|
|
| Hey guys,
Just got back from the Dane County meeting. Was disappointed by the response to question #57 (Is trophy management alienating our younger and/or novice sportmen?)
I got on the mic and said that the LACK of trophy management was alienating ME, and that's why I now do all of my fishing in Canada. But then a bunch of hunters said that everybody is putting too much pressure on the young kids to "shoot a buck"... "shoot a buck", and said that it makes kids feel inferior by minimizing the accomplishments of those who shoot a doe.
I responded by saying that maybe we should have 2 different questions, one that relates to FISHING, and one that relates to HUNTING. I also suggested that we should adopt the "different strokes for different folks mentality" as they do in Ontario (i.e. some lakes are designated as trophy fisheries with a 54 or 48 inch limit, and others have a 34 or 40 inch limit. That way EVERYBODY has options, both the novice and the trophy fisherman alike).
The DNR panel guy said that the intent of the question was more focused on hunting than on fishing. So the parents of the hunters again said that we're putting too much pressure on the kids to shoot a buck (and that we're becoming obsessed with size).
I was not given a chance to respond, as I had already spoken twice, so they shut down the question and put it to a vote. I suspect that a majority of people voted yes to question 57.
Also Lee Tauchen's proposal for a musky tag also met with a lot of opposition.
Didn't see a lot of faces from the local Muskies Inc. chapter. Where was everybody?
Somewhat disappointed from Madison,
"Jackpot" John Schroeder
| |
| | |
| interesting - see my response in the "Reminder!" thread.
i'm in CCMI, but live in Juneau Co so went to that meeting rather than Dane Co.
and keep in mind that #57 is advisory, AT BEST. when it comes to acting on this kind of fluff, the actual law-makers use their brains. if the votes are favoring higher limits on muskie (which they did in my county), that's a much clearer signal that "trophy management" is being asked for in that case.
Edited by lambeau 4/12/2004 10:19 PM
| |
| | |
| I see what you're saying, Lambeau, but one of the things that is so frustrating is that some of those questions are so poorly worded. One woman strongly disagreed with me because she saw it as a hunting question. So she voted yes and I voted no. So as far as the vote tally is concerned, we negated each other, and I'm sure many hunters and anglers negated each other, because nobody really knows if it was a hunting question or a fishing question. I'm not a hunter, so I have no clue as to whether a yes or no vote on that question is in the best interests of hunters.
But since half the people saw it as a hunting question, and half the people saw it as a fishing question, what valuable insights can be gained by simply counting the votes. It's very possible that the majority of anglers voted no, and the majority of hunters voted yes, so the results would be contingent on if there were more hunters or anglers in the audience. We've had at least 4 straight years of some very poorly worded questions. I'm wondering if there is some sort of a process where we can read the questions 3 or 4 weeks in advance, (i.e. a "rough draft" survey), and then have time in the interim to suggest better, clearer language. It's hard to cast an intelligent vote when you don't know what you're voting for. | |
| | |
| John,
The DNR is very clever in writing their questions when it comes to the public hearings. They can be very pursuasive in what they are looking for. Ultimatum questions can be difficult to answer. Unfortunatly they are not poorly written but the contrary. | |
| | |
Posts: 26
Location: St Cloud, MN and Madison, WI | Could you explain the tag thing Lee wants to do? Thanks Doe | |
| | |
| it's my understanding that Q57 was NOT written by the DNR.
isn't that stuff coming out of committees of the Conservation Congress? | |
| | |
| Doe,
As far as the musky tag, the way I understood it is that Lee wants to do a musky tag similar to way they used to do it in Ontario (I think Ontario has now switched to 2 different classes of licenses, a regular and conservation license, so the tag no longer applies I think).
But anyway, you purchase a tag or a sticker at the time you purchase your license. This tag is then affixed to your regular license, and allows you to keep a legal musky, provided you catch one. The funds from the sales of such tags would be specifically earmarked for musky management (stocking, etc). I don't if Lee quoted a specific dollar amount, but I would assume it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 10 dollars per tag.
Tags would be purchased at the same time you purchased your license. The major objection came from a guy who said, "Hey, I'm a walleye fisherman. What if I get lucky while walleye fishing and catch an accidental 50 inch musky? I want to mount it. But I don't want to pay for the tag in advance, because odds are I won't catch a 50 inch musky. I don't want to pay for the tag, and then end up NOT catching the musky, thereby flushing my money down the toilet".
I responded by saying that my dad has bought the musky tag (or the non-conservation license) each of the last 15 years in Canada. (Just in case he catches a 55 incher). To date, he hasn't caught that 55 incher, but he has no regrets about having forked out some extra dolllars, because he knows that he's not "flushing it down the toilet". He understands that the funds are being used to maintain and improve the quality of the Canadian fishing experience, and he's happy to play his part.
But then somebody else complained and said, "Are we going to need to buy a walleye tage then? How about a bluegill tag? Isn't my fishing license enough? When I buy a fishing license, I want to be able to keep whatever I want.... etc , etc, etc. "
So, it seemed like there were a lot of non musky anglers there last night. Or a lot of people with a "catch and kill" mentality. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I don't think it was a good day for muskies yesterday in Dane County. Because based upon what I saw on the microphone, Lee and I were the only 2 people who spoke up on behalf of improving the fishery. Everyone else wjp spoke seemed to want less regulations, lower size limits, and lower license fees. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The question was philosophical in nature, worded poorly, and begs a response to the affirmative. This isn't the stuff of future legislation.
I think the question was asked to indicate or insinuate the 'trophy mentality' in Whitetailed deer hunting was a detriment to managing a herd that is over-running the state.
Sheesh. | |
| | |
Posts: 66
Location: Wales Wi. | Question #57 was brought up by the Outdoor Heritage Committee. In Waukesha Co. I spoke up and pointed out that flat hunting license and fishing license sales were two totaly different issues and that lumping them together and blaming just one thing on the cause is absurd. I do not have the results of this vote yet or of the Muskie Stamp Resolution, but will post when I do. Howie. | |
| | |
Posts: 26
Location: St Cloud, MN and Madison, WI | The tag is a good idea IMO. There is no reason to be keeping a muskie no matter what, all you need to do is take a picture and have proper measurements. The only thing bad about that is if a "rookie" or non muskie fisherman catches a wall mounter and they dont know how to handle the fish properly. I think the tag thing will eventually boil down to the following: 1. Your basic fishing licinse will allow you to keep just non game fish. 2. You will have to buy a tag specifically to the game fish you want to keep. 3. The proceeds for each tag will go accordingly to the fish the tag is for. | |
| |
|
We got screwed on question #57