California "bassocide"

[K_Mac]

Mainebass1984 I agree with most of what you said. I do think that discussion of bass fishing laws among this group is a good way of raising awareness, and that is a good start.

[gobig]

Vote the bastages out of office

 

Voting seems to have become ceremonial at best.

[HoosierHawgs]

What was the fallacy?

That because its not in the constitution we don't have any right to fish for bass on public water and catch and release them.

[F14A-B]

Hmm, so we kill every other fish type to try & save the hitch.. Got it.

[gulfcaptain]

The delta doesn't have hitch, it has Delta Smelt which are about 2" long.  Clear lake has hitch.  Two different bodies of water but under what it sounds is the same law to try and push through.  California stopped deverting water away from the delta to protect the smelt which btw also swim in and out of saltwater.  The breed in freshwater after the first heavy rains and live in a more brackish water enviornment. Clear Lake is a natural lake with a native forage fish (hitch) which they are worried about. I believe everything goes in cycles and the shear size of the delta could hold areas of smelt that are overlooked or bypassed in the system.  Just a thought though, if they stopped trying to destroy all the hydrilla in the delta maybe the delta smelt would have more places to hide away from preditory fish.  If fry seek refuge in the grasses for safety and are sprayed and destroyed well that's not really helpful for them either. Maybe if we did reseach and looked back at when they decided to try to control the weeds if it corresponds in relation to the drop off of these two rough fish populations, maybe that is the problem and not the bass and other targeted "invasives".  Anyone ever think of that?

[VolFan]

That because its not in the constitution we don't have any right to fish for bass on public water and catch and release them.

You're confusing "rights" with "opportunities" and "options". I don't agree with the proposed removals, because they aren't an accomplish-able task given the size and nature of the CA Delta, not to mention the amount of that area's economy that is based on sport fishing for these fish that have been there for decades. And they are expensive in nature and would put an untenable burden on the LEOs responsible for enforcement. Arguing it as a "right" is a losing battle.

[Dogmatic]

Ah, as per the poll question(might want to re-read it gulfcaptain)..."in my neck of the woods", its perfectly legal to catch, livewell, and release into another body of water...especially, private water. ; )

[everythingthatswims]

The law is ridiculous but if I had a pond anywhere near the delta I could definitely make the best of it 

[Caliyak]

How political can I get without getting kicked off this site? I live here so I have strong feelings about this, really @#$%&* strong feelings.

[Mswen]

Honestly, if the bass are seriously threatening native species, I would probably be in favor of trying to protect those species.  If someone decides that they enjoy fishing for Snakeheads on the East Coast, at the cost of destroying bass fisheries, would you defend their decision the same way you're defending anyone who doesn't like this law?  What about anyone who thinks Asian Carp might actually improve the Great Lakes?  If the bass are gone, I could always fish for a native species.  (Not that I live anywhere near the CA Delta)

 

That said, trying to force people to do what you think is right often triggers a lot more resentment than compliance.  Rather than forcing people to kill every bass, which is never going to happen, it would be easier and smarter to just get rid of size and possession limits, or even allow commercial fishing of bass and bluegill.

[Mswen]

In the past two years there were bills introduced in the state of Maine that received some attention in the bass fishing community.  Several trout enthusiasts and groups were attempting to ban the use of soft plastics.  Another bill attempted to ban the use of barbed hooks. Yet another bill was introduced attempting to ban all recreational activities within 200 feet of shore.

Don't mean to change the subject, but I have a question I have to ask.  I heard about the first one (soft plastics), and I understand the reasoning behind that and the second (barbless hooks), but what was the the third supposed to accomplish, besides preventing a lot of people from fishing, and forcing duck hunters into a boat?  It would make fishing virtually all rivers/streams impossible, and prevent anglers from accessing most fish in larger waters.  Was that the intention?

[Jtrout]

Lol i would take them and put them in a pond by my house haha

[Mswen]

If it was established in my neck of the woods...Catch, live well, release into another body of water. Make sure I'm fishing barbless, and shake the "dinks" off at the boat.

 

I seem to have a talent for releasing fish at boatside, but somehow the "dinks" are never as cooperative as the "pigs".

[deaknh03]

I would quit voting in the moonbats California is notorious for.

[blckshirt98]

I'm actually more worried about the laws they're trying to pass to ban lead weights in Calfornia.  Tungsten is just too expensive and steel rusts.

[slonezp]

Honestly, if the bass are seriously threatening native species, I would probably be in favor of trying to protect those species.  If someone decides that they enjoy fishing for Snakeheads on the East Coast, at the cost of destroying bass fisheries, would you defend their decision the same way you're defending anyone who doesn't like this law?  What about anyone who thinks Asian Carp might actually improve the Great Lakes?  If the bass are gone, I could always fish for a native species.  (Not that I live anywhere near the CA Delta)

 

That said, trying to force people to do what you think is right often triggers a lot more resentment than compliance.  Rather than forcing people to kill every bass, which is never going to happen, it would be easier and smarter to just get rid of size and possession limits, or even allow commercial fishing of bass and bluegill.

Asian carp won't improve the Great Lakes, and probably wouldn't thrive. The carp are filter feeders and the zebra mussels have removed the microscopic food the carp feed on. In addition, the Great Lakes are deep and lack current which, I understand, is needed for the carp to successfully reproduce.

 

Salmonoids were stocked into the Great Lakes to reduce the alewife population. They are not native to the Great Lakes. I believe brown trout, lake trout, and 1 species of rainbow trout are native. Kings, coho's, and the remaining trout species are all invasive. These fish are stocked on an annual basis and most cannot reproduce naturally. The sport fishing industry on the Great Lakes is big business and generates revenue for the state(s).

 

I think this law is just another knife in the heart of those that love the outdoors and utilize the fisheries. The "I know better than you" mentality is an epidemic among politicians and lawmakers on both local and federal levels.  

[Mainebass1984]

Asian carp won't improve the Great Lakes, and probably wouldn't thrive. The carp are filter feeders and the zebra mussels have removed the microscopic food the carp feed on. In addition, the Great Lakes are deep and lack current which, I understand, is needed for the carp to successfully reproduce.

 

Salmonoids were stocked into the Great Lakes to reduce the alewife population. They are not native to the Great Lakes. I believe brown trout, lake trout, and 1 species of rainbow trout are native. Kings, coho's, and the remaining trout species are all invasive. These fish are stocked on an annual basis and most cannot reproduce naturally. The sport fishing industry on the Great Lakes is big business and generates revenue for the state(s).

 

I think this law is just another knife in the heart of those that love the outdoors and utilize the fisheries. The "I know better than you" mentality is an epidemic among politicians and lawmakers on both local and federal levels.  

 

Brown Trout are native to Europe. Rainbows are native west of the rocky mountains. Everywhere else they have been introduced.  The only native salmonoids in the great lakes are landlocked atlantic salmon, brook trout and lake trout. Brook trout and lake trout are both actually char.

[Choporoz]

How many of you who have expressed outrage have written your elected representatives on this issue?  Not just Californians - this is a US bill...?

 

This is yet another case where the federal govt thinks they know whats best for each individual state..they dont. This is and should be a state and state only matter.

I'm a fan of states' rights, however, this bill was introduced by Boxer and Feinstein - So, IMO, the problem is more like a case of National representatives using their Federal seats to circumvent their own state's rights.  Subtle difference, but I blame the individuals involved more than the entire institution.

 

If your local government made it law to kill every bass you caught, would you?

    Kill
    Not Kill
    Quit Fishing (not really an option)

                                                              

                                                                               -Mgmt.

I don't live in CA, but shouldn't there be an option to fish elsewhere?

[Mainebass1984]

Don't mean to change the subject, but I have a question I have to ask.  I heard about the first one (soft plastics), and I understand the reasoning behind that and the second (barbless hooks), but what was the the third supposed to accomplish, besides preventing a lot of people from fishing, and forcing duck hunters into a boat?  It would make fishing virtually all rivers/streams impossible, and prevent anglers from accessing most fish in larger waters.  Was that the intention?

 

I honestly can not say I do not know the true intention of prohibiting recreational activities within 200ft of shore. I can only assume their reasoning. I had heard that landowners didn't want people fishing their docks and boats.  I think they wanted to prevent any chance of damage to their property. I honestly don't know, just making assumptions.

[bigfruits]

"it slipped right out of my hands, officer!"

[Big C]

 

I don't live in CA, but shouldn't there be an option to fish elsewhere?

 

The question is "If your local government made it law to kill every bass you caught, would you?" it's a hypothetical question where the law would cover all the bodies of water you fish.

[gulfcaptain]

Ah, as per the poll question(might want to re-read it gulfcaptain)..."in my neck of the woods", its perfectly legal to catch, livewell, and release into another body of water...especially, private water. ; )

I understood the op question.  Answered it.  But then also referenced a few other posts from others to clearify and respond to those posts without quoting 15 different responses.  Too much work for that. Just like the post refering to banning lead.....They have been trying to do that since the early 90's.  Yep can still buy a lead sinker in a tackle store.  Been fighting to ban that for 20 years.  Hasn't happened yet.

[stkbassn]

Is it morally right to obey unjust laws? 

 

Amen. I won't obey a law just because it's a "law". Sorry, I'm not a sheep and don't plan to be one in my lifetime. I voted "Not Kill" and would never obey such a law.

[Raul]

Unfortunately most of the fish species we love are NON NATIVE almost anywhere we find them.

[Mainebass1984]

I understood the op question.  Answered it.  But then also referenced a few other posts from others to clearify and respond to those posts without quoting 15 different responses.  Too much work for that. Just like the post refering to banning lead.....They have been trying to do that since the early 90's.  Yep can still buy a lead sinker in a tackle store.  Been fighting to ban that for 20 years.  Hasn't happened yet.

 

Lead sinkers are banned here in the northeast. It is illegal to possess lead sinkers or jigs with lead weight under a certain size. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont all have laws regarding using lead.