|
|
Posts: 202
| Just wanted to send out a reminder for everyone to get out and vote. Here is a link to the locations in your county where the hearings are held.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/200...
Doug Kloet
http://www.muskymagictackle.com
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
Location: Menasha, Wi | I skimmed through the issuses that will be addressed at the spring hearings and I did not see the 54" Green bay size limit proposal or did I just miss it? Will be attending in Winnebago County. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 113
Location: Green Bay, WI | The 54" question is on the Conservation Congress side of the hearings. Those were not listed on the link that Doug gave. Hope everyone can make it out tonight.
Jay Zahn |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | The Wisconsin Spring Conservation Hearings are tonight in every county of the state at 7 PM. Please attend and vote. You do not have to stay for the whole meeting. You can vote and leave, if you want. You can bring your wife and kids. There are no age or license requirements to vote on the questions. If you have any feelings about the musky size limit questions this year, PLEASE be there and vote, or do not complain after the meeting.
John Aschenbrenner |
|
| |
|
| Is 7 the earliest you can show up and vote or can you go earlier? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Doors open by at least 6:30 |
|
| |
|
| keep in mind that you can go, pick up a ballot, answer whatever questions matter to you, turn the ballot in and leave.
It will only take a few minutes and you don't have to stay for the whole meeting.
QUESTION 23 – Big Sand Lake and Long Lakes muskellunge regulations
The current 34-inch minimum size limit is not adequate to produce a trophy muskellunge fishery. These lakes have the potential to produce trophy muskellunge. Many muskellunge anglers (62% in a 1999 survey) feel that a muskellunge should be at least 50 inches to be considered a trophy. It is recommended that the muskellunge regulation on these lakes be changed to a 50 inch minimum length limit. This regulation should improve muskellunge catch rates, increase numbers of adults, and provide an opportunity to catch fish 50 inches and longer. These regulation proposals passed as resolutions introduced from the floor at the annual Conservation Congress spring rules hearing in Vilas County in 2008. The Long Lake of Phelps Lake District and Big Sand Lake Association both support this regulation change. Both lakes should have the same regulation since they are connected and fish and anglers can move readily between the two. The goal of this proposal is to increase the percentage of musky larger than 45 inches in the population to 10% by 2018, and have at least 3% of musky in the population larger than 50 inches.
Do you favor increasing the minimum length limit from 34 inches to 50 inches for muskellunge on Big Sand and Long Lakes in Vilas County?
23. YES_______ NO______
QUESTION 24 – Kentuck Lake muskellunge regulation
The current 40-inch minimum size restriction has been in effect on Kentuck Lake since 1993 and has not produced significant numbers of fish longer than 45 inches in length. This lake has the potential to grow trophy muskellunge if given additional protection from harvest. It is recommended that the muskellunge
regulation on this lake be changed to a 50-inch minimum length limit. This regulation should improve muskellunge catch rates, increase numbers of adults, and provide an opportunity to catch fish 50 inches and longer. This regulation passed as a resolution introduced from the floor at the annual Conservation
Congress rules hearing in Vilas County in 2008. The goal of this proposal is to increase the percentage of musky larger than 45 inches in the population to 10% by 2018, and have at least 3% of musky in the population larger than 50 inches.
Do you favor increasing the minimum length limit from 40 inches to 50 inches for muskellunge on Kentuck Lake in Vilas County?
24. YES_______ NO______
QUESTION 85 – Increased Size Limit on Muskellunge, Green Bay and Related Waters The re-introduction of muskellunge into Green Bay has created a world class fishery. Natural reproduction has not yet been documented. The system is entirely dependant on stocking. Last year the department enacted rules pertaining to Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS). These rules have halted stocking, and
has cast uncertainty onto the future of the fishery. Growth rates for muskies in these waters has been exceptional.
Along with it’s reputation comes a significant increase in fishing pressure. While significantly benefiting the local economy, it may be short lived if more aggressive efforts aren’t taken to protect this fragile and finite resource. The demise of the fishery will surely be escalated by over harvest.
Would you support increasing the size limit on muskellunge from 50 to 54 inches in the following waters: 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?
85. Yes _____ No _____
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Take some time to help yourself and others who need the support. We are rounding up the troops now.
Please help fellow hunters also.
Vote NO to the Earn a buck and Zone T.
Questions 57 is also tricky. Worded to trick people into a yes vote. NOT a good idea. We need bowhunters. Limiting them to only nine days to hunt bucks will cause huge drops in people bowhunting. It's hard enough for some to shoot a buck with a bow. All bow season is doe only except nine days? GET REAL.
Get out and vote people |
|
| |
|
Posts: 111
Location: somewhere! | Mikes Extreme - 4/13/2009 5:31 PM
Take some time to help yourself and others who need the support. We are rounding up the troops now.
Please help fellow hunters also.
Vote NO to the Earn a buck and Zone T.
Questions 57 is also tricky. Worded to trick people into a yes vote. NOT a good idea. We need bowhunters. Limiting them to only nine days to hunt bucks will cause huge drops in people bowhunting. It's hard enough for some to shoot a buck with a bow. All bow season is doe only except nine days? GET REAL.
Get out and vote people can't find #57?????using the link above |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks to everyone that went out to a CC hearing and voted tonight. Several of us went to Shawano this year, given there were some problems last year. Things seem to have gone well, although certainly we won't really know until Wednesday when the results are posted. None of the musky-related issues seem to have generated any opposition at all tonight, as far as I could tell.
So here's knocking on wood, and hoping for the best...
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | I voted thanks to a reminder from Doug. Crossing my fingers now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1451
Location: Kronenwetter, WI | How long until the results come out? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I attended the Outagamie County hearing, no comments or questions were brought up about any of the musky related questions. Looked like many musky hunters in attendence.
It's sad to hear Steve Heitings report on the size limit changes for Kentuck,Sand, and Long over on his board. Sounds like it got shot down up there pretty bad.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
| 2009 Statewide Spring Hearing results will be posted on April 15 |
|
| |
|
| Statewide results were posted today.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2009/2009_Re...
the county by county results are supposed to be up on the 15th (tomorrow).
the muskie-related items all passed, but not by much:
#23 Big Sand/Long Lake 50" limit:
Yes 2296, No 1709, Counties passed 52, Counties failed 18, Counties tied 2
#24 Kentuck Lake 50" limit:
Yes 2228, No 1733, Counties passed 46, Counties failed 22, Counties tied 4
#85 Green Bay 54" limit:
Yes 2480, No 2260, Counties passed 38, Counties failed 32, Counties tied 2
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Now to see the break-down by county...
EDIT: Almost forgot--congratulations to those working on the Kentuck/Big Sand/Long Lake resolutions!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 66
| Even though I thought we'd get better support....it's still a "yes" in the majority column.
Edited by Dennis Radloff 4/14/2009 10:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 66
| I gotta say.....we (our musky comminity) should be proud of our effort on this issue...we brought something to life, AND, achieved statewide support. Dave Rowe said he would back this if we could achieve that...and we did it!!!! Not by a landslide...but deffinate majority vote "YES". I will be interested to see what happens next.
Many thanks to all of you for the help and dedication on this journey!!!!
Dennis |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| It was a yes vote. Now let's see if they actually do it or have us vote on it again, and again, ..... |
|
| |
|
| a win is a win is a win is a win is a win
GREAT JOB EVERYONE.
I TOO AM INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
YOU CAN REST ASSURED WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING FOR THIS TIL ITS LAW.
dannyboy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Good job getting the vote out there, everyone. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks to those who went out to vote! Its still amazing more people cant take 15 minutes out of a day they know a year in advance. I had a friend Steve Horton and his crew that drove 2 hours down from the U.P. (Escanaba)to vote, and they dont even fish most of these waters, but yet our own residents blow it off. I cant wait to see the county by county breakdown.
I knew there would be a greater opposition this year as the anti's have had 3 years to get their stuff together.
Congrats to Dave Wienburner as well as the others who got themselves elected, In Marinette he ousted an anti and replaced it with one of our own. Thanks for stepping up.
Amen Dannyboy, a win is a win, now the ball is in David Rowe's court.
Thanks again all! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 462
Location: Syracuse, Indiana | Congratulations Wisconsin on your leadership in supporting the muskie fishery! A W is a W! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| The county by county breakdown is up. Looks like Big Sand and Long passed as a yes for Vilas cty but Kentuck was a No. Brown Cty was a yes for the 54" on Green Bay. So when could this go into effect?
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Shane, Can non-residents vote in these things? I'm happy that they voted for the size change but am I the only one that sees a problem with non-residents voting in a Wisconsin hearing? Imagine if they loaded up buses in Chicago and shipped them up to vote in these things. |
|
| |
|
| yeah imagine if we did that...
frv club
midwest muskie club
southside muskie club
quad county club
sob club
flatlanders chapter
im sure i am missing a few. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| PETA, HSUS, SPAC, etc. I'm willing to bet there are more of those wackos in Chicago then there are musky fiserment.
But the point is that isn't this supposed to be a hearing for Wisconsin residents. |
|
| |
|
| Non residents are welcome, since they also use the resources. They just cant vote on the County representatives unless they are a resident of that county. I know several individuals who also brought their kids to vote. Personally I havent even been able to vote in my own county in 6 years, always having to go where its needed most. I would love to see our out of state brothers help us out. Seems many in Wisconsin really dont seem to care. |
|
| |
|
| Seems many in Wisconsin really dont seem to care.
and many do, enough to get a number of progressive changes enacted over the past few years...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
Location: Janesville | There would be a bigger turn out if it was on a weekend. Alot of people have to work second shift and you can not vote early. That sucks. |
|
| |
|
| but many don't
as we stated before 5-7 thousand people show up and vote. where is everyone else?
680 some thousand deer hunt. how many in state fishing liscenses???? lots
but a small minorttity go and vote for issues.
sad,sad,sad..............
as magnum said some work 2nd shift, i wish we could have a system of absentee ballots?
just a thought.
hopefully our biologist now takes the bull by the horns.
he said if we got it thru the CC vote, he would push it thru.
we got it passed 3 years in a row now.
2 years as a submission and this year on the ballot.
the public has indeed spoken.
dannyboy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's very typical democracy in action. Showing up to vote is certain if one is highly motivated, but getting the average guy motivated takes PAC action, huge advertising budgets and many other forms of 'motivation' even for a Presidential Election.
It might be 'sad', but it's reality, and in this case, probably a good thing most don't vote. Folks generally don't like new regulation and change, so educating the masses as to why 'we' want both would be absolutely critical if 'we' expect to win the day; and that would be very difficult and VERY expensive if we were looking at 500,000 plus deer hunters voting who may or may not know anything about the Green Bay, Kentuck, Big Sand, or any other Muskie fishery...or for that matter care. Same goes for the vast majority of the folks who buy a fishing license here.
Assuming because someone fishes Muskies they will or for that matter should embrace 'our' conservation oriented desires and make them so is not a good idea, IMHO. Norm and Mike didn't get the 50" limit on Pelican by majority opinion, they simply did the due diligence to acquire the majority VOTE. Had more 'average' Muskie anglers showed up during any phase of the project, I seriously question if that venture would have been successful.
Getting the desired results from our somewhat strange fisheries and game management process takes some tact, and a bit of political savvy to get past what would almost certainly be a negative outcome by 'stacking the deck' with folks of like mind even if one needs to create a few through direct education and personal contact; it's really nothing more than a numbers game. The opposition turned out to be pretty well organized as well.
In this case, the Conservation Congress may be the only way a 54" limit would have been implemented on BOGB. I hope now it's been done several times it will go through.
'Getting out the Vote' means getting enough folks to vote one's 'way' to win. I'd like to see the winning margin a bit larger next time, but wouldn't want to have to address the 'masses'; much easier if you can clearly see and pretty much accurately estimate your opposition's numbers. |
|
| |
|
| i guess i fail to see why many musky people cant get out and vote.
many other sportsmans groups organized and ready,
bear hunters, bow hunters etc...
but we did win a majoriy and now goes to comittee.
dannyboy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| The guy who was working the sign up line at Kaukauna Middle School in Outagamie County was TURNING AWAY people who were not from the county. I heard today of many people who did not vote because of this and went back home unhappy. Those folks were simply misinformed and I highly doubt they will show up next time.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | I've been to several of these hearings in the last number of years. Great concept, but very flawed. The DNR payes biologists to do thier jobs, obviously. So in the instance of the Pelican Lake 50" proposal, had certain groups been more mobilized, it can get shot down? After biologists figure it's 'necessary' to protect mid 40 inch fish in that lake after high harvest levels?
I talked with a DNR employee last week for awhile, and his concerns are like mine. They would like to have a late December muzzleloader hunt. Me too. So it is on the ballot and we'll see. Now the Snowmobile Lobby and the Tavern League Lobby has a lobbyist in Madison barking at the politicians . The lobbyist carries a lot more weight that these hearing results. Believe me. Case in point: 2 times in the last 5 years it has been voted to ban baiting for deer. Guess what? It's still legal to bait. Why was it even on the ballot?
Like I said, I go and vote, on principle, and that's about it.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| I would not say that it's democracy in action because the results are not binding. We could have 100% voting one way that the state could still decide to go the other way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As an advisory vote, it is very much a democratic process. If the biologists were actually in charge, and were not put into the position the CC offers...THEN the process would be
Normal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Boy wouldn't that be nice if the biologists actually were able to run it for the good of the resouce instead of politicians running it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I worry more about the general public. In this case, a small, organized group(hopefully) got what they wanted even though the biologist said there was no justification for the proposed regulations and the new regs were rejected twice after interested parties asked for them, but he would support it if 'we' proved the public supported it by a yes vote at the hearings. Just because I am happy this time doesn't make the process the most sound out there, but we DO live in Wisconsin. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Steve, well said! |
|
| |
Wisconsin Spring Hearings Results