Only one catfish over 30" a year?

Discussion in 'All Catfishing' started by BenNewt, Oct 20, 2009.

If you could only keep one catfish (any species) per year over 30", would you:

  1. Fish for catfish more

  2. Fish for catfish less

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. BenNewt

    BenNewt New Member

    Messages:
    138
    State:
    Minnesota
    I'd actually probably fish more for catfish as there would be more large fish swimming in the rivers and lakes. :wink:
     
  2. JEFFRODAMIS

    JEFFRODAMIS New Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    State:
    TEXAS
    id fish the same..not exactly a trophy hunter...but i wotn be complaining if i hang one:wink:
     

  3. AwShucks

    AwShucks New Member

    Messages:
    4,532
    State:
    Guthrie, Oklaho
    Yep, definitely need a third choice, which would be to fish exactly the same. I'd like to hang a big one, same as the next person, but I'm not gonna pull out what few remaining hairs I have in my head if I don't.

    Why not just pass a thing if your gonna keep the fish to eat you need a commercial license, but if not, you only need a sports fishing license. Seems like a way to make some revenue for the wildlife departments in this day and age of budget crunches.
     
  4. metalman

    metalman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,456
    State:
    IN
    Name:
    Winston
    It wouldn't change the way I fish but it would be nice to know that those who like to keep a few would be limited to 1 over 30" per year.

    I think it would be impossible to enforce though...W
     
  5. CaptainBrad

    CaptainBrad Active Member

    Messages:
    622
    State:
    North Dakota
    I don't think it should matter how much you fish based on a law being in place or not. I know that bigger fish draws more anglers and I know that strict laws make for better fisheries.

    Up here we have a 5 channel limit and only one can be over 24" in possession (on the water or at home) The Canadian side has a no fish over 24" law and I can say this is why we have the best fishery around.

    I guess my point is laws do work and I think helping build a great fishery is started by anglers simply forcing themselves to release the bigger fish without being told they have to by law. I have a boat rule that none over 24" are kept EVER and that makes me feel good.

    Just fish all you can, spread the word of conservation and hopefully the rest will catch up.
     
  6. Jollymon

    Jollymon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    State:
    Wilm .N.C
    The only thing a law like that would do is make more people break a law ,than do now .ya,ll are starting to get ridiculous now, 1 over 30 " never happen . If i had to buy a commercial licence to keep fish to eat i would legally be selling them also , so that would be defeating the whole point of releasing fish back into the water.
     
  7. pendog66

    pendog66 New Member

    Messages:
    2,121
    State:
    Brookville OH
    i would say more but im already fishing 2-3 times a week. But i would be tempted because the fishing would only get better
     
  8. flathunter

    flathunter New Member

    Messages:
    5,723
    State:
    Ohio
    More because there would be more catfish to catch.
     
  9. BenNewt

    BenNewt New Member

    Messages:
    138
    State:
    Minnesota
    Well said there Brad. The Red River up around your parts is a perfect example of how tight regs protect and promote an excellent fishery. Without those regs, it would probably be just like any river from the midwest on down...banks lined with ditty poles and the old timers telling everyone how great the fishing used to be. I'm just trying to imagine what the fishing would be like if those regs were on all rivers around...people would probably start complaining that the eaters are too hard to catch with all the 10 to 25 pounders swimming around...
     
  10. USCA-RECLAIMED-ACCOUNT

    USCA-RECLAIMED-ACCOUNT New Member

    Messages:
    3,020
    It wouldn,t change how much I fish,I,d fish the same.People want over one 30" a year,that,s their business as far as I,m concerned.I don,t look down on it in any way.If they want to eat more than one 30"er a year,fine with me.The guys that piss me off are 1.-guys that take em illegally.2.-people who take em to get a picture to hang up in the bait shop and then waste the fish.3.-people who take em for profit.IMHO.
     
  11. Netmanjack

    Netmanjack New Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    State:
    Ohio
    What does a limit on size have to do with time spent fishing?
    Now if you were only aloud to catch one fish over 30", you would have to talk to the fish about that...:wink:
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2009
  12. CaptainBrad

    CaptainBrad Active Member

    Messages:
    622
    State:
    North Dakota
    I don't think it has anything to do with time fishing. I think his point was that people would fish more if they knew there was more big fish there for people to target.
     
  13. Netmanjack

    Netmanjack New Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    State:
    Ohio
    There are big fish there for people to catch now, they just don't. lol
    Any way, I'm not guessing what he meant, I'm commenting on how he posed his question. :wink:
     
  14. Fishmaster1203

    Fishmaster1203 New Member

    Messages:
    3,603
    State:
    PA
    I have never kept one single flathead. :big_smile:
     
  15. Bill in SC

    Bill in SC New Member

    Messages:
    4,451
    State:
    South Caro
    No changes here, regardless of the laws. I would still CPR all fish over 10 or 15 pounds, and poachers would still poach. So, what's the point? I agree that the question was worded kinda odd, and I'm not really sure what you mean, and like Jack, I won't speculate.

    Bill in SC
     
  16. BenNewt

    BenNewt New Member

    Messages:
    138
    State:
    Minnesota
    Yeah it was a poorly worded poll--I should've added a third option being that you would fish the same--which is probably the category that many people would fit in.

    If I lived by the Red River, I'd probably fish for channel cats more, as there would be a much higher probability of me getting my bait in front of a large cat's face. The reason the probability is higher is because the density of large cats is higher and this is a direct result of tight length regulations. The crowds who primarily hunt large cats for meat probably don't fish in that river as much as they will have the book thrown at them (particularly in Manitoba) if they are caught with anything over 24".

    This poll and proceeding discussion won't answer my overall question, but I'm curious as to what would happen if tight length regs were enforced all over the country. How would the population dynamics of the catfish and catfishermen shift? It's an interesting question....
     
  17. JoeDaCatKing

    JoeDaCatKing New Member

    Messages:
    750
    State:
    PA
    When I voted I thought you meant that If you fished all year and only pulled in one 30 inch fish would you keep doing it and I say of Course. Not too many gamefish get that big so Of course it would hook you into fishing more.

    When I figured out what you actually mean I wouldnt have a problem with that regulation but how would you enforce it? Around here Ive seen trout guys catch their limit in the AM and see them later on a different section of the stream in the PM I would be very hard to force that on them and would end up really meaning on 30incher a day unless the game warden knows you.
     
  18. Motopro00

    Motopro00 New Member

    Messages:
    554
    State:
    Festus, Missouri
    that rule don't make since to me. 30" is not that big for a lot of fish. I think everyone is getting a little to excited. :confused2: So if you catch a northern pike over 30" you can't keep muskie over 30"? Or any catfish?
     
  19. BenNewt

    BenNewt New Member

    Messages:
    138
    State:
    Minnesota
    Whoa buddy you ought to try fishing around here.

    Pool #2 on the Mississippi has %100 catch-n-release only for walleye and bass. Two lakes right by my house have %100 catch-n-release only for bass and pike. No place in the state that you can keep any muskie under 40" (48" in some cases) and lots of lakes and rivers have all sorts of highly restrictive length and slot limits. On Mille Lacs (top walleye lake around), you can't keep any walleyes between 18" and 28". People complain about catching tons of 5 to 8 pound walleyes, but they can't catch an "eater". Statewide, you can only keep 2 flatheads a day and only one of them can be over 24".

    The down side of all of this is you basically have to be regulations scholar to know if you are breaking a law or not. The upside is that this state probably has the best overall fishing in the lower 48.
     
  20. Catpaw

    Catpaw Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,186
    State:
    Central Cail
    Name:
    James
    I'd still fish the same way as alway's, And a 30 inch fiish is not big by anymean's be it a cat or striper or carp ..You can sit on the bank's or canal's out here and catch them that size all day long.