3 RODS PER PERSON

[salmonella]

We've covered this topic a number of times at LOTSA meetings and would like to see this happen. We approached the DEC a few years ago with this proposal and were turned down. Hopefully they will be open to it this time. We have out Fishing Expo comming up in February. Most of the attendees are LO Fishermen. If a couple of you guys were interested in manning a table to talk this up and gather signatures, etc we would be interested in making this happen. The DEC is also at the Expo where guys could express their interest in person. - Joe Yaeger

[daker1979]

Let us know when.....

[salmonella]

Our Fishing Expo is on Sunday 2/22. The Great Lakes Adgler Clinic is On 2/21. The details, Participants, Speakers, etc are at LOTSA.ORG.

[GAMBLER]

I think the precedent set in Lake Michigan will help get this passed. With the price of gas (although it is falling and we may not be able to use that as an excuse), it makes fishing with fewer guys in the boat worth it.

[FISHINMAN]

I agree with Mick :shock: , I fish A LOT by myself and it would be great to have another pole off a rigger or 2 wires and one rigger. When fishing in the spring being able to run 2 rods off the inside planner would be a plus.

All this being said, it's always a lot more fun when I can have 2 rods fire and have to still get the another one out of the way at the same time by myself

I do think they need no more than a 3 pole limit though :!:

[GAMBLER]

Three is enough for me. 4 or more will never fly. The DEC would also worry about people limiting out more often and want to change the creel limits.

[Yankee Clipper]

Gambler is correct … one of the things the DEC contemplates in setting creel limits are computer modeled probability rates. In other words; factoring trips per angler and fish caught per trip etc. You add another rod and we all can run larger spreads more often then our probability of limiting increases (well everyone but me :x ). They use a lot of other antidotal information to arrive at a creel limit based on the health, size and estimated numbers of the species (models are not unlike used for deer herds and setting doe permit numbers). Work’s the same here on Oneida Lake with the hatchery and Shackelton point Cornel station sharing Walleye data.

With all of that said I release most of what I catch but I would love the opportunity to be able to run a larger spread (so I can experiment and learn / try different presentations) when it’s just myself and one other person on board - and learn how to untangle that larger spread .

[daker1979]

Actually, on a 31-33 ft boat with 12-13 ft beam it's fairly easy for 2 to run more than 6 rods. A couple of downriggers, 2-4 divers, a couple of lead core, or flat lines on the boards, and maybe a copper and with autopilot it's not that hard to keep things from getting tangled-up. NOT that I would ever do such a thing because that would be illegal........

I say try to do Michigan 1 better, aim higher, give them something to shoot for....

Keeping the creel limits the same, this should not have an adverse effect on the population

[GAMBLER]

If we are too greedy, the DEC will shoot it down fast. It will hard for us to get the 3 rod limit.

[jimski2]

The more money for fishing gear means more money to be spent on fishery improvements from the Federal taxes. Let us go for more, it is a win/win for us. We are losing in the license sales numbers, we have to make it up somewhere.

[LongLine]

NYS Law:

Angling means taking fish by hook and line. This includes bait and fly fishing, casting, trolling and the use of landing nets to complete the catch. Anglers must be in immediate attendance when their lines are in the water. An angler may operate no more than two lines with or without a rod, and each line is limited to not more than five lures or baits or a combination of both, and in addition, each line shall not exceed fifteen hook points in any combination of single, double or treble hooks. Snatching, lifting, hooking and use of tip-ups are not angling.

Michigan Law:

Hook and Line Fishing: Fish so taken must be hooked in the mouth. Fish not hooked in the mouth must be returned to the water immediately. No more than two lines per person (including tip-ups) nor more than four hooks or lures may be used. Except: on L. Michigan, L. Huron, Superior and the St. Marys R., those persons in the act of trolling while targeting trout/salmon may use three rods/lines and attach no more than six hooks total on all lines. Hooks must be baited or attached to an artificial bait. All hooks attached to an artificial bait or “night crawler harness†are counted as one hook.

I look at the two sections above as follows:

NYS:

-Defines all applicable fishing methods.

-Require immediate attendance (My note: if your crew is sleeping in the cabin, you better pull his lines or you’re illegal)

-Stipulates two lines per angler (My note: This does not stipulate rods & reels therefore Seth Green rigs & small attended trot lines are allowed)

-Limits number of lures/baits per line

-Limits number of hook points per line

-Defines non-applicable fishing methods (My note: It is legal to snatch/lift suckers in some inland parts of the state.

Michigan:

-Stipulates immediate release of foul hooked fish for hook/line fishing

-Stipulates two lines per person

-Limits number of hooks/lures per person. (My note: We say a small Rapala has two treble hooks or six points. They say that same Rapala counts as one hook)

-States an exception which includes:

---Stipulates the “Great lakes areasâ€

---Stipulates the “Act of trollingâ€

---Stipulates “Targeting Trout/Salmonâ€

---Allows three rods/lines

---Limits the number of hooks/lures total for that person

---Stipulates hooks attached to a lure or baited

---Stipulates that a lure counts as a hook.

Basically what I proposed:

-A special regulation for Sportfishing

-Stipulating a certain season on the open waters and specifically not on the bays, rivers or channels

-Stipulating only “Actively trolling for trout/Salmonâ€

-Allowing 3 lines per person and that they must be attached to rods

-Limiting the number of lures/baits for all of that person’s lines

-Limiting the number of points on an individual rod

-Limiting the number of lures/baits per boat

-Stipulating hooks attached to a lure or be baited

-Stipulating immediate release of foul hooked fish

-Stipulating that the legal limit of fish is still in effect.

The reasoning behind what I proposed is that I believe fishing should be a pleasurable recreational experience. I love being on the water and to me, fishing means catching a fish once in a while; not just spending a fortune every year on boat, gas, tackle, launch fees, registrations, licenses, inspections, etc to get skunked repeatedly.

I feel the bait and the fish were out there this year and catches were definitely down. They were all over the place, in depth and in the water column. As pointed out by Fishstix, they were very picky eaters this year.

80% of the time I fly solo with 100% C&R, and strictly as a weekend warrior recreational fisherman. Although I will not seriously criticize any professional with a party that wants to keep their legally caught limit of legal fish. (Keyword: legal) My rigger probe is always down for speed & temp, therefore it always has a line on it. Where do I put my other line? Out?; down?; down & out?; Out-down?; back?; back & down? 50 years of experience & dumb luck make that decision for me. On the open water, you don’t see the fish. Even with the most sophisticated sonars, you only see a very small area (at least with what I can afford). What you see on your sonar is well in the past by the time you react to it. At best you hope for some other fish to repeat what you saw. Structure on the open lake is a lot different than in small lakes, bays, etc.

I’m sure some guys are going to argue that people may be tempted to keep more than their limit. That is why I suggest stipulating in that reg that the legal limit still applies.

I’m sure some will say but that gives the “40 ft meat wagons†more chance to rape natureâ€. That is why I suggest a boat limit on lures & that lines must be attached top rods.

I’m sure some will say “combat fishing is too wild as it is.†That is why I suggest the season and prohibited areas.

I’m sure some will say “you’ll just snag more fish.†That is why I suggest the foul hooking section and that hooks must be baited or attached to lures.

I’m sure some will say “but you’ll have incidental catches of my Bass or Musky.†That is why I suggest “Actively trolling for Trout/Salmonâ€, prohibit certain areas, etc.

I’m sure some guys will say “Where is the dividing point between the channel & the open water?†That is an item I would leave to the C.O.s, courts & witnesses with cell phones just as a lot of the current Trib & inland regulations are now.

I’m sure some will say “I think the numbers you picked are too highâ€, or ‘too low’; or that the season isn’t the right length. That is why I’m open to suggestions and would like to hear what you guys think. (for &/or against)

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[Fishtails]

I would like to see a 3 rod regulation imposed and I think Tom has done a great job and hit the nail on the head with some terrific points. Four rods would be cool for a few of us, but overall I think Brian Is correct that we'd not only appear greedy, but I think overall It would do more harm than good. We put ourselves In the forefront and Peta would start showing up at our tournaments and turn our events upside down. Sometimes It's not so good to put yourself In the spotlight

For me, I would fish more often!! I don't usually fish solo cause It's costly and a lot to go through driving from southeastern Pa and running the boat out to fish two rods. With the current regs, I might do one trip a year solo. Currently, If I don't have two or three guys I don't go. If the regs were changed to enable me to run three rods I'd definitely go more often solo or with my son. A 3 rod per man regulation would certainly pump more money into the local economy.

You raise a good point though Tom, there will always be naysayers. No situation will be perfect and some will focus on the negative ahead of the positive. I can see some down sides to 3 rods per man, but It would appear that most think the good would outweigh the bad. I really don't think It would change much. People that want to run more rods find a way, people that can't, don't.

Good thread Brian

[Tim Bromund]

Wouldn't make any difference to me. I typically run a 6 rod spread, even on the rare occasion I have 4 in the boat.

I remember this idea being floated a couple years ago and 1: it went over like a lead fart, particularly with the Musky clubs, they were violently opposed, and 2: the DEC flat out said NFW!!!

Tim

I'd like to revise what I said above. Many times it's just me and dad and it'd be nice to be able to run my regular 6 rod spread with just the 2 of us in the boat, so I guess it WOULD make a difference to me .

Tim

[LongLine]

Tim - Why did Musky guys object?

FT - By all means please take your son out more. It might help a youn-ing outfish the old man. (Just remember that famous expression: "Here Dad, you take it...it's a little one")

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[Tim Bromund]

Tom,

The hard core musky guys are almost fanatically protective of their fish. If I remember coorectly, I believe they didn't want the extra lines in the water because of increased mortality from more fish being caught, particularly in the Niagara River. I think a lot of the musky guys would rather see it go the other way. However, if this proposed reg change was Salmon/Trout Trolling specific, they might not care.

Tim

[LongLine]

Hopefully they'll see this proposal is indeed Trout/Salmon specific, just as the Michigan one is.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[Fishtails]

Oh..I do take him fishing often Tom. I guess I didn't word my phrase correctly. There are many times I can't just because of school or other reasons. I'm pretty fanatical about taking kids fishing.....I even had decals custom made for the side of my boat :roll:

I don't see three rods ever flying, but It would be cool If It did!

[Fishgill]

I think they should go by limits. It shouldn't matter how many rods or lines you use to achieve it. It would be nice to be able to run four rods when fishing alone.

[GAMBLER]

I still can't believe the guys that are voting no on the poll have not spoke up. As of right now it is 42 in favor and 6 against. Speek up you guys. All ideas or views should be discussed.

[daker1979]

I think they should go by limits. It shouldn't matter how many rods or lines you use to achieve it. It would be nice to be able to run four rods when fishing alone.

I agree with Fishgill, and now that I have had sometime to think about it I think you should include the Great Lakes in your proposal. Why not include the walleye/ trout of Lake Erie.....New York waters

As long as the creel limits remain what difference should it make how many rods I run.

I voted NO in your poll as I believe you shouldn't limit the proposal with just 3 rods

I understand the musky fisherman and agree they should not be included, so you would need boundries established

[Yankee Clipper]

I think they should go by limits. It shouldn't matter how many rods or lines you use to achieve it. It would be nice to be able to run four rods when fishing alone.

For the record I would love to see the state go to 3 rods per person. Most of my trips are myself and my wife or a buddy so that only puts two in my boat most of the time ... I would love to be able to run a 6 rod spread. But it will change part of the math of managing the amount of fish being taken ... one more rod per peson per boat will increase the probability of more people (boats) taking their limit on more trips. I'm note sure if the models would show or predict enough additional fish being taken to have them consider changing the limit as a balnce to the extra rods in the water but it will enter their thought process.

[daker1979]

I think they should go by limits. It shouldn't matter how many rods or lines you use to achieve it. It would be nice to be able to run four rods when fishing alone.

For the record I would love to see the state go to 3 rods per person. Most of my trips are myself and my wife or a buddy so that only puts two in my boat most of the time ... I would love to be able to run a 6 rod spread. But it will change part of the math of managing the amount of fish being taken ... one more rod per peson per boat will increase the probability of more people (boats) taking their limit on more trips. I'm note sure if the models would show or predict enough additional fish being taken to have them consider changing the limit as a balnce to the extra rods in the water but it will enter their thought process.

I don't believe that more fish would be taken. If you've been on this board for sometime, I believe you would see that a high percentage of the anglers practice catch and release voluntarily.

Yes the possibility for more limit catches is there but the reality is it won't happen. Show a picture of a legal limit catch and you'll get a couple dozen post from some of the members of this forum "slapping your hand" for keeping fish.

Let's increase the enjoyment(odds) of being out there in the first place.....Catching Fish

[Nemesis]

Added side note:

Just think how much more in sales the tackle shops would be getting. All the extra tangles would generate more "line" (mono, wire, LC, copper) sales and we all know you come out with more gear than you planned on buying before you went in. It's a win for the economy too.

I hate tangles but I am in favor of 3 rods per person!

[goingagain2]

I am all for it, I fish alone a lot of the time and at times am very tempted to add

another line (however, I don't do it or fish on any boat that does).

John

[Yankee Clipper]

Daker1979 “I’m with ya man†and do agree with you in that I would love to have the opportunity to run more rods, catch (and release) more fish while helping the economy (hey maybe all fishermen should ask for a federal bailout too??). I have a close friend who is a retired wildlife biologist for NYSDEC and another who is a federal marine biologist currently stationed in Alaska (I’m jealous and have offered to be her unpaid assistant with no luck). They believe that managing marine wildlife (actually any wildlife) is 80% science 10% art and 10% politics (i.e. farmers and insurance companies scream – doe permits increase). I’ve spend a lot of time talking to them and reading about the concepts of managing deer and elk herds, and fish creel limits etc.

They have developed computer predictive models that incorporate a lot of factors and data that they collect with some data going back several years. Environmental impact carries a lot of weight and is an emerging larger and fluid factor (pollution and invasive species for example). This along with number of licenses sold, health of the fish as determined through shocking and observations (ever been asked by DEC bio to look at your fish when you pull into a ramp - they are collecting data??), egg collections, fishing surveys etc. They are now even looking at trying to find ways to incorporate global warming trends into the models.

You and I can think it’s unlikely that extra rods will have an impact on more fish being taken --- but it will --- it’s why we (you and I) want the extra rods in the water, to have fun catching more fish . So if we agree more fish will be caught with more rods in the water then the only variable is how many more fish will actually be kept :?: ?? What I don’t know is if catch and release are the minority or the majority?? But it is a mathematical variable (data point) that does and will play a role in their thought process. They will come up with a % give it weight and plug it into the formula.

As I said may not be enough for them change the limit but it will go into the equation when the throw in all of the data points (factors) in their predictive modeling. At the end of the day, if this issue is close I would think that the “10% politics†would sway it to keep the creel limits the same. I would think that allowing an extra rod per person while reducing the creel limit would be contrary and a conflict in objectives – it would not make sense. So I would think that if they are agreeable to add the rod per person they wouldn’t reduce the limit!!??

I’ve already started drafting letters to send the DEC to ask that they increase the rods per person on Lake O … stealing some of the dialog already expressed by some of the folks on this sight ..