|
Click here for
Other Fishing Articles:
Cleaning Fish
Mr. Pike
Keeper of the Keys
Loons on the Lake
An Open Letter
In a Hurry?
Algae
Knots
Lake Turnover
Mayflies
Ticks
Finest of Times
Ice Fishing
Knives
|
For all of the years I have fished and
hunted, in all of the lakes, on all of the lands and in all of the
states where I have been privileged to have had the opportunity to chase
the game that I have ultimately invited to dinner, I have not once
complained about the cost of a license for those activities, nor have I
bothered to ask anyone for the rationale behind the ever-increasing cost
of the license or the daily and possession limits for any species of
fish or game. I have always paid the licensing fees gladly,
knowing that a good portion of the fee was going to be spent on
worthwhile programs for restocking and managing our valued resources,
educating those who were taking advantage of them, and paying the
salaries to enforce the codes for those who were wantonly violating the
very laws that were put in place to protect those very same resources.
Of late, I have also listened to old-timers and youngsters alike who
have begun to question the equity of those very regulations put in place
to insure that adequate resources would remain in place for all to enjoy
for generations to come.
One particular issue that has begun
to bother me is the coming changes in bag and possession limits for
certain game fish in many lakes in many states. Of course the
issue has become ever more important with the reading of today's
headline stating that: "If current trends of over-fishing and
pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face
collapse by 2048, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a report
in Friday's issue of the journal Science." (this from today's Yahoo!
headlines) That is pretty serious stuff. But I am reminded
of a recent editorial comment in Boat US magazine by a retired gentleman
from Florida who stated that he had been traveling on an annual basis
from Florida to Michigan (and all states in-between) for the sole
purpose of fishing - his passion in life. He commented that he and
other folks in his same "predicament" - supposedly living now in the
golden years - should be afforded the opportunity to purchase a single,
federal fishing license good for all states, rather than
having to purchase expensive licenses in each and every state in which
he dropped a line (he spends many hundreds of dollars a year just on
licenses). Mind you, he wasn't complaining. He was just
curious about the reason that the laws were written in that way... Sure,
a few changes have been effected, but essentially they are the same as
they have been since they were first written a great many years ago -
just more expensive for the license.
For perhaps the first time in my
life, I began to ask myself the same kinds of questions. With
changing times and changing conditions, perhaps it is time to take a
very hard look at our hunting and fishing regulations. Things are
vastly different now from the way that they were back in the early parts
of the 20th century when few would bother to hunt and fish, and fewer
still could afford to go any great distance for that purpose. More
importantly, fish game were plentiful and there were virtually no laws
other than common sense and ethical behavior governing the way we
behaved and interacted with nature. Unfortunately those two things
were not effective in wildlife management. One does not have to
look far to find what has happened as a simple result of over-fishing and
over-hunting, not to mention habitat destruction, which further
exasperates the situation. Many species are on the verge of
extinction, others are gone from the planet forever. Ergo, fishing
and hunting regulations were put in place, and for good reason.
While many of the regulations and
restrictions are put in place for the good of the species, and also so
that all of us will be able to continue to enjoy all of fruits that
nature has to offer, there are a few aspects of certain new regulations
that deserve at least a second look. Remembering the
gentleman from Florida as I watch what is about to happen on a certain
lake in northern Minnesota (Kabetogama) - it has already taken place on
numerous other lakes - I decided to send an e-mail to the Minnesota DNR
to share with them my thoughts on an upcoming decision that seems to be
a certainty: to reduce the bag/possession limit for walleye to four (4)
fish on that lake. If the letter touches a nerve for you, get
active and send your own letter to whomever can help to rethink what may
be some antiquated ideas. Here is a copy of my e-mail, sent to
'Kevin.peterson@dnr.state.mn.us':
Hi Kevin –
Having been a
fairly dedicated fisherman for the better part of my 56 years, I
read with chagrin the likely outcome from talks about changes in the
slot sizes and bag limits for Kabetogama in the coming season.
Although I would think that comments like mine have already been
voiced, I would be remiss if I did not state them as well. While I
realize that increasing pressure is being placed on natural
resources – I was saddened with the headlines today about the
eminent collapse of world’s fish and seafood supplies – I must say
the answer for Kabetogama doe not lie solely with reducing the bag
limit. And the reason is an issue of equity. There are many like
me who are fortunate enough to be able to afford the time and cost
of driving 600 or more miles to Kabetogama for a single vacation.
Even so, fish are more often than not hard to come by (we all know
that the weather can severely reduce the time available on the
water). But if the weather is kind and the fishing is good, the
thought of six walleyes in my cooler at least
seems to make the trip a
bit more affordable; multiple trips for the purpose of having more
fish in my freezer are however, simply out of the question due to
time and monetary constraints. For those who live in the state of
Minnesota, and especially those not far from Kab, it is easy to take
multiple trips to the lake and never worry about possession, and
fill a home freezer with walleyes – regardless of the bag limit.
We are all expected to live by the code ascribed by the license to
which we affix our signature. You and I both know that
unfortunately, that does not happen. And that is one of the major
reasons our resources are being depleted. But simply limiting the
walleye bag limit to 4 – for all
anglers – will not solve the problem of depleting a
valuable resource, if that is in fact the goal here.
As a fisherman, I
am also a tourist. And as such, I am one of many who bring vast
amounts of tourist dollars to the state of Minnesota – to Lake
Kabetogama in particular. As much as I love Kab – and I have been
coming to the lake every year since my father first brought me there
in 1972 – if the bag limit is reduced to four for me, I will have to
at least consider the possibility of finding another lake where I
can be afforded the opportunity of bringing more fish home with me.
I know that I cannot be the only one considering this. And while I
am convinced that the slot limit has really helped Kabetogama, I
firmly believe that the already-stressed and declining resort
business will be further hurt by implementing a new, lower bag limit
for walleyes. The hurt will not come from those who live within a
few hours’ drive; they do not usually stay at the resorts and do not
spend their dollars around the lake. The hurt will come from those
who would rather not drive that long distance to take home less
fish. Although their dollars may still come to Minnesota, they will
most certainly not come to Lake Kabetogama and its businesses.
I would hope that
the Minnesota DNR would at least consider implementing a plan that
takes those thoughts into consideration. Because I am not a
resident of Minnesota, my license is far more expensive, yet I have
to drive farther and spend a good deal more in order to take home
the same number of fish as someone who lives in, for instance,
Minneapolis, Duluth, Hibbing or International Falls. I know… that’s
the way it has always been done. But things are vastly different
now. Don’t you think that it is perhaps time to take a hard look at
“the way it has always been done”? If you must implement this
reduction in bag limit, at least consider how to do it equitably.
No matter what anyone says, the possible reduced bag limit for
walleye can and will have the potential to have a very negative
impact on tourism dollars in the area – especially hard hit will be
those who have so much invested in a tremendous natural resource:
the resort and business owners on the lake.
As always, I hope to
see you On
the Lake!
|
|
