Thanks Thanks:  0
HaHa HaHa:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Evansvile courier journal.......Steve ford outdoorsl

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default


    How do we get the state to work with rather than against us???

    Very good question! The DNR just doesn't seem to care about how to make our lakes better. Have the DNR and biologist ever offered up what we can do to make it better?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    After doing a little research on the permit process I found out the process isn't that hard and there is no fee. I decided to try to do the right thing and get a permit to put in some structure on Patoka. I did exactly what I was told to do and was denied. I got a list of excuses: the fish can't use it all year, there is enough cover in Patoka, they don't have the personnel to go check it. We all know that not every piece of cover is the same and some will never hold fish. If structures are made correctly and placed correctly they will hold fish. Does anyone believe that fish stay in the same spot all year? They need habitat at various depths and locations to move with the season right? Does the state really think we believe they will go check on these anyway. Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me! If someone is willing to spend their money, effort and time to improve our resources why are they so dead set against it!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Displaced Southerner----Piqua Oh
    Posts
    853
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    DEM FOLKS DON FISH
    CATCH FILLET

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    956
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Not much different about fish habitat than game habitat. Not all is the best none is bad. Provide a home and they will come. I wonder if our DNR just thinks its a coincidence other states have better fisheries.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ky blue blood in southern indiana
    Posts
    630
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I asked a dnr person why fishing was better in other states sunday ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,he gave the best, rude smart axx answer he could and then said I need to move there.................I see why the fishery is this way

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Here is a reply by T9 that was on the forum 9/25/13, that may help put some additional light on the fish structur and size limits in Indiana.


    Being a biologist isn't easy, especially when it comes to crappie anglers. One subject that constantly gets brought up is why we don't have a size limit on crappie. Seems like crappie anglers are always wanting bigger and better crappie fishing in their lakes. The simple answer is because it largely wouldn't work on most of our waters. Research and modeling suggest you need a population with good to above average growth combined with low natural mortality and heavy exploitation (people keeping fish) for them to work well. This is the exact criteria that both Ohio and Pennsylvania have adopted for their crappie programs. Indiana biologists have looked at the stats for a lot of our reservoirs, and to the best of my knowledge, only a few bodies of water have been identified that fit the above scenario. For certain, a statewide blanket regulation wouldn't work. Anglers think that you can simply slap a 9" or 10" size limit on a lake full of 6"-8" crappie and in a year or two, all those fish will have grown to 10" - WRONG. In many if not most cases, they'll stunt out and the population will be worse off than when you started.

    Back on the original point. Biologists over in Illinois (Rend Lake) came up with a creative idea to improve crappie fishing for larger fish while stabilizing the cyclical nature of the population. They took their existing 25 fish limit and applied a tiered bag limit, such that you could only keep 5 of your 25 crappie >10", and the other 20 had to be <10". They later (2004) revised the over 10" component to 10 > 10", with the remaining 15 having to be under 10". This forced harvest of smaller fish while protecting for overharvest of larger fish. From a recent presentation on the results;


    "The size structure of the crappie population improved noticeably following implementation of the regulation. Data from the fall 2002 trapnet survey showed a sharp rise in the percentage of the crappie population > 10 in and this increase has remained relatively stable for eight years post-implementation. Creel data also showed a dramatic increase in catch rates and harvest of crappie > 10 in."
    Sounds like a win for crappie anglers. Some posters on fishing forums even pointed out that it is, at times, difficult to even get your 15 fish under 10". However, the majority of the posters complained that they didn't like the new tiered system, instead arguing that they would just prefer a simple 25 over 10" limit, which as was already mentioned, won't work on a majority of crappie lakes in our region. Some went so far as to call the regulation "stupid".

    It just goes to show that there are many facets involved with setting regulations, not the least of which is angler opinion. In this case, even though the fishery probably wouldn't have improved, and maybe even gotten worse, anglers would rather have a simplified creel limit instead of a specialized regulation. Part of this likely stems from the nature of crappie fishermen, that being primarily a catch and harvest type endeavor. Surveys show that not many edible sized crappie get released by anglers. Unlike bass or muskie fishermen who have a very strong catch and release ethic, crappie anglers, along with bluegill and walleye anglers, are more geared toward harvest. As such, any regulations that negatively impact that ability to harvest are frequently met with criticism. In several instances, this has resulted in crappie size regs in other states having actually been rescinded. While many conservation minded folks follow and post on these boards, they make up but a tiny fraction of all the crappie anglers in the state, the majority of which don't have that same mindset.

    -T9

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

BACK TO TOP