Hey guys, Just read the article on the large Cutts at Strawberry. I for one would NOT like to see ice hole size increased. I take my two kids out (ages 4 and 6) regularly and yes they have stepped in holes. It would scare me to death if one of them stepped in a hole larger than 12"! For that matter, it would scare ME to death also. The fish are getting big, but lets face it, you should be able to get a 27 to 30" fish out of an 8 or 10" hole. What do you guys think?
[signature]
Posts: 1,335
Threads: 1
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
i agree 100% with you. a 12 inch hole is just fine.
[signature]
Posts: 1,774
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
I agree. Don't change the size regulation.
[signature]
Posts: 767
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
0
I understand the need for a bigger hole on bear lake and flaming gorge only. I am 110% behind a 12" maximum hole on any lake that doesn't contain lake trout. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced to 10". My little girl is skinny as a rake and I'll bet if she hit a 12" hole just right she could go clean through it, not just up to her hip. It's bad enough when I go through one. I used to fish with a 6" mora hand auger and I caught several fish up to 24" and never had one I couldn't get through that size with a little work and an 8" hole (my current auger size) has double the surface area of a 6" hole. People should also make an effort to shovel out a small area around a hole so hole locations are noticable even if a recent snow storm has covered it up. Nothing ruins a fishing trip faster than being wet to your hip.
[signature]
Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
I'm in full agrievance with you on that one. There is no need to increase the size of the holes up at the berry.
[signature]
Does anyone have an email address that I can drop a note to and express my concerns. Just from the few posts here it sounds like maybe a couple of people have the ear of the DWR. They need to hear the other views as well before they proceed with a change.
[signature]
Posts: 2,436
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
There are already plenty of big iceholes at the berry. We don't need them in the winter too.
10" is plenty big. If they are really concerned about losing fish then cone the hole with a hand spud. After the hole is drilled, pick up the hand spud and chip out the ice all the way around the bottem otf the hole to form a cone. You can get almost any size fish through a hole like this. And as far as safty you'll leave a good 6" of solid ice at the holes edge at least. Try this method. If your losing fish right at the hole this will help 100%.
Change the regs? NOT. Not at the Berry or anywhere else.
[signature]
Posts: 2,778
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation:
0
Large holes in the ice are unsafe no matter how big of fish the body of water holds. Its the unsuspecting person casually walking along that pays the price. Ask kentofnsl about his foot through the ice experience, and I think it was only an 8inch hole. I am a believer that even an 8-inch hole can swallow your foot by bending your toes towards your shin and then your stuck.. Ouch!
[signature]
Posts: 4,139
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2002
Reputation:
0
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]How many of you have pulled a 20+ pound fish through the ice? You can get one through a 10" hole but you are going to stress the fish out by yanking, forcing and pulling him through. Can it be done? Oh, ya but it's much easier with an 18" hole. On the large lakes and reservoirs with decent lake trout populations, I'm in favor of 18" holes and do use them.[/size][/black][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3][/size][/black][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]I don't believe there are very many fish that would not fit through a 10" hole on Strawberry. Yes, there are the occasional lunkers that show up now and then but by and large, the normal fish caught easily will fit through 10". If you don't need a big hole then don't use one. I don't believe it is necessary to change the regulations on Strawberry.[/size][/black][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3][/size][/black][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]As for kentofnsl experience, maybe a larger hole would of allowed him to escape with nothing more than a wet leg? Lets face it, ice fishing has it's perils. We all need to pay attention for all the potential dangers that exist out there[/size][/black][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3][/size][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3](Edit) where did you read this article, Solly? Do you have a link to it?[/size][/font]
[signature]
Posts: 188
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
Read the article more carefully .
It says biologists are NOT actually considering the change. It seems to me that the writer was joking that because the fish are so big that larger holes are needed. I do not think he was really suggesting that the holes need to be bigger.
[signature]
BLM, article link on the thread TubeDude posted titled "Good articles today" Here's the link TD posted.
[url "http://www.sltrib.com/outdoors/ci_2523182"]http://www.sltrib.com/outdoors/ci_2523182[/url]
[signature]
You are right. Here is the qoute.
"Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) biologists have not actually proposed the change, but they know some anglers are having trouble getting the massive cutthroat bodies through the hole."
I am just trying to head this off before it goes anywhere. Doesn't hurt to let the DWR know what you think.
[signature]
Posts: 1,051
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
I agree, I think the comment was said to drive the point home and to emphasize that the fish are really quite big.
I think the regs are just fine how they are. If you can't bring a trout (not including a large lake trout) through a 10 inch hole then either you didn't deserve to catch that fish or that fish didn't deserve to get caught.
[signature]
Posts: 767
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
0
I agree with BLM in the fact that larger holes are needed for lakes with lake trout, but lake trout fishing is done in the pelagic zones of the lake and anglers are much more dispersed than on strawberry where people tend to congregate in the shallower bays. You are much less likely to walk into a hole on flaming gorge or bear lake than you are on strawberry, especially since everyone walks down the same trail and drills a couple of holes and the next person down the trail has to run a mine field. Part of the problem also is the prevelance of gas powered augers. Someone with a gas auger is more likely to punch a half dozen holes in an area and pick and choose which one he sticks his line in; someone using a hand auger is a lot less likely to drill a bunch of holes through 2 feet of ice. People need to be mindful of the one who comes after them and not punch 5 holes for everyone in his group.
[signature]
Posts: 1,646
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[green][size 2]Strawberry does not need holes bigger than 10". On New Years Day right by the Marina, I step thru a 10" hole right up to my hip. It hurt like hell. My size 11 Trans Alaskan III's kept most of the water out, but I was totally soaked and wet.
[/size][/green]
[signature]
