live bait?

Utah Fishing Reports & Discussion Utah Fishing General
21

Playing Devil’s Advocate here by arguing both sides.

It’s also true that long-time paid officials tend to adopt the attitude of “I’m in charge and so my opinion is law.” (NOT accusing any current Utah staff of this, mind you!) Plus the very real fact that laws become entrenched long after they have outlived their purpose.

Every rule ought to be looked at on a regular basis to see if still has validity - and eliminated if it doesn’t. Live bait, corn bait, single pole, daily and possession limits, etc are just examples off the top of my head that have been in place a looooong time - whether they still have a valid reason or not.

22

Loah, I get where you are coming from and completely understand your point. I don’t believe that making it illegal to fish with live bait is akin to ripping up a garden to spite the weeds. If the biologists can point to legitimate examples (Montana) and state that allowing us to use live bait in some bodies of water and not others has been found as a causal link to contaminated fisheries then it is hard to argue against their finding in my opinion without an argument based on proving that link wrong or with studies to fight fact with fact. There is plenty of room on the water for both of us to exist without having to view this the same way.

By the way, your fishing reports are some of my favorites.

23

BigEZ, I don’t really get why you are “surprised” that we don’t just accept everyone for their word. I actually have yet in this entire thread been provided with any specific information. I have been told that there have been lots of illegal introductions in Montana and parts of Montana use live bait and maybe those parts have more illegal introductions than other parts without live bait and that fisheries biologist in Montana think live bait was a mistake. I haven’t been provided with actual information on live bait and illegal introduction. No , studies, documents, statments, or specific data etc. I realize there may not be studies on this, but if there are, I wouldn’t mind reading them . Hey I know how to critique scientific studies, I develop, conduct and publish these for a living. So go on being surprised that I ask questions and don’t take everyone’s word as fact without being provided with background information. I actually believe Paul may know what he is talking about, but most of the responses thus far are directed at a regulation allowing transport of live bait.

LIve bait may well be the downfall of Montana’s fisheries. But nothing so far I have been provided has shed light on this. I also believe that Montana laws are different than what I and LOAH suggested. So just like how LOAH’s garden example may not be akin to the live bait example, neither is Montana’s live bait example to the one I proposed. I do believe that Montana currently or did allow transport of live bait throughout the state. Montana goes on to make, what seems to be ridiculous comments like you are allowed to use but not release live bait. Well I have used live bait a lot and live bait frequently gets into the water when using. So regulating release of live bait is a moot point.

I actually like the list that LOAH provided. LImiting live bait use to 10 or so lakes/reservoirs in Utah seems to be very low risk to Utah’s resources. Whether or not Utah allows live bait fishing, there will still be illegal introductions. I am wondering if anyone has any info on the numbers of illegal introductions already like the numbers previously provided for MOntana? As all of those introductions were without a regulation for legal use of live bait.

I haven’t come to a conclusion that it is bad for Utah the way I have outlined because I haven’t been given any information to the contrary. I have come to one conclusion though, live bait should not be used as fertilizer in LOAH’s garden as he will spend too much time digging out weeds and not enough time fishing.

24

Ktrout, if you write scientific studies for a living, I have to assume you know how and where to find such studies on your own, if you are truly interested in deeper research. What has been presented here is clearly intended as a precis or summary of such studies. That’s probably enough for those of us in the peanut gallery.

25

Not directed at you RR but how freaking hard is it to catch fish in Utah without live fish as bait. Give me a break you whiners[:P].
As for research there’s a whole series of Fisheries Journals published for those interested. Here’s a simple search that has tons of articles that pertain to the issue if you have time to read thousands of pages rather than rely on someone who does this for a living/career:
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?stemming=yes&searchText=live+bait

26

“BigEZ, I don’t really get why you are “surprised” that we don’t just accept everyone for their word.”

Everyone? Or the Fisheries Coordinator Biologist? Big difference. [;)]

He stated that Montana biologists had determined a causal relationship between allowing live bait at some fisheries but not others and the degradation of those systems that hadn’t allowed it.

Good enough for me. Doesn’t have to be good enough for you or anyone else. I’m no biologist and I don’t expect that a large number of folks on this board are, so I am just as surprised as I would be if I read a bunch of posts that debated the answer from a physicist, architect or doctor.

27

You are right, I do know how to easily find studies/data in my field. I never said it was mandatory that the so called expert/s provide data. But as mentioned before, research, let alone “deeper research” has not been presented yet. So I am still interested in those in the field of ichthyology, providing something to back up their claims. That’s what I do in my field, make a claim, provide support.

28

That’s what I do in my field, make a claim, provide support.

Do you ever suggest to make policy change without support showing that issues wont’ come up due to that change?

Doesn’t this go both ways?

How 'bout you guys provide something to show that allowing live bait doesn’t provide additional potential for negative results??

29

In research we do not prove a negative, I am surprised you asked for that PBH. I do understand though that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So if research has not been done, it does not make it that things should be done (ie use of live bait).

30

BigEZ wrote:
[/quote]
"Everyone? Or the Fisheries Coordinator Biologist? Big difference. [;)] quote]

Yes I understand there is a difference between you and someone with a biology degree. [:p] Just playing with you though.

31

Dude! How on earth did you hold that monster up without getting blood on your shirt and pants! I don’t know where that is, but when I go to sleep I dream I’m there.

32

Doesn’t this go both ways?

How 'bout you guys provide something to show that allowing live bait doesn’t provide additional potential for negative results??

I can’t prove that I personally wouldn’t move the live bait around, but I can still know that I wouldn’t. That’s good enough for me.

I realize it’s an exercise in futility to try and talk the people charged with the responsibility of managing and protecting our waters into allowing live bait. It’s just too much for them to try and keep up with. I understand that.

The exact same situation exists with crayfish, but nobody is making a stink about that. Perhaps they don’t proliferate as quickly as bait fish.

For those that think my side represents legalizing all sorts of things (though I do believe too many laws already exist - different subject) because the bad guys would do it anyway, that’s far from my logic.

My logic doesn’t lobby for responsible people to do irresponsible things (moving live fish). It lobbies for responsible people to responsibly use live bait where they were caught, then kill them before taking any leftovers home or release the unused minnows from the same place they already were.

No harm, no foul.

Those that are irresponsible don’t even count, since they do whatever they want anyway. That doesn’t mean we should bend our laws to accommodate them. If you think that’s what I’m saying, you’re simply wrong. Nice try though.

The fact remains that they exist though. I know, it’s a battle I can’t win, but for the record, I know that I would follow a “crayfish” type of allowance of live bait.

I would like to fish with live bait in the waters those species of bait fish are found (and eaten). No, I really don’t have too much trouble catching fish as it is, but it’s an experience I haven’t had and would like to. That’s all.

It won’t happen here. So be it. As a responsible, law abiding fisherman, I’ll continue to go without because the regulations don’t allow for it.

33

I completely agree with you.

They should just amp up the charges against people violating that law. Say, if you’re found with a species of live minnows on a water that those particular minnows aren’t found in, you would be charged with a felony. I, and others such as yourself would have no problem with that law. It would get law breakers off our lakes and thrown in prison, and make the law abiding citizens happy. :slight_smile:

34

That law would probably be just as effective as the one that says a felon cannot be in possession of a firearm. That works 100% of the time.

35

Well the rule wouldn’t be “if you have a felony, you wouldn’t be able to posess minnows”.

I agree that there are plenty of pointless laws that don’t do any good. But I don’t think many of the people that break fishing rules are running guns and selling crack on the side.

I speed all the time. If it was a felony to speed, you could bet your ass I would never go 1 mph over the speed limit.

36

Dude! How on earth did you hold that monster up without getting blood on your shirt and pants! I don’t know where that is, but when I go to sleep I dream I’m there.
You do realize that’s what’s called a “tomato” on the Kenai Peninsula. When a king is that red local etiquette is to quickly release it and let it go about it spawning business as it way past keeping quality. If asked if you caught anything most reply just a big tomato. Usually they’ll say something like hope fishing improves for you.

37

Nope. The rule would be.. as some would like it.. (me included, but it won’t happen) you may use live minnows that were caught in the same water as you are currently fishing. Then the next guy that wanted to use golden shiners as bait at Newcastle would just plant golden shiners so he could use them as bait there… Oh, wait, that already happened. Maybe they’d want to use them at Kolob reservoir… Oh, wait, that already happened too. Where should we try them next? No where.

38

Good point, I hadn’t thought of that.

I guess they could just specify what species of minnows could be used at those certain waters.

People piss me off.

39

In Southern California folks would use feeder fish from the pet store and then there would be great big goldfish in every pond we fished. FlyGoddess would have a blast down there. Caught a lot of nice fish with a bluegill and a bobber back then.

40

And then people would still transport fish (and some that might be carrying diseases) from one body of water to another. It’s just better to leave it the way it is.