massachusetts hates suckers?

I think we all know there's only one thing to do witha dead horse.

I think we all know there's only one thing to do witha dead horse.

Well two, grill or glue.

I am really sorry to hear about the reductions in conservation personnel for Maryland, I know Missouri has also had cuts. I think state legislatures are definately cutting the wrong area, but I never see the cuts publicized or put into the local papers here so I never even know about them until long after theyve happened to try and do anything about it. What makes me mad is that permits for Native fish keeping and charging for classes could help the state revenue coffers and possibly help put more conservation agents back to work I believe in places like Tennessee, and the tickets they give here for law violations (mainly to the floaters, boaters and general partiers on our lakes and streams) which I wholeheartedly understand (when Im out studying fish I find them a nuisance) plus the amount of people who buy hunting and fishing liscenses and stamps each year in Mo; lead me to believe our conservation dept is not only self supporting but also turns a profit!

Since I'm in an absolutely terrific mood this weekend I'll make some additional points and give you some examples.

The typical "game warden" makes less than a police office, even though they not only are responsible for natural resource protection, but criminal activity on public lands and homeland security responsibilities. Many are required to do personal upkeep on their vehicles and their equipment is usually decades older than regular LEO. Most also have a minimal background in fish and wildlife management. So when it comes to the legislative table that certain species of game fish, or crayfish, or bait, must be distinguished between one another what do you think their gut reaction will be? When the first thing usually on their mind is what yahoos are doing drugs in a state park, poaching commercial fisheries, baiting and spot lighting deer? That is why Bruce is exactly right in saying the "easier" solution is a broader regulation.

Example # 1. The Maryland Natural Resources Police has been reduced by at least 1/4 in the past four years. When a ban on crayfish was proposed what alternative do you think was chosen; the specific species, specific watershed ban or the broad ban across taxa?

Example # 2. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has less than 3 full time employees dedicated to fisheries legislation. We were one of the last Atlantic states that have met the requirements for a coastal fishing registry, our trout stamp does not support the fishery, we are annually over quota for most managed fisheries, oysters are at 1% of their historic level, we have reactive invasive species regulations, etc., etc., etc.

The department overall has had its budget reduced 40% in a few years and I've lost track about the number of people. Guess what, the work hasn't reduced 40% Bitch at the right people, your legislative representatives, because you may find you have allies in the resource agencies and with your support and even assistance you'd be surprised what you could accomplish. I have been advocating a proactive policy of responsible collection of native non-game fishes for years before many of the current moaning people were aware this organizaiton existed and been warning, along with others, this was on the horizon. More specifically, paying for a permit that is essentially a grade below a scientific collection permit, but not a fishing license. Money goes places. Face it, we are small in numbers, yet apathy is rediculously high. I applaud the very few people who in recent years have stepped up to the plate and taken on responsibility in a volunteer capacity. However, complaining on a website about how your access to a resource in a responsible manor goes no where and frankly it along with the general trend in content has me tired of the forum and organization. If trout fisherman were denied similarly in even a smaller manor pitchforks and torches come out. Even carp fisherman are more vociferous than this group to legislators and resource managers. The organization lacks a voice because a very narrow thing unites it and the wide differences between the various user groups that make up the group are apparently too much to overcome.

Signing off...for quite a while.

Well two, grill or glue.

Wrong on both counts! BEAT that sucker!!

The only thing I can think of when they wrote that is that (atleast in PA), fishermen consider suckers as a "trash fish". While they do have small following. Most people only catch them incidentally while targeting gamefish such as trout or catfish. Growing up, I was told they taste like mud and the only time they taste good is after the spring thaw. Then you turn them into fish cakes. Such thinking Im sure isnt only found in PA. And may have given them the idea to keep you from releasing them back because theres not alot of people taking them out for consumption.

I guess there could be a population issue. Will suckers eat eggs of other fish in any great amounts?

I guess there could be a population issue. Will suckers eat eggs of other fish in any great amounts?

I would think the reverse is true. I don't know about suckers eating eggs, but in my area white suckers can produce an incredible amount of fry. Compare that to the number of adult white suckers, and somebody's eating a ton of little suckers!

I think that's just an old law left over from when we didn't know any better. It's a real shame that the agencies don't have the $ to clean up stuff like that.

White suckers were thought to eat trout eggs and compete with trout.