# Making live trout illegal for bait



## SeeinStripes (Oct 16, 2011)

There has always been an aversion of sorts within the fishing realm about using trout for bait.  I think the best thing that could happen to trophy striper fisheries everywhere would be to make live trout illegal as bait.  

I know this would be an unpopular solution for many fishermen and trout dealers, but the fact is nobody uses trout for bait for any other fish specie. There's plenty of different types of fish available for striper bait. 

I may be coming across as elitist, but I feel more sense of accomplishment if I have captured my OWN bait and then caught striper on that. There are some fish predators (people) out there (not necessarily meat hunters, but fish KILLERS nonetheless due to mishandling), you may know somebody like that, who primarily use trout for bait. The best way to stop this detriment to the striper resource  would to be to take their bait away. This is happening on a few different systems. 

As hard as the government works (read TROUT STAMP) to produce the trout to stock in streams for the trout fishermen (as much as I despise the thick fishing line, little wooden nets, hemostats, #22 hooks, Orvis, breathable waders, etc...) we could knock two birds out with one stone. It would make the folks at TU happy as a pig in poop to get that law passed, and it would conserve the trophy striper fishery to a large degree.  Not only are trout purchased for bait, but they are also caught out of the river system to be used for striper fishing.  Any way you cut it, less trout for trout fishermen.

I don't think it would be too hard to get this reg passed and provide benefit to people who still want to work a little to get the bait necessary to catch a trophy striper, not to mention all the trout fishermen out there who don't like seeing or thinking about their fish of choice trailing along on a 7/0 hook.

It would read like this: "It is unlawful to use live trout for bait."

Any thoughts?


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 16, 2011)

In the interest of full disclosure don't you have a business selling gizzard and threadfin shad? Hmmn!


----------



## Nicodemus (Oct 16, 2011)

This topic has been hashed out real well over the last few days.


----------



## dphillipx (Oct 16, 2011)

before i give my opinion.....1 i am not a striper fisherman...2 i know exactly what opinions compare to.....and quite frankly i am one...

i think it should be illegal to use live trout as bait for striper fishing. the state gov'ts spend tons of money just to keep the trout fisherman happy, and i know several striper fisherman ( 2 of which are great friends) that use live trout as bait. both of them catch their own, one of which is a guide. i know if i were a trout fisherman i would get a bit uneasy about this. 
HOWEVER i do think an ammendment should be added to allow trout as live bait on bodies of water that contain trout. 
i see it like this..... i know many of you guys wouldnt like it if i were catching 8lb bass to put on a huge hook and fish for sharks..... put yourselves in someone elses shoes and see things from their perspective


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 16, 2011)

Grey Ghost said:


> In the interest of full disclosure don't you have a business selling gizzard and threadfin shad? Hmmn!



I stock shad in ponds and lakes.  I don't sell for bait.  Not to mention they are rough fish and are readily available for use as free bait for anyone.

I don't see why if you can buy trout for bait, you can't go and buy bream, crappie, or bass for bait.


----------



## Dustin Pate (Oct 16, 2011)

dphillipx said:


> the state gov'ts spend tons of money just to keep the trout fisherman happy



Don't they also spend tons of money to stock stripers and hybrids to keep others happy also?

Personally I would go either way. I would rather have a tank full of large gizzard shad to fish with but to each their own.


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 16, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> I stock shad in ponds and lakes.  I don't sell for bait.



Isn't the All-Season Bait and Tackle shop at lake Juliette and a bait shop near Allatoona selling gizzards courtesy of Shadstocking.com?


----------



## fairweatherfisherman (Oct 16, 2011)

I've known Shawn for quite a while now and I can assure you that he had this opinion about natural bait long before he started his shad business.  

I seldom use trout for bait for stripers, and nearly always catch my own natural bait, but there are occasions (especially in the fall) that I prefer using trout over the available natural forage in some bodies of water (that have no stocked trout).  I'll be interested to hear the arguments for and against and then make up my own mind.


----------



## Dustin Pate (Oct 16, 2011)

Grey Ghost said:


> Isn't the All-Season Bait and Tackle shop at lake Juliette and a bait shop near Allatoona selling gizzards courtesy of Shadstocking.com?



Whether or not he sales shad has no bearing on this topic. This has to do with trout being legal or not. The great majority of people who use shad for bait catch it themselves and don't buy them anyway.


----------



## Robert Eidson (Oct 16, 2011)

fairweatherfisherman said:


> I've known Shawn for quite a while now and I can assure you that he had this opinion about natural bait long before he started his shad business.
> 
> I seldom use trout for bait for stripers, and nearly always catch my own natural bait, but there are occasions (especially in the fall) that I prefer using trout over the available natural forage in some bodies of water (that have no stocked trout).  I'll be interested to hear the arguments for and against and then make up my own mind.



X 2 !!!!  I have know Shawn for years, heck I have fished with him and his family. We have even gone head to head about subjects like this one and at times he has been  of my list ( The one if I ever go postal. ) of one of my least favorite people. 
But even with the issues we have had it the past. I would NEVER believe this has anything to do with his shad business.  Shawn is very opinionated and loves the sport of striper fishing.  And I truly believe that this is the case here....


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 16, 2011)

Grey Ghost said:


> Isn't the All-Season Bait and Tackle shop at lake Juliette and a bait shop near Allatoona selling gizzards courtesy of Shadstocking.com?




Jerry, I'm trying to get feedback about protecting both trout and striper fisheries simultaneously with one regulation.

For the record, I did provide a few dozen gizzards to All Seasons one time.  Nothing around Allatoona.  Let's stay on topic here.


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 16, 2011)

Shawn,

Knowing your penchant for accuracy, I wanted to help keep the record straight. 

We both want to protect stripers and and trout but using HATCHERY raised trout does NOT have a negative impact on the trout fishery. If anything, it adds a few trout to the fishery when bait escapes or is dumped. Besides, trout may or may not be a more effective striper bait, depending on what they prefer at the time.

And not everyone has your skill and opportunity to net shad.

Why open the door to more regulations that quite possibly lead to even more regulation. e.g ban live bait on more waters?

Just my opinion.

By the way, what in my above comments possessed you to inactivate my paid account on your striper forum


----------



## Troutman3000 (Oct 16, 2011)

Yeah I can understand not using stockers, but not allowing store bought Trout on Lanier makes no sense 
.  How does that protect the trout or striper populations?


----------



## centerc (Oct 16, 2011)

I dont think you could catch trout in a stream and have them live long enough for bait. A lot of people at the bait shops make a living selling bait . I dont think it hurts anyone but stripper guides to use live trout.


----------



## dphillipx (Oct 16, 2011)

I don't even think it's a matter of striper guides or fisherman. The conservancy of stripers should be a necessity. The there are areas such as juliette that would struggle if the striper population were damaged by over fishing. 

HOWEVER! I have formed a bit of change in opinion as I have thought more. On the subject. I feel like that if using live crappie were banned for catfishing I would be a bit angry as that is my spring bait of choice. So I rekon like many of you guys I have mixed feelings. 

There are ppl that catch trout as bait. I did not. Realize there was a difference in farm stock and stock. For public waters. Therefore my argument there is forfeifed


----------



## Nicodemus (Oct 16, 2011)

Gentlemen, that is enough.


----------



## Msteele (Oct 16, 2011)

I would leave it alone.  Have a receipt if you bought them or catch them(8 per person only like the law states).  I would make it illegal to use them for bait in trout stocked areas(dead or alive) so most people might be happy.  
Trout are mostly a put and take fishery anyways.


----------



## Robert Eidson (Oct 16, 2011)

centerc said:


> I dont think you could catch trout in a stream and have them live long enough for bait. A lot of people at the bait shops make a living selling bait . I dont think it hurts anyone but stripper guides to use live trout.




Dude I use trout ( Store Bought ) in the winter. Always have and always will on Allatoona and any other lake if they ( Stripers ) are feeding on them. . 

 I would never be against anything that would keep a father and child from enjoying this great sport together. Winter is not the time ( The accident at the Texas Ranger Game earlier this year comes to mined ) to have your kids on the water before sunrise. Trout is a great alternative for the weekend angler to introduce their kids to striper fishing....

I guess I got off topic as well.... I should have stated this in my earlier reply.


----------



## dberry (Oct 16, 2011)

I have never used them and do not have an opinion about it either way - I did not know you could use a game fish of any type legally for bait. Guess I learn something new every day.


----------



## Dirk (Oct 16, 2011)

Robert Eidson said:


> Dude I use trout ( Store Bought ) in the winter. Always have and always will on Allatoona and any other lake if they ( Stripers ) are feeding on them. .
> 
> I would never be against anything that would keep a father and child from enjoying this great sport together. Winter is not the time ( The accident at the Texas Ranger Game earlier this year comes to mined ) to have your kids on the water before sunrise. Trout is a great alternative for the weekend angler to introduce their kids to striper fishing....
> 
> I guess I got off topic as well.... I should have stated this in my earlier reply.



I agree with Robert. I have fallen in and nearly got hypothermia because my front deck had ice on it and I slipped and went into into <40 degree water temp lake Lanier in February...   Luckily I quickly climbed up my trolling motor as you only have a matter of seconds before water that cold starts affecting your muscles. I was scared this might happen and had a change of clothes in my boat or I might not be here right now typing this, as the air was in the 20's and I might have froze solid before I got back to the ramp where my truck was. It is VERY Dangerous to net your baits in the winter when the air temps are below freezing, especially if you are alone (which I was then, and usually am when I get time to fish). 

In other words, I would hate to see a law that said you can not use trout for bait, especially store bought trout...


----------



## fishmonger (Oct 16, 2011)

I don't care if folks use bought trout for bait where it is legal, like the lakes. It is already illegal to catch trout and transport them live, so it is essentially already illegal to fish with trout that you caught.

FM


----------



## Randall (Oct 16, 2011)

As others have said Shawn's bait business has nothing to do with his opinion. I discussed this kind of stuff with him years ago before he ever started selling shad. 

Shawn plenty of bass fishermen use trout for big bass as well so it's not just the striper guys. Bass guys just don't talk about it much or just don't want anyone to know they are doing it. I even know some trout guys that use trout for bait to catch big browns.


----------



## centerc (Oct 16, 2011)

Robert Eidson said:


> Dude I use trout ( Store Bought ) in the winter. Always have and always will on Allatoona and any other lake if they ( Stripers ) are feeding on them. .
> 
> I would never be against anything that would keep a father and child from enjoying this great sport together. Winter is not the time ( The accident at the Texas Ranger Game earlier this year comes to mined ) to have your kids on the water before sunrise. Trout is a great alternative for the weekend angler to introduce their kids to striper fishing....
> 
> I guess I got off topic as well.... I should have stated this in my earlier reply.



It sounds like you agree with me It seemed like the original poster was against using trout because it made stripper fishing easier eliminating the need for a guide.I dont think trout would live if caught in a stream then used for bait later so they would have to be store bought.


----------



## Troutman3000 (Oct 17, 2011)

Im still confused on how making Trout illegal protects the Striper fishery.


----------



## basser (Oct 17, 2011)

I am happy to see that trout fisherman want to protect their resource, but they need to remember that the majority of the trout stocked are for put and take.  When DNR stocks trout in the Chattahoochee River they are stocked at a level that far exceeds the carrying capacity of the river.  They are meant to be removed and used by the public, whether they are released, eaten or used for bait. Also according to a DNR study about 25% are harvested, and there is a 75-89% mortality rate of stocked trout in the Chattahoochee River.


----------



## shakey gizzard (Oct 17, 2011)

centerc said:


> It sounds like you agree with me It seemed like the original poster was against using trout because it made stripper fishing easier eliminating the need for a guide.I dont think trout would live if caught in a stream then used for bait later so they would have to be store bought.


Trout will live in a bucket as long as you have cold oxygenated water.Problem is they tend to be jumpy!



basser said:


> I am happy to see that trout fisherman want to protect their resource, but they need to remember that the majority of the trout stocked are for put and take.  When DNR stocks trout in the Chattahoochee River they are stocked at a level that far exceeds the carrying capacity of the river.  They are meant to be removed and used by the public, whether they are released, eaten or used for bait. Also according to a DNR study about 25% are harvested, and there is a 75-89% mortality rate of stocked trout in the Chattahoochee River.



Do you have a link to this study? Not all sections of the hooch are created equal.


----------



## basser (Oct 17, 2011)

Here is the link to the study outdoorrecreationdata.com/Stats/GA_TroutInvestigation_03.pdf


----------



## basser (Oct 17, 2011)

I will try that again www.georgiawildlife.com/node/723 - 21k


----------



## fishmonger (Oct 17, 2011)

basser said:


> I am happy to see that trout fisherman want to protect their resource, but they need to remember that the majority of the trout stocked are for put and take.  When DNR stocks trout in the Chattahoochee River they are stocked at a level that far exceeds the carrying capacity of the river.  They are meant to be removed and used by the public, whether they are released, eaten or used for bait. Also according to a DNR study about 25% are harvested, and there is a 75-89% mortality rate of stocked trout in the Chattahoochee River.



They are not released to be used for bait. If this were true, it would be legal to transport live trout, which it is not. The regs on this are very clear:

O.C.G.A. § 27-4-50 (2011)
(c) It shall be unlawful to move trout from any of the fresh waters of this state to any other fresh waters of this state, except that authorized agents of the department may move trout as necessary for purposes of fisheries management, conservation, and restoration.

They are clear even to the point that a DNR employee cannot transport trout for bait, but only for "fisheries management, conservation, and restoration".

FM


----------



## basser (Oct 17, 2011)

So Fishmonger you are telling me that the Chattahoochee river is not the same body of water from Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek.  If this is truly the case, how can anyone use bought trout for bait without breaking this law?

   I don't have a problem using lures, in fact I always trout fish with lures.  I often use lure for striped bass, but my kids have a hard time throwing the large lures needed for striped bass so we fish bait.  As far as the Chattahoochee River  goes I have no problem with banning the use of live trout for bait below Morgan Falls.  However I would like the law change so that we once again can use live bait fish there for stripers, perch, crappie, bass and pickerel.


----------



## fishmonger (Oct 17, 2011)

Yes, that is what I am saying. Another way to look at it is this: Is Lake Lanier a different body of water than the river below Buford dam? They both contain water molecules from the Chattachoochee, right? But they are clearly 2 different bodies. Bull sluice Lake is clearly a different body from the Hooch below Morgan Falls dam. It is arguable that the Hooch above Lanier and Lanier are different bodies of water, and that Bull Sluice is a different body than the Buford tailwater that feeds it (I would argue that they ARE different, since a lake is clearly different than a river). I don't think it is arguable whether a dam defines the boundary between 2 bodies of water. Another way I would define a body of water is can fish move from one body to another? By that definition, a lake and it's feeder river are the same body of water, but again, a dam separates 2 separate bodies of water.

I am OK with live baitfish for stripers as long as it doesn't break other laws, such as the trout no-transport law. I would even be OK with it on the MF tailwater as long as trout continued to be excluded by the no-transport law. 

I understand about kids, I put my kids on stripers, and me too for that matter, on Lanier with live Bluebacks.

FM


----------



## JLClark (Oct 17, 2011)

In my opinion trout are no more effective than shad for catching striper. Making it illegal to use live trout for bait is not going to help the striper one bit. As a matter of fact I would think it would be worse for the striper. A limit of 8 trout in a day only lasts so long and when using shad you can have as many as you want as long as you can catch them or buy them. I guess you can buy as many trout as you want too but they are not readily available in the summer months when you want them the most.

Many times it can be difficult and time consuming to catch those 8 trout within the amount of time to allow you to go striper fishing same day. As well, keeping trout until the next day successfully is difficult especially in the summer months. I love to trout fish too and if I have a good day with the trout, I’m going striper fishing (As soon as they make it legal AGAIN)

If I buy a trout stamp and go through the trouble of catching 8 trout, I should be able to use them as bait, eat them or bury them in my garden for fertilizer if I chose. 

Looking at the big picture and how many people use trout for not only striper but bass, browns, gar and more, I don’t think it should be illegal to use live trout for bait.

Regardless if you think people should use shad or trout if you want to use live bait to fish the hooch next year and every other river for long, you should SIGN OUR PETITION TO USE LIVE BAIT IN THE HOOCH. You know where it is and if you don’t, just Google it.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 17, 2011)

*Disease and transport*

From a trout standpoint, the DNR doesn't always to the best job of letting the public know WHY the laws are what they are.  It doesn't make much sense to disallow transport of trout from one body of water to another, yet allow the use of privately raised trout as bait????  Private hatcheries don't discriminate about which strains of trout they raise, nor do they care about the diseases that infected trout can spread to an established population such as whirling disease.  Whirling Disease Info on TU

Less trout means less protein in a system which means unhealthier striper.  Spreading disease with bait trout is merely one aspect of not allowing their use.

To specify, my major concern is the conservation of TROPHY striper fisheries.  These frequently coincide with managed trout fisheries.  I can think of at least 5 systems like this.  Using trout in the winter on Lanier, Allatoona or Carters is pretty much harmless.  I'm really not against that.  It's when you start making the trophy fisheries vulnerable to over-mortality (I'm not saying overharvest because you don't have to harvest a big striper to kill it) when the issues begin.  Allowing the use of trout puts more strain on these already fragile ecosystems when inexperienced anglers mishandle, or even worse, keep fish which could potentially reach state record size when they are only 30 lbs.

I have seen videos where multiple large striper are disdainfully mishandled and would not survive a release under the best circumstances.  If you multiply this video by a presumable factor of people who DON'T video their own lack of concern for the mindful conservation of such fish, the numbers are higher.  I say limit the bait, limit the hate.

I don't want to prevent anybody from going fishing, just like Robert's post about using Alewive on Carter's.  There's NEVER a bad time to go fishing and you won't catch anything if you're not out there.  There are lots of other options for bait.  Big suckers, koi, jumbo shiners (I've seen some pushing 14"), carp, bluegill, shad, herring, goldfish, asian carp (JUST KIDDING) and of course the very realistic swimbaits available now.

It might make it a little tougher for folks to target trophy fish on no-trout waters, but then it shouldn't be easy to catch a trophy, right?  It can be done, I've never bought a trout and have been catching some nice striper for almost 2 decades.  I still don't have MY trophy striper yet (50 lbs), but did catch 3 over 40 lbs one week on gizzard shad a few years back.

By the way, it is illegal to use blueback from MF dam to Hwy 27 bridge in Whitesburg which is probably 50 miles, maybe more.


----------



## blw (Oct 18, 2011)

Make it artificial only, and catch and release only-----we would have a much better fishery in the future. It works in other areas and it would work here. What many do not want to take into consideration is the vast population of people in this area and the steadily increasing pressure being put on this river. It will not continue to have the quality of fishing we have enjoyed in the past if we do not do something now to preserve the quality of what we have been accustomed to. Before you rant and rave and say that's crazy think about some of our other regional fisheries and the quality they are now compared to just a few years ago.


----------



## shakey gizzard (Oct 18, 2011)

blw said:


> Make it artificial only, and catch and release only-----we would have a much better fishery in the future. It works in other areas and it would work here. What many do not want to take into consideration is the vast population of people in this area and the steadily increasing pressure being put on this river. It will not continue to have the quality of fishing we have enjoyed in the past if we do not do something now to preserve the quality of what we have been accustomed to. Before you rant and rave and say that's crazy think about some of our other regional fisheries and the quality they are now compared to just a few years ago.


They'll starve to death!


----------



## fishmonger (Oct 18, 2011)

blw said:


> Make it artificial only, and catch and release only-----we would have a much better fishery in the future. It works in other areas and it would work here. What many do not want to take into consideration is the vast population of people in this area and the steadily increasing pressure being put on this river. It will not continue to have the quality of fishing we have enjoyed in the past if we do not do something now to preserve the quality of what we have been accustomed to. Before you rant and rave and say that's crazy think about some of our other regional fisheries and the quality they are now compared to just a few years ago.



Oh, heck yeah, I'm all in for that idea!!      

I am surprised you haven't been flamed  yet, but you obviously are ready for that. 

FM


----------



## basser (Oct 18, 2011)

You guy can just forget about the artificials only drivel its not going to happen.  This is not a trout fishery we are talking about.  This part of the Chattahoochee has reverted back to its natural warm water fishery, with bass, catfish, bream , perch. crappie, carp, and striped bass being the dominate species.  There isn't a presedent
in Georgia to make this happen.  Morgan Falls is a difficult area to fish, water level change quickly, parking is limited and jet boats are almost required.  All this limits the amount of pressure the river receives.   Abbotts or Medlock Bridge receive far more pressure than Moran Falls.


----------



## Old Dead River (Oct 18, 2011)

I firmly disagree. What if I wanted to use trout for trophy largemouth?? So i've been told so long as you have a receipt you can use trout for bait in places like Unicoi, a place where largemouth are known to eat trout. stands to reasont that trout might also get you bit for a big greenfish on burton etc. I think the trophy striper fishery is just fine. Less government...


----------



## evans_usmc69 (Oct 18, 2011)

I say ban trout all together, one of the only California laws I can agree with. If you wanna fish with a trout, throw a Huddleston.


----------



## arstivers (Oct 18, 2011)

So, why don't we just ban all fishing.  This topic is getting old.  The reality is once again, that there are trout in the river and the stripers eat trout.  It really doesn't matter if they are on the end of my line or swimming free.  I personally don't mind not being able to use trout, in order to calm some of you, but the natural process is what it is.  Let's just not catch trout and use them.  Catch shad, or buy trout, have a receipt.  The striper fishery and what they eat is natural and they are going to do what they do.


----------



## Robert Eidson (Oct 18, 2011)

arstivers said:


> So, why don't we just ban all fishing.  This topic is getting old.  The reality is once again, that there are trout in the river and the stripers eat trout.  It really doesn't matter if they are on the end of my line or swimming free.  I personally don't mind not being able to use trout, in order to calm some of you, but the natural process is what it is.  Let's just not catch trout and use them.  Catch shad, or buy trout, have a receipt.  The striper fishery and what they eat is natural and they are going to do what they do.



X2 !!!!!   This topic has been beaten to death....  It is time to put the computer up and go fishing guys ....


----------



## arstivers (Oct 18, 2011)

Amen Robert, hoping to get out there soon.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 18, 2011)

*Beaten to death*

What's getting beaten to death are some trophy fisheries by the hand of unmindful anglers.  This post has been up 2.5 days and needs to keep going until the true impact of the underlying message reverberates throughout the fishing community.  Imagine if something devastating were to happen to your own fishery, where you like to enjoy time catching fish with your family and friends.  What if someone came and pulled up your brush pile?  What if 10 more boats started fishing your best big fish spots?  The message gets lost in some folks' cynicism and failure to actually consider what's happening.  It's very selfish to discount one man's voice because you're 'tired' of it.  Nobody is taking anybody's mouse-hand and forcing it to click on this thread.

*I think trout can be allowed* on 99% of the state's waters as bait, but there are a few select stretches of river which need the NO TROUT regulation and strict enforcement.  In my book, conserving the trophy striper fisheries is first.  Preventing disease spread by bait trout is second.  When discussion and education has failed, legislation must follow.

If you don't want to be involved in this discussion, please don't waste your time and ours and don't post anything.


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 18, 2011)

Keep trout-as-bait legal. In fact, it is silly to even suggest otherwise. Several reasons:

1. Trout are only effective in cold water temperatures... In fact, they'll die when water temps approach 70. 

2. The survivability rate for caught and released stripers is at a high in low water temperatures ( nullifying the argument that using trout is hard on the striper fishery).

3. Most of the trout that are raised in hatcheries and are sold as bait, are raised in privately owned hatcheries that would not exist if using them as bait were made illegal. This isn't speculation on my part, I've been to the hatcheries and talked to the owners. (nullifying the argument that it is hard on the trout fishery)

I'm mildly amused that y'all consider this a topic worthy of debate.


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 19, 2011)

If you don't want to be involved in this discussion said:
			
		

> Shawn,
> 
> Since you don't own THIS forum you may not be able to control the discussion.
> 
> Besides, as noted above the topic has been beaten to death. The two factions, trout advocates and striper advocates, both have very strong opposing opinions.


----------



## caseyfoster (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Texun said:


> Keep trout-as-bait legal. In fact, it is silly to even suggest otherwise. Several reasons:
> 
> 1. Trout are only effective in cold water temperatures... In fact, they'll die when water temps approach 70.
> 
> ...



This.

End of thread.


----------



## John2 (Oct 19, 2011)

Trout will survive up to about 75 degrees.  I have used them in water that warm and they worked well for bait.  (did not die and stayed frisky) However, whenever the water is 70 or higher (which for the summer the water is that or higher in the main river this argument stems from) striper mortality sky rockets!  I have unfortunately have experienced that myself when fishing in temps on rivers that were 70+ and had a very hard time reviving the fish.  I now make effort to not fish when the water is over 70 because I know most stripers, especially ones over 10lbs, will die after a hard fight.

I do find it very bad that the one guy that always posts his videos holds every striper he catches out of the water for the same camera shot.  It gets redundant and it greatly increases the mortality of the fish he catches due to them being held out of the water for such a long time.

If you catch a striper in water 70 plus it is best to not even remove from the water and quickly revive and release.


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 19, 2011)

John2 said:


> Trout will survive up to about 75 degrees.  I have used them in water that warm and they worked well for bait.  (did not die and stayed frisky)



Perhaps in a river. Perhaps in a lake if you get em down to the cooler water fast. The biggest hatchery I've been to completely FREAKS OUT when their water temp gets to 68... And one I know of lost their crop when the temp bumped 70.

PS: Seeinstripes, you started this thread for open discussion... Why are you now sending me PM's to try to make the discussion private?


----------



## Nicodemus (Oct 19, 2011)

Alright folks, private messages are just that. Keep that in mind.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 19, 2011)

Grey Ghost said:


> Shawn,
> 
> Since you don't own this forum you may not be able to control the discussion.
> 
> Besides, as noted above the topic has been beaten to death. The two factions, trout advocates and striper advocates, both have very strong opposing opinions.



Exactly Jerry.  It's obvious most people against banning trout in sensitive areas are not educated about or experienced with trophy striper fisheries.  Either that, or they care little about protecting the fish, OR they have a vested interest in their own using trout for bait and just can't admit it on a public forum.  Jerry, do you even have an opinion on this matter, or do you just chime in to make quirky comments and waste peoples' time?

John2: well stated, and I agree with you 100%.  When I guided on waterways where the temperature is reaching that 70+ mark, I inform the clients the trip will be over if the water warms.  After explanation, none of my clients have had a problem with leaving the water early to prevent unnecessary mortality of the fish just so they can get a picture of one.  Or in some less educated fishermens' cases, drag them around for 5 minutes leaving their protective slime coat all over every surface in the boat.

This argument isn't the big picture, but clearly negates anything Texan's statement said.

I'm sure private hatcheries would still be able to sell trout even with them banned on a few waterways.  A large part of their market is non-bait as in supplemental stocking in private waters.  I think those 10 jobs you're worried about are safe.  Whew.  What a misinformed concern!  Now if only you could figure out a way to employ those other 20 million out there.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Texun said:


> Perhaps in a river. Perhaps in a lake if you get em down to the cooler water fast. The biggest hatchery I've been to completely FREAKS OUT when their water temp gets to 68... And one I know of lost their crop when the temp bumped 70.
> 
> PS: Seeinstripes, you started this thread for open discussion... Why are you now sending me PM's to try to make the discussion private?



A dozen trout in an aerated bait tank, or one trout on a hook in 75 degree water don't even compare to the densities of fish in a hatchery.  Another uninformed statement!  Trout will survive fine in 75 degree water until a big striper finds them.  I know this because I used to be inexperienced as well.  All I'm trying to do is use knowledge to help the fishery.  I PM'ed you because I love you.   Back to the discussion...

I wish some trout guys would weigh in their thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 19, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> Jerry, do you even have an opinion on this matter, or do you just chime in to make quirky comments and waste peoples' time?
> 7



Shawn,
Can't you remember my post on the  16th when you first started this discussion?


*" We both want to protect stripers and and trout but using HATCHERY raised trout does NOT have a negative impact on the trout fishery. If anything, it adds a few trout to the fishery when bait escapes or is dumped. Besides, trout may or may not be a more effective striper bait, depending on what they prefer at the time.

And not everyone has your skill and opportunity to net shad.

Why open the door to more regulations that quite possibly lead to even more regulation. e.g ban live bait on more waters?"*

Please try to keep your comments accurate. And why do you keep beating this poor horse when you could be out netting shad for your business?


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 19, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> A dozen trout in an aerated bait tank, or one trout on a hook in 75 degree water don't even compare to the densities of fish in a hatchery.  Another uninformed statement!  Trout will survive fine in 75 degree water until a big striper finds them.  I know this because I used to be inexperienced as well.  All I'm trying to do is use knowledge to help the fishery.  I PM'ed you because I love you.   Back to the discussion...
> 
> I wish some trout guys would weigh in their thoughts on the matter.



Why don't we debate outlawing the use of gunpowder for the purpose of deer hunting? While we are at it, a state of the art compound bow is hard on the deer population too, so let's make that illegal also.

Dude, you have the time to catch your own bait; bully for you. There are those that, in turn, have the time to learn to kill a deer with nothing but a straight stick and a piece of string. Like you, I'm sure that these purist stick hunters would love it if nothing other than their chosen method were legal... 

The deer hunters would have a far more valid case than you because their prey reproduces on it's own. Your trophy stripers were STOCKED by a government supported entity. If you outlaw methods that make it difficult for those that don't have a lot of free time on their hands (like you), fewer people will fish. Fewer people fishing means reduced budgets for stocking.

In other words, you are trying to cut off your nose to spite yourself.


----------



## Robert Eidson (Oct 19, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> What's getting beaten to death are some trophy fisheries by the hand of unmindful anglers.  This post has been up 2.5 days and needs to keep going until the true impact of the underlying message reverberates throughout the fishing community.  Imagine if something devastating were to happen to your own fishery, where you like to enjoy time catching fish with your family and friends.  What if someone came and pulled up your brush pile?  What if 10 more boats started fishing your best big fish spots?  The message gets lost in some folks' cynicism and failure to actually consider what's happening.  It's very selfish to discount one man's voice because you're 'tired' of it.  Nobody is taking anybody's mouse-hand and forcing it to click on this thread.
> 
> *I think trout can be allowed* on 99% of the state's waters as bait, but there are a few select stretches of river which need the NO TROUT regulation and strict enforcement.  In my book, conserving the trophy striper fisheries is first.  Preventing disease spread by bait trout is second.  When discussion and education has failed, legislation must follow.
> 
> If you don't want to be involved in this discussion, please don't waste your time and ours and don't post anything.



Have at it Shawn !!!!!  I wish you nothing but the best in life and your shad business. But you and I just see this one differently.... I am done with this discussion...


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 19, 2011)

*I'm not say ban the use of trout everywhere...*

...and there are plenty of places to catch a NICE striper.  Lanier coughed up a 47 lber.  Allatoona has 30+ lb fish.  There would still be plenty of unprotected areas with trophy striper where you could use any bait you want, even trout.

You guys' responses have made me think about my original statement and my outlook is evolving as well.  I would still like to see a few select riverine areas restricted to native bait.  If you're not fishing them, it won't matter to you, and if you are, then you _should_ be concerned about conserving the resource.


----------



## Lake_and_stream (Oct 19, 2011)

I think trout can be allowed on 99% of the state's waters as bait, but there are a few select stretches of river which need the NO TROUT regulation and strict enforcement. 

Shawn i think this could have gone over a little better if this was your opening line. The key word here is " select stretches of river" .

I agree there should be regs on rivers when it comes to bait . Just like live/artificial regs and barb/no barb regs. on trout streams there should be bait regs. I dont see the problem myself on most lakes llike you said it will make little difference.

Whats the problem with getting a regulation started? there has to be a process ,right?


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 20, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> This argument isn't the big picture, but clearly negates anything Texan's statement said.
> 
> I'm sure private hatcheries would still be able to sell trout even with them banned on a few waterways.  A large part of their market is non-bait as in supplemental stocking in private waters.  I think those 10 jobs you're worried about are safe.  Whew.  What a misinformed concern!  Now if only you could figure out a way to employ those other 20 million out there.



Just noticed this little tidbit. First, you are the one who started this thread, clearly calling for a ban on the use of trout for bait ANYWHERE. After others and I called you on your highly misinformed opinion, you changed positions like a Democrat on the campaign trail. Secondly, I never expressed any concern for the jobs of anyone working at a private trout hatchery; I simply pointed out the silliness of your claim that using trout for bait would have a detrimental effect on the trout fishery. Since you obviously did not "get it" the first time, let me be more clear... 99% of the trout that are used for bait would have never been produced if there were not a "bait" market segment. 

In any event, I'm glad to see that you have decided to withdraw from your previously stated position of banning ALL trout to a reasonable position of banning trout on 1% of the waters... Given that wild swing, I'd have to conclude that the data strongly supports the fact that you are the misinformed one whose passionate plea was 99% negated.


----------



## BradMyers (Oct 20, 2011)

I think (with some data to back up my thoughts) the biggest detriment to the trophy striper fishery is summer mortality of catch & release practiced during the months when our waters reach that critical temperature over 75 F. Some data shows up to a 100%.

Second would be the way C&R fish are landed & photographed for the money shot. Look at the way trophy trout & musky fishermen handle their catch to be released. 

Third would be the hooks used, I’m for circle hooks with barbless being better. Gut hooked fish ain’t a good thing, unless I catch them cause they’re gonna get ate.

One thing is for sure we all love our striper fishery & we want to preserve it. Even if it is a man made resource, just like most of our reservoirs. I don’t think the trout angle would scratch the surface of creating a trophy fishery that we would like to see. I wish that the things I mentioned would be on the mind for a steward of the linesides and those that like to practice C&R.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 20, 2011)

BradMyers said:


> I think (with some data to back up my thoughts) the biggest detriment to the trophy striper fishery is summer mortality of catch & release practiced during the months when our waters reach that critical temperature over 75 F. Some data shows up to a 100%.
> 
> Second would be the way C&R fish are landed & photographed for the money shot. Look at the way trophy trout & musky fishermen handle their catch to be released.
> 
> ...



VERY well stated and a good overview of trophy striper catch and release in a nutshell.  I'd like to add if you do plan on releasing, don't use a cheap knotted nylon net.  It will slash up their slime coat.  If you do have to net, the vinyl coated models are easier on the fish.

Thanks Texin, It looks like we were BOTH misinformed.  You're much more serious about flaming me than I am you.  It feels like I should receive a spanking now.  Will you do it?


----------



## TKLB (Oct 20, 2011)

BradMyers said:


> I think (with some data to back up my thoughts) the biggest detriment to the trophy striper fishery is summer mortality of catch & release practiced during the months when our waters reach that critical temperature over 75 F. Some data shows up to a 100%



IF the ultimate goal is to protect the Stripers, then just outlaw fishing for them when the water temp is over 75 F.


----------



## CoreyP (Oct 20, 2011)

Please, no photographs of the spanking.  Thank you, that is all.  Back to fishing.


----------



## Throwback (Oct 20, 2011)

next time one of these gets going, somebody let me know by PM. This is a lot more entertaining than a bait thread in the deer hunting forum! 

T


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 20, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> Thanks Texin, It looks like we were BOTH misinformed.  You're much more serious about flaming me than I am you.  It feels like I should receive a spanking now.  Will you do it?



I never flamed you, I simply wanted to add an informed opinion to your plea to do something that would hurt my beloved striper fishery. 

Egos are like monkeys... You'll have to spank your own.


----------



## BradMyers (Oct 20, 2011)

TKLB said:


> IF the ultimate goal is to protect the Stripers, then just outlaw fishing for them when the water temp is over 75 F.



That's what they did on Santee Cooper.


----------



## fishingdave (Oct 20, 2011)

Lets Keep Trout Legal To Use As Live Bait, and all live bait legal. I use store bought trout so I am not taking anything away from the trout fisherman. But to keep the trophy stripers well fed, lets put a ban on netted shad transporting and selling.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 20, 2011)

Big Texun said:


> I never flamed you, I simply wanted to add an informed opinion to your plea to do something that would hurt my beloved striper fishery.
> 
> Egos are like monkeys... You'll have to spank your own.



Darrell, with a boat like yours, you won't even be fishing the areas I'm talking about.  I'd like nothing more than for you to keep on using trout on Carter's, Lanier, Nottley, and Allatoona.  Not sure what your dog is in this fight still other than to NOT flame me. 

I've got LOTS of support from the folks who actually do fish these sensitive areas and are interested in supporting the fishery by disallowing live trout.



			
				fishingdave said:
			
		

> Lets Keep Trout Legal To Use As Live Bait, and all live bait legal. I use store bought trout so I am not taking anything away from the trout fisherman. But to keep the trophy stripers well fed, lets put a ban on netted shad transporting and selling.



9 total posts and not much content so far.  Thanks for your ideas here.  Actually, if you fish a trout with disease around trout that don't have a disease, it could spread and take away from the trout fishermen.  If you aren't fishing your trout in trout waters, don't worry about it, trout on.


----------



## basser (Oct 20, 2011)

SeeinStripes you just made the argument for the guy catching trout above MF and using the for bait below.  As the ones they catch above MF would be in the same water as the ones below.  And yes trout do survive the trip though Morgan Falls Turbines.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 20, 2011)

*Fishing banned at 75 degrees?*



BradMyers said:


> That's what they did on Santee Cooper.



I couldn't find anything on that reg, but did find this great article about Santee from the SCDNR.  Conscientious anglers will heed the recommendations outlined in the paragraph pertaining to "ethical anglers."  I think that's great information for anybody and is commiserate with the TWRA recommendations for striper catch and release in their reg book.

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/news/yr2010/may24/may24_striper.html


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 20, 2011)

basser said:


> SeeinStripes you just made the argument for the guy catching trout above MF and using the for bait below.  As the ones they catch above MF would be in the same water as the ones below.  And yes trout do survive the trip though Morgan Falls Turbines.



Good point!

but

According to the GADNR transporting those trout would be illegal.  Which brings up the point I was trying to make earlier: Why does the DNR make it illegal to transport angled trout, yet allows the transport of bait trout from god knows where?  It don't make no sense.  And the area below MF would be one of the main areas where live trout should be illegal.

I'm not sure where I referenced it being okay to transport trout.  Also, most fish survive the trip through the turbines from shallow lakes, but when did we start talking about that?


----------



## basser (Oct 20, 2011)

Can you provide a link to that regulation. I can only find the penalty  for illegally catching trout O.C.G.A. § 27-4-50 (2011) of $175.


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 20, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> Darrell, with a boat like yours, you won't even be fishing the areas I'm talking about.  I'd like nothing more than for you to keep on using trout on Carter's, Lanier, Nottley, and Allatoona.  Not sure what your dog is in this fight still other than to NOT flame me.
> 
> I've got LOTS of support from the folks who actually do fish these sensitive areas and are interested in supporting the fishery by disallowing live trout.



Shawn, I have no problem with the sensitive areas you are now talking about. My comments were directed at your initial position.

I know nothing about the rivers and, until I buy another boat, won't.

I'm done, ya'll have a nice day.


----------



## fishmonger (Oct 20, 2011)

basser said:


> Can you provide a link to that regulation. I can only find the penalty  for illegally catching trout O.C.G.A. § 27-4-50 (2011) of $175.



I posted it early in this thread. Google is also pretty effective.

FM


----------



## Lake_and_stream (Oct 20, 2011)

man, all that and nobody got booted !


----------



## jicard3 (Oct 20, 2011)

I will probably never be fishing any of the waters ya'll are talking about so I don't have an opinion about the subject. I am following this discussion though because I think it's entertaining and there is a lot of info being tossed around by a few folks who sound like they know what they are talking about. I will say, I fished with SeeinStripes once and thought he was a cool guy and has probably forgotten more about fishing and fish themselves than I will ever know myself. I'm not siding with him or anyone else and I hate to sound dumb but I have a question. Are we talking about banning the trout because they are an effective bait that can be purchased by anyone and allow "inexperienced" striper fishermen that lack the ability to net other types of effective bait to fish the waters being discussed because these inexperienced anglers are the ones damaging the fishery by mishandling their catch? If so, I have two questions. If the trout are banned, can't these same anglers just purchase gizzard shad or some other type of "legal" bait and continue doing what they are currently doing with the trout? I get the discussion about the spread of disease to the trout living in the system by "bait" trout being introduced. I'm just trying to find out if I'm following the striper protection part of it.


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 21, 2011)

jicard3 said:


> I will probably never be fishing any of the waters ya'll are talking about so I don't have an opinion about the subject. I am following this discussion though because I think it's entertaining and there is a lot of info being tossed around by a few folks who sound like they know what they are talking about. I will say, I fished with SeeinStripes once and thought he was a cool guy and has probably forgotten more about fishing and fish themselves than I will ever know myself. I'm not siding with him or anyone else and I hate to sound dumb but I have a question. Are we talking about banning the trout because they are an effective bait that can be purchased by anyone and allow "inexperienced" striper fishermen that lack the ability to net other types of effective bait to fish the waters being discussed because these inexperienced anglers are the ones damaging the fishery by mishandling their catch? If so, I have two questions. If the trout are banned, can't these same anglers just purchase gizzard shad or some other type of "legal" bait and continue doing what they are currently doing with the trout? I get the discussion about the spread of disease to the trout living in the system by "bait" trout being introduced. I'm just trying to find out if I'm following the striper protection part of it.



I do believe you nailed it.


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 21, 2011)

Grey Ghost said:


> I do believe you nailed it.



The whole problem would be solved if they'd just let us use blueback herring everywhere.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 21, 2011)

jicard3 said:


> I will probably never be fishing any of the waters ya'll are talking about so I don't have an opinion about the subject. I am following this discussion though because I think it's entertaining and there is a lot of info being tossed around by a few folks who sound like they know what they are talking about. I will say, I fished with SeeinStripes once and thought he was a cool guy and has probably forgotten more about fishing and fish themselves than I will ever know myself. I'm not siding with him or anyone else and I hate to sound dumb but I have a question. Are we talking about banning the trout because they are an effective bait that can be purchased by anyone and allow "inexperienced" striper fishermen that lack the ability to net other types of effective bait to fish the waters being discussed because these inexperienced anglers are the ones damaging the fishery by mishandling their catch? If so, I have two questions. If the trout are banned, can't these same anglers just purchase gizzard shad or some other type of "legal" bait and continue doing what they are currently doing with the trout? I get the discussion about the spread of disease to the trout living in the system by "bait" trout being introduced. I'm just trying to find out if I'm following the striper protection part of it.



That is pretty much it.  It only takes 1 diseased trout to spread it to the rest of the stream or river.  Fewer trout for trout fishermen, fewer trout for predators like striper.  

As far as the inexperienced side of the coin; it's not necessarily inexperience that is the problem so much as it is ethics.  Experienced anglers can choose to be unethical and stab their catch in the earhole with an icepick and let it go if they choose.  The ease of acquisition and the effectiveness of trout as bait has proven to perpetuate poor ethics and has lead to a rash of unethical, irresponsible and downright  disrespectful behavior from some experienced striper fishermen.  

Yes there are other baits, and if anglers in the aforementioned categories want to continue fishing those stretches of water which I think live trout should be illegal with some other type of baitfish, that is their prerogative.  More power to them, in fact.  I promise it will change some attitudes, if there was any question about their resolve, about how they treat the fisheries in the future.  It could be likened to the single hook on an umbrella rig regulation in TN, or the artificial only regulation on MANY waters.

I think we all agree that our descendants should be able to enjoy the quality of the outdoors as much, if not more than we do today.  This would be a very small step to ensure we have a few protected areas where we know if a man puts in the time and effort, he will be rewarded with a true trophy striper.  I don't feel like there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## basser (Oct 21, 2011)

If you are talking about the Morgan Falls fishery the diseased trout possibility has little bearing on the fishery.  That part of the river is at best a part time trout fishery in the winter during the delayed harvest.  In the summer there are very few trout left in that stretch due to occasional high water temperatures that occur during rain events.  Also these trout that were being used for bait came from the same water only further up stream so any diseases they carry would be carried to fish further down stream anyway.  Again you disease point holds no validity.


----------



## fishmonger (Oct 21, 2011)

It is amazing to me the mental contortions some will go to trying to justify an untenable position. Basser just used breaking the law (transporting trout) as a reason why disease is not part of this argument. Also, summer does NOT mean no trout, I got an 18" Brown in the middle of June below MFs, and it was not a holdover from the DH. 

Why is it that many people refuse to open their minds to new ideas or change? Change is, after all, the only constant in our modern lives. To say something should be just "because it has always been that way" is very small minded and short sighted. That kind of thinking is why many great fisheries that our parents and grandparents enjoyed are now gone.

I find it interesting that one side of this debate has used the argument that special regs can save game resources for our children in the future, whereas the other side has used the argument that nothing should change, because it is therefore easier for their children to catch something today. The former is altruistic because those folks are making it harder on themselves to hook fish so as to save something for future generations; the latter is selfish, because (I believe) those folks are in fact using their children as an excuse for the easy hook up for themselves. 

FM


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 21, 2011)

fishmonger said:


> Why is it that many people refuse to open their minds to new ideas or change? Change is, after all, the only constant in our modern lives. To say something should be just "because it has always been that way" is very small minded and short sighted. That kind of thinking is why many great fisheries that our parents and grandparents enjoyed are now gone.
> 
> I find it interesting that one side of this debate has used the argument that special regs can save game resources for our children in the future, whereas the other side has used the argument that nothing should change, because it is therefore easier for their children to catch something today. The former is altruistic because those folks are making it harder on themselves to hook fish so as to save something for future generations; the latter is selfish, because (I believe) those folks are in fact using their children as an excuse for the easy hook up for themselves.
> 
> FM



Fishmonger, if you want to be altruistic, ban fishing altogether. Then, your children will have better fishing than you do now. Since you are a fan of motherhood and apple pie, how can you disagree?

I have no problem banning the use of trout on special stretches of rivers. However, I have a very big problem with banning the use of trout in 98% of the places they are now used... and, it isn't "just because" I'm lazy or selfish. The truth is, there are certain times of the year when the water is so cold that shad become highly lethargic and a trout is the only bait that has any kick. Beyond that, when the water is that cold, catching shad to use is next to impossible, even for a professional shad catcher.

Beyond that, ya'll seem to infer that if one places a live trout within 100 yards of a trophy striper, it'll climb up a waterfall to eat it. I've seen winters where getting ANY striper to eat a trout was pretty darn difficult; with the fish prefering a much smaller bait (even a crappie minnow). Anyone with much experience knows that trout is not always a fantastic bait, even though it is easy to obtain. Perhaps in rivers.

You don't have to worry about your children not having stripers to catch... the state restocks 'em every year and will, as long as enough people fish for them. You also don't have to worry about your children being able to someday catch a trophy because there will ALWAYS be a few smart fish that just live long enough to become trophys. Conversely, if nobody ever killed a striper, they'd ALL grow and our standards for what constitutes a trophy fish would grow right along with it.

On the issue of altruisim, are the selfish ones those who argue for reason and opening our sport to others... OR, are the truly selfish ones those who prefer to disclude novices NOW because they fear that the NOVICE will kill that trophy they personally want to catch for themselves? I'm quite confident that if you think the matter through, you'll agree that it is the latter.


----------



## basser (Oct 21, 2011)

Fishmonger, both the trout and stripers in that section of river are a put and take fishery period.  Trout are stocked during the dekayed harvest only.  Yes there maybe some wild reproduction but its not sufficient to promote the fishery.  The same is true with the stripers they are a put and take fishery with little natural reproduction.     
   In no way did I try to justify the use of trout in my post.  I just said his reasoning was flawed and pointed that out. I have no aversion to not using live trout for bait, but when people make claims about spreading disease that are completely unsubstantiated  I'm going to call the on it.
   I also don't keep any fish from that portion of the river all fish were released unharmed.   So whether my kids catch them on bait or not, the fish are not being removed from the river.  I suspect that may of the people who fish for stripers in this release them as well.  I for one would not eat them as they have to travel through Atlanta to get there.


----------



## dphillipx (Oct 21, 2011)

Big Texun said:


> Egos are like monkeys... You'll have to spank your own.



BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 21, 2011)

*Keep it in focus: No trout in trout waters*

Okay, we have to review to keep things on the level since this post is lengthy..

This post is NOT about any single location.  It would encompass fisheries in the tailwaters of the following dams: Boone, Cherokee, Center Hill, Hartwell, Morgan Falls, Norris and possibly more.  It is already in effect in the tailrace below Wolf Creek and 50 lb striper are caught with regularity in that fishery. 

The disease issue is real, remember the whirling thing Whirling Disease info

Catching trout somewhere and moving them anywhere is not allowed in GA.

Darrell, thanks for opening your mind.  Your and many thousands of other striper fishermens' fisheries wouldn't impacted by the regulation.

This thread is a great example of how we can discuss and hash out our differences and come from opposite ends of the spectrum to meet somewhere in the middle.  I have no hard feelings towards anybody except Cy, and I'm gonna kick his butt when we go fishing together next week. 

   
An interesting side note; I just found the thread discussing the petition to use live bait below MF and read all 3 pages.  I wondered where all the talk about the dead horse was coming from!!   Now I know, haha!

Judah's publicity of the area is by far the worst thing that could have ever happened to that fishery in the history of the fishery.  I have been there about 4 times in 2 years and it's a tiny waterway with little elbow room.  Lots of paddlers.  I think most of the issues being discussed with fervor here lately are a direct result of his mental state.  Simple fact is, we could all post videos of every trip we made, and maybe we should.  The solution to pollution is dilution after all.

I guess I should tell my story of a fishery I pioneered, became ridiculously successful at, destroyed, and left it alone while it came back back in the mid 90's.  The entire cycle took about 10 years.  I released every fish and watched them swim away, they were nearly all over 20 lbs, and over the course of 2 years, the population plummeted.  I was the only person striper fishing that river at the time.  Those fish were swimming off and dying somewhere.  When I realized the impact of what I was doing, it was too late.  I didn't fish it for 2 years, and for 3 or 4 more years following that, I only fished it a few times just to see how the numbers were doing.  Gradually, it came back, but has never gotten back to where it was in 1996-1998.  

I guess my point is that I've been there and done that and it's hard to see somebody doing the same thing PLUS all the advertising.  That will merely sustain the unsustainability of the fishery.  I'll be surprised if trophy striper catching doesn't  drastically decline in the next year or two out there.


----------



## blw (Oct 21, 2011)

Amen fishmonger!!
Shawn, you are 100 % correct ,Judah is the worst thing that has ever happened to this fishery, and one day he may actually realize it.


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 21, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> Okay, we have to review to keep things on the level since this post is lengthy..
> 
> This post is NOT about any single location.  It would encompass fisheries in the tailwaters of the following dams: Boone, Cherokee, Center Hill, Hartwell, Morgan Falls, Norris and possibly more.  It is already in effect in the tailrace below Wolf Creek and 50 lb striper are caught with regularity in that fishery.
> 
> ...



Shawn, You know I wouldn't attack you personally, given the years we go back together. But lets keep the record open and honest so everyone knows where you stand. With every change in your position your credibility gets harder to buy.

You personally destroyed a trophy river fishery WITHOUT USING TROUT and left it alone for a few years. You forgot to mention that then you TOOK GUIDED TRIPS there in 06 and 07 (and perhaps earlier) in JULY when the water temps rose above 70. Then pictures of your clients holding the fish in 80+ degree temps were taken. And, not every fish swam happily away. If you want pictures, I'll be happy to post some.

As far as disease, be careful of that argument since you are earning an income catching and transporting gizzard shad for sale. OK , so they go to private ponds, except for those you "few dozen"sell to bait shops. See the article below on gizzard shad disease:

VHS fish disease caused gizzard shad fish kill in Milwaukee Harbor ship canals

News Release Published: April 1, 2011 by the Central Office

Contact(s): Al Kaas (608) 267-7865; Randy Schumacher (262) 894-3006; Sue Marcquenski (608) 266-2871

MILWAUKEE - A mid-March fish kill of thousands of gizzard shad in the Milwaukee Harbor ship canals was caused by the fish virus viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS, according to results released March 31 from the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory in Madison.

The finding represents the first time VHS has been detected in Wisconsin's waters of Lake Michigan since 2008, and the first time gizzard shad have tested positive for VHS in Wisconsin, according to Sue Marcquenski, Department of Natural Resources fish health specialist.

"The results show that the virus is persisting in the environment, and as some have predicted, new isolations of the disease will likely be from younger year-classes of fish that haven't built up immunity to the virus," she said.

VHS, which can infect several dozen different native fish species and cause them to bleed to death, does not affect humans. The first detection of the virus was in freshwater drum from the Lake Winnebago system in 2007, and also in Wisconsin's waters of Lake Michigan that same year. The virus was first confirmed in Lake Superior in 2010 from samples of lake herring.

The Milwaukee Harbor canals fish kill started the week of March 14 and by March 18, involved several thousand fish. Dead and dying gizzard shad were collected and necropsied on March 22 and submitted to the Madison laboratory for testing, Marcquenski said.

DNR will be testing fish from 27 waters this spring as part of its surveillance program for VHS and also to assure that the disease is not present in those rivers that DNR relies on for water supplies for its hatcheries.

Infected fish shed the virus in their urine and reproductive fluids and the virus can survive in water for at least 14 days. Fish also can be infected when they eat an infected fish.

"The important message here is VHS is still out there and we have to be vigilant about cleaning our boats and not moving fish around," says Al Kaas, DNR fish hatchery operations chief. These steps also will prevent the spread of other fish diseases and invasive species like zebra mussels and spiny water fleas.

Under statewide VHS rules:

•	Minnow harvesting of any kind is not allowed on any VHS affected waters: Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, the Mississippi River, Lake Winnebago, Fox River from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay, and all connecting waters upstream to the first barrier impassible to fish.

•	Anglers and boaters must drain all water from the fishing and boating equipment when leaving the lake or entering the state (except drinking water and a small amount of water to move minnows as described below).

•	Anglers statewide may not move live fish or fish eggs away from any water except minnows they bought from a registered Wisconsin bait dealer and used under certain conditions. Such leftover minnows can be used again on the same water, or can be used elsewhere if the angler did not add lake or river water or other fish to their bait container.

For more information on the fish disease and how to prevent its spread visit DNR's web page: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/vhs/


----------



## Troutman3000 (Oct 21, 2011)

This thread just keeps continuing to deliver.  The story and the issues continue to evolve, its hard to keep up really.


----------



## huntandfish0101 (Oct 21, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> Judah's publicity of the area is by far the worst thing that could have ever happened to that fishery in the history of the fishery.  I have been there about 4 times in 2 years and it's a tiny waterway with little elbow room.  Lots of paddlers.  I think most of the issues being discussed with fervor here lately are a direct result of his mental state.  Simple fact is, we could all post videos of every trip we made, and maybe we should.  The solution to pollution is dilution after all.




Keep preaching brother!


----------



## fishmonger (Oct 21, 2011)

Big Texun said:


> Fishmonger, if you want to be altruistic, ban fishing altogether. Then, your children will have better fishing than you do now. Since you are a fan of motherhood and apple pie, how can you disagree?



Because that is a silly statement, and does nothing to advance the discussion. BTW, you forgot baseball and Chevrolet.



Big Texun said:


> I have no problem banning the use of trout on special stretches of rivers.



It sure sounds like you do.



Big Texun said:


> However, I have a very big problem with banning the use of trout in 98% of the places they are now used... and, it isn't "just because" I'm lazy or selfish. The truth is, there are certain times of the year when the water is so cold that shad become highly lethargic and a trout is the only bait that has any kick. Beyond that, when the water is that cold, catching shad to use is next to impossible, even for a professional shad catcher.



Expand your horizons, learn to catch stripers with something besides bait. Remember how much fun it was to catch your 1st striper? You can experience that again, that first time rush, by mastering a new method. That starts by trying something  new.



Big Texun said:


> Beyond that, ya'll seem to infer that if one places a live trout within 100 yards of a trophy striper, it'll climb up a waterfall to eat it. I've seen winters where getting ANY striper to eat a trout was pretty darn difficult; with the fish prefering a much smaller bait (even a crappie minnow). Anyone with much experience knows that trout is not always a fantastic bait, even though it is easy to obtain. Perhaps in rivers.



I believe we ARE discussing rivers.



Big Texun said:


> You don't have to worry about your children not having stripers to catch... the state restocks 'em every year and will, as long as enough people fish for them.



Small, recently stocked stripers are not as much fun as large ones.



Big Texun said:


> You also don't have to worry about your children being able to someday catch a trophy because there will ALWAYS be a few smart fish that just live long enough to become trophys. Conversely, if nobody ever killed a striper, they'd ALL grow and our standards for what constitutes a trophy fish would grow right along with it.



A lot would have to change for no one to kill any stripers. Why do you think this thread was started? To try and change some minds a get less stripers killed.



Big Texun said:


> On the issue of altruisim, are the selfish ones those who argue for reason and opening our sport to others... OR, are the truly selfish ones those who prefer to disclude novices NOW because they fear that the NOVICE will kill that trophy they personally want to catch for themselves? I'm quite confident that if you think the matter through, you'll agree that it is the latter.



Your confidence is misplaced. Truly selfish? I define people by their actions, not their words. I have seen the truly selfish in action, and he is the main reason that I have developed an interest in discussing this here. I am hoping to change minds, with logic and critical thinking. As far as novices, there is a cure for being a novice, it is called practice. Anyone can overcome being a novice with perseverance, trout are not required. Besides, why would anyone that is good at what they do, and I think I am, worry about a novice? What you are describing is not selfishness, but lack of confidence. 

FM


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 21, 2011)

*Jerry, Jerry, Jerry*



Grey Ghost said:


> Shawn, You know I wouldn't attack you personally, given the years we go back together. But lets keep the record open and honest so everyone knows where you stand. With every change in your position your credibility gets harder to buy.
> 
> You personally destroyed a trophy river fishery WITHOUT USING TROUT and left it alone for a few years. You forgot to mention that then you TOOK GUIDED TRIPS there in 06 and 07 (and perhaps earlier) in JULY when the water temps rose above 70. Then pictures of your clients holding the fish in 80+ degree temps were taken. And, not every fish swam happily away. If you want pictures, I'll be happy to post some.
> 
> ...




Jerry, you just wasted a lot of peoples' time.  The virus hasn't spread south of the Great Lakes.  I'm sure there's plenty of penguin diseases you'll want to talk about next, but seriously.

Quoted from: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_diseases/vhs.html


> To date, VHS has caused large-scale mortality in
> black crappie in Budd Lake (Michigan)
> bluegill in Budd Lake (Michigan)
> common carp in Lake Ontario
> ...



seriously....



Grey Ghost said:


> Shawn, You know I wouldn't attack you personally, given the years we go back together. But lets keep the record open and honest so everyone knows where you stand. With every change in your position your credibility gets harder to buy.
> 
> You personally destroyed a trophy river fishery WITHOUT USING TROUT and left it alone for a few years. You forgot to mention that then you TOOK GUIDED TRIPS there in 06 and 07 (and perhaps earlier) in JULY when the water temps rose above 70. Then pictures of your clients holding the fish in 80+ degree temps were taken. And, not every fish swam happily away. If you want pictures, I'll be happy to post some.



To address this malignant statement:  You have attacked me personally, to my face and there were two other fellows in my boat who can vouch.  I don't know how your personal issue with me began after I showed you some of the most sacred waters I know for a very small guide fee in comparison to the knowledge you gained that day.  Where's the love?  Anybody who knows me personally knows what I stand for.  I'm a conservationist, not a preservationist.  Do you know the difference?  I don't think there's anything wrong with a few fish dying every now and then, it happens.  

To question my C&R technique is like saying an NFL quarterback doesn't know how to throw a football.  I land fish as quickly as possible, the fight never lasts more than 5 minutes on fish up to 40 lbs.  I lip them with a boga grip and never net them.  The camera is typically on and ready to go before the fish is boatside and in most of the pictures I take, water is still dripping off the fish.  It's out of the water for less than a minute.  I use L-197 hooks exclusively for trophy striper.







The reason you continue to prod on this thread is because without trout, you wouldn't be able to go back on your word and fish people's spots as readily or successfully.  

I think a major common denominator for striper fishermen in favor of the ban on trout in trophy striper waters is that they learned how to do it on their own and not on the coattails of anglers who actually put in the grunt work and countless hours of searching and gathering information.  Additionally, some people just have morals and ethics and choose to do what they know is right.  I know what side of the bait tank you stand on, and hopefully with the flaunting of your destitute words, the rest of this forum sees you for what you have portrayed yourself.

I guess I stooped to your level on this one, but it's an important piece of information for the readers of this thread to know since you continue to reference your internal conflict with me in an attempt to somehow discredit the fact that THE USE OF LIVE TROUT NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTED IN CERTAIN TROPHY STRIPER AREAS.


----------



## Throwback (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm going to hook up a live bream I bought from a hatchery to catch a flathead and think about this thread. 


T


----------



## Old Dead River (Oct 22, 2011)

i'd like to use some trout during the cooler months at charlie elliot. might be fun


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 22, 2011)

Shawn, 

You and Ron White seem to have a similar problem: "You have the right to remain silent but not the ability."

I have carefully reviewed all of your posts for facts and this is what I learned:

"There has always been an aversion of sorts within the fishing realm about using trout for bait. I think the best thing that could happen to trophy striper fisheries everywhere would be to make live trout illegal as bait."

	Everyone wants to ban trout as bait.

"I stock shad in ponds and lakes. I don't sell for bait." 

	You have a business selling gizzard shad but don't sell for bait.

"For the record, I did provide a few dozen gizzards to All Seasons one time."

	Actually, you do or did sell for bait.

"Private hatcheries don't discriminate about which strains of trout they raise, nor do they care about the diseases that infected trout can spread to an established population such as whirling disease. Whirling Disease Info on TU"

	Private hatcheries don't care if their stock dies from disease.

"Allowing the use of trout puts more strain on these already fragile ecosystems when inexperienced anglers mishandle, or even worse, keep fish which could potentially reach state record size when they are only 30 lbs."

	 Inexperienced using gizzard shad or other baits do not harm the ecosystem.


"I think trout can be allowed on 99% of the state's waters as bait, but there are a few select stretches of river which need the NO TROUT regulation and strict enforcement. In my book, conserving the trophy striper fisheries is first. Preventing disease spread by bait trout is second." 

	Using trout on 99% of the state's water must not spread disease.

"When discussion and education has failed, legislation must follow."

	If sportsmen don' agree with you, legislation (prescribed by you) must follow


"Jerry, do you even have an opinion on this matter, or do you just chime in to make quirky comments and waste peoples' time?"

	You don't pay attention. I clearly stated my opposition to banning trout as bait.


"This post is NOT about any single location. It would encompass fisheries in the tailwaters of the following dams: Boone, Cherokee, Center Hill, Hartwell, Morgan Falls, Norris and possibly more."

	You should be allowed to determine what is a trophy fishery, and not just in Georgia but other states which you fish.


A news release by the Wisconsin DNR stated:

 "A mid-March fish kill of thousands of gizzard shad in the Milwaukee Harbor ship canals was caused by the fish virus viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS, according to results released March 31 from the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory in Madison.

VHS, which can infect several dozen different native fish species and cause them to bleed to death, does not affect humans. The first detection of the virus was in freshwater drum from the Lake Winnebago system in 2007, and also in Wisconsin's waters of Lake Michigan that same year. The virus was first confirmed in Lake Superior in 2010 from samples of lake herring."
																Your response was:																			

"The virus hasn't spread south of the Great Lakes. I'm sure there's plenty of penguin diseases you'll want to talk about next, but seriously."

	Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't  the Mississippi flow from that body of water? But, anyway trout diseases do have the ability to spread but shad diseases don't.	

My statement, based on your post:

"You personally destroyed a trophy river fishery WITHOUT USING TROUT and left it alone for a few years. You forgot to mention that then you TOOK GUIDED TRIPS there in 06 and 07 (and perhaps earlier) in JULY when the water temps rose above 70."

"I showed some of the most sacred waters I know for a very small guide fee." 

	For a very small ($300 + tip) you were willing to take a number of Georgia fishermen to waters that were recovering from your self proclaimed pillaging 


"I think a major common denominator for striper fishermen in favor of the ban on trout in trophy striper waters is that they learned how to do it on their own and not on the coattails of anglers who actually put in the grunt work and countless hours of searching and gathering information." 

	Fisherman should be prohibited from learning from others.

"The reason you continue to prod on this thread is because without trout, you wouldn't be able to go back on your word and fish people's spots as readily or successfully." 

       No, you keep twisting facts to fit your anti trout tirade. You well know, I was using skip jacks which it didn't take years of hard work to figure out.


Well that's it for me. You have entertained enough people and now many of them have a better understanding of who you are.

I'm going to take a shower now and wash myself of this thread.

Love,

Jerry


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 22, 2011)

fishmonger said:


> Because that is a silly statement, and does nothing to advance the discussion. BTW, you forgot baseball and Chevrolet.



Not really. If your ultimate goal is to stop killing stripers, not letting anyone fish for 'em would certainly work.



fishmonger said:


> It sure sounds like you do.



This thread was ORIGINALLY started with the intent of banning the use of trout as bait for stripers. There was ZERO mention of the now known fact that the OP is just talking about some little stretch of river. I have no problem with what happens on some little stretch of river.



fishmonger said:


> Expand your horizons, learn to catch stripers with something besides bait. Remember how much fun it was to catch your 1st striper? You can experience that again, that first time rush, by mastering a new method. That starts by trying something  new.



Thanks, I'll try to keep your insight in mind the next time I find myself in a rut.



fishmonger said:


> I believe we ARE discussing rivers.



I believe we are NOW. We weren't in the beginning. If the OP had clearly expressed that he was only talking about small stretches of rivers in the beginning, this thread would have not been interesting. Why didn't he? Because in the beginning, he obviously wanted trout banned as bait EVERYWHERE. 




fishmonger said:


> Small, recently stocked stripers are not as much fun as large ones.



Really... that would've never occured to me. 




fishmonger said:


> A lot would have to change for no one to kill any stripers. Why do you think this thread was started? To try and change some minds a get less stripers killed.



Why do I think this thread was started? At the risk of flaming the OP, I'll not go there. I will say however, that it  is refreshing to have a debate with the OP, on a neutral forum like this, where the OP doesn't take certain liberties.




fishmonger said:


> Your confidence is misplaced. Truly selfish? I define people by their actions, not their words. I have seen the truly selfish in action, and he is the main reason that I have developed an interest in discussing this here. I am hoping to change minds, with logic and critical thinking. As far as novices, there is a cure for being a novice, it is called practice. Anyone can overcome being a novice with perseverance, trout are not required. Besides, why would anyone that is good at what they do, and I think I am, worry about a novice? What you are describing is not selfishness, but lack of confidence.
> 
> FM



If you have seen the truly selfish in action and you know who HE is, why don't you confront him face to face, instead of trying to legislate your views on the many others who aren't "He."

That said, I could care absolutely less what ya'll wanna do on a small stretch of river somewhere... but, it sure sounds a lot like you want to legislate your elitist mentality to stop ONE person from doing something you think is wrong... without regard to the implications for others that are truly  novices. 

For that matter, if the OP stumbled onto this pristine little striper gold mine, WHY did he take novices to it? I mean, if he has any experience whatsoever, he obviously knows that when someone pays you to guide them on a fishing trip, anything you show them is fair game for them to use in the future.  I can't tell you how many times I've taken a group fishing on "Tuesday"... then returned with another group on "Wednesday," only to find the Tuesday group already sitting on my planned starting hole. The only reason I can think of that I'd take someone to a spot like that is if I couldn't catch fish anywhere else.... and if I loved those monsters as much as the OP claims to, I wouldn't even do it then.... no matter how much they offered to pay me.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 22, 2011)

I reckon if someone knows how to use skipjack for bait, they wouldn't be opposed to banning trout.  Whirling disease is a trout only disease.

Using trout in the 75 mile stretch from Wolf Creek to the TN line on the Cumberland River is illegal.  That is a good model for other similar fisheries that I mentioned earlier in the post.  Rivers which can sustain year-round trout should be included.


----------



## Cy Grajcar (Oct 23, 2011)

Throwback said:


> I'm going to hook up a live bream I bought from a hatchery to catch a flathead and think about this thread.
> 
> 
> T



LOL!!!  Thats all I am got to say about that!  (Forest Gump style)  This ones been beat to death guys and it just seems more smoke and secondary personal interests are taking over all these post about bait.  Good luck on the water.  Got to get ready for tomorrow.  GO STEELERS!!!!!


----------



## joe k (Oct 24, 2011)

I didn't realize you could use trout as bait for stripers. Thanks to this thread, now i do. And, since this has been such a heated debate, I am guessing Stripers love Trout. Who doesn't?


----------



## Deer Tic (Oct 26, 2011)

I know I haven't been around in awhile, Guess I missed something!!!  I guess that's what happens when I don't show up to SSGO cooking all that good food! LOL... I'm sorry!

I don't striper fish enough to have an opinion, but would be happy to follow the rules whatever they may be! It's all about having a good time with friends to me!


----------



## kbad (Oct 27, 2011)

SeeinStripes  I just have a quick question to ask you.

I can see why someone would be against using LIVE Bait for stripes, because of the chance to gut hook ect.

But what I cant understand is why you are only against using LIVE Trout as bait.

Why is this?  Are you a Trout Unlimited member and concerned with wild or stocked trout populations?

And why would you be against someone using Live Trout that were purchased for bait?


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 27, 2011)

kbad said:


> SeeinStripes  I just have a quick question to ask you.
> 
> I can see why someone would be against using LIVE Bait for stripes, because of the chance to gut hook ect.
> 
> ...



Why does the KY DNR restrict the use of trout for bait below Wolf Creek dam for 75 miles downstream?  And why is that striper fishery better than average?  There are several other fisheries which could benefit from this minor change in regulation without completely cutting out live bait. 

For the record, if you didn't read through this whole thing, I'm only talking about cutting trout out of the equation for a few select cold tailwater fisheries.  Trout would be fine for bait on all lakes and rivers which don't have trout.  That's just a general guideline for what I'm trying to achieve.


----------



## kbad (Oct 28, 2011)

Yes I got that, but you didnt answer my question.

Why are you against using live trout for bait, but not all live bait?

Is your concern for the trout fisheries ?

I understand being against using live bait of any kind.
I dont understand only being against using one type of live bait.

Unless someone has a vested intrest in the other types of baits.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 28, 2011)

kbad said:


> Yes I got that, but you didnt answer my question.
> 
> Why are you against using live trout for bait, but not all live bait?
> 
> ...



All of those answers are in this thread if you choose to read it before you post.


----------



## kbad (Oct 28, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> All of those answers are in this thread if you choose to read it before you post.



I have read every post in this thread.
You have never come out and said why you are against using live trout but not all live bait.

It is a very simple and direct question.

Your refusal to answer it leads me to belive you have an agenda that you do not want people to know.

I am appologize if I am wrong but please just answer the question.


Why are you against live trout for bait but not all live bait?


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 28, 2011)

*Please stop using trout*



kbad said:


> Why are you against live trout for bait but not all live bait?



The top ten reasons NOT to use trout for bait...drumroll.....

10) Trout carry a disease called whirling disease which can potentially wipe out an entire population of other trout.

9) It is already illegal to catch trout and transport them alive to another body of water (according to DNR regs), so why should it even be remotely legal to carry trout of unknown bloodlines and from unknown water sources to be used as bait?

8) It has been shown that the use of trout can lead, in some cases, to the overuse, overharvest, and in no less way a common disrespect for the fishery that results in the reduction of the numbers of trophy fish in any given system.

7) In fisheries where it is illegal to use trout for bait, the trophy striper fishery is as good as it can get.

6)  Only banning trout still allows live bait fishermen the ability to fish with their preferred method using native, natural bait.

5) Trout is a non-native fish below 3,000' elevation, and only brook trout are native to this region of the world.

4) They are so pretty with their spots and colors, who in their right mind could put one of them on a hook and use it for bait?

3) They are so tasty, people should be eating them.

2) Their teeth are sharp and dangerous and can cause severe lacerations.

1) If they do become illegal as bait, the DNR can make more money writing citations to people who don't comprehend what they read.

Most of these points have already been discussed, so here they are again, with more to go along with them.  You're awfully snappy, chill out.  Ya kind of sounded like my wife there.  JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION...  hahaha


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 28, 2011)

*Brook Trout info*

Great article on how the poor brook trout has been displaced by the very trout that are sold as bait.

http://www.troutmagnet.com/Jim_Habera_South_Native.html


----------



## Wes204 (Oct 28, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> The top ten reasons NOT to use trout for bait...drumroll.....
> 
> 10) Trout carry a disease called whirling disease which can potentially wipe out an entire population of other trout.
> 
> ...



What a Joke!  You are completely misled on your #1 reason...not to mention many others.  The county gets money from citations...not the state.  

Bluegill are tasty and are a good looking fish too.  They make good bait and the predators aren't hosting a beauty pageant.

Browns and Bows aren't native but are by no means invasive.


----------



## bluemarlin (Oct 28, 2011)

All in all, it's a fish eat fish world but have courage to heal the future instead of steal from it.


----------



## Throwback (Oct 28, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> 1) If they do become illegal as bait, the DNR can make more money writing citations to people who don't comprehend what they read.


----------



## kbad (Oct 29, 2011)

I could argue shad.herring and bluwgill cause this also ) 

8) It has been shown that the use of trout can lead, in some cases, to the overuse, overharvest, and in no less way a common disrespect for the fishery that results in the reduction of the numbers of trophy fish in any given system.

This one I can agree with, but if you buy the trout as bait and carry a reciept this argument is null and void.
9) It is already illegal to catch trout and transport them alive to another body of water (according to DNR regs), so why should it even be remotely legal to carry trout of unknown bloodlines and from unknown water sources to be used as bait?

This one can be said for the ban of all live bait.

7) In fisheries where it is illegal to use trout for bait, the trophy striper fishery is as good as it can get.

Very selfish and self serving on this one.  You cant use trout but I can use shad.

6) Only banning trout still allows live bait fishermen the ability to fish with their preferred method using native, natural bait.

Makes no sense, stripers are no native in that part of the river.


5) Trout is a non-native fish below 3,000' elevation, and only brook trout are native to this region of the world.

The rest are so ridiculous to even try and comment on.

Thanks you for the answers I know see the motivation behind your desire to make trout illegal for bait.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 29, 2011)

*haha*

I was mostly kidding and being sarcastic.  I've made all the points I can think of already.  I know lots of guys who are for the ban of trout and I didn't have to convince them.  You're either for it, against it, or in the middle.

Throwback, sorry to hurt your head, most of those statements were meant to be funny.  

I'm done discussing this topic.  It has been shown to me that the more experienced fishermen who want to see more big fish in the future are for the trout ban.  The ones who don't understand or are guilty of what I've been talking about are against the ban for their own selfish reasons.


----------



## kbad (Oct 29, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> I was mostly kidding and being sarcastic.  I've made all the points I can think of already.  I know lots of guys who are for the ban of trout and I didn't have to convince them.  You're either for it, against it, or in the middle.
> 
> Throwback, sorry to hurt your head, most of those statements were meant to be funny.
> 
> I'm done discussing this topic.  It has been shown to me that the more experienced fishermen who want to see more big fish in the future are for the trout ban.  The ones who don't understand or are guilty of what I've been talking about are against the ban for their own selfish reasons.



No I belive more experienced fisherman who want to see more big stripers would be for a complete ban on ALL LIVE BAIT.

See the difference, you only want to ban one type of bait that does not suit your agenda or buisnness or fishing style.

If you were truley concerned with the trophy striper fishery you would be all for banning all live bait.

If you wre truley concerned with the trout fishery you would want to make that section of river artifical baits only.

You sir are trying to ban one type of bait that you do not sell or fish with, which is very selfserving.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 29, 2011)

kbad said:


> No I belive more experienced fisherman who want to see more big stripers would be for a complete ban on ALL LIVE BAIT.
> 
> See the difference, you only want to ban one type of bait that does not suit your agenda or buisnness or fishing style.
> 
> ...



"kbad" - Pretty bold and anonymous statements from behind that computer screen.  You make uneducated assumptions and you're wrong.

As I've said, it's about conservation and in order to have that, there is a balance.  It's possible to stop the bleeding with a tourniquet, but only if you put it in the right place.  You don't put it around your neck if you have a laceration on your leg.

Why are there set creel limits and minimum lengths and slots and deer tags?  Why can't you go out and legally catch and keep 500 bass?  Because someone felt a regulation was necessary to prevent degradation of the resource.  We all know the fisheries are constantly changing due to factors such as climate, cycles in forage, water level fluctuations during spawn, changes in specie composition (introduction of bluebacks, alewives, spotted bass, rainbow trout, striper), and many many more factors.  Regulations must be modified to maintain the best possible management practices.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but everything I've said is based on scientific fact, or through decades of experience and education on and off the water.  I don't think I've assumed anything about anybody here.  Please don't try to make this about me.  I'm only a messenger.


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 29, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> I'm done discussing this topic.  It has been shown to me that the more experienced fishermen who want to see more big fish in the future are for the trout ban.  The ones who don't understand or are guilty of what I've been talking about are against the ban for their own selfish reasons.



So, you reach the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you is either inexperienced or selfish? Not surprising really... From someone who obviously thinks he knows more than the trained biologists that oversee the breeding, stocking, and regulation of both trout and stripers. Drop that in your soup and take a big gulp... Meanwhile, I suggest that you leave the decision making to the REAL pros.


----------



## SeeinStripes (Oct 30, 2011)

Big Texun said:


> ... From someone who obviously thinks he knows more than the trained biologists that oversee the breeding, stocking, and regulation of both trout and stripers. Drop that in your soup and take a big gulp... Meanwhile, I suggest that you leave the decision making to the REAL pros.



Good points, but again, unfounded.  It's funny how you guys continue to personally attack me online.  Thanks for yet another anonymous post.

What kind of on the water experience does a trained biologist have?  I can promise they wouldn't have the insight into the fishery like someone who lives and breathes it.  Moreover, their efforts aren't concentrated on one aspect of the fishery.  It would be like the president trying to know everything there is to know about every policy, law, economy, etc...without his cabinet of experts.  Nodoby can know everything, and I'm sure if you polled your 'biologists,' they would tell you they make the best decisions they can with the limited knowledge they have.  It takes sportsmen afield to gather the data and present it.  Good thing Galileo pressed on with his theory of the planets when few would listen.


----------



## kbad (Oct 30, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> "kbad" - Pretty bold and anonymous statements from behind that computer screen.  You make uneducated assumptions and you're wrong.
> 
> As I've said, it's about conservation and in order to have that, there is a balance.  It's possible to stop the bleeding with a tourniquet, but only if you put it in the right place.  You don't put it around your neck if you have a laceration on your leg.
> 
> ...



Oh ok my name is Kevin Badgett.
Not sure why it would matter to you what my name is, you arent one of those people who like to threaten people who dont agree with you are you?
You arent one of those people that try to intimidate people to try and sway thier opinion are you?
But again not sure why my name would matter since I have not threatened you or insulted you but thier you go you now have it.


I am not trying to hide behind anything.

I truley belive if you are concerned with the striper fishery you would be all for the ban of all live bait, not just the ones you dont sell or catch.

It has been proven on many streams rivers and lakes that a purely artifical only fishery is much better at promoting and protecting a trophy fishery.

I have no skin in the fishery you are talking about and really not concerned if it went one way or the other.

What I am concerned with is someone trying to convince people that it should be one way and not the other simply because it fits thier agenda and is not what is best for either fishery.

But you keep believing what you want to belive and I will do the same.

You have answered my questions well enough for me to form my opinion on why you want live trout banned as bait.

There is no reason for to try and change my opinion on why.

Untill you come out and support a ban on all LIVE BAIT you simply are trying to just have it your way.

Which there is nothing wrong with but at least be honest about it.

Well in that I will say good day Sir and happy fishing.


----------



## Grey Ghost (Oct 30, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> Good points, but again, unfounded.  It's funny how you guys continue to personally attack me online.  Thanks for yet another anonymous post.
> 
> What kind of on the water experience does a trained biologist have?  I can promise they wouldn't have the insight into the fishery like someone who lives and breathes it.  Moreover, their efforts aren't concentrated on one aspect of the fishery.  It would be like the president trying to know everything there is to know about every policy, law, economy, etc...without his cabinet of experts.  Nodoby can know everything, and I'm sure if you polled your 'biologists,' they would tell you they make the best decisions they can with the limited knowledge they have.  It takes sportsmen afield to gather the data and present it.  Good thing Galileo pressed on with his theory of the planets when few would listen.



Hey, Galileo,
We know you have your own forum, as you remind us at the bottom of your every post, but it's a little harder to bully people on GON, isn't it?
Love,
Jerry


----------



## Big Texun (Oct 30, 2011)

SeeinStripes said:


> Good points, but again, unfounded.  It's funny how you guys continue to personally attack me online.  Thanks for yet another anonymous post.
> 
> What kind of on the water experience does a trained biologist have?  I can promise they wouldn't have the insight into the fishery like someone who lives and breathes it.  Moreover, their efforts aren't concentrated on one aspect of the fishery.  It would be like the president trying to know everything there is to know about every policy, law, economy, etc...without his cabinet of experts.  Nodoby can know everything, and I'm sure if you polled your 'biologists,' they would tell you they make the best decisions they can with the limited knowledge they have.  It takes sportsmen afield to gather the data and present it.  Good thing Galileo pressed on with his theory of the planets when few would listen.



The fisheries biologists that I know have a wealth of knowledge that you cannot even begin to appreciate. To supplement that knowledge, they do talk a good bit to very knowledgeable sportsmen. If they haven't talked to you, it might be that they just haven't gotten around to it, or....

I'm not attacking you... But when you ask for an opinion, get one, then pass it off as "uninformed, selfish, or inexperienced," I do tend to respond in a manner that clearly illustrates that you are not the fount of information you perceive yourself to be.

As to the anonymity of my posts... There is a picture of my boat in my avatar, you are welcome to stop by any time, provided, I don't have clients in my boat.


----------



## RockyS (Oct 30, 2011)

I think the point has been made as not to ban it all together but in certain areas like cold tailwaters. I don't fish these areas so unlike some others I don't feel like I can make an educated decision on this matter. Some others are acting like its a total ban. These areas are not accesible by a fiberglass boat or easily by a aluminum boat.   I choose not to bash my boat on rocks as I don't have the money to replace it or my prop/foot.


----------



## mtr3333 (Oct 30, 2011)

Grey Ghost said:


> Shawn,
> 
> Since you don't own THIS forum you may not be able to control the discussion.
> 
> Besides, as noted above the topic has been beaten to death. The two factions, trout advocates and striper advocates, both have very strong opposing opinions.


 This has one primary intersection. And someone is already trying to jack this thread for his own agenda. OP makes a good point. (And so does Nic.)


----------



## Gordon (Nov 11, 2011)

Just my 2 pennerth;

All trout in GA are an unnatural stocked resource, it's about time everyone including the government got off their high horse about placing trout on a snobby pedastall, lets not do it with Stripers either, they are all a manmade resource no different from a goldfish.  We are not talking about N GA wild Brookies here (which are in fact char), neither are we talking about spring creek Cuttthroats.

I am all for conserving wild fish stocks, but I do not think banning trout will make any difference to trophy stripers being caugh/kept or not.  Additionally, all this talk about conserving striper stocks is rubbish talk. All Striper except Naturally occuring sea run stripers either of the Atlantic or Gulf run variety are a stocked resource for the use of the Licence holder/payer.

Using trout for bait should not be any more of an issue than using shiners or shad - store bought or netted.


----------



## SkeeterEater (Nov 11, 2011)

I prefer baby sturgeon


----------



## Gordon (Nov 11, 2011)

SkeeterEater said:


> I prefer baby sturgeon


----------

