|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Legalize motor trolling on WI inland lakes currently closed to trolling under the following two conditions:
1)On lakes less than 500 acres, only electric motor trolling is allowed. (275 pound or .5hp max trust)
2)No more than 4 lines per boat are allowed to be trolled.
Great discussion on the other thread. This is just another idea to toss out there to generate some more GOOD debate.
Personally I could like this as it does a number of things.
It opens trolling to many lakes where it could help me catch a few more musky and walleye every year.
It keeps the faster trolling off the small lakes, where many want to keep the WI north woods flare.
It allows electric motor trolling on those small lakes. To me this clearly still allows for the traditional methods of sucker fishing and lindy rig fishing, it also allows a pan fisherman to drag a spread of bobbers around a school of fish. In other words it clears up the Position fishing MESS!
The 4 lines per boat gives the people, who are worried about the WI northwoods lakes turning into a tangled mess, something to feel good about.
Lets see how you feel, give me the pros and cons of the above proposal.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/6/2007 11:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | Negatron. Leave the trolling where it's already allowed. lol, "we're drifting!"
But could this be compared to a disabled hunter hunting with a crossbow? I'm all for that. I wouldn't motor troll unless I was physically forced to, in other words.
The guest below me says anyone not for it must not want to fish with suckers? I don't see the comparison at all. All the sucker fishing with different people this fall we have never kept the boat in constant motion with a trolling motor, EVER. Unless of course you were to say using suckers is a much more productive way of catching fish? Either way I know the way we fished with our suckers, while doing quite well I might add, we'd never been able to keep an artificial bait in a constant motion (like any of the baits more often used for trolling).
I still can't decide whether more big fish being caught is a pro or con though..so I'm just going to leave it with what I said and not speak of it again:)
Edited by Andy 11/7/2007 12:32 AM
| |
| | |
| This is as close to a compromise as you are going to get to clarify the "positon fishing" mess there is now.
Mike, if people are going to like this, they are not going to like anything but something that says NO to fishing, period.
Those that don't go with this must not want to use suckers.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1530
| trolling is another way to catch fish. with todays fishemen releasing the greater amount and waters that can support this why not.. open water troling is a very good way to enjoy a day fishing. just my 2 cents | |
| | |
| I would see nothing wrong with that. Look at the fish coming out of MN and LOTW, and you can troll all you like there. I never really knew what the real reason was as to why you couldn't troll in WI. I guess I always heard the real problem was the 36" minimum length restriction on most WI waters. Is that still in place or has it been changed? Mille Lacs went to a 48" Minimum and people are trying to get it to 54", but look at that fishery. I guess I would think changing the length restriction would be a more important issue than trolling, but who knows. | |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | MRoberts - 11/6/2007 11:35 PM
The 4 lines per boat gives the people, who are worried about the WI northwoods lakes turning into a tangled mess, something to feel good about.
Lets see how you feel, give me the pros and cons of the above proposal.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
What if you have 5 guys in the boat sucker fishing? With the size of boatd these days, that could happen. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Mike, thanks for working on this issue. It seems to me that you're getting close to a sensible and viable proposal. I'm still thinking about the number of lines per boat (or per angler) and whether or not planer boards and downriggers should be restricted on waters less than some specified acreage. I think some exceptions need to be made for the Great Lakes and any other large body of water where there is a large, well-established trolling industry and livelihoods are at stake. (For example, I would not advocate further restricting the number of rods or the use of planer boards or downriggers on the Great Lakes.)
Restricting the use of downriggers for trolling on most inland lakes would minimize mortality caused by rapid de-pressurization when fish are brought to the surface from exceptionally deep water.
Restricting the use of planer boards on most inland lakes would address some of the concerns about trollers monopolizing space on the water.
Choosing enforceable language to restrict the number of rods per boat is very, very tricky. We'll get questions like: "What if I'm casting (a musky lure) with one rod and trolling (a sucker) with the other, and so are my two boat partners?" In such a case, you'd be within the "4 rods per boat" rule for trolling purposes, but there would be 6 rods fishing out of that boat at one time. Whatever is proposed, I suggest that it be designed to provide INCENTIVE (without mandate) to fish with artificial lures (for all species) rather than live bait. And it should maximize angler ATTENDANCE to any live bait being fished. Part of the current problem, even with quick-set rigs, is that the hooks are not set quickly enough by some anglers to prevent deep hooking and delayed mortality of released muskellunge. They are busy casting, watching for follows, etc. And some just let the fish have a sucker too long even when they know there is a fish on.
How about this? "While trolling, each individual angler in a boat may fish with no more than one rod, and no boat may troll with more than two rods at the same time regardless of the number of anglers in that boat." The Great Lakes, Winnebago, and perhaps a few other large lakes with a well-developed guided trolling industry would be exceptions.
I like your idea to restrict trolling on lakes <500 acres to electric motors only. This allows trolling on all waters, but accounts for some of the concerns about traffic and noise on some of our smaller northern gems. I can tell you that a 500-acre lake CAN be trolled effectively with electric trolling motors only, because I did it for years on 530-acre Hazel Creek Lake in northeastern Missouri. I caught lots of muskies while trolling there, all with one line per angler from a small boat. Lots of fun, and more effective than casting (if done right) at certain times of year. Never killed a fish, either. Great option for elderly or disabled anglers, too.
Again, thanks for your initiative on this, Mike. If I can help, let me know.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| 4 lines trolling nut. You could run 4 suckers as the other rods would be used for casting. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | the really important question could be "what does Dan Meyer think?"
... my reasons are tradition, challenge and not wanting to have guys drive right next to me as happens on other trolling waters ... among many more ...
question for mike roberts or dave n ... is this something that's going to going to vote this year? or is it just internet talk?
thanks
there's more to this one and if/when it becomes a real potential ... it's gonna be a big division among anglers ... | |
| | |
Posts: 880
Location: New Berlin,Wisconsin,53151 | Trolling for Salmon when it gets to hot in July and August to cast for Muskies. I know that big fish are taken trolling in fact my PB was trolling but theres nothing like the feeling of a follow to the boat and the fish eats on the 1st turn of the 8.
Bruce | |
| | |
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Mike
I would give it a big thumbs up, maybe up the acerage to 1500 or 2000 acres, to help preserve smaller lakes.
The open lines count up on lakes larger than 10,000 acres, thus allowing Winnebago and great lakes anglers the 3 lines.
Troyz | |
| | |
| i would vote yes for the first part, but no on the second part.
this means i would vote "no" on it as it stands if it came up at the spring hearings.
AND i would voice my opinion at the hearing and attempt to influence others to vote no because of the (imho) confusion added by the second part.
the lines per angler is a separate/distinct issue, imho, and it unnecessarily confuses things when you try to offer "carrots" like that to gain some votes.
the first part has appeal to anglers of many species, let it stand on it's own merits.
keep it simple and just propose the first part.
| |
| | |
| Just word it:
"Two lines per person, 4 lines maximum per boat on Wisconsin's inland waters excluding tributaries to the great lakes and the the following listed bodies of water where 3 lines per person is allowed: Winnebago, Pewaukee,....etc etc etc"
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd vote for it as you posted it, Mike. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| JONNYSLED: question for mike roberts or dave n ... is this something that's going to going to vote this year? or is it just internet talk?
DAVE: From my standpoint, Jon, this is simply a way of bouncing ideas off people who care. I think of it as an online listening session that helps me to formulate my own views about what specific rule-change language may be desirable and possible. It is too late for DNR to put any kind of statewide trolling rule revision on the spring hearing questionnaire of the Conservation Congress in March of 2008. As far as I know, it hasn't even been discussed yet by DNR Fisheries program leaders in Madison. Of course, someone like Mike Roberts and others could introduce local resolutions to obtain opinions from Conservation Congress attendees next spring, but any vote on such resolutions at that time would not prompt immediate action by DNR. We would look at the 2008 spring hearing responses and decide what, if anything, to propose at the 2009 spring hearings.
I would advise everyone NOT to get too excited about this just yet, one way or the other. It's the kind of rule change that will require careful thought and lots of input over a period of a couple years (unless some legislator decides to hijack the process again). This discussion is only a starting point; and it started, as I recall, with my perception that changes were needed on the Chippewa Flowage. If folks like Mike wish to broaden the discussion, that's great.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I would vote yes as is.
I really think this could work if proposed, but only if you gained support from the walleye guys. My only fear would be that they may balk at the 4 lines. Don't know much about the psyche of the walleye guys, would the 4 lines be an issue? | |
| | |
Posts: 62
Location: Mokena, IL | We do a late fall trip on a Polk County lake where trolling is legal. It's usually cold enough at that time that we're doing nothing but dragging suckers on quick-sets. Because of some odd circumstances this year, one of the two boats that usually go backed out this year and I ended up with five on my boat. Because there's no casting, it's manageable on my Ranger 690, but we did have five rods out. The current wording would prohibit us from doing this.....
So, the question about five in the boat is a valid one in my mind.
Brad | |
| | |
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Norm- I would think the walleye guy's would go for it, i.e., they have zero trolling options now. Just a thought. It would certainly remove the sucker fishing issues, i.e., repositioning the boat to fight the wind or working a shoreline while casting and dragging a sucker as you move. Is dragging different than trolling? In my mind (warped as it is) dragging a sucker is intermittant movement of the boat, whereas trolling is constant movement of the boat.
Have fun!
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 11/7/2007 9:02 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| Sorry, Al, but I think you're wrong on what the walleye guys would think. I think this gets shot down if you keep the 4 lines part of it in. I would vote no, and only because of the 4 line restriction.
Dave, are you going to also recommend banning soft plastics and suckers? Lots of fish are being caught in very deep water on these baits, and brought up quickly. You start introducing all the "What ifs", and there will be no end to the doomsday scenarios. Also, this "Sucker out while casting, is it trolling or not?" has been discussed for as long as I can remember. At least since they rewrote the backtrolling reg to position fishing. It did not originate with the proposed Chip compromise.
The key here is to do away with the stupid no trolling/posisiton law as it is written. I like the proposed number one. Not sure where the 275 Lbs comes from, but ok with me. I agree with lambeau. Leave it stand on it's own merits alone. Leave out the 4 lines per boat, and this stands a good chance. I would vote for, and campaign for it. Insist on the 4 lines, and it will be doomed. Then I'd vote, and campaign, against it.
This will not make the spring hearings. But it could be introduced as a test resolution, much as we did with the 54" limit for Green Bay Muskies last spring. I expect the results of that will be a formal question at this coming Spring elections.
So, as it stands, I am voting no above. I'll put the same poll up on WalleyeFirst, and test the waters over there.
Edited by Shep 11/7/2007 9:37 AM
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | I agree with Lambeau. Two different issues IMO. It would probably fail if they are both put together like that. I personally would vote yes, but I could see a lot of people that would be for the first part voting no because of the second part.
What about the southern part of the state that can already troll with six lines? All of the trollers down here would vote no.
Dave your one line and allowing trolling on the Chip will not give you the results you are looking for. I have fished up there for over 20 years and I can tell you that the locals would all be trolling suckers with their one line. When I have been up there in November I am the only boat that casts.When I asked John Detloff why nobody is casting his response was that the fish only eat suckers in November on the chip. My response to him was that they don't catch them casting because nobody is casting. Everybody is currently just drifting with suckers up there. If the rules are changed they will all be trolling their suckers.
Edited by Bytor 11/7/2007 9:36 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | I would vote for trolling on ALL waters only. | |
| | |
Posts: 67
Location: St. Germain, Wi | A big yes, I just want to cast with a sucker out using the electric.. and be legal. Jim | |
| | |
| My intention was this would only affect lakes currently closed to trolling. Current lakes where trolling is legal would not change.
The max HP thing on the electric only is to make it clear it is intended for limited electric motor trolling. I can only imagine where some would take it. Not all but some.
Also nothing regarding row trolling should change.
Thanks
Nail A Pig
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I'll simply say that the backtrolling rule was a disaster. This isn't any different. I agree that the sucker issue needs to be addressed but this isn't the answer. Also, if it were going to be law, I don't think the 500 acre limit is high enough, I'd go to 1000 acres. Also tied to this proposal should be a 50 inch size limit if trolling is allowed. The backtrollers really devastated the lakes in the years it was allowed.
Ken K | |
| | |
| "I think some exceptions need to be made for the Great Lakes and any other large body of water where there is a large, well-established trolling industry and livelihoods are at stake. (For example, I would not advocate further restricting the number of rods or the use of planer boards or downriggers on the Great Lakes.)
Why even mention something like that??? Personally, I think your opening a HUGE can of worms by opening trolling to smaller lakes but adding contingencies to do it. If you want to open the lakes to trolling, go nuts - doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But if you saying trolling is OK, but only with this many lines or only with this kind of bait, what your really saying is that trolling as Wisconsin currently allows IS NOT OK. Please do not do anything to change the way Wisconsin currently views trolling. I like being able to use 3 lines per angler and (IMHO) making exceptions to what trolling is represents too great a potential for someone else with a "good" idea to wreck that.
"Restricting the use of downriggers for trolling on most inland lakes would minimize mortality caused by rapid de-pressurization when fish are brought to the surface from exceptionally deep water."
There are tons of ways to run baits deep. Leadcore, dipseys, 3-way rigs with a few ounces of weight.... You can even jig water 30+ feet deep. Why bother wasting your time trying to eliminate one way? Again, your messing with the way Wisconsin currently defines trolling and that could lead to bad things later on.
And last but not least, musky are fish. There is nothing wrong with killing a fish from time to time. The only way to be sure you won't kill one is to never try to catch one in the first place. Be careful about placing too much emphasis on fish mortality - that too can be a double edged sword if we aren't careful.
Hope I didn't ruffle any feathers... that is not my intent. | |
| | |
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | brad b . . . . .
Your last paragraph regarding fish mortality is DEAD ON and something we lose sight of alot around here. If a dead fish bothers a person that much don't fish for them.
Corey Meyer | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| "There is nothing wrong with killing a fish from time to time."
That is true, there is nothing wrong with one person killing the incidental fish on a rare occasion. Putting hooks in them will result in that eventually. What can be a problem is when lots of people do it, its more often than just "from time to time", and it happens on a lake that may only have ~100 muskies in it to begin with. | |
| | |
| people who troll don't harvest more fish than people who cast.
trolling doesn't incidentally kill more fish than casting or live bait.
the "proof" of this is the relative success of fisheries where trolling dominates as a technique in conjunction with catch/release practices. look at Green Bay, look at St. Clair, look at the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers.
the "100 fish lakes" won't be raped. give up that tired old refrain already...
| |
| | |
Posts: 8823
|
"people who troll don't harvest more fish than people who cast."
Where did I say they did?
"trolling doesn't incidentally kill more fish than casting or live bait."
And where did I say that, or even imply it?
"the "proof" of this is the relative success of fisheries where trolling dominates as a technique in conjunction with catch/release practices. look at Green Bay, look at St. Clair, look at the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers.
the "100 fish lakes" won't be raped. give up that tired old refrain already..."
If you're basing that assumption on huge bodies of water, and trying to extrapolate that into what will or won't happen on the small lakes, you saying it won't happen carries about as much weight as me saying it will. And I'm not even saying it WILL happen, only that it COULD happen.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| BYTOR wrote: "Dave your one line and allowing trolling on the Chip will not give you the results you are looking for. I have fished up there for over 20 years and I can tell you that the locals would all be trolling suckers with their one line. When I have been up there in November I am the only boat that casts.When I asked John Detloff why nobody is casting his response was that the fish only eat suckers in November on the chip. My response to him was that they don't catch them casting because nobody is casting. Everybody is currently just drifting with suckers up there. If the rules are changed they will all be trolling their suckers."
DAVE: Troy, I agree completely with your assessment of fall musky angler behavior on the Chippewa Flowage. I guess I need to clarify, though, that it is not my intention to do away with sucker fishing. I simply want folks who ARE fishing with suckers on quick-set rigs to pay close attention to them -- not fish with so many lines they can't react quickly to a strike, and not cast and watch for follows while a musky swallows their momentarily unattended sucker. From my standpoint, if more folks decide to troll artificials than fish suckers, that's fine. But it's also fine if they want to fish suckers ATTENTIVELY and set the hooks immediately by using quick-set rigs properly. I hope that clarifies my thoughts a little. Thanks to everyone for sharing their insights and preferences.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
| |
| | |
| "trolling doesn't incidentally kill more fish than casting or live bait."
And where did I say that, or even imply it?
you imply it when you say that trolling will put "more hooks in fish" and therefore result in more dead fish and therefore result in the destruction of small lakes.
If you're basing that assumption on huge bodies of water, and trying to extrapolate that into what will or won't happen on the small lakes, you saying it won't happen carries about as much weight as me saying it will.
ok...Wingra. Waubesa. Redstone.
DAVE: I simply want folks who ARE fishing with suckers on quick-set rigs to pay close attention to them -- not fish with so many lines they can't react quickly to a strike, and not cast and watch for follows while a musky swallows their momentarily unattended sucker.
Dave, i'm a bit bemused by your idea that casting is such a distraction from sucker fishing that it leads to muskies swallowing the sucker and rig before the hook can be set. this is simply not true.
i routinely fish with 2-3 suckers out while i and my partner cast. i've never had a sucker swallowed by a muskie, and i don't know of anyone else who has had this happen by accident. a properly set up rod/reel with bait alarm will alert you the moment the sucker is picked up. muskies simply don't swallow suckers within the 20-30 seconds it takes to reel the cast in and set the hook on the sucker.
| |
| | |
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Do we think that if we legalize trolling there is a large group of "trollers" out there waiting to infest the lakes? My guess is that if there are 100 anglers who fish a lake now, and we legalize trolling those same 100 anglers will fish the lake, but some of them will troll on occasion as another option, without really increasing the fishing pressure. Heck it could actually open up more areas for casters, versus waiting in line to fish an area.
Corey Meyer | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Mike, those lakes are considered "put and take" fisheries, they are stocked regularly. If you take 100 fish out and put 100 fish in you've still got 100 fish. If you take a lake where trolling currently is not allowed, and you allow trolling, it's not that far fetched to presume more fish will be caught. Think about it. You can get baits down in the strike zone and keep them there longer, you can cover more water, and you can do it more quickly. Some days, as you know, casting isn't going to put fish in the boat. If you can't troll, you won't catch fish that day, and it's likely that nobody else will, either. Allow trolling and you will catch fish during times and under conditions that you otherwise wouldn't.
I'd be fine with that if we could make sure those lakes had a higher size limit, or there was supplemental stocking, or the populations were carefully monitored to ensure the wuality of that fishery was not diminished, but we all know that the DNR doesn't have the time, the money, or the personnel to deal with issues like that, especially when it comes down to putting effort into something that isn;t currently a problem. We can't even get larger size limits passed on the lakes that really need them, how would we make sure those "little gems" continure to shine?
You mentioned Wingra. 300 acres, desnities of anywhere from 5 -7 fish per acre a few years back, stunted panfish, there's a lake that was (and still is) in desperate need of a population reduction. The population today is what, 2-3 fish per acre? Yes, the fish in there are finally starting to show signs of life, they look like they're actually eating now compared to a few years ago. There was no organized effort to move or cull those fish. If trolling pressure (and fishing pressure in general) has no effect on the population density, than let me ask you this: Where'd all those fish go?
And I believe it was you that mentioned a 40 that you caught out of there that was tagged and hadn;t been caught as far as you could tell. Where was that fish stocked? Where was it last netted? Not saying it was or wasn't in Wingra this whole time, because I don;t know. But did you ask the DNR where that fish originated from? | |
| | |
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | Great post esoxaddict. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Dave N - 11/7/2007 3:48 PM
DAVE: Troy, I guess I need to clarify, though, that it is not my intention to do away with sucker fishing. I simply want folks who ARE fishing with suckers on quick-set rigs to pay close attention to them -- not fish with so many lines they can't react quickly to a strike, and not cast and watch for follows while a musky swallows their momentarily unattended sucker. From my standpoint, if more folks decide to troll artificials than fish suckers, that's fine. But it's also fine if they want to fish suckers ATTENTIVELY and set the hooks immediately by using quick-set rigs properly. I hope that clarifies my thoughts a little. Thanks to everyone for sharing their insights and preferences.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Dave
I , like Lambeau, disagree with what you perceive to be happening with people who cast and use suckers (quick sets) at the same time. I fish with suckers a lot in the fall. I catch my fair share of fish on the suckers and I have never deeply hooked a musky on a quick set rig. I often drop my rod that I am casting, depending on how far out my cast is. I do this not because I am worried about the musky swallowing the sucker before I reel my line in but because I know that the sooner that I get to the rod the greater my chances are of catching that fish. I believe that single hook swallow rigs should be banned. Quick set rigs can be safely used while casting. If you are ever in the Madison area in late October or November who are welcome to fish in my boat. We will get a fish or two... or four on the quick sets and they will all be hooked in the corner of the mouth. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I'd be fine with that if we could make sure those lakes had a higher size limit, or there was supplemental stocking, or the populations were carefully monitored to ensure the wuality of that fishery was not diminished, but we all know that the DNR doesn't have the time, the money, or the personnel to deal with issues like that, especially when it comes down to putting effort into something that isn;t currently a problem. We can't even get larger size limits passed on the lakes that really need them, how would we make sure those "little gems" continure to shine?'
I won't even point out the inconsistent argument RE: size limits. As far as the DNR monitoring and caring for the Muskie lakes up here...On that one you are out of the park left field. The DNR in our area works on the lakes you are worried about regularly.
Increased size limits have to be passed by the CC. Overall management strategies for stocking/not stocking/maintaining a population of muskies in any given 'gem' will not.
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Mike, I'd vote yes. I would agree to a 4 line restriction, but would want to get a feel for what the public would agree to. If more people were in favor of openning lakes of a certain size to trolling(maintaining current regs on lakes already open to trolling I might add here) and keeping line limit to 3, I'd go with it.
Dave N: This discussion is only a starting point; and it started, as I recall, with my perception that changes were needed on the Chippewa Flowage. If folks like Mike wish to broaden the discussion, that's great.
RH: Just wanted to quick clarify this as I believe this topic doesn't relate the Chip trolling proposal. To the contrary, this began with a debate on what is and isn't legal regarding the use of live bait in conjunction with an electric motor. Several attempts have been made on this board to draft a proposal to clear this reg up, and I think Mike really has something here. This proposal would simply make it easier and plainly lawful for those of us who like to drag multiple suckers around while we cast artificials. Suckers, by the way, that never even come close to being swallowed while on a quick set. To that end, it is often neccessary to give a fish a bit more time than it takes to set the rod down and get to the live bait rod and reel after a hit on the sucker. Allowing the fish to swim off and 'correct' the line angle for the hook-set. Apparently we should all check out Mike Hulberts new quick set some time. They give the fish even more time than that, and they never have swallowing issues. I think he calls it the Hulberto.
Edited by Reef Hawg 11/8/2007 4:01 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | 4 lines is to make who feel good about it. What happend to one line per angler and no pl. boards. It was multiple lines and pl. boards that got backtrolling tossed off the rule books. Backtrolling was so abused that had doubts the d.n.r would ever consider any form of it again.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | What is the difference between FISHING, and TROLLING. How about that?
Edited by Andy 11/7/2007 10:14 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Trolling is a fishing technique. You don't have to like it, but you should respect the views and opinions of those who do. | |
| | |
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | Trolling is an "advanced technique". Yeah I've got top of the line equiptment but I still cast. No need for trolling on our waters here, that's my view. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Fish with Mike Koepp or one of the other versatile anglers out there and you will see just how advanced the technique can be. There's a heck of alot to learning the technique and applying it well.
The Walleye Pros have refined sport trolling to a science, literally. Attend an FLW or PWT as a Co Angler and you will see what I mean; and you may gain some respect for the technique.
I don't troll much either, and respect your position, but I don't troll much for a different reason... because I'm not very good at it. But it's a blast to watch Shep or Zach or Mikes Extreme or any one of a number of others I've fished with work that rig. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I don’t think one line trolling would ever have a chance as both anti trolling and pro trolling advocates would vote against it. I again want to make my suggested language clear: Legalize motor trolling on WI inland lakes currently closed to trolling under the following two conditions:… There is no intention to mess with WI Lakes where trolling is currently allowed, especially the great lakes including Winnebago. That being said, Shep why wouldn’t you want to open more lakes for trolling even if those NEW lakes had a 4 line limit. It is not clear to me why you are so against this. Is there a fear that the line limitation would spread to lakes where there currently isn’t a line limit other than the 3 per angler. As Reef Hawg pointed out my number one goal is to try and fix the position fishing mess, from my research the intent of that law was to allow the fishing lindy type rigs around structure, casting while dragging suckers and bobbers around schools of pan fish. In my opinion electric only trolling would clearly allow that. This was a poor attempt at compromise when they outlawed backtrolling, on the same group of lakes I am trying to address with this language. If anything is done, I think we need to at least address this issue. As Reef Hawg said in a PM it is getting tiresome constantly looking over ones shoulder because the law is interpreted differently by almost everyone. Most likely though, this will fade away as the lakes start to turn hard and wont be talked about again until next September. One thing I would like to learn more about is the events and issues that lead up to the outlawing of backtrolling. Both KenK and Pfeiff seem to have strong opinions on what happened then. I know what I have heard and it exactly parallels the points I think Addict is trying to make; a small number of anglers learned to do it very effectively and they where catching a large number of LARGE fish from many of the small lakes. At the time most of these fish were kept. If anybody knows Herbie well he could be a good source on this, as I believe he is one of the guys that really figured it out, and was singled out. Was this unfounded fear, brought on by jealousy, or did it have any merit at a time when C&R hadn’t really caught on yet. I would like to learn more about this. Nail A Pig! Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/7/2007 11:12 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | MOST wardens do their job. others, have a point to prove.
God Bless them all, for they do their job( most).
I have 2 oz. of weight on my suckers. Lines are straight up and down.
Fine me, I dare you. I run a tan Fisher, with "Pursiut" on the rear end.
No bobbers are trailing. positon fishing at it's best.
Tempting fate, with every breathe i take, | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I don't know but think the d.n.r must hate these boards. We give them all this input and then argue among ourselves. Many of us think we can manage the fishery better then they can. I have to point finger at myself there at times.. I don't think most of you really have a clue as to how hard of a job it is to manage all the lakes in the state. Remember musky anglers are a small percentage of the state fishermen. We would like to have this and have that and don't think about the other types of anglers or people who use the water or live on the lake. I look at what we have now and and have to say its pretty darn good in wisconsin. I think trolling on lakes of under 1000 acres should never be allowed. I am looking into buying a lake home in the future and I know that the activity on a lake will be a deciding factor. Waterskiers, jetskies. speedboats and now trolling. Do we really need it? We complain now about the weedbeds getting torn up, spawning areas being disrupted and you want to legalize something that could cause more of this. I can picture the boats now trolling right in middle of a weedbed trolling spinnerbaits that ride above the weeds. The prop cutting weeds as they motor on trolling the baits.. I just don't feel that the legalization of trolling is such a good thing. I have fished pewaukee alot and I see the above scene played out all the time and see all the weeds floating. Hear anglers complain how hard it is to keep the weeds off the lines. I think this needs to be thought out alot more befor it would become law. I have to say if you want to troll go to one of the lakes where it is allowed now.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| I would vote against it just because of the 4 line rule. Why make it any different than the current 3 rods per person rule?
Shouldn't we be saving these good discusions for after the musky season is closed? What else are we going to talk about this winter if all the good topics are already taken? | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | since when did a "quick-strike" rig become an "emergency quick-strike" rig ... getting to a rod immediately? fish don't eat suckers like a 10-year old eats a cookie. my goodness, let's keep it real. you've got plenty of time to get rods and the boat ready to hit a fish on a quick-strike.
it's nice to hear that mike koepp is a great troller and i'm sure it's completely true, but what in the world does that have to do with the trolling regulations in northern wisconsin?
precisely why this debate makes absolutely no sense and i surely hope that it's not used as any evidence in any decision-making for determining fishing regulations. i've seen nothing but personal feeling on both sides of this argument ... and comparative speculation on whether it will or will not have an effect.
"burden of proof" ... how does the burdon of proof get determined from one side or the other. back in debate class we picked it out of a hat and then started the argument ... here it seems to have been decided by the owners of the site based on their opinion and then get forced onto those that disagree.
this post isn't an argument steve ... it seems the minority here are against the trolling, but deserve the same respect as you've requested ... if you had to edit all the words that are speculation, heresay or opinion on this thread, the thread would be condensed down to less than half a page ...
"trolling" regulations used to solve the sucker situation ... aren't they two totally different subjects?
so-far i see we should allow trolling because it's another way to catch fish, all the other places allow it, it solves the sucker thing, will strike against the traditionalists and further allow 50" size limits on lakes because the traditionalists have finally been beat, and mike koepp is really good at it ... and i'm sorry but i'm raising my hand like tom hanks in Big ... "i don't get it" | |
| | |
| "burden of proof" ... seems to have been decided by the owners of the site based on their opinion and then get forced onto those that disagree.
read more carefully, Sled.
i'm not an "owner" here, more of a "manager" if anything. but Steve W. and i hold different opinions on this (he's in favor of allowing it, i'm opposed).
i happily argue both sides of the fence, as i believe that actually helps those who hold the same position as i do to refine their case. (as i've done with EA, because i believe he's making the right case but for all the wrong reasons.)
there's hardly a MuskieFirst "party line" going on here, as we don't even have agreement amongst ourselves. all we ask, nay, all we require is that the discussions remain respectful.
i'm opposed to allowing trolling on small lakes up north, and i haven't felt disrespected. if individuals are making irrational arguments on either side they can and will get called on it, but the issue is open to any and all opinions.
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| MIke Said, "That being said, Shep why wouldn’t you want to open more lakes for trolling even if those NEW lakes had a 4 line limit. It is not clear to me why you are so against this. Is there a fear that the line limitation would spread to lakes where there currently isn’t a line limit other than the 3 per angler. "
Exactly. Like the old saying, be careful what you wish for.
I agree with several on the inaccuracy of the statement that casting distracts one from the quick strike rig. Dave, have you actually ever fished a quick strike?
Look, I understand the need to get the reg rewritten to allow sucker fishing while casting. But really, are you guys really that nervous about getting a ticket. Looking over your shoulder? I am not. That could be one of the best ways to get that reg changed. Get the right judge, and he'll toss it.
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i was refering to steve in that comment ... i thought you were a moderator and not one of the owners. my challenge was to steve to stay on subject and keep it fair and open ... and let it grow from both sides without bias.
"dragging" suckers and trolling are mutually exclusive ... solving one by making the other legal is a slippery slope ...
fair enough ... "if individuals are making irrational arguments on either side they can and will get called on it" ... let's hope that rings true ... often times though it does not and ends up in edit ... | |
| | |
| fair enough ... "if individuals are making irrational arguments on either side they can and will get called on it" ... let's hope that rings true ... often times though it does not and ends up in edit ...
if it "ends up in edit" it because it's a bash or a personal attack, and not because it's a fairly stated opinion. you know this full well.
again:
all we ask, nay, all we require is that the discussions remain respectful.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'so-far i see we should allow trolling because it's another way to catch fish, all the other places allow it, it solves the sucker thing, will strike against the traditionalists and further allow 50" size limits on lakes because the traditionalists have finally been beat, and mike koepp is really good at it ... and i'm sorry but i'm raising my hand like tom hanks in Big ... "i don't get it"
-----
OK, Sled, I'll try once more to make the points I've been making all along.
1) There is absolutely NO evidence trolling harms any muskie population anywhere trolling is legal. I n fact, many waters where trolling is legal that are not huge lakes seem to be exceptional fisheries. The argument that 'more fish will be 'caught' may or may not have merit on a uptick in handling mortality, but isn't catching fish the general idea for manageing them?
2)Mike Koepp IS a very accomplished troller. That comment was in response to a statement that insinuates trolling is a very simple and elementary technique, and those who practice it are less sport minded than those who cast or soak suckers or bank fish or use any other legal method.
3) No, sucker position fishing is a result of the change in trolling laws here. That's obvious. If one gets a citation for misusing ( in the eyes of that warden, that day) position fishing, it's for illegal trolling.
Strike against traditionalists? No, that's not my point at all. The very reason you, Addict, lambeau, and others do not want any trolling allowed on 'small' Wisconsin lakes in the North IS tradition based, and that has been made very clear. No one has come up with anything (as you pointed out) based on data from any fisheries program anywhere that indicates trolling will cause any problems with the muskie population in the area we are discussing. Some folks just plain do not like the idea! Your own statement that this argument is based almost entirely on emotion IS my point. If indeed my argument seems to be somewhat overbearing to you, push your chair back for a few moments and analyze why that may be. I've simply asked those with objections to explain their position, and when the positions are based on emotion I ask for a better reason. I seek to discover the true motivation of the opposing viewpoint. many have done a great job expressing opinion one way or the other. Some have been just plain rude and tried to make their points by abusing the atmosphere here. You know what flies in a reasonable debate and what doesn't, right?
What wrong with traditionalism? Nothing, absolutely nothing. On several outdoors sports subjects, I'm a traditionalist.
I've been trying very hard to point out that in this state, what you describe as a minority, in this case based not on good biology or population dynamics or management or ANYTHING science, can stop a proposal from going through by political activism and 'loading the crowd' at the CC hearings. It was that exact scenario that was the death of the 50" proposal a few years back. My point has been and will be that the majority HERE seems to want a change in trolling law, the minority doesn't. The problem?
It will not be our fisheries biologists or managers who make that decision. It will be a few folks FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE who take the time and make the effort to be politically active and get to the CC meetings, bringing friends. Many of the votes yay or nay will be cast by folks at the meetings because they like cats, or doves, or whatever,know NOTHING trolling, but are there to influence THEIR agenda of that day. They will vote based on the winning argument presented in 2 freaking minutes at the hearings by someone who speaks well on the trolling issue. I think that's a REALLY bad way to manage our fisheries made even worse by lawmakers who decide to manage our fisheries for ALL of us, including the scientists, by adding law to a budget bill..
And that, Sled, is why we don't have a 50" size limit on several trophy potential lakes in northern Wisconsin. AND, it is why we can still bait for deer up here. I believe from your posts you would have liked to see the opposite. So would have most of our DNR folks close to those issues.
I personally can do with or without the trolling issue (mostly because I'm not very good at it), but will support power trolling up here if it comes to a vote because I can't find a solid ground scientific reason why it shouldn't be passed.
I assisted in an effort years back for a black powder season for deer here, and the opposition sounded surprisingly like what I've read here; I know several folks who insisted it would be the end of deer hunting here as we know it who now really enjoy the sport.
If not discussed and debated here...then where? | |
| | |
| All of this is because musky fishermen want to be able to be on their bowmount and drag a sucker around while casting from the bow?
First off, that IS trolling. Position fishing is using your bow mount to counter the effects of the wind to remain over a specific spot on a lake or in the case of a river, to ensure that your boat is floating down stream at the same rate as the current. If you are using a motor to move from spot to spot on a lake and your dragging a bait while you do this, your CLEARLY breaking the law.
Secondly, with the vast number of musky anglers preaching catch and release, I find it very hard to believe that any fishing technique is ever going to have a significant impact on even the smallest body of water. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | bradb,
I wish the position fishing law was that clear. If that was true, a friend of mine would have received a ticket a couple days ago. He had a warden speak to him at the landing after fishing, and asked him ( he had been watching my friend maneuver the boat on a rock bar) if he had been within the law. he said YES. The boat was clearly moving slowly perpendicular to the wind. Another warden, another day....that could be a ticket.
The discussion is about a proposal brought here by a fisheries manager to allow trolling on the Chip, and perhaps elsewhere. The Position fishing 'rules' and all the other issues plus that proposal morphed into the discussion we have now.
One more point, again to Sled. A few of my comments of late have been removed or edited by our moderation staff as well...we all get a bit too fired up sometimes. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Sled said: "dragging" suckers and trolling are mutually exclusive ... solving one by making the other legal is a slippery slope ...
Sled I disagree here, if you get a ticket for dragging a sucker you are getting a ticket for illegal trolling. The position fishing rule is in the “Motor Trolling” definition in the WI Regulations. To address it something has to be done with the definition of Trolling, over the last few years of thinking about this, my opinion is either opening up motor trolling or making it electric only and limiting the size of electric are the only options to make it clear. Without getting into a reg. that has to define a bait type and method and then there still are the other topics the Position fishing reg. is there to address, for walleye and pan fishermen.
Limited electric only, I think is the best way to JUST address the position fishing reg. I added in trolling because there apparently is a large number of people that would like to see that also and obviously many who wouldn’t. The point of my two posts on this topic were to see what people are thinking, if something is really ever going to change on this topic someone will have to run with it. It will not be me, at least on the pure trolling issue, I just don’t have a big enough opinion one way or the other. Position fishing is a different story, but even that I only do a couple of times a year.
If you have a different idea on this topic I am sure many would love to hear it. I am open to anything that could clear that up.
Shep Said: “But really, are you guys really that nervous about getting a ticket. Looking over your shoulder?”
Shep, first off thanks for your answer to my questions above. As to your question I would say YES that is the reason there is multiple posts on this topic EVERY FALL. The deal is there are actually people out there calling the DNR tip line based on their opinion of the law. Some have even asked if they should do just that on this web site. People will put large amounts of lead on a line directly over the boat to keep the line vertical, and use electric motor to move around structure, but will chastise someone doing the exact same thing with a bobber 20 feet behind the boat.
I personally don’t have the time or money to take on a ticket, I would do it if it came about, but I can only imagine the conversations I will be having with my wife. She would say something like this “YOU CAN REMEMBER THE BAIT, LOCATION, DEPTH AND WEATHER ON EVERY MUSKY YOU HAVE EVER CAUGHT, BUT YOU DON’T KNOW THE RULES, AND NOW WE HAVE TO SPEND THIS MONEY FIGHTING A TICKET FOR A STUPID FISH………MORON !!!!!!!!
I would really rather avoid that situation.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Steve,
I think the rule is clear to the wardens that have taken the time to learn it or care to enforce it. I spent a fair amount of time with several different DNR officials a few years ago regarding the position fishing rule and it was rather surprising to find out how many of them had NO clue what the rule said or meant.
If anyone here gets involved with a re-write of the position fishing rule, PLEASE don't forget that it is this law that allows us to use our bowmount electric motors while vertical jigging a river. We definitely want to be careful we don't mess that up. | |
| | |
| "To address it something has to be done with the definition of Trolling, over the last few years of thinking about this, my opinion is either opening up motor trolling or making it electric only and limiting the size of electric are the only options to make it clear."
I'm confused.
Are you saying that when I'm pulling 6 boards on Green Bay at 1.3 mph with my bow mount electric I'm not trolling, but the guy using his gas kicker is??? | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The discussion is about a proposal brought here by a fisheries manager to allow trolling on the Chip, and perhaps elsewhere. The Position fishing 'rules' and all the other issues plus that proposal morphed into the discussion we have now.
The proposed ideas from Mike would not have any effect on any waters where trolling is legal right now. We are looking at the lakes and rivers here where trolling is not legal. | |
| | |
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | I really don't have a strong opinion on either side of this as I don't fish in WI much. When I do, it's in western WI where trolling is already legal. On the lakes I fish, most people still cast, even when it's perfectly legal to troll. One particular lake that I fish is less than 300 acres and I have never seen any concerns with trolling on this body of water.
So I'll just throw this out there for those that are concerned about the effects of legalized trolling. Bone (1700+ acres) and Deer (800 acres) are two lakes where sucker fishing is very popular and trolling is legal. Do these lakes see any positive or negative effects as a result of legalized trolling? I don't have an answer or an opinion on that, as I don't fish these lakes. But I have to believe they would be a good barometer. I have to believe that these two lakes see as much or more fishing pressure than most other musky lakes in the state. So any adverse effects could likely be seen here?
Aaron | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Brad b, I don’t understand why you are confused, both would obviously be trolling. No where have I said trolling with an electric wasn’t trolling.
Curious, what size bow mount do you have and what do you have for batteries? How long can you troll 6 boards at 1.3mph with that set up? What lures are you using?
That exact situation is one concern many would have with allowing electric only trolling on LAKES CURRENTLY CLOSED TO TROLLING.
That was the reason for my max trust limitation. Running a boat fast enough for a wide spread even with a 36 volt bow mount I think would limit the effectiveness of the spread, because my thought was batteries would not last that long pulling this type of load for any length of time. Row trolling would still be more efficient, which could be a good goal especially for the smaller lakes. A walleye set up may be a different story as the loads would be significantly lower.
Maybe I am off base here, but that was my thinking. I do know they make some pretty large electric motors in the 2 and 3 horse power range. Mostly to power big sail boats, but I am sure fishermen would be willing to hook them up to a fishing rig to kick up the spread if it was electric only, hence the max trust limitation.
Trying to beat the negatives to the punch, if this actually moves ahead.
Electric only trolling would allow you to hold position in any situation and vertically jig, you could actually move up and down the river or move against current with out any further interpretation needed.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| I'll ask this again:
Has anyone here ever received a citation for illegal trolling when fishing suckers and casting in the fall?
I think its safe to say we ALL do it, and probably in a way that COULD be interpreted as illegal. If it were as big of a problem as we are making it out to be, then we'd be getting tickets over it, wouldn't we?
My personal views on trolling aside, allowing trolling because nobody can seem to interpret the law in a consistent way is NOT the answer. | |
| | |
| I talked to a guy a couple weeks ago that got a ticket on an LDF lake in Vilas...suckers out while casting...he had his on bobbers though so he was asking for it...it was a WI DNR guy, not a tribal police guy | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Short answer, according to a warden I talked to, is yes. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | when i have a sucker out it's dead-sticked by the boat and i position cast ... believe that moving fish into the boat will trigger a fish ... the foot isn't on the trolling motor much and the sucker is vertical to the rod tip ... maybe i'll get a ticket and maybe not ... otherwise using the wind when i can. i feel comfortable that i'm working within the intent of the law and anyone ticketing me would be looking at a fine line and probably be having a bad day ... i've been fishing this way without a problem for 12 years up here and don't expect any problems nor have i had any problems ... i believe if you have a jillion lines out on bobbers on a calm day with the tm in the water that you are asking for trouble and deserve the ticket ...
the reason i say legalizing trolling and sucker fishing is mutually exclusive is that by legalizing trolling ... sure you'll clarify the sucker position fishing thing ... but it opens pandora's box on trolling artificials with boards, down-riggers and changes the whole dynamic of northern wisconsin fishing and the use of the small lakes. not seeing this is hard for me to imagine and not being able to separate the two ... (self-edit)
reminder ... i'm talking the small lakes of northern wisco. in oneida and vilas counties ... | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I forgot to address this above: Brad B said: “All of this is because musky fishermen want to be able to be on their bowmount and drag a sucker around while casting from the bow?
First off, that IS trolling. Position fishing is using your bow mount to counter the effects of the wind to remain over a specific spot on a lake or in the case of a river, to ensure that your boat is floating down stream at the same rate as the current. If you are using a motor to move from spot to spot on a lake and your dragging a bait while you do this, your CLEARLY breaking the law.” I posted this entire article in the sucker fishing thread but I will post the meat here again with emphases on what I feel is important and pertinent to this conversation: “Wisconsin Outdoor Journal contacted DNR Bureau of Law Enforcement Director Ralph Christensen(at the time the position fishing law was created). He initially referred to a letter he wrote to State Rep. Jim Holperin, who had also asked for clarification of the new law. In the letter, Christensen said: " ...I am of the opinion that some lateral movement under power will also be acceptable ... occasional momentary deviation from vertical lines is expected and would not constitute a violation of this rule." The letter continued: "Our policy would be that uninterrupted lateral movement for up to several minutes may occasionally be necessary to reposition a fishing boat ... "Assuming that you aren't simply 'trolling' them, your Lindy Rigs or bottom bouncers can be fished consistent with the spirit of the position fishing rule." Christensen told WOJ the new rule allows for position fishing of large suckers for muskies. Some musky anglers have used rigs similar to Lindy Rigs (a commercial name that has become synonymous with live bait rigs using a slip sinker designed to move snagfree along the bottom) in recent years to work suckers along structure. Another practice that would become legal, Christensen said, would be musky anglers' use of sucker-baited lines while casting with another rod. Sometimes called "floating," the technique was popular with anglers whose boats were drifting or moving backward but became illegal if a trolling motor was used to reposition the boat in a forward direction. "If (the lines) are just hanging over the side in this vertical application, it would be legal," he said. Finally, Christensen was asked about the legality of bobber rigs while position fishing. Some resort owners have said their elderly guests, who cannot fish by conventional methods, have begun fishing minnow-baited lines beneath bobbers while using an electric motor to move slowly along the shallows in search of panfish. The resort owners were concerned the new law would prohibit this practice, but Christensen allayed those fears. "In that context, you could pull a bobber around for a little ways and then sit still," he said. If wardens enforce position fishing in the manner described here, then the new rule will do what it was intended to do CC ban trolling for muskies with planer boards and downriggers while allowing anglers to use their boat as a tool to position their lines.” Reading what the top DNR law enforcement officer had to say about the topic back when the law was created I would say musky fishermen using their bowmount to drag a sucker around while casting from the bow, is legal. This interpretation and the many others including yours are exactly why the law needs to be clarified. On a different note addressing some of the other recent posts: Would an electric only rule cause the problems sled and addict are worried about even if they were being used to troll artificles. Nail A Pig! Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/8/2007 10:47 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | I lived the backtrolling years and fished with Herbie before and during that time. He only kept one fish that I know of, the 47# out of Trout. There were other fish kept by some guides, one that caught and kept two over thirty pounds one day. That is what got everyone so mad. But there were also big fish caught on suckers at the time that were kept and that was OK. This was also when sinlge hooks were used almost exclusivley. There were way more fish killed that way than trolling even though they were released. That was the norm then, cut the wire leader and the hook would disolve.
Trolling got voted down shortly there after at the spring hearings. The DNR was for it at the time. Tradition voted it down. It was voted down by the same guys using single hook sucker rigs. We will never know how many fish were killed during that time when musky fishing was becoming popular. Ask Herbie about those days and see what he says. Only a few fish were killed trolling but sent everyone into a tizzy.
One last thing I would like to point out is that the DNR has been stocking brown trout in lakes like Fence that have to huge right now. No one is fishing for them because the best way is to troll the open water. Here a resource you are paying for that is not being used.
Steve, you have hit the nail on the head with your posts. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | By simply ennacting a new trolling law, do you really think anglers are just going to flock to the small lakes of Onieda and Vilas county? | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | good point Mike ... electric only does support the distinction. i'm all for clearing up the sucker position fishing thing ... and to answer you Pointer ... if motor trolling opens up in oneida and vilas counties ... pandora's box is opened up and you will see the whole ball of wax and some things you'll see right away, others will show up later ... but it will be significant change bringing all the good, bad and ugly along with it. to think that it's going to be "all-good" is short-sighted i think. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'm not picking sides here, just simply asking that question.....I'm a fence sitter at this point and just watching both sides throw rock in each others lawns.....So what is the pandora's box that will be opened due to trolling? I just cant see that the day of opener, if the trolling restriction lifted, that there everyone and their grandmother will have boards and riggers and dipsys all set to go to putt around for hours on end.
I've read the noise argument about having the drone of an outboard be unaesthetically pleasing to the ear.....I'll call BS on that argument....I can fart louder than most of the kickers I've heard. Sure their might be the old timer running the Force 15 thats a bit louder, but at that speed? Sorry, not going to buy that argument, especially with jet skis and the like out there producing 10 times the noise.
Would more muskies be caught if trolling is legalized. Probably. Is that a bad thing? If so, why?
I guess my view is, if we are reworking this to only deal with our worries about sucker fishing, casting and trolling motor use...why dont we work to re-word that instead of going for the whole trolling aspect? | |
| | |
Posts: 8823
| Mike, in my opinion there are a certain percentage of trollers, the ones who are very good at it, who currently have drool running out of the corners of their mouths at the thought of being able to troll the "untrolled paradise full of big stupid fish who have never seen a lure"... And who can blame them? If you knew of a lake that was full of muskies that nobody fished, that had a walkable shoreline in your case, wouldn't YOU go there? I also believe that there are more people than you think who currently avoid those lakes because you can't troll there. I also suspect that some "sleeper" lakes would have an amazing trolling bite, so amazing in fact that they would become a Mecca of sorts. It's human nature, and it's the nature of all of us as anglers to see out the next hot bite. Trolling in Vilas and Oneida counties, even on the small lakes, could potentially become the "New Minnesota" so to speak.
Now, just to clarify my own opinions, the aesthetically pleasing aspect of it all goes WAAYYYY beyond noise alone. Multiple lines, boards, down riggers, more boats, more people, more fish caught... Speaking for myself only, those little Northwoods gems where little if anything has changed for the last 100 years? Sacred. Sacred enough that even opening up the possibility of it changing is a place we don't want to go. As Sled eludes to, the nonsense that COULD come with it, no matter how remote the possiblility of it actually happening, is a risk we don't want to take. Living in the land of that nonsense, having to go 6-1/2 hours North before it finally dwindles off perhaps make me see it in a way that even those who have lived there their whole loves can't. Do I get emotional about it? You bet! Its something that is and has been for a long time sacred to me, worth preserving regardless of the lack of scientific studies proving that it will cause problems. If we continue to disallow it, we KNOW that it won't cause problems.
As for the jet skis, etc. Truth be told, the constituency that is invading the Northwoods as of late? Largely wealthy retired folks from the urban rat race who have come there to escape the nonsense they were forced to endure their entire working lives living in and near the cities. They don't bring much nonsense with them. They're mostly old, quiet, and keep to themselves, and they hate the jet skis as much as anyone. They also have a great deal of money, and business, networking, and influencial skills. Quiet old rich (and still powerful) people who who cherish the serenity are not necessarily bad people to have buying up the lakefront property...
| |
| | |
| I would vote No. There are plenty of places that already allow trolling.
And as one who has caught their fair share of fish trolling, one of the reasons I moved up north was become better at inland fishing, where I could not fall back on trolling. No scientific evidence you would catch more fish trolling, but from personal experience I would have to say yes it is. Tell me the guys on St Claire and Green Bay would be putting up double digit days casting like they are when trolling. Not very likely.
Row trolling is already legal, and great exercise, as much as it is an art form. I could see that becoming a lost art form in the north woods if motor trolling was allowed. Too many people looking for the easier way to do things now days IMO. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | hallelluyah | |
| | |
| Again, you said: "over the last few years of thinking about this, my opinion is either opening up motor trolling or making it electric only and limiting the size of electric"
To me, this statement suggestted that using an electric in not trolling. Obviously I mis-interpretted you.
However, if your suggestting that it would be difficult to maintain trolling speeds with most electric motors, I you are wrong. Many walleye rigs are currently set up to troll harnesses with in-line boards all day at speed up to 1.5 mph. The boat I just sold on WF (1785 Yar-craft with a Minn Kota 80 lb. thrust Minn Kota) could easily have maintained speeds over 2 mph for 6 to 8 hours.
Time at top speed is limited only by battery capacity. You can always add a second set of batteries to double your time on the water.
Personally I don't really care that much if a change is made - my concern is that if we make a change that we don't lose priveledges that we now have.
Thanks for your time... | |
| | |
Posts: 578
Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | .
Edited by C_Nelson 6/7/2008 8:58 AM
| |
| | |
| LoL, I had a feeling you would Chuck, and I know I am in the minority amongst even my friends. And believe it or not that day out with you cemented it for me. The stuff you got stewing in your grey matter is dangerous. Thankfully their arent many people in your league at the art of trolling. And truth be told my best days on Green Bay come casting. But it is very timing specific. I do believe its an advantage to be able to troll. I know the intent is to clear up the position fishing issue, but once you start this process where does it end? There are already lots of waters you can motor troll on within and hour of most people in Wisconsin.
I just think the north woods is a special place. And trolling is already legal, its called row trolling. I for one love to watch the row trollers work. And would hate to see motor trolling pop up in its stead. Whats wrong with leaving it the way it is and finding ways to do it within the parameters that are already in place. Like we have been. Too many what if's and other can of worms that get opened here. | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Do Sleds condensation so far and as I see things we have this not in any particular order:
1) Those for trolling in the North with no restrictions
2) Those for trolling on lakes larger than X, no restrictions
3) Those in favor of trolling only larger lakes with some restrictions
4) Those in favor of trolling electric motors only
5) Those opposed to trolling in any form in the North Woods
6) Those who would accept very limited trolling regs change
No real basis in fact against trolling, so it's preserving the system as it is. That's fine with me if restrictions like that applied evenly across the board on all water use issues. How am I wrong in my read on this?
I think jet skis are a nuisance. Nasty polluting noisy machines that drone away my peace and quiet on many local lakes. We don't have a ghost of a chance getting them banned, because there is no support for that from ANY sector. Skiers and powerboaters and the like have free roam on our waters, but I can't putt along with a nearly silent 9.9 bigfoot 4 stroke? How is that right? Argue that this has gone far enough and we shouldn't ad to the noise and ruckus and I will argue in this case it's gone too far, jet skis and motors over 40 HP need to go and I need to be allowed to troll in that water use space with my little green rated 9.9 4 stroke since I will be much less likely to disturb anyones peace and quiet.
OK, that was a 'devil's advocate' argument. The argument that actually applies as far as I can see for the absolute antis so far is;
"No changes are needed or acceptable, we like things as they are, thanks!"
That works for me, understandable position. I'll stick to :
"I would like to be able to troll some of the lakes up here, I'd like to see limited trolling allowed on lakes larger than 'X'."
So far, on this thread's tiny straw poll, the 'for it' crowd is winning. Good thing our fisheries are not managed by a democracy...no wait, good thing our fisheries are managed by our hired and qualified fisheries managers...no wait, good thing we can get laws like this changed by a blindside in a budget bill...no wait...good thing we have the CC hearings so the process can be influenced/heck---PASSED by extremely limited participation so we can ummm....what DO we base our fisheries management upon? One of the biggest headaches for our DNR biologists, and that goes for everywhere. We just got all Aldo on it here in Wisconsin. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | ok, now how do you apply that to the position sucker discussion ... they are indeed separate aren't they? | |
| | |
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No. Position fishing regulations exist here, and no where else in the US or Canada I am aware of because trolling is banned. | |
| | |
| Mike - I've seen that letter before as well. Personally, I don't think it supports the decision you say it does. All it says is that you can make occasional corrections with your trolling motor and still be legal. It does not say that you can use your trolling motor to drag a sucker down the length of a shore line or around some underwater structure.
What the letter does make clear is that if the intent of the fishermen is to use the trolling motor to stay on the structure, you are not trolling. However, if the intent is to use the motor to bring the bait to the fish, you are trolling. For example, a fishermen working a shoreline with the wind blowing in an angle could occasionally use his motor to move his boat deeper and continue to fish. An angler working the same shoreline with his motor on most of the time to propel his boat (and therefore the baits) would be trolling.
The reason most warden's will not ticket you for this is because THEY don't know the rules or they do know the and how difficult it is to make this determination.
If you find a way to clear this up, you will have done a real service to the State.
I personally don't have an issue with the laws they way they are now, but the topic does interest me because their is always the potential for something to backfire when rules are changed.
Again, thanks for you time. | |
| | |
| Oops!!! that last one was me. | |
| | |
| Having grown up in Wisconsin and now living in Michigan were trolling is legal, I can say the revision is a good idea. On some lakes trolling is just more effective , on others casting is, and there is no differance in catch rates . You still have to put in your time either way | |
| | |
Posts: 578
Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | .
Edited by C_Nelson 6/7/2008 8:59 AM
| |
| | |
Location: WI | I agree 100% in the meatball/position fishing grey area, but then if that were the whole intent then it would have never progressed beyond the use of electric motors, but once you add the motors (gas) thats where you loose me. I see it too much in the U.P. where it is legal, one lake in particular, less than 600 acres but very deep. I rarely fish it anymore because of the Michigan trolling law. When you see 4-5 boats out there running downriggers and boards it looses its luster for me. I rarely see the Mich boys there casting, its usually trolling out there because its the easier for them to get down where the big musky play with the lakers. And I am sorry I just dont want to see that when I am in Vilas. Eliminate the gas motor trolling and change it to electric only if your only intent is to clear up position fishing while dragging a meatball. I dont know too many people who drag around suckers with the gas motor.
Chuck, sent you a PM. | |
| | |
Posts: 578
Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | .
Edited by C_Nelson 6/7/2008 8:58 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 5874
| brad b - 11/8/2007 8:42 AM
All of this is because musky fishermen want to be able to be on their bowmount and drag a sucker around while casting from the bow?
First off, that IS trolling. Position fishing is using your bow mount to counter the effects of the wind to remain over a specific spot on a lake or in the case of a river, to ensure that your boat is floating down stream at the same rate as the current. If you are using a motor to move from spot to spot on a lake and your dragging a bait while you do this, your CLEARLY breaking the law.
Secondly, with the vast number of musky anglers preaching catch and release, I find it very hard to believe that any fishing technique is ever going to have a significant impact on even the smallest body of water.
Sorry to disagree with you Brad, but I do. Show me exactly in the regs where it says, "Position fishing is using your bow mount to counter the effects of the wind to remain over a specific spot on a lake or in the case of a river, to ensure that your boat is floating down stream at the same rate as the current."
See, this is the problem with this reg as it is written. Everybody has a different interpretation. I don't know where your interpretation came from. Probably a different warden than the one that told me what I was doing is perfectly legal. So, according to him, I was clearly not breaking the law!
Mike, the only issue I see, is trying to push this for the lakes that CURRENTLY are not open to trolling. Again, in a perfect world, this would work. In WI, I see any restrictions being carried over to all lakes currently OPEN to trolling. And that, my friend, will doom this proposal. So again, I would say to offer to open trolling to all lakes, and limit those under 500 Acres to electric motors only.
I understand on the cost of the ticket/fighting said ticket. I certainly don't want the hassle, but I would take it to court as opposed to just paying the fine. I've written to the former head of the Wardens, Tom Harrel on this and several other issues. Not surprising that I received NO reply. On this issue, I asked him to issue an interpetation of this Position fishing reg, so that all his wardens were on the same page. It didn't get done.
Someone brings up the Tip Hotline. Some here would actually call in for this. And how would you feel if the warden that came out inteprets the reg to say they are position fishing, and not trolling? You've just wasted his time, time he could be spending to do some really important work.
As for editing posts? I wish mine were merely edited. Mine get deleted!
Chuck, the problem of rewording it is you still have a fairly unenforceable reg. By fairly, I mean, a warden could say you were not using the boawmount in an uniterrputed manner, even if you were.
Edited by Shep 11/9/2007 10:44 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 507
| Lots of folks have had posts removed at one time or another, it's easy to get a little too rowdy when typing.
What many don't realize is this forum is read by folks who can make a difference in what we'd like to see with fisheries management across the country, and some even post here. Additionally, there are MANY visitors who read every post, but do not enter the discussion for whatever reason. I'd like to keep this forum and all the others here a place where everyone feels they can get an honest barometer of the Muskie crowd's feeling on issues of the day, opinions on lures, techniques, places to fish, and everything Muskie without having to wade through a bunch of silly personal fights or rude, bar room brawl commentary. It's our goal to keep this as friendly a place to post beliefs, positions, opinions, and everything Muskie as is possible, and no one is going to apologize for doing so. | |
| |
|
How would you vote on the following Trolling Reg. Revision?