Looking at all the fishing reports has me researching and unable to find the answer. When fishing with a guide, do customers get to keep the guide‘s limit as well? As if the guide may donate their portion of the total boat possession to the customer?
Fish Limits with a guide
"The guide gets the same pay regardless of if they donate their catch."This isn't true. How do I know? Because the guide that made a post on this very thread (which he since deleted) said that if he doesn't do it he'll lose clients, business, and cash flow. It's far from a "donation." It's an agreed upon exchange of a quite valuable resource. The cash value of 4 lbs of walleye at wal-mart is 70 bucks. 90 bucks on some internet sites. Not chump change. "Pay to go fishing with me and in exchange I'll give you 80 bucks worth of walleye" is hardly a donation. Maybe selling, or bartering, but not some type of charity.
I disagree. Discussing with and educating more people on sites like this can increase the amount of people taking certain avenues to get things changed. Which, will in turn make it a harder subject to ignore. I'm certain there are many people in this state and even in this thread that have or had no idea it happens.
As one guy below stated, most guides would welcome it. I know a few who are disgusted by guides who practice this way, it gives them all a bad rep.
If the DNR has not acted upon it, use the resources available to push the issue. You have state reps to contact as well as other representatives. Complaining on a thread on the internet won't go anywhere.
"There are avenues to help change the law if you disagree with it, as has been proposed in this thread multiple times. I have a feeling that a lot of guides would not be upset by the change."
That's one of the major points of this thread. It's already been done. It was introduced through the Conservation Congress system, passed the county level and passed the state level, overwhelmingly. It was then given to the DNR to act upon. The DNR has not done anything. Sportsmen have used the avenue given them to make change. If you have other ideas let us know.
The guide gets the same pay regardless of if they donate their catch. That's the gist of it. You can call it what you want but it is a legal gift independent of the services for which they were hired. I don't necessarily agree with it as I believe it leads to a significant undercount of harvest estimates and does impact the fishery but it doesn't change the legal status.
There are avenues to help change the law if you disagree with it, as has been proposed in this thread multiple times. I have a feeling that a lot of guides would not be upset by the change.
"so is it ok for me to gift my limit of walleyes to my neighbor and not ok for a guide to do it, please explain the difference, thank you."
You're not getting paid to do it. At least I hope not, because if you are you'd be a poacher and violator.
You're incentive is to be a kind soul and voluntarily help someone who can't obtain their own fish. The guides incentive is gaining business and increasing cash flow. By selling walleye.
so is it ok for me to gift my limit of walleyes to my neighbor and not ok for a guide to do it, please explain the difference, thank you.
There was a guide in this very thread saying he does this, which is what it all stemmed from initially I think. Wasn't an opinion, guy literally said it. He didn't have to either though, most could do the math by reading the reports.
If I were to come on here and say I went out and got my limit 5 days a week and gave the fish away, week after week...I'd likely get some negative feedback. Sure I'm within the rules because I gave them away so my possession is 0, but it has the same impact to the fishery as if I didn't. I think that's the issue being discussed.
If I kept that many fish and got caught, it would make headlines as a poacher being caught. But if I give them all away, I'm just a good fisherman.
Honestly, creel surveys would do a world of good for updating regulations. If limits are set based on assumptions of a success ratio that is flawed, you could easily go over the safe harvest level for those bodies of water. Before changing the law, collect the data to substantiate the change. Having guides submit weekly or monthly creel surveys would provide the data needed to either adjust the limits (or even modify/add a slot), eliminate the gifting of fish by guides, or both. Hard data beats anecdotal by any means and it would be a good counter to those opposed.
I would say this should be done for all species.
Nobody is saying that they're not within their limits. People are pushing for a change in the regulation. It's obviously an issue if it was put in the hearing questions. Why put something in there that they're not going to address once it's voted on?