Listen up .... FYI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amartinbio

I definitely don't want anyone to feel guilty for keeping 20 fish. I wish everyone caught a limit every time. This year our limit meant quite a lot because the fishing was so good. In some years however, our limit is not as useful. I'm sure a lot of guys on here catch limits in bad years, but the average fishermen usually doesn't. (Based on thousands of interviews). This is similar in other states which have 20 or 30 fish limits. In order to significantly reduce harvest overall we would need a much lower limit in some years (5 or 10 fish).

At this point we don't see a need to reduce harvest. Again at this point we don't see a need to reduce harvest, so we are not recommending any harvest restrictions other than the 10" and 20 currently in place. However, if we did want to reduce harvest in the future a pole limit would be our first choice. It's true that a limit is a limit, but only if guys are willing to stay out there until they catch a limit regardless of how long it takes. We are still measuring the catch rates, but early results from our lakes and those in Mississippi show that spider riggers are more efficient. Hence, a pole limit would likely reduce harvest unless people just choose to fish much longer to get their limits.
I am also not in favor of a pole limit for a variety of reasons. (1) it makes our regs more complex. (2) I'm against most regs that simply make it harder to fish. (3) several anglers have invested heavily in equipment and prefer to fish this way. (4) this method is ideal for children since they don't need to actively hold the pole.

Once again, we don't need to reduce harvest and may never need to, but if we do, that's our first and best option. I like our current limits which allow anglers to take advantage of good fishing when it's here.

---

And again, the ones that are being legal, following the regulations and even being stewards of the resource by keeping 11" or bigger fish, are penalized by a restriction of poles. Remember, Mississippi just increased their pole limit on the "Big 4" but also reduced the harvest from 20 to 15. Reason, because they listened to the sportsman, a limit is a limit regardless.
It's also interesting that now you say this is the first option if needing to do something to help the crappie population. But just a few months ago, Paul said that this option basically was not valid and not to worry about it. It was brought to the surface due to the KY League of Sportsman and possibly another group that felt that trolling needed to be made illegal or controlled.
We have enough regulations already, but what we need is the enforcement.

As I just mentioned, restricting harvest is not necessary at this point. My intention was to inform people of what the regulation might become if a restriction was needed. It is my needed and nothing is planned for the near future. The reason Paul said it was not valid is because the percentage of anglers using more than 3 poles on our lakes is lower than people think. Hence it would have little effect if enacted right now. This is something we monitor as this trend seems to be increasing.

I do agree that mississippi listened to the sportsmen. The research they conducted said that a pole limit was a better choice, but sometimes political pressure from certain angler groups is too great.

I do not want a pole limit for multiple reasons as I stated above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pab1981

I was really going to try to stay out of this thread after I said my piece the first time and this may be an innocent question but I won't stand by and let you lump guys like me who follow the laws with poachers just because you don't understand it. I fish all year and would be more like 90 percent on catching limits on years with good fish numbers like this year and you won't get any apologies from me. My freezer isn't anywhere near full. I choose to accept proven science over speculation and would just assume my friends and family be able to eat legally caught fish as they die of old age and go to waste.

---

My question was not criticizing anyone the "law breaker" or the " all yr fisherman" I was just actually asking a simple question on which one ppl thought hurt the population the most. With that being said I don't like it at all when ppl go fishing get a limit go drop them off then get another and it really bothers me to have to sit and listen to them brag about it but I know for a fact the few ppl I know who does this ( spring time only fishermen) still do not catch as many as I do with me fishing most of the yr. so in regards to my comment I'm really saying I don't see that there doing any more danger than a lot of us leagal takers and with that being said I'm with you on science I'm letting the ones with that job do that part and I'm just going to fish. By the way I'm not trying to Lump anyone and I understand everything I have read as I see it.

Was the limit cut to 20 statewide?

Yes it was cut to 20.

In answer to your question the total effects would be the same regardless of how many they caught per day. But it's definitely unfair to those anglers who respect the limits. I'm sure you know that though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccollins

My question was not criticizing anyone the "law breaker" or the " all yr fisherman" I was just actually asking a simple question on which one ppl thought hurt the population the most. With that being said I don't like it at all when ppl go fishing get a limit go drop them off then get another and it really bothers me to have to sit and listen to them brag about it but I know for a fact the few ppl I know who does this ( spring time only fishermen) still do not catch as many as I do with me fishing most of the yr. so in regards to my comment I'm really saying I don't see that there doing any more danger than a lot of us leagal takers and with that being said I'm with you on science I'm letting the ones with that job do that part and I'm just going to fish. By the way I'm not trying to Lump anyone and I understand everything I have read as I see it.

---

My apologies, I read more into your question than was there.

The lesson from this discussion is that different lakes should be managed differently. I think the answer may be in managing different parts of lakes differently. On the White river in Arkansas for example some areas do not allow live bait. Why couldn't a reservoir have single pole, no barbs, and lower limits on different arms. The one size fits all approach to regulation seems to be the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccollins

My question was not criticizing anyone the "law breaker" or the " all yr fisherman" I was just actually asking a simple question on which one ppl thought hurt the population the most. With that being said I don't like it at all when ppl go fishing get a limit go drop them off then get another and it really bothers me to have to sit and listen to them brag about it but I know for a fact the few ppl I know who does this ( spring time only fishermen) still do not catch as many as I do with me fishing most of the yr. so in regards to my comment I'm really saying I don't see that there doing any more danger than a lot of us leagal takers and with that being said I'm with you on science I'm letting the ones with that job do that part and I'm just going to fish. By the way I'm not trying to Lump anyone and I understand everything I have read as I see it.

---

Also absolutely did not intend to imply that you did not comprehend what you were reading, just that you might not understand my why I or someone else might keep limits of fish year around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfhnd

The lesson from this discussion is that different lakes should be managed differently. I think the answer may be in managing different parts of lakes differently. On the White river in Arkansas for example some areas do not allow live bait. Why couldn't a reservoir have single pole, no barbs, and lower limits on different arms. The one size fits all approach to regulation seems to be the problem.

---

Just as someone put it earlier, the state and feds expect waterfowl hunters to identify fowl by size, wing colors, etc at a distance and while moving prior to attempting a ethical shot. But yet, the state does not expect a fisherman to be able to properly identify a black crappie from a white crappie.
So, how is the general fishing public suppose to follow certain regulations between, let's say.....Jonathan Creek and Blood River, when they can't identify black crappie from white crappie, and some can't follow the current regulations that we currently have now.

Please, answer this.....I'm looking forward to your answer! Lol

Haha, you are definitely right about some regs being more appropriate for certain lakes and in some cases sections of lakes. Growth is pretty consistent between embayments on our lakes and even between our two big lakes, but pressure obviously varies as well as crappie year class strength. Making this even more complicated is the fact that crappie are relatively short lived and the amount of time it takes to change a reg is relatively long. It would be great to tweak the regs each year, but this would be exceedingly complicated for anglers and impossible with our current system. This is why our regs are designed for the average year, average angler, and a lakewide average.

I've personally asked 100's of anglers whether the fish they caught were black or white. Sometimes they aren't even aware that there are two species. (Most regulars are as good as a biologist at knowing the difference.) I'd say maybe 70% can tell the difference most of the time. (That's all anglers, not just dedicated crappie fishermen) The other complication there is that blacks and whites can naturally hybridize. (As many as 45% were hybrids in one southeastern reservoir). I'm sure you guys have seen hundreds of these hybrid fish before (body shape of a black, but usually had faint bars and may only have 6 spines) often times the really large "blacks" are hybrids.

As a duck hunter, I also agree with the duck ID. Telling drakes of some species apart is one thing, but distinguishing females is a bit tougher especially at high speeds. I've seen the training displays our officers use for identifying birds by only one wing and it makes my head hurt trying to distinguish between some of those obscure birds. Identifying them in the air is more of an art form than a science in my opinion.