Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
flyrod2

Sale of FIsh

Recommended Posts

Definitely not a liberal!!Just want what's best for our Lakes.run off is terrible thing but we cant stop farming the land fill sucks and most off the trash comes from Canada and the city and so on and so on good luck to everyone this year on the water dark water out lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kingfisher - It has been mentioned several times that the sale of perch is only ONE factor in this situation.  Nobody said that by eliminating this ONE factor it will totally solve the problem. Basically you are taking the position that there is no problem and asking for scientific evidence that it exists. It would be great if a competent scientifically based body would take this on and run all sorts of acceptable studies and formulate some rational conclusions but this isn't being done and as far as anyone can see there are no plans to do it by anyone and denying that any problems exist and putting our heads in the sand will not accomplish anything. I sincerely hope that you and others expressing similar views are correct in that no problem actually exists and it is all a figment of some folks imagination because they are hell bent on imposing their will and philosophy on you and trying to take away your "God given" rights and depriving you of the opportunity to be a venture capitalist. If however you aren't correct in your "assessment" of the situation and things continue to deteriorate it could be too late for any type of intervention. This is not a solitary issue relating to one local body of water (e.g. Seneca) as other lakes are under these "pressures" as well (e.g. Honeoye and Canandaigua, and Keuka for example) but perhaps at different rates or stages. 

Edited by Sk8man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a great season Billy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What conservative concept am I holding near and dear that has been rebuked? A page ago you were trying to quote the Bible, nothing wrong with that, but then appear to side with the statist ideologues on this topic, which is counter intuitive to me. You see, statists, you know, Leninists,  and Maoists take away religious freedom, free speech, dam near all Constitutional freedoms as a matter of business. They are not your friend. The change is an unnecessary law, one in a long line towards the dismantling of our inalienable rights as Americans.    

Ok .I'll give you straight answer that has nothing to do with ideology left right or in the middle.

Your attitude towards the taking of natural resources that belong to all of us was quite sustainable until about 50 years ago. Now the environment has drastically changed because of pollution of all sorts,and mostly increased population which both put intensive pressure on the resources that we have. In the specific case of perch,this has rendered a number of resources useless because we poisoned them  and at the same because of increased pressure on the rest of the fish because of invasive species and sport fishing demand. At this point the species is having a hard time replenishing itself and because of this we should give up old habits in order to give the perch a chance to survive in the new environment that we have created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nicely said Cornelis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les I understand and very much can relate to your frustration over the changing nature of Seneca lake and the fact that the fishing is not as it was when you were a little boy. you may have noticed from my earlier post that I have a hard time excepting the change. Today there are many invasives in the lake effecting the perch and more importantly there behavior. Many have been named but nobody has mentioned the biggest invasive. If your real concern is for the perch why don't you advocate the DEC to stop stocking the trout? Or would that be " giving up an old habit in order to give the perch a chance to survive? the trout take a lot more perch than the people selling. Different point of view than yours but no more radical than yours. I don't know you and I trust that your intentions are good, but from reading your posts I get the impression that you want it all. It also appears  that you have a big problem with somebody getting something from a " Public resource" if you aren't getting your cut.

 Every perch sold is a perch enjoyed by a non fishermen. Is that wrong?

You are trying to legislate against some who don't fish; how, when, where, or with a boat that isn't yours in hopes that it will improve your poor fishing.

 The fish are doomed if we don't get rid of the invasive trout. maybe Flyrods students should start down that path?

 The difference between you and I is I'm not trying to force my silly ideas on you like you are on me.

 I'm just one fisherman expressing my one small opinion to another fisherman and if my scalie demeanor offends any of the gentle fishermen I can only say they call me Ahab for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok .I'll give you straight answer that has nothing to do with ideology left right or in the middle.

Your attitude towards the taking of natural resources that belong to all of us was quite sustainable until about 50 years ago. Now the environment has drastically changed because of pollution of all sorts,and mostly increased population which both put intensive pressure on the resources that we have. In the specific case of perch,this has rendered a number of resources useless because we poisoned them  and at the same because of increased pressure on the rest of the fish because of invasive species and sport fishing demand. At this point the species is having a hard time replenishing itself and because of this we should give up old habits in order to give the perch a chance to survive in the new environment that we have created.

When I take a fish out of a lake it becomes mine and no longer a public resource. You pander like there is some big theft going on and there is not. Rather than the notion of lowering a daily limit on a given body of water you feel requires it for sustainability, which would be fair to all, you wish to target one select group and get into their private affairs by telling them what they can do with their property! When you say anecdotal, blanketed hogwash like ‘up until 50 years…’ without any data, I’m sorry, but you deserve deaf ears when it comes to big boy decisions that affect an entire community. The aim or philosophy of common property is to provide equal access and sustainability of important resources. What pollution in particular do you speak? What is the source and why is it not regulated? The Clean Water Act, surely has jurisdiction, why not track that down. The E.P.A. and its fines have real teeth. You wish to ignore the simple fact that big business can lobby for exemptions to pollute common property and at the same time root on a bunch of children to lobby the state to further dictate what a man can do with his own personal property. It’s crazy! You are a fabricator to cast doubt over the sustainability of statewide fisheries from hook and line selling. If my children are not allowed to go down to the creek each spring and catch a pal of bullheads, clean them and sell them, to save up for something they’d like, then I don’t know, what a stupid thing you’ve rooted for. Maybe they ought to learn to bully, rob and be deceitful to just keep up.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sense beating a dead horse here. I think it is good that a wide variety of things have been placed here to look at and people have had the opportunity to think about some of the issues and give their opinions and thoughts on the topic. It is clear that it is a "polarizing" topic which an be a good thing if not "personalized"  in a way that degrades the holders of differing views. It is also clear that the opposite ends of the spectrum  in this regard will not be changing anytime soon and that is OK too. One of the more humorous aspects to this is that my position has been painted as a "flaming liberal" one when nothing is further from the truth. In fact I am a member of the Conservative Party Committee politically and even funnier that I actually hold some similar views of intervention and interference by the government (e.g. SAFE Act) etc. but this issue for me is "issue specific" and has absolutely nothing to do with political or ideological views. It is based on what I see going on with the lakes around us and with the perch population in particular that I find disturbing and in need of intervention. The unfortunate fact is that voluntary compliance seldom works when there is money at the bottom of a situation or in the case of over harvesting - greed and in that case more formalized interventions need to be looked at. This is a complex situation in need of intervention and it will probably take more than just one thing to solve it. As long as people continue to exploit the resource and it is under these intense pressures it will not last if not headed off or contained, and you'd have to be blind not to see what is going on out on these lakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sense beating a dead horse here. I think it is good that a wide variety of things have been placed here to look at and people have had the opportunity to think about some of the issues and give their opinions and thoughts on the topic. It is clear that it is a "polarizing" topic which an be a good thing if not "personalized"  in a way that degrades the holders of differing views. It is also clear that the opposite ends of the spectrum  in this regard will not be changing anytime soon and that is OK too. One of the more humorous aspects to this is that my position has been painted as a "flaming liberal" one when nothing is further from the truth. In fact I am a member of the Conservative Party Committee politically and even funnier that I actually hold some similar views of intervention and interference by the government (e.g. SAFE Act) etc. but this issue for me is "issue specific" and has absolutely nothing to do with political or ideological views. It is based on what I see going on with the lakes around us and with the perch population in particular that I find disturbing and in need of intervention. The unfortunate fact is that voluntary compliance seldom works when there is money at the bottom of a situation or in the case of over harvesting - greed and in that case more formalized interventions need to be looked at. This is a complex situation in need of intervention and it will probably take more than just one thing to solve it. As long as people continue to exploit the resource and it is under these intense pressures it will not last if not headed off or contained, and you'd have to be blind not to see what is going on out on these lakes.

How many tickets from folks who sell fish have been issued for over harvesting? Please tell me you have some sort of quantifiable data. How about tickets from just over harvesting perch by anyone from Seneca? Come on, don't tell me you haven't done your homework again and this is another knee-jerk no different than the Safe Act knee-jerk. No standards, but the double, again, I'm sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I'm really going out on a limb hear but maybe the professional biologists at the DEC studied Seneca a few years ago and saw the bait fish (perch) were headed for a declining cycle and did stop stocking the trout. Is it possible that they know more than us fishermen about the fish and are way ahead of us ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not think that at this point we are discussing fish.Instead we have become the high school debate team.

Except,there are no referees who hand out points to the better team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahab,

 The perch are sometimes eaten by trout but they are not a main  part of their diet on Seneca and they are not technically considered a "baitfish" for trout (at least currently) Alewives are the mainstay of their diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I'm really going out on a limb hear but maybe the professional biologists at the DEC studied Seneca a few years ago and saw the bait fish (perch) were headed for a declining cycle and did stop stocking the trout. Is it possible that they know more than us fishermen about the fish and are way ahead of us ?

They did stop stoking for a bit because they were under the impression that the alewive population was low then last year because of fishermen talking openly like we are doing here they found out that the population was crazy and after they found out the truth they stock last year on the south end.thanks you south end rebels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any lake that has alewives, you will see a lot of them near shore (especially in the evening and at night) in May and early June because that is when and where they spawn.

 

As was mentioned earlier, trout eat mainly alewives and other soft finned, cool water baitfish such as smelt. They rarely eat perch.

 

Stocking more trout could have a positive impact on the perch because they eat alewives and alewives eat perch eggs. If alewife numbers increase drastically and more perch eggs get eaten, and at the same time anglers are taking large numbers of mature perch, that might put a double whammy on the perch population.

 

If some waters are experiencing a problem, it would have to be confirmed with verifiable data. Imposing changes to creel limits or size limits is just one tool that can be used (but possibly the easiest most effective tool to use with the quickest results). One thing for sure is that the DEC will not act without doing their own assessment. If they did decide to impose more catch limits, they would not be doing it to punish anglers. But they would do it if it is the most practical thing to do.

 

If there are certain lakes that have a problem, then they should be individually assessed and then addressed appropriately. It certainly does not make sense to me to implement a statewide regulation unless there is a statewide population problem. I doubt the students will be able to show that there is a statewide problem. I haven't seen them provide any data on this string to that effect or even related to any waters. But I can't blame them for not doing that because of the way some people are attacked verbally here, just for stating their opinion or providing input in a respectful and civilized way.

 

Now if they were to uncover an illegal export market, that could be a big concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well put and something to think about Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to make a correction. DEC did not quit stocking trout and then resume stocking because everyone said there was a bunch of bait out there. They did reduce lake trout numbers a few years back because of bait concerns and gave some lake trout to Lake Ontario one year because of a shortage. I help boat stock trout on Seneca every year so I know Seneca has been getting stocked quite regularly. Stocking lists are available every year on the DEC website or at Bath Hatchery. Hard to have a meaningful conversation if we don't have our facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this thread for a while now and thought I'd ask someone at DEC about their thoughts. And here they are....

 

Robert,

 

Seneca Lake is not in the area that my unit covers so I have copied the Region 8 Fisheries Manager who does handle it. Nonetheless, I’m fairly certain that we don’t have any data on the perch harvest from Seneca Lake or, more specifically, what portion of it goes towards the commercial fish market.

 

Our sampling activities are not set up, at this time, to directly assess impacts from commercial harvest. We can infer impacts based on our fish population sampling results and what we think we know about angling pressure on some water bodies but currently that’s the best we can do. For example, we recently (2014) sampled Otisco Lake and the panfish size structure is now heavily skewed toward younger, smaller fish (which are growing well and are not stunted). We know from personal experience that sunfish fishing through the ice, at the north end, provided ample numbers of quality size fish 3-5 years ago. Where did they go the past few years? We are certain it was primarily into ice angler’s buckets since we had two consecutive long ice fishing seasons where staff observed consistent ice angling effort (often from the same individuals) for weeks on end. Over the course of these seasons the panfish size quality continually declined to the point where, by the middle of the 2014/15 ice season it was difficult to catch even a few “keepers.†Do we know how many of these anglers were selling the fish they caught? The answer is no.  Do we suspect that guys fishing day after day, week after week are selling fish? Yes.  

 

Every lake and every species is different but there is no doubt in my mind that commercial sale of angler caught panfish can and does impact the quality of fishing in many waterbodies across the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that info! Same thing I see on Seneca same guys every day rain, snow or sunshine out pounding pearch. But I'm a Lib if I say anything about it. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ric66 thanks for posting that as it underscores what many of us have been trying to get across and that the resource is not automatically replenished as some folks seem to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy awful quiet in here, I can hear those spring peepers! Thanks for reaching out ric to a more credible line of information. And just to add to the mess of the invasive species, don't throw out the VHS impact as well. There's been some talk about a die off that could play a role as well. I think I'm ready for spring!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ric66 that looks like some good solid information thanks.

SK8man If you think that statement supports your position you should reread what it actually does say. Do not extrapolate from it what you would like it to say.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this disclaimer...

Our sampling activities are not set up, at this time, to directly assess impacts from commercial harvest. We can infer impacts based on our fish population sampling results and what we think we know about angling pressure on some water bodies but currently that’s the best we can do.

 

His professional opinion based on logic is valid.  2 solid winters where the ability to extract fish from the lake was extensive.  The median size went down but the overall numbers were ? ok?  So in a round about way he is saying that it is replenishable albeit in numbers - not size.  Most fisherman harvest the bigger pan fish and let the smaller go.  The fact that they are extracting most of the bigger fish is no suprise.  That would make the smaller fish more prevalent in surveys.  I would not expect differently.

 

This statement makes me wonder his background (bias).

Do we know how many of these anglers were selling the fish they caught? The answer is no.  Do we suspect that guys fishing day after day, week after week are selling fish? Yes.

Followed up by...

...there is no doubt in my mind that commercial sale of angler caught panfish can and does impact the quality of fishing in many waterbodies across the state.

A strong professional opinion (like a teacher - just saying)

 

It would have been nice to read that the state is working on something more decisive.  I am inclined to believe that the sale of fish can contribute to a population under stress.  My questions are - how do you know it is under stress?  How do you know that sale of fish is a major contributing factor to that population stress?

 

So after I have trolled this for a bit.  My apologies.  Ric66, this was nice to read.  Thank you for posting and I will most likely have to apologize to the nice fish biologist at some point. 

 

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...