFO is about exclusion of other types of anglers and nothing more. If it was only about limiting the number of anglers, we'd have "spin fishing with artificial lures only (no fly fishing)" waters as that would put less "boots in the water" as well.
As for your other accusation, I suggest you re-read Ken's column, where he said this:
[quote]During the winter, a movement in Maine has begun to gel where right-wing outdoorsmen have become organized and more of a major voice than ever before. "Right wing" is a perfect description, too, because some bulletin boards, blogs and groups give these conservatives a platform that ranks further to the right than the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine (SAM).
He also said this:
[quote]Right wingers in the movement do not want to be told that they cannot use live fish as bait, that they cannot day-trip on the Allagash, that snowmobilers and ATVers have no access on certain lands, etc.
They're consumptive users to the core and have no interest in backpacking for backpacking's sake or cross-country skiing without a firearm or fishing traps.[/quote]
It's pretty clear he was talking about "right wingers" in general before any mention of Restore-SAM. Now, I suggest you re-read the link that started this thread as I'm not the only person who feels Ken's column was aimed at a whole lot more people than Restore-SAM:
[quote]His choice to lump all right-wing sportsman into a group of consumptive criminals, while ridiculing right-thinking people and painting a picture of them as somehow sub-human, isnâ€™t a real pretty picture either.[/quote]
Perhaps turnabout is fair play - "Tom," are you one of those secretive DDAS boys? /sarcasm]
I suggest [b]you[/b] reread the link that started this thread. It was by George Smith dealing with fish regulations.
If supporting our biologists and their policies earns me the label "progressive fisheries management" boy, fine. Iâ€™m OK with it. Iâ€™ve been called worse. Does being a â€œPFMâ€ in turn qualify me as â€œelitistâ€?
Keeping with your terminology, may I presume me being a â€œPFMâ€ boy would then make you a â€œRFMâ€ boy - "regressive fisheries management" boy? Obviously you are far more active than I. Where do you find the time for this?
Have you missed the point that IFW professionals are against LD 285, LD 163, LD 1081! All created and supported by SAM, TU, and DDAS! No support from IFW or the rest of the fishing community, just the lefty fishing crowd.
Sorry Tom, I was posting in two threads at once and got them mixed up. I suggest you read the story that started this thread:
Where you'll find this quote:
BTW, you didn't answer the question Tom - are you one of the DDAS boys playing under a different alias here?
[Sarcasm on] You only need to answer questions you feel are relevant per Butch's earlier reponse to me[/Sarcasm]