Wisconsin – Spring Hearing Questions – Ban on Live scope and 360 Imaging

One of the many questions that the is being asked by the Wisconsin DNR and WCC on their 2024 Spring hearing Questions is:

Would you support banning the use of Live Scope and similar 360 Imaging electronics in all Wisconsin Waters.

This is question 22 on the list. You can see the full list of questions here:

https://widnr.widen.net/s/xkhjbdjcvn/2024-_spring_hearing_questionnaire

Doing a little research online, It looks like at least 12-15 other states are also looking into or at least asking questions as to how many people support the ban.

For those is Wisc. How would you answer this question. For those here in Minnesota, if asked this same question how would you answer?

I myself would answer YES, I would support a ban on the use of them. I myself feel there is already enough pressure on our fish populations and these tools simply add even more pressure on them. I would prefer a ban on something like this technology over having to keep lowering Limits. Just my Opinion, nothing against those that are against a ban.

Shouldn’t we ban fish houses that are sit ontop of a crappie/walleye hole all winter and take a bunch of fish.

I get where there coming from, but lets be honest how many guys with it are really keeping the fish? BTW 360 is a not a live imaging so if we ban that shouldn’t we band side imaging?

This is an interesting topic and has been discussed here recently. I hate watching a tournament when all they do is “scope.” The first two elite events have been almost all scope fests.

I realize a tournament is different than recreational fishing and very few have their rigs outfitted like tournament boats do. My opinion would be to allow it and lower bag limits if necessary. Its expensive equipment and a number of people already have it. To just “ban” it seems like a knee jerk reaction to me. People who already have it would have to uninstall it off their boats.

So Charles and Gimruis. I take that is a NO answer to the question from both of you – Corrct ?

I would want to know the exact reasons for the proposed ban. If it is because too many people are catching and keeping their limit of fish, than that is more of an issue with the size of the limits than with the way the limits are caught. If the concern is hooking mortality, than I would suggest, limiting the ability to target fish at whatever is deemed to be the depths for unacceptable mortality. All FFS and 360 does is makes people more efficent ant getting to the already existing rules and regulations. It is a brand new argument to say that people are now just too good at catching fish, vs that people are breaking the regs. It’s a bizzare new argument.

If there was ever an intention of banning them should have been done years ago. Gonna reimburse everyones purchase? Let the ones already owned be grandfathered in?

fishthumper wrote:

So Charles and Gimruis. I take that is a NO answer to the question from both of you – Corrct ?

I agree with Jeremy’s post above. Too many people already have something invested into it.

I would not just completely ban it.

I do think there needs to be limitations in tournaments though. Right now its essentially just an arms race to see who can outfit their rig with the most technology.

We will never see a ban on forward-facing sonar in any state. If we did, it would still be available and used by many. Restrictions on harvest methods, seasons, and other regs certainly have done much to improve fishing, but fish numbers and size will always depend on habitat quality. The science seems to show that habitat degradation, invasive species and radical weather changes are far greater concerns.

Nothing on the ban is based on science, it is personal bias. Writing laws based on personal bias is wrong. You do not get to cherry pick what is acceptable and what is not based on your personal opinion. If so, then ban side imaging, as 360 is just side imaging in a circle. GPS, mapping, fish cameras- it’s all the same. Livescope is just sonar folks, not some easy street to catching more fish. If anyone votes “yes” on this, then put your money where your mouth is and take ALL and ANY technologies off your boat, including throw your computer away and never visit this site or the like again. The internet has been the greatest bane of all in regard to putting pressure on fisheries. Good news is, fishery biologists set the bag limits, and that ALONE determines the amount of fish that leave a lake. If the bag limit is 3, it does not matter if you are using a cane pole and twine from grandpa’s shed or 150K worth of equipment— you can only keep 3! If anyone feels that in any way this hurts fish populations has a hole in their head- you can only keep what your daily bag limit already allows! Unfortunately, we are living in a world where people run their lives more on emotion than fact.

FishThumper is actually a plant from PETA.

He wants to take away my ability to gut hook a fish on my 2nd line, now he wants my LiveScope forbidden?! How am I suppose to feed my family?

Just a joke, just a joke

docfrigo wrote:

Nothing on the ban is based on science, it is personal bias. Writing laws based on personal bias is wrong. You do not get to cherry pick what is acceptable and what is not based on your personal opinion. If so, then ban side imaging, as 360 is just side imaging in a circle. GPS, mapping, fish cameras- it’s all the same. Livescope is just sonar folks, not some easy street to catching more fish. If anyone votes “yes” on this, then put your money where your mouth is and take ALL and ANY technologies off your boat, including throw your computer away and never visit this site or the like again. The internet has been the greatest bane of all in regard to putting pressure on fisheries. Good news is, fishery biologists set the bag limits, and that ALONE determines the amount of fish that leave a lake. If the bag limit is 3, it does not matter if you are using a cane pole and twine from grandpa’s shed or 150K worth of equipment— you can only keep 3! If anyone feels that in any way this hurts fish populations has a hole in their head- you can only keep what your daily bag limit already allows! Unfortunately, we are living in a world where people run their lives more on emotion than fact.

If you feel this strongly on the issue, I suggest you make your thoughts know to your DNR and WCC. They are the ones who are asking the question and are most likely going to make decisions on what answers they are receiving to the question.

ganderpike wrote:

FishThumper is actually a plant from PETA.

I am a Member Of PETA. People eating tasty animals

I’m not sure if I can get on board with a total ban. I’ll have to ponder that a bit more.
One thing I know for sure. You can’t compare FFS to side imaging, mapping ,etc. Anyone who does loses all credibility with me. Apples to oranges.
FFS is far more than just a sonar. If it’s not an easy street to catching fish you are bad at catching fish.
It absolutely is an exceptional advantage over more traditional sonars.
All but one time I’ve been involved in using one with friends this winter have been easy limits for everyone. It takes so much of the work out of finding fish is almost boring. Fishing becomes catching when FFS is used to it’s potential.

topshotta wrote:

We will never see a ban on forward-facing sonar in any state. If we did, it would still be available and used by many. Restrictions on harvest methods, seasons, and other regs certainly have done much to improve fishing, but fish numbers and size will always depend on habitat quality. The science seems to show that habitat degradation, invasive species and radical weather changes are far greater concerns.

Habitat, invasive species, and climate change mean nothing if the populations are depleted and removed.
Fishing pressure is the number 1 factor in determining fish population, especially in urban areas. A Thousand of fish can leave a lake in a day in buckets. I can’t see the other factors causing those mortality rates.

Charles wrote:

Shouldn’t we ban fish houses that are sit ontop of a crappie/walleye hole all winter and take a bunch of fish.

I get where there coming from, but lets be honest how many guys with it are really keeping the fish? BTW 360 is a not a live imaging so if we ban that shouldn’t we band side imaging?

Ding Ding Ding…Winner
And here I thought MNDNR was dumb.
This might take the cake.

This discussion must take place eventually. Are intelligent people supposed to sit around until technology decimates the populations?
Catch and release is NOT an argument. Have you not heard of hooking mortality in the Great Lake Mille Lacs?

I’m not a fan of livescope BUT…..anytime you let a agency to start banning stuff where do they stop, rifle scopes? lake maps? crossbow speeds? sonar in general? they always over reach. maybe the focus should be on better restocking and proper wildlife management.

suzuki wrote:

This discussion must take place eventually. Are intelligent people supposed to sit around until technology decimates the populations?
Catch and release is NOT an argument. Have you not heard of hooking mortality in the Great Lake Mille Lacs?

Any proof to this claim? Or just your opinion.

The way I understand Wisconsin’s process on this (and I kinda like it) is that the general public can submit resolutions (questions) that are reviewed by the Wisconsin Conservation Congress prior to making it on this questionnaire. It is not the Wisconsin DNR starting this particular conversation. I’m not in favor of a ban, but I can see the need for a conversation on the use of FFS. But it needs to be based on science like has been mentioned.

I’m against it (the ban, for now anyway).

Why limit the fun?? The tug is the drug.

Limit the kill instead.

grubson wrote:

One thing I know for sure. You can’t compare FFS to side imaging, mapping ,etc. Anyone who does loses all credibility with me. Apples to oranges.
FFS is far more than just a sonar. If it’s not an easy street to catching fish you are bad at catching fish.
It absolutely is an exceptional advantage over more traditional sonars.

100% agree. That is the reason I said I’d vote to ban them. Anyone that believes that they do not help you catch more fish – Them my ? is why are people buying them? I know fishermen who could not catch a limit of fish with a net in their bath tub that once purchasing live scope limit out often. These same people have probably caught and keep a limit of fish more times since getting live scope than they did their whole life before it. Live scope makes a Poor fishermen a good one. Makes a good fishermen a Great one. and a Great fishermen unbelievable. Yes its just more technology, but at some point we have to draw a line. Believe me, the lower limits they are adding more and more often are more a result of over harvest than they are most other factors. I just don’t want to see the whole state end up like Mille Lac’s with a 1 fish limit and it must be in a narrow slot.

Leave Mille Lacs out of the conversation. The limits there have nothing to do with over harvest. It’s more political than banning FFS.

grubson wrote:

I’m not sure if I can get on board with a total ban. I’ll have to ponder that a bit more.
One thing I know for sure. You can’t compare FFS to side imaging, mapping ,etc. Anyone who does loses all credibility with me. Apples to oranges.
FFS is far more than just a sonar. If it’s not an easy street to catching fish you are bad at catching fish.
It absolutely is an exceptional advantage over more traditional sonars.
All but one time I’ve been involved in using one with friends this winter have been easy limits for everyone. It takes so much of the work out of finding fish is almost boring. Fishing becomes catching when FFS is used to it’s potential.

Tell that to the questionnaire people. I can do the same thing with mega 360 that I can do with regular side imaging. Just a bit more work.

Joe Jarl wrote:

But it needs to be based on science like has been mentioned.

So do you not agree that the science that goes into creating FFS, leads to it being easier to locate and thus catch more fish, Thus leading to more fish harvested, thus leading to a ever ending need to keep lowing daily limits? It all seems rather scientific to me.

Did other technology not do the same?
Isn’t that the point of fishing tech to catch more fish?

Why limit the fun?? The tug is the drug.

Limit the kill instead.

[/quote]

X2

Ripjiggen wrote:

Did other technology not do the same?

Yes it did. That is why the limits have continued to be lowered. If people are fine with a continuing lowering of the limits rather than a ban on new technology then so be it. As someone who spends 90 % of my time fishing without keeping any fish, its not a big issue to me. It’s more the person who enjoys having a few fish fry’s for friends and family a few times a year that lower limits effect the most. I simply like the fact that they are asking for peoples opinions on the issue rather than simply making their own decisions.

Thumper you are starting to sound like the fun police, first no 2 lines and now no FFS!?!? Prolly switching parties soon too!

PS The person who feeds the whole neighborhood or extended family fish fry regularly probably has a bigger impact on fish biomass than all the CnR 2 lines or Forward Facing Sonar guys.

PPS I’d like to start a petition to return the acronym FFS, back to its original meaning for f*&# sake!

If it is not a big issue for you then why are you in favor of banning it?

Is it simply you don’t use it so others should not?