|
|
| I read Oneida post about moving up the opener on muskies. There was a comment made about improving up north economic conditions possibly.
The economy is poor all over the country, where I live in central WI there have been layoffs by the hundreds and no end in sight. Gas prices are high. I drive a Burb pulling an 18' glass boat, it costs roughly $50 for gas alone to get north and back. I still go but no longer have an automatic stop at R&H's to buy a couple of baits, I pack lunches or cook out versus stopping at Stingrays for burgers.
I've been fishing Vilas/Oneida for 20+ years and feel the numbers are there but not the size anymore. I have plans to fish MN in the future.
Moving up the opener should not even be considered, what they should do is close northern fishing until Memorial also. The recent vote spoke volumes about tackle shop and resort owners looking at the near future and not down the road a few years.
We as musky hunters are in reality a small group of consumers. I vacation every year in Minocqua with the family but as the kids are getting in the later teens my vacations will change. This year I have $1300 budgeted for a weeks stay, if not for the family I would spend that where I can at least see big fish.
I am disappointed in the votes but surely not surprised, I feel until tribal spearing is dealt with we can make musky fishing catch and release only but it still would not be enough. When possible I now base my lake choices on if they got speared or not, anyone that has been around a while can testify there is no contest to lakes that are speared. | |
| | |
| I too am very disappointed by the votes, but I was caught by surprise. I thought that MI chapters were going out and making sure that their members were at these meetings and bringing their friends to vote. I read about it in chapter reports and I heard about it from RVP's at the Spring Board meeting. Judging by the vote numbers, I would say that MI members were not at the meetings in most areas. There were exceptions, I think the votes from the Madison and Chippewa Falls area reflect a good turnout from MI folks.
I would also agree that the economy is hurting everywhere, if the chambers of commerce for the northwoods communities really wanted to help their member businesses, they would have lobbied for these limits. There are so many examples where longer limits have resulted in more tourism. If the local chambers would have lobbied for the limits, I believe they would have changed some minds. Enough? Hard to say.
I would like to see MI chapters that go on chapter trips write letters to the "up north" chambers and explain why they take trips to LOW and other areas. These folks need to know how much money they are losing every year.
Yes, I know that Indian harvest will always be an issue, but this is a chance to be true leaders in conservation. It appears that non-natives are more concerned about harvest than the Indians are.
Tom B
(doing a bad job of hiding my disapointment.) | |
| | |
Posts: 89
Location: Breezy Point, MN | Hi,
A couple of points I would like to add. First of all, regarding the turn out of Muskies Inc. members, in Vilas County they were all absent with the exception of Bill Jacobs (Prez) and three other members, including Rick Krueger from Guide's Choice Pro Shop. These four all voted for the 50" proposal. Now, our club has approximately 300 members. If half of them would have showed up, we would be celebrating a new era in musky management rather than sticking our heads in the sand to hide from the rest of the neighboring states that already have progressive muskellunge management. Muskie's Inc. members should have been some of the most vocal in favor of this proposal, but didn't bother to vote.
Now, my thoughts on why we are struggling up here in a nutshell. I must have heard 10 guys at the Spring Hearings complain about Indian spearing as a main reason to vote down this musky proposal. Do two wrongs make a right? The tribes would not ever come close to spearing all of these adult fish, but because these anglers are still holding a huge grudge, they took the defeatist attitude and voted against progressive musky management here. Let me point out a few more things. First of all, Indian spearing is here to stay, period. I abhore it, like the rest of you non-Native Americans, but you nor I can put an end to it. The vote by the liberal judges (Barbara Crabb) in the '80's sealed the deal. You need to move on, because it is life. Michigan has non-tribal spearing for muskellunge and Minnesota has tribal spearing now, but yet they still have a better management program and size structure than Wisconsin. My point here is simple. Don't cripple our progressive management ideas because of something that can't be changed. It's futile, and not constructive. Our Northwoods economy is still reeling from the spearing disaster, no question. No one likes this fact, but it is still fact. Now, with that said, by improving our muskellunge management by creating several lakes that would have a 50" limit, we are bettering the resource here to ATTRACT new anglers to the area in pursuit of trophy muskellunge. It's worked in Hayward (documented evidence is available) and it's worked in Minnesota. It could have worked here, if we would have given these 34 lakes a shot. Now, we lost that opportunity to improve the overall fishery here in this area. The fact that we vehemently shot down this proposal will send would-be trophy musky anglers out of the area. Musky fishermen notoriously spend more money than any other fishermen each year. The rocket scientists at the Boulder, Sayner-Star Lake, and Manitowish Waters Chambers could't see the light on this. They feared that they would lose business if their customers couldn't throw a 34"er on the grill. That prehistoric mind set just cost them (and us here in Eagle River) a ton of potential musky anglers as future customers. Our fisheries need any help they can get, and muskies are still growing in popularity. However, the incidents of catch and kill of 40"-48" fish here is alarming, even with the increased popularity of catch and release today. We missed a golden opportunity to put Northern Wisconsin back on the map as a "go-to" destination for trophy muskellunge. We'll probably never get another shot at this in my generation, and it is truly ashame, especially when you see the surrounding states like Illinois take aggressive measures for higher musky size limits.
Sincerely,
Tom Dietz
www.tomdietz.com
www.guideschoiceproshop.com
| |
| | |
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Tom:
Why do you believe that this won't be reconsidered in your generation? Why can't it be voted on again next year, and every year after that until we break them down?
| |
| | |
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | I think we regroup and go at it again. A lesson was learned this time around. The DNR is for it and I think it could be put back on the table. It's obvious that people who support the increases need to flock to vilas and oneida counties to vote instead of their own. | |
| | |
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | Tom I want to applaud all those that have shown support for the raising the size limit to 50". Even though it may appear that a small voice wasn't heard I believe there's some noise that will be generated from the lack of support. Maybe some folks thought that the limits would pass whether they had shown up or not(I can only assume???). The reality is that we all need to make an effort to make these hearings and show our support. Instead of being passive we all must be proactive and make it a point to educate the public on how the higher size limits would benefit them.
I think the main point that most anti-50" club don't realize is that it's not all lakes in Vilas and Oneida county, but the ones that have the best trophy potential. If a musky angler or guide wants to keep a musky for the wall or grill than go on a lake that doesn't have a size limit restrictions. Those folks shouldn't have a problem fishing other waters which don't have the 50" size limit restrictions since they feel that a size restriction will stunt the fish already..(For their backwards thinking: those lakes in theory should have bigger fish since they will have lower densities...or whatever crazy reason...remember I'm just expressing what some uneducated comments are being made against raising the size limits. I couldn't disagree more.) I'm going to guarantee that those lakes that are protected will have a much more desirable size structure than the lakes that aren't protected. It'll be a great way to show what happens when sound musky management is applied to the uniqueness of the water.
I see on another thread that you mentioned to us who is against and who is for. This is good to see who we need to persuade and support. A little pressure put on those folks to think ahead into the future would no doubt help the cause. The type of pressure to put on them is to the discretionary of the angler...by reading between the lines you probably know what I mean.
People that make a difference are no doubt are noticed. Hopefully next year, everyone makes a good effort in attending to ensure that the vote goes the direction that they want. A leason was learned I believe.
catch ya later,
Krappie
P.S. Tom how'd you and Rick do on the billfish? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | For those that don’t live here or know the whole story. Here it is in a nut shell:
In the 1980s the Northern Wisconsin Native Americans started exercising there rights to spear waters in ceded territories. They spear all species in the spring when the fish are spawing. Since it was new many took part in this rediscovered right, also it was a major political tool. Lots of walleye and many musky where taken and still are being taken, tough there aren’t as many spearor as there was 10 years ago.
As a result of the spearing Walleye bag limits on almost all lakes had to be reduce from 5 fish per day to 2 fish per day. Some lakes have been kicked back up to 3 but many are still at 2. This caused major negative feelings towards tribal members and the DNR. These new regs where needed to save the fishery and had to be done.
Locals lost there ability to keep many fish and more importantly people stopped coming to northern Wisconsin for the Walleye fishing. Supposedly they stopped coming because they couldn’t keep enough fish to make the trip worth while and the big females that everyone likes to catch where also gone. Either way many resorts went under and many more felt the pinch.
Now! Any restrictive reg is seen as a detrament. Most people don’t understand what Musky fishermen are all about. They remember the past, which was only 10 to 15 years ago, they don’t see how making musky size limits more restrictive will attract more musky guys. THIS IS WHERE THE EDUCATION NEEDS TO START. These people need to be educated to the fact that more restrictive regs will attract far more from the musky crowd than it will repel from the Joe bobber watcher crowd. Those people don’t care what size musky they can keep. It sure won’t make a difference to where they go. Heck where would they go instead, every bordering state has more restrictive regs than we do.
My opinion!.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My son works for the DNR, and confirms that the new 50" limit on some waters enjoys broad support there. Tom B, I disagree, very strongly. The objection was mostly one of 'we are already have enough restrictions' more than a desire to take a 40" muskie home. The Rhinelander Chamber is a good example. I think they were very vocal against the change on the Rhinelander Flowage because of the two tournaments they sponsor there. The new regs would end the Hodag and the smaller Chamber sponsored event there for good. These aren't kill tournies, they are 100% release. The claim is that if the 50" limit passes and Boom kicks out numbers of 50's, the anglers will come. I would guess that is a calculated risk they want to avoid, because of the fear the 'average guy' won't show up there in the meantime, if ever again. You and I might agree that muskie angling is growing very quickly, and that ALL muskie anglers want a trophy fishery, but it isn't an easy sell when the immediate impact is to the pocketbook, and the anticipated benefit long into the future. We support the 50" limit on some waters. Does that make us right and the folks who do not wrong? Not by the vote I saw. Until something else better comes along, we operate in a democracy, and the State for some reason wants to have us exercise that right in the overall approach to wildlife, fish, and land use regulations. I personally think we hire fisheries biolgists to do that job with our waters, and hang what opinions the most vocal segment of the population might have about it. Right now, I am in the minority, and will be until the beliefs I share with some of the muskie anglers out there become the majority. | |
| | |
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | Steve you bring up a good point about the Chamber of Commerce of Rhinelander, and other tournament officials being vocal against the 50" size limits since it would affect tournament waters. What is unfortunate is that rather than trying to deal with change in the regulation such as having a no transport tournament. They will try to eliminate regulation that could benefit the quality of the fisheries. Granted it will be a temporary inconvience(I say temporary because once everyone get's accustomed to using judge boats on the water it won't appear to be "inconvenient). I wouldn't think there would be an issue to measure fish at boatside that didn't fall within the 50" size limit...as long as the fish isn't placed in the boat or transported. So in essence I definitely think that tournaments may work around the issue of the increased size limit. Set the minimum size limit to 34" and stress that no fish are to be moved what so ever.
If anything I think the no transport tournments would definitely help mend any division amongst musky fisherman that are "for" or "against" tournies. I imagine most people are against tournaments because of the transporting of the fish and increased stressed on overhandling the fish. Why create another reason for anti-tournament sentiment by defeating legislation that could benefit the quality of musky fishing in Wisconsin? Maybe transport tournments are as outdated as single hook sucker rigs. We need to force the issue that it's not good for the fish and take measures to ensure that we have a healthy muskie population for the future.
Now I may appear to be a hypocrite since I have fished in the Hodag Challenge the last 3 years. But I would love to see that tournament become a non-transport event. With the great communication(cell phones, 2 way raidios.etc.etc.) that we have access today there's no excuse for transport tournaments. I'm willing to bet that there would definitely be volunteers that would be honored to be " on the water" tournament officials. If you even have to raise the tournament fee slightly to compensate the individuals, that may help. Whatever is the case we need to get out of the Dark Ages and take a chance on improving our fisheries. We're not talking a couple hundred lakes here, but only a few.
I was thinking about fishing in the Hodag and the WMT, but I hate to say it I now have a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I'm starting to evolve as a musky fisherman. Hopefully Wisconsin fisherman will quit trying to say: "Well what's in it for me". and say " Well I hope future generations benefit what we did today".
catch ya later,
Krappie | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| What Tom Deitz mentioned about the 1980`s court cases was in fact a big stumbling block for wisconsin sportsman against spearing, but the one thing in our favor that at least for this year WILL NOT WORK TO OUR ADVANTAGE is casinos & taxes(as we were sold out to 82 million in tax cash this year or 88 million?)But in the future I think gambling can and will be used against spearing! I for one and my family DO NOT PATRONIZE CASINO`S and will continue to do so as long as spearing continues on its present course and I think there are way to many sportsman still patronizing casiono`s and on the other foot complaining about bag limits.Its the small things we can do to help a good cause that will eventually spear change!(no pun intented)This just may be another way to get what we want! I could be wrong though! Handy | |
| | |
Location: Minneapolis, MN | You would think these blockheaded WI businessmen would get the message! Their bookings and other business have fallen off. Instead of trying to figure out why, they are blaming "the bad economy". Clearly people didn't stop fishing, they have decided to go elsewhere with their money. After taking their money somewhere else for a few years the anglers proposed a solution to help the WI businessmen see what they want to come back, higher size limits. How much stronger a message could these anglers send? This is pretty simple stuff but apparently the WI people need to take a fundamentals of business management class becuase they can't figure it out. I'm looking forward to my next trip to MN.
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Here ya go.
1. with so many resorts haveing sold off cottages there is not nearly as much new blood coming into the area every week. Cottage owners bring much of what they need so not as much spending. New blood every week with rentals means new money.
2. The spearing has so drastically reduced the walleye limits, that has hurt.
3. property taxes have soared and those that have cottages just don't spend the way they used to.
Now about the 50 inch proposal..... If they had asked for half the number lakes and made it 40 it would have passed I believe.
I am not saying this but this is what I heard from callers on my radio show. I have a good reporting network from all over the state and I am surprised at how many 50 inch fish I hear of every summer/ It is is geting better.
I also feel that the program being exclusive to vilas and oneida counties was wrong. They should have picked 12 lakes across the state. This would have spread it out and resort owners and other businesses would not have been as afraid of it hurting there business.
I have talked to alot of of anglers and business owners and thats what I come with.
In wisconsin there was a plan to gradually increase the size limit state wide>>>>>>>>>>>>>what happened to that?
I think if those that pushed for this go back to the drawing board and come up with a different plan they can get a bigger limit on some lakes but need to go slow. way to big a jump too fast on too many lakes in only counties.
Thanks for the efort to them anyway, they tried.
Don Pfeiffer
| |
| | |
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Don, THANK YOU! First time i have heard the resort problem from somebody else. By the time my kids have kids, this will really be a problem. Save the family resort, the property taxes are killing them.
Another point I want to make about resort owners losing business besides the canada arguement. Are these people going to stay home then? Because just about everywhewre else has stricter limits on fishing. | |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The belief of many businesses here, I think, is Vilas and Oneida counties are home to an AWFUL lot of the waters here in Wisconsin. Look at any map. We have to share the T.A.C. ( total allowable catch) with the Native Americans who spear the walleye, muskies, and other fish during the spawn, and through the ice by treaty agreements upheld by the Supreme Court.. The limits on walleyes are so restrictive it makes no sense to many folks to travel long distances to fish them seriously any more. Many fear the 50" proposal was an effort to take some of our heaviest visited 'tourist areas' muskie waters to the same level. Might be an irrational fear, but it is there none the less. And, it is not horribly incorrect to take the stance that if the lakes voted on were brought to C&R only, which the 50" limit has the effect of doing for at least the short term (say, 5 to 8 years). The Native Americans will continue to spear these bodies of water in the Spring and the Winter with absolute abandon, reducing the actual impact of the trophy water attempt to nill, and in the meantime, the resorts, hotels, and stores will be thinly visited. Spearing through the ice isn't even regulated, and is growing in scope here, not contracting. The question is how to address these fears realistically without alienating the very people we want to move to our position. By the way, LC, I am a Wisconsin Business man, and I took the courses you mentioned. Try approaching the issue without bashing and name calling and the businesses you are referring to might be more willing to discuss things over a beer, and maybe come around to your viewpoint.. Tom: I agree with the statement on spearing except: The spearing issue was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case brought by Minnesota. t The main reason there is no chance of reversing that decision is because one has no place to appeal the ruling. The highest court in the land has ruled, and that is pretty much that. | |
| | |
Posts: 1265
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | The spearing issue is dead in the court system but is still very negotable by our state government. How do you feel the casinos would like competition? What if our legislators would suggest opening statewide gambling? I think we still have some very good negotiating weapons, if only we could get some help from our Governor. | |
| | |
Posts: 1046
| Hmmmmmmmm, thats what I been saying for months! | |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It sucks, but the Sportsmen and Women of Wisconsin have no lobby able to stand against the Gaming Lobbies out there, especially in a time of huge budget deficits. Maybe I'm nutz, but I still hold out hope there may someday be a crack in the veneer wide enough to allow the Sportsmen and Women of this State to negotiate with the Tribes and the Fisheries Managers from the State and the Tribes directly, based on what is good for the State and the fisheries and ALL the people living and vacationing here. If we could prove a trophy fishery close to a Casino would generate LOTS of extra business for them if they supported, worked for, and actively promoted it, maybe there would be a chance. | |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | From the Department of Natural Resources Website: A fisheries proposal to increase minimum musky length limits on 38 waters in Vilas and Oneida County to 50 inches and three waters in Dane County to 45 inches to manage for trophy musky fishing opportunities had mixed results. Voters rejected the higher limits on the northern lakes but approving them for the Dane County waters. "We knew that the muskellunge proposal was one that had generated a great deal of strong feelings both in favor of and opposed to the change," said Patrick Schmalz, fishing regulations coordinator for the Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection. "That is why we put things out for hearing, so that the people of the state have a say in fisheries management." There were separate questions for each of the northern lakes or chains, and they were rejected by more than a two to one margin for each lake. The proposals for the Dane County lakes were supported by approximately 1,200 voters and opposed by more than 900 voters. DNR Secretary Scott Hassett said the vote reflects that there is a broad range of opinions among anglers what constitutes a "trophy" fish and how the proposed regulations would affect both anglers and the musky populations on the proposed lakes. "While the majority of those who voted were opposed to the more stringent regulations, we also know there were many avid musky anglers who do support more opportunities to catch a musky that is longer than 50 inches, which everyone agrees truly is a trophy fish," Hassett said. "I plan to discuss this proposal further with our biologists, anglers, and others interested in musky fishing to see if we can identify a fewer number of waters that more people would generally agree upon could provide this type of opportunity." I am calling the DNR offices in Madison Monday to see if there is an opportunity for us to discuss this issue online, or at least grant an interview to MuskieFIRST. If everyone supporting this all stay the course and constructively move forward, there IS a chance to make this happen, at least on some waters in Wisconsin. | |
| | |
Posts: 335
Location: Orland Park | I would have to agree with LC. So simple. If you don't have a desirable product, you don't get the sale. Fishing in Wisconsin is no longer desirable when we have better fisheries surrounding Wisconsin North, South, West, and Lake Michigan.
And what's with many of these resort owners, tackle shops, and guides? Why would they not support any type of size limit change? Why??? Why Not? Too much government control???? That's a bunch of B.S. It works in other states.
I'll tell you what, muskies seem to be the only thing desirable about Wisconsin fishing....where are the walleyes? 15" northern aren't much fun catching once a day. You know what else is funny? These towns in Wisconsin claiming they are the muskie capital of the world. WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank goodness I grew up with a Minnesota trip every year. | |
| | |
Posts: 50
Location: Far Northwest Chicago Suburb | We should all be careful for what we lobby for in Northern Wisconsin. I'm sure that we don't want it to look like Naperville, IL! | |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CJ, define 'better'. There are 250 well managed muskie lakes within easy driving distance of my house. The release rate average on most of these lakes is as high as the rest of the country and higher. Pelican, for example, has a superb release rate with almost no fish harvested by muskie anglers there other than spearing. I have had days there not long in the past where we boated as many as 5 over 45". Pelican never did kick out numbers of 50 plus fish, but one or two a year used to hit the net in my boat, and if I was still out as much as I used to be, still would. I feel Pelican is one of the prime candidates for the 50" limit, but don't know how long it would take to see any numbers of fish that size as a result. Pelican is a 'big' body of water for Wisconsin, and is only 3600 acres. Not the same deal as 114000 over on Leech, or the massive Mille Lacs. Cass is a bunch larger than anything near here at all. Spearing impact: -----2003: The Chippewa also declared their intention to take 1,522 muskellunge on 199 lakes and lake chains in the ceded territory. Last year, the Chippewa declared a harvest goal of 1,555 muskies on 208 lakes.------ Tough situation, but by no means is the muskie fishing here poor. Not the same as pre-spearing and post-CPR, though the two realities balanced what might have been a total disaster otherwise. (these totals do not include winter dark house spearing) | |
| | |
Posts: 335
Location: Orland Park | Obviously, the spearing is a problem.
Steve, I define "better" as a good, quality chance at catching a mid 40" fish. I honestly can say I NEVER expect to catch a 40"er in Wisconsin, unless I'm going on our annual fall trip to Bone Lake. As far as Vilas County, our group is just happy getting ANY fish over a weekend. I fish there because it's close, not to mention the beautiful scenery.
Spearing was banned on Cass 11 years ago, and now has a lifelong ban on spearing. This has obviously helped the fishery. But if I'm not mistaken, spearing is still legal just about everywhere else. Leech and it's surrounding lakes (Woman, Boy, and those other lakes) are speared, but still produce quality. Little Wolf, Plantagenet produce monsters, but they have a 50" limit, and I believe are speared. These lakes are just as small, or smaller than most Vilas County lakes.
These Wisconsin fishing problems are getting A LOT of press! You guys better figure something out soon. Print up some flyers, pass em out to people at launches, on the water, at resorts. Make the public aware. Rent some highway billboards along Rts. 51 and 53, and along I-90/94.
"LETS CATCH SOME TROPHIES!!!!! KEEP ONLY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO EAT!!!!!
Put a picture of a kid releasing a muskie as a background.
Have gas stations pass out flyers informing the public. Have bait stores pass out flyers. | |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey CJ, Call me next time you are coming up. I will put you on quality water for a great chance at a mid 40, and mark your map, too! Maybe if you have an evening we can slip purple haze into the water on Pelican. | |
| | |
Posts: 20211
Location: oswego, il | Wisconsin has alot of problems, the resort situation will only get worse if something is not done. Too bad they can't trade in their spears and buy up the failing resorts and keep them open. In 20 years this may be all but mute points anyway. | |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think there may be a misconception the entire North is in 'terrible shape' economically. While tourism is off in the areas where the negative media coverage of the spearing hurt the worst, and no snow has fallen here since 2001, our little city here is growing like a weed. In the last couple years, we started a new hospital, and saw a Menards, Home Depot, Office Max, Super Wal Mart, Comfort Inn, and two new Auto dealerships built. Projections show us at the size of Wausau here in Rhinelander in not too many years. Property values are going absolutey crazy. My taxes doubled last year alone, and will probably go up 8% this year. That fact alone may push some of the last resorts to cater to the 'Mom and Pop' crowd out of the trade. Most seem to be trying to go the Time Share or Condo route. When the economy recovers from the current down cycle, things here will click along accordingly and the growth here will expand further. Change is inevitable, whether I like it or not. I remember when opening day meant a line of traffic from Antigo all the way to Eagle River, and another from Wausau to Boulder Junction. That ended like someone flipped a switch when the restrictive walleye limits were imposed. The muskie anglers visiting here, in my opinion, have increased due to what I see as growth in the sport. Industry has a foothold here. The service economy surrounding the tourism trade is still intact. Struggling yes, but ALL of this of course has been impacted by the recession. The Muskie wasn't the huge draw the last decade, snowmobiling was; before that, walleye,pike, panfish, and THEN muskie angling. Add deer hunting, and the ridiculous coverage in the cities and equally ridiculous PR campaign surrounding the CWD problem, and there is another 'burp'. Back a few years ago when I was guiding full time, I would stop in at Thiel's on Pelican for lunch, and talk to a full bar , most all anglers of some sort. Walleyes, Perch, and Bluegills were always a big draw. Now on the busiest days in the Lake side Bar/Restaraunt combos during fishing season, I might run into a handfull of anglers. Volleyball nets have replaced the dock frontage and youthful, noisy, party folks the quietly serious Muskie anglers just off the water at dusk. Now the Muskie guys drop in, have a beer or soda, and head back to where ever they are staying to get out of the racket. What used to be a 'fishing' oriented Lakeside business changed quite a bit, and I would guess actually brings in more, not less, revenue as a result. If there was snow , the place would be packed with leather clad helmeted folks. No snow, no go. No, things here are changing and will never be like they were, ever again. But growth will continue because the quality of life is so good here, and wages are rising with the changing economic structure. It used to take a few minutes to get across town, now it takes what seems forever. So what does the 50" limit have to do with this? Excellent question. Conflicting views regarding 'the answer' is what is causing so much debate. | |
| | |
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Steve:
I didn't intend to call anyone a name but after re-reading my email I guess I did, albiet in general terms. Its very sad to see the local chambers of commerce failing to help these businesses recognize the impact of this opportunity as a collective group. That is their role in the community if I am not mistaken???
Edited by Luke_Chinewalker 4/20/2003 2:50 PM
| |
| | |
| Before you all lump the whole North into the same group,
I don't see a problem with the economy here in the Hayward area. Yes the no snow winter really hurt but our summer business has been growing tremendously every year in the whole area. Also at my resort on Moose lake we have seen a steady increase in business every year over the last 6 years!!!
As to the size limit issues. We have lakes here with 40, 45, and 50 inch limits and also with 34".
At the conservation meeting last week all the musky size limits passed all in favor with ZERO NO votes!!! Even the resort association is on record as supporting size limits as a musky management tool. | |
| | |
Posts: 335
Location: Orland Park | Steve,
I'll be up in the St. Germain area for the opener. I'd be happy to hook up and shoot the #%&*, and get on some good waters. Where will you be fishing for the opener? Maybe I could pick up that Muskie First rod from you that I won in the 48" contest, save you on shipping?. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, you said:
“The Rhinelander Chamber is a good example. I think they were very vocal against the change on the Rhinelander Flowage because of the two tournaments they sponsor there. The new regs would end the Hodag and the smaller Chamber sponsored event there for good. These aren't kill tournies, they are 100% release.”
You are buying into the miss information. A 50” limit on the Rhinelander Flowage (Boom) would not “end” the Hodag Musky challenge. It would make them change the way they run it on Boom only. They would need to go to a non transport system on Boom that’s it. They would need judge boats for Boom only, They set the size limit at 34 on Boom and run exactly like the PMTT and Rollie and Helen’s. It would take 5 to 10 more officials.
The June tourney would not be effected at all as it already is a water release format with other tourney boats doing the registering. I guess some fish are livewelled and transported to the nearest boat, but anglers would just have to be told that couldn’t’ be done anymore.
Heck Lakeview Inn on Pelican already runs their tourney with judge boats and that is a $100 dollar entry fee event run by a BAR. Tell me it would be that hard for the chamber to do. They just don't want to change!
You also stated:
“Pelican, for example, has a superb release rate with almost no fish harvested by muskie anglers there other than spearing.”
What about the, I believe 2 fish that died during the WMT last august on Pelican. What about all the fish kept by non musky anglers? My dad heard of at least three last year, just from people he knows.
And:
“Pelican is a 'big' body of water for Wisconsin, and is only 3600 acres. Not the same deal as 114000 over on Leech, or the massive Mille Lacs. Cass is a bunch larger than anything near here at all.”
Steve I believe that the Turtle Flambeau and The Chip are both about the same size as Cass. What about the Metro lakes how do they stack up to the size of our lakes, from what many say they produce lots of trophy fish and they are within 30 miles of how may people?
No lake is if ever going to produce lots of 50” but the size structure can sure be moved up. In eight years with a 50" limit Nemakagon has gone from a 38” average size to I believe a 43 inch average size. And imagine this, it still gets speared. Info I sure wish would have made some news papers before the vote.
After talking to a number of people about this issue over the last week, I have found one common theme. More EDUCATION, is needed:
Businesses need to learn what drives musky fishermen, it’s different than most other fishermen.
People need to know these trophy musky wont eat all there walleyes and panfish.
Little Jonnies daddy needs to be educated to the fact that little Jonnie doesn’t need to keep his first musky to have a memory that will last the rest of his live. I remember the night I caught my first musky with my dad like it was yesterday. I regret to say we kept it but it was the early 80s and we ate it. Only one I ever kept and the last one my dad ever kept. Keeping that fish has nothing to do with the memory.
Tournaments need to be educated to the fact that they can run tournaments with water release at the side of the boat and set the size limit for the tourney at what ever they want. And that this is MUCH better for the fish.
Also I feel the DNR should eliminate the transport tourney permits, additionally tournaments should be mandated to give a certain percentage of proceeds back to the lakes they are using. Like a user fee. That should be a straight stocking effort. Not something that will get lost in the bureaucracy of the DNR.
My opinions on some stuff, sorry so long.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I am not buying into anything. Read my posts, all of them, again. The proposal lost nearly two to one. We can complain, point fingers, and stamp our feet all we want, that isn't what will get things changed. Understanding why the proposal failed, and addressing those issues, might. If the 50" proposal passed on the Boom Flowage, the Hodag would probably fold on that water. If the fish is under 50" it cannot be put in a well, or for that matter held for a judge if one follows the law. Any undersized fish has to be released immediately, unless the DNR issues a permit to register undersized fish. I would hope they wouldn't do that on the trophy management waters. In- the- net measurements are not accurate enough when looking at the payout there, either. Besides, I would hope and wager that if the lake was passed for the 50" limit, NO tournaments would be allowed that measure any undersized fish. I founded the Lakeview In tournament with Barry Thiel. That is why it is run with judge boats, and has been since the start way back then. I was IN one of those judge boats every year until Barry sold the bar, all the way back to 1982, I think. The same regulations would apply. (from the 2003 regs: Any fish you take into possession and do not release immediately is part of your daily bag limit even if it is released later)(and: It is Illegal To posses a fish that is above the maximum or below the minimum length established for the waters being fished) -----If you put a fish in the boat and do not IMMEDIATELY release it if it is undersized, you are not within the law as the fish under your control. Actually, it would not be legal to wait for a judge and do a measurement using a bump board in the boat at all if the law is followed exactly because the fish must be released immediately, unless the fish in question was very close to legal and a measurement is needed to confirm. The DNR may issue a variance allowing boatside measurement IF a permit is issued at all on Trophy Waters, I don't know if they would or not. I bet the Tournament officials are not certain about that either. If you start your motor, the fish is in possession. If you livewell the fish, it is in possession. If the fish is in your control, it is in your possession. I was not referring to the entire state, but the North here in Vilas, Oneida, Langlade, and Florence counties, and the majority of the waters the proposal targeted here. I was not speaking to the Madison area at all, as that wasn't the context of my post. Northern Wisconsin, that was the context and the name of the thread. The idea I was trying to get across was that we have a completely different management challenge here with our muskie waters. Pelican IS a big lake by average in the North. Look at a map. The proposal passed over by the Chip, maybe because the folks there have a clearer and more accurate perspective. Maybe it was another, or several reasons. I didn't mention Green Bay ( now THAT is a big lake!), or the Lake Michigan regs there for muskie either, as that is already placed a 50", I think. If two fish died after or during an event on Pelican, that would have happened no matter the size limit as the event is a release event, yes? If indeed, there were a few fish harvested off Pelican ( I didn't see any pictures, registations, or other evidence, but a couple may have been taken home, sure) that certainly supports my statement that most of the fish there are released as probably hundreds of fish are CRP'd there every year. I said most; most being almost all, or a high percentage, or however one wishes to say it. Should I say that the release rate on Pelican is poor? That isn't true. A 50" limit there makes Pelican a catch and release lake for most anglers, most trips, for a very very long time. THAT is reality. Would I like to see that? Yes I would. But obviously I am not in the majority. WHY, and what can be done to change that? Most of my commentary is in search of that answer. Oh, by the way, I also stated I AGREE with the 50" proposal. My son works for the DNR. I wasn't defending any of the objections voiced at the meetings or the total vote, I was trying to present what was said, and why, so an intelligent dialog as to how one might address those objections and begin changing attitudes and minds might begin. General comment: Simply dismissing the opposition as (place an adjective here) is a formula for failure. Like it or not, this issue has entered the political arena, and dismissing or taking non-productive actions to change the minds of ANY opposition who beat you by two to one plain doesn't make sense. | |
| | |
Posts: 335
Location: Orland Park | Who cares if these tournies fold......what's more important, a tourney, or the fishery? Some tournies are run properly, and obviously others aren't. Remember why so many world record fish were disqualified? Tournies.......filling bellies with lead and sand in order to win $100. Remember why so many fish were kept? Proof for those silly little tournies!
I've fished the PMTT and the Twin Cities Int'l up in the Walker area. The Walker area tourney is based on HONESTY! You catch a fish, take a picture of it with a digital or a disposable, and release it, just like you would with any other muskie you catch. HONOR SYSTEM! Minnesota doesn't have a problem with that. It used to be that another boat had to come over and witness the catch......no witness, no catch. That's why we have ship to shore radios. But tourney officials thought the fish's well being was more important than transporting it around so someone could have a shot at winning a gift certificate or a boat. GOOD FOR THEM!!!!! THAT'S GREAT MANAGEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
PMTT.........Ship to shore radio........call it in, leave the fish in the net, let an official measure it, and sayonarra! GOOD MANAGEMENT!!!!!
Let everyone in these HOBAG, or whatever tournies you guys are talking about, get a ship to shore. Money isn't an issue........if they have $$$ to enter the tourney, they have $$$$ to get a radio. If not, then don't let em enter. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, all I know is what DNR personnel have been saying. At the February meeting with the DNR and guides and businesses DNR personnel specifically said that. This rule would not affect water release tourneys and that tourney officials could set the size limit at whatever they wanted as long as the fish weren’t transported. They could be held in the net at the side of the boat until an official comes to you then the fish is placed on a bump board measured and released right there. Don’t know if this would be clarified with the tourney permit or what, but that is what the DNR was stating time and time again.
Rollie and Helen’s was for this and they run three tourneys on waters that would have gone to 50”. They chose to believe the DNR.
Again they didn’t do a good job of educating the public to that info.
I never said you where against this and if you reread the end of my post you will see that I specifically stated that EDUCATION is the key to this issue. The proposal was beat soundly because of lack of education. And your right we can’t do anything about that now, other than prepare better the next time it comes around.
However we can stamp up and down about people trying to make money off this resource who purposely spread disinformation for there own benefit. Specifically that the Hayward area resorts where against this and that Terry M. fisheries biologist was against this, when he was for it and doesn’t remember telling anyone he was ever against it. There wasn’t a single no vote in at the Sawyer County meeting. That shows they where for it, what better proof can you ask for.
As far as the fish that died in the Pelican WMT, it is very possible that they wouldn’t have died in the 78+ degree water if they had been measured at the side of the boat rather than hauled across the lake to the registration point. Could they have died anyway, yes. Would they have a better chance if not transported yes.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Rollie and Helen's has been pretty progressive on the tourney scene for a long time. Good to hear they supported the change. We pretty much agree. Most of what I said in my last post wasn't directed at you, it was directed to everyone reading the thread. I certainly didn't want anyone to think I was supporting the arguments used by those opposed, and at the same time I wanted to be sure to let folks know that I feel changing minds is best accomplished with measured reason based on a clear understanding of the opposing viewpoint.. Maybe I am all wet, but that is what I have seen work well in the past. Usually, calls for 'boycotts' and similar actions lack the punch to get anything done long term, and serve best to allow the person calling for action to vent frustration. I'm NOT being critical of ANYONE, I'm simply doing my best to be realistic. Goes back to finding the root of the objection so it can be addressed, an old method, but an effective one. Ask the question patiently and non-confrontationally: 'Obviously you have a good reason for feeling that way, may I ask you what that might be?' If no one asks, no one will get to the core issues and get them changed. Politics suck.  | |
| |
|
Why is northern WI economy struggling?