|
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Vote YES on April 10th! Read the press release here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.23.2006/1028/Pelican.La... | |
| | |
Posts: 2091
Location: Stevens Point, WI | This would be very positive for Pelican. Definately vote yes everyone!! | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for posting this stuff Steve and anyone who is interested please also see the fully completed FAQ I have posted pieces of it in the past, but the entire document is now up on MuskieFIRST.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.24.2006/1029/Muskie.Siz...
Also, everyone don't forget to vote YES on question 31 and 32 to protect the Winnebago and Fox River system.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 3/24/2006 1:28 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Middleton, WI | 50 inches on Pelican lake - definitely needed and a good idea! That's Question 40 - I will vote yes for sure. | |
| | |
Posts: 638
Location: Bloomington, MN | If this is passed, which I am for, what would that do to the 3 transport tournaments held on Pelican? | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Clark,
As far as I am aware of there are only two transport tourneys on Pelican. The status of tourneys on lakes with a higher size limit is as follows.
To run an immediate release tournament any minimum size can be used. As long as the angler does not take a fish into their possession, it can be measured for tournament purposes. What that means is an angler must leave the fish in the net bag in the water until the judge boat arrives. They then measure it, take pictures and release. The Kevin Worrall Memorial tournament run out of Lakeview Inn is currently using this procedure, nothing would change with a higher size limit. I know Todd Forcier of The Petenwell Musky Challenge is running an immediate release 34" minimum tournament on the Petenwell Flowage (a 45" minimum body of water), with complete blessing of the WDNR.
If tournament directors insisted on running a transport tournament, then only 50" or larger fish could be measured.
Edited by nwild 3/29/2006 8:24 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Clark,
Norm pretty much summed it up, but just for more information the following is from the FAQ I compiled. This question had input from the Oneida County Fisheries Biologist, the Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Team Chairman and the Headwaters Basin Warden Team Supervisor. This is not just my and Norm’s opinion.
>
>
“What do you say to people who say higher length limits will have a negative affect on musky tournaments?
There are two muskie tournament formats: 1. Transport tournaments, where muskies are transported to a registration station before release, and 2. Immediate release, where a judge boat is dispatched and the muskie is registered at boatside, often without even leaving the water.
Because of the stress involved with transport, a transported fish is considered by the law the same as a harvested fish: it must meet minimum length limits and is counted towards the angler’s daily bag limit.
A muskie immediately released at boatside and not transported (except to facilitate a safe release, or to avoid imminent danger) is treated much the same as a fish that is photographed and released: minimum length limits do not apply and it is not counted in the angler’s daily bag limit.
Tournaments that run with an immediate release format will see no changes.
Tournaments that run a transport format will need to change to an immediate release format to continue to register 34” fish. If tournament promoters choose to only register fish over the new size limit, they can continue with the transport format.”
>
>
What that means is the current transport tourneys would need to acquire more judges to run judge boats for their tourneys on Pelican. I talked to the Oneida County Fisheries Biologist who issues the permits for Oneida county and he said he would have no problem permitting either tourney with a judge boat format including if the Hodag Musky Challenge continued with transport format on other lakes and only had judge boats on Pelican.
Hope that helps.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Clark, what it means is no free boat ride for muskies, to me is a good thing, better for the fishery. Like the Norm and Mike stated they just need to work with the DNR and have judge boats at the event, or can use digital picture on a tournament board like Paul Hartman uses on the Minnesota Trail. There is a solution for those tournament, and people willing to help them when this changes.
Good luck
Troyz | |
| | |
| This is a joke!!! If I understand correctly, what Norm, Mike , and Troy are saying is that it would be the WMT's fault or the Hodag Muskie Challange's fault if we do not return to Pelican Lake, to host a tournament, when the size limit is voted in for the 50" increase. Can anyone else see the flaw in their reasoning??? I wil spell it out plain and simple for these three gentlemen, that if the size limit increases to 50 inches, the WMT will not return to Pelican Lake, the lake's size limit has changed, not our desire to continue to host a tournament there!! I have spoken to the folks at the Hodag, and even though I can not speak for them, it sounds like that they have several lakes already in mind that would be canidates to substitute for Pelican Lake. And I know for a fact that the WMT would love to stay at Pelican Lake and continue to host a qualifying event there, and I am sure the HMC feels the same way.
There are numerous reason that the WMT will not run a judge boat tournament on Pelican Lake but the number one reason is of safety, for the muskies and the safety for our anglers. For these two major reasons we would sacrifice one of the WMT's most popular( if not the most popular ) muskie tournament on the circuit, the Pelican Lake tournament. The WMT has the best release record of any muskie tournament or muskie tournament circuit and we are not going to jeopardise our integrity or risk the safety of our tournament anglers who have demonstrated so much trust and loyalty to the WMT.
As for the HMC, even though I can not speak for them as to what they will do when the 50" size limit is implemented, I can say as a tournament angler of the HMC I would not continue to fish it if they allow only one of the lake groups to have judge boats. This can and will be perceived by most as an unfair advantage or an unfair disadvantage and I for one will not compete in any tournament that is not consistent. I have spoken to many anglers who fish the HMC, some folks who regularly fish Pelican Lake for the HMC but most who do not and each one has told me that they too would not participate in a tournament with seperate rules for different lake groups. If they were to change Pelican Lake to a judge boat rule, then all of the lake groups must move to a judge boat format to keep me and many of my fellow HMC tournament anglers to continue to fish it.
Now that we have that out of the way I have one question...WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THE MUSKIE FISHERY ON PELICAN LAKE?????? I would really like to hear the "experts" answer this question. PELICAN LAKE HAS BEEN THE BEST PRODUCER OF BIG MUSKIES AND THE MOST MUSKIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE WMT'S 67 TOURNAMENTS. Out of the 67 tournaments that the WMT has hosted, Pelican Lake hold 4 spots in the top 15 biggest muskies ever registered in the history of the WMT. That is twice as much as any other tournament body of water that the WMT has hosted muskie tournaments. Also, we have averaged 13.2 muskies per tournament hosted at the one day Pelican Lake tournaments and that is the best average of any on day WMT event. Pelican Lake has also consistantly produced more 40" plus muskies than any other one day qualifying event for the WMT. Also, being a long time HMC angler, even though Pelican Lake was not one of the original lake groups, it has quickly caught up to the rest of the 4 other lake groups and has surpassed them for more victories and placing, the only one that might be ahead or just behind is the Moens Chain. SO AGAIN, IF PELICAN LAKE IS SO BAD, WHY DOES IT OUT-PERFORM THE OTHER LAKEs IN THESE TWO TOURNAMENTS WHEN YOU GO HEAD TO HEAD???????????????????
I only started to go to the April meetings in 2003, but I have noticed whenever a lake association has approved a measure and has an accompanying letter that is read aloud to the croud, it always passes. So...I am 100% certain that the 50" size limit on Pelican Lake will be approved.
It is a shame that because some area guides want to raise the size limit to attract more clients to their waters to expand their wallet size, that the total health of a given fishery is secondary and or totally dismissed!!!
All I have to say...IS IF IT ISN'T BOKEN, THEN WHY TRY TO FIX IT??????????????????????????????????? AND BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU ASK FOR.... YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Tom-
You ever heard of the term "Preventive Maintenance" you don't wait for things to break before you try and fix them, maybe you do. This will help protect the fishery and ensure that females will reach the age so the can spawn and natural reproduction will happen.
Plain and Simple
50" limit= Pelican Fishery getting better
WMT on Pelican=???????????
Troyz | |
| | |
Posts: 686
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | A fifty inch size limit on the Dead Sea can't be a bad thing  Thank god we can drop it off the tuesday nite schedule!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Hey Tom rejoin the tuesday nite league willya!!!!!
Edited by Muskydr 4/1/2006 7:31 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Middleton, WI | Fisheries biologists are convinced that size limit increases (in a lake with good habitat and forage) is a very,very significant factor influencing quality of the muskie fishery. Eagle Lake Ontario and some other Ontario waters have high minimums 56" in Eagle. Sophisticated fisheries modeling using quality input data derived from extensive surveys and observations bears this out. Based on the science, there is no doubt about it : increasing Pelican to a 50" minimum will have a favorable impact on the quality of that fishery, unless there is a significant and catastrophic change in the lake condition. It would not be instant, but it would certainly be a good thing over the years if you are hoping for a higher quality muskie fishery. | |
| | |
| By Reading this post there is a ton of information and Mixed emotions on this issue. I do know that a higher size limit on Pelican will help the fishery (WDNR Studies) I am seven years new to this sport and Have alot of passion for it. I saw a article in Musky Hunter that talked about hiring a guide to shrink your learning curve in this sport we all love. I have hired about 6 different guides from Northern Wi. who are all caring sportsman and WHO are more like teachers than business men. However
WHEN DICUSSING THE TOURNAMENT FISHING OPTION OPPOSSED TO JUST FISHING FOR PERSONAL ENJOYMENT I SEE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. THE GUIDES I HIRED IN THE PAST SUPPLY ALL THE GEAR, BOAT ,TACKLE,LIVE BAIT (IF THAT TIME OF YEAR), AND WANT YOU TO ENJOY THE RESOURCE AND TEACH YOU TO RESPECT IT.
AS FOR TOURNAMENT DIRCTORS THEY HAVE 150 BOATS OR SO THEY CHARGE IN EXCESS OF $200.00 PER BOAT IN A TOURNAMENT ($30,000.00) FOR 1 DAY, A GUIDE CHARGES UP TO MAYBE $300.00 PER DAY FOR A DAY ON THE WATER .
SO FOR ME THE MATH IS SIMPLE- TOURNAMENT DIECTORS PAY OUT MAYBE $15,000.00 IN THE DAY AND TAKE IN $15,000.00
BEFORE THEY DEDUCT THERE OPERATING COSTS, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT EXCEED $10,000.00 WHICH LEAVES $5,000.00
SO WHO IS TRYING TO FATTEN THEIR WALLETS.
COMPARE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR $5,000.00
GUIDE $ 300.00
I WOULD CONCEED THAT THIS IS VERY OBVIOUS WHO WANTS TO FATTEN THEIR WALLETS
THANK YOU MUSKIEFIRST FOR HAVING SUCH A GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION AS YOUR MESSAGE BOARDS AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO POST THEIR OPINIONS.
| |
| | |
| Now, I HOPE that many of you are NOT lumping ALL tournament people together. I know there are some tournament people out there that DO support the size limit. WHY you ask? Because they DO care about the resource. They DO care about making the fishing better.
Also, not ALL tournament people involved in tournaments make a ton of money off of their tournaments. You may say that those tournaments are not very successful then. Well, put it this way, not ALL tournament people are out to make money off of their tournament. So, DO NOT lump all tournament people together into one large group, you are just showing YOUR ignorance if you do that.
GET OUT AND VOTE APRIL 10TH!!!! IF YOU REALLY DO CARE ABOUT OUR FISHERY, VOTE "YES" TO THE 50" SIZE LIMIT ON PELICAN LAKE!!!! SUPPORT OTHER PEOPLE IN THEIR QUEST TO RAISE THE SIZE LIMITS AROUND THE STATE. IF YOU REALLY DO CARE ABOUT THE MUSKY FISHERY IN WISCONSIN, YOU WILL NOT STAND BY AND HOPE THAT THE VARIOUS LIMITS PASS. GET OUT AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT MAKING THE MUSKY FISHERY IN WISCONSIN THE BEST THAT IT POSSIBLY CAN BE. MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND SUPPORT THE CAUSE.
IF YOU SUPPORT THE 50" SIZE LIMIT AND OTHER LIMITS THAT WILL BE BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION IN THE FUTURE, BUT YOU DO NOT VOTE AND THESE LIMITS DO NOT PASS, GO LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND TELL YOURSELF; "I COULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE".
SUPPORT THOSE TOURNAMENTS THAT SUPPORT MAKING THE MUSKY FISHERY BETTER. THOSE TOURNAMENT PEOPLE SUPPORT THE INCREASED SIZE LIMITS. | |
| | |
| The post I made was in reference to Tournament Directors that run the tournament making money not the actual people fishing in the tournament Please re read the post so you understand correctly.
I did not mean to offend anybody that participates in a tournament that is not what the post is about , however if you don't fish to win please explain why you do it, I have heard of fun tournaments like the World Musky Hunt and the Alliance that people fish just for laughs and good times
Please let me know if you fish a tournament that costs $200.00 per boat and first place is $5,000.00 for first is it that you don't want to win or do you do it for the companionship with the other fisherman. Please let me know | |
| | |
| I know EXACTLY what you are saying, and you are STILL WRONG!!!!
Not ALL tournament directors make money to put into their pockets on the tournaments they put on; and they do not want to either. Some of the most fun and enjoyable tournaments to fish are the ones that people like this put on. I have fished some of these tournaments and will only fish these kinds of tournaments when I choose to fish in a tournament.
YOU need to do YOUR homework before lumping ALL tournament directors together!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Let me be the first to say the day that the WMT does not host a tournament on Pelican Lake because of the hard work and efforts of a few individuals to prevent the fall of a critical part of Wisconsin's musky fishing heritage is the day I quit fishing the WMT. Regardless of the friends I have made or less important the money I have made, protecting the sport we love so much is job one. ALL tournaments whether transport or judge can and should be run better for the best of the fish.
Saftey is not the issue. It is no more dangerous to run a fish in, than a judge boat to run out.
The PROBLEM with Pelican has a low density of smaller fish. YES, Pelican does produce a lot and big muskies in the WMT as I have been fortunate enough to experience but the problem is the lack of smaller fish. No stocking, little reproduction, heavy harvest and delayed mortality from sport angler AND tournaments has left a gap in the balance of the fishery. This lake may be great today but if we do not have young fish to grow up to be big fish we my as well put the Suicks that were made famous on this lake away.
I think it would be best to put some of our entry fee money towards stocking and progressive size limits and less to sponsor bonuses like boats. As someone who "puts money in MY pocket from fishing Pelican Lake" I think it is my duty to give back to it.
This will be by voting YES on April 10th. | |
| | |
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Let me be the first to say the day that the WMT does not host a tournament on Pelican Lake because of the hard work and efforts of a few individuals to prevent the fall of a critical part of Wisconsin's musky fishing heritage is the day I quit fishing the WMT. Regardless of the friends I have made or less important the money I have made, protecting the sport we love so much is job one. ALL tournaments whether transport or judge can and should be run better for the best of the fish.
Saftey is not the issue. It is no more dangerous to run a fish in, than a judge boat to run out. Unless your fishing on a flooded stump field.
The PROBLEM with Pelican has a low density of smaller fish. YES, Pelican does produce a lot and big muskies in the WMT as I have been fortunate enough to experience but the problem is the lack of smaller fish. No stocking, little reproduction, heavy harvest and delayed mortality from sport angler AND tournaments has left a gap in the balance of the fishery. This lake may be great today but if we do not have young fish to grow up to be big fish we my as well put the Suicks that were made famous on this lake away.
I think it would be best to put some of our entry fee money towards stocking and progressive size limits and less to sponsor bonuses like boats. As someone who "puts money in MY pocket from fishing Pelican Lake" I think it is my duty to give back to it.
This will be by voting YES on April 10th.
Edited by 8inchcrank 4/2/2006 9:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Vote yes. | |
| | |
| The seven board members of the Iron Man Musky Tournament Trail don't make a dime! We do it because we love the sport of tournament fishing Musky!!!! We might not be the biggest tournament trail but we are alot of fun!!!
Running a tournament series as the Wmt does costs alot of money and takes more time than most can imagine .If a guy makes some money doing it because he is supplying many people with fun and excitment I support him 100%.
The Pelican Lake issue I will not vote on due to not being educated enough to vote either way.
I wish both sides good luck!
I sound like a politician now
| |
| | |
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Rick,
I respect you as a person and an angler. We have had good talks online. There is good biological information behind this proposal. With no stocking, Pelican is not capable of over populating. Why wouldn't we want to let these fish live as long as possible to get as big as possible? The proposal is not anti-tournaments, it is anti-harvest. No tournament trail, especially the friendly Ironman is the basis of this proposal, just the best of the fish. I love the WMT on Pelican, I want to see it there for a long time. I just find the desire to improve the fishery most important. | |
| | |
| It doesn't bother me if it is 50'' or 60''. I just don't think that voting one way or another for me makes sense. I don't know enough about the lake and the issues at hand.
Based on the article I read it did not have enough evidence for me to vote either way.
No proof in the puddin'
Please understand the only reason I even chimed in was the fact that someone was making a comment that Tournaments were being run by guys that just care about there wallet. He must had not seen Toms boat (Just kidding Tom)
I really hope everyone can figure this out.
I just want to fish. I'll leave the biology to you all. | |
| | |
| Huntermd states: There are numerous reason that the WMT will not run a judge boat tournament on Pelican Lake but the number one reason is of safety, for the muskies and the safety for our anglers.
Please explain further this safety issue with judge boats. There is no way the safety of the muskie is better in a transport tourney than a judge boat tourney, especially if the fish is kept in the net in the water until the judge boad arrives. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I will be there to support this proposal in hopes that Wood is a 'yes' county.
I would rather not move the season back on the Winnebego chain, as we are already limited in the counties south of 10 to fish on. In addition I don't want to see this as a precedent set for other waters. I also am quite sure the fish have spawned at least once if not twice by southern opener, though the local biologists know much more than I and I do trust them(do that many of them run down river to spawn though?). I wish that this was a separate question, and do not agree with the DNR for placing it in the same question as the 50" limit. Catch 22, and it caugt me. I am in favor of protection, and in my opinion too much is easier to fix than not enough, so will have to vote yes and will speak in favor of it at the hearings. I just wish the questions were split up, as they have little to do with one another.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/3/2006 4:45 PM
| |
| | |
| Agreed. I was not happy to hear of that being a two way question. However I can't play both sides of the field. I said protection is job one and I'm sticking with it and voting yes on Winnebago as well. It is still a very low density fishery and I haven't heard proof on LLS muskies spawning Green Bay so I am not overly confident in Bago yet as I moderate population fishery unless supported by stocking. | |
| | |
| Once again I will state that I am 100% sure that the 50" proposal for Pelican Lake will pass. My intent for adding my post to this thread was to demonstrate the ludicrous assumption that it would some how be the WMT's fault or the HMC's fault if we do not return to Pelican Lake after the size increase is implemented. Ridiculous!!!!!!
Once again let me reiderate that the WMT's decision to move the Pelican Lake tournament to another location is based of safety...safety for the muskie and safety for the tournament anglers and I will illustrate the money aspects of the 50" proposal. First of all if the WMT was to continue to host a qualifying event on Pelican after the increase on the size limit, it would cost the WMT an extra $600 to hire 8 judges to run 4 judge boats along with Beth & I being the fifth judge boat. This extra amount would be OK because as I said earlier that the Pelican tournament is one of the if not the most popular tournament on the circuit and we always fill the event. Now if we were to substitute the Pelican tourney with another lake, knowing that historically it takes about three years to fill a new tournament to the WMT, by what we have done in the past, we can figure that in the first year we should have about 45 anglers sign up for the new lake that was Pelican's substitute. Because the WMT did not fill the tournament, we would have lost $3,300 by the move and the WMT's tournament anglers would have lost an additional $5,100 in money paid out because we wouldn't have the 75 teams that would have been fishing the Pelican event. In the second year we can predict that we would have 55 teams sign up for the substitute tourney which would still be a loss to the WMT of $3,300 and an additional loss of $2,100 that would not be paid out to the WMT's anglers because we are shy of filling the tournament to 75 teams. The total amount of money that substituting the Pelican Lake tourney with another body of water for both the WMT organization and our tournament anglers for the two year period is $13,800.00. Thats if we actually fill the substitue tournament in three years but it would of course be more if it takes longer for us to fill the tournament. So if we are all about the money...why wouldn't we stay at Pelican Lake when it will cost us so much money??? FYI...the figures used for the first and second year of the substitute tourney, $600 was subtracted right off the top for the judge boat cost on Pelican so as to compare apples to apples. The WMT prides ourself on how well we run our tournaments and the safety of the muskies and the tournament anglers are at the forefront of our decision making process. After fishing in 134 muskie tournaments and running 67 muskie tournaments I will tell you unequivocally that the best way to run a muskie tournament is the transport method. Even though the WMT has utilized the judge boat method in the past because of higher size limits on some lakes, the major problem we have with running a judge boat tournament is that Pelican Lake can become very rough when the wind starts to blow and this can result in higher muskie mortality and possible injury to the WMT tournament anglers or our judges. The WMT has worked too hard to establish ourselves as having the best release record of any muskie tournament or muskie tournament circuit and we have hundreds of hours of broadcast quality Sony SP bata film to prove it. Two years ago we had 18 muskies registered in very windy conditions where I am extremely glad we utilize the transport method and we didn't have any muskie mortality and our anglers were safe. I hate to think what might have happened if we used judge boat on that day!!! To give you an example of how bad it can get, and what the consequences could have been, by using another tournament that took place some years ago to demonstrate. I will not give you the name of the tournament or the location because it is not my intent to bad mouth this tournament as it is run well and that I would like to see it continue to prosper. The tournament was held on a big body of water, not unlike Pelican, and had heavy winds. Only one muskie was reported to have died but an angler in the tournament, who registered 2 muskies of his own, saw in the livewell of two different judge boats , two other muskies that had died and he had heard a possible of 5 muskies in total that died due to getting beat up so badly in the muskie nets. Last year, I heard that the final count of that tournament was six fish in total parrished due to the muskies getting beat up so badly in the nets while they waited for the judge boats to arrive. Fortunately, no anglers or judges were injured but perhaps this time, a huge bullet was dodged. We do not and will not put ourselves in the possition to have a repeat of this example tournament happen at Pelican. This should abundantly explain the concerns and the motives of the WMT for not hosting a judge boat tournament on Pelican Lake when we do run judge boat tournaments on other waters. This is our only motive, afterall, if all we are about is money, the substituting of Pelican Lake will be a huge exspense to our organization.
Thanks,
Tom | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I cover more than a dozen tournaments a year both Muskie and Walleye, and have never encountered fish dying in a judge boat event on Mille Lacs, Cass, or even the Kevin Worrall Memorial which was Thiel's event; 100 to 125 boats, ON Pelican, and over the years (I was involved with that event for almost 20 years) not one fish dead that I am aware of or a single injury because of the format. It's just as arguable that a ride in very rough water in a livewell lasting up to 15 minutes will stress and beat up the fish and cause delayed mortality. That is exactly why the DNR reduces a released but transported fish to possession, isn't that correct? What if the weigh in dock is in rough water? Couldn't an angler be hurt there, too? If it's too rough out there for the angler's safety, the event should be called off.
The point here isn't 'pro or anti' any format of a tournament or tournaments in general; pro or anti WMT, PMTT, Iron Man, or ANY competition or ANY tournament organization. OutdoorsFIRST supports tournament competition and actively promotes tournament angling across the US. It would be a bit difficult for me to support the Pelican Lake proposal if it WAS anti tournament in any way.
This won't stop tournaments on Pelican. I bet you the Kevin Worrall Memorial will go on with just a couple minor adjustments to the rules, just as it always has, and your event could too. They fill the KWM every year. Some years we had a waiting list of as many as 30 boats.
This is a conservation effort to maintain and protect a fragile fishery through the coming ten years of admittedly low NR and higher harvest than the lake can withstand with zero stocking and remain strong. This isn't about just the here and now, it's about the Lake's future. This effort is supported by the fisheries managers in the area, the Pelican Lake Property Owners Association, and a host of others. It isn't about you, your events, or your finances, it's about the future of Pelican Lake as we move through the beginning of a new era in Muskie management. | |
| | |
| Well said Steve. | |
| | |
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Steve
We said, I guess bottom line is Tom saying we should not vote for the 50" size limit because it will hurt their checkbook, who care about the fishery, we should worry about the financial statement of the WMT, NOT.
Troyz
| |
| | |
| Troy, are you unable to read or do you just have the inability to comprehend what you read??? I thought I made it abuntantly clear that if the WMT is all about money, then we would stay at Pelican Lake after the size increase and save over $13,000.00. Your argument is no argument at all and you have added nothing of substance to this discussion so therefore I have no desire to converse with you any further.
Steve, as I said I am 100% certain that the Pelican Lake 50" proposal will pass. In fact it will pass in all the counties of Wisconsin so I don't think you guys have anything to worry about. Again, it was not my intention when I posted here to even discuss the 50" proposal or try to convince folks not to vote for it. There were three individuals, trying to lay the foundation for future discussion, the fault for muskie tournaments leaving Pelican Lake, i.e. the WMT and HMC. I just wanted to be on record that their argument was not the case at all. Also, I have made no claims or am I even suggesting that the 50" proposal is anti-tournament. In addition Steve, you are not going to goad me in to stating the name of the tournament that had all the dead muskies due to heavy wave action and long waiting periods for the judge boats to arrive. As I stated, I do not whish to bad mouth this tournament as it is run very well and I hope it continues but there is probably a couple hundred or more anglers who know exactly what tournament I am referring to. Can it happen and will it happen again that is a most definite yes.
As I said, it was never my intent to discuss the merits of the 50" proposal but it seems to me that some folks are assuming that this is what I am doing. I will still not direct any of my criticisim of the proposed 50" increase on Pelican but I will speek in generalities. PROGRESSIVE: I am tiered of this argument that some how size increases are progressive and is the wave of the future. There is nothing progressive about size increases. They were one of the first management tools of the DNR and thankfully, many progressive thinking fisheries biologists today are abandoning the concept in favor of more effective approaches. Increased size limits are an anachronism in the high tech world fisheries management, and should be put away in a museum and only refered to in conversation under the heading of "what in the heck were we thinking about". Slot limits and modified slot limits along with creal limits in conjunction with study programs is the future. PROTECTING: Another word that is getting over used is the concept that the muskies will not survive if we do not protect them. In the history of muskie fishing and muskie management there has been a whole line of bad decisions made in the name of "protecting the muskies" that have resulted in some very bad consequences for the muskie fishery. 1. No trolling on most muskie waters...resulting in a culture of sucker fishing that has lead to the untold death of thousands of mature muskies that swallowed single hook rigs and some quick strike rigs, in an effort to "protect" the muskie. 2. The stocking of muskies in natural muskie waters to enhance and protect the muskie fishery...resulting in over 80% of the muskie waters being unable to sustain their populations naturally along with other terrible consequences. I can go on and on but I think you get my point. There has been so many things done in the past in the name of "protection" for the muskies that have resulted in terrible consequences, lets not add to that growing list.
The notion that raising the size limit on muskies is the cure all is an example of a FALACY OF OVER SIMPLIFYING. There is also the notion that muskies in any enviroment are "low density" species and thus need higher size limits and increased "protection". This however is a nother FALACY OF SIMPLICITY. Making the statement that because muskie are the top of the line preditor with low densities and therefore we can not be in risk of over population and the woes that are associated with over population are just as false. Abundance of any species is a relative term. For example, lets take a look at a 1,000 acre lake and let say that lake has caring capacity of 500,000 perch in the lake due to the fertility of the lake and the available forage and competing for that forage. Now lets say we impliment a rule that bumps that population to twice the number and now we have 1,000,000 perch. Obviously the end results will be a ecosystem out of ballance, stunting of the perch, possible mass die off of the perch, a whole slew full of very bad things can result. Now lets take that same lake of 1,000 acres and we have a population of .5 mature muskies per acre along with .5 juvenile muskies per acre for a total of 1 muskie per acre is the caring capacity of muskies on the lake. Now lets say we pass a fishing reulation that bumps the numbers of muskies on this lake to 2 muskies (adult and juvenile). Even though the number of muskies on the lake don't come any where near the number of perch on the lake the results are still the same. You just doubled the number of muskies on the lake, yes even though it is still a reletively low number, but the caring capacity can not be breached or stunting, mass die offs, disease, you name it can happen and has happen in the past in other locations on muskie waters. The carrying capacity of all species of fish is relative to that species of fish for the given environment.
I can continue and really get in to the "pit falls of size limits" but I would rather talk about some real PROGRESS THINKING MUSKIE MANAGEMENT LIKE MODIFIED SLOT LIMITS but I just don't have the time.
Have a great fishing season all,
A. Einstein
| |
| | |
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Here is my edited rewrite. While I am passionate about improving fisheries it is not in my best interest to butt heads with people I do respect.
1.) I support a 50" size limit on Pelican Lake. I think the purpose of the proposal is to maintain an already awesome fishery.
2.) I am confident that if years down the road that the population would reach a point where the balance of the fishery was off , we would rethink the current management strategy to again, maintain or improve the fishery.
3.) I DO believe that Tom McInnis and the anglers of the WMT care about the qualities of fisheries. The internet is an emotional place and at times ALL of us make poor paths in expressing ourselves.
4.) Tom's concern about fish spending too much time in nets is a valid one. I am glad that major net companies take advice from professionals like Joe Bucher and Pete Maina about how to create "fish friendly" nets.
5.) I think transport and judge boat tournaments effect fisheries by how they are executed far more than which method is used.
6.) I think if transport tournaments are to continue, there should be DNR law regulations on livewell size, operation and transport speed.
7.) I think that stable livewells, biologically treated and well oxygenated can be better for muskies than stagnent 80 degree surface temps.
8.) Perhaps the best of both worlds would be judge boat tournaments where fish remain in a running livewell of proper size until the judge boat arrives.
9.) Tom offers anglers the option to use him as a judge boat. If they do not, that is their choice.
10.) Individual lake management is the only option in maintaining and improving fisheries. It is important to realize that a 50" size limit is not a "cure all" for Wisconsin. Waters like Winnebago, Pelican, Wisconsin River, etc. Stocking is not the "cure all" option for the state either. We must take the slow process of lake by lake evaluation. When its all done, guess what? We need to go back through and see how they are doing and make needed changes.
Edited by 8inchcrank 4/4/2006 10:38 PM
Attachments
----------------
 net.JPG (35KB - 121 downloads)
suick.JPG (30KB - 105 downloads)
| |
| | |
| While I don't care for the way Tom is attacking this discussion, I do wonder why everyone thinks a size increase is utopia? Under the current rules do you know many people that are puting 45" fish on the wall or want to eat a fish that big? I would be the people that are harvesting fish under 50 don't even know what the size rule is, or care. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Anglers would know what the size limit is on Pelican, just like they know the Walleye or Bass size limits there. I suggest anyone wanting to know the whole story on Pelican ask the folks who manage that water, it's interesting material. Mike Roberts has most if not all that material, and I'm sure will provide at if requested. I won't respond to Tom as long as he continues to argue emotionally, not factually, and would ask him to watch his tone; his first sentense of his last post was pretty rude. | |
| | |
Location: Middleton, WI | These tournaments seem to generate a fair amount of revenue & sponshorship. To minimize potential harm to the fishery, would it be possible to take a couple hundred bucks (if necessary, bump up the ticket price by $1 or $2) to fund judge boats having cell phones and marine band VHF transceivers making these non-transport Pelican Lake tourney's? Might that be a fairly painless win-win solution? | |
| | |
Posts: 7115
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | The vote is today, make it if you can! | |
| | |
| Hey Tom, you know me, I know you. I will personally organize all judge boats neeeded for your Pelican Lake tournament and it won't cost you a dime.
Call me.
John Stellflue | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And Oneida, I'll volunteer, up front. I'm in as a judge boat. So is my son, Keith. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | First off I want to thank everyone who showed up and voted on the Pelican Question.
1816 Yes to 935 No State Wide
83 Yes to 29 No in Oneida County
is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
We all know that on the RIGHT lakes high size limits DO WORK! The DNR biologists agree that Pelican Lake is a proper lake for a high size limit. For proof talk to people who fish The Chip and Little St. they are already seeing improvements, and if you don't believe the WDNR, look to Ontario, where in naturaly reproducing systems they are using high minimums in an attempt to create World Record fisheries.
Again thank you and lets cross our fingers that it makes it through the natural resource board without any hitches, but as a result of the excellent turn out by musky fishermen it has the best possible chance.
Again THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There has been a lot said on this thread in the week and a half I was gone. I will respond to some of it as best I can.
Tom, the question was asked by Clark “what would that do to the 3 transport tournaments held on Pelican?”
It was answered as best as we could, my response came right from responses given to us by WDNR personnel when we asked them the same question.
This 50” proposal has nothing to do with tournaments, it has to do with making a good fishery, better! I am sorry you felt our answers where a “joke!!!”.
And I am sorry but it is your choice to stay or move to a different lake if this changes happens. But sound biological regulation changes should not be made or not made based on how many or what tourneys are using a body of water. The rule change was placed on the ballot by the Oneida County Fisheries Biologist, not Norm and myself, he saw the potential for problems on Pelican we showed him that there was local support for change and that locals would support doing something to help make Pelican Lake a better musky fishery, we even presented different options including a slot limit, which he was NOT in favor of. After seeing the lake association support, he made the decision not us to place the issue on the rule change ballot. This truly is a case of the WDNR working with us and for us to keep a popular lake healthy.
Regarding you tournaments success on Pelican Lake nobody is doubting it, or saying that the lake is in trouble, right this instant, but here are some facts.
Over 20,000 fingerling, an average of 1,549 per year, from 1985 through 1998 where stocked into Pelican to sustain the population.
In 1998 the stocking was suspended.
The musky fishermen are still seeing the effect of that high level of stocking. That is why your tournies on Pelican have such a high average size. There has been NO stocking since 1998 and people who fish pelican on a regular basis have also noticed an increase in average size with very limited under sized fish. That is what got us talking to the WDNR in the first place. Also (I am going from memory here as this info is at work), but in the last three fall shockings they have only found baby musky in one year. This is what was giving the DNR cause for concern. Is there ENOUGH natural reproduction out there to maintain the fishery in it’s current state, everything was pointing to probably not.
When I heard that there wasn’t going to be a population study done on musky until 2011 I got really worried. If there is a problem it won’t even begin to get solved until after that, Norm and I got organized and we showed the WDNR that the people on Pelican lake didn’t want to wait to find out “if” and preferred to be proactive and take steps now that would better the fishery.
What are the down sides to a 50” limit on Pelican Lake? Worst case the population density gets two high and the WDNR has to lower the limit to increase harvest or maybe institute a slot to increase harvest and maintain trophy status. Wouldn’t that be less painful than 14 years of poor recruitment resulting in an almost none existent population of musky by the year 2011. The 50” limit is also no guarantee, they still may need to supplement with stocking in the future, but we should be far better off over the next 5 years with a high limit than maintaining the status quo.
Regarding the safety issue of a transport vs. judge boat, I just don’t see it the way you do. As I believe Steve W. poinited out what do you do if you have a 20+ mph wind blowing from the north into your only registration station. How is that any better than judge boats
Remember right from the Headwaters Basin Warden Team Supervisor “A muskie immediately released at boatside and not transported (except to facilitate a safe release, or to avoid imminent danger) is treated much the same as a fish that is photographed and released: minimum length limits do not apply and it is not counted in the angler’s daily bag limit.”
The key is (except to facilitate a safe release, or to avoid imminent danger) if the boat or the fish is in any danger you can move to some place safe.
Judge boat tourneys are run every year on waters far more dangers than Pelican you did it on the Madison Chain for the WMT, are you still doing it there? The waves you get from a passing 20 to 30 foot cruiser on Manona and Wabesa are just as bad if not worse than the waves that get kicked up on Pelican by the wind, and in my limited time fishing those lakes compared to Pelican the wind has done a far better job of kicking my but than on Pelican they are big bodies of water.
Tom there is no reason for you to pull “maybe” your most popular qualifier just because of a size limit increase, if you do you are proving the Anti-Tourney crowd correct. I laughed at Pete Maina and Dick Pearson when on, I believe Musky Central, they said (I am paraphrasing) that one of the biggest problems coming up with the increase of musky tourneys would be there opposition to musky size regulations. I thought no way, but man have I been proven wrong in the last few years.
I am truly sorry, that if this rule change goes into affect it will cause some grief for a couple of tournaments that run successful events on Pelican, one I enjoy fishing every year, but solutions can be derived to the problems that will come up, and in the long run the lake will be far better off, for everyone to enjoy and maybe more people will have the opertunity to catch that fish of a life time.
Again thank you everyone for voting!!!!!!!!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| |
|
