|
|
Posts: 32957
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have a question for the anglers fishing Wisconsin Waters. If a proposal came up at the CC hearings asking for a 50" limit on a lake that would definitely benefit from that change, has the backing of the DNR, and the backing of a significant number of the area residents, would you vote for it even if you never fish that water? Would you vote against it for any reason, if it was explained carefully before the vote? Just curious. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1536
Location: God's Country......USA..... Western Wisconsin | Vote for it from me. I may then fish the lake rather than some others. I have seen what catch and release with larger length limits has done on some lakes in MN. Smallies in the St. Croix River between MN and WI, total catch and release after early Sept. has made this a Smallie factory. Seems to work other places why not WI. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I'd vote for the 50". If the DNR biologists gave the OK....why not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 367
Location: Chicago | I would vote for it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I will be voting for it.....when are the CC meetings? I know the lake you speak of and would love to see it up at a 50" Limit.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8864
| I can think of no reason to vote against it provided that the lake in question meets the criteria you mentioned.
Would I vote even if I didn't fish that particular lake? YES, and here's why:
No matter how it turns out, it helps us further understand what needs to be done to produce and maintain healty ecosystems.
The results of doing the wrong thing are that you learn what should not be done and you don't do it again
The results of doing the right thing are obvious
The results of doing nothing are exactly that -- NOTHING
|
|
| |
|
| i would consider voting for it.
i'm not in favor of "blanket" 50" size limits, as i don't believe they are realistic for many WI waters.
however, if i was shown evidence that this particular water would benefit from a high limit such as that and has the ability to consistently produce fish over the limit, i would support it.
if the DNR supports it, and the local associations support it, i'm assuming they are doing so because they've seen the kind of evidence i'm talking about: that it's a good idea for both the muskies and the rest of the fish present in the system.
i'd like to hear at least a synopsis of that evidence at the CC meeting, but then i'd probably vote "yes".
in fact, if i was aware of the evidence beforehand and believed in it, i'd probably stand up at the meeting and ask others there to support it as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 145
Location: Eau Claire, WI | If I ever fished the lake or not would not affect my decision. If the area supports it I would vote in favor of the change.
If I was not to vote or vote in opposition ,I would not have a leg to stand on when asking others to support proposals in my part of the state.
Edited by FredJ 2/6/2006 1:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: mad chain | I would vote for the 50" size limit. The only issue I have with it is, we have seen it on the ballot before and the area in noth central wi voted against it, the people who benfit the most from it vote to stop it. I'm not saying every lake should have a 50" size limit but the lakes that DNR say would support it sure would be nice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1294
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | Given the above criteria-yup! |
|
| |
|
| Just being the devils advocate here,,,would that cause MORE pressure to be brought on that ONE lake,,,granted if it was a huge lake it could handle it,,,Theres an opinion that you need to have it state/ county wide or the more talented anglers will flock to these single 'trophy" waters and fish could suffer because of continued hooking stress,,Ive heard this expressed by some of our Minn DNR guys,, |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I would vote for it...Happy Hooker, there are lakes in WI with very high size limits and they don't have any more added pressure on them than others..in fact there are a couple I know of in the heart of musky country than have 10% of the pressure some of the big name lakes do.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1936
Location: Eau Claire, WI | I would vote for it based on the fact that I am most always in favor of anything that has the potential to have a positive effect on WI musky fishery.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 201
Location: Stevens Point | I would vote for it under the given circumstances. I agree that it is not appropriate for every body of water in the state. But I would vote for a 50" limit here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 201
Location: Stevens Point |
Edited by BRIANSWENSON2004 2/6/2006 3:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Absolutely YES |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1438
| I would vote for it. I am looking at the future of the sport right here in Wisconsin.
That being said, the problem is not with the people who are in the know on any given subject. I have seen this happen first hand as I'm sure others have. The CC meetings come up, everybody goes to the meeting and everyone votes on every question whether they know what they are voting for/against or not. I'll use one example. About 3 years ago, I went to CC meeting. A guy was there in support of some type of trapping change. He talked, voted for his change and then I could hear him talking to himself...going down every other fishing and hunting related question and vote against every change the DNR supported, from musky size limits to Smallmouth size/refuge changes etc, you name it. I will admit that the first couple CC meetings I went to, I voted my mind on all the issues as well. But, as I got older and wiser I changed my ways. I don't know a freakin' thing about trapping. So how could I possibly vote one way or another for the change of a sport that I know nothing about. Thank God I changed my ways years ago. Now, we have to get all others to do the same.
On the same line is the general contempt/distrust for the DNR. I have also seen voters vote against every attempt to limit or regulate any type of hunting or fishing change only because the voter thinks the DNR already has too much regulatory authority. The voters therefore don't want to allow the DNR any more authority whether or not it's good for the resource.
Scott |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2085
| rarely ever fish Wisc.... but why are many against a blanket 50" or 54" for that matter ..isn't it a catch and release resource? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | For it all the way. |
|
| |
|
| i'd vote for it on the right water ... i think some fisheries were overstocked with the same size fish that won't/can't get any bigger because there isn't any stratification and they can't grow out of the masses .... of the population and a slot kill should be put in. problem is people won't kill them to eat them so the places where some 35's should be taken won't and the wrong fish are getting harvested for the wrong reasons.
|
|
| |
|
| I'd vote yes |
|
| |
|
Posts: 17
Location: Antigo, WI | Steve, I don't know if your question is just a coincidence or not but I had mentioned to Norm in an email last night that I thought this would be a hard sell at the spring hearings. This would not be a difficult question in the minds of those on this board or any musky board but the spring hearings that I have attended have been dominated in years past by sportsman who are more concerned with bear and deer hunting regs. The average Joe who might drop a sucker in the water one or two times a year is the guy who will not support these changes. We need everyone to get out at the spring hearings to make your voice heard and try to educate those who could also provide support. You have my support, but Musky Nuts seem to make up a very small percentage of the vote at the spring hearings, atleast down hear at the Antigo hearings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | My short answer is yes I would vote for it.
The only problem I see is how are you going to establish or determine whether or not a particular lake would "definitely benefit from that change". How will this be determined? What exactly will this be based on? Who will make that determination and based on what information and from where?
Thanks
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20278
Location: oswego, il | I am for it too. I will bring this up again, since I think it is extremely important. Why is Muskies Inc and it's wisconsin chapters not involved heavily in all of this? Why is their not a MASSIVE push to get their members out to vote during the spring hearings? Chapters in the past have even scheduled meetings nd other events that day. It completely puzzles me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I think this question should be asked to other non musky people. Seems they are the ones who's majority shot it down last time the group of lakes went to the CC hearings.
I wouldn't think many who frequent M1st would vote against it. Just how many would make it a point to be there to vote for it?
I will be there with my yes vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Not surprisingly I would vote YES!!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Steve,
Under the context I believe you are talking about, I would support it 100 percent. I like others just need a little bit of education on circumstances. However, I think at this point in time I would support in on ANY lake just to see the results and learn a little bit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| Yes, I'd be very supportive. As others have noted there are a lot of "sportsmen" who attend those meetings and vote against anything that they view as restrictive. This time I will fill my car up with musky friendly folks including my wife and son to vote too. I agree with Todd, it's a shame that MI chapters can't seem to gather more than a few members to back these issues. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32957
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Gentlemen,
Now, let's talk about the 'rest of the story'. I know most here would vote for the 50" limit, based only on what I've said. The next step IS to educate the rest of the public, and do so before the hearings.
Norm, Mike, and I presented this idea to the Pelican Lake Association this July during the regular summer meeting. We presented the facts, and though there was some misunderstanding at first, a majority voted to protect the muskies in Pelican, and a majority of those votes were for the 50" limit. The DNR has supported this size limit change for Pelican Lake; I'll defer to Mike and Norm to post the details; as all the hard work was performed by them.
The issue on the table is ONE lake, a lake that can and will support the limit, and a lake that without that protection could very well be in trouble in the not too distant future. The lake sports a tremendous panfish population and a very good walleye poulation, despite high angler harvest and above average overall use. This body of water is a CLASSIC example of the fact muskies do not negatively effect panfish and walleye populations when in balance, and could serve as a model to educate the public about the relatively few other waters across our state that would support a high size limit.
I see this as an opportunity to begin the state wide educational process that was, in my very humble opinion, somewhat missing during the last attempt to change en mass mulitple lakes to a minimum of 50". I believe most of the negative vote was out of misunderstanding and fear of change. It is not our goal or desire to change all muskie waters to 50"; only those that would benefit strongly and support a trophy fishery, and only with the help and approval of the majority of local anglers and the area fisheries managers, and support of sportsmen and women across the state. I believe if a grass roots group were to take the lead in other areas, as Mike and Norm did here, we as Muskie anglers MIGHT be able to encourage protected trophy muskie waters all across the state, one at a time, with the full support of the sportsmen and women living in each area. I believe it's time we step up and help our DNR help us gain and protect trophy muskie angling opportunities in Wisconsin. This might also serve as an early statewide model to encourage interaction between the user groups and biologists and fisheries folks, ecouraging positive change by consensus.
We certainly are going to take our best cut at it. How about you? Would you educate your deer hunting buddies whom you know are going to attend the CC hearings? How about the varmint hunters, duck hunters, and turkey hunters? The special interest groups, like Chambers of Commerce and tournament promoters? Would you take a few minutes of your time and attend the CC Hearings this spring, and bring some friends to help make this not only a possibility, but a reality? If an informational piece was distributed via email, would you help get to those who matter? If so, I think Norm and Mike could use your help. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve
You said "We presented the facts, and though there was some misunderstanding at first, a majority voted to protect the muskies in Pelican, and a majority of those votes were for the 50" limit."
First let me say that I am 100% in favor of 50" size limits where appropriate.
My question is this. What information is/was being used or presented to these people and where did it come from? Can we see it?
Thanks
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | As you could probably gather from Steve's post, yes I will support this.
Pelican, has all the right ingredients to make this happen. Pelican is the largest lake in Oneida county. It is currently on the DNR's no stock list. The musky population is currently being left to self sustain. The lake has a very good biomass, consisting of suckers, bullheads, shiners and panfish. The musky is being managed as a low density predator. The lake has a great history of producing big fish. The most local population, the Lake association, is very in favor of this.
Nearly all of the arguments one could have against this proposal, are addressed in this short paragraph. If you have any questions or concerns regarding why we are doing this or how we got to this point please feel free to ask either here or via email.
[email protected]
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | If this an opportunity could we think strategically and get PETA (I know, I know don't start - just thinking out of the box) or other like minded groups to push this or other things like this through? In the end they would have the same goal as us, limiting the harvest of fish, and can bring people out in droves.
Shane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| I think the idea of approaching this a lake or two at a time is a very good concept. I noticed in 2003 that the idea of a large group of lakes was viewed as "the camels nose in the tent". However, when issues came up about specific bodies of water I heard comments like "well it's their lake let 'em do whatever the heck they want". In other words, if it's not in your own backyard the locals don't really care so much. As we know, the CC will pay more attention to the voting in the county that is directly affected. For this proposal to pass I believe a majority of the effort has to take place in Oneida with the surrounding counties as a very important but secondary priority. I think the idea of an informational publication would be excellent. It would be even more important to get coverage in the news media like TV, radio, and newspapers. People will pay a lot of attention to a 30 second interview than they will spend the time to read the facts. There are a number of you guys in the area who are well spoken and can present the issue in a non-threatening manner. I think timing is an issue too. When people have too much time to think it allows all kinds of "what if" arguments to come up. This also permits people opposed to the proposal time to marshall their own resources and use the same kind of tactics that happened in 03 against us. A media blitz the last week or so before the hearings would be great. Sorry if I sound a bit cynical but having been born and raised in Chicago I understand a little bit about politics. Don't go for a vote if you don't have the winning number! 
Edited by Pete Stoltman 2/7/2006 2:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 332
Location: Neenah, WI | I am for this all the way . I think this will make Pelican a better fishery than it is now!!!
Hook'em Hard
SAINT 1 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| I'm in favor of the 50" limit.
Whether it's the mystery lake or a well known fishery, if it has true potential for producing big muskies, let's protect them.
But several guys on this board proved last year that big fish can come from small places as well.
Let's protect them from all negative influences, not just anglers.
CPR is working because of our promoting it, now we need to keep promoting it so it becomes commonplace.
Let's protect them wherever and however we can, and let's continue to educate.
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 90
Location: Florence, Wisconsin | Yes vote for me. If it is a potential trophy fishery, why not.
Bo |
|
| |
|
Posts: 686
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | Just yesterday I was paging through a fishery report for the dead sea, yep 50 inch size limit is indeedy a good idea for this particular body of water, seems that when I parouse thru the Wisconsin Outdoor Journal paper there is always at least one big fish picture be it 50" or not that came out of the sea and shall not swim in those waters again. Good luck people and you have my vote!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | When is the vote? Where?
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok, LockJaw asked for it. What follows is the entire proposal as presented to the Pelican Lake Property Owners Association at the annual summer meeting. This is traditionally the best-attended meeting of the year and is usually the 3rd weekend in July. The proposal was put together with input from the WDNR and the final draft was reviewed by at least 5 fisheries professional before it was presented.
>
>
Pelican Lake in Oneida County has proven to be a high-quality musky fishery, with a long history of producing quality fish. The lake is located in an area that receives heavy fishing pressure, an area average of 34 angler-hours/acres/year. The last creel survey on Pelican Lake showed it to have nearly double that pressure, with 62 angler-hours/acre/year. For years Pelican Lake musky populations were sustained through natural reproduction, supplemented with stocking. (Over 20,000 fingerling, an average of 1,549 per year, from 1985 through 1998.) The supplemental stocking program was suspended in 1998, forcing the lake to rely on natural recruitment to sustain the entire population. Considering stocking has been halted, spring spearing, and the large number of anglers visiting the lake, long touted as “The Home of the Musky,” there is concern that the musky population may be adversely affected. With the WDNR’s limited budget and manpower, they will not be able to complete a musky population survey until 2011 & 2012, this is14 years after the stocking program was halted. This has the potential of creating 14 years of recruitment problems, an entire generation of musky.
With its vast forage base, Pelican Lake has the potential to produce excellent musky. The goal is to protect these fish to a larger size, allowing them more opportunity to pass on their quality genes. These fish would be protected through their most prolific spawning years. This would maintain or improve the musky fishing without negatively impacting other species, as has proven to be the case for many other lakes in northern WI, MN, and Canada. It would also improve the chances the lake will sustain a naturally reproducing population of musky. All the while giving anglers the opportunity to catch and release the fish as they grow.
To continue the storied past of Pelican Lake, we propose a resolution to protect the population of musky by one of the following options:
OPTION 1:
Increase the size limit for musky from 34 inches to 50 inches.
From survey information, the WDNR collected from all species fishermen, the majority of anglers consider a trophy musky to be 50 inches or larger. This is the most desired length, and will give the fish the best opportunity to reproduce year after year. Pelican Lake fish have proven they can reach this size and surpass it, if given the opportunity
OPTION 2:
Increase the size limit for musky from 34 inches to 45 inches.
The 45” size limit is a compromise. By setting the limit at 45” it does not protect the fish completely to the desired-survey, size. However, it does allow the fish to grow to a size that will result in an improved angling experience, while giving the fish more years to spawn.
OPTION 3:
Institute a protected slot limit for musky from 40 to 50 inches.
The slot limit is a compromise by allowing limited harvest of fish between 34 and 40 inches. Young anglers, multi-species anglers, and others, will still have the option of keeping a smaller musky. As the musky matures past the 40 inch mark, it is protected until reaching 50 inches. Giving the larger fish more opportunities to spawn while improving the overall musky fishing experience.
We have the chance to protect and improve the fishing on Pelican Lake for everyone, and local anglers, young and old, that have been surveyed are very excited about the prospect of a better, self-sustaining, musky fishery. Maintaining Pelican Lake as a class musky fishery, will have positive economic benefits for both local businesses and property owners.
The following area businesses support this proposal:
Musky Mart, Pelican Lake
Nelson’s Choice Bait and Tackle
Christian’s Pit Stop
Lake View Inn
Suick Tackle Company
Fittante Taxidermy
MuskyFirst.com (Steve Worrall)
Wild’s Musky Guide Service (Norm Wild)
Oneida Esox Guide Service(John Stellflue)
C&R Guide Service (Roger Sabota)
>
>
Our original intent was to bring this proposal to the Conservation Congress as a resolution if we got the backing of the Lake Association. But since we had worked so closely with the Oneida County Fisheries Biologist and since the proposal had such strong backing by the Lake Association he decided to take the initiative and write a rule change question for consideration by his governing committee for this years spring rule change questioner. The committee approved his proposed rule change and as a result it is on the ballot this spring. The following was the first draft of his proposed rule change, I am not sure if this is exactly how it will appear on the ballot, but it should be close to this.
>
>
Pelican Lake muskellunge regulation – Increase the minimum length limit to 50 inches on Pelican Lake, Oneida County.
Pelican Lake has a naturally-reproducing muskellunge population (no stocking since 1998) of low to moderate density with a track record of producing a few exceptional fish. However, under the current 34-inch minimum length limit, Pelican Lake is not reaching its full potential to produce quality-size muskellunge. The last creel survey (1990) found that angler effort on Pelican Lake of 62.3 hours per acre is nearly double the Oneida County average (33.7 hours per acre), with 18% of total effort directed at muskellunge. The survey estimated that 146 muskellunge were harvested. Muskellunge reproduction may be insufficient to sustain this level of harvest. A local proposal by interested muskellunge anglers and guides received a favorable reception at the July 16, 2005 annual meeting of the Pelican Lake Property Owners Association, where 78% of the 89 attendees supported a higher minimum length limit, while 18% were against and 3% indifferent. Furthermore, a 50-inch minimum length limit (57% of positive votes) was more popular with Association members than either a 45-inch minimum (24%) or 40 to 50-inch protected slot (19%).
Do you favor increasing the minimum length limit to 50 inches for muskellunge on Pelican Lake, Oneida County?
>
>
I think that’s a good start for supporting information, if anyone has any questions please feel free to post them, I will do my best to answer them.
The vote will be held April 11th wherever your county Conservation Congress meets. If there is anyway you can get to Langlade or Oneida county the vote will mean more. As they will look most closely at these two counties considering the location of Pelican Lake.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| Depending on what lake, If it is a lake that cannot handle a population of large muskies, then no. You can't pi$$ of local fisherman if they start eating all the "other" quarry, you will see dead muskies floating around with slit gills and whatnot. so if the lake has a large base of suckers, shad, cisco, bullhead, a better means of diet for muskies, I would be all for it, hell yes.
There are a lot of lakes in WI that need higher limits, but then again I know of a few that you can go there and catch 10 skis that are all 25-30. they never get any bigger, year after year. this lake needs help in other ways. There are toooooo many skis in this lake and not enough of a "good" forage base. They bite no matter what, whenever, on whatever you throw. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 148
Location: Milwaukee, WI | If it was on the CC ballot at the hearing in my county, I would consider voting in favor of the limit.
If I believed there was a valid reason to vote against it, I might vote against it.
A reason like: New anglers catching & wanting to keep their first musky is NOT a valid reason to vote against it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
Location: Wauwatosa, WI | I will vote yes
Bob Ryan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | That's a yes vote on 99% of the waters in the state. |
|
| |
Question of support...Wisconsin Anglers READ THIS PLEASE