Legend has it that a pair of Wisconsin teenagers, William Harley and Arthur Davidson, loved pedaling their bicycles back and forth from their Milwaukee neighborhood to their local fishing hole. In the late 1800s the duo attended a vaudeville show and saw a motorcycle on display for the first time, deciding that “motorbiking” with all of their fishing gear – and ultimately a load of fish for dinner – was easier than pedaling, and by 1903 the Harley-Davidson company was formed.
From Henry Ford’s Model T in 1908, to Ray Greene’s first fiberglass/polyester boat built in 1942, the technology of travel in America was a game-changer for fishing during the first half of the 20th century. You also had Albert Holden’s first fixed-spool spinning reel in 1905, Nick Creme’s plastic fishing worm in 1949, and the Furuno brothers’ (Kiyotaka and Kiyokata) 1948 invention for detecting fish underwater; suffice to say, the necessity for catching more fish has always been the mother of all invention in American angling.
There has never really been a watershed moment in the world of manufacturing and technology that’s caused fishermen to stop and say “enough is enough.” Personally, and perhaps professionally, the thought that one element of technological innovation – out of all the countless strides made in the last century of recreational fishing – would stand out today as a singular anti-conservation culprit simply feels like kneejerk oversensitivity and overreach.
But then I read in The Fishing Wire how the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is considering a ban on quote, “live scopes and 360° imaging” on state waters. In a questionnaire for discussion at spring hearings DNR noted “With the ability of these types of units to detect fish, as far as 180 feet from the user, anglers have become more efficient at locating and catching fish. This type of pressure could reduce fish populations, which may lead to reduced bag limits for anglers.”
Thus, a debate is being waged in Wisconsin to potentially ban use of certain fishing technology through state legislation. Such an action could have serious impacts nationwide in terms of a domino effect of similar legislative efforts; it’s what they call “a precedent” which is typically the first step in a standard. Worse still is the fact that LiveScope is trademarked by the folks at Garmin, even though it’s become somewhat ubiquitous (like Kleenex or Xerox) in referring to forward facing sonar DNR’s use of the “live scope” term almost reads like a personal attack on an individual business!
Several months ago I sat in on an industry conference where the subject of forward facing sonar and its impact on crappie populations came up, with the question posed to tackle manufacturers about whether or not some type of industry statement or position should be developed. Thankfully, the general consensus was that such a “statement” could have been made every year since the development of the front-loaded Finnish style plastic or braided fiber lines; in other words, why now, and not then, and what about tomorrow?
Innovation is the name of the game for us as anglers, and we’re constantly on the lookout for the next big thing for fishing in terms of new lures, better rigging, and improved technology. I’m not a fan of big government, so the concept of allowing state or federal politicians to devise new industry standards for recreational fishing, and then telling me what I can and can’t buy to catch fish in a sporting manner leaves me a little uneasy.
In the 1920s Harley-Davidson first began marketing to anglers in print, boasting “The Sportsmen’s Friend” and promoting that “All Outdoors is Waiting for You” in selling their new Wisconsin-born offering as the key to finding more fish. Think about it, if there was a Wisconsin DNR around at that time, there might be no Harley Davidson today!
