I really wish my name wasn’t attached to those quotes FMRB.
Anyway, Tom Neustrom of Grand Rapids has a very wide paint brush and I’m not sure he knows how to paint.
I was chatting with a high level DNR official about the extra income the DNR is getting from “unexpected Covid” license sales. He felt it was just a year or two spike in sales.
Where I do most of my fishing guides are prohibited from fishing with clients. In addition, party fishing is not allowed. That means you have to catch your own fish. No one can give you your limit. Both of these measures have had positive effects on fish populations.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
Not sure, but I think Musky was referencing the Ice Castle “guides” that setup on early ice on Red, then move to LOW. Not boat captains. Also, I’m not sure how the licensing differs by winter vs summer.Correct. The local resorts/outfitters on LOW are pissed. They have been very vocal about it on FB.
I’m not following exactly…
So some resorts and guides are pissed that guys are buying fleets of wheelhouses and fishing the hot bite on both URL and LOTW?
So the resorts on LOTW are pissed that guys are buying fleets of wheelhouses and fishing the hot bite on both URL and LOTW?
Essentially. They spend the majority of the season pounding Red to smithereens, then when that season closes they head North. It started years ago when ML died, they left ML for Red. They just move from one place to another. There was one guide in particular that hammered the panfish lakes in that same area and now they are shells of themselves.
Sorry Brian, not savvy enough to remove you from the quotes, but I certainly know you’re not the one advocating for reduced limits, this time. 
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
So the resorts on LOTW are pissed that guys are buying fleets of wheelhouses and fishing the hot bite on both URL and LOTW?Essentially. They spend the majority of the season pounding Red to smithereens, then when that season closes they head North. It started years ago when ML died, they left ML for Red. They just move from one place to another. There was one guide in particular that hammered the panfish lakes in that same area and now they are shells of themselves.
I can see both sides of this scenario and why there could be hard feelings or a desire for limit changes.
On one side, the resources are not owned by any resort regardless of their location. The outfits running wheelhouses jumping to the hottest bites are just as entitled as anyone to fish there by law.
On the other side, resorts having a vested interest in one fishery creates advocates. Those people are concerned about what the shoreline looks like after ice out, about future fish populations, and so on as their business cannot up and move with the changes.
Either way, the truth still remains that all resorts, guides, rental services, and so on are making money off the same resources. As long as the potential is there to make money or more money, the resources will get pushed. Can they handle it right now? Sure, probably as some argue with valid points. Will they always be able to handle it? There’s no way of knowing. Reducing the limit to 4 fish could be proactive or it could be unnecessary. I personally support something that is proactive or even unnecessary over the alternative of trying to help something recover after the fact. If there was a way to guarantee these things were regularly revisited, I’d 100% support leaving things as is. However, our government has shown that even when a change is needed…they can and will muck it up or do too little too late.
On one side, the resources are not owned by any resort regardless of their location. The outfits running wheelhouses jumping to the hottest bites are just as entitled as anyone to fish there by law.
On the other side, resorts having a vested interest in one fishery creates advocates. Those people are concerned about what the shoreline looks like after ice out, about future fish populations, and so on as their business cannot up and move with the changes.
Either way, the truth still remains that all resorts, guides, rental services, and so on are making money off the same resources. As long as the potential is there to make money or more money, the resources will get pushed. Can they handle it right now? Sure, probably as some argue with valid points. Will they always be able to handle it? There’s no way of knowing. Reducing the limit to 4 fish could be proactive or it could be unnecessary. I personally support something that is proactive or even unnecessary over the alternative of trying to help something recover after the fact. If there was a way to guarantee these things were regularly revisited, I’d 100% support leaving things as is. However, our government has shown that even when a change is needed…they can and will muck it up or do too little too late.
Agree to all of this. Those fish are our fish just as much as theirs the difference is they are profiting off it while we are not. I think something needs to be done about that.
Interesting Wisconsin ceded territory lakes are mostly 3 fish . Been that way for years , prior to that it was 5 fish. Fished Atikokan Ontario BLUE Zone was schooled by CO,s bag limit was 1 fish for US residents ! Not sure if its still that way ?
These guides can easily impose a 4 limit at any time, law or no law, and maybe they have already. But it would at least set a good example.
<del datetime=”2022-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
