Lanterns = Crappies

[Guest]

That is a good post made by Willowmaker. If you do use a sumersible light it is illegal. But the gray area on the latern deal is true. People can argue all they want with issues on how much more do you need to catch fish. All the new technologies that are coming out and helping us fish are so far in advancement than having a latern stuck in a hole. Aqua VU's and the FL-18's are a little more wicked than a little light. I realize that the light helps, but I would be absolutely lost without my Aqua Vu and flasher. Also it does come down to which DNR stops you. I do believe that some of them may think or go for the gusto and give a ticket. Then thier are some that know it's not going to hold up in court. The point that I just want to stress is that it's not submersed under water, so why is it illegal? I realize that things that are illegal, are illegal for a reason. Mainly because it takes to much game and it helps produce more fish or animals. But, this is not illegal. If it was illegal and could hold up in court then NOBODY should be allowed to place a lantern on the ice or in the ice. On the ice is still luminating light through the ice and doing the same thing but just not as much as in the ice. So if it is illegal they better make it very clear what they want. That is why when I was checked the DNR said nothing about it. Plus others next to me had the same deal going.

[WKSparrow]

I need to weigh in here.

I am a prosecutor in a pretty populous fishing area (mille lacs county). If a CO ever brought me a report of the "lantern trick" being used in my jurisdiction, I would prosecute them, and we would have a trial if they didnt plead.

Anyone who wants to make their technical arguments about the light not being submersed, well... they can make that argument to a jury of folks who live in the community and who value the long term viability of their natural resources.

We all know, technicality or not, that the light is being used to attract fish. illegal. period.

There are others who think like me, so the moral of the story is... please dont do it.

wade

[Guest]

I agree with you 100%, but then is it illegal to shovel away snow and place your lantern on the ice. It's doing the same thing! Please explain?

[Dave]

Actually, maybe the lantern would be classified as being IN the water, since it'd be below the frozen water line.

[WKSparrow]

test

[bigV]

I'm not quite sure why artificial lights are illegal.As far as I know it is legal to use chum to attract catfish for instance. Other things that artificially attract fish are also legal and do not have other applications as is a light for fishing in the dark for fisherman. There would seem to be a big gray area here that would be hard to prosecute. Unless you have the light below the surface of the water,my guess is the co would probably allow it if they didn't suspect you were doing other things that maybe questionable or illegal.
Also, it's always fun to try new stuff if it's legal and can add to fishing enjoyment.My guess is with the tannic stained water on URL the artificial light is less of a factor than other more clear lakes.
kelly-p ,your right that if the fish are there it doesn't matter what you do, you'll still get fish.
Your concern with this technique and other new fishing ideas seems to get you going a little too much about depleting the fish though.
It's in a fishermans nature to try new stuff. If a certain technique is shown to be too effective or in a gray area of legality,it's the DNRs' job to make sure the resource is not jeopardized. Do they always get the job done?
No. Hopefully the depleted fish #'s concern will be heard by the right people at the DNR

[juggs]

I feel the urge to weigh in also. Seems like it's opening a can of worms when statements are put forth like, lights are illegal because they hurt the fishery by helping anglers catch more fish. So we worry about "the good ol' days" being gone because we caught too many fish? Then what in the world are limits for?! Sonar units, underwater cameras, glow-in-the-dark baits...they all accomplish the same end and they're legal. I'm against the law that disallows us to use lights to attract fish because we already have limits in place to keep the harvest down. As a matter of fact, the DNR has just tweeked the limits on some species to keep up with angler pressure and all the newer, fancy gadgets that give us a greater edge on the water. I know at this point some of you are thinking, "but fish don't have to be harvested for the population to be impacted." True, but then why don't the same laws apply to all the other fish-catching enhancements? It makes putting a lantern down the hole seem rather arbitrary. Actually, when the underwater cameras first came out, it did go before the state legislature for a vote on whether they should be legal or not. Just goes to show how over intensive this state is when it comes to its management practices. As far as the lantern-in-the-ice-hole issue goes, it seems like an awful gray area to me. If an angler can use a light on top of the ice or in an ice house, why not a foot or two into the ice? And if it does help him catch more fish, he still has to abide by the harvest/limit laws so what's the big deal?

[Guest]

Amen, BigV. That was a great post! My point excatly, if the lantern is not in the water it is a huge gray area that would be tough to procecute. That is why I have been through this with the DNR already, they themselves have told me it's a tough area. Especially when the other guys have their lanterns on top of the ice and it's doing the same thing. Also like BigV wrote some people are not always taking a limit. I would never take more fish than my limit or take a limit, because I really don't like eating fish. I just like catching them for the fun, then releasing. My point is that their are many people dong this on URL, I myself learned this technique there with five other houses around me doing the same thing. People are naive if they think it's not happening on URL!

[Lowe]

So under that reasoning is okay for me to shoot a deer using a spotlight? I'll only take one legal buck.

[WKSparrow]

The difference between having the lantern on the ice and in a hole is INTENT.

As a prosecutor, I have to prove the person intended to commit the act that violates the law. The intent component must be reasonable. If your lantern is on the ice, the INTENT is to see while you are fishing. That is reasonable.

However, if the lantern is in a hole, it clearly shows circumstancial evidence that the intent of the actor is to attract fish. It is not reasonable to say that the lantern in the ice is intended for a legal purpose, i.e. seeing while fishing.

In my humble,(and legal) opinion, this is not even close to a gray area, and I wouldn't take any chances.

I'm not trying to get in a legal debate here, or act like a jerk, but there are alot of people who read these forums and take everything at face value, and I would hate to see one of them get ticketed nad have privileges taken away because "on of the FM forum guys said it was OK."

Wade

[united jigsticker]

• Scenerio

If I snag all my fish, as long as I only take my legal limit it should be ok.

Also, because snagging can be tough, perhaps I will just use a big net to take my limit if the fish aren't biting. It will be just fine, I'll only take 10, what could it hurt?

The fish don't bite somedays for a reason. If they bit everyday and everyone always got their limits then the population would take a hell of a dive in a hurry. We would have alot more company on the ice, and it would become less and less fun.

That's why they have rules and regulations.

I believe they are trying to keep the sport somewhat of a challenge. To me that's 80% of the fun anyways.

Just my ongoing opinion.

Fish On! Fish Off! ::Guzzle::

[This message has been edited by united jigsticker (edited 03-04-2003).]

[Guest]

Lowe, you missed the point. What we are trying to say is what is the difference between the lantern on the ice or in the ice? If I shovel off snow, then place the lantern on the ice it illuminates the ice and water below, so what is the difference if I drill a hole in the ice without going through, then placing the lantern in the hole? It's still doing the same thing as the lantern on the ice! The point that is trying to be made is that, is it or isn't it illegal? I have been checked before and neither of them said a word. But others on this sight claim that this is highly illegal and it should never be attempted. What I want to know is it illegal and does somebody know for a FACT that it is. Will it hold up in court?

[WKSparrow]

And in terms of the "everything is okay if you stay under the limit theory"....

it's called cheating.

We all have to play by the same rules. If we can all get limits by being law abiding, that's one thing. But if if we are not getting limits every time (which is reality), then cheaters shouldn't profit.

I like the deer hunting example...

If the success ratio for deer hunting was 90% instead of the roughly 40% it is now, don't you think limits would change???

It would be about every other year you'd get a license.

[PUTZ]

It just depends how fast you drive on the
highway whether or not that you get A
ticket
PUTZ

------------------
If you ask I might let you touch the green hornet. I.B.O.T.#03

[Fish On]

it is real windy out there is no snow on the ice i cant afford a fish house or to be replaceing globes on my lanterns all the time im am just trying to enjoy the outdoors like everyone else on a limited budget so i drill holes in the ice to prevent my lantern from tipping over.... if someone told this to a co and got ticketed i would pitty him if he got prosicuted i would really pitty the system if a jury found him guilty i would pitty man kind..... how about that scenario

[Guest]

Sparrow,
You seem to know a lot about this and always pipe-up with your two cents worth. If you are a procecuter, then why don't you ask somebody besides yourself if it would hold up in court or not? You seem to be the big shot in this whole conversation, so please enlighten us with your great knowledge of the system. I may have a law degree? You never know what I do for a living, but I just want to see what you think the answer is. I believe the answer is "NO" , it will never hold up in court!

[Lowe]

I didn't miss the point at all. I was talking about juggs comment that seemed to imply that limits are all we need to manage fish populations. As for the legality of the issue, WKsparrow pointed it out nicely whe he said it has to do with intent. And since the topic for this thread is not "lanterns=light", we are talking about the the use of lanterns to attract fish. Accidentally hitting a person with your vehicle and intentionally ramming him are two seperate issues - because of INTENT. Sure you can find the gray areas, anyone can. But why would you want to, when the fishery will suffer because of it?

Drilling a hole in the ice spreads more light into the ice, acting as an attractant, and is not necessary to light your fishing hole. I don't think it can get any clearer.

Sparrow - thanks for the informative posts. Keep 'em coming.

[LABS4ME]

If you want to tell the CO the purpose of the lantern in the ice is to keep it from tipping over, and that is really the reason, and the wind is howling and you're outside, let him make the decision. But if you're really doing it to attract fish, it states right in the regs. that it's illegal! I hope when you get home, that in doing this act, you feel as though you need to take a shower! It plain is cheating, you're on this site admitting you are using an artificial light source to attract fish! It really doesn't matter if other people do it...hold yourself to a higher standard! As for the comments made by Juggs...the limits have been "TWEEKED", they are going to do a minimal amount to help the populations of fish. I read a statement from the DNR that the crappie/sunfish limit changes are going to help reduce harvest by less than 5%. In order to get the 15-30% reduction they wanted, we'd be looking at 5-6 fish limits. They are hoping more fisherman will show restraint in harvests. Most fisherman are worried about getting their limits on Red, but in reality 4-5 fish is enough for a meal for me my wife and 3 kids. I've only taken 1 limit from Red this year and I gave the other 20 fillets to 2 underprivledge famlies that I know. We need to get past this, abide by the rules whether you agree with them or not, you will still catch plenty of fish, you will still have fun, . Even if you win in court, would it really be worth the time spent in doing so?

Good Luck! Rip some Lips!

Hi,...my name is Ken, and I'm an IBOT

[PP Angler]

Labs... GREAT post!!

[Willowmaker]

I would have to say that drilling a hole and dropping your lantern into it would be about the same thing as a glass tube just under the surfice of the water and putting your lantern into it. That would not be within the right. So why do you think you can find it to be. Just because the water is frozen does not change the fact that it is water and no lights are to be use to attract fish.Sparrow you are right on the money and inten is the deciding element.
Keep the slack out!!

[halad]

Pat, pat, pat The Warden that i talked to about this told me that if you tell him that the light is for light he will accept that but if you tell him its to attract fish you are in trouble. One may be legitimately ignorant.

[Willowmaker]

halad, SAD,SAD

[WKSparrow]

Like I said before, I'm not trying to "pipe in with my two cents" or "impart my great knowledge." I'm trying to give another (different than some's) opinion so that folks out there who might think this is OK, can consider more than one viewpoint.

LundProV, I would love to be able to ask someone if all my cases will hold up in court in advance. There is no one source of be-all, end all information, and anyone with a law degree will tell you that. There may be statutes, caselaw, and rules of procedure to guide everyone, but in the end, it is up to particular officer, a particular prosecutor, a particular judge, a particular jury, and the appeals courts to oversee it all.

Again, lets focus on INTENT. If it is a windy day and you drill a 6 inch hole to hold your lantern, are you intending to attract fish, or hold your lantern??? If it is a clear night, and you drill a hole which is deeper than your lantern, are you intending to attract fish, or hold your lantern?

Let me be absolutely clear on this: if a fisherman in my jurisdiction puts a lantern down a hole, and there is no evidence to suggest any intent other than to attract fish, I will prosecute that fisherman if I get the report.

This is simply a statement so that other sportsman can make an informed decision about their choices.

Wade

[kelly-p]

Good post Labs. I knew there must be some reason I liked you.

------------------
Waskish Minnow Station
218-647-8652

[Guest]

Some people need to quit whining about fisherman who actually like to catch fish and eat them, and stop implying that they are better sportsman because they release most or all of thier catch. I know that I am not the only one who reads this forum that feel this way either!
I am not advocating that people break the law at all, but I think that some of our laws need to be changed to at least keep up with our neighboring states(lanterns, # of fishing rods used, bag limits etc.) And don't tell me it's because we have higher standards and our fishing is better because our fishing is no better than Wisc., that's why I also buy a wisc. lic. and fish there alot.
If all you are interested in doing is catching fish and bashing others who may not be as good a fisherman as you, and like to keep thier catch when they get something, then maybe you should be fishing the trout ponds at the sport shows so you can toss them back in the tank. I am not a pro fisherman but I can certainly hold my own, I fish red about 6-7 times a year and try to take home a limit when I go but dont always. Everybody cant go up everyweekend and have the luxuary of catching fish all day and throwing them back because they can just catch the 4 fish they want to take home the next day, thanks for letting me vent. Lets try to remember the purpose of this site is to improve our outdoor experiences!

[Guest]

I dont know the Wisconsin rules as I do not fish there but I do fish S.Dakota once in a while. Thier rule is two lines may be used but as far a crappies go the limit is ten just like MN will be. I dont think lowering the limit a bit is so bad. Ten URL Crappies is still a few good meals. I also dont think that they are trying to tell the people who only get out a few times to throwem back. I think that is for those people who take thier limit, freeze it and a few months later throw it away because it is frezer burnt. I think we all know someone like that. Someone correct me if I am wrong!!!! Plain and simple use the lantern to light your house so you can see your beer!! fish, have fun and eat what you keep.

[halad]

Willow - I have had a place here since 1972 and i never take more than 2-3 fish what i really enjoy is going out to the fish house about 600pm and catching a couple for supper now if i have company up from the cities i try my best to help them get their limits. If i was driving 4-5 hrs, once or twice a year i too would want to go home with a limit of fish. Best to you halad

[united jigsticker]

LABS: Great Post!

Like I said before and others have mentioned, this is NOT the place to come to brag about improving your outdoor pursuits via methods that are unlawful, nor is it the place to find the resources and concepts needed to help your justification for the wrongdoing in anticipation of getting caught.

By showing a concern that you may be prosecuted, you are, in my eyes, admitting guilt and aknowledging in advance that what you are doing or considering doing may be shady and punishable.

All the hypothetical situations in the world mean absolutly nothing when faced by an enforcer of the Law or judicial being.

It has been admitted that in certain circumstances a light will attract fish, baitfish, etc., in turn creating a condition in which an angler would be in a better position to fill his/her limit.

Intent is the main key here, and discretion of the CO or whomever may witness the behavior is the other detirmining factor in your defense.

Dropping the limits 33% doesn't reduce the harvest rates 33% overall because of the fact that obtaining a limit of one species of fish is not an average among anglers on every outing. Just because the limit is 100 doesn't mean you'll get 100, just as if it were 5. However, it is in place to keep the greedy from using the "limit" as a guideline for how many fish he/she should harvest in one given trip, and also protecting the species in those situations that it was "one on every cast" or "hawg wild" and harvesting a large number of fish is easy.

As far as following our neighboring states: I don't see fishing in Minnesota being something related to retail. In that I mean, if the store across the street has a better deal I will shop there.

However, if the state next door has a higher limit and leaner laws, I don't see myself relocating just to help fill the freezer, whether it be due to higher limits or the fact that I could catch more by using methods deemed illegal in the state of MN.

Just more of my mindgoing opinions.

Fish On! Fish Off! ::Guzzle::

[Guest]

I didn't realize that we had so many wanna be c/o's on the net. I will be up at red this weekend also fishing for slabs without a lantern, if you move around enough you don't need one you'll find a active school. I however will not look down my nose if I should come across a fellow sportsman with a limit he plans to take home. If you truly have a problem with people taking a limit of fish then maybe you should do your part and stay off the lake and let the true sportsmen+women fish the lake, let the new age yuppies stay home and play fishing games on the computer!

[looperhunter]

ah yes the american way!
Don't forget to leave your beer cans and garbage on the ice when you leave you true sportsman.
new age yuppies? is that what you call people that catch then release fish?
Pretty sad.