|
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2010/2010%20...
All the info you'll need here.
The muskies need our vote! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32890
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | QUESTION 93 – Removal of trophy muskie designation for Pelican Lake, Oneida County
Local anglers and property owners around Pelican Lake, in Oneida County, consider the lake more of an “action” muskie fishery than a “trophy” muskie fishery. However, currently, there is a 50” size limit on the lake. The local lake association and town boards would like to see the lake returned to a 34” size limit for muskies. They believe that a trophy muskie is in the eyes of the beholder, and feel that anglers should be allowed to keep muskies over 34”. Therefore, local residents wish to restore the 34” size limit on Pelican Lake.
Would you support changing the 50” size limit for muskies on Pelican Lake in Oneida County to a 34” muskie size limit?
93
. YES _______ NO _______
We had better vote on this one. EVERYONE WHO CAN!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 547
Location: Oshkosh | I was at Fleet Farm and they have a good at the service counter that is dedicated to everything that is going to be discussed at thses hearings.
Peter |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Question 57: Are you in favor of keeping the 45" size limit on Little St. Germain?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | They want to lower Little Saint Germain, too? Am I the only tired of this crap? We fight for change and even when we get it, it doesn't last. See my rant on the musky hunter board. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | At least they worded the St. Germain question to favor the muskies.
And no, you're not the only one sick of this crap. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Bumped to bring it back to the front page. I'm a bit shocked that there hasn't been more discussion of this on here since the Pelican Lake size increase was fueled by active members of this board.
Edited by ulbian 3/16/2010 8:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
Location: Breezy Point, MN | Hi Steve,
"Local anglers and property owners around Pelican Lake, in Oneida County, consider the lake more of an “action” muskie fishery than a “trophy” muskie fishery. However, currently, there is a 50” size limit on the lake. The local lake association and town boards would like to see the lake returned to a 34” size limit for muskies. They believe that a trophy muskie is in the eyes of the beholder, and feel that anglers should be allowed to keep muskies over 34”. Therefore, local residents wish to restore the 34” size limit on Pelican Lake."
Since when are the "local anglers" and "property owners" the biological experts?? This is the main reason right here where the whole system of "Fish and Game" Hearings are a waste of time. They are nothing more than a popularity contest, as I witnessed myself several times when Tony Rizzo and numerous resort owner friends of his came into the Vilas County hearings and shot down proposed 40" size limits for SELECT waters the DNR themselves classified as having trophy potential! No scientific data from the anti's, just their fear factor alone, effectively killed progressive musky management before it even had a chance because it was voted down by a witch hunt at the Hearings.
In my opinion, this is why the State of Wisconsin should ONLY let the Fisheries Biologists dictate what lakes get managed for ANY species, not just muskies. They, after all, are being paid to be the experts. Many resort owners and locals up there truly have no FACTUAL data to support their fears or claims, yet based on sheer numbers, they are a continual thorn in the side of improving Wisconsin's overall musky fisheries anytime there are suggestions to improve the trophy fisheries.
Other states like Minnesota allows the DNR to manage their lakes, and if the DNR feels that Lake X needs a 48" limit, it gets done, period. The anglers win, and muskies win. Why must Wisconsin live in the dark ages simply because of political beauracracy?? This same thing occurs every spring up there and it gets really tiresome. You have all of you guys with really great intentions putting a lot of work into this, yet it typically doesn't matter anyway due to a flawed system.
Best of luck once again, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. The only way to effectively fight or win one of these "popularity contests" is strictly through STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!! Recruit as many friends and family as you can prior to the hearings if you plan on winning.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| With many of the northwoods resorts being condoed out because they cant fill'em, maybe they should start changing their thinking and let the management take its course to try to produce some trophy waters so guys will want to fish WI instead of running to Minny or Canada.
Mr Musky |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | so if the vote is in favor of keeping a 50" limit in place it will stay in place no matter what the vote is in Oneida right? Not sure how all this stuff works, but I know I will be going and dragging as many guys w me to vote on the musky questions ....we all should really put this on our calendar and make a point to go...it takes all of 10 minutes to get in and out
Edited by BNelson 3/16/2010 11:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| BNelson,
During the CC process many things can happen, however, members take local votes into account first (most times). So, to answer your question, if the vote passes statewide but not in Oneida it still may pass and return to the 34" limit. What needs to happen (from the muskie fishermans' perspective) is to defeat this question statewide, including Oneida Co. If that happens it will be hard for the CC to change the current rule. Like it or not this is a political process. The musky anglers need to have people in each county voting on this rule.
I am the DNR representative in Monroe County-in the past 5 years, no musky anglers have been to my meeting, but you better believe the anti-muskie guys were there-voicing their opinion and influencing the crowd.
Jordan |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | How do things work in MN? As it seems things get done a lot faster and smoother over there than in WI...like their statewide 48" size limit...did that get voted on or does the MN DNR just do it ? wish we had fw thinking like other states and countries... seems things in WI take years and years and years to get done, only for things like this Pelican thing to come up.. but in other states it just happens... maybe I'm wrong but that is the way it seems.... ;-(
Edited by BNelson 3/16/2010 11:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| I'll see how things go in MN-I'm not sure, but my impression is much like yours. I"ll contact my man and get back to you.
The WIDNR has very progressive management ideas (especially the Musky Team)however, we are hamstrung by the process, publics that are anti size limits, little johnny, resort owners, and sometimes by our own people. Which is the main reason changes in WI take so long. Believe me I FEEL YOUR PAIN! Daily.
Jordan
Edited by J_WEEKS 3/16/2010 1:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Brad,
So my contact described the MN process this way...
For local rule changes:
A regulation change must be initiated and submitted to the region by November. The rule change must be approved by the region and then central office. Then the proposed rule change must be posted at public access sites and a public comment period initiated by the opening day of the fishing season. Then a public meeting (local) is held in August or Sept. The comment period is like 90 days. If everything goes swimmingly then the regulation can be implemented for the next opener.
Statewide rule changes have a seperate process, which I am researching and can get back to you on that as well.
It would be great if it worked that way in WI...fewer barstool biologists, loudmouths, little johnny's and fanatics. The MN process could be a great thing-unless a particular biologist has a bias toward a particular species, which could stop any progressive rules from being passed. In WI everyone gets a say-which is good and bad.
I hope this helps.
Jordan
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| Mr Musky - 3/16/2010 10:52 AM
With many of the northwoods resorts being condoed out because they cant fill'em, maybe they should start changing their thinking and let the management take its course to try to produce some trophy waters so guys will want to fish WI instead of running to Minny or Canada.
Mr Musky
I have family in the resort business on a class A northern Wisconsin musky lake. I can assure you, there is no shortage of patrons. They are booked solid with a waiting list and have been for years. The argument of 'lost revenue' doesn't hold water. There are A LOT more family vacationers that could care less about musky regulations than there are musky anglers in northern Wisconsin, and the successful resorts always have and always will continue to cater to their largest and most reliable client base.
I'm not saying you don't have a point, but what I am saying is that the number of guys who exclude themselves from fishing in Wisconsin because of musky regulations is insignificant in the big picture of tourism in northern Wisconsin. That's just a fact we have to live with whether we like it or not. Lost revenue from hard core musky anglers who currently don't fish Wisconsin because of regulations is simply not a valid reason that's ever going to convince the vast majority (non musky anglers) to make a change. |
|
| |
|
| Don't miss question # 94, to change the 34 inch mimimun length on Whitefish Lake to 50 inches. Question # 96, states that property owners on Lake Redstone want to change the mimimun from 40 inches to 50 inches. |
|
| |
WCC spring hearings