|
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | After a club meeting last night we heard of two things musky related being discussed at the hearings.
1) Net size. Not many details were said but the guy that was talking said that if fishing for musky a 30" net would be considered illegal. Brian Swenson and I talked a bit about this saying that it probably meant hoop diameter and that 30" would be too small and a 40" would be needed. Anyone have any info on this topic?
2) Fishing Tournaments. Apparently there is a group out there called People Against Fishing Tournaments (PAFT). They are pushing to get rid of tournaments. Aparently they are proposing fees per person in all boats, fees that wouldnt be included in entry fee. Also limiting number of boats on a body of water by giving out stickers. Also putting high fees to hold a tournament in general. I'm not positive what all they want to do as some of the info we got was unclear, but if anyone else has info on these topics feel free to correct me where I am wrong or am missing info.
I for one am all for tournaments and am going to write to some of the WI Representative DNR guys and voice my opinion in favor of tournaments. I'm not too overly worried that tournaments will be banned but I dont want to see our sport ruined by a bunch of people who have no clue about fishing/ tournament fishing.
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | 1) Enforcement nightmare, won't happen.
2) All these new rules/regs because somebody in our own DNR doesn't like tournaments. I like the notion of a lot of this money going twords enforcement. They have ZERO plans on having biologists and or wardens dedicated to tournament fishing..so where that money is actually going?...who the hell knows. | |
| | |
| DNR to conduct hearings
Public allowed to discuss tournament fishing rules
By BOB RIEPENHOFF
[email protected]
Posted: Sept. 30, 2006
The Department of Natural Resources will hold a series of public hearings on a controversial proposed rules package for fishing tournaments held in Wisconsin.
Last week, meeting in Allouez, the Natural Resources Board unanimously approved holding the hearings only after eliminating one of three proposed options for paying the estimated $76,000 annual cost of the tournament program. The option would have divided the cost among organizers, participants and the state's Fish and Wildlife account, which includes proceeds of license sales and a federal tax on hunting and fishing equipment.
"They do not want the Fish and Wildlife account used for the tournament program at all," Patrick Schmalz, regulations coordinator with the DNR in Madison, said of the board members.
The remaining payment options that will be voted on at the hearings are:
• Requiring tournament organizers to pay application fees ranging from $200 to $850, based on the size of the tournament.
• Requiring tournament organizers to pay application fees ranging from $50 to $475, and tournament anglers to pay a $19 participant fee that would allow them to fish in an unlimited number of tournaments for the year.
In August, board members balked at sending the rules package to public hearings, saying they had received letters from the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and the Wisconsin Association of Lakes expressing concerns about the proposed rules.
600 bass found dead
The letters were written after more than 600 bass were found dead in the La Crosse area after a tournament was held there in July. The DNR was conducting a study of the impact of tournament fishing at that tournament.
The federation wants to know whether the public supports a statewide moratorium on bass tournaments in July and August or at least in waters where largemouth bass virus has been detected. The association's concerns include fish mortality, the potential spread of aquatic invasive species, the impact of tournaments on small lakes and the cost of regulating tournaments.
To address the concerns and stimulate discussion, the DNR included in the rules package a ban on live-release tournaments from July 1 to Aug 31. In live-release tournaments, Schmalz said, fish are held in live wells, transported to a weigh-in site, weighed and released later.
Tournaments where fish are measured and released at boat-side would not be affected by the ban, which Schmalz said was very controversial.
"They (tournament organizers and participants) are absolutely opposed to a ban on live-release tournaments in July and August," he said.
Revised package
The revised rules package also would require tournament organizers to have a plan, approved by the DNR, to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species.
The new rules package also would reduce the amount of tournament fishing activity allowed on small lakes. On lakes from 100 to 449 acres, the number of tournament boat days allowed per month - the number of boats in a tournament multiplied by the number of days of the tournament - was reduced from 100 to 50. On lakes from 450 to 999 acres, the number of boat days was reduced from 450 to 300.
Legislation passed in 2003 gave the DNR authority to regulate fishing tournaments and authorized the creation of an advisory committee to oversee the regulations. Schmalz is coordinator of the 23-member committee, which includes members of fishing clubs, tournament organizers and the Conservation Congress.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| OK, the Prposed Tournament Regulations is an ongoing issue right now! There are meetings scheduled throughout the state. There have already held two of them. I broached this subject several times in the last couple months here, and nobody seemed to give it much thought or concern.
I'm here to tell you to get to these meetings in your area! I'm not going to post anymore here, but get over to WalleyeFirst.com, and read the many htreads on the subject.
This is not a Spring Hearing thing! This is a separate set of hearings going on right now.
Where is Tom Mcginis on this? I think this affects you and the WMT tourneys the most. | |
| | |
| Hey Shep,
You are right! Everyone who fishes in Wisconsin, not only us muskie anglers, should attend the hearings and speak out in opposition to the proposed changes in permitted tournaments. And yes, it will effect the WMT to the point that we would no longer be able to opperate, but also most of the tournaments in the state, I estimate it to be between 80% to 90% of present tournaments, that would not be able to continue to run their tournaments. There is a huge misconception by the WDNR, the general public, and of anglers (both tournament and non-tournament) that tournament promoters and clubs who run tournaments make money hand over fist and the truth of the matter is just the opposite and that most tournaments are run on a shoe-string budget. Adding more cost to the opperation of tournaments will eliminate all or most of the club tournaments(also known as outings, gatherings, fundraisers, ect. because a part of the changes would be all events would have to have a permit) along with most of the independant tournaments and tournament circuits and have to pay a heavy permit cost and cost to the anglers.
What most people, including the DNR, are unaware of is the culture of tournament fishing, or the mindset of the true tournament angler. Like myself, I fish for tournaments, and the only extra fishing that I do is pre-fishing, or post-fishing for tournaments. If most of the muskie tournaments that I like to fish are forced to "close their doors", then my motivation to fish is no longer. And unfortunately for the state of Wisconsin, I am not alone. I have had in the last 2 1/2 months, been contacted by some very concerned muskie tournament anglers about the proposed tournament changes , over 150 pro's, and many are like me, that if the muskie tournaments go, so will their dollars spent on fishing license in Wisconsin. It would not be in protest, but we would just loose the reason for angling. The sampling of the pro's comments were about 9% of the WMT anglers, and if the percentage of the muskie anglers who would no longer purchase resident and non-resident Wisconsin fishing license, it would be quite substantial and if you multiplied that response to the hundreds of tournaments and hundreds of thousands of tournament anglers in Wisconsin, then we could be looking at possibly 100,000 or more present Wisconsin fishing license holders, both resident and especially non-resident, not purchasing a Wisconsin fishing licence. The consequences of such radical measures prososed by the tournament regulation changes would be higher license fees for all, to make up for the loss of revenue. In turn, a percentage of the folks who would buy a license will balk at the higher fees and the downward spiral begins, putting our fishing resources in joepardy.
It certainly is a slippery slope that this proposed tournament changes will be leading us down to. The problem is even farther reaching then I have discribed, and much more dangerous, and that is why all anglers of every species, tournament anglers and non-tournament anglers alike, should be in opposition of the proposed tournament regulations and should attend the hearing meetings.
Thanks and I will be attending the Rhinelander hearings,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Well put lambeau! I didnt know all of the detials of the proposed changes, evident in my first post, but I do agree that some of the changes proposed for tournaments are not bad changes. I usually fish at least one tournament a year and can say that if I would have to pay a one time fee for the season of 19 dollars I would be more than happy to do that. I also think it is good that we are looking to protect our resources the best we can. I agree that transporting fish in the heat of summer is not a good thing. The changes arent going to cause people to stop fishing. I love fishing for fishing, not fishing to win a prize, just being able to get out and cast is a blessing!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| The way I understand it is it will definitely cost more to run a tournament, and that transport-type tournaments will no longer be held during the warmer months, but I'm not sure any of the tournaments would be forced to shut down.
Obviously there would need to be changes to the way they would be run, and finding a location might be more challenging, but I'm not seeing where these measures wqould eliminate any tournaments. It might spread them around and space them out a lot more, but is that bad?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not anti tournament at all, but if a lot of fish are being killed (I don't believe this to be the case) than why not take measures to counter that?
I can see how it may effect the financial end -- between entry fees, limiting the number of boats, and still having to spend just as mouch to actually organize it you may wind up losing money, or being forced to raise entry fees and/or decrease payouts to break even. That doesn't sit particularly well with me. Tournaments are a business after all and a business needs to be profitable to continue.
Long winded way of saying I can see both sides I guess.
Not sure what side I'm on...
I can say without a doubt that if all tournament fishing went away for ever I wouldn't be any less motivated to go fishing. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd still be out there casting!
Edited by esoxaddict 11/8/2006 4:10 PM
| |
| | |
| Hey Lambeau,
I would like to clerify something with your first statement of turning my argument into a transport and non-transport issue. I made no comment about the transport or judge boat tournaments as it would have no outcome as to weather or not we are able to keep the WMT going. It is very expensive to run tournaments properly and with the WMT hosting 21 tournaments in 2007, judge boats for all the tournaments would be just a small drop in the "operating cost bucket". The additional cost for the WMT to pay for the 21 permits would equal over $8,000.00 which is money we just DO NOT HAVE. The added cost would be why we could not continue to go on. One would say that we could increase the cost of the entry fees to pay for the permits but we already know what would happen...for the 2006 season the WMT raised our entry fee from $295 to $300. The outcome was that a little over 26% of our 2005 tournament anglers didn't sign up for the 2006 season even though we used that extra money to raise the Championship pay-out, and the Lapp Trophy bonus, and the Grand Slam along with other increased pay-outs. If we have to raise the fees to pay for the permits, we will be loosing even higher percentage of returning tournament anglers, especially if an increase in pay-outs do not follow the increase in entry fees. In 2006 the WMT gained however in entries from the 2005 season because we were able to attract new anglers to the tour with our increased pay-outs and with current WMT anglers increasing the number of tournaments that they fished from the previous year.
My point that most tournaments would have to "close their doors" again has nothing to do with the transport issue. It is a matter of expenses! It is very expensive to run a tournament that most folks don't realize. The added cost would put an already shoe-sting budget to the brink of collapse, forcing tournament after tournament to fold. If you look over the decades of muskie tournaments in Wisconsin that has come and gone, primarily due to finances, the added extra burden of permit fees would accelerate the "mom & pop" tourneys, club outings, independent tourneys, and circuits to fold.
I started fishing tournaments in 1982 , and have fished 137 muskie tournaments since 1988 and consider myself a part of the tournament fishing culture and I am not alone. I do not question people for their motivations to fish, deer hunt, trap, throw shoes, play golf, ect. and I expect the same consideration. I think people would be very surprised to find out how many anglers fish only tournaments or pre-fish for them and would pursue other interest if fishing tournaments would be taken away. Also, nearly half of the WMT anglers are from out of state and many of those anglers who I spook with recently told me that they would not be coming to Wisconsin if fishings tournaments were no longer, prefering to fish in their own state if they continue to fish or fish other locations.
My statement about the hundreds of tournaments and hundreds of thousands of tournament anglers in Wisconsin ment all tournaments and anglers for all species.
Lambeau, I do beleive you have a right to voice your opinion and I have a right to voice mine and inform folks as a tournament organizer what the possible and very realistic consequences
of these proposed changes are. And if the additional cost would be too much for the WMT and other tournaments to bear, then as a tournament organizer I think that I have a little credibility in this matter and my experiences should be considered.
All of these proposed tournament changes are bad for fishing in Wisconsin, bad for the resource, bad for tourism in Wisconsin, ect. and should not be endorsed by anyone!!!
Thanks,
Tom McInnis
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | HUNTERMD - 11/8/2006 8:47 PM
All of these proposed tournament changes are bad for fishing in Wisconsin, bad for the resource, bad for tourism in Wisconsin, ect. and should not be endorsed by anyone!!!
Thanks,
Tom McInnis
How would these be bad for the resource? If anything it is preventing the fish from being caught and the possibility of them dying after release, less boats on a lake reduces pollution in the lake, reduces the chance of invasives getting in to the lake. Bad for tourism in WI? I highly doubt this would affect tourism. Yes fishing is a draw for tourism. But so is deer hunting. So is pleasure boating so are so many other things. I HIGHLY doubt that Wisconsin would suffer in tourism if some changes were made to tournaments.
You also state that if you had to stop having transport tournaments you would have more costs. So dont do a judge boat? Time stamped digital photography. People dont have digital cameras? Get one, they arent expensive now.
I do agree that imposing payments on people running tournaments may be a bit over board, perhaps a one time full year tournament license.
Mike
Edited by Pointerpride102 11/8/2006 9:03 PM
| |
| | |
| I would like to clerify [sic] something with your first statement of turning my argument into a transport and non-transport issue. I made no comment about the transport or judge boat tournaments as it would have no outcome as to weather [sic] or not we are able to keep the WMT going.
fair enough. i'm probably confusing the issue due to your historical opposition to raising size limits on lakes due the impact it has on your tourney structure. ie., that you have to use judge boats.
It is very expensive to run tournaments properly and with the WMT hosting 21 tournaments in 2007...21 permits would equal over $8,000.00 which is money we just DO NOT HAVE.
well, technically you do "have" it. you collect fees, you pay out money to winners. a couple hundred bucks (at most!) each tourney would hardly shut things down.
also, your estimate of over $8000 in increased fees is a worst-case scenario math-wise. there is more than one option being voted on, and it's unlikely that your 60-boat tournies would be subject to the highest fee, based on number of boats.
what you're really saying is that you don't want to give any of it back to the state that created and maintains the resource you're benefitting from.
exactly how much does it cost you to run your tournament trail in dollars that go back to the resource which you are benefitting from? i paid entry fees to the WMT this year, i'm one of the new competitors to your tour. where did my money go? did ANY of it go to stocking fish, restoring habitat, etc.? after the bills were paid, who profited?
the state does a lot of expensive work to do those things, and is basically looking for a way to recoup the costs of doing so from those who are benefitting financially from the resource.
when you start talking about real big money tournies in the bass and walleye world which are way beyond anything muskie tournies offer, the fee amounts become even less significant in contrast to the prize payouts.
I do not question people for their motivations to fish, deer hunt, trap, throw shoes, play golf, ect. and I expect the same consideration.
it's a free country: you can question my motivation, and i'll question yours. the consideration that i'll give you is that i'll question you in a respectful manner. i enjoy tournies, and i'm sure you do too. but to claim that without tournaments the sky would fall and you'd have no reason to fish is the basest form of dichotomous thinking. no disrespect intended personally, but in my opinion, that's a sad thing.
And if the additional cost would be too much for the WMT and other tournaments to bear, then as a tournament organizer I think that I have a little credibility in this matter and my experiences should be considered.
your expertise in running tournies is a fact.
tell us: is the WMT run for profit? do you profit personally from your tournament series?
i have no problem with it if you do. in fact, i think you should profit from your work.
however, it has implications about your interest in defeating these proposed fees as they would impact your pocketbook in a way that they would not impact club outings, charity fund-raisers, or "mom and pop" events. that is a fact people should know about as well.
your tournament-running expertise will gain credibility in my eyes if you can convince me that your opposition to these proposals is about fishing and not about profit.
break it down for us...you've been proudly predicting that most if not all of your events next year will have full fields.
at 60 boats paying $300 each, that's an $18,000 budget per event.
with 16 events, that's a $288,000 budget for one-day events
plus 150 boats in the four 2-day events adding $180,000.
for a total budget of $468,000 on the season from entry fees alone (before sponsors. i obviously don't know what/how much they donate, but you do have an impressive list on your website).
according to your website, you payout $14,000 for one-day events, and $30,000 for two-day events.
so your total payouts add up to $224,000 for one-day events plus $120,000 for two-day events.
this leaves you with $124,000 to run 21 events, an average of about $6000 per event! you run a good show, but every event i attended was hosted at a bar, most of which i'm sure are more than happy to host the event for the sake of the customers you bring in.
are you saying that you can effectively run your tour on $468,000 a year, but you can't do so on $460,000 per year? that's a difference of only 1.7%. if you get generous with the math and look at after-payout costs, it's $124,000 compared to $116,000 a difference of 6.4%. (again, this is worst-case scenario as the WMT events are likely too small to be subject to the highest possible fees.)
you're the tournament expert: convince me with the facts, not hyperbole.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Pointerpride102 - 11/8/2006 9:01 PM
HUNTERMD - 11/8/2006 8:47 PM
All of these proposed tournament changes are bad for fishing in Wisconsin, bad for the resource, bad for tourism in Wisconsin, ect. and should not be endorsed by anyone!!!
Thanks,
Tom McInnis
How would these be bad for the resource? If anything it is preventing the fish from being caught and the possibility of them dying after release, less boats on a lake reduces pollution in the lake, reduces the chance of invasives getting in to the lake. Bad for tourism in WI? I highly doubt this would affect tourism. Yes fishing is a draw for tourism. But so is deer hunting. So is pleasure boating so are so many other things. I HIGHLY doubt that Wisconsin would suffer in tourism if some changes were made to tournaments.
You also state that if you had to stop having transport tournaments you would have more costs. So dont do a judge boat? Time stamped digital photography. People dont have digital cameras? Get one, they arent expensive now.
I do agree that imposing payments on people running tournaments may be a bit over board, perhaps a one time full year tournament license.
Mike
1) You have any idea how many people come to Eagle River, Three Lakes, Land O Lakes, Pewaukee, Okauchee and Phelps because of the PMTT and the WMT? Tourism isn't strictly folks coming from out of state. Those two tournament trails mean big money to local economies in the way of taxes on purchases, keeping bars and restraunts in business, local bait shops etc. Tournaments do bring in big money. I personally know the owner of the Tackle Box in Land O Lakes, she loves to see the "big boats" come to town...bait, lures, tackle.
2) I don't trust half the fish stories I see here, now you'd want tournament directors and anglers to trust a pic to see who wins 10-20k?? Not going to happen. If Tom needs a judge boat for any of his tournaments within my areas and my schedule is open, I'd do it for free. I don't think I'm the only one.
3) Personally, if the majority of the wisconsin public doesn't want to foot the bill for the regulation and administration of tournys, I see no problem with that, but my question is this. Where does the segregation stop? I don't deer hunt but the money I pay for a small games license goes to helping thwart off CWD. I don't Bass fish, but my money is going twords Bass stocking. If 90+ thousand dollars is to be used by the DNR for Tournaments ONLY...I would want to see where every dime of that went, because I don't see them using that money the way its supposed to. | |
| | |
Posts: 224
Location: Madison |
3) Personally, if the majority of the wisconsin public doesn't want to foot the bill for the regulation and administration of tournys, I see no problem with that
That's the heart of it for me.
My tax dollars go towards stocking lakes. If the DNR wants to add regulations to protect the fishery from potential harm done by tournament fishing, I'm all for it.
I don't have a problem with tournaments making their money off of my tax dollars, as long as they're not harming the fishery. It's the DNR's job to make that determination, otherwise you've got the fox watching the henhouse.
-d | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | GMG,
You are dead on on a couple points, but not the imagery option using a Dun Right board and digital camera. Paul Hartman has done that successfully now for a year with no significant problems. He does have a couple judge boats out there as well, but that's just for making sure all is well on the water and getting a few additional images for promotion's sake. The images very clearly show how long the muskie is, and I cannot see a single defensible negative. Positives?
1) Immediate release after 'normal' CPR, no transport and no waiting for a judge boat.
2) No need for Judge Boats, saves the promoter money
3) Beautiful images of EVERY fish caught.
4) A 'conservation' oriented PR image for the event
And yes, the measurements hold up very well on the images, judged by the Director and one other official. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | If tournaments become self sustaining by gaining additional funds on their own, does that mean our annual fishing license fees will drop? It should.
EDIT: Steve, do you have access to any of the PH tourny pics? It'd be cool seeing how well that's done.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/9/2006 8:44 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | Hunter MD says "Hey Shep,
You are right! Everyone who fishes in Wisconsin, not only us muskie anglers, should attend the hearings and speak out in opposition to the proposed changes in permitted tournaments."
So far you have not put up any valid argument why "everyone" should oppose the regulations...from what I have read here, and don't take it personally, you are trying to get everyone on your side so your wallet isn't effected. Kind of like how you have opposed higher size limits on some lakes your tourney fishes so you don't have to run judge boats...Now again, this is just my perception but it seems you only seem to oppose things that can put a dent in your wallet...not what is truely good or right for the fishery. Like Lambeau said, how much of any tourney money goes back INTO the fishery you are using for your tournament?
If the answer is zero, then by all means..if the DNR see's a way to raise money to supplement the increased usage of the fishery caused by your and the other tournaments I would not be opposed to it. I fish a few tourneys here and there and dont think they are a bad thing but also, a little regulation would not be the sky falling....
If you wanted to cover your worst case scenario tab of $8000 so your bottom line doesn't change doesn't that calculate out to having to add about $6.50 per boat per event to cover it? So if you took it from $300 to $305 and bit the bullet on the other $1.50 you really think that would make a big percentage drop out?
Also, I think using digital camera's on a bump board is really the best way to do them...there really is no room for cheating in that scenario GMG.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Ever hear of Photo Shop? It can be done. what would stop somebody from having a laptop and PS to do some dirty work? I could easily stretch another 3-4" in a pic. Especially of a fish laying on a bump board. Now, put 20-50 grand on the line? Its like Butta. | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | GMG...you must think there was a 3rd shooter on the grassy knoll too....
Come on...laptop on board? Photoshop? we are musky fishermen not tech wizz kids...do you seriously think anyone fishing a tournament would really do that ... | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | GMG,
I'm not sure I understand your 3rd point. So you are saying, if you have to pay money to musky fish you want to see that money going back to the muskies and the muskies only?
As for tourism I dont disagree that the tournaments bring in bunches of people, but so do so many other things. The way I read Toms post was that Wisconsin would fall on hard times if tournaments were gone. To me that is simply not true. Would some bars in smaller towns lose out on a few dollars, probably but then if it is that big of a deal for them the tournament organizers should approach local business that benifit from tournaments and ask for some money to help cover the new fees.
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 367
Location: Chicago | MSKY HNR - 11/9/2006 9:00 AM
GMG...you must think there was a 3rd shooter on the grassy knoll too....
Come on...laptop on board? Photoshop? we are musky fishermen not tech wizz kids...do you seriously think anyone fishing a tournament would really do that ...
Yes, and yes to that it is possible. Probable, I would hope not. I have read about a gentleman on the board who regularly has his laptop on board in order to operate his business.
Ryan | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | A boat check in the morning would take care of any issues about an onboard computer; simply cannot have one in the boat. If someone tries to get one past the judges and gets caught, that can be a very serious attempted fraud charge. One could 'pay off' a judge boat, too if the money for first is large enough. The fear of getting caught trying to cheat is usually what keeps the not so honest, honest.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Brad
With a big payout on the line? I'm sure a lot of people would. That could be prevented in any number of ways though.
And I agree with Pointer here -- WI isn't going to lose money over this. Sure, fishing tournaments generate revenue for the local economies. But so do hundreds of other activities that are a lot more popular than tournament fishing.
What I want to know is this:
1. How is this proposal good/bad for the resource?
2. In what ways is this going to affect me as a tournament angler?
| |
| | |
| not saying nobody would ever try it..but like Steve said...just check the boats for laptops then too... problem solved....seems they are doing a good job with that format in MN ...it could work just as well for the WMT... | |
| | |
Posts: 367
Location: Chicago | Agreed. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Pointerpride102 - 11/9/2006 9:01 AM
GMG,
I'm not sure I understand your 3rd point. So you are saying, if you have to pay money to musky fish you want to see that money going back to the muskies and the muskies only?
As for tourism I dont disagree that the tournaments bring in bunches of people, but so do so many other things. The way I read Toms post was that Wisconsin would fall on hard times if tournaments were gone. To me that is simply not true. Would some bars in smaller towns lose out on a few dollars, probably but then if it is that big of a deal for them the tournament organizers should approach local business that benifit from tournaments and ask for some money to help cover the new fees.
Mike
What I'm saying is that I'm all for tourny fishing regulating itself, with its own funds and I'd want to see a full accounting of where that money went. Also. There has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what gets DNR general fun money and what doesn't. Anti tournament people say that don't want to pay for tournys...I'm saying that I don't bass fish, why should my money go to stocking bass...there has to be a line drawn before every sector of DNR fisheries is segregated. Personally, I'd say have each tourny angler buy a stamp annually and be done with it. 7000 tourny anglers in the state...make the stamp 13.00 and BOOM...90k. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| OK, I'm going to say this once. These proposed regulations are a bad deal. all around. There is not a single scientific reason to add these regulations. Not one!
First of all, tournament anglers are being singled out from recreational anglers and boaters. Not only are we going to be asked to pay more, we are also being singled out for AIS inspections, procedures. The proposed rules even require the tournament directors to have a parking plan! Permits will be limited based on the size of the water, only a certain number of tourneys on a given body of water per day/month and participants per tourney, all based on the size of the body of water. No live release tourneys in July and August.
I'm not going to get in the judge boat/transport issue here. And anybody who thinks cheating will not happen in a bumpboard take a polaroid tourney has got his head in the sand, so this is not going to be argued here. The fact remains that a bunch of traditional tournaments for all species will be eliminated. The WMT, MWS, FLW League, and Tour events, MWC, SWC, BASS, etc will either not hold their tourneys in WI in those months, or they will have to go to catch and kill tourney, or immediate release tourneys. Bumpboard/Polaroid tourneys would not cut it because of the regulations call for the tourney directors to have a plan to ensure the release happens in a certain time and procedure. This means witneessing.
As for the additional fees required? They are talking fees to cover DNR Warden time,. admin fees, additional fees to recoup the failed culling and live release test they did with the Bass tourneys. Yup, most tourneys are run for profit, and any additional fees will not come out of the tourney promotoers paockets, it will come out of yours! Just like when you taxes get raised in the near future, the consumer will end up paying the entire cost.
I've been to one of the hearings, and it makes me ill to see this happen. The driving force of this is not the DNR, but the Legislature. All over a couple dead fish and some people who maybe had to drive a little farther to find a launch that was open.
You don't think this will affect the club tourneys? Can the C&R club afford a $450 fee, to hold an outing? Milwaukee Chapter of MI will have to limit the number of entrants for the Pewaukee Classic. This is their biggest fund raiser. Cut those dollars in half, and they have half the money to support stocking, and research, and kids programs.
I wish I could have made it to the Green Bay hearing last night, but I had a family thing come up.
Any additional regulation is a bad thing! Plain and simple. It will hurt the economy, it discriminates against tourney anglers, and it is not necessary. We've held tourneys for many, many years, without these regulations, and have done just fine. No other state has anything close to these regulations.
I may not have said everything I wanted to here, but make no mistake. These regulations are going to be the beginning of the end for not only tournament fishing, but recreational fishing. You don'tthink it will get to this? Maybe not in my lifetime, but once these people get a foothold, they don't give up! | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "They are talking fees to cover DNR Warden time"
Riiight. At the Fondy meeting somebody asked if the DNR is going to allocate wardens for tourny's...."uhm, not at this time". Then where's the money going?
I'd like to know how many tourny anglers get checked by wardens...personally, it's never happened to me. Not even on Pewaukee or Okauchee lakes. | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | GMG,
I'm sorry but I disagree! I worked on one of these elite trails this year and I guarantee there isn't one guy that fished the trail that would even attempt to do anything of that caliber! If cheating is going to happen it will be on the smaller tournaments, with larger tournaments of this caliber and bigger, there is wayyyyyyyyyyyy to much at stake if they were caught! If they were caught doing such a thing they would be more than likely banned from the trail or tournament they are fishing for life, not to mention that every person there will know about the cheater, just doesn't pay to do so. The cheating factor in tournaments of this caliber is so very minimal it's not even worth the agruement!
Also, tournament anglers get checked, most get checked during prefishing so there is really no need to check license or boat inspection the day of the tournament. The local DNR respects the fact that these tournaments are bringing money to a community. But believe me, the DNR is well aware of what is going on before a tournament and after a tournament. I can recall this summer multiple times when the DNR was watching us run the take-offs and weigh-ins. They would stand right beside the guy who is bumping fish, releasing fish and etc.
Edited by Merckid 11/9/2006 9:48 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "IF" is an awfully big word. I've both fished tournaments and have been a tournament director....cheating is completely possible if photography is the only basis to judge fish by. The more money you put on the line, the bigger the chances of cheating. Look at the Clam Corp Trap Attack last year...guys filling holes with fish. I hate to break this to you kid, but in the real world, all people aren't as nice as you. Money and greed do terrible things to people. | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | GMG,
I saw this at the very elitest level you could! With payouts such as 50k+, no need to tell me about cheaters. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Of course not, nobody would think of every cheating in big time tournys....na.
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/17279/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E1D81238F935A357...
http://www.fishingworld.com/SamRayburnPavilion/newsletter/Read.tmpl...
http://www.outdoorcentral.com/mc/pr/06/02/07a3a9.asp
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/9/2006 9:56 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Let me ask you this, just how many times have you heard of guys trying to cheat in a tournament that wasn't penalized sincerely or kicked off the trail permenately?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I agree with Shep's assessment of the proposed legislation, but disagree that the digital camera/Dun Right board doesn't work, it does. Hartman's events prove that. Laptop under a shirt during a boat inspection? No, I don't think so, the judge is looking over the rig, the anglers, and can be very thorough. TJ is right, the fear of getting caught and ruining your reputation on a BET you will get enough fish caught to photoshop each day, surviving a boat inspection and no one seeing you out there messing around with a laptop....you get the point.
Another option if the money gets big enough to cause concern would be cameras supplied by a sponsor, no firewire or usb connection, and a seal over the memory card. STILL no 'puters allowed in the rig.
Notice that the REALLY big money events in fresh water fishing are not Team tournaments. Most are Pro/AM events, placing a Co-Angler with the Pro. That puts a new co-angler with the Pro every day, creating a watch dog sort of situation because the two cannot 'collude'.
GMG, the examples you posted were folks who got caught. If someone wants to cheat badly enough, they can tie fish up out there, have fish transported out to them by another non tourney boat in a back cove, ALL sorts of creative ways to cheat. They will get caught, most times. There's other tournament anglers out there too, watching.
SO the digital image format will work if enforcement of the rules is consistent and boat checks well done. | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Well said Mr. Worrall! | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| You only hear about the ones who get caught | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Merckid - 11/9/2006 9:56 AM
Let me ask you this, just how many times have you heard of guys trying to cheat in a tournament that wasn't penalized sincerely or kicked off the trail permenately?
Sometimes the rewards outweigh the risk of punishment. The question should be...How many people actually try to cheat that you don't know of?
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/9/2006 9:58 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| C'mon people. GMG is not saying that HE would cheat. But we are off subject here.
It's easy to sit back and say sure, regulation would be OK. But WHY!? WHY do we need it? Because of a perception by a very few that tourney fishing causes fish to die? Or that access might be a bit difficult somedays? Or that ONLY tourney anglers need to worry about AIS?
And they're not talking about paying Wardens for checking anglers. They are talking about wardens collecting data from tourneys, and ensuring that tourneys have the proper permits, and parking rules, organizing livewell police, etc. So they want the fees to defray the $76,000 cost for all the admin, and wardens. Exactly how much Warden presence can we get for 60% of that $76K? You couldn't even hire a part time warden for that. Then they'll find out they need to hire people just to handle these new regs, and then the fees will go up higher still.
No new reg is a good reg. But no matter how you feel on this. Get to a local hearing, and let your voice heard. For or against, because once this is done, I won't listen to you complain, if you didn't attend and speak. | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | GMG,
In these big money events such as PWT, FLW Bass, they are Pro/Am events such as Mr. Worrall said. After seeing things this summer on the trail, co-anglers ARE NOT afraid to speak up if there is anything in doubt as to when it comes to cheating! Ask Mr. Worrall, he knows exactly what I'm talking about. The Am keeps these guys flying a straight arrow like you wouldn't believe! | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | sworrall - 11/9/2006 9:56 AM
I agree with Shep's assessment of the proposed legislation, but disagree that the digital camera/Dun Right board doesn't work, it does. Hartman's events prove that. Laptop under a shirt during a boat inspection? No, I don't think so, the judge is looking over the rig, the anglers, and can be very thorough. TJ is right, the fear of getting caught and ruining your reputation on a BET you will get enough fish caught to photoshop each day, surviving a boat inspection and no one seeing you out there messing around with a laptop....you get the point.
Another option if the money gets big enough to cause concern would be cameras supplied by a sponsor, no firewire or usb connection, and a seal over the memory card. STILL no 'puters allowed in the rig.
Notice that the REALLY big money events in fresh water fishing are not Team tournaments. Most are Pro/AM events, placing a Co-Angler with the Pro. That puts a new co-angler with the Pro every day, creating a watch dog sort of situation because the two cannot 'collude'.
The WMT pays out 10-20k and doesn't have pro/am events, either does Hartman's....cheating there is completely possible because less than 10% of the anglers are fishing more than 2 events. We aren't talking the PWT or PMTT here. We're talking about Wisconsin tournaments only that would be using bump boards and cameras.
Also, how hard is it to get a USB cable or Firewire cable?? Not hard at all. With the sponsor donating cameras and advertising thei participation, it'd be easy to figure out what kind of cable to get. There's a lot of things somebody could do to try to prevent cheating, but there's always going to be somebody who trys.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Merckid - 11/9/2006 10:02 AM
GMG,
In these big money events such as PWT, FLW Bass, they are Pro/Am events such as Mr. Worrall said. After seeing things this summer on the trail, co-anglers ARE NOT afraid to speak up if there is anything in doubt as to when it comes to cheating! Ask Mr. Worrall, he knows exactly what I'm talking about. The Am keeps these guys flying a straight arrow like you wouldn't believe!
For the final time....WE AREN'T TALKING PWT AND PRO BASS PRO/AM TRAILS...we're talking about WISCONSIN TEAM ONLY tournaments. To my knowledge, Hartman's is the only event using cameras. I'd like to know what they do to provide security.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/9/2006 10:07 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| TJ, A PWT PRO angler was caught cheating 2 years ago at Winneconne. Cheating has and does happen.
Again, we are off topic here.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | I know Shep, but they also paid the price for it.
But you are right, we are off the subject.
Edited by Merckid 11/9/2006 10:15 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | What's worse yet about these new regs is that they weren't proposed by the general fishing public through the CC, but by a DNR administrator who got his panties in a bunch. over tournys. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Shep,
Agreed. I am talking to Jim Kalkofen in a few and will report back on the In Fish PWT perspective. GMG, we ARE talking about FLW and PWT events, they will be effected by this too.
We don't need more legislation in my opinion. At worst we need better communication and cooperation between the regulatory agencies and the promoters. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Absolutely Steve, I think it would be great for Jim and the PWT to be at these hearings. I'm sure he has at least sent correspondence to Pat Schmalz.
As to how this all began, Tyee from the WF side of things has a better grasp, but it was basically as a result of the Bass Anglers asking for special permission to cull. This got the ball rolling, and then a leberal legislator by the name of Johnrud introduced this bill in 2003. It was AB623, and basically directed the DNR to come up with a set of regulations. Well, the DNR did, through a couple of commitees and worgroups, and in my opinion, went way overboard.
Say good bye to the Pewaukee Classic as we know it. Say goodbye to lots of small club outings, designed to raise funds for stocking, tagging, feeding, research, kids programs. Say goodbye to the big tourneys coming to our state, and bringing boat loads of dollars to our economy.
Get off your butts, attend one of these hearings, and be HEARD. Does no good to argue it here. I say it is bad news. You may disagree. I am on record. Are you? I didn't think so.
I may just try to attend the Rhinelander hearing to make up for missing the GB hearing last night. I'll be in Wausau anyway that day. I'll just need to get directions, and a beer form Steve! | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Shep, when are the hearings in Rhinelander? | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Wednesday the 15th.
Here's a link to an open letter from the FLW. Good insights here.
http://walleyeleague.flwoutdoors.com/article.cfm?id=145174
All you Illinois Tiourney anglers. There is a meeting in Sturtevent tonight. C'mon up and be heard! You guys are usually good at saying your piece! hehehe | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Thanks Shep, wasn't quite sure when it was, now everyone knows about it! | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | You must go up to the lecturn and speak in order to be counted as having a word in these hearings...raising your hand in the back of the room to ask a question doesn't count. | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Shep - 11/9/2006 10:27 AM
....Does no good to argue it here....
That's where I disagree, Shep.
Arguing about it here is (for me at least) how I get my head around what it is, what it means, whether it's good or bad, and how I feel about it.
Reading the opinions of everyone else here I've gone from being on the fence to being for the proposed legislation, to now being against it. Speaking up is of course how you get things done.
But in order for that to happen you have to first know what you are talking about, where you stand on it, and why.
Your voice will be heard much less clearly if you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
In that respect, forums like this are one of the most valuable tools we have. Get people talking, get people thinking, get people involved, and things will get done. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Good point, addict. I overlooked that. Let's argue away!
I just talked with Sonny Reynolds of the Walleye side of FLW outdoors. They have people working on this, and he said their research has estimated over $300 million dollars have been put into the WI economy, as a result of the FLW Walleye tourneys. That is just the Walleye side of just the Walleye Tourneys, since Oct of 2000. Think about that. 300 Million. That's a lot of gas, lodging, food, beer, tackle, clothing, autmotive needs, marine needs, etc. If this regulation goes through, I seriously doubt they will hold tourneys here in the future. That's a lot of money that will be spent in MI, MN, IL, SD, and ND. We won't see a penny of it. Well, maybe the gas to get started, and the fillup upon the return.
Edited by Shep 11/9/2006 11:20 AM
| |
| | |
| HEY SHEP!!!!!!!!!!
See what ya got me in to here. I didn't want to repley here. It is always funny to me how folks who never fished a transport tournament or never ran a muskie tournament are experts in the matter and know more then the folks who run tournaments or fish transport tourneys.
MSKY HNR:
Please re-read what I wrote in my previous post about the raising of entry fees $5.00 and the impact it had on our WMT anglers in 2006, even though we raised the pay-outs. The extra $5.00 had a negative effect on a very high number of WMT anglers...end of story!
Pointer Pride:
I never said "that if I had to stop having transport tournaments I would have more costs". Where did I say that??????????????? Never have I ever made that comment! The fact of the matter, that we have been aware of from the very begining back in 2001 before we ever ran a tournament, and the facts are this...if we had judge boat tournaments it would actually cost us less to run the tournament circuit because we would be able to fill all of our tournaments. The facts are: more muskie anglers have a boat suitable to fish in a judge boat tournament and fewer have big enough livewells to compete in transport tourneys, thus by shear numbers, we would have a greater chance of filling tournaments and thus costing the WMT less money to opperate the entire circuit. The reason we chose the transport method because it is the best way to run a legitimate tournament and ensure the safety of the muskies.
Also, do not think for a second that the tourist dollars created by tournaments is insignificant??
The DNR along with another Wisconsin agency researched the tourism dollars created by fishing tournaments in the state. By their numbers, the average size tourney brings in $2,000,000.00 to the state of Wisconsin, again on average, and that is not chump change! Now, multiple that number by the amount of tournaments held troughout the state, for all species of fish, and you are talking about some very serious dollars. As far as muskie tournaments go, people are always making the mistake and looking only at the tournament itself...not at those other things that attract other muskie anglers to the area, the pre-fishing and post fishing from tournament anglers, and the secondary tourism it generates. I get dozens of emails from non-WMT anglers who see all those photos on our WMT web site and by the results that they read, asking me for lodging, guides, bait shops, ect. How many more hundreds or thousands of anglers who log on to the WMT web site travel to our tournament sites to experience the fun of muskie fishing? In comparison to the WDNR tourism dollars we are concervative in our estamates that our 21 WMT circuit in 2007 will bring in over $11,000,000.00 to the state of Wisconsin. If the WDNR, Wisconsin Tourism, Chamber of Commerces and other businesses in the state feel that fishing tournaments bring in big dollars to the state of Wisconsin, why can't you??? I would think that you would be proud of the fact that us muskie tournament anglers are an economic force in Wisconsin and herold that fact!
Lambeau:
I have to correct your assumption that I apose higher size limits on lakes because it will force the WMT to use judge boats, costing us more money. For the implied "costing more money" I would like to refer you to the statement that I just made to Pointerpride102. The fact that I do not support higher size limits is that it is biologically unsound to have the top of the food chain preditor protected to the point that it is a vertual catch-and- release fishery when the food prey of the muskies is not protected. This type of measure will create a stunting of the muskies with a cause effect of an ecosystem that can not produce a fifty incher even though the genetics are present! With that being said, I am for and have presented a proposal to the WDNR to set up at least 15 lakes in the state as catch and release lakes of all species of fish. These lakes would be chosen by their size but most importantly by their eutrophication (Oligotrophic,mesotrophic,eutrophic) making for a living laboratory that the WDNR would have the opportunity to study and determine true size limits for each species of fish by the sizes of lakes and their eutrophication. This proposal to create catch and release only lakes is sound fisheries management. Because the WMT does use judge boats on occasions, when needed, should be proof to any one that my opinion on higher size limits are based on my knowledge of Wisconsin muskie research reports that I have studied and from my personal contact with some of the most knowledgeable DNR biologist that it has been my privilege to know.
LAMBEAU:
With all due respect, by your breakdown of cost and pay-outs, you have no idea of the WMT's total pay-outs and how much it cost to run a tournament. You have not included advetising, printing, postage, lodging, cell phones, gas, office equipment, up-keep on judge boat(s) that we have at every tournament, promotion cost, sport shows, ect. ect. ect. this list goes on and on and on. Personally, if you are not the PWT, FLW, Bassmasters, getting some major dollars from corporate sponsors, I don't know how you can make money running tournaments and if their is someone making "buko bucks", I would like to have a chance to pick their brain? Thats right, I spend over 4,000 hours a year running the WMT and have never been paid a dime for my time. Right now it is a labor of love with very little pay-back( the pay-back coming in meeting new freinds and those who grow into family and it has been enough for now and keeps me going) but I hope one day to have an hour TV show, like the FLW or Bassmasters, and get those big corporate bucks. It has always been my philosophy as a tournament angler myself, to have as low a entry fee as possible with as hish of a pay-out as possible. For the entire WMT, we pay-back over 90% and when you add the prizes that pay-back number is 125% to 130%. I don't beleive it is right for a tournament organizer to get rich from the tournament anglers but that is my decades of being a tournament angler myself showing itself. Until you run a tournament, I wouldn't make simplified comments on how they are run, the cost, how much a tournament organizer must be making and things of that nature.
Keeping just 10% of entry fees doesn't even come close to paying the bills to run the WMT and it is a very good thing that we do have some great sponsors, that don't have to but share our dream of making muskie fishing bigger and better, and help us keep on going.
If the new tournament changes goes in to effect, the WMT will no longer be able to opperate. The proposed tournament rules will effect the majority of fishing tournamnets in Wisconsin and that is why the Bass guys and the Walleye guys are voicing their objections very strongly!!! They see the cost involved and its demise of tournaments that they have worked so hard to create.
Thanks,
Tom McInnis
| |
| | |
| Good point, addict. I overlooked that. Let's argue away!
the real strength of MuskieFirst shows through when it's members can discuss issues without resorting to calling each other names. this issue is another good example of that: thanks guys!
FLW outdoors...research has estimated over $300 million dollars have been put into the WI economy, as a result of the FLW Walleye tourneys.
did they also mention how much profit they made in Wisconsin since Oct 2000?
what is the comparison in profit over that timeframe vs. what these fees would have been?
If this regulation goes through, I seriously doubt they will hold tourneys here in the future.
if there's money to be made, someone will be here to make it.
when they say "we won't come to WI" they want you to be afraid so that you go along with them so that they can continue as usual. how about some facts and numbers instead of fear tactics?
Tom:
i did in fact say that i don't know your exact expenses, but that on entry fees alone you've got an average of $6000 per event to pay for them. printing, location fees, etc. are you saying you won't be able to run those same events and cover those costs on $5500 per tourney??? come on...
i don't pretend to have run a tournament, but my "simplified" math all came from info published on your website. break it down for us and convince me with numbers instead of saying that i'm not qualified to have an opinion.
i believe you run your trail because you like to do so, that it's a labor of love and not a big-bucks operation. i've talked to you and that comes across in person.
but to say you've never made a dime from the WMT? that's a bold claim, and one that many people don't believe about you or your trail. you're saying this will put you out of business. i'm asking you to prove that's the case: facts instead of fear-tactic hyperbole. "show me the money", so to speak...
i'm not telling you anything, i'm asking you to prove your claims rather than simply making them and responding to questions/challenges by saying "i know better than you."
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I just got off the phone with the Executive Director of the In Fisherman Professional Walleye Trail. Mr. Kalkofen definitely feels the proposed DNR regulations, fees, and restraints are cumbersome and not necessary, and that the economic multiplier effect of the money spent in the area while a SINGLE PWT or FLW event is held in any Wisconsin Community offsets the 'costs' the proposed fees are supposed to pay. he aslo made the point that if an event is forced to be a 'kill' event, the DNR must bear the brunt of the public reaction to THAT, when under many circumstances, at least a 50% release of the ALREADY reduced tournament daily bag limit might be successfully released.
I also just received an excellent letter to Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Schmaltz from Pat Neu, Professional Walleye Tour angler from Wisconsin. He made a very good point:
"Tournament angling is part of that tourist trade whether you want to believe so or not. Nonresident tournament anglers bring millions of dollars of business to this state each year, and the residual effect from the publicity the state gets as a result of the large tournament organizations airing their television programs to a National television audience creates an even greater economic impact. You will be dealing with an exponential decrease in awareness to the angling opportunities in our state if the large tournament organizations can no longer justify coming to Wisconsin to hold their events!"
I first met Pat when I was guiding in the Boulder Junction area. He was in school, as I remember, and was working at Northern Highland Sports at the time; we met due to me picking my clients up there in the morning. He has continued his lifelong participation in the sport of fishing, and has reached the status as Pro fishing the Pro Tours.
I agree with Pat about money spent by the Tournament anglers. I am also absolutely certain that the media coverage an event receives is great for future tourism, resort trade, retail sales of gasoline, bait, lures, groceries, and much more. Every dollar generated by the resulting increase of awareness from out of state vacationers and anglers multiplies throughout the local economy, and the cost to the resource of that promotion and advertising for the area is minimal.
He also attached a PDF, attached here, of relevant documents.
Attachments
----------------
 DNR_tourn_changes.pdf (508KB - 139 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The anti's don't give a rat's rip about the money...they care about the resource. When 600 bass die and walleyes are washing up on shore for two weeks after a FLW event, people see that and don't care if Joe Schmo's Cafe make s a few extra bucks, all they worry about is how tournys are effecting their fishing.
I think it's wrong to use money as an angle to get people to deny these new rules. Education on tourny stocking and enviormental care is the best way...IMO | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Tom,
Muskies are not the top of the food chain. We are. If the muskies are not protect from ourselves some wont even come close to approaching 50 inches. Not regulating their forage bases? I hope that you are not trying to throw out that the muskies are eating all the walleyes because there are numerous studies that have shown that a walleye is not a muskies top forage. Do they eat them, you bet. Where do all the walleyes go in musky lakes? Our stomachs. Increasing size limits have great benefits for the musky fishery.
Also, Lambeau you are very correct in saying what makes MuskieFirst FAR superior to the other musky sites. There is obvious disagreement in this issue between many parties here, but I dont think a single personal attack has been made on anyone and that is pretty impressive. So I just wanted to say thank you to MuskieFirst
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lambeau:
I have to correct your assumption that I oppose higher size limits on lakes because it will force the WMT to use judge boats, costing us more money. For the implied "costing more money" I would like to refer you to the statement that I just made to Pointerpride102. The fact that I do not support higher size limits is that it is biologically unsound to have the top of the food chain preditor protected to the point that it is a vertual catch-and- release fishery when the food prey of the muskies is not protected. This type of measure will create a stunting of the muskies with a cause effect of an ecosystem that can not produce a fifty incher even though the genetics are present! With that being said, I am for and have presented a proposal to the WDNR to set up at least 15 lakes in the state as catch and release lakes of all species of fish. These lakes would be chosen by their size but most importantly by their eutrophication (Oligotrophic,mesotrophic,eutrophic) making for a living laboratory that the WDNR would have the opportunity to study and determine true size limits for each species of fish by the sizes of lakes and their eutrophication. This proposal to create catch and release only lakes is sound fisheries management. Because the WMT does use judge boats on occasions, when needed, should be proof to any one that my opinion on higher size limits are based on my knowledge of Wisconsin muskie research reports that I have studied and from my personal contact with some of the most knowledgeable DNR biologist that it has been my privilege to know."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet the fisheries managers in Ontario will be embarrassed to learn they were wrong all along...sorry sir, but that one makes absolutely no sense. Lakes and rivers that would support a 50" limit should have that limit if it's socially acceptable and a trophy fishery in Northern Wisconsin is the end goal, and those that won't should not.
An edit/update in response to your last post below:
There are distinct differences between population dynamics in Pike and Muskies. Bad idea to use one as an example as to how to manage the other. Some lakes, according to the biologists I have spoken to here ( I have a telephone, truck, and computer, too) might benefit from a Slot limit, Butternut is an example. Some wouldn't benefit at all from any increase from the 34" limit on those waters today. To say in a blanket statement that the WDNR fisheries biologists oppose 50" limits on selected trophy waters is inaccurate, and a disservice to those who desire to conserve the trophy potential of those waters. To state that a 50" limit on low density water sustained by NR where good forage is available is biologically unsound is worse, it's ridiculous. To then forward the old wives tale that Muskies will 'stunt and eat all the forage and panfish' if protected to 50" on that trophy potential water is REALLY irresponsible, and to me something a Tournament promoter should be taken to task for even saying, much less printing in a post here.
I notice you moved your event from Pelican to Moens. So much for judge boats when you need them, we offered to supply them to you at no cost to you at all. You had a superb opportunity to support a strong conservation effort, or at least to try to understand it, yet chose to oppose our efforts at every turn until the bitter end. I can understand the motivation if it's ease of operating your events, but the paragraph above is not even close to applicable.
By the way, as a matter of qualification, I have run, fished in, and administered many muskie tournaments over the years, so I do know a bit about this subject.
4000 hours a year equates to fifty 80 hour weeks; 11.42 hour days EVERY day, with a two week vacation tossed in for good measure. Sir, I enjoy your input, but fuzzy math and wild claims do nothing to improve competitive Muskie angler's stance in this issue, or enhance our credibility when stating why this legislation is a bad idea.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | GMG,
The Committee raised the money issue in the proposal as partial justification. The response from Pat and Jim was to them, not the public. The DNR is very aware that the impact of these events is minimal on the resource and on non tournament anglers, IMHO this is bowing to public perception from a very small group. Do some studying as to WHY those bass died, it's important.
Lambeau,
I can tell you that if profit was a goal with the In Fisherman Professional Walleye trail, it would not be in operation today. The PWT is an extension of In Fisherman and their parent company, and the direct benefit to them is the promotional vehicle the TV show, Walleye Insider, and other like programs provide.
If that is the path the WMT Promoter is following, his journey will be a long one, but just might be very successful. | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| "Please re-read what I wrote in my previous post about the raising of entry fees $5.00 and the impact it had on our WMT anglers in 2006, even though we raised the pay-outs. The extra $5.00 had a negative effect on a very high number of WMT anglers...end of story!"
You sure it was the $5 and not something ELSE?? I find it very hard to believe that $5 is going to be a deal breaker.
<....In comparison to the WDNR tourism dollars we are concervative in our estamates that our 21 WMT circuit in 2007 will bring in over $11,000,000.00 to the state of Wisconsin. If the WDNR, Wisconsin Tourism, Chamber of Commerces and other businesses in the state feel that fishing tournaments bring in big dollars to the state of Wisconsin, why can't you??? I would think that you would be proud of the fact that us muskie tournament anglers are an economic force in Wisconsin and herold that fact!>
So let's say it's 11 million. Total tourism revenue for the state is estimated at around $12 billion. So in reality we're looking at less than 1 percent of their total tourism revenue...
$11 million is significant standing on its own, but when you compare it to total revenue you get a different picture.
Not trying to stir up crap for the sake of making a stink here, but we have to look at all sides and not just our own...
Edited by esoxaddict 11/9/2006 12:42 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 654
Location: MPLS, MN | Man I'm glad I have no interest n Tournaments. | |
| | |
| I can't believe I am continuing with this!!! If someone, and there seem like there is several, doesn't beleive me that the proposed rule changes on tournaments is going to severly effect the tournaments that we presently have in Wisconsin, then they should at least listen to SHEP. Shep is "right on" with everything he says and those who are sitting on the fence with this one should read all of Shep's post on this thread. The proposed tournament changes are not so much the WDNR doing, but legistation that was brought about by a former state's legislator Duane Johnsrude who is notorious for trying to do away with tournaments in Wisconsin for several years. The last time Johnsrude legislation failed in Madison it was reported that he would get his anti-tournament agenda passed through the WDNR. That is right...this proposed tournament rule changes is ANTI TOURNAMENT and I am very surprised to see that some fellow anglers are buying in to this malarkey.
Pointerpride102:
I am sorry that you missed my meaning about the muskie being the top of the food chain preditor. I did not single out any prey fish that is not protected. I did not mention walleye. There are people who do fish agresively for perch, white sucker, red horse, ciscoe, crayfish, whitefish, ect. that are very high on the list in the diet of muskies, not to mention at times some of the game fish that could be on the muskie menu for the day. Not protecting these major food sources when you slap a 50" size limit on any lake in this state is again ecologically unsound! Again, I have had the pleasure of meeting, and talking to at great lengths, with some of the most knowladgeable fisheries biologist in Wisconsin that have told me flat out that the muskie lakes in Wisconsin are over-populated with muskies and stunting is occurring on the lakes that they have studied and raising the limit to 50 inches will just exasperate the problem. It sound contrary to what you might think but in order to get more 50" muskies in our lakes we must start to adopt a selective harvest mentality and in order to accomplish this, we need to revisit slot limits for muskies, and more appropriate, modified slot limits is best. Please do not ask me who I have been talking to because I once use to work for the WDNR and know that employees of the WDNR can not talk publicly or privately against WDNR policies and do not wish to be a source of any grief for these folks who I think so highly of. I know that most people don't have the ability to contact these great individuals but you can read their work and I would suggest these research reports:172, 175, 159, 158, 117, 147, and 169 & Tec Bulletin 104(even though they deal with northerns are very telling about the effects of raising size limits that could have some bearings on whats going on with raised size limits on Wisconsin muskies if you apply the same science and logic along with overpopulation effects). Technical Bulletins #113, 49, and 160 will make for some very interesting reading. And I challenge anyone who wants to raise the size limits on Wisconsin waters to read this imformation I have outlined. I think that if anyone who wanted to raise size limits will change their minds as I had done back in 1999 when I was elected to sit on the board of the Butternut Lake Association to raise the muskie size limit to 45 inches, fortunately for me fisheries biologist Jim Langley(I can say his name because now he has retiered) showed me the light and ever since I have been on a mission to learn as mush about muskie management as I can. That was TWO YEARS BEFORE THE WMT, so what was my motivation back then to vote down the increased size limits??? The answer...HIGHER SIZE LIMITS ON JUST MUSKIES IN WISCONSIN IS BIOLOGICALLY UNSOUND!!! With that being said, I do favor catch and release for all species of fish on given bodies of water...BIOLOGICALLY SOUND!!!
Lambeau:
If I tell you or anyone that the proposed changes will be the end of the WMT, then that is what it will be. And because we absolutely wont be able to go forward if the changes are adopted, then most fishing tournaments will also follow the same fate as us!
That is all I have to say on the matter and I hope all of you get a big buck this coming gun season and try to take a doe, not a button buck, to help keep the deer herd healthy,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Tom
I'm sure there are lakes with too many muskies. Selective harvest would do those lakes a world of good.
But to generalize like that and say that higher size limits for muskies is biologically unsound across the board for the entire state? Come on now. The fisheries biologists I've talked to said that every single lake is different, and that the reason you're not seeing 50" fish on a lot of lakes is that the fish don't live long enough to get that big. It's overharvest that's responsible for the small fish in WI. How else to you explain the # of 50"+ fish coming out of MN?
But that's a topic for another discussion.
Tom nobody is here to attack you or disagree with you just for the sake of disagreement. We just all want to know HOW EXACTLY this will mean the end of tournament fishing in WI -- you haven't illustrated that effectively, or perhaps I missed it, but all I'm seeing is that you stance is basically "I run the WMT which means I know what I'm talking about and if I say it is that means it is!!"
If you want people on your side on this thing man, that ain't the the way to go about it...
Show us some numbers, explain to those of us who don't run tournaments how this is going to put you out of business. I think I can speak for everyone here when I say we just want to be informed about what this REALLY means for us.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Addict, exactly! And, I agree wholeheartedly with Shep, he's given real ideas, real data, and an honest assessment of what this means from his perspective. | |
| | |
| Steve,
First of all, who is talking about Ontario??? I thought we were talking about Wisconsin tournaments and size limits as it pertains to Wisconsin lakes that I have had a conscious problem with. PLEASE STAY ON TARGET WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!! I do not have any information about the muskie populations in Ontario Lakes and the populations of their prefered prey and what the annual angler harvest of all the fish in Ontario is and I doubt very much that you do because I am sure that Ontario's DNR doesn't know either. SO, PLEASE STAY ON TARGET!!!
Yes sir, the WMT has moved to the Moens Chain and it is absolute proof that we are interested in the well being of the muskies instead of the all mighty dollar or the cost of judge boats. We will be having three judge stations on the Moens Chain which is the same number of judge boats that we use on Lake Monona(a 3274 acre lake) and Waubesa and upper Mud (also a good size body of water), so I am sure that three judge boats would have worked for the 3,586 acre Pelican Lake. So if we have three judging locations on the Moens and we would have used three judge boats on Pelican then the cost are the same so why did we move. For the good of the muskies is the answer!!! Because Pelican can get really windy and I didn't want to see muskie after muskies getting beet up in the nets while they waited for a judge boat we moved. If muskies would die at Pelican, it wouldn't be blamed on the wind, it would be a black eye for the WMT and we have worked too hard for that to happen!!! Your offer to supply judge boats to the WMT was a hollow one sir. Beth and I hand pick our judges who are of the highest quality and their integrity can not be questioned.
As far as the hours that I spend a year on the WMT...well you are not with me during our tournaments when I get to sleep at midnight(if I am lucky) only to wake up at 3:00am. Nor, were you with me during our last bulk mailer when I spent two weeks staight, no weekends off, sleeping 5 to 6 hours and working from mourning until bed to get out the registration forms for 2007. Also, I don't get vacations and Beth and I have not taken a vacation since we started the WMT. No Time for either of us. You have no idea what my schedule is like so don't presume to think that you do, sir!!!
Tom McInnis
| |
| | |
| we are interested in the well being of the muskies...We will be having three judge stations on the Moens Chain which is the same number of judge boats that we use on Lake Monona (a 3274 acre lake) and Waubesa and upper Mud (also a good size body of water)...For the good of the muskies is the answer...Beth and I hand pick our judges who are of the highest quality and their integrity can not be questioned.
my experience fishing a couple of WMT events is that you emphasize safe and careful fish-handling techniques by the participants. you do clearly care about fish being released successfully.
one specific bit of feedback for you since you mentioned Waubesa...you did have three judge boat regions set up on the lake. however, that event was on a cold and breezy day this year and the fishing was slow. it was tough on the judges to stay out there in those conditions, and they didn't. from the time i called in a caught fish, it took 15 minutes for the judge boat to enter Upper Mud lake. why? because he wasn't on station on the north end of Waubesa from where it would have taken him no more than 2 minutes to get to Upper Mud lake.
later that afternoon when i visited tourney HQ to take a bathroom break, all three judge boats were parked at the dock at Christie's Landing, near the south end of the lake, and the judges were sitting inside at the bar. hopefully your concern for the fish will lead you to make sure that your high-quality and high-integrity judges are on station during future judge-boat tournies. for the good of the fish.
If I tell you or anyone that the proposed changes will be the end of the WMT, then that is what it will be. And because we absolutely wont be able to go forward if the changes are adopted, then most fishing tournaments will also follow the same fate as us!
again with the "because i say so" response? you can do better than that, Tom!
right now i don't believe this will shut down tourney fishing, but i can actually be open-minded to the possibility that it might happen. i like fishing tournaments and i want them to continue. however, i'll only be convinced by facts and figures that empirically demonstrate this is worse for the tourney scene than it is good for the resource. a "Father Knows Best" approach might convince some people, but not the ones who think more deeply on issues. if you want to persuade people, use information rather than personality. if you can show me WHY you're right, i'll change my vote.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I have a feeling the Rheinlander meeting might be a good one. | |
| | |
| here's the PWT Pro-Am results and pay-outs from Winneconne in April 2006:
Pro Results:
1 Tom Gatzke Merrill WI $50000
2 Ken Van Oss Chilton WI $15000
3 Tom Kemos Oconomowoc WI $13000
4 Greg Golliher Oshkosh WI $10000
5 Jay Weber Annandale MN $9000
6 Rick Franklin Park Rapids MN $8000
7 Todd Frank Pulaski NY $7000
8 Ernie Olson Foley MN $6000
9 Ryan Standke Oshkosh WI $5000
10 Keith Kavajecz Kaukauna WI $4000
11 Ron Seelhoff Burlington CO $3500
12 David Albright Norwalk IA $3400
13 Micheal McMaken Cedarville MI $3300
14 Tommy Skarlis Waukon IA $3200
15 Pete Harsh Sauk Centre MN $3100
16 Chase Parsons Brillion WI $3000
17 Steve Wagner Pewaukee WI $2900
18 Ron Gazvoda Lakewood CO $2800
19 Brad Davis Jackson WI $2700
20 Dan Stier Pierre SD $2600
21 John Kolinski Greenville WI 9 $2500
22 Bobby Crow Paterson WA $2400
23 Delvin Kushniryk Regina, SK CAN $2300
24 Dan Plautz Muskego WI $2200
25 Kevin Madigan Sandy UT $2100
26 Mark Courts Harris MN $2000
27 Jeffery Edwards Shoreview MN $2000
28 Jon LaFontaine Oshkosh WI $2000
29 Carl Grunwaldt Green Bay WI $1500
30 Scott Fairbarin Hager City WI $1500
Amateur Results:
1 Daniel Gosenheimer Wild Rose WI $15000
2 Brian Kern Shiocton WI $1200
3 Richard Buhr Hatley WI $1100
4 Brent Long Youngsville PA $1000
5 Tim Reitan Savin MN $900
6 Greg Krings Saint Germain WI $800
7 Mark Thiel Fond du Lac WI $700
8 David Masse Muskego WI $600
9 Matt Mertens Berlin WI $550
10 Mike Dempsey Eagle River WI $500
11 Jim Clingan Belleville MI $450
12 Paul Beran Geneva IL $450
13 Dan Bongers Little Chute WI $450
14 W. L. Carter Lawrenceburg KY $400
15 Scott Peterson Berlin WI $400
16 Greg Pregrack Libertyville IL $400
17 Curt Stam Larsen WI $350
18 David Pawelkiewiiz Oshkosh WI $350
19 Jayson Schenker Waukesha WI $350
20 Bill Reichert North Prairie WI $300
21 Jeff Brauer Larsen WI $300
22 John Mascarello Plattsmouth NE $300
23 Jeff Roberts New London WI $300
24 Matt Miller Bear Creek WI $300
25 Mike Brannen Burlington WI $300
26 Timothy Lauden Fort Collins CO $300
27 Gary Nelson Appleton WI $300
28 Jerry Zimmerman Appleton WI $300
29 Cory Peterson King WI $300
30 Terry Mackillop Houghton Lake MI $300
this tourney is run by In-Fisherman, and Steve says it's operated at a loss since it's viewed as advertising and a cost to support the multi-media enterprises put on by In-Fisherman.
it's paying out over $100,000 in prizes for a single event.
on a scale like that, why would a couple hundred bucks in fees stop them from coming to WI?
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 11/9/2006 2:08 PM
Tom
I'm sure there are lakes with too many muskies. Selective harvest would do those lakes a world of good.
But to generalize like that and say that higher size limits for muskies is biologically unsound across the board for the entire state? Come on now. The fisheries biologists I've talked to said that every single lake is different, and that the reason you're not seeing 50" fish on a lot of lakes is that the fish don't live long enough to get that big. It's overharvest that's responsible for the small fish in WI. How else to you explain the # of 50"+ fish coming out of MN?
But that's a topic for another discussion.
Tom nobody is here to attack you or disagree with you just for the sake of disagreement. We just all want to know HOW EXACTLY this will mean the end of tournament fishing in WI -- you haven't illustrated that effectively, or perhaps I missed it, but all I'm seeing is that you stance is basically "I run the WMT which means I know what I'm talking about and if I say it is that means it is!!"
If you want people on your side on this thing man, that ain't the the way to go about it...
Show us some numbers, explain to those of us who don't run tournaments how this is going to put you out of business. I think I can speak for everyone here when I say we just want to be informed about what this REALLY means for us.
BINGO! Well said!
Edited by Pointerpride102 11/9/2006 3:13 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| You guys are focussing on just the monetary impact on one tourney promoter. I don't care to argue the merits of judge vs transport tourneys here.
SMALL BUSINESS ANALYSIS
These rules will not directly affect small business, pursuant to s. 227.114(8)(b), Stats., therefore
no analysis will be required.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This is a Type III action under Chapter NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code, therefore no EA is required.
Those two statements are from the authority posted above. These rules will not directly affect small business, and no analysis required? No Environmental Assessment required? This is why I hate government! Who determined that no small busnesses will be affected? Ask the motels around Green Bay, Fond du Lac/Oshkosh, Madison, Eagle River if they wouldn't miss having 200+ anglers in town for a week or two? Or the Gas Satations, or the restaurants and bars? How about the tackle dealers?
Why don't you go to the hearings, and listen. Talk to the tourney anglers there. Talk to the small business owners who will be affected. Talk to those supporting this new regulation, and even those that are anti-tourney and anti fishing. Then try to decide if you are for or against, or somewhere in between. Then get up and testify! Be heard. It's not often that you get to make a difference. Only 40% of us voted Tuesday. The rest of you got no right to complain if the choices we made don't work out for you!
As I said before. These regulations are way overboard. I am in favor of no new regulation.
Lambeau, it's not just the $850 for a single permit. It's also the extra work required to conform to the process, to make sure there is a parking plan, to make sure the AIS plan is implemented. They're gonna want $10 from me to fish in tourneys. I already pay for a license.
Hypothetical. You fish for muskies. Because the State of WI spends more money to make sure you have muskies to fish for, they are going to charge you, and your club extra fees, so that you can continue to fish for muskies. Not only that, but your club is going to have to provide a parking plan at the lakes you fish at. And also provide an AIS plan. The DNR ants to recoup it's money it spends extra on muskies. You gotta pay for that. Are you gonna stand for that? Or are you going to satnd up and fight for your rights? That's all we're doing here.
I don't pretend to understand all the finances involved in running a big tournament series. So when the Charlie Evans, Sonny Reynolds, Tom Mcginnis, Jim Coons, and the Jim Kalkofens tell me they will probably not be able to hold tournaments in WI in the future if this regulation is not defeated, well, I'm paying attention to them.
No new regulation is a good regulation.
Edited by Shep 11/9/2006 3:47 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Shep, I think Slamr should be celebrated as a god among men.
(obviously not slipping) | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Hey Shep, I'm just trying to validate the claim that it's going to put tournaments out of business.
I don't think anybody doubts the revenue we generate at these events! 4 drinks at the bar three nights in a row is $50, add in gas for the truck and boat and that's $120, then you gotta eat and buy snacks, stay someplace, and at least buy something at the local tackle shop....
| |
| | |
| Hey Lambeau,
I am sorry to hear that it took 15 minutes to have the judge boat reach you but he was in the area that he was stationed at. He called us to see if Beth and I could take the "flex judge boat" out to measure your fish because if I remember correctly, he was having trouble starting his boat. We were on our way to the boat when he called us to imform that he had started his boat and was proceeding your way. This is a problem that can and does occur with the judge boat format and that is why I have heard in other judge boat tournaments taking over 40 minutes for judge boats to arrive. It has always been our philosophy that the quicker we can measure a muskie and release it, the better it is for the fish. That is exactly why we run transport turnaments in favor of judge boats and did not cave in in the early years of the WMT when we could have been filling feilds if we would have comprimised our integrity and used judge boats. I have said this before and I will say it again "the five fastest measurements in tournaments that I have fished in have been transport tourneys and the five slowest have been judge boats with the slowest being 25 minutes or more. And what you saw at Christies must have been the "changing of the quard" because we always had at least one judge in their area at all times and Beth and I were the flex boat giving the judges a chance to go in for lunch and warm up.
Again, I know the finances for the WMT and we can not incur the high permit charges. We can not pass them along to the tournament anglers with any success. And again, there is a misconception that tournament organizers are making money hand over fist and the reality is that is just not so. The WMT has completed our sixth season and of those six season, only the last season have we opperated in the black. OK...there you go...I didn't want the whole world to know that it has been a financial struggle for the WMT not to mention an emotional struggle. Bob Mesikomer use to run a tournament cicuit until after so many years of continuing to loose money he finaly took his accountant's advice and disband his circuit. Making money at this is very hard to do and again unless your the FLW or Bassmasters I don't know how it can be done! Ya...you can call me a chump for setting up a tournament that pays out as much as we do and not taking anything for Beth and I but I beleive in the long run that the WMT will be a huge plus for muskie fishing, and the muskie fishery. I believe we have turned the corner and we can make this in to something really special, but I know the proposed tournament changes will stop us dead in our tracks and I will not struggle any further!
Thanks again Shep for dragging me in to this...you da man!
You have a good one,
Tom McInnis | |
| | |
| Again, I know the finances for the WMT and we can not incur the high permit charges. We can not pass them along to the tournament anglers with any success. And again, there is a misconception that tournament organizers are making money hand over fist and the reality is that is just not so. The WMT has completed our sixth season and of those six season, only the last season have we opperated in the black. OK...there you go...I didn't want the whole world to know that it has been a financial struggle for the WMT not to mention an emotional struggle.
i really hope that the WMT succeeds, it would leave a huge gap in WI for tournament muskie fishing if it were gone.
i can't quite bring myself to believe that 1.7% in fees will shut you down, but if it does i'll be sad.
if the proposals pass, let's both hope that a few years from now i can say "i told you so" since that would mean you've managed to keep things running. 
the proposed tournament changes will stop us dead in our tracks and I will not struggle any further!
where there's a will, there's a way.
i know it's easier said than done, but if you're not willing to reduce payouts or increase entrance fees to cover the charges then someone else will step in. i'm betting if the proposals pass that you'll find a way to make it happen.
you yourself increased your entry fees this year by $5/boat and had MORE participation in your tournaments than ever before. that is with exactly a 1.7% increase.
that's the same amount it would take to cover these proposed costs. ironic, isn't it?
Thanks again Shep for dragging me in to this.
thanks for taking the time here, Tom. you add value and insight to this discussion.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, here we go. First, this isn't off topic, we have a Tournament Promoter here making all sorts of claims, and I'm addressing those he directed at me after questioning. Lambeau's point still applies....and I still think the proposed rules are a bad idea.
Tom is personally ENCOURAGING harvest of muskies in Wisconsin trophy waters; he says that a 50" limit will cause overpopulation and over over utilization of forage. The only logical answer in order to halt that certain disaster is to harvest those fish, correct? Great way to 'promote Wisconsin Muskie Fishing'.
Tom, the Ontario MNR set the bar for protecting low density, high quality muskie waters with limits designed to ensure a true trophy fishery. I see several waters in Wisconsin are now protected because of the hard work of folks who understand that trophy waters across North America share one commonality, they will NOT contain many trophy fish if the Muskies get hit on the head when they are 47". These folks work towards that goal with the FULL cooperation and support of our DNR and a complete understanding of the predator/prey relationships in that water.
Can't have it both ways.
If this proposed rules change passes, boat side release will be mandatory for 60 days of the season. This addresses that portion of the issue:
You left Pelican to insure the safety of the fish? OK, first my comment than a question:
Are you trying to tell me it takes longer for a judge boat in a 1/4 area quadrant to get to a boat than it does for that boat to livewell the fish and go basically the same distance or further, dock and tie up the rig at a judge station, and that a judge in that area is faster at measure and release (WHERE THE FISH SHOULD BE RELEASED?) than a judge? OK....
Why does the DNR in many states limit transport events to the angler's legal daily limit, and boatside release events are not? I know the answer, it's because that transported fish was reduced to possession, and has a poorer chance at surviving than one released at boatside. You CAN'T be serious saying a fish will get 'beat up' in a muskie net in the water worse than in a livewell running across that same rough water on Pelican to a dock..then removed from the livewell and released in 2' of water, can you? The Kevin Worrall Memorial has used judge boats since it's inception, and it's NEVER been so rough as to endanger the anglers or the fish.
This event has been run out of Lakeview Inn since the late 70's.
Actually, OUR offer to provide judge boats on Pelican was given despite your personal abuse of Norm and Mike during the process of attaining a 50" limit there, although until this post you pretty much left me out of that circle. How dare you question my integrity, or that of Norm, Mike, or any of the other folks who offered to step up and provide judge boats to the WMT at no cost? That offer was in a spirit of cooperation and good will, something you seem to leave at the curb when it comes to your circuit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'If muskies would die at Pelican, it wouldn't be blamed on the wind, it would be a black eye for the WMT and we have worked too hard for that to happen!!! Your offer to supply judge boats to the WMT was a hollow one sir. Beth and I hand pick our judges who are of the highest quality and their integrity can not be questioned.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That comment can only be taken as a personal attack. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you didn't mean what you said as it was printed, despite my better judgment. As far as the 4000 hours per year, I made an observation that that was 50 80 hour weeks. It seemed to me excessive. It would to any reasonable person.
I am on target. Don't even presume to lecture me about staying on topic. To that point:
Ontairo MNR folks have a VERY good idea what angler harvest, hours, etc are on many of their trophy waters, and have a good handle on forage there as well. Lots of discussion to that topic at the Symposium this Spring. If you were there furthering your mission to learn about Muskie management at the Symposium designed to bring some of the finest fishery science professionals in the North America together, you would know this.
You use the fisheries in Wisconsin to run your events at the pleasure of our DNR and State. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us who fish tournaments and promote them to follow the procedure those agencies have put in place to let them know what our feelings are about this proposed legislation, and get this stopped. Let's use our future energy to accomplish that goal without all kinds of personal agenda items spilling in. And, lastly, watch your tone in discussions here. Our visitors deserve nothing less. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Shep, You saw that too, eh? I'm glad Pat attached that information.
Another point, I didn't mean the PWT operated at a 'loss', I don't know that for sure. I am sure the circuit would not be considered a highly 'profitable' business; but I bet the PWT is a tremendous complimentary business to In Fish, both the print media and TV. | |
| | |
| it's not just the $850 for a single permit. It's also the extra work required to conform to the process, to make sure there is a parking plan, to make sure the AIS plan is implemented.
i think those are GREAT ideas - in fact, in my mind they are equally or more important than the fees. event organizers haven't been responsible in these areas on their own. they haven't "self-regulated" as you suggest they should be allowed to do. when people fail to do the right thing, regulations get put in place to make them do so.
parking? i've been to enough events that don't have any kind of plan beyond "show up here for the rules meeting" and the congestion is a nightmare. it can be both dangerous (rigs parked along highway shoulders) and very off-putting to anyone else who wants to act on their right to access public waters.
invasive species plan? if you're bringing in boats from far and wide to fish a certain lake, it should be your responsibility to help reduce the risk of the transfer of exotics. at the Hodag in '05 and the Kevin Worrall in '06 there were people (i think from the DNR) at the ramp checking boats and trailers as well as someone speaking in the rules meeting. that's hardly a tournament-stopper, it's just responsible care for the resource that we all share.
Another point, I didn't mean the PWT operated at a 'loss', I don't know that for sure. I am sure the circuit would not be considered a highly 'profitable' business; but I bet the PWT is a tremendous complimentary business to In Fish, both the print media and TV.
events such as that are being cited as examples for what will stop happening in Wisconsin if these rules are passed. whether they make or lose money, their budget is HUGE for just one event. why should i believe they will stop coming to WI over new costs that would be well under 1% of their total budget? it just seems like a lot of fear-mongering to me to say they won't come back and won't bring their tourism dollars. of course the event coordinators are crying foul, it's self-interest! i still don't hear anyone anywhere laying out anything that shows in dollars and cents why this would be the case. i'm more than willing to listen to "Charlie Evans, Sonny Reynolds, Tom Mcginnis, Jim Coons, and Jim Kalkofens" if they had something to say beyond "believe me because i know best."
Shep, You saw that too, eh? I'm glad Pat attached that information.
i assume you're referring to the analysis that was deemed unnecessary that Shep pointed out?
maybe i should just reply by saying "when the so-and-so's at the State say it's not necessary, well, i'm going to listen to them."??? that seems to be the justification du jour around this issue.
a small-business impact plan would only be necessary if the tournaments stopped coming. clearly the state doesn't believe that will happen either, thus no need for the plan.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Kalkofen did not indicate that the PWT would not return to Wisconsin.
Just for conversations sake I'm going to jump the track and play devil's advocate here....
I already buy a license. I decide, after buying that license, to bet I can catch more fish than you, and put my money up to show you I mean it. The State then steps in and tells me I have to buy a 'Permit' to make that bet. NOPE! Until they issue a permit for every single person who walks through a casino door or buys a lottery ticket in this state, I will refuse to pay the State to exercise my right to 'bet' that I'll win and put my money up on a fishing event as a contestant.
Maybe the smaller events have parking trouble, but my experience with FLW and PWT is the opposite; they already work closely with the community to see to it the event flows smoothly because if it doesn't, they will not be welcomed back. Most and in fact all of what is contained in this proposal is already being done with the larger circuits and those who have it 'together', even some of the smaller Muskie events like the Hodag. The State Invasive Species folks have attended and spoken at most of the Wisconsin events I attended, and had a display there. At many, DNR fisheries folks and Wardens were in attendance. In short, the events out there don't need to be regulated to get this done, it's for the most part already happening. Are you telling me that by LEGISLATING this, it will happen at all the events seamlessly? Come on, we all know better than that, it will simply build a new layer in an already cumbersome bureaucracy.
The No Release part of this means that if a walleye event is permitted during that time frame, it will be mandated a kill event. What does that accomplish? If 50% of the already smaller angler limit in an event are deemed strong enough to release and most survive due to voluntary release by the circuit; but a few floaters show up later, is that biologically or just SOCIALLY better than killing them all? This also is not new, some of the PWT/FLW events I attended last year were 100% kill events, as requested by the fisheries folks in that area. This isn't about a biological impact on the fisheries, for the most part that is so small as to be insignificant.
In muskie angling, biological impact is practically zero. Transporting a muskie probably won't, in most cases, kill it. Yes, that fish has a higher mortality probability, but lets go back to the license I bought. If I decide to KEEP that fish and crush it's head as a non competitive angler OR a competitive, that's OK with the State, but releasing it at a dock with a reasonable probability the fish will survive isn't? We are now in the 'socially acceptable' arena again, a very slippery slope for reasoning behind a law that's put forth as something else entirely. Is boat side release better for the fish? Sure, but if transport isn't necessarily killing the fish, why LEGISLATE mandatory boat side release? The State already allows multiple fish for boat side release events with no size limit, one might even argue that this encourages increased angling capture mortality rates.
The DNR ALREADY has Permit authority and enforcement responsibility, Lake Associations and the DNR already check for Invasives, City or local groups and Police already organize the onsite mechanics with the Promoters, so what is this about? Anti Tournament sentiment by a small but vocal group, and the money.
As to the small business impact plan, it's a bit late to look at it AFTER the major draw events schedule out of Wisconsin for a couple years. They are GONE at that point, and maybe for good. Other states and municipalities WANT them, and are delighted to welcome a PWT to the area without regulating them nearly to apoplexy. If a reasonably well thought out decision is to be made based on reality, that impact plan might be considered.
As to the 'self interest' portion of the debate, I really think that is not the case with the PWT and FLW as far as the minimal permitting fee. This has quite a bit more to do with an event coming to town and finding that process pleasant, within reason for ease of operation, no undue hassle, and, no other way to say it, they want to feel 'welcome'. Just like any other business, if it's indicated by legislation the PWT and FLW are NOT welcome here, they have dozens of other states in an all fired hurry to host an event. There is also the Industry behind those events, Sponsors and Associates. Mercury Marine, Bombardier, G3 Boats, Lund Boats, Ranger Boats, and many more. it is their desire to grow the sport, increase interest in competitive angling and angling in general, and it's tough for them to understand why Wisconsin as a State is apparently moving somewhat in the other direction. If you don't think competitive angling has had a HUGE impact on increasing sales,participation in the sport,tax revenues, and every other possible benefit from business activity associated, ask Crestliner what happened to their business when the RCL (Ranger, Crestliner, and Lund) changed names and sponsorship to the FLW Walleye Tour as Crestliner sold to Brunswick. Look at what is the number ONE fishing program on TV. If Wisconsin eventually legislates this 'machine' out of our State, these folks will take that promotion elsewhere without a second glance back.
Anyone's reality is usually based 100% on personal perception. Perception is many times based on "I heard..." I've been there at the Walleye, Bass, and Muskie tournaments, on site, for nearly 30 years, and do not see what I'm supposed to be seeing according to the folks pushing this regulation, but that's because I look at the BIG picture with each event. As with nearly everything, ACTUAL, PROVABLE, FOR CERTAIN 'reality' is based somewhere in the middle of the debate.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| "event organizers haven't been responsible in these areas on their own. they haven't "self-regulated" as you suggest they should be allowed to do. when people fail to do the right thing, regulations get put in place to make them do so."
You should not speak about things you don't have a clue about!
"invasive species plan? if you're bringing in boats from far and wide to fish a certain lake, it should be your responsibility to help reduce the risk of the transfer of exotics."
No, it is the responsibility of EVERYONE who launches a boat in our state waters. Not just the tourney fisherman. You, the recreational angler, the receational boater, the sailboa racers, the waterfowl hunters, the canoe and kayakers. Nearly every tournament I have fished in has procedures for dealing with these issues, including tourney officials inspecting boats and trailers for AIS, and some even require washing the livewells, and rinsing the bilge with bleach. But tell me why only tournament anglers and promoters are singled out to have a plan for AIS? This is discrimination, plain and simple. Why do I have to pay more to deal with AIS than you, the next target, the recreational angler, or boater.
"parking? i've been to enough events that don't have any kind of plan beyond "show up here for the rules meeting" and tparking? i've been to enough events that don't have any kind of plan beyond "show up here for the rules meeting" and the congestion is a nightmare."
Ever been to any launch on the Bago system during the spring walleye or white bass runs? The congestion is a nightmare. it can be both dangerous (rigs parked on the grass, and along highway shoulders) and very off-putting to anyone else who wants to act on their right to access public waters. You can literally walk across the river boat to boat, there are so many boats. And they are not always very friendly people, either.
Most tournaments already limit the number of boats entered. Why do we need to reduce these numbers even further, when there is NO limit as to how many sailboats, or speed boats, or recreational anglers can be on a given water?
This issue is as much about discrimmination, as it is about the economics, and the perceived harm to the resource, and access issues. As I have said before, there is a further adgenda by those that have brought this bill to us. They are succeeding already, with divide and conquer. Get us to argue amougst ourselves, cause the split, get it passed, and then keep diggin for more. You don't believe this? Wait and see.
| |
| | |
| Mr. Kalkofen did not indicate that the PWT would not return to Wisconsin.
then others shouldn't be suggesting that's the case by saying that these regulations are the "end of tourism" in Wisconsin due to the money that those events bring here going somewhere else. the best point made on this is that the State should do all in can to encourage them due to the economic benefit they provide to the host communities. that appeals to the fiscal conservative side of me. one could easily argue that the sales and income tax revenue alone associated with these events far outweighs the costs.
NOPE! Until they issue a permit for every single person who walks through a casino door or buys a lottery ticket in this state, I will refuse to pay the State to exercise my right to 'bet' that I'll win and put my money up on a fishing event as a contestant.
casinos are regulated and licensed.
every person that walks through the door DOES pay for them through their losses. the costs are passed on to the consumer, we just don't hear/think about it.
experience with FLW and PWT is the opposite; they already work closely with the community to see to it the event flows smoothly because if it doesn't, they will not be welcomed back. Most and in fact all of what is contained in this proposal is already being done with the larger circuits and those who have it 'together', even some of the smaller Muskie events like the Hodag. The State Invasive Species folks have attended and spoken at most of the Wisconsin events I attended, and had a display there. At many, DNR fisheries folks and Wardens were in attendance. In short, the events out there don't need to be regulated to get this done, it's for the most part already happening.
you make my point: whether by rule or voluntarily, these are not difficult things to do. requiring them will not be an overwhelming burden on event coordinators. imho, suggesting it would be this incredible task in time and money is disengenuous and more of the same hyperbole intended to create fear. as you point out, the reality is different that the propaganda.
The No Release part of this...We are now in the 'socially acceptable' arena again
yes. these rules are really about the bass and walleye events and would have no real impact on muskie fishing. Tom McGinnis claimed earlier that he uses a transport format because he believes it's better for the fish and the cost of doing transport would be insignicant to him.
As to the small business impact plan, it's a bit late to look at it AFTER the major draw events schedule out of Wisconsin for a couple years. They are GONE at that point, and maybe for good. Other states and municipalities WANT them, and are delighted to welcome a PWT to the area without regulating them nearly to apoplexy.
requiring a parking and invasives plan isn't exactly "regulating to apoplexy"! especially if the State is just formally asking them to do something that the really big events are already doing. if this is something these events are already doing, why would it chase them away? there are some more local events that really should think about and plan for these logistics in a way that they aren't currently doing.
you're arguing this both ways. on the one hand saying: they already do this, no need for regulation; and on the other hand saying: this is over-regulating and they'll go somewhere else. which is it?
ACTUAL, PROVABLE, FOR CERTAIN 'reality' is based somewhere in the middle of the debate
what are the facts?
i'm still left with the following questions:
will less than 1% increased costs keep major events away? will less than 2% increases shut down smaller?
will the money raised from those profiting from the resource be used to help the resource?
will requiring plans that these event organizers already do as a matter of course keep them away?
i'm pro-tourney, but i'm pro-responsibility as well.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Are tourny guys not the "public" too? If a launch fills because of a tourny, its the same as if it filled by average joes. I'm seeing bigotry here. | |
| | |
| "event organizers haven't been responsible"
You should not speak about things you don't have a clue about!
perhaps if i'd said "some" event organizers haven't been responsible, it would be more accurate. one bad apple spoils the whole dang bunch in those cases. that's just the simply reality.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| So let me get this straight
These proposals are only going to make it more difficult and more expensive to run a tournament, possibly force some tournaments to not opereate, cost tournament anglers more money, create more hassles for them, and do absolutely nothing to protect the resource whatsoever (unless you believe that tournaments are bad for it)
Does that about sum it up? | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'casinos are regulated and licensed.
every person that walks through the door DOES pay for them through their losses. the costs are passed on to the consumer, we just don't hear/think about it.'
So are fishermen. Excise taxes, license fees, permits and more. Already. The State takes in a TON of money from us already, and there's nothing in the law stating my 'limit' on a non tournament day is any different than on a tournament day. I object to that proposed provision.
'you make my point: whether by rule or voluntarily, these are not difficult things to do. requiring them will not be an overwhelming burden on event coordinators. imho, suggesting it would be this incredible task in time and money is disengenuous and more of the same hyperbole intended to create fear. as you point out, the reality is different that the propaganda.'
So if it's already regulated we should do 55 in a 55 MPH zone of special interest, say a State Forest Highway, and for the most part we are, it's OK and makes sense to charge every driver intending to drive there an ADDITIONAL permit fee to pay for enforcement? We should require a speed regulator be applied to all vehicles traveling through the area to ensure the safety of the resource?
I also would take exception to the idea those things are 'easy to do'; they are not. A significant effort by Staff, volunteers, and community cooperation make it happen, not legislation.
'requiring a parking and invasives plan isn't exactly "regulating to apoplexy"! especially if the State is just formally asking them to do something that the really big events are already doing. if this is something these events are already doing, why would it chase them away? there are some more local events that really should think about and plan for these logistics in a way that they aren't currently doing.
you're arguing this both ways. on the one hand saying: they already do this, no need for regulation; and on the other hand saying: this is over-regulating and they'll go somewhere else. which is it?'
'It' is where those organizations are welcome, encouraged to do business, and able to do so without undue regulation. Undue and unnecessary fees and taxes, regulations that will be written that make it no longer a manageable plan between the municipality, local DNR, and the event, but now might just be a mandated, must be proven and enforced, STATE regulated PILE of paperwork that actiually accomplishes nothing. Restrictions based on emotion will draw an emotional response. Lambeau, this isn't about just the 'money' or a percentage of operating costs. I firmly believe this issue is based in part on what the FLW, PWT, and many other organizations feel would be a positive atmosphere in which to operate, and this isn't it. Tell you what, call Mr. Kalkofen or Mr. Moore, they are not the enemy here, they are representatives of the In Fisherman Professional Walleye Trail. I did, and I understand what they are saying. They will take their events to where it's a pleasure to do business and everyone benefits, no different than you or me.
Major events do return considerable amounts of money to the resource. They also have done more for the sport than most folks can imagine, increasing awareness of all conservation aspects beyond any easily computed "amount of money" As an example, I photographed the Executive Director of the PWT handing a check for $10,000.00 to the North Dakota DNR at the Championship in October. The Pros took up a collection, and presented the Boy Scouts with a check for $500.00 in appreciation for the promotion and hard work the Scouts undertook in welcoming the PWT to town. It's a 'machine', as I said earlier, and much more complicated than you are attempting to make it. That same North Dakota DNR was openly delighted with the cooperation and efforts of the PWT and the Pros, and sent In Fish a letter to that effect, praising attempts while there to raise awareness of invasive species, conservation, and other important issues. I know of a plaque on a wall at In Fish that thanks them as a founding sponsor to begin the Walleyes For Tomorrow group. Without the amount of assistance conservation groups get from the Industry, their message and perhaps existence would be muted. With no exaggeration at all, the Lindners and the PWT made popular the concept of catch and release Walleye angling; what's that worth?
One should not categorize tournaments any differently than ANY business 'profiting from the resource', be it a bait store, a Guide, tackle builder, fishing magazine, boat builder, or other business. ALL profit from the resource. If biological impact is benign, one cannot demonize any, and should not single only one out for new regulation.
Also, we all must be be careful when using terms like exploitation or 'profit from'. 'To use or manipulate to one's advantage' is pretty strong language to place the UTILIZATION of the resource WE PAY FOR iun large extent by any business or group in an overtly negative light. Our DNR openly manages our resources to maximize business, tourism, and tax/license/fee dollars for the State and our businesses, a great example is the put and take salmon fishery in Lake Michigan. Do you think for a minute we would have the DNR in it's current from if there was no business, tourism, and tax based advantage to the state?
It's the medium sized events that will suffer. Those folks cannot afford the equipment to provide O2 levels in the release tanks at a guaranteed level, may have to totally revamp the stage and equipment for a 'release' event at a large investment, might not have the personnel to research, fill out, and implement the necessary paperwork and proof of conformity to the state, PLUS actually make it happen on the site. I were them, I'd just fold the tent. Most of these events are club oriented, fund raisers for conservation groups, etc.
Responsibility can not be legislated. If it could, things would be much simpler.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I guess it depends on who responds to that Addict! I guess I still really dont know enough to explain what the whole deal is. I guess it is a good thing that I started this thread, I didnt know much about this before now, but it sounds like Shep had posted some stuff previously, I think I need to read things a bit more carefully.
As for the issue on parking, I again will agree with Lambeau. Parking at launches can be chaos. I dont think it is a huge task to organize some sort of parking plan. The idea that doing this instead of just filling up launches is discrimination or bigotry or whatever I guess I disagree with that. Everyone has a right to be on the lake. Tournament anglers shouldnt just load up the launch. It is a public resource and everyone has a right to the lake.
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| pretty much, addict.
The biggest complaint I heard from tourney anglers, was why single out the tourney angler to pay extra to use the same resource as recreational users? The small business owners testified that this would impact their bottom line negatively.
Here is the response I got from candidate Roger Roth of the 56th Assembly District. He is now the elected Assemblyman. His opponant did not respond.
Tim,
I'm not familiar with the details on how this legislation came about, but having reviewed the bill, it seems to me that it just created new government regulations of fishing tournaments. I would think that local lake associations or similar groups could put on a fishing tournament without the DNR telling them what do providing they follow existing fishing regulations. Again, having just looked at this bill briefly, it seems to me to be another case of unnecessary government regulation.
Thanks for writing me, and please feel free to contact me with any further comments or questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Roger Roth
Btw, I helped elect Roger with my vote, mainly because of this answer. Also because he's a republican!
Lambeau, pretty short answer to my points by adding the word "some".
As Steve said, nobody has said they definately will not bring their tournaments, and the associated economic benifits, to WI if these regulations are passed. But these tourney's are in demand in communities all across the country, and just like any business, the communities that make the most concession, and make it the easiest to do business, will get that business! Once that business is gone, it's nearly impossible to get back.
So let's turn this thing around, and have you tell us how the current practice of issuing tournament permits is bad, and why the state needs this added regulation.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, you said it. Everyone has a right to use the ramp. The parking issue is as much for the weigh in and other on site functions, and ALL the major events already address that with the local municipality or they would not be welcome back. Where in the world are we, as tournament anglers, to load our rigs if not at a launch? | |
| | |
| It's the medium sized events that will suffer. Those folks cannot afford the equipment to provide O2 levels in the release tanks at a guaranteed level, may have to totally revamp the stage and equipment for a 'release' event at a large investment, might not have the personnel to research, fill out, and implement the necessary paperwork and proof of conformity to the state, PLUS actually make it happen on the site. I were them, I'd just fold the tent. Most of these events are club oriented, fund raisers for conservation groups, etc.
this is the kind of information i've been asking for, and it's compelling. it's the kind of information people need to make informed decisions. this is the opposite of crying "the sky is falling!" without evidence and just saying "trust me, you don't know what you're talking about and i do." that's what people have been doing here on this issue, and it smacks of the WMRT approach to stocking issues.
it's also not trying to blow smoke about the small costs of the direct fees being too much, or that putting together a reasonable plan is a big and undue burden. get the right information and present it in the right way and you just might convince some people!
it's much easier to see that these rules will impact bass and walleye tournaments to a significant degree in a way that they simply won't for muskie tournaments.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Pointerpride102 - 11/10/2006 11:27 AM
I As for the issue on parking, I again will agree with Lambeau. Parking at launches can be chaos. I dont think it is a huge task to organize some sort of parking plan. The idea that doing this instead of just filling up launches is discrimination or bigotry or whatever I guess I disagree with that. Everyone has a right to be on the lake. Tournament anglers shouldnt just load up the launch. It is a public resource and everyone has a right to the lake.
Mike
Everyone has a right to lake? Not according to some here, and this regulation. Some of us will have to pay more for this access, and be required to DO more for this access. If a tourney isn't involved, it is first come/first served. Even with a tourney, it would still be first come/first served. You know a tourney is here, get up earlier, and get the boat in the water. Simple as that! | |
| | |
| Lambeau, pretty short answer to my points by adding the word "some".
lol...that's not all i said...dang moderators!
As Steve said, nobody has said they definately will not bring their tournaments, and the associated economic benifits, to WI if these regulations are passed. But these tourney's are in demand in communities all across the country, and just like any business, the communities that make the most concession, and make it the easiest to do business, will get that business! Once that business is gone, it's nearly impossible to get back.
well...you definitely suggested that they wouldn't come. and Tom stated it flat out.
it's similar in some ways to communities deciding if they want a Wal-Mart to move in. there's benefits, but at what cost? is there a line beyond which a community doesn't want to make any more concessions? i guess i want to find out from the people who proposed this legislation exactly what the money they raise would be used for. with guarantees that it would be put directly back into the resource, i think that's a reasonable demand on money-making tournaments and not a "concession" the state needs to make to keep those events coming here.
Some of us will have to pay more for this access, and be required to DO more for this access. If a tourney isn't involved, it is first come/first served. Even with a tourney, it would still be first come/first served. You know a tourney is here, get up earlier, and get the boat in the water. Simple as that!
that's not entirely accurate. tourney participants wouldn't be paying extra for access. tourney organizers would be paying for the right to hold an event, and paying on a scale related to the size of the event. (i know, it'll get passed on to participants, so same thing in the end.) it's not at all about using the resource, but using it in a way which generates money for the organizers.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Here is a document from Sonny Reynolds of the FLW on the economic impact that just the FLW has had over the years.
I misunderstood what he told me over the phone, when I said it was $300 Million since Oct of 2000. What he actually said that the impact was projected to be up to $300 Million over the next 10 years. just need to set that straight, that I misquoted Sonny previously.
The pdf is loaded now, if you are using IE it's an Adobe format. Save it to Firefox or similar browsers download box, open with Adobe.
Attachments
----------------
Wisconsin - State Summary 1986-2007 - 110706-1255pm.pdf (371KB - 187 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "Tournament anglers shouldnt just load up the launch. It is a public resource and everyone has a right to the lake. "
What's stopping folks from getting to the launch BEFORE the tourny rigs? remember..tourny anglers are "public" too. | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Think carefully about what Mr. Worrall just said here...
The medium sized tournaments will no be able to bear the financial or organizational and staffing responsibilities that would come with the proposed legislation.
If that is true than you can say goodbye to club tournaments as well. Ok so there's a few less club tournaments, I only fish one or two a year anyway, right? What does your club DO with that money they raise during those tournaments, or should I say what would not get done if those proceeds were to suddenly dry up and blow away.
That's right, the clubs DO use those proceeds for stocking, tagging, research etc.
When you start looking at the long term effects here, it becimes pretty apparent (to me at least) is that this would definitely not be good for the future of musky fishing in WI. Even if you HATE tournaments, you have to understand the contributions that would be lost if they were unable to operate in WI.
| |
| | |
| "Tournament anglers shouldnt just load up the launch. It is a public resource and everyone has a right to the lake. "
What's stopping folks from getting to the launch BEFORE the tourny rigs? remember..tourny anglers are "public" too.
the attitude that comes across from some tournament anglers that "we have the right to be here so screw you - just show up early, etc." might be based on fact and truth, but it's unhelpful in promoting their point of view or a positive image for tournament fishing. by their nature, people tend to vigorously oppose things when someone else says i'm not interested in what you have to say. think about that when trying to convince others on this issue.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| "it's not at all about using the resource, but using it in a way which generates money for the organizers."
Now who is making things up? NOWHERE in the bill that created this mess does it say anything close to that statement!
Why are you people so against a business making money?! Stop buying gas, and food, because the companies that sell it are using our resources, and MAKING MONEY!!!! Sheesh
Addict, exactly what I mentioned earlier. Say goodbye to the Pewaukee Classic as we know it. Say goodbye to a good portion of the funds it raised every year for muskie research, stocking, feeding, and rearing fish. Will the C&R muskie club be able to hold outings to support all the things they do? If this bill was in place 30 years ago, I'd bet my bottom dollar the muskie stocking that has happened in Green Bay would not be at the level, if at all, it has been. Could the Rhilander Muskie League afford a fee each week? Probaly wouldn't even be able to hold a weekly event!
I could go on, and this is just on the musky side of things. On the walleye side, far more members of fishing clubs and organizations are tournament anglers, than are not. Clubs like Walleyes for Tomorrow, Walleyes Unlimited, and the Sheboygan Walleye Club give back to the resource way more than the recreational angler and boater. And now we are being singled out and will be forced to do more, and pay more. THAT, in a nutshell is what this is all about. Has nothing to do with someone making money off the resource!
Edited by Shep 11/10/2006 12:00 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | lambeau,
Whoa there, now you are accusing tournament anglers of a pretty unfriendly behavior, and I don't see that at the launches. It takes about an hour to get a full field of PWT boats out on the water at ONE launch with staff and volunteers assisting. It took less than that to get everyone launched at the Kevin Worrall Memorial, and you were there, did you see or hear that sort of attitude? I didn't. And that was with an Invasive check on every boat.
The fact a launch is filled with tournament vehicles on an event day won't change one whit with this legislation. The fact they launch at 7 AM and come in at 5 PM won't change, either. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | lambeau - 11/10/2006 11:53 AM
"Tournament anglers shouldnt just load up the launch. It is a public resource and everyone has a right to the lake. "
What's stopping folks from getting to the launch BEFORE the tourny rigs? remember..tourny anglers are "public" too.
the attitude that comes across from some tournament anglers that "we have the right to be here so screw you - just show up early, etc." might be based on fact and truth, but it's unhelpful in promoting their point of view or a positive image for tournament fishing. by their nature, people tend to vigorously oppose things when someone else says i'm not interested in what you have to say. think about that when trying to convince others on this issue.
We do have a right to that launch Mike, just as much as the average joe. NOT ANY MORE, the same right. When I know I'm fishing a tourny at 6am, I don't show up to the ramp at 5:45 and expect a parking spot or a chance to jump the line to launch...I get there WAY before to get a spot and launch when I can. Sorry man, but we can't carpool with boat trailers. Nobody thinks of my feelings and perceptions of the "public" when I arrive at a launch and it's filled with non-tourny rigs. First come, first serve.
Parking should be a concern the DNR deals with LONG before they assign a permit.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/10/2006 12:20 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Ok so we've established that this is not a good thing. We've established that it definitely singles out tournament anglers while recreational anglers are exempt from any such regulations, even if they are fshing the same lake at the same time, and we've established that if anything this is a detriment to the resource, the local economy, the fishing industry, and tournament and non tournament anglers alike...
I know where I stand on this, and it's pretty clear where most of the others stand on this as well.
Is there anybody here who thinks this is a GOOD idea? Anyone in favor of it that isn't afraid to speak up and explain why? If this is affecting the walleye anglers, the bass anglers, and everyone else the same way it would effect tournament musky anglers, then it would seem to me they should need a stadium to hold all the people who will come and speak out against this.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | Addict, I'm in favor of some of it. I believe that tournys should be self supporting. If a majority of the public doesn't want their money going twords tournament management and administration, we should respect that. The DNR said they need about 90k a year to tend to Tournament administration. So be it.
| |
| | |
| I've been reading the comments on this thread and all the arguing and cannot believe most of the comments. First off, how can you argue when you don't even know/understand the facts? I can tell at least half of the people commenting have not even read the new rules proposed.
Everyone should go to the DNR site and READ all the changes before commenting so we understand what we are arguing about. Too many of the comments are distorted or misunderstood. The site has all the reasoning behind the changes and the cost analysis all broken down so we can understand why the fees are set where they are and which tournaments will be affected and how they will be affected.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether you agree or not. They should not be afraid to comment on this site for fear of being bashed. Lets ALL try to be respectful (including moderaters) just because they bash you doesn't mean you have to bash back! Nobody loves a little educated discussion more than I do, so please don't be afraid to comment.
EVERYONE PLEASE READ THE DNR INFO --HERE IS THE LINK FOR EVERYTHING YOU NEED
and then we can continue the discussion
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/fishingtournaments/fishtournru... | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I already read that entire document. I also read the documents linked by Pat Neu. I responded to some claims made by the WMT promoter, which I felt were as excessive as some of the opposing comments, but as I always attempt to do, I tried to balance that discussion with the facts. I then responded as 'devil's advocate' and injected some of my personal feelings on the proposed rules coupled with an interview with the In Fish Exec Director and balanced by Shep's conversation with the FLW Exec Director.
The DNR wants to recoup a $90,000.00 amount spent on a Bass pilot program. I'm expected to pay for that as a competitive Muskie angler. I already bought my license to catch a muskie, and now I'm expected to pay more because on Friday I enter a competitive event. I don't like that idea at all.
It costs the state about $76,000.00 per year to administer competitive events on open water and the ice. The state doesn't want to pay for that from excise tax, license, or other monies, and instead wants to charge me, the event, or both of us the entire amount so the program has a zero sum effect on the state DNR budget. There are countless other DNR administrative programs that do not benefit the state as much economically that are not under requirement to pay for themselves, and in reality we are talking a very small portion of the overall enforcement and regulation budget. Where WAS all this in the past, and why is such a relatively small portion of the budget suddenly so important? Tournaments are not new to the Wisconsin DNR Landscape. I think this is a classic example of bureaucratic tunnel vision looking at cost and ignoring the tremendous benefit, but that's me. it's apparent that the committees are having as much trouble reaching consensus as we are here.
Go back one page and click on the link in my post about Pat Neu's letter.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| I do agree that tournaments should be self supporting -- no reason anyone should have to fund something they are opposed to and do not participate in.
But why should I have to pay more to fish a tournament than I would if I just showed up that day? I'm not fishing any longer, any differently, or taking up anymore space at the launch or on the water than I would be if I was "just fishing"...
The DNR has studied the long term effects of tournament angling and there is no conclusive evidence that there is any detriment to the fishery. It's obvious to anyone that there is a positive impact to the local economies. The only people who really are inconvenienced by a tournament are the local residents who most likely just don't want all those boats on "their" lake catching "their" fish. | |
| | |
| lNobody thinks of my feelings and perceptions of the "public" when I arrive at a launch and it's filled with non-tourny rigs. First come, first serve. Parking should be a concern the DNR deals with LONG before they assign a permit.
with some exceptions especially in the spring, the average, fishing for the fun of it anglers don't come to a certain lake on a certain day in the same numbers that tournaments generate.
if a tournament organizer is going to, in effect, create intense pressure on parking and launch resources, it only makes good sense that they plan responsibly about how to manage it. whether they/you like it or not, it reflects on all tournaments everywhere. if you wonder why people get upset about tournaments, try to do some perspective-taking about what it's like for them to show up and find 100 or 200 boats on their favorite lake. in point of fact, most people DON'T know there's a tournament going on that day unless they follow the tournament scene.
Whoa there, now you are accusing tournament anglers of a pretty unfriendly behavior, and I don't see that at the launches.
i'm not talking about at the launches...i'm talking about comments made in this thread which reveal and portray a sense of entitlement.
to whit:
- You know a tourney is here, get up earlier, and get the boat in the water. Simple as that!
- a tourny... the same as if it filled by average joes. I'm seeing bigotry here.
- You should not speak about things you don't have a clue about!
most people say/type things that are indicative of underlying beliefs. to my mind, the unusual or extraordinary use of public facilities such as is created by tournaments behooves tourney organizers to anticipate and plan for ways to reduce it's impact on other members of the public.
a belief that it's "too bad for you, you didn't show up early enough" might be technically true, but doesn't make it any less rude or dismissive. using up all available parking is absolutely your right as a member of the public, but if you want people to have a positive view of tournaments, you might consider alternatives. give a little bit up to ease the tension it creates. it's called "cooperation", and it goes a looooong way.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Addict, what if I am not a crappie angler, and want all 'my' money going to walleye management? What if I am anti-hunting, and want all management money spent on administration of Deer Hunting to be applied to bird watching? I'm paying through my base tax dollar for an activity and associated cost I don't want anything to do with. I hear this sort of argument from Lake Association folks all the time, especially when discussing Muskie management. The DNR exists to manage our resources and our combined desired use of same. If the budget needs to be expanded by $76,000.00, then so be it, but to send me a portion of the bill above and beyond what I already paid as an angler living in Wisconsin is a little irritating. As I stated before, for the big events, an $815 fee isn't the end of the world. Need the fee from the Promoter? Fine, implement a fee for ALLLLL events, ALLL ice and open water; the State doesn't HAVE to justify that, they do that sort of thing all the time. Leave the rest as it is so the mid size and smaller events can still carry on with their events after contributing to the fee structure. $250 to $450 won't kill them either. Leave the non profit events like MI Tournaments alone, those help the DNR WAY more than cost them. It wasn't broke, and it doesn't need fixing.
And, as I stated clearly before, most events already do exactly that with the parking issue. Many of the PWT events have off ramp parking lots as far as a couple miles from the ramp to reduce crowding. The event promoters have to find shuttle and vehicle drivers to get the Pro's rig to his boat, or over to the lot. This is an administrative function that is settled between the community and the event promoters in concert with law enforcement WELL in advance of a large event with as many as 120 rigs involved. We don't need a new law and a new layer of enforcement and permitting bureaucracy to accomplish what is already in place.
A 50 boat event on a lake where there is no parking for 50 rigs will not be permitted under the current structure.
I knew you were addressing posts on the board with 'attitude', but that isn't how it read, so I tossed that one in so you would clarify. | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "with some exceptions especially in the spring, the average, fishing for the fun of it anglers don't come to a certain lake on a certain day in the same numbers that tournaments generate."
NOT TRUE. Maybe they don't come as a group, but they sure as hell come as a collective. Would I gripe if a lot filled before I got there? No. If that lot on Okauchee doesn't fill with tourny anglers it'll fill with weekend warriors. Most tournys in wisconsin probably draw at most 50 boats on average. You don't think North/South twin draws twice that many in fish-for-fun folks???
"if a tournament organizer is going to, in effect, create intense pressure on parking and launch resources, it only makes good sense that they plan responsibly about how to manage it. whether they/you like it or not, it reflects on all tournaments everywhere. if you wonder why people get upset about tournaments, try to do some perspective-taking about what it's like for them to show up and find 100 or 200 boats on their favorite lake."
Why is this a tourny director's responsibility? Who issues the tourny permit?? The DNR is the body responsible for the "intense pressure". I have yet to fish or help organize a tourny that didn't have an alternative parking plan. I will say this, they weren't plans to help the public's image of the tourny, it was to help the guys paying the tourny fee.
"in point of fact, most people DON'T know there's a tournament going on that day unless they follow the tournament scene."
NOT TRUE. With all the media, print, word of mouth and internet coverage from here to lake link, people know what bodies of water will, could or may have a tourny on them. Nobody is suprised to see a tourny on pewaukee or okauchee on a weekend. Nobody is shocked to see ERC having a tournament. Please don't forget that not every lake here is a tourny body of water.
Edited by Gander Mt Guide 11/10/2006 1:47 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "cooperation"
It's a two way street. Not one party giving into perception or to create a better image. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sorry in advance, but I just got this quote in an email from a friend in the industry:
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And, if it
stops moving, subsidize it." Ronald Reagan. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| "You should not speak about things you don't have a clue about!"
That was a direct response to ONE of your answers in which you totally were wrong. Your response indicated you had no idea what you were spouting as fact. So don't take that statement and generalize it for everything said here.
It's obvious that you support these regulations. Which is fine. Now, how about you get to one of these hearings, and get your opinion on the record. That's what I have been saying all along. Get off your collective butts, and get to one of the remaining hearings. Listen, decide, and let your voice be heard.
I'm going to hang a deer stand!
| |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Mr Worrall
If you are a crappie angler, than you should reasonably expect that whatever costs there are to maintaining a crappie fishery are covered by your license fees. If they are not you should expect that you may be asked to purchase a Crappie stamp in order to help maintain and preserve the opportunities you have to catch your crappies.
But if you are a crappie angler who fishes with a large group of other crappie anglers in the same place at the same time, and there happen to be prizes for your catch at the end of the day, you should then be required to pay additional fees on top of what you have already paid, because you obviously have money to spare if you're willing to pay to enter a tournament.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Good one, Addict, that was one of the best tongue-in-cheekers today, and there have been a few.
Someone please turn off the snow switch now.. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | So basically Steve what you and others are saying is that you dont want your money going to fish you dont fish for. You dont want the money you pay for crappie fishing going to walleye management? Is that correct or am I missreading?
Mike
I'm 21 today and I'm having a drink for all MuskieFirster's! | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| I don't want to be charged more just because I fish tournaments. There's no legitimate reason for a tournament angler to pay anything beyond the same launch fees and license fees that everyone else pays.
I certainly don't want to see the club tournaments I fish in endure any kind of hardship -- that moeny goes to stocking, research, tagging, etc. and God knows we need all the help we can get funding that stuff.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was making a point about this statement:
'I do agree that tournaments should be self supporting -- no reason anyone should have to fund something they are opposed to and do not participate in.'
It isn't enough to disagree with the proposed rule on the face of it, one has to verbalize what is objectionable and have that mesh with reality. | |
| | |
| Lambeau,
Yes, I too hope that the WMT can stick around. Beth and I and all of our tournament anglers have worked too hard and supported the WMT to the point where everyone feels like they are part owners of the tour to have it just slip away. And because more of the Bass and Walleye anglers are a part of the "tournament angler culture" that I mentioned earlier,(more so then most muskie anglers) and there numbers are huge, I don't think there is a chance in the world that the WNDR proposed rule changes will take effect.
On Monday, I called the WDNR and spoke to them about the NR. 20.40 and they assured me that the WDNR did understand the "tournament angler culture" however, they did tell me that the Natural Resource Board did not previously understand the tournament culture. After just a few of the meetings and being inundated by email, phone calls and letters, they are getting a better picture of the magnitude of the proposed changes. The WDNR said that permits will not be effected in 2007, so we have one more year of tournaments in Wisconsin at least.
STEVE,
Once again you have presumed to know my schedule...oh yes...I guess you were there when I didn't spend 126 hours each week (two weeks in a row without taking Saturdays or Sundays off) on our last bulk mailer that was one of our smaller mailers out of the several that we do in a year for a total of 1,512 hours...and I guess you are there when I don't set up tents on the Thursday before the tournaments and move boat(s) in to place, set things up on Fridays for the registration and meetings and getting to sleep at midnight(if I am lucky) to wake up at 3:00am Saturday and again on Sunday, and I didn't take down tents, collect boats and move them around on the following Monday all for 76 hours each tournament for a total of 988 hours...and I guess you were there when I don't drive for several weeks for 12 to 15 hours a day all around the state to distribute posters and brochures at places of business(by the way Saturdays and Sundays are the best days that way I know the resorts, bars, bait shop, ect. are certain to be open and I am the one who hangs them up to be certain that the job is done) for a total of 686 hours that I didn't do...and your there on the Tuesdays and Wednesdays in between our tournaments where I don't work on getting our equipment ready for the next tournament and write and mail out press releases and contact hosting sponsors and handle dozens of phone calls from tournament anglers and so on for 12 hours each day and a total of 312 hours...and I guess that doesn't add up to 3,498 hours that I didn't work on WMT releated stuff in 233 days and that doesn't include the many other things that I don't do the rest of the 132 remaining days!!! Sir, I am glad you are there to call me out and correct me in my lying ways. The WMT is a major tournament cicuit with 21 events and only two people running the show that for any other tournament circuit, would be having a dozen or more as a staff. I guess, according to Steve, that I must be Samantha Stevens and all I have to do is wiggle my nose and magically things get done! That's OK Steve, keep on thinking that, because all I am is someone who started a Wisconsin based muskie circuit before others did so I don't know anything!!
Steve, you need to bone up on the "old wives tail" theories. It was once thought that the top of the line preditors could not over populate and stunt as a result. I am very disappointed in your contradictions to the facts. Also, it is very apperent to me and to others that you are not a proponent of selective harvest even though this is the most progressive wildlife management practices that have been applied to just about every sought after animal and most fish species. If it works for deer hunting, turkey, elk, bear, you name it, why cant it work for muskies??? Lets get out of the stone age thinking that higher size limits is the best management tool. Slot limits, and better yet modified slot limits, are the new progressive way of thinking when it comes to all species of fish! Whey are you still stuck in the anachronism of out dated higher size limits. If you really wanted to make the fishery better on Pelican Lake, then why not make the lake a total catch and release lake for all species of fish. That makes a whole lot more sense.
And FYI Steve, I never asked anyone publicly or privately not to vote for the Pelican Lake size increase. I got in to the mix last year when it was brought to my attention that certain people at the Pelican Lake Association were answering question on tournament organizer's behalf and telling lake association members that the 50" limit would not effect muskie tournaments. My point was that they had no right and that all tournament organizers on Pelican, even the ice fishing ones, should have been invited to speek for ourselves. I do not think that that was an unreasonable request. And when I heard the so called"experts" painting a doom and gloom picture about Pelican Lake's muskie fishery, I had to step in with our data of 67 tournaments in 5 years to demonstrate that the facts are campared to other prime muskie hot spots in Wisconsin, that an arguement can be made Pelican Lake has perhaps the best ballance of all the lakes for its muskie fishery. The garbage that was being spewed out just didn't jive with our very large sample group.
In addition, when an Ontario fisheries biologist tells a WDNR fisheries biologist that they have no idea how many muskies per acre that they have in their lakes and that WDNR biologist tellsme, then I am sorry Steve but I am going to believe the biologist over you. That was my point on that!
As far as what takes longer to measure fish, transport or judge boat then I refer you to that tournament where it was taking up to 40 minutes to measure fish, you know what I am talking about, if not talk to Dennis R., he is still steaming over that, where the final death toll in that tournament was six muskies. I will not mention the tournament because I want to see it stick around and it is not there fault, because things happen. If that was a transport tournament then all those muskies would have been released fine unless one or two swollowed the hooks, loosing a lot of blood and then there is very little that could be done. I perdicted that would happen back in 2001 before the WMT ever ran a tournament and there was a lot of negative talk on web site about how we ran the transport method. Also, if transports were so bad then why do most of the anglers who fish both formats, prefer the transport??? Because of the quicker releases!!! I can remenber back in 2001 when Scott Lewandowski and Dan Dassow caught their first muskie in a transport tournament and Scott turned to me and said "Why don't all the muskie tournaments run tranports"? and Scott is and was back then a very accomplished muskie tournament angler with many wins and high placing with a lot of muskies measured in those tournaments.
Tom McInnis
| |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| I would hope that the DNR is using the proceeds from fishing license sales for fishing and not deer hunting for example, just as I would hope that the proceeds from a duck stamp go to duck hunting, whether I duck hunt or not is irrelevant.
Unless you want to start breaking it dowm by species as we do with trout/salmon stamps, all fishing is fishing, whether its a tournament or not. If additional money is needed in any one area, then raise the license fees to cover it. I buy a license to FISH. I happen to fish muskies with that license. Some guys fish catfish. I do not. I understand that some of the money from my license purchase may go to catfishing, and that is fine. The DNR makes no distinction between HOW I fish, or what species I fish for when I buy that license. They also make no distinction for my reason for fishing, whether it's for money, for food, or just for the fun of it. Therefore I do not see how they can justify charging tournament anglers an additional fee. As stated before my impact on the fishery is no greater during a tournament than it is any other time.
| |
| | |
| It's obvious that you support these regulations. Which is fine. Now, how about you get to one of these hearings, and get your opinion on the record. That's what I have been saying all along. Get off your collective butts, and get to one of the remaining hearings. Listen, decide, and let your voice be heard.
you're exactly right that people who believe something strongly need to do more than talk about it. that's the hardest part of motivating groups - getting them to act.
actually, in the past few days i've come to believe that not all of the proposals are a good idea. i simply can't accept it when people say "because i know better." i want to know WHY.
it's interesting watching the progression of this discussion:
at first it was "the fees will shut people down"...umm, not really.
then it became "we don't need regulation"...umm, it's no different than current operations.
and finally it is "it creates an unwelcoming environment and we should do all we can to encourage tournaments to come here".
this is a much more compelling position...sometimes a bit of "i call b.s." questioning helps people to figure out _why_ it is that what they think is right is actually right. if you want to convince more people, do it with a perspective that's both true, understandable, and reasonably presented.
time to put this one to bed, i think.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom,
Sorry about the 4000 hours comment, but that IS an excessive amount of time expended to run a muskie circuit you are paid zero for, don't you think? 77 hours a week, 52 weeks a year IS excessive.
I never said you don't know anything; you are really good at manufacturing statements never made. I also don't really find the fact that you run a Wisconsin Muskie circuit horribly enlightening, that doesn't give you license to abuse others and behave like a spoiled child when you are asked to justify or at least explain the motivation for your sometimes abusive commentary.
We used DNR estimates as to population per acre on Pelican. We conferred with the fisheries folks here, received full approval for the proposed changes thanks to Mike and Norm's hard work, and didn't make a single thing up in our presentation to the Lake Association. I'm sorry you didn't attend, that's not my fault, nor is it my responsibility to beg your appearance. We asked to have a few minutes to present our position, and we were granted those few minutes.
We explained carefully that a format change from transport to judge boats, like the Lakeview Inn Event, was all one needed do to keep a tournament on Pelican. I fail to see where that is misleading. It would have been up to the Association to invite or not invite others, they created and controlled the agenda. This was not a special meeting held just to hear us, Tom.
Pelican will see zero stocking for 10 years at least, and the population looked to drop significantly due to limited NR and high harvest. Since Pelican receives some of the highest angler hours for muskies of any lake in the state, and harvest has been historically very high there, it was obvious to many the lake needed to be protected if a viable muskie population was to be there in 10 years, much less the tremendous trophy potential the lake has displayed. I was guiding Muskies on Pelican, running Muskie tournaments, and watching the lake change as invasives, heavy stocking, and changes to the surrounding landscape changed her forever 30 years back, so don't presume to lecture me on Pelican Lake muskies. I don't really give a #*^@ if you agree and have no intent to try to change your mind; you have demonstrated a distinct lack of willingness to listen to any viewpoint other than your own.
I am not against selective harvest. I never have had a problem with the concept, why would I? A slot limit where density is high and the desire to harvest a number of the numerous portion of the population and leave the larger fish, OR, harvest the smaller and larger fish and protect the middle is sometimes an excellent management option. Neither of those scenarios apply to the current or future situation on Pelican. If the population in Pelican grows beyond what's good for the lake and ANY specie of forage fish is effected as a result during the next ten years, it will be a biological miracle beyond all miracles.
You need to look into the studies on Canadian waters done recently and in the past, including a very interesting study recently completed on LOTW. Until that time, you need to stop insisting the MNR has no clue about population size, density, forage, etc. Wabigoon and Eagle, LOTW and other waters have been the subject of intense study, and two of the Worlds leading authorities on Muskies are Canadian. I'm pretty sure neither just fell off the truck. Dr. Casselman knows enough about the population dynamics on trophy Canadian waters to predict the next record could easily come from the St. Lawrence, and offer 1% upper confidence estimates for several other waters, including my personal favorite, Wabigoon.
As far as the vote on Pelican at the meeting, of COURSE you didn't ask anyone to vote against it, you were, I guess, unaware of the meeting, and unaware of our proposal. Understandable, a guy as busy as you cannot keep the old thumb on the pulse 24/7. If you HAD been aware of the meeting, I bet you would have, and that's not even close to debatable.
You obviously didn't read my transport event comments earlier in this thread, read up.
As to the rest, I had better stop now or I might actually say what I'm thinking...
| |
| | |
| It looks to me like no one is going to change either Tom's or Steve's minds.
I think you both need to call each other up and set up a place where this thing can be settled once and for all. Just the two of you on some old logging road in the middle of nowhere! 
Let's grow up a little and leave your personal dislike for each other off the board! | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have no personal dislike for Tom at all; I actually think he's a great guy separated from the WMT hype (perbole). I do have an affinity for finding facts, though, and have a severe allergy to bullpucky.
I'm all growed up already, so that's out. I don't know how folks run a debate in Clintonville, but up here we say what needs to be said and keep digging until the last layer of the onion; amazing how the conversation eventually shifts closer to reality.
| |
| | |
Posts: 222
| Steve, keep sticking up for what you think is right. Because I think you're right on the mark.
Give my 2 cents on the Pelican Lake View tournament. I have been fishing it off and on (more on)
for the last 20 years. I think it has evolved into a very well run tournament. With Steve stepping back
in this year it has gotten a lot better. The only thing I would like changed is that the muskies should
stay in the net and in the water until a judge boat arrives. Also I think it should be the obligation of fellow
fisherman to help get a judge boat when they see a fish caught. Maybe they could win a door prize for helping a fellow fisherman since you had a 100 prizes to give out last year. The one thing that scares me on Pelican is that I see very very few small fish the last few years. Hopefully the size limit will help that. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Get to one of the hearings, voice your opinions either way! | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's a post from WalleyeFIRST Pro Johnnie Candle contributed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This letter is very eye opening. I do not live in WI, but as I stated before, these issues scare me a lot. This letter is from the Wisconsin Association of Lakes (WAL) to the state of WI. It is long, but worth the reading. If I read it enough times, I may drive from ND to WI just to vent a little.
Keep fighting the good fight. I have sent my letter and got the NPAA involved. i am on your (our) side.
WAL POSITION ON PROPOSED FISHING TOUNAMENT RULES
Draft 10.06.06
WAL believes that many aspects of the proposed rules, promulgated as required by 2003 Act 249, are positive steps to reduce the potentially negative impacts of tournament fishing on the resource, riparian owners and the public users of the waters.
WAL has concerns about the proposed rules in five major areas: protection of small water bodies; funding of DNR expenses related to tournament fishing activities; control and prevention of aquatic invasive species; mortality in catch and release tournaments; and conformance to local ordinances.
Small water bodies. The proposed rules allow too many boats relative to surface area on lakes less than 450 acres. The table which defines the maximum number of boats would allow 25 boats on a 100 acre lake, or one per 4 acres. The impact on the fishery and on other users of such density, especially considering the size and power of the boats used by most tournament participants would be immense and unacceptable. To address this issue, WAL recommends the following:
(a) Create a separate category for lakes between 100 and 249 acres. Limit the number of tournament boats on these waters to 15 and the number of boat-days to 30.
(b) Require a DNR permit for tournaments having 10 or more boats on waters between 100 and 249 acres.
(c) Clarify the surface area computation for situations where multiple water bodies are not connected by waters navigable by the typical boat used by participants. WAL recommends that the tournament size and duration be limited by the area of the largest water body.
(d) Clarify that the tournament boat days allocation applies toward the limits on all of the water bodies allowed to be used by the tournament participants.
(e) Where small water bodies are to be fished as a part of a multiple water body tournament, establish limits by permit on the number of tournament participants who may simultaneously use them.
Tournament costs and funding. The proposed fees may be inadequate to fully fund the administrative, research and enforcement efforts related to tournament fishing activity. WAL recommends the following to address the funding issue:
(a) Assure that all costs associated with tournament events are recognized, including those for enforcement and research. The fiscal estimate of $76,000 seems to be the absolute minimum required to administer the rule with little left over for enforcement or research.
(b) Establish a fee structure that assures that all tournament costs are paid by the organizers and/or participants. While either of the proposed fee alternatives is acceptable, WAL believes the participants should bear some of the burden and so WAL favors Alternative 2.
Aquatic invasive species. Wisconsin lakes are increasingly impacted by the introduction of aquatic invasive species. Current regulations and those contained in the draft rule are inadequate to prevent the spread of these invaders from one water body to another. Tournament participants fish many different waters on a regular basis and may even fish multiple water bodies during a single tournament. WAL believes the tournament participants and organizers have a special duty to assure that their activity doesn’t cause AIS infestations. WAL recommends the following be included in the rule:
(a) Require the tournament organizers to define a detailed plan for AIS control, including watercraft and trailer inspections at landings, proper disposal of water from bilge, engine cooling systems and live wells, disinfection and other appropriate means to eliminate possible transport of AIS. The DNR should review and approve such plans and be granted authority to enforce the provisions. Tournament organizers should be financially liable for the associated costs. In many cases tournament organizers may find local volunteers to assist in AIS control efforts.
(b) Add a statement to the rule which specifically authorizes the DNR to impose conditions over and above what are contained in s. 30.715 WI Statutes and the associated rules.
(c) Encourage tournament organizers and participants to promote AIS prevention to the general public. Tournament participants and organizers were the leaders in promoting catch and release fishing and they should take the same leadership role with regard to AIS.
Fish mortality. Tournaments conducted under catch and release rules, and especially those where the weigh in was off site, have resulted in significant fish mortality after release. The rules must err on the side of protecting the resource. WAL recommends the following provisions to reduce mortality and to provide incentives to the organizers and participants to properly handle the catch:
(a) Require a permit for all catch and release tournaments with a weigh in, regardless of the location of the weigh in.
(b) Prohibit the use of bags to transport or hold fish.
(c) Establish clear minimum standards for all means of holding and transporting fish. Live well and holding tank specifications for volume, dissolved oxygen and temperature should be included in the rule. The results of numerous studies should be analyzed to determine the standards.
(d) Require verification of live well and holding tank operation by the tournament organizer and DNR prior to the tournament and at random during the course of the tournament. If the live well doesn’t meet the requirements, the participant should be disqualified. If holding tanks don’t meet the requirements, the location of the weigh in should be moved to the water’s edge so that fish can be removed from the live well, weighed and returned within a very short time.
(e) Establish clear authority for the DNR to impose modified rules on a specific event to reflect the current conditions on the water body including water temperature and presence of disease. The authority should include but not limited to disallowing catch and release, moving weigh in sites and limiting the areas to be fished.
(f) WAL supports the requirement for an enforceable plan for disposal of any fish killed during the tournament. DNR should also have authority to keep the fish to be released in a holding area for a minimum of 24 hours following weigh in to assess the impacts of the holding and handling procedures and equipment on mortality.
(g) WAL supports the prohibition on catch and release tournaments with an off site weigh in from July 1 to August 31.
Local consultation. Many local governments, lake districts and lake and river organizations expend significant effort and money to protect and enhance the quality of their water resources. The efforts include AIS control and prevention, stocking, fish habitat improvement, boating regulations, landing maintenance and others.
(a) The DNR and tournament organizers should be required assure that the tournament permit conditions comply with local regulations and that tournament activities don’t adversely impact the work of the local agencies and groups.
(b) Information should be required to be provided to all tournament participants regarding local rules and regulations and the DNR authorized to enforce them.
(c) When a tournament permit is issued, information copies should be provided in a timely manner to county and town authorities and to the affected water body citizen organizations.
-----
Keep the line tight,
Johnnie Candle
#42 | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Who is going to be at the Rhinelander hearing tomorrow night? I am going to try to get up there. It's a long drive home after, but this is important. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Shep, I'm going. You are more than welcome to stay here overnight, and head out early Thursday morning. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I think TJ and I might make it up there. Perhaps a drink or two at the hideout or local bar somewhere??
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Can anyone tell me what time the meeting starts tomorrow night? | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 7 PM at Nicolet, as I understand it. | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| 7pm at Nicolet. | |
| | |
Posts: 19
| wow, alot has been said about the proposed dnr regulations. i am 100% behind all that shep has had to say. i do not fish tourneys but made it a point to attend the hearing held in fitchburg, wi. let me tell you it is very important that we come together as fisherman as a group. muskie, bass, or walleye.... until you actually sit at one of those hearing and hear what is being proposed it is crazy. if you didn't attend one of the hearing you don't know that half of it. the dnr didn't even take the economic impact it would have on the local economies of the communities that these tourneys are held. they didn't think it was vital enough. another thing, the proposed reg. about the number of tourneys to be held on a particular body of water is going to be really limited. that means musky tourneys being held with have to compete with the bass and walleye tourneys as to the total number of tourneys held on a body of water. certain lakes that hold musky events may be bumped because the lake already met its allowed number of tourneys for the month. another thing i learned is that the new proposed large fees to get the tourney are non-refundable. that is crazy. you can put up the $800 fee and still not get your tourney. on top of that your local club that put the money up will not get it back. why does the dnr have to keep all the application fees if you are not allowed your tourney. another issue that kept coming up from the tourney fisherman that were present was the battle with the lake owners association and how they have had a large part in this proposed regulations even taking place. they seem to want the lakes all private only for those that live on the lake..... another issue is the ais checking of our boats. there are on any given day 5 times the amount of recreational boaters and jetskies tearing up the lake. it seems to me that they are singleing out fisherman as a whole. we all pay our taxes and license fees and have just as much right to be on the water as the recreational boaters. if they are going to regulate the lakes they should do it as a whole. it is very important that we all get involved to keep our sport and not let the govt. or people that don't even know that coontail is a plant and not an animal that climbs trees....... I am behind you shep...... | |
| | |
| Good Luck up nort boys! Can't wait to hear the feedback! Let me know how many times you hear the word "culling/Sorting"!!! I need some ammo!
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Sorry I couldn't make it last night, but I have sent an e-mail to Pat Scmalz, so I will be on record. I encourage everyone to write to him, as it will be entered into the record, and it will help.
As for those e-mailing me accusing me of crying wolf, or yelling the sky is falling. Think what you will. But when your recreational angling rights are slowly taken away, I won't say I told you so. I'll say you got no right to complain. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Shep,
I said my piece last night, as did quite a few others. When I left, there had been no support at all for the new regs. This could end up in Legislative Committee for a long time. By the way, the folks from the DNR said last night that an economic impact component will have to be added, and that's a very significant statement. | |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Yes, that is important. At the least, it will delay this for a while. I'm taking the pessimistic view, so that we don't forget about it. I'd keep Tyee on the job for the next few years, to keep us appraised of the status!
I have hopes that my new assemblyman will try to kill this bill during his term. I am asking him to do it. | |
| |
|