Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.


Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by RWBlue, Jun 29, 2005.

  1. Just out of curiosity because of the thread “o'shaughnessy - great time but some serious concerns” in the central Oh reports area .

    Who here is in favor of having new limits put in place?
    And Why?

    BTW, I would love to hear/see any studies that have been done, if there are any.
  2. I know a lot of us complain about fishing in Ohio and how great it would be to consistently fish in KY, TN, FLA, or TX. But I love Ohio and I would like to see how good it would be to fish here if the DNR was as strict on the inland lakes as they are on Lake Erie. It seems to be their sole focus.

    There is no reason to keep a 6 inch catfish or saugeye, except out of greed or stupidity.


  3. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

    I think everyone will agree thta limits MUST be made, if not in 20 years they need not ask "What happened to all the fish I used to cacth"
  4. First of all I think all game fish have limits on them, numbers and in many cases size. I do not have much problem with most of those limits. The link that you referred to has a good deal of talk about taking large numbers of fish which are not limited (panfish and catfish). I think that in most cases a fishery would benefit from having a minimum size limit on panfish and numbers for that matter. If nothing else it would give the wildlife officers a leg to stand on when addressing the issue. However, I think often times the perception is that a lake can not afford to give up many fish to the skillet to remain healthy and that is not necessarily the case. Therefore I am not in favor of extremely low limits in most cases.
  5. I would just like to see the state be more aggressive with the current laws and limits all over the state. By really cracking down, then maybe some progress can be made towards making the fishery better. It would be a shame to see the state really go downhill because of people keeping everything they catch!
  6. I don't argue the need for stricter limits in some cases and just limits altogether in other cases, but I don't think what everyone is seeing is anything new. There have been people raping the resources for decades. I just point that out because I think sometimes this electronic age brings about a lot more exposure of problems. Hopefully this exposure will also bring focus to the proper areas.

    In most of my fishing experiences in recent years I have not felt that the resource has been depleted. However some of the concerns that many here have, if addressed, could improve what I would already consider a pretty good fishing state.
  7. traphunter

    traphunter Guest

    I think many of us on here wished that there were stricter limits on fish. However just wishing that will most likely not change anything. Its up to the ondr to do something about this, and right now to me, it just seems like they could really care less.:rolleyes: :mad:
  8. I would rather not turn this into another ODNR bashing like so often happens on these topics.

    I am sure there are many who feel that the regs should be changed. But bad mouthing the ODNR here will accomplish nothing. People need to take their case to the ODNR and prove to them the merit to making changes. It means nothing to them to have some fishing simply stating that they think their should be limits. When they hear others giving good fishing reports it does not hold much weight with them. I am saying that I have solutions either but I know that when the ODNR hears everyone crying foul when people are taking hundreds of white bass every spring it falls on deaf ears because that has been happening every spring for many, many years! Now if someone had evidence that this harvest is resulting in a decline in population then they may get the ODNR's attention.

    Like I mentioned earlier, most lakes are capable of yielding a sizeable harvest of certain species. When we see those harvests for ourselves it may seem overwhelming but once again who knows what the impact is until someone can put some evidence out that it is detrimental?
  9. Bag and size limits on ALL species! Special circumstances could be addressed by applying slot limits.

    It is a disgrace that there are no size limits on smallmouth in our streams, and no bag limits on catfish in our rivers!

    I agree with traphunter and others, I don’t think that the ODNR really cares about the QUALITY of fishing in the state of Ohio (outside of Lake Erie). They have the antiquated philosophy that fishing is a method of harvesting food, and not a sport. The regulations currently in place are rarely enforced, and there does not seem to be any interest in adding regulations to improve fishing. Increasing population with a percentage that will keep EVERYTHING that they catch, decreasing fishable public water, pollution, and ODNR’s non-response……how do you think the fishing will be in 20 years?
  10. flathunter

    flathunter Mellons mentor

    we need them not just on major gamefish, but also panfish..Catfish, Bluegills, bass, walleyes, practically everything we fish for..I agree with Rooster the dnr looks at fish as food, not as sport.
  11. I normally don't reply to these types of threads for the reasons already mentioned. People using emotion as a basis for change will try to out-shout those wanting to use science. No one gets anywhere because they're talking over each other rather than trying to meet somewhere in the middle.
  12. traphunter

    traphunter Guest

    and also regs. on carp;)

    I wish we had some fisherman like rooster and flathunter and many others on here that know and relieze the need for more regs. in order to retain a quality fishery, that worked for the odnr. Maybe if we did we then our voice could be heard by odnr, and something could be done.
  13. So do a lot of other people which is not all bad.;)

    I agree that there are areas that need addressed. It is just that mere comments made in a forum are not going to do anything about it. It will take a much more concerted effort.

    Perhaps that is another chat session opportunity for an ODNR reprentative or whoever someone may deem as a more worthy individual? If people were able to get some improved communications between the ODNR and the outdoorsmen there could be some sense of what to do to gather support.
  14. traphunter

    traphunter Guest

    Thats true.

    I think the chat session thing you suggested would be a good idea also. Maybe the moderators or whoever is in charge of this site could set up a chat with a odnr representitive about stricter limits.
  15. It is fine that some people only look at fishing as a way to harvest some food. I don't think anyone wants to keep people from eating a few fish. But, the ODNR needs to recognize that the majority of fishermen (based on fishing time not individuals), are looking for sport not food. It would be nice if the ODNR took this into consideration when setting bag/size limits.


    Are you implying that the current regulations are based on science, and the call for change is solely based on emotion? I’m emotionally calling for change, but I think part of that change should be more money dedicated to scientific research, and less to “food” fish.

    Further, I would argue that the current regulations are NOT based on scientific data.

    A few points:

    1) Most fisheries are not even inspected by the ODNR. Generally, only the larger bodies of water are evaluated. How are the regulations based on science when the fisheries have not even been evaluated?

    2) Most of fisheries in the state are covered by the same size/bag limits. I’m no fishery biologist, but a general knowledge of science would indicate that a small creek and a large lake would not have identical needs, yet they have the same regulations. Did the ODNR base these statewide regulations on science, or convenience?

    3) The management policies are directed towards quantity of fish, not developing “trophy” fisheries. The regulations that ARE based on science are simply NOT manipulated to the benefit of sports fishermen.

    4) Is 5 a magic scientific number? There is a bag limit of 5 on many diverse species. Was this based on science, or convenience?

    Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion on this subject. If you are satisfied with the current regulations, great. However, if others are not satisfied, you may have to consider the possibility that it may not be just based on emotion.
  16. I would love to see a size and harvest limit on smallies and other game fish in rivers, small or large. However, one problem I could see would be with patroling and enforcing them. With a large state that has many fisheries like Ohio, education about the positive benefits of limits and faith in people may be one of the only options today.
  17. traphunter

    traphunter Guest

    Thats brings up another point. We need ALOT more game wardens to enforce the laws that we have.
  18. I am still looking for scientific studies. (either way)

    Maybe we can get the dnr to do a study.