|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I am working with Greg Wells and Dennis Radloff (the authors of the original resolution last year) to coordinate a new effort for the forthcoming hearings, April 14th. I realize this is short notice for many, but we need to ask for authors of the various counties to volunteer to author the resolution proposal at the upcoming hearings. The final version of the resolution will be available by Monday or Tuesday of this coming week, and can be emailed to you directly. I will also work with Steve Worrall to make it available for download, if he feels that is appropriate.
I would also like to ask anyone that volunteers to author the resolution to be available one evening this week, if at all possible. I am hopeful that we might be able to arrange an online chat to discuss the wording of the proposal, and the evidence we are using to support the request. This chat would not be mandatory at all, but those of you who are not familiar with all of the details of the effort to this point might find it helpful. You will certainly be asked to provide some evidence in support of the new size resolution when you present to the CC in your county, and we will make ourselves available to the authors for just this purpose. I would even be willing to be available online *several* nights this week, for those that might not be able to make an online meeting on one certain night.
Finally, I would also ask that anyone planning to author the proposal be familiar with the basic points outlined in the formal request made to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board on January 8th, 2008. The full text of that request is available on this site, located here:
http://tinyurl.com/6cyewv
While the request is different from that made in the referenced document, many of the points made in support of the moratorium request also apply to the new size limit resolution. Thus this document will provide some basic information to help authors when presenting at their local CC hearing.
On behalf of Greg, Dennis and the entire Green Bay Muskellunge Coalition, we would like to thank all those who have supported this effort in 2007, and continue to do so in 2008. In addition, we would once again like to thank MuskieFIRST for their continuing support of this effort. We could not have gotten nearly this far without all of you...
Finally, please check this thread for on-going progress and announcements about on-line meeting times.
Parties interested in sponsoring the resolution in their county, please email me with your name and a contact phone number to:
[email protected]
Thanks again everyone!
Tom Betka
Research Director, Titletown Chapter
Muskies Inc. | |
| | |
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | I'm in Tom. Will sponsor the resolution here in Dane County.
Gerard Hellenbrand
Madison WI | |
| | |
Posts: 54
| im definitely in here in forest county.
dannyboy | |
| | |
Posts: 202
| Count me in for Kenosha county.
Doug Kloet
http://www.muskymagictackle.com | |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| I'm all for an increased size limit on the Bay but wasn't this same thing brought up last year? If I remember correctly it also passed so why is it neccessary to do it again? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=40...
Look at my post, currently third from the end, reporting on the results of last week's meeting with the DNR.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Count me in, I'll author it wherever needed.
What county was it shot down in last year?
Maybe we should gang up on it there too. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Jomusky - 4/7/2008 9:51 PM
What county was it shot down in last year?
Maybe we should gang up on it there too.
Don't even bring it up in that county this year. No need. You do not need statewide approval for this to move forward. Better off having the highest% of yes votes. Don't bring it up where it failed last year. When the rule change vote rolls around, is time to stump in the 'no' counties. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think, given the time with which we had to work this spring, that the consensus seems to be to concentrate on the counties in the immediate area to the affected waters. This is not to say that these are the ONLY counties we are going to introduce it in--but these are very important counties, as has been mentioned here. If there are authors in other counties outside of the area that feel they would like to sponsor it, then by all means...we would love to have them, and encourage them to introduce it.
But the simple fact is that due to the circumstances, we don't have an indefinite amount of time. And quite frankly, many of the authors from last year have not been reachable with the contact information I have been given. For instance, there are several phone numbers that are no longer in service. But I think that I have about 10 authors now, counting Jo. But we are still working on the rest of areas surrounding the affected waters, and it's only been two days since we put out the call.
So if there is anyone that strongly feels that they would like to introduce it in their county, then by all means contact me. We GREATLY appreciate any support you guys can give, and do not want to turn anyone away--or minimize the efforts of any particular author in any county. This is going to be a statewide issue, and all voices count equally.
So Jo, what county can you sponsor this in? Please send an email with your contact number to me at:
[email protected]
I will be sending out the resolution via email either tomorrow or Thursday, depending upon any changes suggested by the reviewers. But I am shooting for tomorrow as I want to give the authors a day to review it, and then plan to have an online chat Thursday night to discuss it with anyone that feels they have questions. I will plan to be in the chat room from 7-10pm, to allow for any schedule conflicts people might have. I can also be online Friday and Sunday evenings as well.
Thanks again guys!
TB
EDIT: Oh, about the county where this was defeated... Personally speaking, I feel that there have been many concerns brought to light since last year's effort. By this I mean that we have documented *real* concerns, and no one can disagree with them. They can disagree with the degree that these concerns may impact the population--but that is a subjective, rather than an objective argument. So my hope is that the individual authors will have more information than they did last year; hence my request for folks to review the NRB request of January 8th. And this should make the effort more cohesive and straightforward.
Put another way--opponents might disagree with the effort, but must acknowledge the concerns behind the effort. For instance, you cannot argue VHSv...it's coming. It's here. We've stopped stocking, and no one (including our biologists) knows when it will restart. We are all hopeful, but we don't know. These things are more clearly defined than they were last year, because we have learned a lot about these concerns in the past 16 months. So the process continues...
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2008 11:04 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Tom can you post the actual resolution once you have it finished. That way everyone here can get a look at it before the hearings so we can at least formulate a short speech if needed. It's good to have more than just the author of the resolution speak for it, especially to address negative input that may come up during the discussion.
Thanks
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 4/8/2008 9:46 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Absolutely Mike. As soon as it is finalized, I can post it. I don't think anyone will have an objection to that.
As an FYI, I sent both versions to David Rowe yesterday, and he is reviewing them for me. We feel it is vital to have his input, as we are asking him to support this resolution; again, on the basis of angler preference. So it's only fair that he have input as to the phrasing of the final document. But I hope to have this completed by tomorrow afternoon, and will plan to make it available in the evening unless there is some unforeseen objection. But as far as I know at this time, there should be no issue with that.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2008 11:04 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 9
| Rowe said he's ultimately interested in the outcome of next year's statewide advisory. I know he was finishing looking at your resolution when I was talking to him Tom, so you may have it by now. So if anyone with CC connections can find out which CC committee is reviewing this year's resolution, you might find out how many counties they feel they need to consider passing along to their executive committee considering they could recognize last year's results. Maybe just Green Bay counties will do.
Rowe said he would support it once it gets to the NRB. That was my major concern, not just that he would support this year at the CC committee level, but that once it got to the NRB and they ask him for his recommendation that he would support. He said he would, because he feels that if it goes through with similar results at a statewide level like it did in 26 counties, it will represent a mandate of such that it could override any biological reasons. He feels that the CC resolution path is the way to take with this because he feels he is obligated to consider based solely on biology. I did mention that he might consider narrowing the scope of what biological need is. That is there are 50 inch plus fish out there that could be protected and are available from a sportfishing perspective (if not a reproductive perspective) available for recapture. But that is a point of view that can be advanced with him as time goes on...
He also said if for some reason if it passed statewide and got caught up in CC committee, Executive or otherwise, that he would go to the DNR to try and get the DNR to propose. I do not expect that to happen. I think the next hurdle will be if the majority of NRB will consider Rowe's perspective to implement based on popular support. But there is time before it gets to that point. One hurdle at a time. Randy Reading
Edited by bunzman 4/8/2008 4:24 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Randy,
I am happy to hear that you talked to him, and that he reaffirmed to you how supportive he will be. I believe this as well, as he has never given me any reason to believe otherwise.
On that note, he did send back a nice email with several suggestions for presenting this at the CC hearings. They are going to take a fair amount of work to incorporate, and that means a late night tonight, to stay on schedule. But every elephant can be eaten; one bite at a time...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I doubt that I'll ever fish Green Bay, but what I see is a potential world record fishery. Why everyone doesn't see this is beyond me. I would think that this fishery should be protected to the upmost. If this where an Ontario fishery the limits would be 54" or perhaps catch and release only. I hope folks in Wisconsin do the right thing here. Give this system ten years and who knows what it'll it produce. Doug Johnson
Edited by dougj 4/18/2008 4:37 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for the post Doug--there are many on the forum that agree with you...
As an FYI for those following this issue, I have finished the re-write of both versions of the new resolution proposal. However I need to speak with our local Warden to get his perspective on how difficult each version might be to enforce. I see this as crucial to the long-term success of the effort, as the proposal MUST hold up not only to the CC process, but also to NRB scrutiny. And the input of Law Enforcement personnel *will* be considered, to be sure. So I will try to obtain his feedback tomorrow, and then make the final decision at that time.
Better to measure twice and cut once...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | I agree with doug This is a tropy water and if it was canada it would be 54" or release only.It would be nice if wisconsin had a few more trophy waters with high size limits.
Tom my question for you is this, if green bay changes to 54" do you feel winnebago and the up river lakes should also carry this 54" size limit?I think the winnebago syswtem is well capable of a higher size limit and also producing very large fish with the amout of food and water they have. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Eric,
I believe that issue came up in one of my conversations with the biologists--or someone told me that had spoken with a biologist about it...sheesh, there have been so many conversations, lol. Anyway, I think the consensus was that at this point, that system is far enough behind Green Bay to *not* need that type of size limit. Again, I am not certain of who actually said this--and I don't mean to imply that this biologist or that biologist told me this information. But I am fairly certain that in one of my conversations with one of the WMMT folks, this came up. I have never fished down there, so I have no first-hand knowledge of the population dynamics in that system.
But the next time I speak with Mr. Rowe I will ask him about it, and then get back to you. I know he said he was going to be in the field for much of the rest of the week, so I might not get to speak with him until early next week. But speaking personally from everything I have been able to learn, it doesn't seem like there is an immediate need to include those systems in the current size limit resolution; that is if we use the same criteria as we are using here in Green Bay..
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2008 9:57 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 54
| tom,
just be sure to email me the resolution you decide on. you will have my full support and backing here in forest cty.
unfortunately tomorrow night i have an appt. with my daughter at the dentist and when i return i will be painting.
thanks for doing a great job and spearheading this.
dannyboy
[email protected] | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here is a preview of the new size limit resolution for Green Bay. It is basically ready, but we wanted to invite feedback from folks before we disseminate this to the authors. This will hopefully be the final step in the process.
After several hours of conversation with the MI chapter guys, the email advisory group we have, the DNR biologists and law enforcement personnel, we have come to the conclusion that a "split-limit" season will likely be received (on a state-wide ballot, and then ultimately by the NRB) much better than a straight 54" limit for the whole season. Under the plan we are set to propose, the limit would stay at 50" until September 1st, and then go to 54" for the remainder of the season. There are many reasons for this, but to discuss them exhaustively is not something we have the time for at this point. But we certainly have adequate time for some commentary by the folks we are asking to support the resolution.
So here's an advance look at the proposal, in the form which we think it will be in. Again, it is NOT exactly in the form it was last year and because of this we wanted to give interested people an opportunity to comment on the contents. Please post any feedback you might have in this thread.
Please keep in mind that there is a 250-word limit for these resolutions, and I have been advised that they are going to count the words this year. The text of this proposal (up to the required "Name:" line) is 248 words; 249 when you write in the name of the county...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Green Bay Muskellunge Size Limit Increase
The Problem:
Seasonal patterns in muskellunge movements result in congregations of large fish into relatively small areas of the Green Bay system, making them very susceptible to excessive harvest when targeted by fall anglers. The current 50” minimum size limit provides inadequate protection for muskellunge during the months of September, October and November.
Supporting Arguments:
1) DNR studies indicate that 50” muskellunge in Green Bay are typically 13-14 years old; relatively young compared to 50” fish elsewhere. Thus it is quite possible that these fish will continue to grow for several years, if not subjected to over-exploitation.
2) Although spawning activity has been observed, no successful natural reproduction has been documented. As successful reproduction is a DNR-stated goal for this reintroduction effort, preserving adult muskellunge is desirable.
3) The continued harvest of 50” muskellunge from Green Bay, combined with potential VHS-related mortality, may have a negative impact on local and statewide economies.
BE IT RESOVLED: The Conservation Congress, at its annual meeting in __________ county on April 14, 2008, recommends that the Department of Natural Resources increase the minimum length limit on muskellunge in the Green Bay system from 50” to 54” during the months of September, October and November. The waters affected by this proposal are those of Lake Michigan north of Waldo Boulevard, Manitowoc, Sturgeon Bay, the waters of Green Bay, the Fox River upstream to the DePere dam and the tributary streams considered outlying waters.
Name:
Address:
County:
Tel:
Signature:
For Office Use Only:
County _______________
Passed or Failed
County Resolution Number
County Vote: Yes_______ No________
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2008 6:09 PM
| |
| | |
| Looks good Tom. Nice job. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Brad, I appreciate the feedback.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nice job, Tom. | |
| | |
| what about no stocking because of the VHS threat to the hatchery? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | That's an excellent point--and we will be relying on the authors to present this information verbally. With a 250 word limitation, there's simply no way to mention all details. But the authors will be given the chance to speak on the matter--and that's one of the things that we would hope they would mention...
Thanks for the post.
TB | |
| | |
| My understanding is that it IS still possible to ship fish over State lines, but you need to have them tested and proven to be disease free. The matter comes down to a real cost issue, as I believe the testing is not cheap. At the MI International Board meeting last Saturday, more than one Chapter mentioned they were able to stock fish from out of State. Maybe they can fill us in on the details? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | According to what David Rowe told us, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has ruled that no international transport of fish will be allowed at this time. They have ruled that it's OK to transport them across state lines however, providing that certain surveillance measures are taken (as Brad suggests). So then the issue is where can states like WI get broodstock, in terms of another state...with similar strains of fish...that *haven't* been exposed to VHS?
The other issue here, as I understand it, is that there is no documented technique that is successful at disinfecting muskellunge eggs with respect to VHS. I believe that once such a technique is developed, the process gets much easier. I do know that they cannot use the same process as is used to disinfect Salmonid eggs.
TB
EDIT: Here's some background on the original APHIS ruling.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/05/vhsfedor.shtml
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2008 10:11 PM
| |
| | |
| If you can locate Muskies - there are procedures that ensure fish are VHS free and you can get them over the border. I can help if needed. You should contact the Michigan DNR and try to get fish from them. Try the Michigan DNR and reference the Indian River spreads in the northern L.P. Pretty sure Jay Zahn helped net there once. Think out of the box.....it can be done.
Not sure why you aren't getting them out of Green Bay, raise them in a walleye wagon until they can be VHS tested. If they are safe - Great move them to a pond. If they have VHS.....thats not good and I guess they'd have to be destroyed.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I’m sorry I don’t like this. Last years resolution passed pretty overwhelmingly why complicate the issue more by making the length limit change for three months of the year. My experience with these hearings has been people like “simple” this doesn’t appear simple.
I hope I am wrong and it sails through the process.
Tom thank you, and everyone else, for all the hard work on this issue.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I would perfer it to cover the whole year too.
I know of guys who target them successfully in the spring and summer with musky proof crawler harnesses out in the bay.
You are right at this time most of the pressure is occuring Sept-Nov. However the pressure all season has been quickly raising as word spreads of the fishery present.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for the comments guys. This is exactly why I put posted it before sending it out.
We still have ample time to refine this, if that's what folks decide is best. And since this whole effort is going to based upon "angler preference," then it's only fair to hear what anglers have to say about it. Your opinions are duly noted. It is not too late to make some changes, if deemed necessary after adequate discussion. Let's give it another day or so, and see if we can't get some more input.
I will be online in the chat room tonight starting at 7pm. If anyone is interested in chatting about this issue, please join me...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 9
| Tom - I would give thought to the idea of making it year round. From my experience there will be two rationales of resistance from A GENERL PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE.
1) It may be viewed elitist simply because of its trophy orientation. Nothing much you can do with that.
2) Some feel regs are too complicated (the reg book is 72 pages). Now I know that anglers do not have to know the entire 72 pages but it is the type of argument that it quickly and easily demagogued. A straight 54 inches IS simpler that a split reg
Other things to consider:
A) If there is support demonstrated already for a strict 54-inch regulation and this proposal is based on wide public support there is a basis to believe that it will get passed in the balance of counties that did not vote on it last year. In fact you could consider it a mandate to stick with the 54 inch? Also the biologist, Dave Rowe said he would support this based on public opinion statewide with a level of support that mirrored the support that was indicated in the first try at 26 counties. (i.e., a 3 to 1 margin or more)
B) I'm surprised that someone from the WDNR suggested this change, because a key principle of applying biological basis to management is to avoid "feel good" regulations. That is, you should adopt a regulation that has the best chance of meeting the management goal. A good example is when a local biologist here submitted a 40 inch minimum proposal for pike when at a local meeting the 32 inch garnered most of the public support. Given what we all were trying to accomplish (protect the overall population and higher growth potential) he knew the 40 inch would best do that.
I post this as an encouragement not as a criticism. This coming from someone who does not musky fish but who believes strongly in fairness applied to fishery management. I think based on why this proposal is moving forward, you should be confident that a 54 inch year round regulation is fair. Sincerely Randy R.
Edited by bunzman 4/10/2008 2:53 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 113
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think Tom put this best. If overwhelming support for 54" for the whole season is seen as the way to go we have time to change it. In my opinion though after listening to the presentation by the DNR last week I think this resolution is something that they would not necessarily support but could live with. I don't know anything for sure but they were adamant that they were comfortable with the 50" size limit currently used. This gives them the chance to still manage the system under the current 50" size limit but it protects the fish in the fall when we all know they are vulnerable.
My vote is for the split season I don't think it is that hard to understand. I will however support what the majority thinks we should go with. In other words if the majority wants 54" for the whole season I will introduce that in Brown County again. Thanks and keep the comments coming.
Jay Zahn | |
| | |
| I would think they might go for the split season before going stricktly to the 54" mark. Maybe 54" year round would be asking a bit too much, and not have as much support. I think this proposal might be seen as more reasonable to them. Asking for too much too soon can turn some people off. I hope this gets approved. | |
| | |
Posts: 113
Location: Green Bay, WI | Randy I have been pretty close to this whole thing and no one from the WDNR suggested this would be the way to go. They gave us no guidance on what to propose although Tom sent David Rowe a couple of versions for feedback he didn't offer his opinion one way or the other.
I do have to chuckle about being viewed as elitist with this proposal. One of the things I thought when I looked at this proposal was that it still offered the fisherman a 50" size limit for a portion of the year making it less elitist. There will always be a faction of people that will view us as elitists with these proposals. If it protects these fish when they are at the most vulnerable they can view me as one.
Jay Zahn | |
| | |
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I cannot believe that this was shot down last year, despite overwhelming support of the sportsman in this state. The DNR needs to understand that it is still "We The People".
Lets keep pushing until the powers that be give in, because they are sick of listening to us. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks again for all the comments guys--it's helpful to get feedback on this stuff. But I had a couple of thoughts while reading through this thread again...
1) Per Rob's comments, yes it is hard to believe that it failed last year when it was supported by a 3:1 margin (1096 to 345). However, maybe the fact that it failed indicates that there is indeed a problem with the way our efforts are being perceived. Not to be negative here (Remember, I'm the one that wrote a 6000-word assay on why we should have a compete C&R system...) but there are indeed many folks that feel we are elitist with our wishes to protect these fish. But as Jay alluded--if we are our own toughest critics and leave no stone unturned in our quest to find all the facts of the matter, then so be it. I believe that you cannot talk people into or "out of" their beliefs. If we are going to change perception of the general public, then we must do so by example.
2) Regarding the concern that the DNR may have somehow determined the choice for us--I can assure you that this is not the case. Yes, I did speak to David Rowe, and to the law enforcement personnel in the area. Both have said they will support the angler's preferences, if it the voice of the majority. But the fact remains that we *will* have to work with them on this, and we *will* need them to be behind it at the state level. Just getting this through the April 14th hearings is only the tip of the iceberg...if nothing else, we should have learned that from last year's experience.
3) This is about the fish. This isn't about what Tom Betka wants--or what anyone else wants. Again, I have been as vocal as anyone about this (just ask David Rowe...), and therefore feel I have the right to make this comment. The muskellunge population in the Green Bay system is the product of YEARS of hard work by many, many people--and a heck of a lot of money. It's way bigger than one person.
So I guess what I am saying here is that although the split-limit (50/54) resolution may not be what some want, or what we on this board feel is truly necessary--it seems to be what has the best chance of making it to a law. Like it or not...this is politics. Websters Online Dictionary defines politics as (among other things) "Social relations involving authority or power." That's exactly what we are doing here. In this case, the people of Wisconsin have the power--the power to either advance this to the NRB, or the power to defeat it. One way the fish receive more protection, the other way...they don't. When it comes right down to it, it seems pretty straightforward.
But all of this now being said--I agree with Jay Zahn: If the majority of people want the straight 54" limit to be proposed, then we will proceed in that fashion. But let's make sure we are doing it for the right reason.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/10/2008 9:35 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | As someone who fishes out there as much during the rest of the season, as the fall, I also wouldn't be for 'only' including the fall months. It was hard enough to 'go back' and incorporate other areas of the bay into the 50" size limit, as the population developed. With that said, I am saying this as much from a simplicity standpoint in passing a regulation, as for how I stand on the issue. In going to these spring hearings over the years, I always seem to see alot of argument that arises when regulation changes occur that make the angler pay more attention to seasonal length/bag limits etc. Right or wrong, it just happens to be the way things go at these cheesy meetings. Be sure to take that into account, as much as what the DNR would agree to, and it looks like posting the preview here is doing just that.
Jason D. Schillinger
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/10/2008 10:04 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | The other issue here, as I understand it, is that there is no documented technique that is successful at disinfecting muskellunge eggs with respect to VHS. I believe that once such a technique is developed, the process gets much easier. I do know that they cannot use the same process as is used to disinfect Salmonid eggs. TB TB - Shoot me an e-mail and we can talk about this. It is possible to clean the eggs and get a VHSv free fingerling, it's been done. The egg source would provide the genetic diversity needed/wanted in Green Bay and with some work between chapters, WMA and DNR's it could be a win/win. [email protected] | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Email sent Will...thanks. I will be quite interested in what you have discovered as it appears from this reference that there is still a problem with the technique:
http://www.mctu.org/web%20graphics/VHS%20Info_MDNR.doc
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/10/2008 10:18 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Couple more items to really think about.
The WDNR personnel are ON RECORD as saying there is NO biological reason for this size limit increase. It was published in both the Green Bay Press Gazette and the Milwaukee Journal. It is likely somebody at these meetings will have read that and will ask about it. A really good answer is required to prove the need to keep this going.
Another reason I think it would be a good idea to stick with the 54” year round would be that’s what was voted on last year and passed. That can be used as a pro, something like this: “Hey we voted on this last year and it passed by a 3 to 1 margin in 26 counties. Then 7 people on the Conservation Congress Great Lakes Committee voted it down. We need to show those people we are serious, and the WDNR has told us they will support this if we again vote for it.”
Since you can’t really go biological because of the articles, Economic value really should be driven home. Maybe something like this: “Yes 50” limit is drawing people to fish for big fish, but if Green Bay can be perceived as a true World Record Musky Fishery it will even draw more people. This is not a new concept, Canada has taken the lakes they feel have this potential, and using sound management strategies protected them with this very same 54” limit. People are flocking to these bodies of water in record numbers, and catching more and more big fish, year after year. Fishermen in Wisconsin deserve to have this opportunity right in their back yard, why should they be forced to drive to Ontario for this opportunity.”
And one more thing, don’t compromise, just to compromise. The thing passed by a 3 to 1 margin in 26 counties last year.
Remember those 26 counties will be just as important to the NRB, in a complete state wide rule change vote, as they are in the resolution vote. Our biologist told us with the state wide Pelican Lake vote that if it passed in Oneida and Langlade county the NRB would most likely approve the rule change, even if it failed I the rest of the state. And vice versa he said if it failed in those two counties and passed in the rest of the state it likely would not be approved.
It’s vitally important that the people in the affected area GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 4/10/2008 11:01 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Nice post Mike...
I agree with you--if we go with a 54" resolution for the whole season, then it will have to be on the basis of a "trophy fishery," with the economic implications that go along with it. And in fact, I already have a version of the resolution all written for just that approach. In fact, I have *several* versions written, for various approaches. The point is that once you do your homework, I think you can sit back and take a few deep breaths, and decide if this really makes the most sense. And this thread seems to be doing just that.
That being said I will tell you that the most concern I have heard expressed over this whole effort, was on the basis of us trying to dub it a "world class trophy fishery." Apparently there are many that think this will rub the general public the wrong way. Those same folks have suggested the more middle-of-the-road approach (for lack of a better term) that we have posted above.
So this is by no means decided yet. Let's continue to discuss it, because it is very helpful.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 8772
| Hey Tom, I think we may be able to minimize the elitist perception a bit. I would be inclined to remove the word "trophy" from the description you posted above. To me, it speaks to a larger audience just using the term "world class fishery". The goal is the same, but the wording here is important.
I also agree that having two different size imits for different times of the season might turn some people off. Too much to remember, too complicated, etc. While it may be biologically sound and achieve the same desired effect as a season long 54" size limit, I think it's more easily digested if its as simple as possible.
Back to my original thought -- as many have said, its all about perception. To me at least "trophy fishery" excludes all but those who are out there seeking a trophy. But "world class fishery", who wouldn't want that? Anything that can be legitimately labeled as "world class" is bound to draw people (and their money) from great distances.
It's obvious to me that the emphasis needs to be on tourism dollars -- that's how we sell this to the decision makers after all. The concept of biological maximization doesn't put money in anyone's pocket. Neither does "trophy muskie potential". But the idea of a "world class fishery"? There's something you can put across the top of the tourism bureau's webpage, and use it to make people want to come and fish here, eat in the restaurants, stay in the hotels, and shop at the grocery stores.
Edited by esoxaddict 4/10/2008 12:25 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 54
| i will do what needs to be done in forest county but my gues is if i say" we fgot it passed 3-1 across the state last year and 7 people defeated in comitte against the will of the people"and i ask for their help again , we will get close to the same result. if we change it, it might create confusion.
my vote is go with the 54 all year.
but i will go with what is decided and try to get it through here.
dannyboy
[email protected] | |
| | |
Posts: 9
| Gentleman - This resolution will be decided by the general public in 72 counties. 95% of those people will decide this based on some very simple criteria. They will either buy into the idea that a 54 inch limit makes sense - or not. I've spent more years than I'm willing to admit dealing with 7 or 8 resolutions and I seriously think that trimming it back to a split limit will gain you nothing and may, based on that it just complicates the regilation be fodder for some to go against it. If there was a similar resolution at some time that was (eventually) passed based on a similar adjustment in language I'm not aware. Again the DNR is supporting based ONLY on public support for this. That is what they will advise the NRB based on. I think the 54 inch is the cleanest, and thankfully you already have a 25 county mandate. I of course assume that everyone that's in this discussion would prefer a year round 54 inch... Best Wishes and Good Luck! Randy R. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | OK, the chat was quite successful, and here's the new version of the resolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Green Bay Muskellunge Size Limit Increase
The Problem:
The reintroduction of muskellunge into Green Bay has created a world class fishery, bringing significant financial benefit to the region. As natural reproduction has not yet been documented, the system is entirely dependent upon stocking. However a recent VHS-related halt in stocking has now cast uncertainty onto the future of the fishery. Thus the current 50” minimum size limit on muskellunge is no longer adequate to protect the tremendous value of the fishery.
Supporting Arguments:
1) DNR studies indicate 50” muskellunge in Green Bay are typically 13-14 years old, quite young compared to 50” fish elsewhere. Thus these fish will likely continue to grow for several years.
2) A 54” minimum size limit exists for similar strains of muskellunge in certain Great Lakes waters, established by Canada to protect their “Record Class Fisheries.”
3) The continued harvest of 50” muskellunge from Green Bay, combined with emerging VHS-related factors, may have a pronounced impact on both local and statewide economies.
BE IT RESOLVED: The Conservation Congress, at its annual meeting in __________ county on April 14, 2008, recommends that the Department of Natural Resources increase the minimum length limit on muskellunge in the Green Bay system from 50” to 54”. The waters affected by this proposal are those of Lake Michigan north of Waldo Boulevard, Manitowoc, Sturgeon Bay, the waters of Green Bay proper, the Fox River upstream to the DePere dam and the tributary streams considered outlying waters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is 249 words, so it will be 250 when the county name is written in.
Thanks to all who've posted in this thread.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2008 9:54 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks TB, good work and a good job tonight. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Steve. I very much appreciate the use of the chat room, as it was very helpful. In fact it was crucial to the decision-making process. Hopefully things will go well Monday night but if not, it won't be because we weren't prepared.
Keep your fingers crossed guys...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Good looking res. One way to cut down on wording and possibly simplify for anglers and enforcement officials would be to simply say it includes all areas currently under the 50" size limit now. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Excellent work Tom, not that my opinion is worth much, but I like that version MUCH better!
No matter what happens, you all should be proud of your work.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I fine-tuned the language of the new version and have edited it just now. I feel this makes it a bit easier to read, and states points more clearly. Most will probably not even realize that there was a change though.
But I actually thought about removing that language about the individual waters. However I spoke with Greg Wells earlier this week, and he advised that he was advised by DNR personnel (last year) to include it in exactly that fashion; for purposes of specificity. So I pretty much had to leave it in. But you're right--your phrasing would be much simpler!
As far as I am concerned, I think this is finished. Any re-writing past this point is probably just semantics, and I need to get the email off to the authors with the proposal, so they can review it over the weekend.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2008 10:04 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 113
Location: Green Bay, WI | We still need an author in Kewaunee county. If anyone is interested in authoring it in Kewaunee contact me Jay Zahn at [email protected] I will send you the final resolution.
Jay Zahn | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | To all authors in all counties... If you haven't already been advised, check your email for an important upgrade to the proposal. The main document has not changed, but the bottom required section has. Basically, I am listed as the "author" and you guys are the "presenter" in each county. Basic stuff, but I was advised today how to correctly list each of us.
Please toss the first version and use the new one.
Thanks everyone--and good luck tomorrow night!
TB
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | After a rough tally of three counties the approximate count is 160 (yes) to 80 (no). But these are unofficial. The last I heard today was that we probably won't find out the official results until early next week.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2008 4:54 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | THE FINAL VOTE IS UP: We won by *at least* a 2:1 margin! The score will be no worse than 1094 (yes) to 527 (no).
There are three counties (Kenosha, Marathon, Manitowoc) that did not list the actual resolution with the corresponding vote. But the other 18 counties are definite. So what I did was assumed the least favorable score for those three counties, added those to the scores that are for certain in the other 18 counties, and then got a total. It will likely be BETTER than this score--but we will have to wait until they clarify a bit more.
Congratulations guys, and thanks for the support! But we will need to get the musky guys out in TEN times the number next year...
TB | |
| |
|
Green Bay 54" size resolution proposal