PDA

View Full Version : Right or Wrong???



Reel Fun
02-17-2011, 07:56 AM
From time to time I see where someone post a pic of an oversized fish that get deleted because doing so kinda meets the defination of "take"?? But I see pics all the time of undersize fish held up by the gill plates??? I thought the same rules applied for take on undersize fish as well???


RF

CRABBY
02-17-2011, 09:02 AM
From time to time I see where someone post a pic of an oversized fish that get deleted because doing so kinda meets the defination of "take"?? But I see pics all the time of undersize fish held up by the gill plates??? I thought the same rules applied for take on undersize fish as well???


RF

Yes they do!If the mods miss em PM us and let us know an they will be deleated,Thanks Ronnie.............Don

PorterO
02-17-2011, 09:32 AM
There should be a stickied thread on why people shouldn't hold oversized fish by the gills for a photo. Maybe it would happen less if they were informed on the harm they cause to the fish...

CRABBY
02-17-2011, 10:09 AM
There should be a stickied thread on why people shouldn't hold oversized fish by the gills for a photo. Maybe it would happen less if they were informed on the harm they cause to the fish...

Write one up Porter.....or.......Ronnie....Don

WhopperStopper
02-17-2011, 01:44 PM
Posing for Sturgeon Photos? | California Outdoors Q and A (http://californiaoutdoors.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/posing-for-sturgeon-photos/)

Oversized white sturgeon that are too large to keep should not be hoisted out of the water for measuring or pictures. The angler may be cited if the fish is too large and the fish is put at risk. Instead, keep the big fish in the water to take your pictures, and then release it to swim away.

Question: I’ve seen several pictures over the years of anglers hoisting oversized sturgeon out of the water and dragging them back to the dock for pictures. Isn’t it against the law to treat fish that are to be released this way? How should oversized sturgeon be handled, given that the justifiably proud angler would like to get a picture or two before releasing? (Jim J.)

Answer: There are two important issues here – the regulations and doing what is best for the fish. The regulations state “…all fish …less than the legal minimum size or greater than the maximum legal size must be returned immediately to the water from which they were taken,” (CCR Title 14 section 1.62). No sturgeon less than 46 inches total length or greater than 66 inches total length may be taken or possessed.

Anglers often choose to keep the biggest fish possible and then, for an accurate assessment, they take the oversized fish out of the water to measure. By doing this the angler risks being cited for taking an obviously oversized fish out of the water and keeping it out of the water too long (e.g., for an extended picture session). If the fish is not legal and it is not immediately released, the person possessing the fish may be cited for possessing an illegal fish. If the fish is harmed during the release or photographing and it dies, the person who took the fish may be cited for the illegal take of the fish.

As far as what’s best for the fish, according to Department of Fish and Game (DFG) sturgeon expert Marty Gingras, the answer is clear: Do not remove from the water any part – particularly the head – of a fish that you will release. They are suffocating when their gills are removed from the water and blood-chemistry studies show they are clearly stressed from both the fight and from handling after the fight.

Here’s a recommendation for handling oversized sturgeon:

Keep that oversized sturgeon in the water and take photographs there. This regulation has worked in Oregon and Washington and consequently, they have enjoyed a premier oversize white sturgeon catch-and-release fishery for many, many years.

* Do not hoist a sturgeon up from its gill plates for a “sturgeon necktie” photograph.
* Do not drag a sturgeon ashore for a photograph. It is risky for both angler and fish – the angler may be cited and the fish may stress out and die. Keep that oversized sturgeon in the water and take photographs

Handling these behemoths with care is essential; they are the broodstock building future generations of these incredible fish for tomorrow’s anglers.



COLUMNIST

Carrie Wilson is a 20-year DFG veteran and an avid outdoor enthusiast, angler and hunter. She is a marine biologist with a strong background of professional experience working in both fisheries and wildlife management. An established award-winning outdoor writer, Carrie enjoys tackling the tough questions from the public and will be regularly tapping into the expertise of DFG’s game wardens and many fisheries, wildlife and marine biologists to best cover all the topics.

If you have a question you would like to see answered in the California Outdoors Q and A column, email it to CalOutdoors@dfg.ca.gov.

Cal.Kellogg
02-17-2011, 03:12 PM
I'm sensing a double standard here.... If the following is true...:

"As far as what’s best for the fish, according to Department of Fish and Game (DFG) sturgeon expert Marty Gingras, the answer is clear: Do not remove from the water any part – particularly the head – of a fish that you will release. They are suffocating when their gills are removed from the water and blood-chemistry studies show they are clearly stressed from both the fight and from handling after the fight."

I wonder why the DFG does pretty much everything outlined here when they go out and net sturgeon and take measurements when doing counts...Hmmm

I for one don't want any Fish Sniffers breaking the law. I think the DFG gets enough revenue from us in the form of excessive license fees already, without stacking a revenue generating fine on top of it....

Having said that I question how delicate sturgeon really are. I remember one keeper I caught vividly. I hit it over the head repeatedly with a fish billy, put it in my fish box with no water. Drove all the way back from Suisun Bay to Auburn and when I wet the fish down to clean it, it was still very much alive...Not so delicate.....

While we should do everything we can to release fish back into the water unharmed, I don't think taking a photo with a sturgeon before releasing it would do any harm except to your wallet if you get caught doing it and receive one of those revenue generating citations.

And Carrie Wilson....I find it interesting that she is both employed by the DFG and an active outdoor writer...It seems to be a case of a government representative being given bully pulpit in a media outlet to push forward the government agenda....Interesting...Sorta like the President's Press Secretary being given a column in the New York Times and being portrayed as a journalist....It doesn't pass the smell test for me.....but to each his own.....

CRABBY
02-17-2011, 03:31 PM
HMMM,a very interesting viewpoint,how sweet it is to to have a boss with the inside info,or at least alot more than me,as for carrie wilson I don't know her but she is on another board I read now an then an appears to have a rather friendly relationship with them.Oh well...Don

Gadabout
02-17-2011, 03:40 PM
Cal, thanks for your input on the Wilson thing. I too wondered how and why someone can get away with such a double standard.
Again, thanks Cal for your insight-that's one reason I returned to the sniffer.

shadbuster
02-17-2011, 04:14 PM
I wonder why the DFG does pretty much everything outlined here when they go out and net sturgeon and take measurements when doing counts...Hmmm

Simple, its a hell of a lot easier!

GNappers
02-17-2011, 05:35 PM
I caught an undersize last year and tried to get the hook out of it's upper lip while the fish was in the water. I finally had to bring the fish in the boat to release it. I don't think it is beneficial for the fish to just cut the line so it swims off with a huge hook in it's mouth. I would rather bring it aboard and remove the hook and don't think I should get a ticket for doing so.

Marv
02-17-2011, 06:00 PM
Thanks G.Nappers. I just learned something new. If I would not have read this post and was out cat/striper fishing and caught an oversized I would have photographed him, I would not grab them by the gills. I'm sure a small amount of people dont know the legality of this topic, when you watch fishing on tv, the host never wets his hands and tosses the fish in the water like it's a empty beer can and thats pro fisherman on bass, flw, and others.

Cal.Kellogg
02-18-2011, 08:05 AM
"I caught an undersize last year and tried to get the hook out of it's upper lip while the fish was in the water. I finally had to bring the fish in the boat to release it. I don't think it is beneficial for the fish to just cut the line so it swims off with a huge hook in it's mouth. I would rather bring it aboard and remove the hook and don't think I should get a ticket for doing so."

This illustrates the problem and also why the heading for this thread "Right or Wrong" is perfect....There is following the letter of the law and there is doing the right thing....Clearly removing the hook from an undersize sturgeon is the right thing to do if you can do it without harming the fish ie doing some sort of field surgery on it, but if a warden came along when that fish was in your boat you could be cited for possession of an undersize sturgeon....

You'll never see any discussion of the merit of a DFG rule or reg in Wilson's column...It is very black and white and robotic....If you encounter one of the DFG's black and white robotic wardens, and you are not meeting the absolute letter of the law you'll likely get a ticket. On the other hand you might meet a warden that engages the brain and understands that to release an undersize sturgeon you have to bring it in the boat to get the hook out.....

I remember a few years ago I was coming back from Eagle Lake and had to pass through the bug station at Truckee...I was towing a boat and a sign was flashing "hunters pull over"....Heck I hadn't been hunting so I didn't get in the "pull over" lane.

When I got to the front of the line there was a DFG guy there and he said very forcefully, "Why didn't you pull over"..."I wasn't hunting, I've been fishing"....He responded..."Get over there", pointing to where hunters were being searched....

I pulled over and the DFG proceeded to search my truck without asking permission or anything. We were under the limit for trout, but when they went into my cooler they found that two of our fish were frozen. We'd been staying in a cabin and I froze them before heading home. The warden asked me repeatedly why the fish were frozen....There is no reg in the book about driving around with a frozen trout, but he grilled me as to why the fish would be frozen...

As I was being shaken down I watched the DFG shaking down a couple senior citizens. They were returning from an out of state hunt. Clearly the guys had a bit of money based on their rig and didn't appear to be the law breaking type...The wardens had removed their rifles from their cases and laid them on the pavement. They had also taken all their meat out of the coolers and laid it on the pavement too. The meat had been cut and wrapped by a butcher and the packages had stickers with the butcher's name and number on them...

After about 20 minutes I was given the all clear and allowed to go...Illegal search completed. When I left the two old times were still being questioned and their guns and meat were still laying on the pavement.

Fast forward a few weeks and I see one of Wilson's columns outlining how the DFG had maned several checkpoints to block invasive big game effecting diseases from being brought into the state...I quickly realized she was referring to the events at the bug station.

She went into detail how dangerous the diseases are to deer and other wildlife etc. No argument here, we need to do everything possible to stop the spread of these diseases, but I still wondered why I would be stopped when I'd been fishing and not hunting.....And then I came to the very end of the article and everything fell into place....

It said something to the effect of "blah, blah, blah and by the way as part of our effort to fight invasive disease we wrote over 100k in fines and citations"

To me it sounded like the DFG had used the potential of introduced diseases as a means of justify a blanket search...a general shake down if you will...that netted the department a bunch of revenue..

Anyone that read the Constitution and Bill of Rights in high school, knows that it violates our rights to be randomly shaken down, yet that seemed to be exactly what the department did and justified it by saying the focus was stopping the introduction of disease....

After reading that piece I drew the conclusion that Wilson wasn't really an outdoor writer at least not by my definition, but was in fact an apologist and mouth piece for her benefactor the DFG.....

Seon
02-18-2011, 10:27 AM
…all fish …less than the legal minimum size or greater than the maximum legal size must be returned immediately to the water from which they were taken,” (CCR Title 14 section 1.62). No sturgeon less than 46 inches total length or greater than 66 inches total length may be taken or possessed.



The operative words are "returned immediately to the water...."

So in order to "return", one has to have been "taken out" of the water.

IMO it must be handled carefully, long enough to measure if it appears to be within the bracket and a quick pic...but not by holding it by the gill, remove the hook(s) then return immediately. This process should take more than a minute, max maybe two minutes tops.

CRABBY
02-18-2011, 02:56 PM
"I caught an undersize last year and tried to get the hook out of it's upper lip while the fish was in the water. I finally had to bring the fish in the boat to release it. I don't think it is beneficial for the fish to just cut the line so it swims off with a huge hook in it's mouth. I would rather bring it aboard and remove the hook and don't think I should get a ticket for doing so."

This illustrates the problem and also why the heading for this thread "Right or Wrong" is perfect....There is following the letter of the law and there is doing the right thing....Clearly removing the hook from an undersize sturgeon is the right thing to do if you can do it without harming the fish ie doing some sort of field surgery on it, but if a warden came along when that fish was in your boat you could be cited for possession of an undersize sturgeon....

You'll never see any discussion of the merit of a DFG rule or reg in Wilson's column...It is very black and white and robotic....If you encounter one of the DFG's black and white robotic wardens, and you are not meeting the absolute letter of the law you'll likely get a ticket. On the other hand you might meet a warden that engages the brain and understands that to release an undersize sturgeon you have to bring it in the boat to get the hook out.....

I remember a few years ago I was coming back from Eagle Lake and had to pass through the bug station at Truckee...I was towing a boat and a sign was flashing "hunters pull over"....Heck I hadn't been hunting so I didn't get in the "pull over" lane.

When I got to the front of the line there was a DFG guy there and he said very forcefully, "Why didn't you pull over"..."I wasn't hunting, I've been fishing"....He responded..."Get over there", pointing to where hunters were being searched....

I pulled over and the DFG proceeded to search my truck without asking permission or anything. We were under the limit for trout, but when they went into my cooler they found that two of our fish were frozen. We'd been staying in a cabin and I froze them before heading home. The warden asked me repeatedly why the fish were frozen....There is no reg in the book about driving around with a frozen trout, but he grilled me as to why the fish would be frozen...

As I was being shaken down I watched the DFG shaking down a couple senior citizens. They were returning from an out of state hunt. Clearly the guys had a bit of money based on their rig and didn't appear to be the law breaking type...The wardens had removed their rifles from their cases and laid them on the pavement. They had also taken all their meat out of the coolers and laid it on the pavement too. The meat had been cut and wrapped by a butcher and the packages had stickers with the butcher's name and number on them...

After about 20 minutes I was given the all clear and allowed to go...Illegal search completed. When I left the two old times were still being questioned and their guns and meat were still laying on the pavement.

Fast forward a few weeks and I see one of Wilson's columns outlining how the DFG had maned several checkpoints to block invasive big game effecting diseases from being brought into the state...I quickly realized she was referring to the events at the bug station.

She went into detail how dangerous the diseases are to deer and other wildlife etc. No argument here, we need to do everything possible to stop the spread of these diseases, but I still wondered why I would be stopped when I'd been fishing and not hunting.....And then I came to the very end of the article and everything fell into place....

It said something to the effect of "blah, blah, blah and by the way as part of our effort to fight invasive disease we wrote over 100k in fines and citations"

To me it sounded like the DFG had used the potential of introduced diseases as a means of justify a blanket search...a general shake down if you will...that netted the department a bunch of revenue..

Anyone that read the Constitution and Bill of Rights in high school, knows that it violates our rights to be randomly shaken down, yet that seemed to be exactly what the department did and justified it by saying the focus was stopping the introduction of disease....

After reading that piece I drew the conclusion that Wilson wasn't really an outdoor writer at least not by my definition, but was in fact an apologist and mouth piece for her benefactor the DFG.....
There's a lot of really good DFG wardens out there who really care an do there job like a human being,using common sense,BUT unfortunately the wardens pay is much lower than other comparable Law Enforcement agencies,so it goes without saying that the caliber of many of there officers will be lower than what you would expect,it's unfortunate but until there pay scale an #s can be increased we get what we pay for,we can be thankful for the good one's we have an just be careful of the rest.As to the rest of DFG this would probably apply to the entire agency...JMO...Don

Gadabout
02-18-2011, 03:56 PM
There's a lot of really good DFG wardens out there who really care an do there job like a human being,using common sense,BUT unfortunately the wardens pay is much lower than other comparable Law Enforcement agencies,so it goes without saying that the caliber of many of there officers will be lower than what you would expect,it's unfortunate but until there pay scale an #s can be increased we get what we pay for,we can be thankful for the good one's we have an just be careful of the rest.As to the rest of DFG this would probably apply to the entire agency...JMO...Don
Smogguy, don't know just where you got your information on the DFG but everyone that is a warden has a BS or BA degree. Unlike chp,city and sheriff's deputies that only reg a GED. As far as the pay is concern you have a valid point but not by much. The main problem with DFG is administration attiude and who they hire. At one time not long ago DFG policy was to hire those that held a certain view point on the environment(tree huggers) all graduated from Humbot state or Berkeley. They didn't want people who were law enforcement types.
I spent 32 years as a sheriff here in the valley. Next time your stopped or just have a conversation with a warden ask him "hey did you graduate from Humbote state or Berkeley?" then duck from his right hook if he grad from a real college.

CRABBY
02-18-2011, 04:29 PM
Smogguy, don't know just where you got your information on the DFG but everyone that is a warden has a BS or BA degree. Unlike chp,city and sheriff's deputies that only reg a GED. As far as the pay is concern you have a valid point but not by much. The main problem with DFG is administration attiude and who they hire. At one time not long ago DFG policy was to hire those that held a certain view point on the environment(tree huggers) all graduated from Humbot state or Berkeley. They didn't want people who were law enforcement types.
I spent 32 years as a sheriff here in the valley. Next time your stopped or just have a conversation with a warden ask him "hey did you graduate from Humbote state or Berkeley?" then duck from his right hook if he grad from a real college.

:rotfl2::rotfl2:Got info from a friend who is also a Warden who shall remain unnamed for obvious reasons,there was more to our conversation of course but I felt his opinion's an mine might be of some small value.Thanks for the response...Don (Lets not let this get to political or personal here,I don't want it to get out of hand,thanks)

BIG_ONE
02-18-2011, 06:16 PM
Smogguy, don't know just where you got your information on the DFG but everyone that is a warden has a BS or BA degree. Unlike chp,city and sheriff's deputies that only reg a GED. As far as the pay is concern you have a valid point but not by much. The main problem with DFG is administration attiude and who they hire. At one time not long ago DFG policy was to hire those that held a certain view point on the environment(tree huggers) all graduated from Humbot state or Berkeley. They didn't want people who were law enforcement types.
I spent 32 years as a sheriff here in the valley. Next time your stopped or just have a conversation with a warden ask him "hey did you graduate from Humbote state or Berkeley?" then duck from his right hook if he grad from a real college.


I've been doing a lot of research as what is needed to be a game warden for the past few years and how to go on about it. With multiple e-mails and talks with a few Sheriff guys and SPD guys that I know of, California Game Wardens doesn't require any B.S. or B.A. Here's more proof to it, and I've found nothing about it saying you need a B.S. or B.A. to become a game warden also.
DFG Warden Career - Qualifications (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/enforcement/career/qualifications.aspx)
The only reason you would need a B.S. or a B.A. is if you want to work for federal as a Game Warden. In terms you get pay more and also do a wider range of work, if I'm not wrong on here. :)

CRABBY
02-18-2011, 07:44 PM
I've been doing a lot of research as what is needed to be a game warden for the past few years and how to go on about it. With multiple e-mails and talks with a few Sheriff guys and SPD guys that I know of, California Game Wardens doesn't require any B.S. or B.A. Here's more proof to it, and I've found nothing about it saying you need a B.S. or B.A. to become a game warden also.
DFG Warden Career - Qualifications (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/enforcement/career/qualifications.aspx)
The only reason you would need a B.S. or a B.A. is if you want to work for federal as a Game Warden. In terms you get pay more and also do a wider range of work, if I'm not wrong on here. :)Thanks BIG_ONE,heres the states requirements on education>>>>>

High school diploma, GED, or California High School Proficiency Examination; Equivalent to completion of two years (60 semester units) of college with 18 semester units in the biological sciences, police science or law enforcement, natural resources conservation, ecology or related fields. (Students who have 30 semester units of college, and have 18 semester units completed in the required or related fields, will be admitted to the examination, but must produce evidence of completion of 60 semester units before they can be considered eligible for appointment.)

The Department has determined that “related fields” are, but are not limited to: Animal Science, botany, chemistry, conservation, ecology, entomology, environmental management, environmental science, environmental studies, fisheries or wildlife management, forestry, geography, geology, herpetology, life science, mammalogy, marine biology, natural resources, oceanography, ornithology, physics, psychology, plant taxonomy, water quality management, wilderness survival and zoology.

Reel Fun
02-18-2011, 08:04 PM
The operative words are "returned immediately to the water...."

So in order to "return", one has to have been "taken out" of the water.

IMO it must be handled carefully, long enough to measure if it appears to be within the bracket and a quick pic...but not by holding it by the gill, remove the hook(s) then return immediately. This process should take more than a minute, max maybe two minutes tops.



I agree 100%!!!!!!! Take the fish out of the water for a quick measurement & pic hold it properly quick pic and back in the drink.....if done quickly and properly I do not believe any warden can in his right mind write a ticket!!!!! But on the other hand if you drag it onto shore drag it across rocks and have a 5 minute pic session the they deserve a ticket!!! Same thing as holding up a under/oversize by the gills......I disagree about these fish being so tough that they cant be hurt by holding them by the gills!!! If that fish starts moving the gills can be ripped/damaged severly and just because they "swam off" does not mean they servived.


RF

kromebrite
02-18-2011, 08:58 PM
I read somewhere that you can flip an oversize over on it's back and it will be still?

I think the most important thing is to not injure any fishes gill rakers, or so I've been told.

9erhater
02-18-2011, 11:36 PM
well I hate participating in these right wrong topics but here goes. I truly believe you hurt these fish by holding them by there gills no matter what size it is. and pulling an oversize on the shore or in the boat is totally bad for the fish, the weight of the oversize fish damages its internals. you can not see the damage you caused after it swims away. I personally saw 4 oversized floaters last year. ( how did they die????)
I agree I dont like to cut the line and leave a hook in a fish either.
now I only catch and release ( yeah, yeah I know, let it go) if you fight the fish properly, he will be laying along the side of the boat 99% of the time. making it easy to roll him on his back in the water and removing the hook and measuring them. I have always just lean over the side of my boat with a pair plyers and release the hook, I have been doing this sucessfully for the past 30 years. have you ever thought how much damage a braided line does to a fish. how many guys just torque down the drag and winch that fish in? I have seen fish cut pretty badly with braid, even fisherman. just something to think about.
I think in oregon it is illegal to lift any part of a oversize out of the water at all. As for fish and game doing illegal searches..... if you purchase a hunting or fishing license, you have already gave them the right to search you or your car anytime. you may not feel its right, but think of all the people that they catch that deserve tickets. lets not start bashing DFG, think how on edge you would be if you had to goto work everyday, and almost everyone you had to approached was probably packing a loaded weapon.
welcome to california, home of the treehuggers. just think in ten or twenty years us hunters and fisherman will be on the endagered species list.

Gadabout
02-19-2011, 12:21 AM
Brother I was way off the Calif F&G regs for a job as a warden. I have yet talked to a warden that didn't have a college degree.

SuckerPunch
02-19-2011, 07:48 AM
+1 for 9erhater and Seon. It's amazing how many people know not to stick anything in a fish's gills, yet I see shots of guys with their hands up in some "released" fish's gills all the time. Also, as far as people that gill fish and get called on it, they'll often state that the fish "swam away fine." Just because a fish swims away until you can't see it DOES NOT mean that it survived. Putting your hands in the gills can (1) damage the gill filaments, inhibiting gas exchange and waste excretion; (2) damage the gill arches, which supply blood and provide support for the filaments; and (3) can damage other tissues by putting undue stress on those tissues when the fish is lifted out of the water and therefore no longer has the buoyancy of the water supporting it.

Cal.Kellogg
02-19-2011, 08:49 AM
"As for fish and game doing illegal searches..... if you purchase a hunting or fishing license, you have already gave them the right to search you or your car anytime. you may not feel its right, but think of all the people that they catch that deserve tickets. lets not start bashing DFG, think how on edge you would be if you had to goto work everyday, and almost everyone you had to approached was probably packing a loaded weapon. Welcome to california, home of the treehuggers. just think in ten or twenty years us hunters and fisherman will be on the endagered species list."

I'm not looking for an argument, but rather a discussion...I understand what you are saying. At this time a fishing or hunting license allows the DFG to search on sight...BUT the question is this...Is that procedure justified under the Constitution and Bill of Rights?...Last time I checked the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a warrant was required for a search and it HAD state what the search was for....The founding fathers specifically addressed blanket searches aimed at finding ANY violation...and yet these types of searches are preformed on hunters and anglers routinely.

These searches do turn up violations, but the fact that violations exist doesn't justify trashing the rights given to us...If the police in any give town went from house to house, kicked in doors and performed random searches violations was certainly be found, yet I would ask you if that is the sort of country you want to live in...By your statement the violations found would justify the kicked in doors and systematic searches. The founders didn't like the idea or warrantless searches for unspecified violations, but I guess we have been conditioned to give up our rights without question, because some guy in para-milatary garb tells us that he has been granted that privilege....

If I took a job that I found so stressful that it required me to walk around with a chip on my shoulder and operate under a set of rules that seem absolutely contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I would seriously consider another form of employment...I meet enough good wardens to know that some guys choose to take a hard a$$ line and other don't.

The attitudes and actions of wardens have nothing to do with the so called tree huggers....I've never been searched by a tree hugger, but I have been searched by DFG folks wearing para-military uniforms that had exuded an attitude that said there are two kinds of hunters and anglers in the world...Those that we've cited and those that we are going to cite because we know at heart all sportsmen are violaters, poachers or worse....

I've noticed that when I've stopped at sobriety check points there is almost always a warden in attendance...Why? I believe it's because they can search with probably cause....I find it hard to believe that they find many deer poachers at sobriety check points, but the wardens are there never the less.....


Sucker Punch said
"+1 for 9erhater and Seon. It's amazing how many people know not to stick anything in a fish's gills, yet I see shots of guys with their hands up in some "released" fish's gills all the time. Also, as far as people that gill fish and get called on it, they'll often state that the fish "swam away fine." Just because a fish swims away until you can't see it DOES NOT mean that it survived. Putting your hands in the gills can (1) damage the gill filaments, inhibiting gas exchange and waste excretion; (2) damage the gill arches, which supply blood and provide support for the filaments; and (3) can damage other tissues by putting undue stress on those tissues when the fish is lifted out of the water and therefore no longer has the buoyancy of the water supporting it."

I'm not advocating hurting fish, what I am advocating is for both the DFG and anglers to take a common sense approach.....And I especially urge all Fish Sniffer folks to follow the letter of the law as to avoid any revenue enhancing citations....

Having said that, outlining all the ways an angler MAY harm a fish puts us on a slippery slope....The act of fishing itself puts fish at risk. The last thing we want is for the clandestine group of "tree huggers" that many believe lurk around tossing monkey wrenches in the best laid plans of sportsmen to get wind of this and push to eliminate fishing for sturgeon all together because hooking them and fighting them puts them at risk....It may sound funny...but this is the road we are headed down when we point fingers at one another...

9erhater
02-19-2011, 11:07 AM
I completely understand what you are saying Cal, and I agree. believe me I have great reason to be hard on the DFG, as a youngster I was heavily harrassed by a few officers. but I truly believe It was probably my doing and mostly because I was so irritated by the fact that the DFG had the nerve to talk to me, and do a search of my vehicle and cabin for no good reason. and I was not even hunting that day, he claimed he had to check the deer for blue tongue or something like that. this officer sat at my truck for 7 years straight, waiting for me to finish my hunt, and did the whole search thing everytime. mind you I had done nothing wrong.
so you wonder what did I do to deserve this. I all goes back to the first time we met, and the attitude that I gave this guy, which I feel was justified except for the many threats I made to him and his family (not a good idea) anyhow I really wonder if things would of been different had I just kept my cool and let him do his job the first day we met. yeah my rights would of been violated. but I think because I took such a hard stand on that it made me look like I was guilty of something or was doing something illegal. after that I think it was just him trying so hard to nail me for anything. it had gotten so bad that I just stopped hunting that area completely. anyway the DFG are the voice for the animals, and there job is to protect them period. not all of them are bad people and you cant judge a person by one encounter, remember you two have never met , he knows nothing about you. he has to form that judgment in the first few seconds he meets you. and maybe the guy he met before you was me as a youngster. he will have a whole different attitude with you right from the getgo. we are all human and have are bad days to.
so my advice to everybody is when you are approched by anybody, not just the DFG. the way the entire conversation is going to go will be based on how you as a person responds first. so if you are polite and friendly and respectful.... your experience will most likely go in that dirrection and you will be treated the same way. and if you are just irritated and being a real -hole rude person, you will send that entire experience in that negative direction. add a few threats and that experience will last many years. I'm all about standing up for your rights, and the constitution. but if you pick your battles properly, I dont think handing over a fishing license next to some lake is really all that bad.
Hey Cal were you born in the sixties, I see a hint of hippie in ya LOL

Cal.Kellogg
02-19-2011, 04:45 PM
I was looking at Carrie Wilson's question and answer page on the DFG website. Her February 10 entry regarding black sea bass is relevant to this discussion and also illustrates the points I've made about Wilson specifically and the points I've made about DFG regs and enforcement in general.

A guy wrote her asking if it would be illegal to take a picture of a black sea bass (a zero limit species) before releasing it, she replied, "Giant (black) sea bass and other no-take species cannot be retained and must be released immediately. Therefore, holding the fish out of the water for a picture is unlawful. The best case scenario for the fish would be to cut the line while it is still in the water."

And she went on to say, "The definition of “take” is to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” an animal, or to attempt to do so (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 1.80). So, by catching the fish, reeling it in, taking it off the hook and holding it up for a picture, your friend has “taken” a prohibited species. He also did not release it immediately as required."

She outright says that "catching the fish and reeling it in"... the guy has already broken the law...Apparently holding it up for a photo is a continuation of the law breaking based on her last sentence..."He also did not release it immediately as required."

Read that second paragraph closely and focus on the language that defines "take"...The key words for an angler that hooks an over size or undersize sturgeon or other species with a size limit for that matter are "pursue, catch, capture"...

Based on this language it would appear that fishing for sturgeon or stripers or lingcod or any fish with a size limit becomes a violation whenever you catch a fish that doesn't fall within the legal size range....In her words, TAKE equals pursuing or catching a fish, never mind capturing it...ie...bringing it on board to remove the hook...

It is now illegal to sturgeon fish up in the Chico area...A good rule in my opinion, however based on Wilson's assertion that "take" is defined as pursue be mindful that if you head up to that area and are fishing night crawlers for steelhead, you could potentially be cited for pursuing sturgeon in a closed area. Now of course we would make the case that steelhead were the target, but at the point that the citation was written it would become your word against the judgement of the officer...

Going a step further, if we were fishing at Folsom Lake throwing $16 Lucky Craft rip baits and hooked a black bass under the 12 inch minimum size, Wilson's direction seems to be that to stay legal we need to cut the line and allow the fish to swim off with our plug and a mouth full of trebles, since removing it from the water to remove the hooks would constitute "take" leaving us wide open for a citation....

Now realistically I hope an angler acting out either of the scenario's I've outlined wouldn't be cited, but they could be....

The point I'm trying to make is that the attitude coming from the state is that all anglers, and hunters for that matter are walking violations and the DFG appears to make a concerted effort to write the regs in such a way that even anglers attempting to follow the letter of the law will be in violation just by doing what anglers normally do, such as reeling in an undersize fish, removing the hook and turning it loose, never mind taking a photograph of it...

Taking Wilson's assertions at face value it would appear that having a license that allows you to fish also gives the DFG a broad license to write you a citation.

I'm very concerned that someone that robotically cites DFG doctrine is portrayed to be a journalist and outdoor writer....I think government mouthpiece is a more appropriate description....

rblucky2
02-19-2011, 07:01 PM
all these type of on line questions/issues is why people decide to just not post!mellow mellow!




From time to time I see where someone post a pic of an oversized fish that get deleted because doing so kinda meets the defination of "take"?? But I see pics all the time of undersize fish held up by the gill plates??? I thought the same rules applied for take on undersize fish as well???


RF

9erhater
02-19-2011, 08:23 PM
everyone had a right to there own opinion. and everyone has there own perception of what is right and wrong. I do agree that if a mod sees a photo of someone miss handling a fish or breaking a law or just something that misrepresents what this site is all about. the mod is obligated to delete the picture or post. the ole well I saw a guy online doing it this way , it must be ok. that is why you should never think everything you read or see is real on the internet. use your best judgment. I dont think that wilson really has much of a clue and dont feel anybody that has never hunted or fished really should be dictating the rules of hunting and fishing and I can understand where Cal is coming from. that is one reason why california is so screwed up. you can only be as good as your leaders, and all our leaders really care about is making money. and selling off all of californias water and depleting our fisherys and everything else that doesnt really help us the sportsman. I dont want to talk politics so (change the subject)
I do think and hope that the DFG officers have there own perception of the rules. I do hope nobody tries to land a giant seabass just for picture. but I dont see a DFG officer giving you a ticket for taking a black bass out of the water to remove your hook. there is some flexability in the laws. for example it is illegal to shoot and kill game and leave it lie without making an effort to retrieve it. BUT if you shoot coyotes the DFG will not ticket you if you walk up to the dead animal and look at it and then leave it there. GO Figure the rules are there and pretty overwritten, if you do get a ticket for trying to remove your lure, that would just be ashame and it would just be an officer miss using his/her authority. sorry for the long posts, I will go back to lurking again.

Reel Fun
02-19-2011, 08:24 PM
all these type of on line questions/issues is why people decide to just not post!mellow mellow!



I posted it because there were several recent pics of guys holding up shaker sturgeon...most by the gill plate!! I also watched an episode of Angler West today and they were catching sturgeon on the Columbia River and they landed several clearly undersized fish and held them up for the camera and talked about them for a solid 2 minutes? Not sure of the laws in the state they were in?? I will say they did handle them properly...Im sure none were hurt in any way.....but if it is a law to return them to water ASAP....then they filmed themself bending that rule???


RF

SuckerPunch
02-20-2011, 09:01 AM
I'm not advocating hurting fish, what I am advocating is for both the DFG and anglers to take a common sense approach.....And I especially urge all Fish Sniffer folks to follow the letter of the law as to avoid any revenue enhancing citations....

Having said that, outlining all the ways an angler MAY harm a fish puts us on a slippery slope....The act of fishing itself puts fish at risk. The last thing we want is for the clandestine group of "tree huggers" that many believe lurk around tossing monkey wrenches in the best laid plans of sportsmen to get wind of this and push to eliminate fishing for sturgeon all together because hooking them and fighting them puts them at risk....It may sound funny...but this is the road we are headed down when we point fingers at one another...

Hey Cal,

I think it is indeed a logical slippery slope to go from "don't gill fish" to "don't fish at all" - it's invalid logic. Gilling fish is NEVER good for any fish to be released under any circumstance that I can think of. Given that, I think there are two arguments here - one is based solely on the welfare of the fish, the other is based on the welfare of the fish given that it was hooked and fought. If some vegan hippie is concerned about only the welfare of the fish, then, yeah, to secure that welfare, he shouldn't fish. However, if it is the second case - concerned about the welfare of a fish to be released given that you're going to hurt it by giving it a lip piercing and stressing it out - then what's important is knowing how to handle a fish properly to maximize its chances of survival. Common sense, which is often not in the DFG regs, should play a role in this. For instance, I'd have no problem using both hands to lift a shaker sturgeon out of the water by its body to remove the hook - they are hardy fish and can be out of the water for a little bit with no ill effects. How Seon and White Cap handled that oversize they bagged in Monty (?) was, to me, a perfect example of how people with common sense handle fish well, even though they could've been cited by some gung-ho warden.

Of course, the real issue is being able to defend the right to, and the enjoyment of, fishing to some vegan hippie (or some G-man that graduated from UC Berkeley) that would use crappy logic such as "don't gill fish" as a premise for "don't fish." It's basically the same thing as answering the age-old questions of "Why hunt?" or "Why fish?" To me, it's because I'm a predator and fish are a big part of my diet. Why catch and release? Because it makes me a better predator. Lots of times, them hippies will tell you that you don't need to eat meat to survive; of course, neither do grizzly bears, yet I don't see hippies lobbying grizzlies to stop eating salmon. 'Nough said.

I think the fishing community might actually have a better image, and therefore the ability to work more effectively with other groups, because of the finger pointing, which is a way of instilling some ethics into the pursuit, and man, as a community, this sport needs some ethics. The miles of monofilament lining the banks, the endless empty nightcrawler containers, the dead floating fish from crappy C&R, the poor boat etiquette, and the spot-burning makes it look like fishing is war rather than an interaction between predator and prey. I think it'd be better for us to teach each other without the need for a law than to have some Berkeley-trained G-man with absolutely no tie to the natural world policing us by making more goofy laws.

Cal.Kellogg
02-20-2011, 11:11 AM
I think that the way sturgeon are handled is an overblown issue when we measure it side by side with other issues....Sturgeon are hardy fish, and baring abusive handling that no knowledgeable angler would administer I think they survive being caught, photographed and released just fine...

I base part of this assertion on the fact that trained DFG personnel routinely net sturgeon, remove them from the water, perform procedures on them and then let them go. The fact is that a 30 inch sturgeon caught by an angler, photographed and released probably endures less stress than if the same fish found itself in a government net...

If you want to talk about harmed fish let's consider the current ocean salmon regulations. The law allows you to catch and release undersize salmon all day long as you search for keepers....I've been out and observed 20 to 30 shaker salmon caught, netted and released with lots of missing scales and trauma...They are delicate fish!...A high percentage of these fish will die...Now if the DFG were really invested in protecting fish ie salmon perhaps the regs should read that you MUST retain the first two salmon caught and then stop fishing.

Some smallish fish would go home with anglers, but a lot of fish that ordinarily would be caught and released wouldn't be hooked and handled by anglers at all. If 20 undersize sturgeon are caught, netted released and 20 undersize salmon are caught, netted and released which group of fish will have more mortality? Certainly the salmon will, but you don't hear anglers, fishing groups or the DFG talking about abolishing the minimum size limit on salmon to protect the salmon population as a whole...

It's all about perception among anglers. Somehow it has become fashionable to point the finger at other anglers regarding catching and releasing sturgeon. You seldom hear anyone complaining about cold water fish like kokanee, kings and trout being hauled out of the thermocline in the dead of summer and then after being throughly stressed released back into 85 degree water. How many of those fish die...? Half of them? 75%? 90%? Nobody knows and nobody seems to care, yet if an angler catches a 30 inch sturgeon, takes a photo with it and then lets it go, everyone wants to paint that angler as public enemy No. 1...I'm not going along with the herd on this....I've caught lots of sturgeon, killed some and released most...They are amount the hardiest fish we routinely catch...

To me the DFG's mission should be protecting fish and game and enhancing numbers, but when I look at the regs and consider both the content and the way they are written, I think revenue generation is the driving motivation...

Here's some insight....Most guys have no idea why I don't allow oversized sturgeon pics to be posted on these boards....

First it's because DFG deems that activity to be contrary to their regulations but mostly it's because I don't want to be contacted by the DFG....I've had them contact me several times asking for me to disclose the identity of anglers pictured here with oversize sturgeon and the answer has always been the same....Serve me with some paper from a judge and I'll disclose that info straight away, but until then you'll need to get out into the field to make your busts rather than making them from the office while surfing the web....

All this harkens me back to the great Prospect Island fish kill...When I go early word that the fish kill was underway and thousands of stripers were trapped I called Caltip multiple times...Never got a call back...When Fish Sniffer staff working with others organized a team of volunteers to do a fish rescue those efforts were discouraged by the DFG to the point that threats were made that anyone that went onto Prospect could be cited for trespassing by wardens....Long story short...the fish rescue was done and it was successful....

One of the great DFG assertions I recall from the time was that if the rescued fish died it would somehow create a black eye for all involved...So I assume in the opinion of the DFG person that said that it would be better just to let the stripers die???? Wow!

Now several years later despite the fact that we know the people, the agencies and the contractors that caused the fish kill in the first place, to my knowledge no citations have been issued, no one has been fined, no one has been locked up...

But if they catch you taking a photo with an oversize sturgeon or a black sea bass before releasing it...You'll get a ticket....Wow...Talk about warped priorities....

It boggles the mind.....Someone should write Carrie Wilson and ask her what the status of the Prospect Island fish kill is...Is the investigation on going? Have citations been issued? If not when can we expect them to be issued? If citations are not going to be issue I'd certainly like to know why....After all the fish killed fall within the definition of a public trust resource, so I think we are entitled to an explanation.....

SuckerPunch
02-20-2011, 11:40 AM
Hey Cal,

Totally agree with you that the issue of how to handle fish to be released - and it is an issue - pales in comparison to to other issues. To me, if DFG wanted to really effectively protect fish and wildlife, they wouldn't be surfing the web for guys holding oversize fish for a pic, they'd be ringing up the water agencies again and again and again for all the damage they've done to our fisheries, mostly done on the public's dime and for the public's "benefit."

As far as why the finger-pointing seems more prevalent among sturgeon guys, I'd wager that it's because sturgeon are wild-bred and more susceptible to overfishing due to their long lifespan and late age of maturity. Salmonids in reservoirs are almost invariably due to introductions and are supplemented by stocking, so it's a much more easily renewed resource.

Good discussion.

Reel Fun
02-20-2011, 05:53 PM
[QUOTE=Cal.Kellogg;808137]

Here's some insight....Most guys have no idea why I don't allow oversized sturgeon pics to be posted on these boards....



Hmmm.....I wanted to point out to you Cal that I was fishing today and reading an old issue (Jan 2011) and there was a picture of an oversized fish laying on the floor of a boat with the happy angler that caught it posing for the camera??? The article said it was actually caught twice. Now as far as I am concerned I have no problem as i assume it was released shortly after the camera was retrieved and photo taken......just wierd to read that today???

RF

RF

Cal.Kellogg
02-20-2011, 08:35 PM
Roger that...Charter boats tend to sit pretty high, so when you have a fish that is within a few inches of the slot on either end there is no way to measure it than to bring it out of the water and into the boat....As it turned out that fish was a couple inches too long...

We measured it...Snapped that shot and put the fish back into the water....

This experience must not have caused too much trauma and clearly didn't kill the fish as it inhaled a shrimp bait on MY line about 10 minutes later and it came into the boat again...Once we put the fish on the deck we saw that it had the same distinctive markings the "first" fish had and when we removed the hook, hook wound number one was plainly visible....Back into the water again...

That's one for the books the fish was feeding, caught, photographed and released and it went right back to feeding.... I hear a lot of speculation...If you do this the fish will do that, if you touch the fish here it will get embarrassed, if you touch it there it will faint...If you hold it this way it will die....All speculation....I was there...Caught, handled, photographed, released...back on the feed and caught again....No speculation, just the facts....

tonsofun
02-20-2011, 09:25 PM
Wow Cal you seem to have a big beef with game wardens and dfg. I dont understand why? Their put there to help preserve and protect our wildlife that we all enjoy and try to catch poachers. And if that meens a random search oh well you have nothing to hide right? Also if it means you will possibly get a ticket for removeing a fish from the water that isnt a keeper trying to pose with your prize fish then so be ot. You know the regs. Take a picture of the fish on thr water. You dont know what kind of damage your causeing that fish.

Polebrother
02-20-2011, 10:39 PM
I apologize in advance if this has already been addressed in this long thread, but can a person be ticketed for boating and immediately releasing a legal-size sturgeon?

Cal.Kellogg
02-21-2011, 07:25 AM
Tons....

I don't have a beef with the wardens so much, as there are some fine wardens out there working hard, as I have a beef with the attitude and direction of the department as a whole.....

I don't have time for a big long reply to your points, but I would say 1)..."Don't worry if you don't have anything to hide"....Is a cop out for those that are unwilling to stand up for the rights granted them under the Constitution and Bill of Rights....The founding fathers saw the damage an out of control police state could have when living under British rule...They lived it first hand...That is why we are suppose to enjoy freedom from random warrantless blanket searches seeking to issue citations for any infraction found...

Every time the man comes to take one of your rights away you keep on saying "Yes sir, I have nothing to hide" and before long you won't have any rights left....I used the example before that if the police went door to door in any given community, kicked in doors and searched homes they would find a lot of violations...Are you in favor of that type of search? After all if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't mind the local police dropping in for a look around, and perhaps a body cavity search at 3 am....

2) I would say that you don't know what kind of damage or complete lack there of holding up a fish for a photo may or may not cause....Since the DFG nets sturgeon and then handles them and performs research on them I'm thinking one of two things must be true...A) Sturgeon are hardy fish that can take responsible handling and swim away no worse for the experience.... OR B) DFG policy in completely incompetent and they are killing sturgeon left and right during their netting surveys...

I don't think you read my posts very closely on this thread...I would encourage you to do so...Since you seem to be 100% pleased with the actions of the DFG, review the excerpt from one of my more recent posts below and I would encourage you to email paid DFG spokeswoman Carrie Wilson and urge her to answer the questions outlined about the Prospect Island fish kill....I would anticipate that she wouldn't touch those questions with a 10 foot pole and if she did all we'd get is a lot of government double talk......

I wrote...
All this harkens me back to the great Prospect Island fish kill...When I got early word that the fish kill was underway and thousands of stripers were trapped I called Caltip multiple times...Never got a call back...When Fish Sniffer staff working with others organized a team of volunteers to do a fish rescue those efforts were discouraged by the DFG to the point that threats were made that anyone that went onto Prospect could be cited for trespassing by wardens....Long story short...the fish rescue was done and it was successful....

One of the great DFG assertions I recall from the time was that if the rescued fish died it would somehow create a black eye for all involved...So I assume in the opinion of the DFG person that said that it would be better just to let the stripers die???? Wow!

Now several years later despite the fact that we know the people, the agencies and the contractors that caused the fish kill in the first place, to my knowledge no citations have been issued, no one has been fined, no one has been locked up...

But if they catch you taking a photo with an oversize sturgeon or a black sea bass before releasing it...You'll get a ticket....Wow...Talk about warped priorities....

It boggles the mind.....Someone should write Carrie Wilson and ask her what the status of the Prospect Island fish kill is...Is the investigation on going? Have citations been issued? If not when can we expect them to be issued? If citations are not going to be issue I'd certainly like to know why....After all the fish killed fall within the definition of a public trust resource, so I think we are entitled to an explanation.....

Cal.Kellogg
02-21-2011, 07:30 AM
Pole...If the DFG chooses to follow the letter of the law in writing the citation the answer seems to be yes...

I'm not debating whether the law is written in such as way that we can be cited for it...I'm debating the merit of a law that would make just about every angler on the water ripe to receive a citation by simply doing what anglers do...The regulations...The one regarding undersize, oversize and zero limit species especially, seems to be written in such a way as to maximize the chances that you can be ticketed even if you have no ill intent and that's not right....

9erhater
02-21-2011, 07:44 AM
thats funny, polebrother the answer would be differant depending on who you ask.
my answer is yes and no depending on how you do it heres why.
If you catch a legal sturgeon and are observed by a DFG officer, and you release it but do not log it on your report card. technically you can be sited. it would be a real shame and I really dont think it would really happen but you never know in this day and age.
As I have said many times I catch and release all my fish, and its not because it makes me feel holy or almighty. it because I dont eat fish much. this thread is a prime example of why I hate these right and wrong questions. everyones perception is different, its not a pick on Cal thread, or lets bash DFG or bash on Carrie wilson. it is what the right or wrong way to handle a fish. we were all taught a certain way as youngsters, and seem to think thats the right way. I dont like to see anyone holging a fish by the gills, or any oversize on a boat deck, or someone holding a trophy pregnant female up for photos, but thats just me. others feel it dont hurt the fish, and most are released unharmed to them. So maybe these people should run in place until there out of breath and as there trying to catch there breath they should cover there mouth with there hand or lay down on there stomach and try to catch there breath. it my not kill them but it is sure going to be uncomfortable as they try to recover. Oh and try doing this at 100 years old. So when you catch an oversize or undersize, or legal size just do what you feel is right (for the fish) and dont worry about the others. Remember we are all here for the same reason. we want to enjoy the sport of fishing, and we all truly care about OUR fishery. The rules are written by DFG because we have people in this world that say "well it doesnt say I cant do that" and just try to get around the rules for there own personal gain. That may be why they closed that area around chico to fishing, I think it was getting heavily poached if im not mistaken. Im sure the DFG has a reason not to keep the first two salmon you catch, even though the chances are the fish released wont survive. who knows
I guess I broke my rule about this thread, I was going to stay out of this one.....back to lurking

Reel Fun
02-21-2011, 09:21 AM
My last reply was to point out 2 things....1) that a fish properly handled oversize or not could get a quick pic and not be harmed in fact go right back to feeding....2) was that Cal said he does not allow pics of oversized fish on this site because of the law...but he had a pic of an oversized in a recent issue of the magizine?? According to the DFG law that angler could be cited!! He brought the fish onboard measured it saw it was oversize and did not release it immediately....he posed for a photo?? Now we all know the fish bit again soon after.....now had he held it up by the gills who knows but I think if you take good care of the fish a quick photo should not be illeagal!!!


RF

Cal.Kellogg
02-21-2011, 09:23 AM
"back to lurking"

Me too...I think...no sense in beating a dead horse.....

BIG_ONE
02-21-2011, 12:36 PM
Here's my experience throughout speaking with DFG warden pertaining to releasing oversize, legal, or undersized fish. If you catch an undersized sturgeon, you may take a picture of it but it must be release immediately and report it into your card. Same goes with legal and oversize, but one exception with oversize fish here. You are not allow to hold them by the gill and horse em up for a picture. If picture must be taken, it should be carefully laid flat on land or water with a quick few snap of pictures and release it. All these "science" stuff are being over rated junk to mind boggle fisherman only. Do you think that you having them on land taking a picture(unless you drag them onto land by their gills) have more force power into their body than the fish itself leaping out of the water? Think about it, you pulling them on board or onto shore without grabbing a hold of their gills v.s. a 300lbs sturgeon full throttle leaping out of the water. And of course yes we understand that they are stressed out and tired after a long battle, especially these oversize momma. But everyone has forgotten that this also effects every single fish out there not just only sturgeon. But as a big game fisherman Larry Dalhberg have always said, these sturgeon are way underrated. They are much more tougher than what most fisherman tends to think, a striper is more prone to dying than sturgeon for a fact. Survival of fitness here, and sturgeon ranks out one of the top to survive out of the water next to a catfish. All I have to say...
:banana:

FishWisher
02-21-2011, 06:38 PM
This horse has been beaten to death and has now been buried.

:beatdeadhorse5: