Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gunflint

No Live Bait in the BWCA

37 posts in this topic

I heard from my bait wholesaler today that there may be a proposal in the next legislative session to ban live bait in the Bdub. Has anyone else heard this? If true this could be a very effective way to kill off those pesky small businesses and make way for more summer homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard talk of it. Nothing solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya like live bait is the problem. This exotic species control is going a little too far in my opinion.

Mark your right though it would surely have a impact on the small bussinesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea what group thought this one up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard about it this morning from my bait guy in McGrath Mn.(I think) He said that he would try to get me some info on it tomorrow. I don't know if this is a DNR proposal or something a metro legislator came up with. If it's true I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more about it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Quetico going that route I'm sure the BWCA won't be far behind. If I'm not mistaken I've heard the numbers are way down up there. Anyone think that is because of the live bait ban there? I sure hope they don't do it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No live bait in the BWCA huh? Well, it sounds to me like they just want the tree huggers up there. The local guys and quite a few businesses will be all done up there if this happens- this sounds kinda sneaky like something the "Friends" might be behind. Good god, there are so many stupid rules up there as it is. The BWCA is just a big joke.

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JG, you obviously have a problem with everything that relates to protecting wild places in favor of development. I think a few good years living down in the cities would cure that. Why is the BWCA a "Big Joke"? What's wrong with having a place where nature can run its natural coarse? It gets hammered with people as it is, do you want roads running all over the place and resorts on every lake? A friend of mine said it best "you can go all over the world and find mountains, rivers and all kinds of natural beauty, but you'll never find anything like we have up in northern MN/Canada". With all of the maddness going on with land being bought up and converted into minni mansion yuppie ville, you should be glad our government set aside a chunk of this natural beauty that can never be developed. And before you go off on a tiraid about how it was taken, yadda, yadda, yadda, I know the history and don't agree w/ how it all went down. But it did! just like all the other black eye's throughout history. But it is what it is, why not accept that and enjoy it for what it is? Quit hate'in on people that do enjoy nature and labeling them "tree huggers", ect. I love the BWCA, I also love logging, mining, and utilizing natural resources for our benifit. But I also believe there are special places that need to be left alone. If for anything else, a reference point. Something to look at and maybe learn a little from.

As far as the topic goes, I think banning live bait is a little unnecessary. however, some of the plastics on the market apparently work just as good Lets wait and hear some facts about this before we start jumping to conclusions.

BTW, Im not a fan of "friends" or any extreme groups, since they usually cause more problems then solve, but on the other hand, its those whacko's form each side that keep the other extremes in check.

Also, the permit system on the motor lakes is also a little screwed up. It is a different classification of wilderness, and most everything that is stated in the Wilderness act is set aside on those lakes. So with that being said, they might as well allow a few more people to ease some of the resentment from the locals(specifically, allowing locals a day permit system or something)

OK, i've vented now. grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an anti nightcrawler poster a year or two back, showing the damage they can do to a forest.

The forest looked like Nam, or Puerto Rico.

They advised everyone to dump their unused crawlers in the lake, so the B Dub wouldn't be taken over by them.

Trouble with that argument is the northern Minnesota soil (or lack off) Any crawler around there would become a dock spike in January, or whenever the frost went down one foot.

Lee Frelich (SP) from the U of M was the driving force behind it.

I got my copy from an officer in the Friends of the Boundary Waters. mad.gif

I am trying to get her into the hospital for the lobotomy she so dearly needs. grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRULEDRIFTER,

JustinG's comment objected to the banning of live bait in the BWCA.

You have him putting up Condo's and extending Highway 169 throughout the BWCA.

Chill out, man!!!! mad.gif

Sheeeesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im just responding to what he said, too many stupid rules and that the BWCA is just a big joke. It's also related to the Vermillion state park opinion he has. I am chill, my post is not ment to be harsh, just a point of view to hopefully start a rational, intelligent conversation. I am under the impression that is what these forums are for. But if it does come off abrasive, that's not how I intended. Thats the problem with chatting on line, there is no way to judge the tone of the speaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Thats the problem with chatting on line, there is no way to judge the tone of the speaker.


Exactly. grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-dub was founded on controversey and I'm sure that will continue. It is a fact that certain crawlers will eat the thin layer of humus that the northern forest depends on, so it makes sense to dispose of them properly and not chuck them in the woods. If it weren't for the so called " tree-huggers", I doubt that the B-dub and many national parks would even exist, so I don't get upset with that point of view. The development and business people help keep them in check. As far as I'm concerend I don't see how using native minnows, crawlers or leeches can hurt any local lake. I think the problem occurs when the bait is imported from non-local sources. We can do a lot to prevent the spread of the exotics by killing the bait when we are through with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theodore Roosevelt wasn't a tree hugger, he was a Conservationist. Thats a huge difference and I don't think he had the intension's saving our lands for one user group.

Set aside for all to enjoy. BWCAW will always be there, no one will take it away. If worms could live in the BWCAW they'd have been there long before man.

No Live Bait in the BWCAW is just another way to get rid of one user group. If you want to get right down to it, whats more "natural", live bait or plastics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course worms can live in the BWCA, and they used to too. That is, until the last ice age wiped them out and removed all the top soil from the entire Canadian shield. The only earthworms up there now are ones introduced by fisherman. That said, I have heard nothing from any credible sources about banning live bait in the BWCA, only some online rumors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We are debating a proposal that "might" be introduced next year. That is asking for trouble. It hasn't been introduced and any terms aren't known. There is no sense in slamming each other at this time.

2. You can never state that the purpose of a bill, or law, is so simple. Some legislator may have voted in favor for one reason (to limit pollution or exotics) and another may be motivated by something else (eliminating one user group). The vote counts the same but wasn't for the same purpose.

3. I don't assume, apparently without much rational thought, that all summer home folks, or locals, are so bad. Thats just unhealthy paranoia. No one wants to get rid of small businesses (small business taxes are general fund taxes spent by the state and the evil metro legislator who is apparently to blame for all troubles; on the other hand, real estate taxes are spent locally and primarily to educate the local kids. If anyone should want to get rid of business in favor of those terrible summer homes it should be the locals).

Before we start to irrationally argue and without thought split a group that could form the basis of opposition to any possible future measure, lets give it a tiny bit of thought.

Just 2 cents from a small businessman and evil summer home owner paying real estate taxes who would oppose a live bait ban unless he is told too many more times, without any factual support and by people that don't even know him, that he is the enemy of people he sought to befriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's fine to debate an issue before it may hit the floor of the Legislature. Argument rarely sways anyone from his original position, but it does help us clarify our thinking.

I think threeball's got it right, though. Debate should be civil, not hot-tempered.

My research and lectures I've been to from forest ecologists (Dr. Lee Frehlich is one, but just one of them) show that earthworms and nightcrawlers were not native to the United States, but came over with human shipping from Europe and Asia. In many forest areas in Minnesota, for example, and because of the way earthworms feed and live, you see very little brush and flowers under the trees any longer but pretty big expanses of a couple specific species of grass. These changes were caused by the worms. In the woods near our Bemidji area lake cabin there are several tracts just like that, and they make excellent nightcrawler hunting grounds for when I want fresh free bait.

Will nightcrawlers and earthworms do the same thing to the Canadian Shield? It's a different environment than the rest of the lower 48, and there's not much soil. I, for one, would not appreciate so much a boreal forest with lots of trees but a grassy understory. With soil this thin, would winter freeze off any worms? I dunno, and G.O. may have a point there, depending on in what form worms go into the winter.

I'm not in any way proposing a ban or supporting one, but I suspect it's the earthworm/nightcrawler issue that would be driving any potential legislation, and a simple google search using "earthworms," "nightcrawlers," "minnesota," "forest" and "ecology" will lead you to all kinds of information, including peer-reviewed research findings on the subject.

And of course that could fuel a whole big debate here about invasive species. Earthworms/nightcrawlers, more than any other invasive species I can think of at the moment, have found a permanent place in the hearts and traditions of anglers. Which of us as a little kid didn't dig for earthworms in the garden and take an old fishing rod and can of worms down to the local creek, river or lake to start our fishing adventures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the recent news regarding VHS I'm surprised more anglers aren't willing to err on the side of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations . . . . . You are the origin of the first sensible rebutal coment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . and you win the "runner up" award for logical, practical and direct sensibility!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be a possibility ditch that someone wants the BWCA to follow the Quetico, but I believe the reason why the numbers of people using the Quetico are so low is because of what Canada charges for reserving a camp site, then the per person charge, along with all the other non-sense permits you MUST have just to paddle or camp in the Quetico. Oh and I forgot you need to buy a canadian fishing license if you plan on wetting a line. So after it is all said and done your paying as much money to camp in "wilderness" as you would on going cruise. So I can see why less US citizens which make up the majority that use the Quetico.

If BWCA does go this route of banning all live bait I could see it as a problem for alot of people, but then as a fisherman you can still use frozen bait, and freeze your rainbows, fatheads and shiners, unless they ban that to! I guess this is how our society is becoming with "we have to ban this, and have to ban that". We will become such a restrictive of what we can and cannot do that guy can't even take a piss in his own backyard, let alone go fishing or hunting whenever you want. I guess whatever, its like JustinG says that there are already enough rules in the B-dubs, that can make a guy loose his marbles trying to memorize them. But if they imply this rule it won't stop me from going on trips into the B-dubs, but I can't speak for the rest of my party. It's just like a friend of mine in our party told me that some people are trying to propose a slot limit on Basswood lake for walleyes, and making inland rules apply on ALL border water lakes. Boy did that get cause some discussion on that subject, with all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

I guess whatever, its like JustinG says that there are already enough rules in the B-dubs, that can make a guy loose his marbles trying to memorize them.


No bottles or cans.

9 person and four watercraft limit per group.

Motors on motor only lakes, portage wheels on a select few portages.

Proper permit for method of travel and entry point.

Camping at designated campsites only.

Maybe a fire ban at times.

It ain't that difficult. cool.gif

I usually bring bait with on each trip up there, if it's banned, meh, no biggie, I'll adjust. "We don't need no stinkin bait" smirk.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny Duffer!!!!!

There he is, holding a non-native invasive fish, and waxing eloquent.....

Nothing would surprise me anymore regarding the BWCA. Quetico has gone the route of no more barbs and no more "organic" bait, we have already heard rumblings about banning lead sinkers or jigs in Minnesota, and I have actually had people tell me my depth finder is illegal in the wilderness.

Quetico has discussed banning depth finders...

In the ongoing effort to make normal people miserable, we can expect someone to take up the "BAN BAIT" banner, and then sue the Forest Service. That's generally how these things work. Those doing the suing will tell us they are saving the wilderness for our children. What they are saving it from is seldom clear. However, we can always count on someone to tell us that highways and condos and strip malls would overtake the BWCA if the enviro-whacks weren't on guard. Others will nod their heads sagely and agree. Still others will quietly retch.

Of course, those who fish for bass will not care, nor should they. Bass are one of the easiest fish to catch, and are unwary in the extreme. For that reason, I often recommend smallmouth as an excellent target for beginners. Once they have mastered the smallmouth (which doesn't take long!) they can move on to more worthy fish, such as the walleye.

(If I failed to insult any of the usual suspects in the above rant, my apologies to anyone who is insulted that I failed to insult them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, you've certainly given it a good go, and a funny one. And there is a lot of truth in what you say. The extremists on each side of the issue sometimes cancel each other out. Not always, though. I was going to say "cancel each other out when all is said and done," but of course all will NEVER be said and done when it comes to politics and the BWCAW.

In my experience, people dumb enough to like catching bass (I'm one of them, by the way) are VERY hard to insult. My Dad, a walleye lover like yourself, calls them rough fish. He does this with fondness, because he knows I like to fish for them. An outdoor writer friend of mine, a walleye lover like yourself, calls them grass carp. He does this with absolutely NO fondness.

I just cheerfully keep fishing for them, even though they are an invasive species up in those lakes. And sometimes I even use that other invasive species, nightcrawlers, to catch them. grin.gifgrin.gifgrin.gif

You'll have to work a lot harder to insult me and, hopefully, Duffman. But don't do it on FM, please, where personal attacks are against the rules. You can always e-mail me. That's what most people do who feel like hollering at me. grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Z, how's the summer been treatin ya. Havn't seen much of you for a while, here or elsewhere. I hope everything is well. Did you have to go up north and bail out some buddies? LOL cool.gif

I would've thought by now you would have at least some inkling of the type of fisherman I am. I'm a fisherman, not a walleye guy, not a bass guy, not a muskie guy, not a trout or panfish guy. I'm all of the above, just a guy who enjoys being on the water and feeling the tug-tug of a fish, even catching a creek chub will bring a smile to my face.

Yep, that's a bass, a largemouth, a city largemouth even. Dumb as rocks, well probably a tad smarter then up north bass, gotta avoid the bucket brigade of the shore patrol down here to reach that size. Good fun to set the hook on em and battle em. It wasn't the tie-dyed shirt that set you off, was it? I've been called a liberal pacifist on these boards, figured I'd dress the part. grin.gif

All in good fun big guy, all in good fun. laugh.gif

When I fish in the BW, the smallie is probably fourth on my target list up there, behind 'eyes, legless salamanders, and big gators. I'm fishing for food on those trips, although I prefer a chunk of bloody meat, shorelunch can sure be tasty at times. I'm guessing I fish for walleyes 80% of the time up there, fishing for them without bait would be a challenge, but I'm up for it. The catch rate at times would surely go down, no doubt about it. That just means more time in camp enjoying adult beverages and the camraderie of the yahoos I camp with.

This world's constantly changing, and not always for the better. I figure I can be bitter and whiney about the changes, or I can go with the flow and enjoy this short time that I have on the topside of the soil. I prefer the later.

You don't think this ever expanding range of the smallmouth has anything to do with global warming do you? laugh.gif LOL laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • river rat316
      I am definitely in! My boss also gave me permission to start looking at jet boats this spring. We have to get rid of a 3rd car first but I do believe a Lowe 1760 pathfinder with a 115/80 will also be in my future!
    • brianfisher
      You can use this Lake George Contour map for free.
    • river rat316
      Eskimo cs is top notch. I have had 2 different pop-ups and have a 949i now and love it. Wasn't overly impressed with the flip over pop-up at Cabela's though. It seemed to have less room out in front of you than the other flip over from clam and otter.
    • brianfisher
      I recently had a chance to go fishing with my friend who recently purchased a Vexilar fishfinder. However we find it incredibly difficult to identify fish in the Sonar image. We tried even the fish alarm under settings but it didn't work reliably, going off at times with nothing on the Sonar image that looked like fish.   Any tips of what we should be looking for in the Sonar image?  
    • river rat316
      Getting the 6" clam plate hopefully this week. Picked up a brush less 20v dewalt on sale for black Friday. After using moose's drill a couple times last year I am all in on the drill plate!