|
|
Posts: 457
| http://www.haywardwis.com/record/?section_id=34&story_id=234220
It's a brief article about the DNR's proposal(s) for the Chip. I find it interesting they are allowing motor trolling, and then planning on upping the size limit to 50". I can't say that I disagree with upping the limit, however I question its viability as a means of protecting the fishery. I would imagine that a great majority of the fish in the 45-50" range aren't kept in the first place. It seems almost as though it is posturing, as it were.
The other thing that I find really interesting is the plan of "one line." I don't think I have ever fished more than one line. Not while baitfishing, most definately not while casting, and I've never dragged baits for musky. I question the "rule" being implemented on the Chip, and not on other bodies of water. If they are going to use it as a stepping stone, why would they not do it statewide in the first place?
I'm not being critical, because I am not a fisheries manager or biologist. I question, however, the effectiveness that these policies would have on a body of water that would be hard as hell to troll in the first place, and second I question the overall need.
Again, not being critical of the pending decisions, but curious as to what others might have to say about the possible implications, or benefits, of the actions. | |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I disagree strongly that most 45" to 50" fish are released. Many are not, just watch the papers for a small sampling of what is actually harvested.
The 50" limit proposed will do exactly what Dave says it will do in the article, protect the Chip's potential as a true trophy fishery now and into the future. Norm Wild and Mike Roberts worked hard to accomplish the same thing on Pelican, and I applaud that effort and look very much forward to the inevitable positive results.
Three lines live baiting and trolling are too many; more than anywhere else I know of. One for Muskies deosn't seem to bother anyone in MN and Canada, and would be a big step here in getting trolling out of the social mores/tradition camp and into reality....trolling is just another way to catch muskies.
Allen and Detloff should have no (ZERO) say in the matter; what is WRONG with that paper even offering those two a place to comment?? Both have taken anti-conservation stances on size limit increases in the past so it's no surprise they would again, and both have been detached from reality for years.
The 45" limit hasn't done anything to help? What an unbelievably ignorant statement. | |
| | |
Posts: 457
| sworrall - 9/7/2007 10:13 PM
The 45" limit hasn't done anything to help? What an unbelievably ignorant statement.
I think that I'd agree with the general sentiment of your statement, as well, I would have to agree that the above line in particular is one that rings true beyond belief.
I quoted that line, not meaning to take it out of context, but to justify my prior statement (if that was directed back at me). What I intended by stating that, is that I don't see any single one of these being implemented solely, I just chose the size limit as the one in question. I wholly agree that managing it as a trophy fishery will make a difference in the long term. As well, I would imagine that it is NOT going to deter people from venturing to the flowage.
I wasn't insinuating that I disagree with anything within the proposal, but I question why some of the same regs wouldn't be instituted state wide. I guess I should have made that more clear.
As far as the number of 45'+ fish released to kept, maybe I'm disillusioned on that. I really don't keep super close tabs on the area as far as the numbers kept. What I do keep tabs on are those in the circles that I know, people that I fish with. Maybe it is being hopeful.
I think I read you correctly in saying that you hope the "stepping stone" is implemented, and sticks? If that's the case, would you then not be opposed to seeing those regs go statewide, or at least more of a clear cast on some of the more notable inland waters? That's the part I am questioning, I guess, why just Chip? Why not manage other bodies in the same manner? Quite possibly there is a plan to do so, this was the first thing that I had seen about any of it.
As far as Allen and Detloff, you got me there. I don't know too much about either of them, other than what has been said in the past. No real first hand experience, so I won't comment any further. | |
| | |
| The 50 inch limit would be great and I have seen the 45 limit help dramatically in recent years! Motor trolling one line is no big deal (as done in MN and Canada) and it is so funny how it is hit or miss all across WI based on nothing but tradition. | |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was directing that at Detloff's ridiculous comment in the article. The regulations are proposed for the Chip because the management there and the public there largely seem to support it. One step at a time. We got the Pelican limit to 50", and have no desire or intent to take that statewide. Each waterbody has it's own special interest groups and potential for each specie of fish, and each needs to be managed as such.
I am hoping to see those regs on trophy waters, and trolling allowed on the bigger waters across the state. But that's me...Tomorrow the Kevin Worrall Memorial on Pelican! | |
| | |
Posts: 457
| Understood.
Good luck and be safe to all those in the tourney tomorrow. I'd like nothing more than to be chuckin lumber at critters with ya. | |
| | |
| I loved the comment about motor trolling destroying the quiet ambiance of the lake. I have a vision of hundreds of anglers motor trolling with 200 hp 2 stroke motors at 20 to 30 miles per hour, kinda like the scene from Jaws where all the city yayhoos are shooting at the sharks hahaha.!!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| Minnesota and Canada fishermen don't know anything but one line but they are trying to at least allow two lines in Minnesota. When I go to those areas that only allow one rod trolling with only one rod just plain feels wrong since I am use to using 3 lines per person.
There is a possesion limit and size limit along with C&R there should not be any noticable difference between being able to use 1, 2, or 3 rods.
The other thing that bothers me about this is do we really want every lake to have different regulations? Look at the mess with the trout regulations? | |
| | |
| How dare the DNR go against Johnny Dettloff's wishes for "HIS" lake! What a crock!! Perhaps he is worried that trolling will allow "others" to catch a 50" Chip musky before he does (about 30 years trying and still nothing over 48 1/2").
He once said that he didn't care if no one ELSE fished the Flowage. He would be happy having it all to himself.
The "Chippewa Flowage Plan" is SOUND and based on good biology to make the Chip a "Trophy Musky Fishery". Dettloff is ONE PERSON, and as such should have no more say than anyone else fishing the Chip!!
Allen has already "seen the light" and is now catching his big muskies on Mille Lacs.
Amazed | |
| | |
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | WHAAAATTT?!!!!
I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT ANY OF YOU WERE SAYING...
MY NOW EVER MORE POPULAR 4-STROKE ENGINE IS SO LOUD WHILE IDLING THAT THE ENTIRE LAKE SOUNDS LIKE A RACE-TRACK DURING A CAUTION LAP, AND EVERYONE MUST SCREAM AT EACH OTHER TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WHILE SITTING NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER.
I SURE HOPE YOU ALL CAN HEAR ME...THE LAKE IS JUST SO HORRIBLY LOUD FROM THE CONSTANT LINE OF EVERYONE IN THE NATION COMING TO TROLL "MY" LAKE THAT I MIGHT LOSE MY VOICE TRYING TO CONVEY MY CONCERNS.
I GUESS I'D HAVE TO AGREE WITH JOHN THAT IT'S SO LOUD UP HERE THAT THE "QUIET AMBIANCE" IS GONE FROM EVERYONE COMING "JUST TO TROLL" THE BIG CHIP AND RUINING THE SUMMER HOMES OF OTHERS ON THE LAKE FROM ALL THE EXCESSIVE 4-STROKE MOTOR NOISE.
HONEY?!!!.....YOU SEEN MY HEARING PROTECTION?!! 
I would agree with Steve on this as well...John's comments are what I would call "an extreme stretch", and regardless of the size limit, just catching these fish is fun. On a body of water that size, the more BIG fish that get be released, the more LITTLE fish that can be created to replenish the resource.
As has been shown in various waters where size limits have increased...we see more fish, but especially more BIGGER fish, and probably countless fish that have been caught and released multiple times.
I hope they go ahead with the change. Definitely a smarter management policy, and it will also show that trolling will not "rape" a lake.
About the only question I would have is how do you enforce the 1-line rule JUST for muskies? There are northerns in there too, and in some cases, trolling walleye sized lures may out-produce muskie-size stuff. We all know how that goes..."oh..I was fishing for walleyes officer... I just happened to catch 4 muskies doing so...HONEST!"
Steve
Edited by VMS 9/9/2007 2:51 PM
| |
| | |
| Tee Hee, now THAT was a funny post... WHAT... CAN YOU HEAR THIS OKAY?
I agree 100% what Steve said about John Dettloff and Scott Allen being "detached from reality for years".
I'm of the opinion that Dettloff has single-handedly done more to hurt muskie fishing over the years with his staunch opposition to increased size limits than any one person.
The fact that reduced size limits around Hayward could have affected the entire state makes my blood boil, part of his delusional reasoning is that there are 60 pound fish still swimming in Hayward waters... even though none have ever existed.
On another front his "cherry picking only Hayward records program" made us the laughing stock of the entire country in newspapers and on ABC not too long ago.
Let's not forget the misallocation of funds and direct lies Steve Worrall found contained within the contents of CFMS... just another feather in the cap of Dettloff's illustrious contributions to the sport of Muskie fishing.
His position in Hayward and eccentric detachment from reality has done irreparable damage to our sports credibility. Whenever he is allowed to make ridiculous comments like that he should be collectively tarred and feathered for it.
I understand he was recently demoted from president at the Hall of Fame, I can only hope that both Dettloff and Allen's 15 minutes of fame are over.
| |
| | |
| I thought MuskieFirst wasn't supposed to be used for bashing? | |
| | |
| Kelly:
Since when is telling the truth bashing??? XXX and I are "right on!"
Amazed | |
| | |
| I think you can disagree with someone by arguing the facts and against their positions rather than personal attacks. | |
| | |
| Amazed,
You weren't one of the people who launched the personal attacks. I thought your argument was said well and above board.
The personal attacks by other people don't belong. Nobody should have more of a say than anyone else and nobody should be excluded from having a say either. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I applaud Dave for his efforts in Assisting a particular water reach its goal. I also agree that size limits are/can be helping. I am happy to say that the size limit increase that I proposed for the WI River a few years ago, seems to be helping. While I am sure a 50" wouldn't hurt the Chip and I'd vote for it every time, wouldn't working/putting more effort into to improving statewide/other lakes in more need help our overall fishing experience in WI more? While I'd love to see size limits increased at least a few inches statewide, I'd realistically like to see more efforts to improve many of the trophy lakes stuck at 34" now, rather than working soley to change regs on lakes with already high/er limits(I talked and got blasted about this regarding the G.B. proposal too). Don't get me wrong, I applaud them for taking another step, but really wish that more lakes in WI at the current limit of 34" would be considerred as at least 40, 45, or 50 lakes right now, which(in my opinion) would improve fishing accross the board, alot more than raising a limit from 45-50 on one high profile lake. I also wish that more current 34" lakes would be changed or proposed by the DNR itself, so people like Norm, Mike and myself didn't have to do it each year too. I feel there are alot of lakes that are being 'raped' with 34" limits, far more negatively impacting our states' fisheries than the lakes with already favorable limits(again opinion..).
Lastly, I do not agree with the one line per angler STATEWIDE for Muskies. If they'd want to make it one line per angler in trolling situations, or on lakes where there is a high incidence of line attendance abuse(like the Chip), fine, otherwise I'd fight it tooth and nail. While I don't think we need 3 lines, two is something many commonly employ. I don't agree that 80% of muskies that die in WI are from single hook rigs(again opinion/knowledgeable reason). I just don't see them in use anymore, and would like to know where the hundreds of people are using them that would be required to make up these types of numbers. The majority of fish killed in WI are still our bread and butter 35-43"ers caught as incidentals or by people that just want to keep them. That is still the issue. Once fish grow over that size, they are more likely to be caught by Musky anglers than as incidentals. I do see single hooks in use on rare occasion, and hate them. Why not just ban their use and cut to the chase, rather than penalize those who do things 'right'? Of course, the authors of such(statewide) proposal, realize that there would be little foundation for this to be passed, not to mention the trouble that would be encountered with people fishing for 'other' species when trying to enforce it.
Not that I need to even state my case, but during about 5-7 outings per year in the fall, I like to make drifts down my favorite flats in and drag a sucker while casting artificials. This is as much tradition as it is very effective. I am very alert, and set hooks as soon as I have a pick-up, as I am sure most Musky anglers do. Why again, is this proposed to be outlawed? I also like to drag a single sucker on waters that trolling is legal, while casting artificials, employing the same tactictry, though using the electric motor to guide me around structure. Again, if this is raping our Musky fishery, I'd like the deep-thinkers in charge of this proposal to enjoy a few fall days with me, to see just how 'easy' it is to devastate the Musky population on the lakes I fish.
Again, not trying to start a line-per-angler war, but I regularily fish MN too, and don't agree with the one line rule there, as many, many Musky anglers that I talk to agree. It is, though, why we have more of an anti-livebait sentiment coming from MN. They simply cannot use it in the effective manner that some states can, so they don't, and I don't fault them for their criticism of it in those regards. If this is about getting rid of fishing with suckers, and the grey area that clouds their use while 'position' fishing in WI, say so. Please don't try to say, though(not saying you did), that multiple lines by Musky anglers are devastating our fisheries, and the/a reason that we aren't catching more big fish. If we were allowed only one line, the pig f***ers(a term we like to use for the schmucks ruining it for the rest of us) that don't abide by current line attendance law, kill fish with single hooked, unnattended lines, will still do so and the same enforcement issue will persist.
Raise size limits on lakes that 'need' it, continue to make headway in stocking improvements(and non-stocking), hold people accountable regarding the tending of lines, get rid of single square hook use(I'd even go along with outlawing circle hooks, and I use them, if it helps ease enforcement), and please don't try to manage/penalize the entire state or even the rest of NW WI for an issue widely and long known to plague the Chippewa Flowage.
Jason D. Schillinger
(715) 424-0513
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/8/2007 9:56 PM
| |
| | |
| Mr. Worral,
What exactly is the policy of this forum on bashing specific people and products? Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that it is ok, as long as you agree with it.. You bashed Detloff, which is fine with me, but how come if someone talks about the trolling pontooner, minn kota or tuffy boat customer service, the post gets erased? Can you please clarify as I am confused????? | |
| | |
| "He once said that he didn't care if no one ELSE fished the Flowage. He would be happy having it all to himself. "
I don't know about you, but isn't that the truth for anyone that spends alot of time on one body... I would be happy having Mille Lacs all to myself, heck I'd be happy with a 100 yards all to myself... | |
| | |
| I'm tired of the double talk that resonates from that part of our great state of Wisconsin, here is just a small sample of Detloft doubletalk quoted directly from the article.
“The musky fishing on the Flowage is at one of the finest levels it’s ever been at in history. We’re experiencing the best fishing we’ve ever seen and I’ve been doing this for about 34 years." "As for the 50-inch minimum, Dettloff said “there’s no reason to up the limit, the 45-inch limit (currently) hasn’t done anything to help.”
Let me get this straight John, you maintain the fishing is better than it's ever been in one breath, then in the next breath say the 45 inch limit hasn't done anything to help. Delusional seems very appropriate. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Start a different thread related Johns comments, please(and put this post there too...). Keep this one open for discussion of the DNR's proposals, the reason it was started. Most know the size limits can help if applied properly(ie higher ones where needed..). That said, John did have a right to voice his opinion(even in a newspaper), no matter if we agree or not. If someone was quoted by the paper applauding the DNR for the entirety of the proposal, would anyone have complained here? I would, as I don't agree with it in its; entirety. My right(until the owner or administrator of the site feels like removing it which is their right too...hehehe). Prominent locals are quoted regarding these types of things all the time. People will disagree. So what. Just want to see more thoughts/comments on the proposal itself here.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/8/2007 7:44 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 80
| I thought Reef Hawgs comments were spot on. Get rid of the swallow rigs up the size limits on the trophy potential lakes and leave the lines per angler ALONE. Just my 2 cents | |
| | |
Posts: 3
| sounds like a good method to make folks not want to fish for muskies on the chippewa flowage. if a professional guide has tried for a 50" fish for 30 years and never caught one, don't you think folks will get the idea that there aren't any that big and not bother to come to the big chip to fish.
how do you think this will affect business for the guides and resorts?
while you are at it why not make walleye mininum size 27 inches. that might will help business too. jeesh!
perhaps the promoters of the increase of the size limit of muskies think it will actually make the visiting fishermen believe there are lots of 50" muskies. why else would the dnr raise the limit to 50" ??? | |
| | |
Posts: 80
| wistex, The DNR would be helping the Chip's trophy potential by raising the size limit. Anyhow were I am from we eat walleyes and let the skis go. jeesh! | |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | jclymer,
'Allen and Detloff should have no (ZERO) say in the matter; what is WRONG with that paper even offering those two a place to comment?? Both have taken anti-conservation stances on size limit increases in the past so it's no surprise they would again, and both have been detached from reality for years.
The 45" limit hasn't done anything to help? What an unbelievably ignorant statement.'
Show me the 'bash' there. That's well known established fact and RIGHT from those two as a source. I have no problem with the resort, the guiding, the books...etc. I have a problem with total bull. And I have a problem with folks like that misinforming the public to benefit themselves. If that's bashing, get used to it, I'll use my Editorial position here whenever possible to make sure that crap don't fly.
No bash intended, just absolute clear (editorial) opinion.. Want to see bashing? Listen to those two spout off about me, MuskieFIRST, and our editorial policies and positions; and that largely because I caught them in one of the biggest misrepresentations of reality I've ever seen...the CFMS. And the trolling pontooner comment isn't erased, look around before you make comments like that. ( http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=37...) many times it's context that causes a thread to get tossed into the recycle bin...that thread was congratulating a lady in her 90's on a 54" fish. Want to talk about the trolling pontoons on Mille Lacs? Been discussed before in detail, go ahead! And no comment that is truthful, and not a personal vendetta, will be removed unless it's just plain rude, stupid, or untoward. So I'm correcting you as requested, despite the obvious rude slant of your comment in your post above. By the way, I actually am 'sponsored' by MotorGuide, and have been for some time. Doesn't mean we will allow inaccurate, untoward, or other damaging and untrue commentary about the competition.
Still confused?
If you can't see the difference here right up front, I don't have the time or patience to explain it.
Wistex,
You can't be serious, can you? Where does any of what you say occur with the proposal? Are you saying the new 50" limit on Pelican is BAD for tourism?? Check what happened in Canada when they implemented the 54" limits ( I bet Herbie hates all that business)....THAT's reality. Why raise the limit? READ THE PROPOSAL. Then comment based on the facts of the debate.
Reelman,
There already are specific management differences and regulations on Muskie waters all across the state. Pelican is 50". Moen isn't. | |
| | |
Posts: 688
Location: Northern IL | 1st any time someone proposes to wipe off the books an out of date out, of touch, 84 year old rule, I'm in favor of it! State wide or one lake at a time, even if the one's who are proposing it comes off,, well lets just say I question there source of data.
I only see an up side to the raising of the size limit as well.
Why dose the DNR "so called" expertise come in to question so often? Well here we have one prime example:
Dave Neuswanger,, "fisheries team leader" and the "senior fisheries biologist" Frank Pratt say with only "one line in the water, anglers will be "forced" to be more attentive to that line, meaning a musky will not be susceptible to "swallowing" a hook," which team leader Neuswager said proves deadly" blah blah, blah...
You want to talk about disconnected from reality? I want to know just how many muskies have "team leader and frank" caught trolling, I suspect not too many, where do they come up with this stuff? I remind you I'm 100% behind the change in the 84 year old rule but give me an argument against it that makes some sense.
The fact is this statement is founded in complete misrepresentation of fact, trolling has NEVER shown to to be fatal (swallowing a hook) to muskies than any other method.
The part about fishing below the thermocline again How many fish has "team leader and frank" caught fishing below the thermocline? Again, I suspect not too many. I know, I've tried! Fish that are below a thermocline are pretty much inactive, dormant and almost impossible to locate and catch.
They should either stay with the 3 rod rule or go to a state wide 2 rod rule except on the great lakes. Trolling is not going to hurt the lake with the increase in the limit. There will be increased economic activity with the no trolling rule dropped. | |
| | |
Location: 31 | Thank you Steve, eloquently stated as usual! I was alerted to this thread yesterday and was curious how its contents would be dealt with on Muskie 1st when you returned from Pelican - hope you all had a great time. To say I understand your stance regarding Mr. Dettloff and Mr. Allen would be quite the understatement.
I would be lying if I said that I didn't wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread in that regard, however I cannot take credit for them. I am aware though who one of the posters was and I would like to assure you, and those concerned, that I have taken steps to curtail the activity and have the Muskie 1st website policies fully respected by this person in the future.
I just thought I would take a moment to assure you of this and remind those interested that the original reason I began this quest remains; to end the controversy over the current record, and do my best to return legitimacy to the number one record of our beloved sport.
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | I'm of the opinion that combined with new length and creel limits an across-the-board one line per angler inland line restriction that includes forward trolling could only benefit the state of Wisconsin's fish population, and in turn provide a better catch and release fishery for everyone. Please consider for a moment that the overall population for all fish on every lake would undoubtedly increase in both numbers and size.
Imagine if you would what would happen on the lower Fox River this fall if there was a one line per angler regulation imposed tomorrow. My guess is that you would see most muskie anglers casting, and very few trolling their singular line. Most trollers would be those who needed a break from casting, or were unable to cast at all.
Sounds like this could be a return to a Wisconsin tradition of casting on one of the state's finest muskellunge fisheries, minus the trailing sucker of course - certainly a concession for some. Any quick strike rigs would have the angler's undivided attention so they would be less chance for the fish to swallow the live bait presentation. I would hope that they did not think a fish would swallow an artificial presentation, perhaps it was addressing a small fish being dragged in a multiple line trolling situation.
I agree wholeheartedly with abolishing the single hook sucker rig, I also agree with the proposal that one line would receive the attention it deserves when using live bait. I'm guessing that part of the dilemma facing Wisconsin's fisheries management personnel is they would like to open up more lakes to trolling, however, the generous three line limit looms problematic.
I hope some of us can still remember back-trolling three lines per about a decade ago on class A Muskie Lakes, cough cough, and can agree that was a problem. Perhaps two lines per angler would be a nice compromise statewide?
Perhaps unattended lines, swallow rigs, and folks keeping non-trophy muskellunge is a problem on the Chippewa Flowage and they are proactively seeking to address these issues without consideration to the rest of the state at this time.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | C'mon Jer, when I try to fish the Fox and the bay this year and next openner, and don't have to work around your 5 and 6 line sets, I may take notice of your reasoning. That said, you are one of the, if not the most courteous multi line runners I see, and I have no trouble with your way of fishing. But, if one line is the way to go, ethically and fundamentally, why are you running as many or more lines as anyone on the water when I see you out???
You are a troller, would like to see more(all?) lakes openned up to trolling. I am not a regular troller(I do it in late fall when the 'only' option), and am usually casting one line while trying to avoid mulitple line sets now on Green bay, in places we used to cast on our own. If multiple line sets were causing harm to the fishery now, why not start a trend now man, and lead by example?
"Please consider for a moment that the overall population for all fish on every lake would undoubtedly increase in both numbers and size. "
Explain to me how a one line per musky angler would increase fish populations and size on every lake. You are telling me that fishing with a sucker on a quick set rig(the practice that the vast majority of Musky anglers employ on WI's non trolling lakes if using more than one line) is harming the population of all fish on every lake in WI?
"would hope that they did not think a fish would swallow an artificial presentation, perhaps it was addressing a small fish being dragged in a multiple line trolling situation."
Actually, I had a much tougher time reviving a couple throat hooked fish that ate smaller trolled lures, than any live bait on quick set incident ever caused me. I have seen SOME(notice my emphasis on some) trollers handling fish in a far more detrimental fashion than the majority of livebait guys I've seen as well. Dragging fish to the rear of the boat at 5-7mph, only to simply dump them back into the lake(St. Claire Torpedo style) at the same speed, hoping they survive, because they don't want to stop and reset 6 lines during a release. While it probably works just fine most of the time, and I am not questioning its overall effectiveness, I don't think it is any better for the fishery(arguably worse) than fishing with livebait where a 6 second delay in picking up a rod could result in a fish that is actually hooked well on a quickset for a change(please tell me the last time you had one swallow a quick set...).
That said, I am on the fence regarding trolling on all lakes too. I used to bandstand its' comeback, but with the changing of the 'guard' in Musky fishing so to speak, I am not so sure. I don't like how people troll within 11 feet of my boat on the bay now, and would hate to see it on my home waters smaller than 500-1000 acres too where I can now get away from it for a few months. Again, personal opinion. But, to say that the current rule is detrimental to the fishery is simply bunk. Get rid of single hook use, drop line limits to two lines an angler or a boat limit of 3 or 4, enforce it, and problem solved.
I'd hate to see everyone on G.B. casting one line too. I like the fact that most people are out there trolling their sets while I cast all day, just wish they didn't come so close... So.. that part of your argument goes directly against my way of thinking too. Not that it was part of my stance against one line only, but sure adds some selfish reasons to it...hehehe....
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/9/2007 3:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | jerryb,
First, Dave is an avid Muskie angler. You need to look into Dave's history alittle before posting somewhat belligerently.
'The fact is this statement is founded in complete misrepresentation of fact, trolling has NEVER shown to to be fatal (swallowing a hook) to muskies than any other method. '
Read the article and proposal. It's REALLY obvious you have not yet read the Proposal!!! Think suckers here, not trolling. And, once you have, I think you will want to apologize to Mr. Neuswanger and Mr. Pratt.
"The part about fishing below the thermocline again How many fish has "team leader and frank" caught fishing below the thermocline? Again, I suspect not too many. I know, I've tried! Fish that are below a thermocline are pretty much inactive, dormant and almost impossible to locate and catch."
'Neuswanger said that one objection to motor trolling is that during the summer, trolling might have a tendency to raise fish from the cooler depths into the warmer, shallow water which could further exhaust the fish making it difficult on those fish when they are subsequently released.
“There are probably some waters where I would be concerned about that. The thing with the Flowage is that it’s shallow and full of weeds and structure, and summertime trolling in areas where people are fishing muskies isn’t even going to be very possible. And if you were to go too deep, you’d be below the level where there was sufficient dissolved oxygen,” he explained. “But most muskies in the Flowage in the summer will be not much deeper than 20 to 25 feet before they run out of oxygen at lower levels in the lake.”
First, no one said anything about a thermocline. Surface temps can be VERY warm even over 40' of water, while quite a bit cooler at suspendo depths. I've read and heard the same objection to fishing suspended fish 20' down and holding them for release in surface temps WAY warmer during the early effects of extremely warm periods. For example, the Goon this July had water temps in 15' in the low 60's, and bay deep edge surface temps at 84 with no thermocline at all setting up because there is substantial current.
Way I read this Dave just said the Chip won't be as subject to the objection some have to motor trolling during the warm water periods. He says that if one goes 'too deep' there will not be enough oxygen anyway (no fish there).
Reef Hawg,
I'll take this one:
'Explain to me how a one line per musky angler would increase fish populations and size on every lake. You are telling me that fishing with a sucker on a quick set rig(the practice that the vast majority of Musky anglers employ on WI's non trolling lakes if using more than one line) is harming the population of all fish on every lake in WI?'
Many (not all, but many) lakes in Wisconsin are heavily fished in the Fall with Suckers. Unfortunately, even with quick strike rigs, having 6 or even 9 lines out can create a heck of a delay in hitting the fish that just took a rig. I've seen up to 5 minutes before a hookset to clear other lines. This doesn't even mention what I think is the true target of the proposed regs; live bait shore fishing. That being said, the rest COULD be argued with simple math, but would indicate less chance for a hook-up and therefore less angler mortality, an argument that might not sit well with some folks.
I suggest everyone who wishes to enter this debate READ the proposal, the link to the page with all the Sawyer County management proposals is in the article linked at the top, but here you go just in case you don't feel like looking for it:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/gmu/upchip/
then:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/gmu/upchip/documents/Chippewa%20Flowage%20FMP...
| |
| | |
| I really don't want to squabble about this anymore Steve(not too good at it anyhow), and do see your points too. I also see people 'drifting' multiple sucker rigs myself, and have also been an unfortunate witness to the occasional delayed hookset(most of the time the people I've witnessed missed the fish, but not always). I just cannot agree that this would be cause enough to justify going to one line only statewide. Scientists as they may be, I just do not feel these guys(authors) have the breadth of experience(Musky angling, and just being around the Musky community in WI) that many do to see what is 'really' going on regarding this topic, to make the assumption that it would help enough to accept the level of alienation to surely follow. The shore sitting/unnattended bank rod issue is one thing, and a situation that should be dealt with on the enforcement side of things, and something that will not stop, I assure you, if the line limit drops to one. It is also one(unnattended line issue that is) that I think has played its course(for the most part) in NE, but still lingering on the Chip and NW WI for the most part. Take a river float trip(one of my main arguments against this proposal by the way) with me some time in the fall, casting artificials with a sucker on a quick strike over the side, rate the enjoyment factor with the added sucker along(minus the pain in the butt that the things are alot of the time too of course...hehehehe), and tell me how I am destructing the fishery. This is how most Musky anglers in our community prefer to fish, and do not feel like we should be penalized for it. If this proposal is for the greater good, there outta be be a majority or a very significant faction of Musky anglers abusing our right to use multiple lines, in order to really justify this thing, don't you think? As a strong advocate of CPR, size limit increases, and overall Muskellunge management improvements I'd be right on board if I felt it would do more good than alienation(why alienate the very people that, for alot of years, had been doing more to try to help the size structure in WI than the DNR themselves). It was just a few short years ago that I had to kick and scream to get the DNR to agree to my higher size limit proposals on the river and other lakes(actually had to wait till certain members of the local DNR retired before our local voice would even be heard). Please don't take it over the top. | |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Neuswanger has encouraged more input from the public up there than has been the norm, that's for certain. I find that a very positive trend.
I don't see where a proposed regulation change needs to be backed up with 'abuse' of the current regulations. I'm guessing we will see this proposal on the Chip fly, and if it flies, there may be work in the future to see other 50" restricted lakes and systems undergo the same management changes. I don't think this will go State wide on ALL muskie waters, but I may be wrong in several ways including my general feeling it will pass on the Chip in the first place.
I might, playing Devil's Advocate, remind you the very same argument you put forth ('If this proposal is for the greater good, there outta be be a majority or a very significant faction of Musky anglers abusing our right to use multiple lines, in order to really justify this thing, don't you think?') is the most common presented against many regulations changes, like those designed to increase size limits on trophy waters here in Wisconsin. Where IS the 'top', really? Great discussion for the most part! | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Steve, thanks for directing your readers to the actual proposal. The young newspaper reporter did a pretty good job with the article, but no third-party summary ever thoroughly covers an original proposal without some loss of information. Folks really should read the Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan, or at least the Muskellunge section of the Plan, in order to fairly judge the merits of our proposed strategy to reduce both the intentional and unintentional mortality of large muskellunge. You obviously have grasped it after reading the entire proposal.
I can accept that not everyone will agree with the strategies we recommend. And I have no problem with John Detloff or anyone else expressing their opinions publicly, based upon their own understandings and interests. I'm just glad there are places like this where a serious and careful proposal can receive serious consideration without it turning into a media circus. And I'm glad there are thoughtful people like Jerry Newman who are not afraid to contribute to the discussion in an articulate and civil manner. Thank you, Jerry.
For those who wonder why we aren't considering this array of strategies on more lakes, I can only respond by saying that we don't have clearcut goals and objectives on all lakes yet. My biologists and I are completing these plans in the Upper Chippewa Basin one at a time; and it TAKES time to review the history, involve the public in setting goals, summarize status of the fish populations, and then justify strategies that are consistent with achieving the shared goals. If a one-rod rule of some type is considered statewide, we would be delighted to support it; but until then, we (DNR biologists in the Upper Chippewa Basin) must do our best to manage those waters for which we have defensible plans. I don't want to delay progress on the Chippewa Flowage until the entire State of Wisconsin decides to make some changes. I'm sure folks understand.
Thanks for your forum, Steve. And by the way, I have caught a couple dozen muskies while trolling, including a couple for my 70-year-old father-in-law before he died (he was unable to chuck a big lure anymore). Never had a musky inhale a trolled lure so deeply that I killed it, but I'm sure it can happen on rare occasion. It's my judgment that muskellunge caught on trolled crankbaits are far less likely to be killed accidentally than those caught on live bait rigs, especially if the angler is not attending the live bait rod full time. If we want more big fish in Wisconsin, we must provide incentives (alternate methods such as trolling and one-rod restrictions) to use artificial lures more than suckers, particularly in the fall.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Thanks for the reply Dave. There were, however, several civil posts made, not just the ones agreeing with your thoughts.
As you've said, your consituants have a right to disagree with certain facets of your proposals, some of us who might not hold specific fisheries biology degrees, but are as adamant and motivated as you about improving/maintaining the state of Muskellunge fishing in WI, and have been and will continue to work with your agency in doing so.
"If we want more big fish in Wisconsin, we must provide incentives (alternate methods such as trolling and one-rod restrictions) to use artificial lures more than suckers, particularly in the fall. "
Wrong. We need to protect a fishery before it is screwed up in the first place through size limit increase and reduced bag limits(something MN does an excellent job with on many species). As important, we need to educate on the proper use of livebait in the fall once these size limkitd are increased, to ensure the releasability of the fish Many of our clubs have been successful at this by the way(note the winter as well as on-the-water seminars given to the public by our clubs and others as to the 'safe' method of using livebait). We need to outlaw single square swallow rigs, now..... Not something to be brought up at the hearings, but pushed by people like yourself, and just plain gotten done! We as Musky anglers already do use artificials more than livebait, even in fall. I probably use 4 suckers per season, on quick strike rigs, fully attended, and won't ever be made to feel like I am in violation of proper Musky ethics in doing so. It is a LAW to attend your rod and reel at all times. And again, if the proposal is passed, the same piggish unnattended bank sitters will still be bank sitting, only with two fewer rods. So they take their 4 kids and an uncle along now and leave even more Mcdonalds wrappers behind when they leave. What has been won? Educate, ENFORCE.
Again, live sucker fishing for Muskies is not the reason that all lakes do not contain large fish(as argued in the implication that the reg is needed statewide). I cannot argue that a one line rule on the Chippewa flowage or certain 'problem' waters wouldn't be effective if bank poles are being abused at such a rate that it is proving detrimental to the resource(I trust your diligent research on that) and not enforceable. But please don't blanket the state with the same assumption that cessation or reduction in livebait fishing will improve our fishing for large fish statewide. Again, I fish/guide certain lakes with trophy potential, and never see people using livebait on many of them and still don't know of big fish being caught. Many of these lakes have a 34" size limit. Think we could maybe start there? Or do 'I'(or people like Mike R, Norm and Dennis) have to grandstand continuously for the limit increases only to be quite often held up by the process. Hated the thought of taking management out of the hands of the managers while learning about the C.C process in college(CNR UWSP), but know we have to deal with it.... But, regarding higher size limits(or even slots) alone, a faction of our managers(not all) should be more proactive in promoting, and scheming the passing of more of them before it is/was too late. Why not start with adding something(in size limits) the Musky anglers all want, instead of taking away something that many adhere to, and that is not addressing the issue(the right to kill 34" fish on most lakes in WI).
That said, I am positive that there are more trophy fish severely injured and killed due to trolling each season. Ask some of the people how many fish were thumped on Green Bay last season alone by single or multiple line trollers. We watched several fish get either thumped or gills torn out dragging behind the boat on the Bay in the past couple of seasons as well. That said, I don't know of a caster dragging a quick strike rigged sucker there(and there were several, including myself) who thumped one. Wasn't one of the main arguments against backtrolling years back that people felt many of their lakes were being depleted of trophies by the few trollers who effectively brought up the monsters in the fall? Not that I agree with that, but wasn't that ONE of the reasons it was abolished?
Again, please don't take personal offense to my argument, but realize that fishing with livebait in general, is not the reason we don't have more big fish. And by the way, lets get past the big fish thing. We fish alot of lakes that never had big fish and never will, so what. I still like to release them effectively with quick strike rigs on occasion while reeling in a jerkbait or bucktail. Eliminating the use of this tactic will somehow allow fish to grow large in the many waters where they never did?
If the proposal/article would have only included the Chippewa Flowage(the lake you put the effort into studying), I wouldn't have said a word. But when even a sniff of statewide becomes apparent in its' encompassed, you have an argument from alot of folks. And I speak for the many in our circle who have been working tireless hours for decades protecting our/your states Muskellunge waters, improving size structure through size limit change, education on PROPER technique, and improving marginal waters through stocking where the DNR cannot understandably afford to completely obligate to(ie Petenwell, Green Bay, etc), all of this work.....which, as an unintentional sidebar, also improve the image of your agency.
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | Well said Jason, I understand your point of reference better now. I could also guarantee you that my experience with three lines versus one line is certainly more enjoyable as well. That is if the catching is considered the enjoyment
I think it's important to note that whether it's one line or two lines now, some concessions need to be made sooner rather than later in this area. Two certainly seems like a more natural progression, and would be more readily accepted.
Ha, good point on me trolling one line, you got me there  Honestly, if I thought others would follow I would troll one line per, however, until then whether it's three, two or one I'll just continue to play by the rules - and still try to be the most courteous guy on the water of course
After carefully considering the information presented, I'm still leaning toward the one line being optimal for everyone, includes non-muskie fishermen. Although I can't substantiate it, I feel strongly there would almost have to be a proportional decrease in release mortality with an decrease in the lines allowed for muskies though.
I'll leave the sucker fishing to those with more experience like yourself, and only comment on trolling artificial lures. However, I think a great point has been made on targeting the multiline shore fisherman.
I have done a considerable amount of trolling with 1-2 and 3 lines per respectively, the pure angler hunk of me certainly prefers the 3. However, as I get older the sportsmanship and conservation hunk of me is ever expanding and is the nature of my one line per sediment in the above post.
Off the top of my head I can think of several small reasons why I think a single line would be beneficial to the state of Wisconsin. Two guys with six lines normally means planer boards, and as you said some multiline trollers vacuum up the real estate without much consideration to other anglers.
Increased fishing pressure is becoming a serious consideration on some waters, with so many boats on the water the pie must be divided up somehow, and decreasing the spread allows more boats on the water to effectively deal with the overcrowding.
A hooked fish in a multiline situation receives less attention and small fish are being "dragged" and then released with less care, and like you said "launched" without even slowing down, not to mention a greater possibility of a hooked fish getting fouled up from another bait.
All these points could certainly be argued either way but the bottom line is trying to find a way to share the resource with all fishermen fairly, including the guy drowning worms with his grandchildren - and then leaving a decent fishery for them too.
This post is getting a bit windy so I'll wrap it up and answer your question.
"Explain to me how a one line per musky angler would increase fish populations and size on every lake."
My answer is the entire opening paragraph of my original post, you removed the "one line per" part of it and added "musky". Here it is again.
"I'm of the opinion that combined with new length and creel limits an across-the-board one line per angler inland line restriction that includes forward trolling could only benefit the state of Wisconsin's fish population, and in turn provide a better catch and release fishery for everyone."
It's my opinion that we are scratching and clawing at the scraps now on many Wisconsin waters compared to what they could be, here's an example. Starting with a virgin fishery ready to open up to a hungry angler public.
What should we do? How about some "new length limits" that include a tighter slot so people can still enjoy a tasty dinner here or there but with a reduced "creel limit" so the freezers don't get packed with fish that could be caught and released again. Combined with a one line per angler for all species, well, plain and simple there would be more little fish for the big fish to eat and entire system would almost have to "provide a better catch and release fishery for everyone".
Back to reality. It could very well mean closing certain lakes to catch and release only and then implementing the above policy when the lake is ready. I think certain lakes like the Chippewa flowage should be a candidate for consideration of catch and release for muskie only.
None of us will be here in a hundred years, however, my guess is that "single hook barbless" will be part of the everyday vocabulary. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| I'll offer a few comments on Jason Schillinger's (Reef Hawg or RH) reply to mine.
DAVE N in Previous Post: "If we want more big fish in Wisconsin, we must provide incentives (alternate methods such as trolling and one-rod restrictions) to use artificial lures more than suckers, particularly in the fall. "
RH: Wrong. We need to protect a fishery before it is screwed up in the first place through size limit increase and reduced bag limits (something MN does an excellent job with on many species).
DAVE N: I'm pretty sure that's exactly what we are doing by proposing to increase the 45" minimum length limit to a 50" minimum length limit first on the Chippewa Flowage, to be followed in subsequent years by changes in method. I was merely making the point that those subsequent changes will be needed also. In my opinion, reducing the intentional mortality by increasing the length limit still does not address the unintentional mortality associated with widespread use of live bait in Wisconsin in the fall. You're right about Minnesota Jason. They do an excellent job of limiting unintentional mortality by limiting musky anglers to one rod while permitting motor trolling on even their finest trophy waters. I'd like to think that we could learn something from our friends in Minnesota. They have created some special trophy fisheries over the past decade.
RH: As important, we need to educate on the proper use of livebait in the fall once these size limkitd are increased, to ensure the releasability of the fish. Many of our clubs have been successful at this by the way (note the winter as well as on-the-water seminars given to the public by our clubs and others as to the 'safe' method of using livebait).
DAVE N: I applaud your efforts there. Education is always a helpful strategy.
RH: We need to outlaw single square swallow rigs, now..... Not something to be brought up at the hearings, but pushed by people like yourself, and just plain gotten done!
DAVE N: Surely you realize, Jason, that the legal process in Wisconsin will not allow WDNR to issue such a decree. We MUST go through the Wisconsin Conservation Congress (WCC) spring hearing process in order to promulgate such regulations. If you are suggesting that the entire process be reformed such that professional fishery managers be granted the option to enact water-specific fish harvest regulations without putting each change to a vote of WCC spring hearing attendees throughout the State of Wisconsin, I'm with you. That would increase our flexibility and responsiveness greatly. But we have to play by the rules until the rules change. I spoke on this subject at the August meeting of Northwest District Directors of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress in Hayward. Most of them seemed to agree on the need for WCC process reform; but it's not clear who among them would take the lead. We need someone to step up.
RH: We as Musky anglers already do use artificials more than livebait, even in fall. Again, don't lump the majority of us in.
DAVE N: By and large, musky anglers are playing by the current rules (except for the few poachers who set out unattended lines on islands, etc.). Without the ability to troll legally, they are exercising what they feel is the best legal option to catch a big musky in the fall. And while you may be right that artificial lures are used far more than suckers from opening through September, you are mistaken if you believe artificial lures are more prevalent than suckers in October/November -- at least in my basin. Suckers are #1 here in late fall, particularly in the no-trolling lakes. That's what we're seeking to change by incentive.
RH: I probably use 4 suckers per season, on quick strike rigs, fully attended, and won't ever be made to feel like I am in violation of proper Musky ethics in doing so. It is a LAW to attend your rod and reel at all times.
DAVE N: I again applaud you, this time for your personal conservation ethic. If you are holding or watching your sucker rod constantly, then you are a uniquely conscientious musky angler. But the way most folks fish suckers in the fall in Wisconsin is to set one out the back of the boat on one rod while casting with the other. This inevitably leads to strikes on quick-set rigs that do not always get set quickly enough to prevent deep hooking and accidental mortality. I'm not making this up. Several guides have told me this is how it works; and every spring WDNR netting crews find a couple fish dead near shore with quick-set rigs in their throats that did not get set quickly enough the previous fall.
RH: And again, if the proposal is passed, the same piggish unnattended bank sitters will still be bank sitting, only with two fewer rods. So they take their 4 kids and a drunken uncle along now and leave even more Mcdonalds wrappers behind when they leave. What has been won? Educate, ENFORCE.
DAVE N: Point taken... all the laws in the world will not help if we don't enforce them. By the way, Wisconsin needs more game wardens, and we need them to be able to focus more of their time on fish and wildlife law enforcement rather than all the activity associated with the regulation of ATVs, snowmobiles, motor boats, and personal watercraft. More game wardens requires more general revenue funding. You all know where that comes from.
RH: Again, live sucker fishing for Muskies is not the reason that all lakes do not contain large fish (as argued in the implication that the reg is needed statewide).
DAVE N: It may not be THE reason; but it's ONE reason we don't have all the big fish anglers desire in waters that will produce them. Let me be clear about this. Frank Pratt and I probably will propose this one-rod rule in spring of 2009 (to take effect in 2010) for the Chippewa Flowage and perhaps other waters in the Upper Chippewa Basin; but we will allow our WDNR colleagues throughout Wisconsin the opportunity to decide if they want some or all of their waters to be managed similarly. If there is insufficient support for a statewide change, we will restrict our proposal to local waters or perhaps just the Chippewa Flowage.
RH: That said, I am positive that there are more trophy fish severely injured and killed due to trolling each season.
DAVE N: I'm not. You are certainly entitled to your opinion Jason. But please consider that Minnesota allows one-rod motor trolling on Mille Lacs, Leech, Vermilion, and most of its trophy musky waters. Having that option results in very limited use of live suckers in late fall. If you were right about the devastating impact of trolling, would Minnesota really have the world-class trophy musky fisheries it has currently?
RH: Again, please don't take personal offense to my argument.
DAVE N: Hey, I realize you are one of the good guys. No offense taken. This kind of discussion is healthy.
RH: If the proposal/article would have only included the Chippewa Flowage (the lake you put the effort into studying), I wouldn't have said a word. But when even a sniff of statewide becomes apparent in its encompassment, you have an argument from alot of folks.
DAVE N: Again, I don't have the authority to propose statewide rule changes. Many others will have to believe it's a good idea before it goes anywhere. Right now, I am focused on making the Chippewa Flowage all it can be. One step at a time...
RH: And I speak for the many in our circle who have been working tireless hours for decades protecting our/your states Muskellunge waters, improving size structure through size limit change, education on PROPER technique, and improving marginal waters through stocking where the DNR cannot understandably afford to completely obligate to(ie Petenwell, Green Bay, etc), all of this work.....which, as an unintentional sidebar, just happens to also improve the image of your agency.
DAVE N: Again, my thanks to you and others in your circle who give so much of your time and money to help us conserve Wisconsin's fabulous fishery resources.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisonsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 9/10/2007 8:18 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave and Jason,
Thanks for the great exchange of ideas and the clarification of this proposal.
I only have a couple points as a follow-up. The 34" statewide 'place to start' is not likely to change anytime soon, and for what is an arguably realistic reason. The public will not support it enough to pass CC hearing, IMHO, and on some waters that is where the limit needs to be according to the fisheries managers there. We failed miserably at trying to acquire a 50" limit on a group of potential trophy lakes, and most of us, obviously including Jason and Dave, now realize the best approach is one trophy producing system at a time.
I'd support one line on ALL 50" waters. That's me. I've seen what Ontario and Minnesota have accomplished with the management plans that include this rule, and it sure looks good to me. Imagine what the popular areas on Mille Lacs would look like in November if the boats out there could lock a spread of nine planer boards...YES, it's less opportunity, but I feel the rule reduces the catch rate, and reduces the unavoidable post release mortality numbers. This is the a large portion of basis of the disagreement some have here with the 'pontooners' on Mille Lacs, they load up the boat with people to increase the spread.
The reason the backtrolling rule was rescinded IMHO was tradition, nothing more. The original rule change was made mostly for walleye anglers; most of the original conversation on that rule didn't include muskie anglers because no one anticipated them backtrolling fast enough to pull cranks. Herbie was a superstar at that, by the way. When backtrolling muskies began to be an obviously successful method, some folks got their collective undies in a bunch because 'trolling for muskies just ain't right, they are ruining our muskie lakes up here!!!' and the ruling was changed back to no trolling up here as a result. From my conversations with fisheries folks back then, that argument wasn't biologically sound but concern was voiced about the number of lines and ability to 'strain' the area with 9 lines. I think the public would not have objected as much, IF at all, if the backtrolling regs limited the sets to 1 line per angler. I remember clearly listening to one person after another complain about the boats out there spreading boards out 100' or more on each side of the rig. That may or may not be a large conservation problem, I'll leave that to the experts, but it most certainly was a percieved problem in the non-muskie angling community on our little lakes up here.
I certainly would like to see our fisheries folks able to implement regulation changes unilaterally. Not likely to happen here soon.... | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | DAVE N: I'm pretty sure that's exactly what we are doing by proposing to increase the 45" minimum length limit to a 50" minimum length limit first on the Chippewa Flowage, to be followed in subsequent years by changes in method. I was merely making the point that those subsequent changes will be needed also. In my opinion, reducing the intentional mortality by increasing the length limit still does not address the unintentional mortality associated with widespread use of live bait in Wisconsin in the fall. You're right about Minnesota Jason. They do an excellent job of limiting unintentional mortality by limiting musky anglers to one rod while permitting motor trolling on even their finest trophy waters. I'd like to think that we could learn something from our friends in Minnesota. They have created some special trophy fisheries over the past decade.
My reply: Again, even you guys know and have stated there are other factors at play as to the trophy fishing phenomena in MN. Newly stocked fish in lakes with little competition taking off like a raped ape, being the most prominant of them. I will not argue that one line per angler is not protecting fish. Fewer lines will do so. The fact that more people are not using live-bait on quick strike rigs in MN, is not why they have better fishing. I think we've discussed this one enough to know how most feel about it. that said, I applaud you for taking the step from 45"(that local citizens/guides fought to get a few years ago) to 50" on the Chip. Please don't stop there.
DAVE N: Surely you realize, Jason, that the legal process in Wisconsin will not allow WDNR to issue such a decree. We MUST go through the Wisconsin Conservation Congress (WCC) spring hearing process in order to promulgate such regulations. If you are suggesting that the entire process be reformed such that professional fishery managers be granted the option to enact water-specific fish harvest regulations without putting each change to a vote of WCC spring hearing attendees throughout the State of Wisconsin, I'm with you. That would increase our flexibility and responsiveness greatly. But we have to play by the rules until the rules change. I spoke on this subject at the August meeting of Northwest District Directors of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress in Hayward. Most of them seemed to agree on the need for WCC process reform; but it's not clear who among them would take the lead. We need someone to step up.
My reply: Of course I realize the system. Been hampered by it, in trying to assist in our resource improvement for years. But, if you guys can propose to ban multi line fishing for Musellunge on certain(or many) waters, you can also propose to abolish the use of single square hooks on the same system, which would actually be a wiser choice to start with. Try it this spring to go along with your other proposals and I'll stand by your side 100%. Again, you still are not addressing the main issue with problem live-baiters. While I am positive that too many fish die due to live bait use on an intentional basis by guys using single hooks or guys just choosing to keep them, trophy fishing is not being realizably compromised by what the vast majority are practicing in quick strike sucker rigging. Problem is plain and simply single square hook use.
DAVE N: I'm not. You are certainly entitled to your opinion Jason. But please consider that Minnesota allows one-rod motor trolling on Mille Lacs, Leech, Vermilion, and most of its trophy musky waters. Having that option results in very limited use of live suckers in late fall. If you were right about the devastating impact of trolling, would Minnesota really have the world-class trophy musky fisheries it has currently?
My reply: They do, and do troll alot there, pulling multiple line spreads around the lakes I fish(I commonly see guides with multiple clients pulling multiple boards). I also see guys using live bait over there on small and large lakes alike. I never said that trolling had a devastating effect on our fisheries(you guys here sure hate it when we put words into your mouths). It just has more of an impact on our fisheries over the course of a season than live bait fishing does. Simply more of it being done, and all season long. Summer time fishing in general with artificial lures, is harder on fish than quick strike rigging in the fall, that much most know from experience handling fish of all sizes in different seasons. Again, take the stats from Fox River last year alone. Do you expect me to beleive that the couple dozen people I saw pulling suckers around the Fox last fall, catching and releasing Muskies, more negatively impacted that fishery than the trollers would have even if only one line was permitted? No way! Look at the number of 50+"ers kept by just one troller there, let alone the entire 'crew'. MN just got lucky and was able to protect their fisheries before they needed to be fixed, so the fish are getting large to start with not to mention the fish just seem to be getting big no matter where they put them. I'll defer to your expertise as to why the fishing is world class in MN, as I am not a biologist, nor do I feel need to add personal opinion on such topic, as I know where it will get me here....heheh.
DAVE N: I again applaud you, this time for your personal conservation ethic. If you are holding or watching your sucker rod constantly, then you are a uniquely conscientious musky angler. But the way most folks fish suckers in the fall in Wisconsin is to set one out the back of the boat on one rod while casting with the other. This inevitably leads to strikes on quick-set rigs that do not always get set quickly enough to prevent deep hooking and accidental mortality. I'm not making this up. Several guides have told me this is how it works; and every spring WDNR netting crews find a couple fish dead near shore with quick-set rigs in their throats that did not get set quickly enough the previous fall.
DAVE N: By and large, musky anglers are playing by the current rules (except for the few poachers who set out unattended lines on islands, etc.). Without the ability to troll legally, they are exercising what they feel is the best legal option to catch a big musky in the fall. And while you may be right that artificial lures are used far more than suckers from opening through September, you are mistaken if you believe artificial lures are more prevalent than suckers in October/November -- at least in my basin. Suckers are #1 here in late fall, particularly in the no-trolling lakes. That's what we're seeking to change by incentive.
My reply: Thank you for the kind compliment Dave. However, I am not 'unique' at all. I think the pigs are unique, and are the ones who should be targetted. I would like to know where the hoards of people are that are allowing Muskies to swallow quick strike rigs. Allowing a trailing sucker absolutely DOES NOT mean an inevitably deep hooked fish. Again, that is an assumption on your part, allowing your personal bias to take over. You obviously hate the use of live bait for Muskies. Make that your personal choice, sir. Please don't implicate the majority of anglers employing their use as pigs, irresponsibly misusing the resource. Again, if suckers are king (in your basin that I spend alot of time in), I have yet to see a majority of people in fall on any lake haphazardly trailing suckers that they are not paying attention to. Again, an unfortunate implication on your part, that live bait use, in generel, is irresponsible. Heck I have a hard enough time even getting suckers on most weekends while fishing your basin, let alone misuse it...LOL. As I said, I am not arguing that irresponsible single hook sucker use might be the case on the Chip and some other select lakes in your area(would like to know the other lakes where this is a real problem so we can try to get out there and help educate while it is happening), where change probably needs to be made, and I am willing to concede, agree and actually applaud you for making a stance there.
I surely believe that some fish have been found dead with a quick strike in their throats. Touching story, sad ending to a fish's life but reality of any type of fishing. That said, my friends and I spend an innordinate amount of time on the water(ask my wife....hehe). Might have gotten real lucky over the years, but we have never found, and only heard of a couple muskies taking quick strikes in its throat. We have, however, found dead fish with Suicks, Bulldawgs(more than one), and crank baits in their throats. I do invite you to fish with a quick strike rigged sucker some time and experience how many fish you actually hook, let alone badly hook. I'd be willing to bet you'd be surprised.
DAVE N: but we will allow our WDNR colleagues throughout Wisconsin the opportunity to decide if they want some or all of their waters to be managed similarly. If there is insufficient support for a statewide change, we will restrict our proposal to local waters or perhaps just the Chippewa Flowage.
My reply: Your point is taken clearly, and will be opposed if taken statewide.
As a reply to your comment Steve, I apologize if I implied that the entire state needs a higher size limit. Didn't mean that at all. If you've read my posts regarding size limits over the years, you'd know that I have always been a promotor of a per-lake Muskellunge management system. That said, there are dozens of 34" lakes in WI that are begging to be further protected, and you know that. I also realize this isn't new science anymore, the notion that certain lakes need to be managed differently. I'm saying lets focus on more of this first, just as Dave suggests regarding the Chip. If the DNR would bring up more lakes as rule changes each year, to go from 34" to other limits(28, 40, 45, 50 etc), rather than us peasants having to bring them through the hearings on our own two or three times as advisories etc. change might more easily be made. And I know they have work to do other than Musky regs, but we have over 900 Musky waters in WI, and I am sure our managers can think of dozens right off the top of their heads that should have higher(or maybe even lower or a slot) size limits. Get some of them on paper, and I'll help next spring!
Lastly, I just read/found out that the states' Muskellunge committee voted to advance the quick strike only advisory question posed last spring. Thanks much Tim and co.!!!!!!!!
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/10/2007 11:59 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jason,
'Again, that is an assumption on your part, allowing your personal bias to take over. You obviously hate the use of live bait for Muskies. Make that your personal choice, sir. Please don't implicate the majority of anglers employing their use as pigs, misusing the resource.'
I don't see that anywhere in the commentary except your post.
'Do you expect me to beleive that the couple dozen people I saw pulling suckers around the Fox last fall, catching and releasing Muskies, more negatively impacted that fishery than the trollers would have even if only one line was permitted? No way! Look at the number of 50+"ers kept by the trollers there. MN just got lucky and was able to protect their fisheries before they needed to be fixed, so the fish are getting large to start with not to mention the fish just seem to be getting big no matter where they put them.'
Where are the muskies in MN protected from harvest up to 50" or over? Are you unaware of the current harvest going on over there of 50 to 55" fish? I was on Leech last year and the year before and last year on Mille Lacs last working, and heard of and in fact saw several from 51 to 53 harvested in just in a few days. There is no 'Nirvana' I guess. Point is, take 6 lines out of those boats on the Fox; what would be the result? ( this may never be an issue there, limiting the lines to one on world class great Lakes walleye waters like that will be tough to get past the CC hearing stage)
'My reply: Yes they would, because they do troll alot there, pulling multiple line spreads around the lakes I fish(I commonly see guides with multiple clients pulling multiple boards). I never said that trolling had a devastating effect on our fisheries(you guys here sure hate it when we put words into your mouths).'
Whoa, easy there... How many clients are in the boat...9? I already mentioned the 'pontooner' problem MN is dealing with, why do you suppose there are anglers on Mille Lacs openly angry and upset with that practice?
'My reply: Your point is taken clearly, and will be opposed if taken statewide.'
Not all people think as you do about this issue. Please allow that the rest of us will decide how we will vote if the proposal goes to, say, Oneida. If I had to decide if I get to power troll with one line, or sit still with 3 (most break the law and troll suckers, I see it all fall long) I'd have to think pretty hard...
'By and large, musky anglers are playing by the current rules '
No, they are not, at least when trailing suckers. See above. What a good number of the boats out there are doing is a far cry from legal 'position fishing'. If there were enough wardens out there, and there are not, tickets for trolling up here would be handed out regularly.
Jerry,
Your comment about C&R only is interesting. That's pretty much what most...MOST.....anglers find on all NE Ontario 54" limit waters, because a 54" fish is still a fairly tough bird to find. One then hopes that the 54" fish that ARE caught are released by C&R conscious anglers, which is the case many times I've seen since the implementation of the new 54" limit up there on trophy waters.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | "Where are the muskies in MN protected from harvest up at 50" or over? Are you unaware of the current harvest going on over there of 50 to 55" fish? I was on Leech last year and the year before and last year on Mille Lacs last working, and heard of and in fact saw several from 51 to 53 harvested in just in a few days. There is no 'Nirvana' I guess. Point is, take 6 lines out of those boats on the Fox; what would be the result? ( this may never be an issue there, limiting the lines to one on world class great Lakes walleye waters like that will be tough to get past the CC hearing stage)"
I am not aware of any lakes where 50" fish are being protected, but of several(maybe most now???) that are protected to 48" before there is or was an issue with overharvesting the large ones. I am not saying there is a whole lot we can do about that here, as we just don't have alot of 'new' musky lakes that we can protect while young anymore, Shawano is one of a few, and it is at least being protected to 40" I believe. That is unfortunate that that many big fish are being kept even with a one line limit on Milacs. Yes, I was referring to the pontooner that I've seen, and a few other guide boats that I've seen employing the use of multiple boards(not that either caused me any particular harm while I was there). That said, it is refreshing that that many 50" fish are even getting caught to be harvested over there and the Bay. Glass half full in my book. Obviously the protective limit that is in place, is doing its job....just seems to need a boost. No argument from me in reducing it to two lines per angler or a boat limit of even 3 or 4 depending on the number of folks. I hate the 'straining' happening on the Fox too, and that would surely help. Maybe a boat limit for the River alone could be realistically placed, with the bay itself being left alone..?.. Not the objective of my postings though.
"No, they are not, at least when trailing suckers. See above. What a good number of the boats out there are doing is a far cry from legal 'position fishing'. If there were enough wardens out there, and there are not, tickets for trolling up here would be handed out regularly."
It is unfortunate that this is going on, and something I was going to mention earlier. There is definately an enforcement issue there. I still stand by my comment that 'most' are doing the right thing, but if a guy is pulling multiple bobbers around structure with his trolling motor all day long, he needs to be made aware of its illegality. I have seen that taking place(and have said something), though most I see are casting as the primary objective, with a sucker 'along', secondary. But, you won't get any argument from me on that topic either. It definately can be a real hassle for enforcement...
Not all people think as you do about this issue. Please allow that the rest of us will decide how we will vote if the proposal goes to, say, Oneida. If I had to decide if I get to power troll with one line, or sit still with 3 (most break the law and troll suckers, I see it all fall long) I'd have to think pretty hard...
Good point Steve, I don't expect that everyone does. I'd assume a vote would be on a per county or lake to lake basis, which would probably be in the best interest of all. Again, I am sure most of you here either don't have experience floating rivers in the fall for Muskies, don't care about those that do, or just never wanted to do it(I wish fewer did it...hehehehe). Employing the use of a sucker while casting and drifting is not only very legal, but very effective and poses as little or less harm to the fish that we we encounter with artificials doing so. It is just unfortunate that, according to you experts, 'most' people using suckers to Musky fish are breaking the law, even though I still say that that is not true when looking at WI as a whole(as I am). That said, get in the ring, have the position fishing laws rewritten more clearly, and fix that end. Part of the trouble now, is that the law is somewhat grey in that area(many of the wardens will concur). Might be an easier pass at the hearings, would not hamper the people doing things right, and one I'd gladly help out with.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/10/2007 5:02 PM
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | I would like to first applaud Dave for taking the time to listen, comment and answer questions and concerns in such detail. Whether your position is 1, 2 or 3 lines, live bait, or whatever the fact that he is obviously genuinely concerned for Wisconsin's fisheries speaks volume's to me. Thank you sir! I would also like to applaud my friend Jason for taking the time to articulate his (and I'm sure others) positions, I certainly respect you, and your position both on and off the water.
With that said, considering I am just a guest in Wisconsin, I would be honored to throw my support in behind reducing the statewide inland three line regulation to either one or two, whatever the majority feels is appropriate, count me in if there's enough interest.
My vote (if I have one) would be to ask Dave to float a two line statewide regulation after gaining the necessary support. I still believe a one line statewide inland restriction would be optimal for the fisheries, however, I also believe it would be a near impossibility anytime soon.
Certainly a one line restriction could still be implemented on a lake to lake basis for situations like the Chippewa flowage as the need arises. Even if it's shot down the first time, I think it's important enough to float it soon.
I'm very interested in this subject and would like to pursue this further if there's enough interest when I return from fishing (WI) early next week. Time to pack
. | |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jason,
The law is pretty clear on position fishing, and that debate has been covered here as well. What I'm referring to is the folks trailing a sucker while pulling the boat along nose forward down the structure. Even if one does that for only 50', one is trolling. I see that ALL the time, and have been guilty of that myself trying to get away from an obstacle, weeds, etc. and avoid a mess with the sucker rigs. The question in enforcing this law is basically only interpretive in regards to the 'intent' of the angler. If the angler moves along the structure nose or transom forward pulling the sucker and the angle of the line in the water clearly indicates same......even slowly...that's trolling. I'd like to see that antiquated rule rescinded, and might sacrifice a line or two in the water to do so.
Jerry, Good luck fishing! | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Obviously the law isn't 'pretty clear' if that many people are doing it. Again, that is an insinuation that people using suckers are just willingly trolling along knowing they are fully breaking the law. CRAP!!! Ceeeripes, before the position fishing rule was really made clear to me on this site some years back, I pulled suckers around too, not thinking I was wrong. Slack off on these guys a bit, and lets show people how to do it right. Or, call 1-800 TIPDNR when you are seeing this 'all the time' and have a ticket written up. It is out duty to do so, when we see these things happening, is it not? I'm bettin' they'll tell their friends about it and you'll see the incidence diminish in short order. Make the law clear and enforce it. But, I'll stand by my original statement in that I am sure most people in WI are doing the right thing. Fishing in all corners of WI, I just do not see the rampant sucker trolling that you are referencing. Just isn't happening in the capacity statewide to which you guys infer.
C'mon, please. You guys can knit pick every aspect of every word of every post. I meant nothing derogatory from the expert statement. I meant exactly what said, in that it is unfortunate that a few experts in their respective fields have what alot of us feel is the wrong perception of what is going on statewide WI. It'd be one thing if the average shmo was saying the same things. More people listen to guys like you, and it is unfortunate that they are not getting a clear picture as to what is really going on in WI vs. a few lakes. They may not listen to me(better chance that they are agreeing with you if they didn't have a stance to begin with), but at least I can give a feel for what I firmly believe is really happening over the state of WI. The notion that livebait fishing abuse being a major player in why trophy fishing is not better in WI, is simply laughable.
It seems in order to engage in any type of debate with you and DNR(Dave) on most any subject, it is almost imperative that we have a professional editing crew peruse and modify our piece so as to not offend and risk post removal. Please understand that we(and I'm of the opinion I speak for the majority of Musky anglers in WI) don't agree on this issue, and will never agree on this issue. I'll tell you what my best friend(and upper Chippewa basin resident) and I observe on some of the waters Dave speaks of which greatly differs from what he is 'told' by other guides. People can decide who to believe. You tell us what you are seeing in Oneida Co. and I cannot argue that. You guys tell me I am wrong. I'll front the many anglers I represent on this subject, and maintain I am not. Heck, we're only on page 2 here.... hehehe.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/11/2007 10:53 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | personally I would never like to see trolling allowed state wide even if only one line per angler. Also, I hope to never see the number of lines dropped from 3 to 1, maybe 2 could be a happy medium IF some research is out there that shows how this will magically create more big fish and big fish waters in WI. Do away with shore sitting, swallow rigs, and raise the statewide minimum to 40" and beyond and IMO WI will see larger fish overall than dropping the lines from 3 to 1.
I personally love dragging a sucker or 2 around on a QUICK strike rig in the fall...am I trolling? well my lines are weighted with 1.5 oz of lead and are vertical over the side of the boat, no bobber...is that trolling if I'm on and off the trolling motor casting the whole time ? probably. will I stop...nope. I am 100% certain I am harming less fish than those guys that have the shore lines and swallow rigs...
Will 3 lines to 1 help grow more or bigger fish in WI??...No, I really don't see it helping as the vast majority of fishing that goes on is 1 line per person anyway...sure there are places like the Fox etc where guys put 6 and 9 lines out. I've even been in the boat with Jason and done that and don't see how simply cutting back the number of lines we can utilize is going to magically do away with people thumping fish of all sizes in WI...there are plenty of lakes in WI with the statewide min. of 34" that have trophy potential and yet somehow limiting the number of lines the majority of us who are 100% CPR is somehow going to help fishing in WI????...just because MN has one line per person is basically no part of the reason they are growing huge fish and millions of WI dollars are spent in MN chasing big fish...
I would hate to see trolling allowed on all WI waters...could some be opened up to it sure but how many of us want to be on a little 200 acre lake in northern WI with guys trolling by us at 3mph and planer boards just about hitting our rigs...?
not me...
Edited by MSKY HNR 9/11/2007 10:37 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| When the fish are getting whacked and hung on the wall before they reach 40" does it really matter what methods people are using to catch them? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | WOW! Great discussion. I have to say when I read the proposal I had the exact same concerns as Jason, in fact I am glad I read the entire discussion before I posted as I surly would have repeated much of what he said.
First off Steve in your post dated Posted 9/10/2007 12:07 PM you call Jason to the carpet on the following comment:
Jason: “Again, that is an assumption on your part, allowing your personal bias to take over. You obviously hate the use of live bait for Muskies. Make that your personal choice, sir. Please don't implicate the majority of anglers employing their use as pigs, misusing the resource.”
Steve: “I don't see that anywhere in the commentary except your post. “
The following are two comments by Dave and a direct quote from the proposal where I feel Jason got that feeling, (I got the same feeling) I wouldn’t say Dave “hates the use of live bait” but in my opinion from the below quote there is a bias against it:
DAVE N: "If we want more big fish in Wisconsin, we must provide incentives (alternate methods such as trolling and one-rod restrictions) to use artificial lures more than suckers, particularly in the fall. "
DAVE N: “By and large, musky anglers are playing by the current rules (except for the few poachers who set out unattended lines on islands, etc.). Without the ability to troll legally, they are exercising what they feel is the best legal option to catch a big musky in the fall. And while you may be right that artificial lures are used far more than suckers from opening through September, you are mistaken if you believe artificial lures are more prevalent than suckers in October/November -- at least in my basin. Suckers are #1 here in late fall, particularly in the no-trolling lakes. That's what we're seeking to change by incentive.”
From the Actual Proposal:
“Because regulating the manner in which live bait is fished would be virtually unenforceable, we will recommend a statewide regulation requiring that anglers fishing for muskellunge use only one rod at a time. This will force musky anglers to fish with artificial lures or to fish attentively with harnassed suckers, theoretically reducing the time fish would have to swallow a deadly hook. Concurrently, the proper use of “quick-strike” rigs and methods will be strongly promoted in signs, brochures, and newsletters. In order to compensate Flowage musky anglers for what some will perceive as loss of opportunity, we will propose to legalize motor trolling (one rod per angler) on the Chippewa Flowage, thus providing another effective method to catch fish (particularly in the fall) that is much more consistent with the goals of a catch-and-release trophy fishery than the use of live bait. Legalizing motor trolling also would allow more anglers in our aging population an opportunity to continue participating.
Mike: Now I copied the entire paragraph so I didn’t take it out of context but lets look more closely at one sentence of the above:
“In order to compensate Flowage musky anglers for what some will perceive as loss of opportunity, we will propose to legalize motor trolling (one rod per angler) on the Chippewa Flowage, thus providing another effective method to catch fish (particularly in the fall) that is much more consistent with the goals of a catch-and-release trophy fishery than the use of live bait.”
Mike: Again “TROLLING…is much more consistent with the goals of a catch-and-release trophy fishery than the use of LIVE BAIT.” I believe that there are a great many live bait fishermen who would take great offense to that above quote. My self included and I only use suckers once or twice a year.
PROPER use of live bait is no more damaging than proper use of casted artificials, or trolled artificials. How about the guys that are advocating waiting the count of 10 before setting the hooks with a gig and soft plastic lure. How many of those get sucked down to the gullet.
WE DON’T WANT TO TAKE STEPS BACK IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC by being over restrictive. Baby steps should apply to all management decisions not just size limit increases.
More that bothers me about the above quoted regulation proposal, “Because regulating the manner in which live bait is fished would be virtually unenforceable” Why would regulating the manner in which live bait is fished be any more unenforceable than limiting Musky Fishermen only to one line. How will that work? And also are they saying that ONLY musky fishermen will be allowed to troll. How will that work? Watch the public scream when Mr. Musky fisherman is allowed to troll but Mr. Walleye still can’t drag his Lindy rig.
With the above proposal what’s to stop 3 old school musky guys from rigging up 3 rods with single hook sucker rigs and using there trolling motor or big motor to slowly work around the prime spot in the big wind and deep hook muskies ALL DAY LONG. Those type of people won’t troll 10” jakes or bulldogs, they will troll swallow rigged suckers, because that’s what has worked in the past and now they don’t have to row troll to do it legally. Nothing is getting fixed in my opinion as far as swallow rigs unless the rig itself is OUTLAWED!
Out law swallow rigs and fix the position fishing law or allow trolling with a maximum line limit PER BOAT, not per angler. Keeps many more people happy, and alienates far fewer. For example:
“While Trolling on Wisconsin Inland waters, no boats shall have more than 3 lines in the water at a time”
People who want to troll for musky, pike, or walleye would have no problem doing it, with one rod in the middle, one left and one right. The people who are worried about a 9 plus rod spread would have nothing to worry about. Everyone makes some compromise and overall affect should be positive.
The position fishing rule is not clear and I beleive that everyone who has spent the money and fought it in open court has won, and one case was clearly trolling with undercover warden IN THE ACCUSEDS BOAT. From what I researched the intent was to allow draggin of lindy type rigs and suckers around structure with the electric motor exactly how many fish sucker in the fall. Don't have the research anymore, and don't remember where it came from but at the time it was pretty clear to my what was being attempted.
I guess that’s enough for now.
Again great discussion:
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Mike: Again “TROLLING…is much more consistent with the goals of a catch-and-release trophy fishery than the use of LIVE BAIT.” I believe that there are a great many live bait fishermen who would take great offense to that above quote. My self included and I only use suckers once or twice a year.'
Why would you take offense at that statement? As to calling Jason 'out on the carpet' first and foremost, the proposal statement is not directed at anyone personally, and Jason's retort was, and was frankly 'over the top'. Good debate is about the facts of the matter and how one presents them. As I have said so many times here, it isn't necessarily the intent of what is said, it's HOW it's said that will draw the critical eye. Emotion is nice and fiery, but won't win many arguments. If Dave answered in kind, this would have degenerated into a 'virtual' fist fight. You and Norm asked me to address the Pelican lake association because, I assume, you figured I understood this and was able to articulate ideas in the fashion I am encouraging for everyone here; imagine what would have occurred at that meeting if I had responded to the critical commentary in kind; or had resorted to personal comments back to those who were presenting the opposing viewpoint.
In many cases when conservation is an issue and C&R issues are at the core of the subject across the country and in fact the world in fishing tournaments and general regulations on many species of fish, live bait fishing is frequently either restricted or forbidden. Some regulations require barbless hooks on the artificials one is left to use.There are some populations of fish that are extremely sensitive to C&R mortality where live bait has been prohibited for a very long time.
Trolling usually is not controlled or forbidden, if one is able to troll on the waters at hand.
I suspect the reasons stated are the ones behind the proposal text. Sure, we can say WE would never behave in the manner that the regulations address; unfortunately, laws like this are not usually targeted to those who are not abusing the issues in the first place.
'PROPER use of live bait is no more damaging than proper use of casted artificials, or trolled artificials. How about the guys that are advocating waiting the count of 10 before setting the hooks with a gig and soft plastic lure. How many of those get sucked down to the gullet. '
You answered your own challenge, the way I've read this. Distribution of posters and other materials educating the public on the proper use of quick strike rigs is mentioned in the proposal. I believe the trolling portion of this proposal to be more addressing the ability to 'power troll' cranks and other lures as is so popular on trophy waters elsewhere; however, you bring up a good point that some will troll suckers slowly. I also think single hook rigs should be outlawed while using suckers; therein lies the enforcement rub IMHO. PROPER use sounds great, you and I and Jason being the subjects. Unfortunately, anglers 'like us' are not necessarily the majority on the Chip and elsewhere; this has been the subject of much conversation in the past.
By the way, as one of the jig and soft plastic pioneers IMHO waiting ten seconds on a hook set with soft plastic is a bad idea because the fish will spit out the jig more times than not. And, that makes no sense, usually when a fish hits a jig and plastic, they have it. Education....
I agree that walleye anglers will want to troll as well. If you read the first part of the proposal under 'Foreward and Acknowledgments' you will see the authors expect that there will be changes and amendments as this proposal moves forward. That's one I bet will have to be addressed. I have heard rumors from inside the DNR that the three lines per angler allowed here for trolling walleyes should be looked at too. We will see.
As to the position fishing rule, there was an attempt to clarify that ruling after the Bohn ruling that states basically if the line is consistently at a severe angle to the bait due to forward or reverse powered movement of the boat, the angler is trolling. It'll be much harder to beat a ticket these days. Archaic and difficult to enforce law IMHO, and one that needs to visit the trash heap permanently. I think it will be much easier to dump that law if the number of lines is restricted and am willing to make that consession to be able to powertroll up here. That's me.
Now a personal observation; we as anglers all are really good at screaming for conservation and higher size limits that we want to be law for our trophy waters. When we get what we want and it is restricted to our perception of what's best, we trumpet our good work. When, however, an equally arguable conservation proposal is made that upsets OUR PERSONAL methodology and fishing habits, even if it's arguably provable to be positive for sustaining or for that matter reaching true trophy potential on some Wisconsin waters, we have a tendency to see our personal trophy muskie conservation ethic resolve weaken and even reverse. That includes me, by the way, but I'm open to listening to the experts in order to create a strong trophy fishery in Wisconsin for our future offering them the respect they deserve.
Jason, it's not what is said many times, it's HOW. Re-read your own posts and look at how aggressive some of the comments look; you went pretty personal and referred to comments I made in a manner that certainly could be seen as 'unfriendly'. If that's not how you meant it, great, then one should take appropriate care NOT to allow it would be easily imnterpreted as such. The argument here is what is best for the Chip and our Wisconsin trophy fishery, and isn't nor should it be taken down to a personal level.
If you really want this board to be a train wreck instead of an educational exchange to learn the WHY and WHEREFORES of this and many other public and DNR proposals, take it to the other boards that seem to encourage that sort of thing. There you won't hear from the folks at the DNR. Gee, I wonder why?
I will not apologize for asking for polite and reasonable exchange here. Without it we have no participation from the folks we are asking to answer our questions. Even WITH the heavy moderation, many fisheries managers, biologists, forensic geneticists, and other experts choose to email their comments to me because they don't see it an attractive idea to be put in the crosshairs. I don't blame them.
I'm very happy Dave Neuswanger has the personal intestinal fortitude to stay with us here, and I intend to keep the atmosphere one that encourages professional participation. Maybe as we move forward we will attract others willing to openly discuss the issues at hand. I hope so.
I also recognize that Mike, Jason, and many others chiming in here are all part of the 'good guys' crowd. My intention in steering this conversation towards more reasonable and less emotional exchange is to keep it on the board and to encourage others who are truly experts to join the conversation.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| The problem, as I understand it from reading the proposal is not live bait fishing, but live bait fishing with single hook rigs. The one-line-per-angler proposed rule is only to discourange live bait fishing... But we'll trade you for trolling???
If the problem is delayed mortality due to the methods being used in live bait fishing, than we need to address THAT, and NOT the number of lines you use.
One line out using a single hook rig and allowing muskies to swallow the bait is still going to kill a lot of fish.
Edited by esoxaddict 9/11/2007 2:36 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Some good replies. Have to ready a Musky meeting(and timely livebait education seminar for tonight). Mike, and Brad, interesting takes.
Steve your perception of what I said(probably my 'you obviously hate live bait' comment) as being a personal attack and personnally berating, is not on target. It is how I percieve the proposal and his subsequent comments, and did not mean it derogatorily at all. I hate using Fuzzy Duzzits for Muskies, as a method. Seems fairly obvious, his dislike(hatred might be strong) for live bait use. So what? Nothing wrong with him disliking live bait use. What is wrong, is the ill perception that live bait use in overall WI is making our trophy Muskellunge fishing suffer. As a side note, maybe alot of muskies will eventually drop a quick strike rigged sucker, like they do a counted to 10 jig and plastic.... I know that if I don't 'hit' them within a couple seconds on occasion, they are often gone when they feel 2 large treble hooks. It is often neccessary to let them grasp the sucker and let them turn away from the boat to set the hook too, debunking the reasoning behind the neccessity to hold the rod while fishing with them. In the real world, fish don't gulp a sucker down in short order.
It is not my 'personal' methodology of Musky fishing either(apologies if I read into this statement incorrectly). You make me feel so alone sometimes....hehehe... If you see it 'all the time' and if people are telling Dave that a majority of Musky fishing in fall is done with suckers, it is obviously a culture or 'the' methodology, is it not? A methodology by the way, if done correctly, as most people are doing that I have witnessed, that does not harm our resource. Again, tell me how limiting to one line, thus eliminating sucker dragging, is going to improve the many many lakes in WI that sucker fishing does not even take place on now or how it will improve the majority of lakes where proper use of live bait fishing is occuring?
Also, wasn't my reply to your inference of my use of expert enough? Guess not. I'll take a stab here... Where is the word expert shown in quotations above other than in one of your posts? But wait......I guess we're all experts. You a guiding expert, Dave a biology expert, and myself, the listening to too much loud heavy metal music on my way to landing, eat too much venison sausage, and not have enough PBR to wash it down expert.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/11/2007 1:45 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why would you think the current proposal offered by Neuswanger and Pratt is based on their personal perceptions? These folks are full time scientists, and personal perceptions are not well accepted in those circles for creating management plans, at least that's been my experience.
'We as anglers..." isn't a direct reference to anyone in particular except me and the general Muskie angling public.
Did you read the entire proposal including the Forward and Acknowledgments section, the history, etc?
I would personally challenge your statement that live bait use in Wisconsin for muskies is NOT "making trophy Muskellunge fishing in Wisconsin suffer." On some waters, and on the Chip in specific, I think using multiple rods for suckers increases mortality of the larger fish considerably( especially the ones that are harvested..hehehe), especially in light of the fact there are still swallow rigs in use. Does that challenge make me right, or does it make you right? At this juncture, neither. So should I say you are WRONG and I am RIGHT? No, I will continue to post my best perceptions of the facts and we will see what seems to be closest to the mark when all is said and done. I might be wrong.
I offered my factual evidence that I see many many folks on Vilas and Oneida lakes pulling suckers around while casting. These folks are not just controlled drifting, they are definitely trolling. As I said several times, i think the no trolling rule is archaic and needs to go. Will I report everyone I see? No. I don't call the State Police every time a speeder rips by me endangering EVERYONE'S life on the highway, either. However, if I see someone blatantly trolling I do usually let them know they are likely to get a ticket. Some yell obscenities, some ignore me, and those who were not intentionally breaking the law thank me and stop.
Why would one line per angler eliminate sucker fishing? Many anglers prefer to cast, I assume, but like to have the sucker available. Me too, actually, but there are times and days when if I was limited to one line a sucker would be my choice.
I do not agree personally with all of what is in that proposal as far as implementation statewide, but I will rethink my position several times as all the arguments are put forth. That is how education occurs, at least for me. Maybe at the end of the day I'll remain opposed to parts of this proposal, and in support of others. As public opinion is weighed and good arguments put forth and fleshed out, the section that basically says this proposal is totally open to change might just effect the recommendations. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | STEVE: “Why would you take offense at that statement?”
RESPONSE: Steve the same way I would take offense to the statement if it was written this way “Quick Strike Rigging of Live Bait is much more consistent with the goals of a Northern Wisconsin catch-and-release trophy fishery than Trolling.” There are many out there who would love to make that statement. If I am not mistaken you have argued the following point in the past, there all just different methods to the same end.
As far as live bait being outlawed on specific bodies of water, for specific species of fish and for many tourneys I was always under the impression that the reason for these regulations was to prevent the DEEP hooking of fish that could then not be released. There was not an established practice of quick-strike rigging, for most of these species. Which is exactly why there are now some Musky Tourneys that allow live bait fishing in the fall. The quick-strike rig is the major difference. I have never had a quick-strike rig taken to deeply, nor have I ever heard of this problem from the group of guys I regularly fish with. Conversely, I here of deeply hooked bulldawgs all the time.
Regarding emotion I read that entire thread and did not feel that Jason was over the top emotion wise, (Just my opinion). And I agree these discussion need to take place and emotion should be kept in check as much as possible. But what I stated in the above post I stand behind. My very first gut response to the live bait, trolling portion of the proposal was get rid of live bait fishing and bring back trolling, because live bait fishing is detrimental to the fishery. I consider myself pretty open minded, and I have argued against both anti trollers and anti live baiters on this and other web sites. If I read it that way, the people that like to go out and fish nothing but sucker in the fall will surly read it that way and I guarantee emotions will get involved and it will degenerate into the old over regulation argument. And nothing will fly not even the size limits.
Reread the proposal quote, it clearly states “…STATEWIDE regulation requiring that anglers fishing for muskellunge use only one rod at a time.” Then goes on to say “In order to compensate Flowage musky anglers for what some will perceive as loss of opportunity, we will propose to legalize motor trolling (one rod per angler) on the Chippewa Flowage” Dave did a good job of clarifying this, but how many people will read this discussion compared to how many have read that rule change?
What worries me is that if this isn’t done with kid gloves it could set the entire pro musky movement, which I personally feel has been gaining good ground back a long way in the eyes of the general public.
Steve, as for you personnel observation I totally agree with it, but that’s not the reason I am finding fault with some of the items in this proposal. Because if sucker usage was outlawed completely, it would not effect 99.9% of my fishing. In fact if one line trolling was legalized I am pretty sure I would have at my hands the tool to put more and bigger fish in the boat, every year. The same can be said for many anglers which is one point I think Jason was trying to make. More big fish will be caught and therefore more big fish will be kept. Will and equal or greater reduction in live bait big fish captures and delayed mortalities do to suckers be seen, without targeting the true culprit, the swallow rig? How do we accomplish this task with 100 years of sucker fishing tradition, without turning a large portion of Northern Wisconsin Musky fishermen against you? Those are the really big questions.
I hate to see anything that puts such a huge dividing line betweens us when we are such a small group to start with? Trollers vs. Antitrollers, Livebait vs. Artificial.
I say lets tackle what makes the most impact first as a unite group! The majority of the group agrees increased sizelimits work. The majority of the group agrees that swallow rigs kill. There was a good proposal against swallow rigs last year on the CC questioner lets get that through as a state wide rule change. Lets not alienate the trollers, the people that like using live bait and the people that like using multiple lines with the same proposed rule change.
Just my opinion for what’s it’s worth, hope it makes sense.
I completely respect Dave for what he has done and what he is doing and I am just trying to offer my opinion on this subject, which really isn’t worth much.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 9/11/2007 3:14 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
Agreed, I never used suckers at all until the Quick Strike rig was perfected. One reason I didn't was I felt fishing muskies with suckers killed too many fish.
My point was poorly made...why take 'offense' at all?
I don't see any attempt to get rid of sucker fishing, I see an attempt to offer a reasonable alternative, and reduce the number of live bait presentations per angler for those who don't wish to exercise that alternative. Maybe the point can be made that MN anglers rarely use suckers because they prefer power trolling; I'm not sure why, actually. But I do know many MN anglers see fishing live bait as somehow less than 'sporting' and ask first if a WI angler takes a big fish in the Fall..."Was it on a sucker?"
As far as the single line proposal going statewide if one carefully reads the text there, the idea seems to be that education coupled with regulation would force the live bait angler to be more attentive with the rod using a harnessed sucker AKA quickstrike, and I believe Dave Neuswanger has already stated this proposal is offered for the Chip. Hopes are that other fisheries managers elsewhere will follow suit. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve,
Offense was probably a poor choice of words on my part. It “bugged me” because the way I read it it’s insinuating that using live bait is worse than trolling. Just as those Mn anglers you mention are insinuating the same. By the way many Wisconsin anglers do the exact same thing when it comes to trolling. To many Wisconsinites, a big fish caught trolling doesn’t count as much as one caught casting. Different cultures, neither one is better or worse, but that needs to be overcome for this concept to work.
The improper use of live bait is a BIG problem, there is no doubt, but if guys are trolling big spreads and not slowing down when they get a small fish on, or small spreads for that matter, that in my opinion is just as bad as a swallow rig, and probably a good argument for limiting line usage even on great lake tributaries.
I don’t see the problem as being live bait, it’s swallow rigs. Also I have never seen any evidence that quick strike rigs are accidentally deep hooking musky any more regularly than artificial lures.
I understand the goal, just trying to point out some potential road blocks, that I don’t want to see derail the entire effort.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
| This is a great thread, with lots of intelligent discussion. Some very important issues at the center of the discussion.
I think Mike has some excellent points here, and I share the concerns over potential roadblocks due to the single-rod proposal. Speaking in generalities, I don't think that there is a state that can compare with Wisconsin in regard to the interrelationship between "tradition" and "muskie fishing". With "tradition" comes sucker fishing. IMO, again speaking in generalities, otherwise enlightened proposals will be met with fairly staunch opposition if those proposals are going to prevent Wisconsin muskie anglers from using suckers in the fall, or, CREATE A PERCEPTION that using suckers in the fall will be more difficult. The single-line/single-rod rule seems to be going down that route, at least as I read it. In fact, you can expect that opposition will come from what would otherwise be the friendly forces of conservation-minded anglers such as myself, especially considering potential state-wide implications. I use quick-strike rigs while casting in the fall, and I really enjoy fishing this way. Like most folks, hooks are set immediately on fish, and I have not once had a fish hooked deeply, or otherwise injured a fish in a way that would compromise the release. As has been mentioned, there have been plenty of times that a fish will get hooked deeply on an artificial.
IMO, the elephants in the room--the real culprits here, are the single hook sucker rig, and harvest of 45-49" fish. DIRECTLY addressing those issues is where the most support amongst muskie anglers is going to be, e.g., size limit, single-hook ban.
I also share Mike's concerns about the possible division amongst muskie anglers when you start pitting sucker vs. anti-sucker and trolling v. anti-trolling segments. That's a very real concern when you consider the potential implications statewide...and also IMO very unecessary when you consider what are the most relevant and most glaring problems, that could REALISTICALLY get accomplished, toward building and maximizing the Chip, as well as other trophy fisheries in WI.
Matt DeVos | |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| So what you're saying Matt is that this measure is sort of like whizzing on a forest fire... It might feel like you're actually making a difference, because technically you are putting out flames, but in the grand scheme of things all you're really doing is creating a lot of steam and making it stink for everyone. | |
| | |
Posts: 32889
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Remember, this proposal is for the Chip. Here's what Jason and Mr. Neuswanger said a bit back:
'RH: If the proposal/article would have only included the Chippewa Flowage (the lake you put the effort into studying), I wouldn't have said a word. But when even a sniff of statewide becomes apparent in its encompassment, you have an argument from alot of folks.
DAVE N: Again, I don't have the authority to propose statewide rule changes. Many others will have to believe it's a good idea before it goes anywhere. Right now, I am focused on making the Chippewa Flowage all it can be. One step at a time...'
Sort of like our effort to get a 50" limit here in Oneida County;one lake at a time.
| |
| | |
| "Now a personal observation; we as anglers all are really good at screaming for conservation and higher size limits that we want to be law for our trophy waters. When we get what we want and it is restricted to our perception of what's best, we trumpet our good work. When, however, an equally arguable conservation proposal is made that upsets OUR PERSONAL methodology and fishing habits, even if it's arguably provable to be positive for sustaining or for that matter reaching true trophy potential on some Wisconsin waters, we have a tendency to see our personal trophy muskie conservation ethic resolve weaken and even reverse. That includes me, by the way, but I'm open to listening to the experts in order to create a strong trophy fishery in Wisconsin for our future offering them the respect they deserve."
Amen Steve!
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | From the Actual Proposal:
“Because regulating the manner in which live bait is fished would be virtually unenforceable, we will recommend a statewide regulation requiring that anglers fishing for muskellunge use only one rod at a time. "
While Dave cannot./will not.?.. propose a rule change for the entire state, it appears the authors would like to recomend it happen statewide, but will allow regional/local managers decide its relevency.
I realize the first task at hand is improvement of the Chippewa Flowage and with what I heard over the years regarding single hooks kill rig abuse, some type of restriction may need to be placed on the flowage only and not the entire Upper Chippewa basin. We, as public need to maintain caution when voting for these types of regs however, as they can often grow legs(often times for the good, but in this case, not from a statewide standpoint).
That said, if a proposal of this manner(one line limit) were to pass anywhere, please understand the potential backfire that could occur(in addition to what some mentioned above in regards to angler to angler relations as well as angler/DNR relations). For example, the problem live baiters that I see, and that most believe are causing the unneccessary mortality of too many Muskies, are the lazy. They show up at the favorite public shore spot to watch Muskies swallow their death sentance. They are not ambitious enough to row a sucker around the lake, and have no desire to cast. Now, if trolling one line is made legal anywhere(including the Chip.), there is pretty fair chance and full opportunity for these people to troll 3 or 4 lines(depending upon how many people are aboard), effectively pulling swallow rigged suckers past far more hungry fish, than would have seen the bait in its' once stationary position.
But, do I truly believe people will pull alot of single hook rigs around the Chip after passed. No I do not. But I am not sure that one line power trollers won't keep more fish than are currently being caught or incidentally killed now either(look at how many troller kept fish affected WI last year). Said proposal does have the ability to curb a bad habit where other efforts have seemingly failed. But just as size limit adjustments are scrutinizingly and sparingly placed on a typically PER LAKE basis, what may good for the the single study body of water in terms of this reg., would do little to improve fishing in overall WI.
In closing, I feel that the single line limit, with emphasis on the reduction/cessation of live bait use, just being proposed, could have a negative effect on people like myself who choose to effectively employ the use of a sucker in the fall. I have already been the victom of dirty looks from what seems to be an unfortunate growing faction of Musky anglers while at the bait shop. More often than not these looks and sidebar 'live-bait-bad' comments made underbreath come from what I most admiringly refer to as elitist puke(I am not kidding about multiple said incidences and commentary sessions noted from said 'type' individuals). Almost like the thinking is 'gee these guys in the Pabst Bue Ribbon caps with the JB welded-to-float 14' boat buying 3 suckers are up to no good again!'(not knowing my own Ranger is parked in the garage, with my Mark Sosin pastel shirt in the wash). These negative connotations will undoubtably build among non Musky anglers and just plain non anglers as they see these types of proposals made public, further attempting to make us feel like we are out to 'wrong the resource' when we stop for bait. I'd hate for this to continue or happen with greater frequency and we need to nip it in the bud NOW. As stated above, we need to unite, meaning everyone respecting one anothers valid, safe, and effective manner of Musky fishing. I'd sure hate to see this turn into the corn wars occuring on the deer hunting front, as one can arguably see parallel and further argue that if said proposal were to pass anywhere, that this ridiculous negative perception could snowball.
Please remember, the reality is that anglers still have a right to keep a 34" or longer Musky on the majority of Wisconsins northwoods lakes, no matter what I catch them on. Don't lose sight of this. Change may need be made, but the proper choice in changes made, and order in which changed, are truly key.
That said, Steve made an excellent comment above, one that should be read again. I'll copy below with comments in parenthesis, being mine:
I do not agree personally with all of what is in that proposal as far as implementation statewide, but I will rethink my position several times as all the arguments are put forth. That is how education occurs, at least for me. Maybe at the end of the day I'll remain opposed to parts(all parts which could reference state or area wide one line rule) of this proposal, and in support of others. As public opinion is weighed and good arguments put forth and fleshed out, the section that basically says this proposal is totally open to change might just effect the recommendations(good point).
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/12/2007 7:54 PM
| |
| | |
| RH what if the 1 line in the chip is pasted and makes a big difference in the overall musky fishery, would you be willing to liston to a state wide reduction of sorts then? Just wondering. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Again, read my previous posts. When there are few to hardly any people fishing with swallow rigs any more, and even fewer people who are 'seemingly' killing fish with quick sets statewide, the answer would be no. Abusing a position fishing law is one thing(we've established that is going on). Widespread disregard for the resource in terms of killing fish through improper use of quick strike rigs is not a statewide issue, therefore the proposal would have little to no positive statewide effect. That said, I'll be watching very carefully how this progresses on the Chip. in terms of fishery improvement. I think we all will be. It will need to pass first....
That said, most higher size limit laws have been instated as temporary adjustments in order to study effectiveness. How long would they give such a reg. before justifying its' purpose(if I missed it in another look at the original proposal, please accept apologies)?
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/17/2007 2:49 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| REEF HAWG: "...most higher size limit laws have been instated as temporary adjustments in order to study effectiveness. How long would they give such a reg. before justifying its' purpose(if I missed it in another look at the original proposal, please accept apologies)?"
DAVE: I don't look at most of our higher size limits (or any other regulation) as tactics we've employed just so we can see what happens. We are recommending a higher size limit and other tactics for the Chippewa Flowage because we believe they will help maximize the chance of achieving our trophy fishery objective, which is to have 3-5 percent of all muskies over 50 inches long (1 percent now). In my world of fishery management (as opposed to research), you do everything you can to tip the scales in favor of achieving your objectives, especially for the most important species on the most important waters. You monitor progress to determine if your combined tactics (size limits, method restrictions, stockings, habitat management, etc.) are acting in concert to achieve your objectives; but you don't expect to know, with certainty, the relative contribution of each tactic to achieving your objective. You simply do everything you can to "git 'er done." Call it the "Larry the Cable Guy" School of Fishery Management
And if everything you do fails to make a positive difference, you go back to the drawing board and either develop more realistic objectives or find alternative strategies that MIGHT work. Nothing is cast in stone, and nothing is forever. But as long as most of us can agree on the objectives for high-priority species on high-priority waters, we should go down every sensible path toward achieving those objectives. At some point, we (agency fishery managers) must ask you (anglers) to trust that we are "better than the average bear" at deciding which paths to try first. If not, you're paying us a lot of good money for nothing. How's THAT for a set-up for my critics?
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 9/19/2007 8:37 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| LOL Dave -- well said. I think a lot of us tend to forget sometimes that the people who work for the DNR, most notably the fisheries management team and the biologists actually DO THIS FOR A LIVING. i.e. they've gone to school. they are constantly evolving and learning new things, doing research, etc. and dedicating their proessional lives to making the places we fish better for us. Yet we (including myself in this) are really quick to get on here and tell them how to do their jobs because we in our infinite wisdom KNOW BETTER??
At what point do you sit back and think "you know what? These are professionals. This is their CAREER, do 'ya think maybe they know a little bit more than we do< and maybe we ought to give them a little respect, especially since they are trying to accomplish the same thing we are??"
I don't know about you guys, but if my house was on fire I sure as hell wouldn't be telling the fire department how to put the fire out. | |
| | |
| Thanks Dave, I'm sure everybody appreciates your comments and involvement here at Muskie 1st! I liked what was said on the last post, particularly the Fireman comparison. I would say we certainly don't want to tell them how to put out the fire, although I'm sure that's happened before :).
However, I'm sure the Fireman would want to know if there is a chance people are still in there, and may be even the location of fluffy for a rescue. I think this is basically what Dave is looking for from us here. Great thread! | |
| | |
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | "If not, you're paying us a lot of good money for nothing"
Quit being modest Dave. The profession doesn't pay SQUAT! | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | DAVE: I don't look at most of our higher size limits (or any other regulation) as tactics we've employed just so we can see what happens. We are recommending a higher size limit and other tactics for the Chippewa Flowage because we believe they will help maximize the chance of achieving our trophy fishery objective, which is to have 3-5 percent of all muskies over 50 inches long (1 percent now).
Exactly, highly commendable(wish this type of vision would have been on the forefront years ago), and the very same reasons we've fought for higher size limits on certain bodies in WI for years. It is also true that when many of the regs(WI River Muskellunge and Walleye regs in addition to many in the north) were written, it was stated that they were to be reviewed after 'x' number of years of monitoring for effectiveness(for the very reason to apparently avoid a, just see what happens, type of approach). As opposed to questioning our fisheries team leaders ability to manage by asking such questions, many of us are trying to become educated in comparing certain regulation changes between different fisheries/watersheds accross the state, always looking forward. We recently voted to extend the WI River slot for walleyes into the future(not sure of the time frame, but maybe should be indefinate.?..), due to its recent positive effect on the fishery here, making alot of people happy(some, even, who voted against it 10 years ago when it went into effect for a decade, but support it now).
It is probably safe to say the 34-45" jump already had a dramatic affect on the Chip, and I am not sure if this was a rule change that had such a timeline for monitoring review. One could argue for or against such timeline settings, or argue the length of the settings themselves(many even argue that some of the study times are/were too short as to realize noticable impact). I am sure questions such as these will be answered at the Sawyer County hearings next spring when these proposals come up for public vote/input, and will defer further such inquisitions for that venue where we can also thank you for taking steps to improve/maintain your local fisheries.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/22/2007 7:40 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| “Because regulating the manner in which live bait is fished would be virtually unenforceable, we will recommend a statewide regulation requiring that anglers fishing for muskellunge use only one rod at a time. "
That statement right there would have me voting against this in the spring hearings. With as many conservation minded anglers there is, I'd be willing to bet that the TIP lines would be quite busy if the single hook kill rigs were outlawed, and those using them had the opinion that the reg was unenforceable. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people using these kill rigs are known, and their favorite locations are not uncommon knowledge up on the Chip. Outlaw the kill rigs, and arrest those that still insist on using them.
MN is a relatively young, and unpressured muskie region, as compared to WI. Sure, there are lots of big fish being caught there right now. But do you really think that the one line reg is the reason? I think low pressure, and higher size limits are more the reson. That, and everybody knows that no fish get harvested in MN, no matter the size. That only happens in WI.
I'm not agreeing with Jason, either, that there are that many fish being dragged and killed because of trolling. There is a subsatntial harvet, yes, but inadvertant mortality because of trolling? More than that by casting artificials? In my own experience, I believe there is as great, or greater chance at injuring, and inadvertant mortality casting artificials. Just my opinion. I've not seen the fish dragged by baits deep in the gills on GB. I've cut why more hooks from casted baits, than with trolled baots. Again, my experiences here.
My suggestion for the chip? Raise the size limit, outlaw the single hook kill rigs, enforce that regulation, and stand back and watch. No reason to allow trolling as a trade off to 1 line per angler. A quick strike in conjuction with a casted lure is a great way to spend a fall day.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Guys, I appreciate all the sincere sentiments expressed here. And please believe me when I tell you that I'm listening to your opinions, primarily because the moderators of this site keep the discussion friendly and respectful. It helps me to understand what other committed musky anglers are thinking.
Most aspects of this issue have been discussed pretty thoroughly here -- the 50" size limit, one-rod rule, and legalized motor trolling on the Chippewa Flowage. (By the way, if we proceed to make a one-rod rule proposal for the Chip in 2009 or 2010, it will apply to ALL species, not just muskies.)
This brings me to another point that has not been discussed. Because this is a musky fishing website, most of the discussion understandably has revolved around muskellunge. What I will now ask is that everyone take a step back and look at the big picture with respect to motor trolling. While true that it is part of a multi-pronged strategy to increase the number of large muskies in the Flowage, our recommendation to permit motor trolling on the Chippewa Flowage goes WAY beyond simply improving the musky fishery. For me, it's more about making a commonly accepted method of fishing legal for ALL species. For 23 years I helped manage some very fine fisheries in Missouri without prohibiting motor trolling. Minnesota manages some very fine fisheries without prohibiting motor trolling. In those and other states, an elderly or disabled person has more opportunity to stay active in the sport of fishing BECAUSE they are permitted to motor troll.
Let me personalize this for everyone. Last week, two gentlemen came into my office at the Hayward DNR Service Center. One was elderly and had owned a cabin on the Chippewa Flowage for 40 years. He came into my office to ask WHEN we might propose to open the Flowage to motor trolling. Without knowing if he was for or against motor trolling, I told him probably at the 2009 or 2010 spring hearings of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. As it turns out, he had reached the point in his life where he could no longer cast a big lure hour after hour without hurting his shoulder too much. (We'll all be there ourselves one day, I presume.) After hearing of our plans, he smiled and shook my hand and wished me the best of luck; because if our proposal is approved, he believes he will be able to fish with artificial lures for muskies and other species on his home water again.
Another younger gentleman buying a license overheard our conversation. He seemed less friendly, and I was concerned that he might argue against motor trolling. But I learned quickly that his sub-surface resentment was directed at the fact that motor trolling was ever made illegal on the Flowage in the first place. This younger gentleman had been the victim of some repetitive stress injury a few years ago that made it virtually impossible for him to cast. But he can hold a rod and crank a reel handle. He strongly resented the fact that motor trolling was not legal, even though, technically, disabled people in Wisconsin can obtain an exemption that allows them to troll. But he was a proud young man who did not like the "disabled" label and did not feel that he should need to go to someone with his hat in his hand to get special permission to fish in a manner that is legal is most places in the United States. I really could not defend the current ban on motor trolling. All I could do was promise to try my best to change it. And that's exactly what I intend to do.
It's not all about muskies, and it's not all about those of us who are lucky enough to have our health and physical capabilities intact.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 10/5/2007 1:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Isn't it curious that the Minnesota DNR has not alienated their musky anglers by restricting them to one rod only and allowing them to motor troll?
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 10/15/2007 6:27 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| Reef Hawg,
Management strategies need to be practical in order to be effective. Sure, if we could just stop the use of single hook rigs we wouldn't need to limit the number of lines, but how do you propose you actually DO that?
Inspect every boat, every tackle box? Outlawing the sale of single hook rigs is not going to do it. As long as people can still buy hooks, they can use them for muskies without any real chance of getting caught.
The "best" management strategy is useless without the cooperation of the public and the ability of our conservation officers to actually catch people who chose to disobey the law.
You can tell from across the lake if someone is using two lines, how do you tell if they are using a single hook sucker rig? even if you KNOW they are doing it, how do you catch them at it?
The way I see it is that it's not POSSIBLE to stop those who are killing fish, because it's not possible to catch them. But if you implement a one-line-per-angler rule, you can eliminate the problem by going through the back door. If one line is all you are allowed, chances are most anglers aren't going to have a sucker over the side of the boat. Any who do will certainly be paying closer attention to that rod. It may not be the way you or I want it to be done, but the end result will be more muskies living to fight another day. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | EA, that argument is one that is used quite fruitlessly in many legal battles. Ignorance for the law is simply not acceptable. Using seatbelts is a law. Does everyone abide?? Nope, but it sure has saved alot of lives. Outlawing single hook use, vs. reducing WI to a one line limit would be less practical??
Outlaw single hook rigs, and get to the root of the problem. Ask other states how they enforce the same law. The cessation of sales of such in WI, for the most part, has already been done without the law. Hard pressed to find single swallow rigs in most local bait shops anymore. When I see them, I make mention of the outdated/known fish killing practice, and most are very receptive. Again, the single hook users are in the minority, but the majority of whom are causing the damage.
Single hook users also, often only use one rod to begin with, in which a one line limit would not stop. It would just prohibit the responsible from employing a safe and fun method of catching fish, contrary to the poorly founded belief that use of a quick-set in conjunction with a cast artificial, only sets the stage for a Muskies' death sentance.
Edited by Reef Hawg 10/15/2007 3:13 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| RH you missed my point. It's not ignorance of the law, or even blatent disregard for it that will be the problem, it's that outlawing single hook rigs is not practical. We all KNOW they kill a significant amount of fish, but the problem is that even if you outlaw them, it will still be nearly impossible to catch anyone who chooses to disobey the law. I suspect that the way other states enforce the law is that they DON'T, because they CAN'T. You said it yourself -- the cessation of sales has already been done for the most part. Making a law that can't be enforced isn't going to change the number of fish being killed. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | The point is, the clowns killing fish with single hook rigs are for the most part, using that as their sole strategy of catching a fish now, be it unnattended bank poles, sitting on the bank watching them, or drifting accross the lake with the setup. I think it can be argued that FEW anglers are casting artificials while position fishing, and dragging a single hooked kill rig.
I would have no problem reeling my line in to show the Conservation warden my legal quick set. The rule change is in the works now for WI. Are you proposing we abandon it??
Edited by Reef Hawg 10/15/2007 3:52 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | I'm really confused! I can understand the MN one-fisherman one-rod rule- same in Canada. But how exactly can we regulate/control single hook kill rig's? How do you define a "single hook kill rig"? or is it a particular method of fishing the rig that should be illegal?
Just an antedotal story from last week. Had to go to WI Dells to get broadband access on my laptop air card (I needed to download a couple of +meg files- no they were not p0rn) . Naturally a good spot for a good signal is the west side parking lot right by the dam. So what the hey- there's some muskies in the mighty WI River, so I throw in my new KT rod's and a handful of new lures I want to test & head down to the Dells. Park the car get the laptop up & running start down loads. Grab rods & lures, lock car and start walking down the "big ramp". Get down to water edge & there are 3 guy's fishing to my left - 9 rod's. all have a bell sinker & 18" leader with a 6-7" sucker on a single hook. By the amount of gear, coolers, etc. They are there for the duration.
I start trying out my new lures. 5 minutes later here comes a rental pontoon with two more guy's. Pontoon cut's right in front of me (less than 50') drives up on the rocks/sand (more rock than sand) right where the guys are fishing. Oh yeah the pontoon ran over at least two of the other guys lines. One of the bank fisherman jumps on board the pontoon. His poles are still in the water. Pontoon takes off does a spin around the pool & comes back- They are laughing having a good time- I realize the bank guy's are all roaring drunk, and yes they were not speaking any English. The only sober guy seemed to be the one driving the pontoon. Even then he wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.
So was the guy who got on the pontoon fishing illegally? My gut says yes. But.............???
Hey, given the rig they were using, they could be fishing for cat's, pike, muskies, sturgeon, or whatever! I'm pretty certain if they caught a fish it wasn't going to be swimming away after they finished unhooking it. Given their state of intoxication I decided it was best to leave as I couldn't really see trying to dissuade them from keeping a muskie if they managed to catch one......
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 10/15/2007 6:12 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 8788
| ESOX Maniac - 10/15/2007 6:08 PM
...But how exactly can we regulate/control single hook kill rig's? How do you define a "single hook kill rig"? or is it a particular method of fishing the rig that should be illegal?
Al
It's not just writing the law that's complicated, it's enforcing it that becomes a nightmare. The shore-sitters would be an easy target, but catching someone in a boat? Forget it. "Hey, here comes the warden, cut that line."...
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| You can do what you want to the Chip, but try and tamper with the rest of the State, and you'll not get your one line regs up there. ALso, try to sell that one rod per angler rule to the crappie and panfish guys up there, and you'll be stomped down. Just my opinion.
I'm on Reef Hawgs side here. We make laws every day that are unenforceable. Guns laws come to mind. It's already against the law for a felon to possess a firearm, but here we go, trying to outlaw all sorts of automatic weapons, and "assault" rifles, and handguns. Funny, but all the people using these guns for bad deeds are pretty much criminals. Why do the law abiding always have to give up our rights because the bad guys don't get caught. And when they do get caught, there's no penalty.
Outlaw the single hook rigs. As I said, the guys using them are well known, as are the areas they fish. Catch one, and make an example of him, and the others will get the message.
As for the MN not alienating the anglers with the one rod rule? That's been there for a long time, for all species. Not like they changed it just for the muskie guys. | |
| | |
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | As a shorefisher of the flowage I am almost to the point of being offended, but do realize the ignorance to the intracacies and evolution of rigs we currently use.
As far as the regulation changes to a 50 inch size limit, one rod per angler and motor trolling I support Dave wholly in getting these changes passed. I would also support a "outlaw single hook rigs" regulation as well, but doubt one would pass due to the difficulty in enforcement.
I will still shorefish, even if limited to one rod per angler, and trolling will allow for the kids to watch their portable dvd players while "fishing".
Corey Meyer
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Corey, why are you offended? If you are not using single hook kill rigs, and not allowing a fish 30 minutes or more before setting the hook in it's gullet, or spreading out so far you have to make watchman like rounds, then I don't know why you would be offended.
It's my opinion, but I don't think allowing trolling in exchange for one rod per angler isn't going to go over. Just as well. I'd like to hear from Ty Sennett, Dave Dorazio, and some of the other guides in the area. I bet they're not too interested in giving up a quick strike rig while casting. While I can sit all day with sucker rod in hand with Howie, I expect that. But up there, I want to cast, and have a sucker down for follows.
| |
| | |
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Offended in the rolled up ball the term" shorefishing" was being used as.
Corey Meyer | |
| | |
Location: 31 | It just occurred to me that a "single line live bait restriction" could be added to current fishing regulations statewide without having to rewrite the rulebook, or fight on a lake to lake basis like the DNR is currently having to do the Chippewa flowage. It's my opinion this would be more conducive toward promoting catch and release (for all species) and would eliminate the problematic three line live bait situation without much of a skirmish.
As far as ethical muskie fishermen are concerned, the long-standing tradition of casting an artificial while simultaneously floating a sucker would remain intact while a door would simultaneously swing wide open for the consideration to move to forward trolling statewide. It was just a thought I had...
Happy holidays everyone! | |
| |
|
Has anyone else read this?