Need input

Well here is my opinion. I don't have a problem with guides should they pay some type of user fee like maybe special license sure that sound reasonable. Crappie fishing is a growing sport every tom,dick and Harry are doing it. But what it all boils down to is habitat these lakes lose more and more each year we as fisherman need to do are part look at the lakes at winter pool these lakes have no cover it is are part to help the fish out they can't build stakebeds themselves. Now before you start saying oh the jig fisherman will catch them on the beds it's no different then catching them before they make it to the beds but I can assure you and this is coming from someone who has had his hands in alot of beds being made that we don't fish every bed we build or do we catch limits off of them all the time like I said we need to help the fish if every person that fishes these lakes built 2 beds a year it would make a difference. I have built beds with 20 year old men all the way to 80 year old men but you always here the same excuse it's to cold the big game is on so my thoughts are the problem lies with us so get off your @$$€$ and build habitat I challenge every MS crappie.com member that fishes the big 4 to build habitat and if you don't then shame on you.

I have to agree with Rees. It's useless unless it can be enforced on a regular basis.
Also, what could be done about all of our locals?
I know a guy that came out of the ramp at Grenada with a limit of nice ones. There was an out-of-state, older couple at the ramp that he got into a conversation with.
They paid him GOOD money to carry them out to catch fish because they hadn't had a good day and drove too far not to have any luck.
This happens ALOT !
I agree, there needs to be some regulations on our public waters that guides use to make money on, but it wouldn't be fair for the guides to be "punished" with higher fees etc, when some of our locals would be doing it regulation free.
This scenario would likely cause some guides to have to go out of business because the "bootleg" guides would take over.
Again, how would this be enforced to be fair to EVERYONE? There's not enough game wardens and the bootleg guides are just going to lie anyway if asked. They would have to catch the money actually swapping hands.
I see a big can of worms getting opened over this. jmo

Joe Jackoff? Nice......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with Rees on the rules ain't worth the paper their written on of they're not enforced.. they're understaffed as if is, and wouldn they sell enough to pay even another single salary??
I know a few people that guide.. heck I've even thought about it. Good way to make some extra $$ and meet folks, etc. , but I like to catch fish, not watch people catch fish and feel like it would ruin my enjoyment for fishing. Daddy always said "if you wanna ruin a sport.. add money to it." And I feel like that's what it would do for me. It'd make it work instead of enjoyment.
Far as the license.. great idea to generate some revenue, but gotta enforcement. The insurance.. I wouldn't personally do it without any, or advise it, but that's just my choice.
But, I do not see where guiding is killing our lakes.. yet. I do not know the numbers, but I do know there's a lot more people "fun fishing" than guiding and I also know there's more people fishing than catching!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all those corp lakes stocked annually up there and limits changed to accommodate all the variables of poor spawns, insufficient food supply and fishing pressure?

It's very difficult to make any reasonable decision on this until we are afforded a posted copy of this proposed document. I like to know what I am being asked to support and by whom.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all those corp lakes stocked annually up there?" Hybrid stripes and paddle fish is all I know of, I'll ask.

Hopefully petition will be finished Wednesday. I'll check with my attorney Monday morning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Washington hasn't hurt due to guidin.. out dated regulations hurt Washington. 30 fish per person was set back in old days when people just fished during the spawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bchappell

Washington hasn't hurt due to guidin.. out dated regulations hurt Washington. 30 fish per person was set back in old days when people just fished during the spawn.

---

So one can only assume with the popularity of trolling for crappie 365 days a year is starting to maybe show a decline in the population vs when folks only fished until the spawn was over. With what you are saying maybe there should be a pole restriction for certain times of the year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by downsouth

ANY QUESTIONS ?

Sent from my SM-T377V using Tapatalk

---

Yep.

Thanks for posting the article. I found it thought provoking in that it may explain some of the differences I've seen across the various lakes I frequent.

Not being snarky at all, but are you a fisheries biologist? I'm a scientist by training and I've read (and written) my share of technical articles. In my younger days I was a large molecule biochemist. I like thinking about my hobbies from a scientific perspective. All that to say my questions are genuine (and with apologies to the OP).

1. From my reading, it would seem crappie tend to the r side of the model. Agreed?
2. Do minimum size regulations convert a nonselective mortality to a selective mortality and thus shift the life history model to the k side?
3. The article addresses marine species and doesn't address landlocked species. Does the individual lake environment also contribute to the species' placement in the r/k continuum? If so, that would explain the relative stability we see at Barnett vs the Corp lakes. When I fish at Barnett I will catch a reasonable distribution of fish sizes during a day. At a Corp lake, all the fish are about the same size with a few outliers.





As for the guide issue, I'd like to better understand the objective.

If it's simply based on the principle that a person shouldn't be allowed to make money through utilization of public resources, why allow any - at any cost or under any circumstance? There is a significant distinction between federal and state resources in terms of restrictions on public utilization. Most states have commercial use restrictions on state owned properties. What is the standard across the US on federal lakes and lands?

If the objective is to reduce pressure or harvest rates (for whatever reason), there are probably several means which would prove more effective. We should be looking at harvest regulations, user fees, etc. as ways to change public behavior. This seems the largest issue to me. Frankly, it's a problem at every quality resource no matter the game. Look at the debate about Arkansas public green timber that's happening right now.

If if the objective is to regulate something that is unregulated, we need to ask why. What is the benefit to, or problem solved by, increased regulation? That would take us back to the question of best means to accomplish that objective.