11/14/2009 IFPAG Meeting

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gary Stiles on November 15, 2009 at 7:17pm

Don
I agree with your recap of the lead conversations held at yesterdays IFPAG meeting. Please note that there are several "Lead Ban" threads relative to the loon proposal on the blog you reference. (One needs to scroll down to source them) Further, I will be meeting with George Orr later this week and will share additional data and communications with regards to this highly energized issue. Feel free to call me at any time should you want more information or if there are additional considerations that we need to be aware of..
Take good care,
Gary







Gary

Permalink Reply by Todd Reis on November 22, 2009 at 6:00pm

I personally think that Don, you ought to request to drop the whole artificial baits only rule change. The main reason is that it looks like your the only one that wants this rule change. I think you ought to get a hell of alot more support from the Musky fishing clubs. This rule does affect alot more folks than just us..The fisherpersons that dont fish the Muskies could get in a bit of trouble if a accidental tiger is caught on a scented tube while fishing for a different species and a warden see it happen..you did promote this idea at the last CMA meeting. And I thought it would be a better idea if we come together in mass rather than going ahead and having a rule change based on 4 or 5 emails..I know CMA would endorse the change as a whole. but that damn scented bait part is a stickler..or ask your group to step up too and pass signatures/emails on to the IFPAG to let them know how they/we all feel..this change is not really needed now...I agree with Mr.Stiles..The lead ban is a way more important issue that needs to be addressed first...this is just one fisherman's opinion..one more thing i would ask you to NOT write (in this forum)what other folks are writing or thinking to the IFPAG I feel that is inapproproriate for you to do that.I did write a response to Ms.Preuss and would not like my opinion relayed onto the public again. Thanks.

Todd Reis
VP/Membership Director
Cascade Musky Association

Permalink Reply by Don Wittenberger on November 23, 2009 at 12:42am

Todd, as you were the original inspiration for this proposal, your opinion is interesting; however, the rulemaking process has progressed to where the 103 proposals (of approximately 300 submitted) that WDFW accepted and submitted to the Commission are now their proposals, so the proper procedure at this point is to address this to the Commission, not to me. As you indicate that you've done so, there's no further advice I can offer you with respect to the rulemaking process. It should be noted that WDFW did not identify the commenters and I do not know who they are. Also, in my comment above, I did not quote the comments; I only summarized them. As this is a public process, I consider it appropriate to keep the muskie angler community informed in this manner.

Permalink Reply by Todd Reis on November 23, 2009 at 10:14pm

This is the actual proposal in written form by the WDFW.Again i am not against using artificial/dead baits but the fact that a few tubes that are used are artificially scented,flavored or dipped into solutions to provide a scent to get a fish to hit a bait. I for one do not use scent or dead/live bait for Musky fishing. I have though heard of and have personally seen folks accidently catch a tiger on a bass tube that was impregnated with salt which is not a flavor but a mineral. So if all fisherman could contact the state and please tell them NO to this proposal. QUICKLY..thank you

Please send your responses to;

Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

November 23, 2009
Contact: Susan Yeager, (360) 902-2267


#26. Tiger Muskie Rules
Proposal: This proposal would make it unlawful to use bait while fishing for tiger muskies.
fishing.

Explanation: Because of the 50” minimum size limit, the tiger muskie fishery is primarily a catch-andrelease
fishery. Some anglers are concerned about the potential loss of released fish from hooking
mortality if bait becomes a common method of fishing for tiger muskie. The use of bait while fishing
for northern pike and muskellunge is popular in the Midwest states. The definition of bait includes the
use of scent and/or flavor on any terminal lure.

Permalink Reply by Don Wittenberger on November 23, 2009 at 11:28pm

Very altruistic of you to look out for "folks you've heard of," Todd. This kind of hearsay isn't what I would risk the future of our muskie fishery on, though.

Permalink Reply by Don Wittenberger on November 24, 2009 at 12:24am

This rule is intended to keep tiger muskies from being gut-hooked on swallowed bait. It's not plausible that a warden would cite a bass angler for catching a tiger muskie on a tube lure when the Enforcement Division has already said this rule is unenforceable. That's a baseless fear. I don't expect any enforcement at all, but the rule will work because most people voluntarily comply with the fishing regulations. On the other hand, if using bait for tiger muskies remains legal, then you can't ask people not to do it, even though tey're killing muskies. Releasing them is useless if they're gut-hooked. That's what we're trying to prevent, not keep people from using scents.a

Permalink Reply by Todd Reis on November 24, 2009 at 6:00pm

Hi Friend,,this is what i'm against on this proposal...The definition of bait includes the
use of scent and/or flavor on any terminal lure. That is what i am against in this rule proposal...period!

Permalink Reply by Mark Wells on November 24, 2009 at 6:16pm

I would be in favor 100% of this rule proposal if the 'scent' issue were removed from it.

As I've already stated to you Don, besides being almost unenforceable, it would put almost 'all' fishermen(men, women & children)at risk of receiving citations simply because most tackle boxes have some sort of scent or pre scented bait already in them.
Almost all soft plastic lures are scent impregnated.
Many of my musky lures are soft plastic and many of them are 'factory' scent impregnated. Simply adding a soft plastic trailer to a spinnerbait(factory scent impregnated)would make a law abiding fisherman a poacher if this rule passes as written.

I know of no one in the musky fishing community that wants muskies to die because of swallowing live/dead bait but this rule proposal needs to be re-written to gain my support.

I urge everyone of you interested in musky fishing to comment to the WDFW concerning rule proposal #26 but do it knowing both sides of the coin.

Permalink Reply by Don Wittenberger on November 24, 2009 at 11:15pm

Mark, you know the history of this proposal. You know I submitted it with a scent exemption, but WDFW said that was a deal breaker, so I had to compromise or there would be no rule. You can't always get exactly what you want in a political process. This proposal is what we can get this time around. Maybe we'll be able to add an exemption for scents in the future, but let's get a basic rule in place. Let me ask you something. Have you talked to the Enforcement Division, or are you speculating? It seems to me you're letting your imagination run wild. Now think about this. This idea came from your club, so if it passes, CMA can take credit; but if opposition from CMA members shoots it down, CMA will be blamed for its defeat. Have you been over in Idaho and seen 15 or 20 people sitting in lawn chairs along the bank fishing with for pike with bait? Do you want to see that happen at our tiger muskie lakes? If it's legal, people will do it, and we can't stop them. What, exactly, is your highest priority here?

Permalink Reply by Mark Wells on November 25, 2009 at 10:24pm

Don,
Comparing a northern pike to a musky is like comparing an apple to an orange and you are well aware if this.
I just feel that if you are going to air your opinion on the rule proposal you submitted and ask for support, people need to know all the facts.
IE: My hunting partner picked up a loaded shotgun shell on the way back to the truck a couple years ago just to keep it from becoming litter. Assuming it was steel shot being we were in a waterfowl area. Wrong. It turned out to be lead as a warden met us at my truck and checked our ducks and every shell we had. That "Good Deed" that my partner did that day costed him $100.00 for that one shell. I'm not speculating. I spend alot of time on the water and in in field. I speak from first hand experience.
If you think a warden will not write a citation for scent being used down the road, you are sadly mistaken.

Permalink Reply by Don Wittenberger on November 26, 2009 at 12:47am

Mark, you gotta be one of the unluckiest people in the world. You have my sympathy, and I hope you don't mind if I cross to the other side of the street when you're around, just as a precautionary measure. I suggested at your club meeting that people write to the Commission asking them to support this rule and to reinstate the scent exemption. Is that what you're asking people to do? If so, we're on the same page. If this rule, as presently written, as all we can get, are you for it or against it?

Mark Wells said:

Don,
Comparing a northern pike to a musky is like comparing an apple to an orange and you are well aware if this.
I just feel that if you are going to air your opinion on the rule proposal you submitted and ask for support, people need to know all the facts.
IE: My hunting partner picked up a loaded shotgun shell on the way back to the truck a couple years ago just to keep it from becoming litter. Assuming it was steel shot being we were in a waterfowl area. Wrong. It turned out to be lead as a warden met us at my truck and checked our ducks and every shell we had. That "Good Deed" that my partner did that day costed him $100.00 for that one shell. I'm not speculating. I spend alot of time on the water and in in field. I speak from first hand experience.
If you think a warden will not write a citation for scent being used down the road, you are sadly mistaken.

Permalink Reply by N. Dillon on November 26, 2009 at 4:08am

Don,

I have been taken a hard look at this rule proposal over the last several days and have decided to support it even though I don't like the scent ban. The reason is simple, I fish with scents and feel is an important part of my fishing. I have used many, many different scents, some with great results. (Shhhhhhhhhhh.....)

I feel though it may personally affect my fishing style it’s worth giving up a little for a healthier fishery in return. I would hope that more people could come to understand this minor sacrifice. I will include some supporting comment to the Commission in attempt to keep the scent band off the books, but at the end of the day it’s about the fishery that many of us have come to enjoy.
It’s not about me, it’s about the fish, something to think about………….
Thanks
ND

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page