Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Wisconisn Spring Hearings Musky Issues on the table. |
Message Subject: Wisconisn Spring Hearings Musky Issues on the table. | |||
Peter Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 218 | In the fall of 2014 the board of directors of Northwoods Muskies Inc. embarked on a program of meetings and cooperation with our local DNR fisheries staff. We have been able to make inroads in increasing stocking in area lakes, research, and have even assisted the DNR in some non-musky related issues as a show of good faith. Starting in the spring of 2015 with the support and guidance of the DNR our chapter introduced proposals to increase size limits on a highly selective group of lakes. At the 2015 Spring Hearings a proposal was made to increase size limits on Trout Lake and North and South Twin lakes in Vilas County. At the 2016 hearings Willow Flowage and Katherine lakes in Oneida County were added. The Vilas propositions received a favorable advisory vote from the public in 2016 as did the Oneida proposals. The DNR also chose to add Little St. Germain to this group of lakes to eliminate a current 45” size limit and move toward a trophy fishery there as well. This coming Monday at the annual Spring Hearings those lakes will be voted on for an actual rule change. If our proposals pass it is reasonably certain that the final hurdle on our end will be accomplished and we will see a 50” size limit go into effect for the 2018 season. We will also be proposing two new fisheries to start the process all over again. Here’s where we need your help. We need you to come out to your local hearings site on Monday April 10 at 7:00 pm and vote in favor of the following questions. Questions 31 and 32 on the state ballot (also includes size increases in a number of other counties) Questions 41 and 45 on the county ballot listed under Warm Water Committee Advisory Questions I can’t stress enough how important it is that we receive your vote on these questions. This is probably the most important event since we started our chapter with the express goal of doing whatever we could to help improve the musky fishery and restore our area to a premier trophy destination. Please attend the meeting and take a friend with you. Be aware that if time is a constraint you do not have to stay for the entire meeting. You can come in, register, receive a ballot, vote, and leave if you wish. That process might take you 10 to 15 minutes. I am counting on the fact that you care as much about quality musky fishing as we do. If you have any questions or I may help in any way please don’t hesitate to contact me. Feel free to share this message with any others that you feel can assist in this process. I hope that by the time we have our meeting next Wednesday night at Fibbers in St. Germain we will have some exciting news to share. | ||
patcampbell |
| ||
Posts: 32 Location: West Bend WI | I will be attending the Spring Hearings tomorrow eve. I do agree with Petes YES vote to Q31-32, Q41-45. I will be making a NO vote to Q39 & Q51. Q51 is online voting. This could allow anti hunting & fishing radicals an easy means to influence Wisconsin law. They should make their votes in person. Q39 is a money grab tax. No new taxes. Q39: QUESTION 39: Hook-and-line muskellunge harvest tag Wisconsin currently has a muskellunge daily bag limit of 1. The general statewide length limit is 40 inches, but many individual lakes have different length limits. Michigan currently has a musky bag limit of one fish per year, which requires anglers to possess a harvest tag in order to keep a fish or to participate in a musky fishing tournament. Michigan’s general statewide length limit is 42 inches. In order to further promote the management of muskellunge as a trophy fish, Wisconsin could establish an annual bag limit of 1 (1 per year). Most musky anglers already practice catch-and-release and that is expected to continue. Allowing the harvest of one legal-sized fish per year would still provide anglers with an opportunity to keep a muskellunge. This would also allow anglers to utilize a legal fish that was accidentally killed or to harvest an exceptional trophy. Under this proposal, anglers who intended to harvest or possess a muskellunge would first have to obtain a Hook-and-Line Muskellunge Harvest tag. You would not need a harvest tag to catch-and-release muskellunge during the open hook-and-line season. After catching a muskellunge of legal length that you wished to keep, you would have to immediately validate the harvest tag. A harvested fish would also have to be registered consistent with the process for other registered species (e.g. turkey, deer). 39. Do you favor establishing a Hook-and-Line Harvest Tag for muskellunge, which would limit the harvest of muskellunge to 1 per year, in order to further promote the trophy aspects of Wisconsin’s muskellunge fishery? 39. YES____ NO_____ Q51: QUESTION 51: Online voter accessibility (410716) The DNR Spring Hearing and Conservation Congress County meeting is a public meeting held simultaneously in each county of the state at 7:00 pm on the second Monday in April. At this meeting, citizens have the opportunity provide their input on proposed fish and wildlife rule changes and advisory questions, Natural Resources Board advisory questions, and Conservation Congress advisory questions. Citizens also have the opportunity to submit resolutions for changes they would like to see to natural resource policy and law in the future and elect their WCC representatives in each county. Due to transportation issues, travel distance to the meeting, young children at home, disabilities, work schedules, or other scheduling conflicts, the Spring Hearings are inevitably inaccessible to some county residents. 51. Would you support the WCC and the DNR working to offer an online option for the public to provide input on the questionnaire? The elections of the WCC delegates would remain in-person at each Spring Hearing location only. 51. YES____ NO_____ Pat Campbell | ||
Peter Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 218 | Thanks for bringing those up Pat. I'm in agreement with you on both of those. Guess I'm just focused on the size limit proposals but both 39 and 51 are important issues and deserve attention. By the way, I spoke with DNR folks the last two weeks. The kill tag deal would NOT come with a fee attached to it. The legislature would have to do that at some point after passage if they wanted to. Edited by Peter Stoltman 4/9/2017 12:19 PM | ||
BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | 50" size limit would be great to see on those waters! hope guys get out and vote tonight | ||
North of 8 |
| ||
Went to the Oneida County meeting and the same questions were raised about the 50" limit that always get raised, i.e., what is the chance of a fish getting to 50" in those waters and what about the kid that gets a 47" and has to put it back? That was asked by an older guy who stated he is a musky fishermen and hasn't kept one in 30 years. I wish folks would think about replicas instead of bopping the big ones. He also claimed the only way to safely land a fish was with a cradle. | |||
RLSea |
| ||
Posts: 479 Location: Northern Illinois | I've used a cradle and a large net. The net is definitely the way to go. You have to wear a fish out too much to get them in a cradle. I'd rather net them quickly and release them quickly. | ||
ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20173 Location: oswego, il | The little johnny arguement is easy to combat. Just tell them, do what i did, teach him the value of catch and release. | ||
BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | sounds like all the musky related questions passed... thanks to all those that made it out to vote.... | ||
Johnnie |
| ||
Posts: 285 Location: NE Wisconsin | RLSea. I agree I have used both and feel,a big net is better. Your statement about spending less time landing and releasing quicker is something I have to comment on. I have watched many fishing videos and watched the time from strike to netting, and then timed how long it is before the release. Most anglers now days are much more concerned with getting the fish in, but seem to,forget how long it is before they actually release th fish. I feel, if you have to revive the fish by hand, you did something wrong. Pesonnally, i play my fish for a while, so they are not green in the net. Then we are ready for a quick release. Seldom to we have to revive fish at boat side. | ||
ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20173 Location: oswego, il | Getting sidetracked but it depends on time of year and where you fish. I have caught and releasex fidh pretty quick to see them very slowly revive and swim off. Other places just fine. Both instances in safe summer water temps. Time in the net can be relative too, sometimes they are way active and gator roll in the net, sometimes they are docile. Lure types can dictate time in the net with fish activity as well. I too do not horse fish. Edited by ToddM 4/12/2017 1:00 PM | ||
ffib |
| ||
Posts: 79 | Glad I went and voted, some pretty close calls on vote totals. Amazing more people don't show up to these meetings. | ||
Peter Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 218 | Thanks to all who came out to support. All the size limit resolutions passed. Introduced two more water bodies for consideration that will be going to the warm water committee. | ||
sukrchukr |
| ||
Location: Vilas | Heard there was less than 100 ballots turned in at the vilas county session.... does anyone know if this is true?? sad if it is | ||
KenK |
| ||
Posts: 574 Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Results by county and yes, Vilas 81 people. http://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/spring_hearing/2017/2017_Coun... Edited by KenK 4/18/2017 10:22 AM | ||
North of 8 |
| ||
sukrchukr - 4/15/2017 3:33 PM Heard there was less than 100 ballots turned in at the vilas county session.... does anyone know if this is true?? sad if it is Well, Oneida county had just over 100 and it has a higher population than Vilas and would be impacted by several of the musky rule changes. Fond du Lac County where I used to live had several issues on the ballot and they had just over 60 votes in a county with much greater population than Oneida and Vilas combined. I was surprised that Oneida didn't have more, in that I went and seemed like there were more there, when you included those who came voted and left. | |||
Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |