Some new Regs for 08....

[mhall]

Since it is illegal to clean a fish while on the water I doubt any guide is going to risk his/her license by cleaning an undersize fish or any fish on the water.

Dave other than that, do you have a opinion on this matter??

[Dave Stewart]

Dave other than that, do you have a opinion on this matter??

Actually I do have some opinions on this matter. First I will say that the idea of forming an organization to speak collectively to improve and protect our fisheries is a good one. That is how you get heard by the powers that be in this world. Sadly, most anglers complain about what is happening to our lakes and rivers but never organize in a collective voice to get anything accomplished. Probably, because this takes a lot of commitment, time and effort on the part of a few and money from the masses to make the organization a viable one. Basically, a lot of people like to complain but not enough want to really make the commitment to make this happen.

Secondly, any changes to regulations needs to be addressed from a scientific point of view, backed by scientific data to show that proposed changes to regulations will in fact benefit the fishery while at the same time not have a devastating impact on the economies that would be affected by changes.

I am sure there are changes that may need to be addressed on some lakes and rivers to enhance the fisheries and forming an advocacy group to do so would be a good thing as long as the aforementioned things are taken into consideration. Proposals to change regulations to make all the size and possession limits on all our waters the same so that someone does not have to take the time to verse themselves on what the regulations are for that body of water are not the type of proposals that would meet that standard. We have different regulations for different bodies of water because of the need to protect those fisheries..not for our convenience or inconveniece.

[mhall]

I also don't think all waters are the same or should be treated that way. Some lakes are probably fine the way they are while others could use some tweaking. Getting a FREE fishing handbook at any Walmart or sporting goods shop before heading out to your desired lake would not be that difficult or troublesome. You make good points Dave as to scientific study and I wonder if that was done at Laurel or was it done based on fisherman desire. Either way it has most definately had a positive impact on that fishery. Using Cumberland as an example and saying that the exact same slot limit was placed there as on Dale, what possible negative could come from that? Not trying to be a smartelic, but seriously what bad could come from it, from a economic impact???

[Dave Stewart]

The fact is that all lakes go thru up and down cycles on different species of fish sometimes and on all fish sometimes...caused by nature and man. Here at Ky/Barkley we are on an up cycle for bass but on a down cycle for younger year class Crappie which is why the limit was lowered here on Crappie this year. This is a direct result of scientific studies done by KDFWR and was enacted to protect the great Crappie fishery here. It was not enacted because someone "thought" it would be a good idea. These are the kind of changes to regulations we need. I doubt the changes that were enacted at Laurel were done without any studies and recommendations of the fisheries biologists responsible for that lake.

There is no doubt the slot limit placed on Dale Hollow has brought the Smallmouth numbers back in the right direction. This was not done because someong "thought" that it would be a good idea. It was done after studies indicated that the numbers of fish in their prime reproducing years was on the decline. I have no idea whether this is the case on Cumberland or not...it may be so and something may need to be done about it like a slot limit similiar to Dale, only our fisheries biologists can determine that.

So, what I am trying to say is that before anyone jumps up and demands changes to the fishing regulations, there needs to be some studies done to indicate that a change is needed. Now once the studies have been done, and a change is indicated as needed by the biologists that are far more qualified than you or I to make this determination, then this is when anglers as a group can assist KDFWR in putting pressure where it needs to be put (political arena) to enact these changes.

Sometimes there are special interest groups that want something changed that will have a diverse effect on a fishery just because it suits their needs. That has been the case here on Ky/Barkley for the past number of years. There is an organization here that represents resort owners and pleasure boaters (especially the big yacht type boaters) to change the annual water level drawdown schedule. KDFWR did a study on this proposed change and scientifically proved it would be detrimental to both the fish populations and water fowl populations but this group continues to lobby for this change. Some of us anglers here have fought this every year and luckily the TVA and COE have sided with the KDFWR on this matter so far or we would more than likely be looking at a drastic decline in the fisheries here.

As far as the economic impact...yes there would be some economic impact if a slot limit were to be placed on Cumberland Smallmouth. It would be an impact on those businesses that derive a good amount of their income from the tournament anglers. Like it or not, tournaments have a big impact on local economies and a slot limit tends to drive many of the bigger money tournaments (which are the big money producers to local economies) away. I am not saying the slot limit should not be enacted...I am saying that a study needs to be done to see if the lake is at a point at which the slot limit is needed to maintain a good fishery. If it is just a matter of we could have a few more big fish if we had a slot limit...then that has to be weighed against the possible economic impact to the local community.