|
|
| Well it sound like some of you are scratching you heads, asking yourself what in the he-- was Tom thinking about??? I think this letter I wrote to Steve AveLallemant (fisheries mngr of the northern region) of the W.D.N.R., that preceded a proposal to establish catch and release only lakes in Wisconsin, would answer most questions.
Dear Steve,
I would like to commend you and the rest of the WDNR for the dedication exhibited (especially in recent years) in improving and preserving our muskie fisheries. It is evident that the WDNR wishes to be proactive in developing a diverse muskie fishery when it proposed a 50 inch size limit on selected lakes. I hope the April vote does not deter you and your fellow WDNR staff from the commitment to the improvement of the muskie fishery.
Steve, I hope you and the rest of the WDNR stay the course in pursuing muskie trophy waters for Wisconsin. However, I feel a whole new approach is needed and map out a plan that is more biologically sound that would be widely accepted, even by folks who were against the original 50" proposal. Instead of trying again next year for a size limit, I would like for the WDNR to pick 10 to 15 (maybe more) lakes of varying size and age classification to establish a catch and release only fishery. Ecologically this will make more sense to everyone concerned, benefiting not only the muskie fishery, but walleye, bass, pike and other sought after fish, creating a balanced ecosystem. A long term research project must accompany the adoption of the catch and release lakes, with a "no stocking" program implemented on the selected lakes. Information gathered on these appropriate test lakes can be used in the future to set size limits and creel limits on all species of fish by lake classification, size and forage, instead of what appears to most people today that size and creel limits are arbitrarily picked without the backing of scientific research.
Accompanying this letter is a brief outline of a proposal to select, promote and pass a catch and release regulation. Also included are suggestions on existing WDNR regulations and policies that should be revisited and changed to assist in the rehabilitation of our fisheries. A better plan is imperative and it begins with lake selection, making sure local businesses, guides anglers, ect. are in support, promoting it to all fishermen (not just targeting muskie anglers), pionting out the short and long term benefits. A better job must be done in the selection of the members of the exploritory commitee. A broader range of individuals whose interest are directly or indirectly effected by the proposed changes, instead of all or most of the commitee members who are all in favor of the proposal from the start, slapping each other on the back, proclaiming life is good and aren't we great!
Over the last 4 or 5 months, I have had more than 500 muskie anglers approach me at sport shows, call me on the phone, or talked at social gatherings and only a handful were in favor of the 50" proposal. The overwhelming concern was that the lakes in Wisconsin are too limited in size, not even coming close to the size and scope of the Minnesota and Canadian lakes that were being touted as the "test" lakes for Wisconsin. All of the concerned muskie anglers against the proposal that I have talked with were worried that the 50" limits would have a negative effect on the size structure of muskies, causing fewer large fish and "bottlenecking" smaller muskies, causing them to grow at a slower rate, never to reach their 50 inch plus genetic potential and creating a population of muskies resembling snakes rather than the fat, robust muskies that anglers desire.
Even though I am very pleased with the WDNR's elevated interest in the muskie fishery, I had to, in all good conscience, vote "no" for the 50" limits. If the vote would have taken place in April 1999, I would have voted "yes" and would have bean speaking in its favor. However, in July of 1999, when I was sitting on the board of the Butternut Lake Association, a man I have great respect for, Jim Lealos, spoke to our members and explained that we had too many muskies in the lake, quoting recent studies to prove his claims, and giving further examples of why it was having a negative effect on the growth rate (length) and size(weight) of muskies. Since that day, being the doubting Thomas that I am, I had taken the time to gather and study all available research reports on muskie that was produced by the WDNR. I am convinced that Mr. Lealos was 100% correct, even though at the time of his announcement, I was lobbying folks for a 45 inch limit to improve the muskie fishery on Butternut Lake; boy, was I wrong!
When the proposal for the 50" size limit was announced, I immediately referred to the research papers I had accumulated and scoured the pages for evidence thet an increased size limit of 50 inches would be beneficial. I was unable to discover even one report that supported a 50" size limit and conversely, was persuaded by the reports that a 50" size limit would be detrimental in such limited ecosystems of the selected lakes.
I was more than a little disappointed with the way the 50" proposal was promoted, whereas some writers would submit an article in a newspaper, magazine, or web site and misrepresent themselves as the "voice" of the muskie fisherman and for some fishing organization "leaders" to inaccurately proclaim that because they are for the proposed size limits, the rest of the members are also in favor, all of who were proven wrong on April 14. Leading up to the April 14 vote, even though I was strongly against the 50" limits, I did not write editorials for magazines, newspapers or to be posted on website message boards,nor did I try to rally the more than 600 anglers who fish the Wisonsin Muskie Tour to vote against it. I did not presume that my opinions represented all of the anglers who partake in the WMT. In the months prior to the vote, I didn't try to rally other fishermen not to vote for the proposal, even though my convictions were strong, because I didn't want to interfere with the WDNR's efforts and would have accepted, for good or bad, the new 50" limits. As you are aware, the 50" limit would have only impacted two of the 13 lake groups that we host tournaments on, and we had already made sustitutions for those tournaments if the 50" proposal had passed.
Again, I would like to thank you and the rest of the WDNR for your focused efforts and concerns regarding the muskie fishery. I hope the WDNR will not be discouraged about the outcome of the April 14 vote and will consider my proposal to establish catch and release only lakes in Wisconsin.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. McInnis | |
| | |
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | Can you please explain how you think muskies will stunt themselves by overpopulating?(We're talking muskies here not bluegills or crappies.) First off, tell me where an alpha predator is overabundant in any ecosystem. Second off, wouldn't spearing and catch and release have some mortality to the musky population?(let alone natural mortality also) Third, please tell me what the spawning success of muskies are in any given water ?(especially waters that have a increasing pike population). Finally,how many lakes were on the list for the 50" size limit and how many total lakes are there in Vilas and Oneida county?... Something tells me that the number of lakes affected is a very small percentage. Let's do the math and keep it simple.
The waters that were chosen are known as trophy potential lakes that have good genetics. If anything, due to the increased amount of fishing pressure placed on the lakes something tells me that the muskie population isn't going to spiral out of control in abundance. With the backwards thinking of transport tournaments, single hook sucker rigs, and the "someone else is keeping fish anyway mentality", quality musky fishery isn't going to improve anytime soon.
Let's think about the future here. Those lakes aren't going to become stunted with undersized, skinny fish. Now let's say hypothetically that stunted fish becomes a problem on some lakes. It's easier to remove some fish from the system than adding some. (By stocking you're diluting the existing superior genetics with more inferior fish).
Before man even stepped foot on this land ,muskies flourished and grew big. No human intervention at all, and the lakes were teaming with fish...big ones too. You've seen photos of the big fish that the "old timers" got back than. Some of those monster fish were here before man even started fishing for them. Canada waters produce some very nice fish also. There's a reason why there's big fish in those waters, and it's not because everyone and his brother is keeping the population in check through harvest. Canadian waters have far less fishing pressure than Wisconsin waters so how can that be? Those fish in Canada should look like guppies since they obviously are becoming overpopulated with muskies.(tongue in cheek here).Quality fishing management works it's just a matter of being able to change with the times.
catch ya later,
Krappie
Edited by Krappie 4/21/2003 1:45 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I am very pleased to see that you (Tom) took the time to explain your decision. I personally see your explanation, and your tactics as very flawed, but the great American system allows all opinions to count the same. I am not a fisheries biologist. I do not know if you are or not. When highly trained professionals in the field back this as a beneficial program for the size and population structures of the resource, I am willing to support them. These people have been educated very thouroughly in the field and I trust their judgement to a much greater degree than any bar-room biology.
With the higher demands put on our muskie fisheries each and every year, the conservation minded fishermen need to do something (read anything possible), to help the resource. We had a great chance to help our muskie fisheries on April 14th and like Mighty Casey, we struck out. | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The good news is we get to take another swing. Perhaps with enough information exchanged, the anglers and businessmen and women of Wisconsin can come to an agreement that makes sense to everyone and promotes a trophy muskie fishery on selected lakes. | |
| | |
| Hey Krappie,
It is appearent that you either missed the paraghraph that talked about Butternut Lake, or maybe you just glanced over it or did not comprehend. To illustrate then, the situation as it stands now at Butternut Lake, is the WDNR is planning to take out between 200 and 300 muskie out of a lake this year in a lake that is only 1006 acres large, because of what I had described.
I guess that you don't believe Jim Lealos,the fisheries biologist for Price co., so I will relay to you that I have been fishing this lake for muskie since 1969 (longer if you include the times as a youg boy when I would go out in the boat with my dad, uncles or cousins as they battled the muskies), I am very intune with the way things were then and how they are now, lets say a real hands on schooling. It use to be in the 60's, 70's and some of the 80's that catching a 40" or larger muskie was the rule, but now I and my relations and friends catch 20" class and 30" class with regularity. Oh sure we are catching more legals, but the size isn't there and it is not because people are keeping them. A great many more muskies were being caught and kept prior to the mid 80's then there is now.
Also, I would suggest logging onto the WDNR'S web site and looking up some of the research reports on muskie and also there is a form there to request additional reports. There will be the proof you seek. There are reports there that will back all of my claims because that is where my opinion were formed.
Have a great season,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
| Hey Norm,
Thank you for respecting my rights.
As far as the WDNR being confident that the 50" proposal would have made a possitive effect on the fishery, I asked that question and in one way or another that question came up time and time again at the meeting. The answer of "we don't know, these are uncharted waters" did not put to rest any concerns that I had. Also, at the meeting there was plenty of opportunities for all to provide evidence in favor of the proposal. On the otherhand I had several WDNR reports in my hand that proved (at least to me) otherwise.
Thanks Norm and you have a great season,
Tom McInnis
| |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Tom you mentioned that 99% of muskie fishermen where againts the 50 inch size limit. Can you tell us where they are? Other then a few kill guides and businesses I have not heard from a muskie fisherman that was againts the 50 inch size limits. Are you telling us that the WDNR don't have a clue as to what's best for the fisheries but you and a couple of kill guides and businesses do? I saw you type before that transport is better for muskie especialy in 80+ degree waters, I bet your with Tony on the single hook deal as well. Thank god your not in my backyard. I feel for the majority of muskie fishermen in WI, I can honestly say that I don't think I could be a muskie angler is I lived there. Man a guide's good year in WI is compared to a good week in Canada now that's never going to change. Good luck,
Edited by Trophymuskie 4/21/2003 2:37 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Krappie,
Look into the DNR numbers from, I think, Bone Lake. After increasing the size limit, the fish have gotten longer. However, they are also disproportionately skinnier. This is from a DNR guy, Tim Simonsen?, that was at our MI Chapter meeting last year. I will look up in our newscasts and get specific if you want.
I think that a given lake can hold a certain poundage of fish. Following this, something has to give. Look how many lakes we have chalk full of hammer handle northerns, where they are the top predator. I believe it can happen.
Norm, the fact of the matter is that most of the musky fishermen in this state did NOT feel that this size limit increase was that big of a deal. Like Tom Dietz said. There are 300? MI and Alliance members in Vilas county chapter alone. How many showed up to vote? To try and blame this on a couple of people who spoke at the meetings is ludicrous. As I said, those people who show up at meetings know how they are gonna vote before they get there. Ain't nobody's speech gonna change their mind that night.
I respect Tom M for coming on here and explaining his reasons for opposing this broad and sweeping change. He has some good points, and I hope people will read what he has to say, and consider it. It makes me think about how best to approach this task in the future. One thing you should do is understand the fact that Muskie anglers are in the vast minority here. That will probably never change. We need to keep a cool head, and try to avoid earning the elitist title that some of our fraternity have so ingraciously helped us attain. I spend alot of time fishing for walleyes with freinds that don't fish for muskies. Those guys think we are nuts! And some of them think some of us are arrogant SOB's.
Talk of boycotting this resort, that tourney, that guide, or that tackle shop is silly. If your neihbor voted for someone you opposed, would you want him not to be your neighbor? If your grocer voted in opposition to you, would you go to a different grocer? If so, I think you'd spend a great portion of your life trying to find someone who agrees with you on everything. It ain't gonna happen. Education is the key, here. Besides, it's just a fish.
Edited by Shep 4/21/2003 2:43 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Note to Richard: I'd say 99% of the Musky fishermen in this state didn't CARE about this proposal. That's about how many didn't show up to vote one way or another. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Tom, What lakes do you propose your catch and release only rule on? Also how do you think that would ever in a million years pass? You where at the meeting, you saw the mood of the crowd.
Your proposal is exactly what many people in that crowd feared. That the 50” limits where the first step in making waters catch and release only. I don’t know if that came up at the meeting, I didn’t hear it but I have heard it multiple times from people who where opposed to it.
Nail a Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
| I am really confused by the line of reasoning here, supporting why I did not vote for the 50 inch limit on certain bodys of waters in Vilas and Oneida counties.
Is the logic that what is good for Butternut Lake is good for Minocqua, Rhinelander Chain, Willow Flowage, Rainbow Flowage, Big St. Germain, Big Sand, Long Lake, Manitowish Chain, Plum Lake, Presque Isle, Star Lake, Crab Lake, Kentuck Lake, Papoose Lake and Trout Lakes?
If there are so many small muskies in Butternut Lake, your are assuming the problem to be raising the size limit to 50 inches when it's already at 34 inches?
That the same problem of too many small muskies in these other waters just mentioned will be the result of raising the size limit to 50 inches from the already established limit of 34 inches?
I just don't see the logic of that argument. Perhaps, Butternut has an overstocking supply problem... I can't say unless I access the stocking history but blaming something which hasn't been in effect for the current situation isn't BELIEVABLE reasoning to me. Are you saying the oversupply problem in Butternut Lake is due to Natural Reproduction and CPR?
Please explain to me the oversupply problem and how a 50 inch size limit is the reason why?
Also, Jim Lealos of Price County knows more about the above mentioned lakes than Steve Gilbert of Vilas/Oneida County? Explain that one to me...
How does Jim Lealos of Price County know anything about the waters of Vilas and Oneida countys... Again, explain this to me????
I mean, I am really confused here.
Anybody?
Edited by ddfenner 4/21/2003 3:40 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | So is the decline in the size of the musky related to the increase of number or fish? Or is the decline in size due to the stocking of inferior strain fish? I think there's more than meets the eyes when talking about trophy fisheries. Can't make a generalization to what you think is the cause of the decline in size. If you're not willing to try some different management approaches to improve a fishery, how can you in turn expect a better fishery?
One thing I know is true is they don't get any bigger by keeping them. I believe that we all shouldn't have the elitist attitude about catch and release. But no one has answered my question. What percentage of lakes were going to be affected by 50" size limit? How are the few lakes that are selected going to be the demise of quality muskie fishing in Wisconsin.
There was concern of many resorts in nothern Wisconsin when the Great Lakes spotted strain musky was being introduced into the Green Bay/Great Lakes system. The fear that people will quit traveling further north to pursue muskies. Maybe there's going to be more concern in the near future when the fishery in Green Bay is being protected by a 50" size limit. Time will tell.
catch ya later,
Krappie | |
| | |
| Shep,
I guess I must have missed it, but I think we were on the opposite sides of the fence in this vote but thank you for respecting my rite to make that decision without judgement. I agree with what you said and it sounds to me like you have done your homework.
Thanks.
Mike,
I do believe establishing catch and release lakes for all species of fish, in a givin body of water, has a better chance of succeeding then singling out one species that effectively making it a catch and release for only one species.
The lake choices must be broad of differing size and eutrophication, but before any lake can be placed for a popular vote, the local businesses and fisherman must be on board. I have not thought about it but probably I would support most of the lakes that were proposed for the 50' limits. By the way, not only in the proposal does it stress local support, but also to seek out the co-operation of tribal members to negotiate a signed agreement for the suspendtion of all tribal spearing on the chosen catch and release lakes.
I am thinking about posting the outlined proposal and gauging peoples opinions.
Thanks,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
| Ok, Round Two...
I am really confused by the line of reasoning here, supporting why I did not vote for the 50 inch limit on certain bodys of waters in Vilas and Oneida counties.
Is the logic that what is good for Butternut Lake is good for Minocqua, Rhinelander Chain, Willow Flowage, Rainbow Flowage, Big St. Germain, Big Sand, Long Lake, Manitowish Chain, Plum Lake, Presque Isle, Star Lake, Crab Lake, Kentuck Lake, Papoose Lake and Trout Lakes?
If there are so many small muskies in Butternut Lake, your are assuming the problem to be raising the size limit to 50 inches when it's already at 34 inches?
That the same problem of too many small muskies in these other waters just mentioned will be the result of raising the size limit to 50 inches from the already established limit of 34 inches?
I just don't see the logic of that argument. Perhaps, Butternut has an overstocking supply problem... I can't say unless I access the stocking history but blaming something which hasn't been in effect for the current situation isn't BELIEVABLE reasoning to me. Are you saying the oversupply problem in Butternut Lake is due to Natural Reproduction and CPR?
Please explain to me the oversupply problem and how a 50 inch size limit is the reason why?
Also, Jim Lealos of Price County knows more about the above mentioned lakes than Steve Gilbert of Vilas/Oneida County? Explain that one to me...
How does Jim Lealos of Price County know anything about the waters of Vilas and Oneida countys... Again, explain this to me????
I mean, I am really confused here.
Anybody?
| |
| | |
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | I checked the WDNR website and compiled the following information about the Vilas and Oneida county lakes. There's a total of 344 lakes that are classified muskie waters in Vilas and Oneida counties. There's also a note that not all waters were included as muskie waters despite having muskies in them.(so there's more than I actually counted). There's 211 classified muskie waters in Vilas County. There's 133 classified muskie waters in Oneida County. The number of proposed lakes for the increase in the 50" size limit was 38 lakes. If you figure the total percentage of lakes affected by the size limit in these TWO Counties it would be 11%. You be the judge.
catch ya later,
Krappie
Edited by Krappie 4/21/2003 5:26 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Krappie,
Yes, I agree with you that the introduction of the Spotted Strain in Green Bay, AND the 50" limit may be cause for some nervousness in the north. You and I both know this is going to be a great fishery in years to come. Much easier to get that 50" limit on a new water that had no history of muskies in it prior to this introduction. Also, that 11% represents more than the % of musky anglers that showed up for the hearings.
Tom, I wouldn't exactly say we are on opposite sides. I actually didn't vote on this, for several reasons. One, I had work and family commitments which made it impossible to get to my county's hearings. Two, I did not do enough homework on these specific lakes to make an informed decision. Three, while I think that some higher limits are a good idea on some lakes, I just felt this proposal was too much, on too many lakes to have a snowball's chance of passing. Again, I feel it didn't pass because of poor turnout from across the muskie anglers of this state, not because of what was said at the hearings.
ddfenner, Isn't the limit on Butternut 40"?
On a side note. I still feel one of the reasons that we do not have the size and quantity of large fish when compared to Minnesota is the brood stock used for our stocking program. MN has specific, I'll say genetically superior, brood stock they use. WI does not. At least up until last year they did not, for barred musky. I have heard there is a lake with spotteds in it for the Winnebago Chain stocking effort.
Edited by Shep 4/21/2003 4:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | Point well taken Shep. Maybe there is some baby steps that must be taken to ensure the success of implementing the new size limits. It may also take some other lakes that have increased size limits from other counties to "pave the way" to trophy muskie management. What is unfortunate is that Vilas/Oneida counties could risk falling behind when it comes to increasing the quality of muskie fisheries. Whatever is the case, I have faith that times will change. There's a lesson learned by being too passive about certain issues that could affect us. I think that despite the failure of passing the new size limit we also gained some valuable insight.
catch ya later,
Krappie
Edited by Krappie 4/21/2003 4:52 PM
| |
| | |
| Tough to say, Shep...
There are several lakes in Wisconsin called Butternut Lake.
Ashland/Price County, Barron County, Forest County all have lakes called Butternut. I assume the WMT guy is talking about Ashalnd/Price county to support the the DNR guy, Jim Lealos of Price County.
I see no mention of a 40 inch regulation on muskys for Butternut Lake in the just concluded Wisconsin Fishing Regulations 2002-2003 regulation booklet I have at my office and my online
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/regspdf/hook03/hook03...
search of the Wisconsin Fishing Regulations 2003-2004 found no special mention of 40 inches either. Therefore, the default 34 inches would apply unless I missed something here.
In either case, voting down the 50 inch size limit proposal on Vilas and Oneida County lakes because of many small muskies in an Ashland/Price County lake called Butternut lake, irregardless of either a 34 inch or 40 inch size regulation limit, is PLAIN SENSELESS and WITHOUT LOGIC as the problem exists before the proposed 50 inch size limit change and blaming the proposed rule change as the reason DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
Also, using a Price County DNR guy to give basis to Oneida/Vilas County waters doesn't MAKE SENSE when the Oneida/Vilas County DNR guy, Steve Gilbert said IT DID MAKE SENSE...
Have we forgotten about the effects of Indian Spearing up in these counties and how that has effected the numbers of big muskies swimming around in these waters?
Couple this with the catch and keep mentality of local supporters, I am not hearing about an oversupply of small muskies being of PLAGUE concern in these waters.
Sorry, you have got to offer me a better reason that what has been presented; I'm am just not that stupid to believe in this fairy tale...
I mean, I am left not only thinking what the heck this guy was thinking when he voted, I am left thinking what the heck was he thinking when he started this thread and posted his reasons?!?#!
Edited by ddfenner 4/21/2003 5:10 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| ddfenner,
I guess I was mistaken. Just was perusing the regs the other night, and thought I had seen Butternut Lake, the one by Park Falls, was 40". Maybe I just thought so because I was fishing with Dave D and he caught a 40 there one night! LOL Guilt by association, I guess.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Originally written by Trophymuskie on 2003-04-21 3:33 PM Tom you mentioned that 99% of muskie fishermen where againts the 50 inch size limit. Can you tell us where they are? Other then a few kill guides and businesses I have not heard from a muskie fisherman that was againts the 50 inch size limits. Are you telling us that the WDNR don't have a clue as to what's best for the fisheries but you and a couple of kill guides and businesses do? I saw you type before that transport is better for muskie especialy in 80+ degree waters, I bet your with Tony on the single hook deal as well? Thank god your not in my backyard. I feel for the majority of muskie fishermen in WI, I can honestly say that I don't think I could be a muskie angler is I lived there. Man a guide's good year in WI is compared to a good week in Canada now that's never going to change. Good luck, I guess he just doesn't want to answer my couple of simple straight forward questions. ;( | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think everyone is entitled to their logic and their opinion, and can support them as they are able, and have the time to do so. This needs to stay civil so an intelligent conversation can occur. No one bashes anyone during this debate. State your case, listen to the opposing views, and state your rebuttals. The rest of the visitors here can read well, and will make up their own minds on the issue, maybe based on 'proof' one way or the other you may provide. If you have questions of a specific person, direct those in a civil manner, and make sure not to transpose other posts and other opinions to the person you are talking to. Be advised that there are many people watching this debate FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE than you might guess, and many may support or reject the next proposal based on what they read here and where ever else they might gather information. HERE IS THE VOTE. ALL THE NUMBERS FOR ALL THE BALLOTS ARE HERE. READ THIS!! http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/springhearings/results/ | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | First off let me say that I did not vote as I was torn by the choice.
I did not agree that trout needed to go from 45 to 50 at this time. I did not agree with sand lake or the Minoqua chain as these are what I call tourist lakes, lots of pressure. This kind of lake is what keeps the businesses going. The lesser pressured lakes that are cisco based I would love to see 50 on some of them. The point you are all missing is we are not canada or Minnesota and have different objectives to be considered and and a different fishery.
Tom is right about the stunted fish thing and thats one of the reasons I feel a slot limit would work better. I know we all hate to kill or see a muskie killed but to produce a trophy lake in wisconsin on some waters it may have to be. The other choice to net and remove is another expense for the d.n.r. and they say they are short funds now.
I would love to see a 50 inch limit on just a few lakes and a slot on some and see what happens in 5 or 10 years. I am sure those that were on the com. for this will try again and come up with a better plan. They are a pretty good bunch of guys and worked hard on this. I thank them for that effort. Lets just wait and see what happens. We now have a musky angler at the helm and he hears us.
Don Pfeiffer
| |
| | |
Posts: 1023
Location: Lafayette, IN | OK, here's an outsider stepping in...... Even though I'm essentially a "musky virgin" (only 3 to date) and to discredit me further I fish in IN, I'd like to "weigh in". My 1st observation is this; What have the bass people done to enhance their CPR ethic? Raise the size limit or spend their time educating people on why CPR is a good practice? Certainly, specialized management should take place on certain bodies of water. This is only reasonable due to fishing pressure and forage base studies on specific lakes. If the general population senses a broad change being pushed through by the "musky elitists" (as they were refered to a few posts back) then you can bet they'll look at us like we look at the tree huggers trying to save the spotted owl! Second; Indiana has had an incredibly aggressive musky stocking program for several years in a handful of lakes. It has been largely successful due to the strain they chose. People I've talked to have understood the CPR ethic more clearly when the emotional arguments are avoided and the facts are reasonably presented. Some of the best facts I share are the mortality rate of musky fingerlings due to spawning times (as compared to other species) and the percentage of mortality even on CPR fish. Musky Hunter published a compelling article months back regarding this. Maybe my view is too shortsighted but I think that a scaled back approach to your dilema in WI will produce more favorable results and even win a few hearts and minds of those who can legally spear. We have seen in IN that partnership with local property owners, local fishing clubs, and the DNR and FWS have netted a great opportunity for this "IN musky virgin" to possibly land his dream fish in his home state. Wouldn't that be a hoot? I wish you the best in your pursuit of improved fishing in your beautiful state! | |
| | |
Posts: 20244
Location: oswego, il | Butternut was not considered for a 50" limit, not sure why it even needs to be brought up. It has never to my knowledge been in the same classification of lakes as the ones proposed for the 50" limit. The fishing could stand to improve. Again, canada tightened it's regs and the walleye guys screamed. Lots of non-musky water up there and the walleye based resorts still are packed with tourists. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| I am somewhat confused by the timing of this so called letter. If these were ideas you truly supported(for the entire musky fishery and the good thereof), why did you wait until AFTER the vote to send this letter? The way I interpret the chain of events is that you wrote the letter after getting tossed on the grill for voting against the 50" size limit. It appears to be in your best economic interest NOT to have a 50" size limit on these lakes since 2 of 13 already makes more that a 10% impact(around 16% I estimate), and also impacts the larger lakes where you could conceivably hold a larger, more profitable to you, tournament. If I was in the Musky tournament business I would vote the same way. Is it possible you are cloaking self interest in what you describe as concern for the fishery?
Many here bring up MN and Canada as places unlike WI. I have often argued with Mr. Pfeiffer about his support of the 34" size limit and his struggles to maintain it throughout the state. One of the frequent arguments I hear against bigger size limits is that our waters are "different", "smaller", our strain is "different", "smaller", and those are indeed true in some respects, but we do have waters, and many of them, capable of producing some real hogs. You keep repeating the same arguments against higher size limits without really analyzing what you are saying. Here is the one that most particularly grates on my nerves, "there are too many muskies in this lake and that makes them, skinnier, grow slower, die younger, etc., and thus we will never get a trophy out of this lake unless we kill some fish", thus implying that removing fish will make this a "better" lake, filled with "big" fish, absent before we took out the too numerous smaller fish. Mr. McInnis seems to be fully in agreement with that logic also. My counter question is this, since the ecological and survival factors going into having a extremely high density musky population are rare, and those lakes with this type population are also rare, why not just enjoy these lakes for what they are, great action lakes?
Your centering example of Butternut as, I guess, a good reason to vote against a 50" inch size limit, is somewhat hard to understand. Butternut is a fairly shallow, dark, warmwater lake with extensive shoreline weedlines and primarily warmwater forage types. Usually this is not the formula for really big fish to start with. Add on top of this extensive stocking(historically I think either 1 per acre per year or 2 per acre alternating years, not sure what it is now)but also a lake with some natural reproduction, so yes you could get some high populations in a lake like this, but how does that relate in any way shape or form to the lakes they were promoting for the 50" size limit. Can you please explain the connection, because it is unclear to me? | |
| | |
| Hey SWORRELL,
Thank God for you. You have an endearing sense for ballance which is a virtue of leaders.
Hello Mr.Pfeiffer,
I agree with you about developing a slot limit for muskie. I have been thinking about this one for awhile so let me run this past you. Keeping the state wide legal limit at 34" but strictly release for muskies 45" and above. Now, when you purchase a Wisconsin fishing license you are asked if you are a muskie fisherman and if you want a tag to keep a muskie over 45". An individual will be alowed only one tag per year, at no cost just like sturgeon fishing, but must register their muskie if harvested. The hope here is that most muskie anglers would not utilize their tags, keeping the biggest fish to remain in the lakes and rivers to pass on their superior genes. This will eliminate the bottlenecking of smaller muskies that we are widely seeing, giving a chance for the population to thrive.
Why even give one tag you might ask? Through tournaments, I have been able to calculate that 1.8% of the muskies caught die to hooking mortality with artificial baits. If one should die over 45", instead of releasing a dead fish back in the water or on shore and bearing a feeling of gilt for wasting the resourse, a person can use their tag taking it home to eat or better yet transforming it into art by having a taxidermist work their magic. Also, we don't want to deny the relatively few that want to keep that one fish of a lifetime.
The great thing about the tag is the information that would be gathered over the years. I bet over the years what we will see with the implementation of such a slot limit is the weights of the muskies going up and the lengths increasing. Of course we then could be able to say if its working or not instead of guessing.
Thanks and have a good one,
Tom McInnis
| |
| | |
| FIRSTSIXFEET,
Just to let you know that I have been for a catch and release fishery for some time. For several months when anyone would bring up the 50" proposal, I would bring to their atention that I for catch and release lakes instead. It seams to me that because everyone is looking perhaps for alternatives, there is no better time than now for the proposal.
The reason we started up the WMT is because we were tired of tournaments paying back 60%, 70% and some even a lot less. Believe me when I tell you, I would rather be fishing the WMT then help running it. The good people who fish the WMT recognize our dedication to the sport and our sacrifices and are very appreciative and that makes it all worth while. Rite now my attempts to make a sport (that I have loved since I was a kid) better, is now just an expensive hobby for me.
Butternut Lake has a storied history of producing big fish. Louie Spray caught his first muskie over 40# on Butternut. In 1974 I saw a muskie there that probably tipped the scales of 70# or better. During about a four year others had spotted the giant and in 1976 it was reported to have broke through the WDNR nets and those guys thought they were looking at a world record to. Due to over an over population of muskies, Butternut has changed from a lake where big fished roamed and where 40" plus muskies being the rule not the exception, to a lake of numbers and overall smaller fish. Is there still some big fish in Butternut? Yes there is but not as many. I mentioned Butternut because for me the very idea of having too many muskies in a body of water was a revelation. It caused me to further study into something I was apperently ignorant about.
Thanks
Tom | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I re-read some of the American Fisheries Society Special Publication 15 tonight, as I remembered some of this debate from the LaCrosse Symposium and a Northern Wisconsin study. From 'Factors Affecting Population Quality' it says, paraphrased: Two parameters were used to define quality--density of legal sized muskies and an index of the size structure at the beginning of a season. The greatest adult densities occured in the more shallow, dark water lakes, with stocking being a contributing factor, as was higher angler exploitation. The best quality was found in deeper, clear lakes, with lower angler exploitation as a factor, plus competition from Northern Pike. Concern toward biological characteristics producing a 'Female muskellunge fishery' asked that this system type's characteristics be carefully examined due to slower growth and higher mortality of males if a higher size limit was imposed. Both populations related to sechhi disk, mean depth, and growth coefficient of males. Bottom lining it: 'The definition of a trophy is largely sociological.' (That's for sure. Why did 'trophy' become 50"? Why not 48"? Or 53"?) 'The great variabliity in population characteristics, especially growth rates in Wisconsin Lakes suggests that optimum growth potential could be reached by managing each lake in accordance with it's specific conditions, rather than by uniform management goals and regulations. Mangers are also encouraged to obtain a better biological definition of the term 'trophy management' (if that is the program goal) prior to setting individual lake restrictions.' That, everyone, was written in 1984. The statewide limit was 30". There were fewer muskie lakes at the time, and less care to managing the fish as a trophy. Release rates were 32%, considered really good at the time. Catch rates at the time averaged 0.038 fish per hour. Now the statewide limit is 34", with several lakes and systems at between 40" and 50". there is much to be learned from future management of some of the more promising waters as 'trophy fisheries', if indeed we can agree what a trophy might be, and what use/application for sportfishing on those waters might apply. The DNR is preparing a series of fact sheets regarding this issue, which I hope to bring to you in the form of a link to the documents very soon. The offices in Madison are eager to continue informing the public to the goals and impacts of this program. I think if we collectively take a deep breath and let this process work we will all find a way to get our overall goals met towards a quality trophy waters management program in the state. The muskie world needs another International Symposium. It was expensive back then. REALLY expensive. I know, the company I worked for was a sponsor. It will be extremely expensive today, but should be considered. The people who spend their day every day looking out for the fisheries in this state should be listened to as should those from Canada and the other states that have good quality muskie fisheries. Anyone out there willing to kick in a half million to get this done? | |
| | |
Posts: 109
| Wow.. pretty hot topic here.
From a completely outsider point of view. I think I would oppose the 50" limit as well. You would end up with some hog musky, some may even hit 50" and then you'd have a tun of smaller stunted fish. Fish stunting happens for a few reasons, one is insufficient food, another is lack of territory. If the musky become overcrowded due to the raise in size they may end up stunted due to both of those reasons. Another problem would be an inbalance of the food chain. You would have all of these musky who could not be removed from the water, yet all the bluegill/bass/perch/pike/whatever that could be. Eventually you may run into issues because the other gamefish in the water are simply overfished and over preyed upon.
In order to find the best way to manage a body of water for maximum potential is to simply leave it alone. That means removing 0 fish from the fishery. Allow mother nature to handle the issue for a few years and you will end up with a much better balance of the system.
I realise that there are a lot of people out there that just want to catch bigger musky tomorrow. Well, that's simply not a viable option. In order to create a balanced, thriving system while still allowing sportspeople to enjoy their hobby/career takes a lot of research and guess-and-check. From what little I have read, it sounds like the 50" size limit was simply a test to see how these lakes would handle it. Whether it would help or hinder the lake and it's gamefish. I personally think it's a bad test, but that's just my opinion.
I would have to agree with Tom here. Actually get out there, talk to business owners, don't try and shove anything down their throat, try and understand what their issues/concerns are. Find out how you can confront those issues diplomatically. Once you can get the majority on your side by addressing their concerns and helping them to understand that overall goal and no just the short-term costs then take it to a vote and prepare yourselves for even better fisheries. | |
| | |
| Seems to me a trophy musky fishery ended up with lots of small musky without having any 50 inch musky size limit in effect. How did that happen? Instead of blaming something which had nothing to do with it, why not try and figure out why Butternut Lake has lots of small muskies in it.
Seems to me that we are ending up with lots of small muskys with the 34 inch size limit already in effect.
I agree, fish stunting results from insufficient food and and oversupply of a certain specie. Reducing harvests down to 0 and letting mother nature do it's thing to even out the playing field is in line with a 50 inch limit. That would reduce the harvest next to zero.
When do we start the process of generating larger musky for tomorrow if we don't do it today. By keeping the regulations exactly the way they are, we are keeping these systems exactly the way they are.
If you listen to those opposed to these higher size limits, it's because they see lots of small musky now, with a remembrance of bigger, more plentiful muskys in times past. Again, the current regulations got you to this point.
Insanity is defined as expecting a different outcome by applying the same process (again).
This whole process should be left up to those professionals, the DNR biologists whom we trust with knowing what is right for the individual lake resources and what isn't influenced by what is right for the business.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | I guess he is out there trying to find one of the muskie fisherman from the 99% that are againts the 50 inch limits. Anytime you want to answer my questions Tom go right ahead, I'll be here. Personaly I think what has been done in the past is bad for the fisheries so why blame it on a higher size limits. I think they should do like they did here in Ontario is progress with a bigger size limit one step at a time like 36-40-44- then 50. So that way they can see wich lakes are getting better with the higher limits and only raise those and leave the others where they are. Yes it takes time but who can tell me why WI is so many years behind eveyone else. A slot would be a bad idea as it takes small fish to make big ones, if you take out to many 30-40 inchers you not only take out fish that can potentialy grow to 50 plus inches but as well as been spawners. You need to set limits that allow the fish to spawn for a certain number of years before they can be harvested and 34 inch limits don't do that. I know you guys have small lakes but we have 1000 acre shallow lakes here that support 50 inchers and they're just as healthy as the fish from the BigO. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Well Tom, let me first of all congratulate you on your sighting of a 70lb. fish. Not many, in all of muskydom, have had that opportunity. If Butternut can kick out this kind of fish on a regular basis I think they need to vote down the 50" size limit proposal in WI. Oh wait, once again I am confusing the issues. What does your sighting of a record fish have to do with the 50" size limit proposal?
If Butternut is felt to have too many fish, simply decrease or terminate the stocking in that lake, and the problem will take care of itself. If the problem continues after the stocking is stopped it may be discovered to be bad genetics and good natural reproduction are the cause. I am very much afraid that the slot limit thing is prone to tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
The only way I could see any kind of slot limit proposal for a lake being feasible is IF someone found a length slot during the rod and reel season in which you would find a disproportionate number of males, and that size would have to be in the upper 30's or low 40's. It is a simple thing to study growth in a lake through tagging, anectdotal angler evidence("gee I used to see a lot of 70 lbers. in this lake, and now all I catch are sub 30 inch fish")tend to be pretty unreliable sources of information. If fish are indeed found to be stunting or going through a bottleneck it MAY be caused by problems in the forage base, ie loss of suckers, walleyes perch, etc. at a critical size for growth to go forward, and may not relate to the musky population at all, but simply a low density of a forage in the neccessary size range. My guess is that big fish in Butternut could still go forward and reach very large sizes. Why? Because from your explanation there would be plenty of soft rayed forage for them to consume...stunted muskies... | |
| | |
| SWORRAL: An International Symposium IS in the works for 2004. You must have been too busy lately running around to shows to know what all is going on in the muskie world. Muskie's, Inc., under the guidance of Jim Bagnoli, is once again putting it together. Information has been widely publicized in MUSKIE magazine and MUSKY HUNTER magazine. Comment from Sworrall: I had heard one was in the works, but had not heard it was funded, finalized, and ready to go. There was one in the works when Steve Budnik was President , and it didn't happen because of funding. Sounds better this time, I hope. Haven't seen any press releases yet, is there one out? Running around to shows; is that a dig, or am I just reading a negative tone into this? if it is a dig, how about you working a few of those shows in the Patriot booth for me so I can sit home weekends and read Musky Hunter, OK?  | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Actually Butternut has produced some true monsters!!! A 54"er hangs on the wall of Bobs northern pines along with a few other 50+ers out of that lake. It used to produce alot more big fish than it does now(but it still pops a biggee now and then). Butternut sees alot of harvest, and a very high single hook usage(which really hurts). I feel more darker lakes should have been/should be considered for trophy management as well(far too many people think only the large clear systems can produce the biggees, when in fact many of the darker stained waters have been and do produce some of WI biggest fish each year). Also, if we consider a few more dark lakes next time(and I can name quite a few that would be perfect for higher regs), we would nearly eliminate the spearing argument from the equation, as it is not as widespread on the darker systems for obvious reason.
Food for thought.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/22/2003 8:48 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 21
| I am soooo very sick of hearing the line, "you can't compare Wisconsin with Minnesota or Ontario..." you're right, though, but for an entirely different reason. Minnesota and Ontario have progressive muskie regs, Wisconsin is having so trouble there. I think we should start comparing Wisconsin to Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky. Here we do have some similiar waters, yet, thanks to longer limits, those state's lakes produce plenty of big fish. Actually, it's the same in Iowa...
If you look at lakes where there appears to be an over-population of muskies, chances are, you will also find that they are stocked. Hmmmmm, maybe they are being over-stocked. The goal of any muskie program that has lakes with natural reproduction should be to protect the population so that stocking is not needed and the population is self sustaining.
I think this debate is showing the true colors of tournament organizers: "Gotta make my buck, then we can look at doing what might be good for the resource, but don't do anything that might make it harder for me to make a buck."
Tom Bernhardt
PS This is interesting reading, most of it has been said, but it is still encouraging to see so many that "get it." | |
| | |
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom B. I had heard about the symposium plans, but hadn't heard it was funded or finalized. We need another, for sure. I think your comment about the tournament directors is inflammatory, not constructive. A similar statement could be made by opponents of the 50" proposal that I am an elitist who cares little for the other angler's wishes in the area, and that I am willing to effectively change several lakes in the area to catch and release only for the next 8 to 10 years at the least so I MIGHT be able to catch and release a 50" muskie to pump up my ego. In fact, I had a phone caller tell me that exactly two nights ago. That is the kind of blanket statement that serves to polarize, not bring the sides closer together, assumes alot, and is a distorted view of the people who are behind both viewpoints discussed here. Have you talked to the two tournament directors to see what their feelings are? I think Tom M has stated his here, and the money doesn't seem to be the motivator according to his commentary, or did you read something I missed? For that matter, have you talked to the DNR here to see what their views, concerns, and plans to move the 50" proposal forward are? Have you discussed the proposals with those who support them, and how they feel about the overall impact, and what that impact might do for their businesses? I submit many of those who agree with this idea are doing so for the good of their future checking accounts as well. I certainly am. Have you read the report from the DNR I have linked at the top of the message board? The stocking plans and numbers are recorded there. It may surprise you to find many of the lakes with good natural reproduction in this area are on a ten year no-stocking list. Some of those have trophy potential, but were not on the list of lakes voted upon. Many of the 'heavily stocked' waters are 'action lakes' and are managed as such. Have you read the last publication from the 1984 Symposium? Many of the stocking/angling pressure/ balances of predator and prey/prey types/male muskie population and RSD factors are covered there, and support what we have seen in Wisconsin on the darker water, shallower systems managed for muskies here, AND the deeper, clearer waters identified then as supporting a higher quality fishery. In fact, the study reported in that document was held in Northern Wisconsin. Wisconsin isn't Kentucky, Illinois, or Iowa. We have far more muskie water than those states, in fact, probably more than all three put together. We have incredibly diverse muskie waters here, from the Wisconsin River and it's assorted pools, to little 100 acre dark water lakes, to Lake Michigan. The DNR needs the ability to manage each of these waters individually. The method up until quite recently was to manage all the waters as far as special restrictions applied as a Statewide program. An effort to manage them for each system's potential has started the process of change we are experiencing now and is the process we go through here. The 50" proposal was NOT voted down by tournament officials up here. There are, at the most, maybe 15 or so of those folks voting. It was rejected by the public by nearly a two to one margin, a public for the most part in my opinion who were not adequately informed about the possible impact, use issues, and future plans the DNR was presenting. This proposal surfaced late last Fall, in reality, and the necessary process to educate the public simply didn't have the time frame available. IMHO, It is narrow minded and damages the potential to ever move froward with this to focus on a small portion of the issue and fail to address the big picture. Also, just because someone might disagree with my viewpoint doesn't mean that they don't 'get it'. It may be their motivations are totally different than mine, and they see me as 'not getting it'. | |
| | |
Posts: 109
| dd, I took his post as sayng c+r for all fish on specific lakes. Not just Musky. That is what I would agree with. I would not agree with making just musky c+r as that would make the system lopsided with musky having free range and other gamefish being removed. | |
| | |
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | So does anyone agree with me that 10% of the total lakes affected by the increased size limit is a very small number of lakes? The number of lakes that wouldn't be affected is 90%. So explain to me what do you mean by too many lakes were asked to raise the size limit. Give me a number that seems more justified.
Explain to me which of the lakes that we currently have a 50" size limit is currently suffering from too many small fish. Give me numbers, not Monday morning quarterback talk. Also have any of you guys that are vocal against the size limit increase truly educated in the area of musky management? Have you ever had a class in Biology or Environmental Science? What gives you the authority to say that the state biologists are wrong?
Steve Worrall had posted a great link to a pdf that the DNR of Wisconsin has compiled of Musky Management. In that pdf there's a table that explains the number of lakes that are affected by established size limits.
There's 10 lakes that have a 28" size limit that make up 1% of the total lakes in Wisconsin.
***There's 576 lakes that have a 34" size limit that make up 73% of the total lakes in Wisconsin.
There's 196 lakes that have a 40" size limit that make up 25% of the total lakes in Wisconsin.
***There's 12 lakes that have a 45"/50" size limit that makes up 1% of the lakes in Wisconsin.
So how and the heck can you say that there's too many lakes that are affected by changing the size limits?
If it takes a musky an average of 17 - 18 years to acheive the 50" size limit. What are the odds against a musky to ever achieve this size with the current size limits?
If we have to maintain stocking fish to maintain the quality of musky fishing that we enjoy. How does the possiblity of diluting superior strain fish equal a better fishery. You're not protecting the large mature fish by having a 34" size limit. (You're actually allowing the removal of the mature fish with such a size limit). So how in turn are you going to have natural reproduction when the population is only protecting juvenile and adolescent fish? You're bottleneck is created by allowing any fish that becomes legal size(34") to be harvested. The ratio of mature fish vs the immature fish is far from perfect by having the current size limits where they are currently. Plus through low size limits you're not protecting the superior strain fish, but the opposite effect.
But my biggest question is how many lakes is too many? Especially when Wisconsin currently only has 1% of their lakes that are currently 45"/50" size limit? I'll stand off the soap box for now, but let's have a good debate here. Rebuttal my questions with intelligent and effective answers.
catch ya later,
Krappie
Edited by Krappie 4/22/2003 7:02 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 21
| Steve,
Yes, I have read all the reports, they are VERY interesting reading. The point that I was trying to make, is that the lakes that folks complain about over-populations are also on the stocking list. I have not heard anyone complain that the proposed lakes were "numbers" lakes, only that they had trophy potential. Which is the point that I was trying to make. People are complaining or worrying about a potential over-population that has not happened in any other lake that relies on natural reproduction.
While I have not talked to the Wisconsin fisheries folks, I have talked to fisheries guys from Ontario, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Kentucky. I have had several email exchanges with biologists from Wisconsin and believe that they want to do what is right for the lakes, but are handcuffed by the Conservation Congress. While I do sometimes question some biologist's thinking, I have always been satisified with the answers that I received from them. I have yet to meet a fisheries guy that has not had the best interest of any lake in mind when they work on their management plans. I would not want to be in their shoes, they get pressure from us to "do what's best for the lakes," then hear from even more people to "do what's best for the freezer."
You are right, Wisconsin does have very diverse muskie lakes, as does Minnesota, which was the point that I was trying to make. If you eliminate the 6-7 really big lakes in Minnesota, then our lakes are quite comparable with the lakes of Wisconsin, which is why comparing the 2 is quite appropriate.
All in all, I do have to admit to gaining a bit of respect for Tom McGinnis. I am sure that he knew that he would take a verbal beating for his stance and that he stood a good chance of hearing it all over again posting here and he has done a good job of explaining himself. I don't agree, but that's not a big shock.
I would also say that much of my frustration is with Muskies, Inc. members that stayed home in droves. One chapter even schedules their annual fundraiser for the same evening as the hearings (I cannot even comprehend how short-sighted that is.) A bunch of MI folks and some non MI business owners worked very hard for this and for the most part, MI folks ignored them. I could blather on and on about this, but what's the point...
I really want these management steps to take place. Why? I would LOVE to see Wisconsin be a "destination" again for muskie fishing. There are very few places left where you can go and be "immersed" in muskie culture, like you can in northern Wisconsin. For as good as the fishing is in Minnesota, there is no place with the "muskie culture" that Wisconsin has. For me, it is the one thing that Minnesota is lacking and will probably never have.
Regarding the Symposium, deposits have been paid at the host location and a sizable chunck of money has already been raised. A few have questioned the scheduling, but in order to appeal to fisheries employees, an early fall date had to be picked. Jim Bagnoli has done a heck of a job lining things up so that this symposium will be every bit as successful as the last one.
Anyways, I think, as someone else pointed out, what we have discovered is that quality fishing has a different definition, depending on who you are talking to.
Time for me to calm down.
Tom B | |
| | |
Posts: 21
| Forgot to add...
I read last year's report and this year's. Not only is it very interesting reading, but my impression is that the guys that worked on the plan are on the "cutting edge" of muskie management. Reading the report, then listening to people debate muskie fishing in Wisconsin, makes it seem like the report is referring to a different state.
For those that have not read the report, it is recommended reading.
Tom B | |
| | |
Posts: 663
| Just a quick FYI. The Headwaters M.I. chapter has approved funding to help pay for some of our local DNR guys attend the Musky Symposium. I understand that they will be sending some folks and were very receptive to the assistance. Maybe some other clubs would consider doing something similar. | |
| | |
Posts: 2089
| Worrall, You always bring up excellent points.Always fair. You are a Stallion!!!!Great Job! Steve | |
| | |
Posts: 21
| I think Iowa and Illinois have done the same. I think, not positive, but I thought the St Cloud Chapter was going to help send the Little Falls fisheries biologist.
Anyways, at the Spring Board meeting, there was lots of talk of different chapters assisting their fisheries guys. There is a lot of positive energy for this to happen.
The cool thing is that the planning committee is also trying to line up a bunch of seminars for us fishing folks. Some of the technical committee meetings will not have much of interest to the average muskie fisher folks and some of that time will be filled with "seminar" type speakers.
There should be plenty to interest professional biologists and us fisherdudes too.
Tom B | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| TomB,
Are talking about the Milwaukee Chapter? Our major fundraiser has been held on that Monday in April since it's inception. The DNR at some point in the past, moved the date, and it conflicted with our banquet. Last year, we all took a lot of heat for this. I made the decision to attend the banquet, as I felt I could see direct benefit of my efforts and donations, unlike the fiasco that is the Spring hearings. This year, our banquet was not held on the same night, so there was no conflict. So, I hope you are not accusing our MI Chapter of holding our banquet the night of the Spring Hearings.
I understand your feelings about this vote. I also understand this is a volatile topic, and for the most part, it has been civil. However, there have been a few posts from people who do not live in WI, and who do not have any knowledge of what the Spring Hearings are for. They also do not have any knowledge of the efforts put into this topic at the different clubs throughout the State. As I recall, I first heard of this size limit proposal last fall, maybe at our October Chapter meeting. The list of lakes was passed around, there was a small presentaion by our program director, and that was the last I heard it discussed until recently on the boards.
For some to say that 99% favored, or opposed, this proposal is sheer folly. Again, I say 99% of the muskie anglers didn't care enough one way or the other to even go and vote. You are frustrated by the lack of support for this by the members of MI in WI. I am a firm believer that this effort, if in favor, should have been supported, and persued, by the MI International board. They should have been discussing this at the fall meeting, and encouraged every Chapter in the State to discuss this every month, and encourage it's members to get out the vote. This didn't happen, hence the low voter turnout.
I will always have a bad feeling about the Spring Hearings, and the Conservation Congress. It is a joke. It's all politics. I wish the DNR in this state could just do it's job, and leave the politics out of it. I say, if the DNR deems it necessary for a certain lake to have a certain size limit, it should have the authority to establish this limit. I would like to see a higher statewide limit, say 38" or 40", and then allow the DNR to set lower limits on those lakes that need it, and higher limits on lakes it would manage for trophies.
Whatever happened this year, I think we should all take a deep breath, stop with the hostilities, and try to find a common ground, so that we can join TOGETHER to figure out a way to do what is best for the fishery, and the people of this State. | |
| |
|
Voting against 50" limit, what in the hey was I thinking