Jump to content

Canal changes?

Rate this topic


Gwiz

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gwiz said:

The Feds do control the canal and its waters. If they wanted to make it catch and release it only takes a phone call 

The  feds may control the canal and its waters but the State controls the fish in those waters.

====Mako Mike====
Makomania Sportfishing
Pt. Judith, RI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the committee finally declaring the overfished status, I think it would be the most opportune time to make a drastic change  and then dial back next year.

 

If you set a limit of 1 fish @ say 40"  it would give thousands of fish a second and third chance at spawning and make it easier to spot poachers with undersized fish.


a keeper fish also woulnd't fit nicely into the little barrels that certain groups use to ferry bass away from the canal near the cribbin and such. 

 

We already have regs on the books specifying catch and release and different creel limits on different waters in the state.   Who is to say we can't have different regs and creel limits for certain beaches or shorelines?

 

If certain groups knew that they can't keep fish legally from a body of water, and being seen ferrying away ANY fish could mean losing their fishing gear, maybe it  will disuade them from fishing there at all and will save even a couple hundred fish that get to spawn another day?

Edited by pogie_boy
and another thing!!!
DITCH TROLL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 mins ago, Kanine Kleenup said:

Would be better for the fish if there was no fishing allowed... one day last summer we counted 12 floaters in buzzards bay....

Floaters are a sign of a problem, I'll admit to that.  But, if your worried about floaters, you should follow a dragger around sometimes.  We've all seen the pictures of that wasteful carnage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 mins ago, nateD said:

yes.yes.yes.yes.

The problem with that is, with little enforcement available the easiest solution for the Feds is no fishing period.  We've seen plenty of examples of how the Feds have used birds & other 'red herrings' to force people off of Fed lands.  Are you in favor of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another problem that's been ingrained into fishermen from an early age is, keeping the biggest fish. Not just stripers. But all fish. Please explain how you get a guy new to the sport to release a 45" fish? We've all seen it. It just doesn't happen. Even if they already have a couple in the trunk of their car, they'll still justify a reason to keep another.

 

 

The Sultan of Sluggo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 mins ago, clambellies said:

The problem with that is, with little enforcement available the easiest solution for the Feds is no fishing period.  We've seen plenty of examples of how the Feds have used birds & other 'red herrings' to force people off of Fed lands.  Are you in favor of that?

In favor of banning fishing? no. In favor of catch and release only for stripers everywhere? yes. I don't care what the enforcement is, poachers are always going to poach, at least they will be easier to spot.  CNR only would dissuade a lot of people from even fishing for them. How would it even change how they enforce the rules? They wouldn't need more people, they would just do the same rounds they do now. How did they enforce the moratorium? Poachers were likely still taking fish then, but it still rebuilt the stocks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 mins ago, bob_G said:

Another problem that's been ingrained into fishermen from an early age is, keeping the biggest fish. Not just stripers. But all fish. Please explain how you get a guy new to the sport to release a 45" fish? We've all seen it. It just doesn't happen. Even if they already have a couple in the trunk of their car, they'll still justify a reason to keep another.

 

 

A huge problem, I've been trying to teach my Dad and uncle the big ones are what you want to let go, but it just doesn't compute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ACOE wants to ban, limit, or declare C&R fishing only, they can. It is their sandbox, you are there at their behest. If Fishing, biking, or walking, becomes a threat to safety they can and will make any adjustments they deem needed. Bass may be the state's fish but it is ACOE land. Boats aren't allowed to fish the canal and if they are caught by the canal patrol it's a $500 fine. The same can apply to shore. 

"Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after."  

~Henry David Thoreau
(member formerly known as MV Bluefish)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACOE would outright ban fishing if they did anything; not make it a C&R. What reason would they have to care about how many fish are kept? The growing trend of guys thinking they have the right to launch plugs at boats traversing the canal because they are "too close" or putting their surface feed down is going to make it much easier for a decision to be made if the time comes. 

The Best Day to go fishing is any day that ends in Y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of it is inexperience. Canal is to easy for any Joe smo to catch a fish and not knowing the proper way to unhook and handle a fish leads to a lot of the mortality. Every once in a while I get a bass that takes a plug deep and into the gills and that fish wont make it so I keep it but that is the toll of doing business. We are in a game where we put sharp objects in a fishes mouth. But being educated about proper fish handling will help a lot more than c&r. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

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...