|
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | I got a letter as one of the presenters of the 54 inch size limit rule for Green Bay and the Lower Fox River. The Warm Water & Great Lakes Study committee will meet on Saturday September 27th @ 10am. Last year only one attended (thanks Greg Wells) and it was shot down. The meeting place is Royal Inn Stevens Point (HWT51/I39 and HWY 10)
If you would like to go and would like to speak, you will have to call Joe Weiss (Chair Warm Water) at 715) 635-2209 or Dale Maas (chair Great Lakes) at 920) 928-2131. I am not sure if only presenters are allowed to speak or the general public is?
Make plans to be there.
Edited by muskie! nut 8/27/2008 8:54 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2060
Location: Appleton,WI | Is there anybody from appleton or green bay going to this That wants to carpool?? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | If someone wants to email me any supporting documentation, I will be sure to get it in the hands of the two Oneida County CC members that I know, who are on the Warm Water Committee. They are both musky fishermen and I am pretty sure they will support this, but armed with info they will be much better prepared.
[email protected]
The wheel needs to keep squeaking!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | Mike contact Tom Betka [[email protected]] for that information.
I hope at least some of you can make it. I will be coming home from the Gil Hamm Chapter Challunge a day early to make sure I attend. A good showing of supporters would go a long ways to convince the Great Lakes Committee that we need this protection since stocking has been ceased. These fish are too valuable to be taken out of the system when they hit 50. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I will be attending the CC Committee meetings at 10AM on September 27th. If anyone needs additional information, please email me at the address in my signature file. I can give you enough to fill your evenings for the next couple of weeks...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| Help me understand this. The 54" proposal was voted on and passed not once but twice and the CC is still debating whether or not they are going to make it a law.
Like I have asked before could some please explain to me why we even have the CC and the Spring Hearings if the results don't mean squat? | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | TB Is there an email address for someone on the The Warm Water & Great Lakes Study Committee, that would be willing to accept support for the 54" Min via email, from folks who cannot attend?
Sean | |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | Nowhere is that information listed on the letter I got. i also checked the WDNR web site and its not listed there either. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I do not know about contacts on the Warm Water Committee, but my know someone who does know. Well, the information is on the DNR's website, located here:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/committees/
...but I don't have their email addresses.
EDIT: Almost forgot--to the poster asking why we need to go through this process. You need to understand the role of the CC...
The CC is not a body where the people can simply get together and, on a whim (let's say), decide to change some regulation. No, it's a body (the only one of it's kind in the US, if I am not mistaken) made up of 5 delegates from each of Wisconsin's 72 counties, assembled to give Wisconsin residents a chance to be heard on all matters regarding our natural resources. If there's something that a resident wants changed, he/she now has an avenue to do so--simply introduce a resolution at a spring hearing. If there's enough support, the resolution will be passed on to the appropriate committee, whose job it is to determine if that particular issue has enough merit to be forwarded to the DNR as a *non-binding* recommendation to make a regulation change. IF the DNR agrees, then they can choose to recommend it to the State Legislators, who in turn vote to make that (now) DNR recommendation a law. It's a long process.
The reason we have to do this yet again, is because it did not make it through committee last year--even though it passed in all but one county where it was introduced. It's unfortunate that the Great Lakes Committee simply didn't pass the matter to the full CC--as ALL the people of Wisconsin would then have gotten the opportunity to vote on the matter, before it went to the DNR...who then could have chosen whether or not to put it on the statewide questionnaire, representing yet another failsafe point. Instead the GLC chose to vote the issue down for, what many consider to be purely political reasons. I was not involved in 2007, so I cannot speak to whether or not this argument has merit--but it sure seems to me that there would have been adequate chances to defeat the proposal, were it to be found later that it did not have significant merit.
In any event, we went through the process all over again this year, and now it's going to both the GLC and the Warm Water Committee--don't ask me why...I think it's a bit silly to go to both committes myself. But nonetheless, that's the CC process we have, so that's what we have to work with.
I say that we should all be thankful to have an avenue such as the CC that provides the chance for concerned citizens to express their concern, and take steps to make a change. I for one am VERY grateful for this opportunity.
See you all on the 27th!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 8/27/2008 2:43 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| Tom, First let me thank you for all the work you have done in this matter. I am not trying to pick on you but the whole CC thing is a joke! Like you said it was turned down for political reasons. The CC looked at what we all voted on and basically said "who cares? We are going to do what we want so screw the voters" So now it sounds like we will have to vote on it AGAIN in 2009 in a statewide CC hearing. Then maybe it will pass IF the CC decides it should pass. Maybe we should just contact a certain legislator from the Eagle River area to throw it on a budget bill, at least then it will get done!
I remember the whole feral cat issue where in an overwhelming vote the people of the state voted to let them be controled by the DNR. When the CC met later in the year the issue came up for a vote and the leader of the CC basically said that they would not vote on it because he didn't want to. Again, screw what the voters said.
The idea of a CC sounds good but just wait until the anti's start to get people to go to them and they start to control it. They could get rid of all hunting and fishing in a couple years! | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, it is what it is...no doubt about it. And you're right--the whole state might have to vote on it via the CC process next spring. But then again, the DNR could simply advance it as a question next spring, by-passing the CC step. However they are not required to do this, and thus the process may have to be followed in it's entirety.
I can't argue with your assessment, but the process has to be followed or the effort has NO chance of being approved. There are definitely hoops to be jumped through, and sometimes it does seem that the spirit of the whole process (which I believe in by the way, because I think there needs to be a way to weed out resolutions that have no merit) has somehow been sacrificed for political gains. I wish I could tell you how to fix the problem, but it's a bigger mess than I can unravel, so I am simply riding the bus on this one...
So all I can say with certainty is that the process is underway, and the next step occurs September 27th. I have been asked to appear to defend the resolution, and therefore will be there to do just that. Our Biologist has publicly stated that, although he doesn't necessarily feel the 54" limit is biologically needed, he will support the effort if it's the will of the majority. I guess that's fair enough, and I believe him to be an honest man. Therefore we'll make another run at it and see what happens.
Finally, thank you for the kind words...
TB | |
| | |
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | reelman - 8/27/2008 6:03 PM
The idea of a CC sounds good but just wait until the anti's start to get people to go to them and they start to control it. They could get rid of all hunting and fishing in a couple years!
Thanks for making the perfect point of WHY we all need to attend and have our voices heard. No, this isn't the perfect process as you've pointed out, but the biggest threat I'm seeing to our outdoor pursuits is the growing number of anti's attending and making their points heard, not whether proposals get passed. There seems to be a double agenda here. 1. Sportsmen/sportswomen need to attend to vote on the matters at hand even if the process seems flawed. 2. We need to attend to vote and keep the anti's in check. It's unfortunate, but from my point of view, point number two is a very growing concern that is threatening to overshadow the importance of getting favorable proposals passed. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Everyone has a voice, but it sure seems that an irate voice gets heard first...
I agree--people need to show up. I was surprised that, after MONTHS of talking about the 54" size limit increase, there were so few anglers that showed up in support of it. Everybody seems to have something better to do when the all-important time comes.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | reelman, one of the reasons that it failed last year was because nobody show up in support (except Greg Wells). We do need to do this in the proper way, because we don't want our legislators making the rules like that Rep from Eagle River. It was just bad policy and it side stepped everyone in the process. We should be able to make our case because of VHSv putting a halt to all stocking in the Fox?Bay. I urge folks to attend. I heard many bellyaching about this issue last spring, well if we don't show our support now, then you might as well be happy with angler able to harvest 50" fish. Act now or shut up. | |
| | |
Posts: 1292
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | The initial post states a 10PM time . Is this correct or a misprint? | |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | ghoti, it is wrong. I mistyped. It is 10 AM.
Thanks for correcting me. | |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | I will be looking for a ride that Saturday from Madison.
We need to be there in force or we may stand a chance that it won't happen. Some think the 50" size limit is enough. With no stocking and the threat of VHSv can we really risk not going to the 54 inch size limit??? Studies are nice, but when we have very few fish left, we will not be able to figure out whats wrong. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Anyone else going to this on Saturday? We'd love to see a show of support at the CC Committee meetings...this is for all the marbles here folks, and this is where it got defeated a year ago.
Both Jay Zahn & I will be going, so say hello if you see us. Hope to see you there.
TB | |
| | |
| If you are unable to attend the meeting to show your support for the 54" min in Green Bay, please send your support to Joe Weiss who is the chairman of the Warm Water Committee. It would at least be noted if Joe could produce multiple support emails at Saturday's meeting, His email address is:
[email protected]
| |
| | |
| email sent
everyone on this site should send one! | |
| | |
| email sent
| |
| | |
Posts: 202
| email sent | |
| | |
Posts: 16
Location: Green Bay, WI | Email sent!! | |
| | |
Posts: 2060
Location: Appleton,WI | Email sent! | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | A bit off topic, but does anyone know how the local biologist is positioned on this issue right now? Correspondance from him, in support, would go a long way in trumpeting your resolution this weekend.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/24/2008 5:29 PM
| |
| | |
| You can also email joe to show your support at [email protected] please find the time to do this. Our fishery depends on it. | |
| | |
| What about Catch and Release only? People get such a hard time about keeping Muskie anyway! Just a thought. Dan Palmer | |
| | |
Posts: 113
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jason I contacted David Rowe about the meeting asking him if he was attending. He stated that he was not asked to be there but the DNR rep that was attending knew his feelings about the resolution. Basically David doesn't feel 54 is necessary as the fishery is being managed right now. He did say however if 54" is passed by the fisherman he would support it and then would have a public meeting with all concerned parties and talk about managing the bay and river as a trophy fishery.
I was encouraged by this but it still hinges on the question getting on the ballot for next year and the musky fishing public getting it passed.
Jay Zahn
VP Communications
Muskies Inc. | |
| | |
Posts: 1292
Location: Stevens Point, Wi. | Just got back from the meeting---the resolution passed !!! | |
| | |
| Really, thats great news!! | |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | ghoti - 9/27/2008 11:25 AM
Just got back from the meeting---the resolution passed !!!
Let's be clear about this. The resolution did pass to be on the ballot at the April 09 Hearings in all 72 counties. IT IS STILL ONLY AN ADVISORY QUESTION. That date is April 13th, 2009 so make plans to attend your county seat hearing. If we get should an overwhelming voter turnout in favor of this, only then we can realize that we can get the 54" size limit on the Bay of Green Bay and Lower Fox River.
One side note is that a couple of emails were read (the chairman got about 30 of which all were in favor) and two that caught my ear was Lambeau and bn from this site. Thanks for the note to the chairman about this issue. I'm sure it made a real difference in a favorable outcome.
Remember April 13th, 2009. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great news!
I would like to thank Jay Zahn for driving over today and filling in for me at this meeting. I was not able to attend and Jay filled in and did a fantastic job. But Jay did attend, as did Gerard, and I would personally like to say a big THANK YOU to those two guys for showing up. And to those that also attended but that I did not mention--thank you for going as well.
For those that do not know, I sustained nerve damage following tendon repair surgery earlier this summer. Since that time I have had persistent medical complications, and simply could not attend today's meeting. I feel absolutely terrible to not be able to attend--but those guys had my back...and really had the backs of ALL of us working on this effort. So thanks again to the guys that made it there today, and congratulations to all who worked so hard on the effort.
Now the real work begins...getting ready for the CC Spring Hearings! As Gerard said--it certainly isn't over yet, so we cannot let up.
TB
EDIT: Forgot to say--also want to thank the folks who took the time to email the committee members in support of this effort. Every little bit helps!
Edited by tcbetka 9/27/2008 3:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 272
| What exactly passed and what does it mean? | |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | What passed is the Resolution will be on the state wide ballot (all 72 counties) on April 13th. If it passes then, it most likely will be oked by the Conservation Congress and then they will instruct the WDNR to draft up (in lawyer terms) a rule to make the Bay of Green Bay and the Lower Fox River (up to the DePere dam) a minimum size limit of 54 inches for muskies. If it fails, then it will remain at 50 inches as it is now.
Edited by muskie! nut 9/28/2008 3:55 PM
| |
| | |
| great news. I hope we all get out in force and vote so this overwhelmingly passes!
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | muskie-addict - 9/28/2008 3:26 PM
What exactly passed and what does it mean?
Let me try to explain this process in layman's terms for those who may be wondering the same thing you asked...
In the Wisconsin CC process, any citizen can introduce a resolution to try to get a new fish or game law passed. And of course that citizen only has primary residence in one county, so that is where they will probably introduce it...in all likelihood. They don't have to introduce it there mind you, but let's say they do. So you have to imagine that the process must be prepared for ANY type of resolution--and this makes perfect sense. So if that citizen's resolution has enough merit to warrant consideration, then the people at the meeting in that county vote. And if the vote is favorable (more yes than no), than the resolution passes. But what happens next? Let me try to make up an example to illustrate the process.
Let's say that you live by lilly pad lagoon and there's a special breed of mudpuppy with two tails living in that lagoon. This particular species of mudpuppy lives absolutely nowhere else in the state--this lagoon is it. I don't know why I chose mudpuppies for this example, but just bear with me. So you and your wife like to walk along the shores of the lagoon and observe mudpuppies bathing at the water's edge--maybe you met her there, and now it's your 25th anniversary, so the 2-tailed mudpuppy has real significance to you both. But for years and years the population of two-tailed mudpuppies has been growing and growing, and suddenly a bunch of musky fisherman have figured out that these particular mudpuppies are especially good at catching muskies (told you this would make sense...). So now these musky guys want to go into business catching these mudpuppies and selling them for bait.
Well this obviously doesn't make you & your wife very happy, so you write up a resolution and show up at the annual CC Spring Hearings and tell everyone about why you don't think it's right for these musky guys to harvest all these poor mudpuppies--after all, they are catching way too many muskies anyway, and everyone knows that a mudpuppy with two tails is a tantalizing morsel that no musky can resist. It's just not fair! So you naturally want the mudpuppies protected as catch & release only, and since you're such a popular guy with some sympathy from the crowd for putting up with the same wife for 25 years (...or maybe it's vice versa...), everyone votes in favor of your resolution. Thus it passes. But now what? Is it a law that night? What else does it take?
Well, although I have given a tongue-in-cheek example here, it isn't too far-fetched really. Although it may be a very worthy and noble cause, of what STATEWIDE significance is the issue of protecting two-tailed mudpuppies in lilly pad lagoon in your little corner of the state? According to the guidelines set forth by the State, the CC is an avenue for any resident of Wisconsin to introduce a resolution having significance on a statewide basis. But who is to decide whether your cause has statewide significance? And finally...to the point!
Because there can be (theoretically) an unlimited number of folks with issues that they consider very important on a personal basis, there needs to be some sort of method to screen all of these resolutions in order to decide whether or not they meet the most basic criteria set forth by the state as guidelines for citizens who wish to submit s resolution. So there have been various CC committees established for just this purpose, and in fact there are now 23 of them. You can see them here:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/committees/
So in order to get your mudpuppy issue on a statewide ballot and thus voted on by the entire state (basically, the only way a citizen-sponsored resolution is ever going to become a law), your resolution must be discussed in the appropriate committee and favorably voted on. If it passes through committee it then goes back to the Executive Committee who will then likely put it onto the statewide ballot for the NEXT spring. So now back to real life...
With regards to our 54" musky size limit on Green Bay; even though it passed by an 1100:350 vote at the 2007 CC spring hearings, it did NOT make it through the Great Lakes committee last fall. Thus it failed to be advanced to the full CC statewide ballot this spring. That's why we had to re-introduce it this past April, and why we're having this discussion. So in fact we did just that, in a form that was...shall we say...more strategic to the whole "statewide significance" guideline. Although the original authors (2007) Greg Wells and Dennis Radloff did an excellent job organizing the effort and were quite successful in the initial stages of the effort, there was simply new information (on VHSv, for example) that changed the significance of the issue, and thus we wanted to take that into account for the effort this spring.
So yesterday Jay, Gerard and others went to Stevens Point to support the effort at the meetings of the Great Lakes and Warm Water committees, as both were taking up the matter this year. And from what Jay tells me, the vote was exceedingly in favor of the resolution and thus the resolution has been found to meet the criteria set forth by the CC--thus it will now be returned to the Executive Committee of the CC with the recommendation to have it placed on the full statewide ballot for the Spring 2009 hearings. Basically, it's on the ballot.
But finally, and here's the important part...it MUST be voted on favorably by the entire state at next spring's hearings in order to be forwarded to the Natural Resource Board for implementation as law. So if it fails next spring because we didn't get enough people out to support it--we are done again, and have to start all over once again. So as Gerard stated, the hard work is just beginning for we must make sure to round up enough people to go vote at the spring 2009 hearings.
I hope this example, although somewhat verbose, helps folks understand the process--and more importantly why the things have happened...have happened. I think there are a lot of people who still don't understand why the size limit on Green Bay is only 50," and it's only through continued efforts at education will we achieve our goals.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 9/29/2008 5:11 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | tcbetka - 9/28/2008 6:07 PM
muskie-addict - 9/28/2008 3:26 PM
What exactly passed and what does it mean?
Let me try to explain this process in layman's terms for those who may be wondering the same thing you asked...
TB
Whew!!! Good thing Tom couldn't make it. We'd still be at the meeting as he explains things.
Naw, I'm messing with ya Tom.  | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Darned right Gerard... By the time those guys would've gotten out of there, they'd have all thought the resolution was THEIR idea!
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | I'm going to continue to support this all the way but the CC route (which is our only hope right now) is just too slow IMO. If this gets a thumbs up by us in the spring of 09 it wouldn't actually go in until spring of 2010. That means we have 2 more fall periods with the same protection we currently have. I know other routes have been exhausted but I just wish the DNR would understand the urgency of this issue and would have fast tracked the process. Quite a bit of damage could be done in 2 years. I encourage everyone to attend the spring meetings so at least the damage can be stopped in a few more seasons. I don't want to come off as if I don't support this as I very much do. I like others just wish something could be done sooner. Thanks for the hard work everyone has put in. | |
| | |
Posts: 272
| Thanks Tom.
I don't mean to sound like a dummy, but I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this whole thing.
So last fall, the GLC meeting is where this thing failed. And it was THIS year's GLC meeting where Jay, et al, went to and they blessed the proposal, yes?
In short, this year "we" cleared the hurdle we failed to clear last year, and now next year attendees at the annual spring meetings will get a chance to vote on this.
Do we now have Mike Rowe's blessing on this, since it passed the GLC? Do we need his blessing? Does it matter either way, now that it will be on the ballot?
If this is as good as it sounds to be, this is indeed great news. However, I agree that this process is just way too cumbersome. It still shocks me how the early northern C&R season got slammed through and was made into law seemingly so easily when the right person scratches someone else's back, yet something like this 54" limit, with such support and so much possibly at stake, will be going on 4 years in the making by the time it goes through.....IF it goes through.
Thanks to all those who worked on this. I'll be there at West High School in GB on 041309 with bells on. I assume that's where it is anyway.
-Eric | |
| | |
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | Q:So last fall, the GLC meeting is where this thing failed. And it was THIS year's GLC meeting where Jay, et al, went to and they blessed the proposal, yes?
This was a joint meeting of the Warm Water and GLC meeting. On the WWC we had several that were totally in favor of this like Greg Wells and Bob Benson and Russ Warye of the GLC. But we has more information than we (I meant Greg Wells) did last year to help our cause. They told us the reason it did not go forward at the Aug 10th GLC meeting last year was because there was no biological reason to increase the size limit. Nobody could them for sure that these fish would be able to attain 54 inches. And of course no study was every done here or else where to aid in their assessment if they could. If they couldn't reach 54, why have the rule? I think Bob and Greg convince them that they could (and have) and Muskies Inc, WI Muskie Alliance, and Titletown MI would help the WDNR study this and find out.
Q:In short, this year "we" cleared the hurdle we failed to clear last year, and now next year attendees at the annual spring meetings will get a chance to vote on this.
Yes, the entire state of 72 counties will vote on this proposal at the 2009 Spring Hearings.
Q:Do we now have Mike Rowe's blessing on this, since it passed the GLC?
He was not at the meeting, but the WDNR GL Liason was. I just can't remember. I think he was neutral on this.
Q:Do we need his blessing?
No, but it would help greatly as the committee members rely on the fisheries personal as they should as they are the experts.
Q:Does it matter either way, now that it will be on the ballot?
Yes, it does. I'm sure if Rowe was against we would have a hard time getting this passed into law.
Statement: If this is as good as it sounds to be, this is indeed great news. However, I agree that this process is just way too cumbersome. It still shocks me how the early northern C&R season got slammed through and was made into law seemingly so easily when the right person scratches someone else's back, yet something like this 54" limit, with such support and so much possibly at stake, will be going on 4 years in the making by the time it goes through.....IF it goes through.
This was political and sent through without any input from fisheries personal or the citizens. Rep Meyer realized he overstepped his authority when the April voting was tallied and his law was defeated soundly. He promises to correct it if he is reelected. Somehow the term blackmail comes to mind.
Statement: I'll be there at West High School in GB on 041309 with bells on. I assume that's where it is anyway.
Maybe, but make sure. I know it will be in every county seat, but location might change. BTW please leave the bells at home. They make you look gay, not that there is anything wrong with that. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Gerard... And no one should feel foolish or "dumb" for not understanding the process. I didn't understand it myself until I spent a couple hundred hours researching this issue over the past year.
First, I should apologize for leaving out the names of Bob Benson, Greg Wells and Russ Warye! Sorry guys--totally forgot about you! You guys were actually ON these committees! These guys are all strong supporters of this proposal, and have been all along. And in fact they have all gone several steps beyond supporting this issue, by volunteering to serve on the CC. And Greg was one of the co-authors from the original proposal in 2007. He joined the CC and volunteered for the Warm Water committee to help sort through issues just like this. But in fact without efforts from all sorts of people, this effort is simply not going to make it.
I think Gerard did a nice job of answering questions, but I wanted to add something about David Rowe and his support on this issue. While I in no way speak for him, David & I have spoken at length about this issue on several occasions so I feel comfortable relaying some of what we discussed. Although he is not convinced of the biological necessity of protecting the fish to 54," he understands the complex social interactions at play here--exactly similar to Canada's 54" size limits. But he has publicly stated that he will indeed support the resolution, if a majority of anglers are in favor of it. I have also spoken at length with a few members of the upper echelon of the fisheries management team in Madison, and have received very encouraging feedback on our efforts.
Thus I do not believe for a second that our fisheries folks in state government do not want to see the very best for the program here in Green Bay; and if that is a 54" size limit...then so be it. However you have to see it from their point of view--they simply don't have the biological evidence that they feel they need to propose the size limit increase on their own. However because of the unique opportunity we have as citizens of Wisconsin, we can still have our voices heard on this matter--and they will support us if the majority favor the increase. We have basically been told this (in writing) by the Secretary of the DNR, Matt Frank. I have this letter, if anyone is interested (Steve Worrall also has a copy). But it is up to us to see that the effort is successful at next spring's CC hearings.
And finally, the way I understand it the DNR could in fact take our resolution and place it on their portion of the spring ballot, thus by-passing the full CC spring hearing process. However I do not expect that to happen--for the very reason I have already mentioned: As anglers we must demonstrate that the majority do indeed want it. If the DNR was going to do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion as they would have already done it. Thus I feel that it is indeed going to take until Spring 2010 until a 54" limit could become law on Green Bay. So again, we must organize this effort through next spring and get it passed, if we ever hope to have it enacted into law.
I hope this helps explain this complicated situation.
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Team Rhino - 9/28/2008 9:43 PM
I'm going to continue to support this all the way but the CC route (which is our only hope right now) is just too slow IMO. If this gets a thumbs up by us in the spring of 09 it wouldn't actually go in until spring of 2010. That means we have 2 more fall periods with the same protection we currently have. I know other routes have been exhausted but I just wish the DNR would understand the urgency of this issue and would have fast tracked the process. Quite a bit of damage could be done in 2 years. I encourage everyone to attend the spring meetings so at least the damage can be stopped in a few more seasons. I don't want to come off as if I don't support this as I very much do. I like others just wish something could be done sooner. Thanks for the hard work everyone has put in.
Jeff,
That's just it--the DNR doesn't necessarily share our beliefs that the situation is urgent. We had a chance to try to convince them of this in April of this year at a meeting at DNR headquarters, here in Green Bay. While about 15-18 people showed up, there should have been a LOT more. That's one of the problems we have quite frankly; people talk & talk on the forums, but we don't see that same level of support when it comes to open meetings. Well that's going to have to change if we want to get this passed next spring at the CC hearings, where the vast majority of people in attendance will NOT be musky anglers, and may very well feel that muskies are all evil creatures that eat all the perch and walleyes. We have our work cut out for us here folks...don't think for a minute that we don't.
But your time line is correct: we'll have to wait at least two more years until this new size limit could go into effect.
TB | |
| |
|
GB/Fox River 54" Size Limit