|
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | 3.
Increase the statewide minimum size restriction to 40 inches for muskellunge on all waters currently at a 34-inch minimum size restriction and decrease the minimum size restriction to 28 inches for muskellunge on ten waters: English and Mineral lakes (Ashland county), Bearskin, Booth, Julia, and Squaw lakes (Oneida county), Butternut and Solberg lakes (Price county), Spider lake (Sawyer county), and Upper Gresham lake (Vilas county). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | John,
You know I'm all for the 40 inches (45" would be better), but the 28 inch is totally unwarranted on Solberg and most likely on Butternut too. DNR caving to local politics on both of those lakes! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 291
Location: Madison, WI | Hopefully someone can explain to me how lowering the statewide limit on those ten lakes from 34" to 28" is going to help the musky population. I grew up on the Spider Chain and have fished it since I was 6 years old, I am 33 now. Are the muskies in this body of water extremely slow growing, yes. without a doubt, but they are getting bigger.
The reason I can say they are getting bigger is both from actual data and visual proof. My parents have owned a resort on the lake since 1984 and when they got up there, there were almost 15 active resorts at the time. Now there is one, my mothers. It would make everyone sick to see the amount of 40"-50" fish that came out of this chain since 1984 from resort guests, and that was just my parents resort (this was before catch and release times). Many people would catch a 40" fish and get it mounted, because it was always the biggest fish they had ever caught. My parents were full from May through September with new guests each week and a total of 5 cabins. Now multiple that by the number of resorts on the lake and you get an idea of the amount of turnover that chain would see during the fishing season. Now that basically the entire lake is under private ownership, you dont see that turnover and people are not keeping muskies. Now they are starting to grow.
The actual data is the fact that we have kept all off the musky charts through 1984 and a few years back, I totaled up all the fish and started getting mean averages for length and they started going up. The visual proof is based on 10 years ago you could almost never see 35" and above fish, now we see many more 35"-39" fish because of catch and release . I have always thought a statewide 40" would be wonderful for the Spider Chain because it would protect all of those fish that needed the time to get that size, which they absolutely do because they are so slow growing. A 28" limit does nothing other than put it into the hands of each angler to release the fish caught.
The whole reason that lake is "slow growing" is because of its classification as a Class A musky lake due to the natural reproduction and the limited forage base. Because of this classification it has not been stocked or any new genetics introduced into the system for I believe 30-40 years. It was actually a brood stock lake for many years and was one of the sources of muskies that were stocked into LCO. There is also a limited forage base in the lake as the panfish are very stunted with the lake literally loaded with 2-5 inch bluegills and 4-6 inch perch.
Can someone serious explain the reasoning behind lowering the limit and the goal behind doing it? Are people all of a sudden going to start keeping 29" muskies in order to improve the size structure on the lake? Because if that was the case, why not introduce a slot limit for the fish you are trying to remove from the system while at the same time protecting the fish that need protecting.
Or maybe the muskies are truly eating all of the walleyes and panfish(rolls eyes). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Wausau, WI | Solberg Lake is a quality musky fishery,but by NO means is it a numbers lake. I'm not necessarily for the 28" size limit, but there are a few numbers lakes that are listed in the proposed ten that need an enhanced management plan. What kind of plan? Time will tell. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Solberg has a big one? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | No not you!! I've heard a nickname of "tiny" being passed around!!
Edited by KenK 2/9/2011 2:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Contact your DNR biologist as he is the one who has ultimate control over the size limits on the lakes in his area. He is the one who has asked for the 28" size limit. Also, contact the local muskies clubs as they may have some pull with the biologist.
Please do not vote against this great rule change just to protect these few lakes. The state really needs a statewide 40" size limit, it is a great step in the right direction. |
|
| |
|
| A 28" limit does nothing other than put it into the hands of each angler to release the fish caught. Actually, a 28" size limit is a clear encouragement to harvest fish. For lakes that are overpopulated with small, slow-growing fish, the goal might in fact be to increase harvest and reduce the number of fish per acre until such time as the population is more in balance with what the lake can support. There are lakes where genetics or poor forage base or overpopulation means that very few fish are able to grow over 40" long (gasp!) and a higher size limit would only compound the overpopulation problem by protecting every starving fish in the lake for their entire lifespan. Wisconsin is full of lakes that are full of muskies and no two of them are the same. North Twin and Wildcat are simply not the same thing and shouldn't be managed as if they are. At the risk of speaking heresy, I'd like to see progressive, lake-specific management strategies (higher limits for some, lower limits for others) much more so than a statewide 40" limit. There are already a TON of lakes with 40", 45", and 50" size limits...count 'em up some time, you'd be amazed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In addition, many times lakes like this are overpopulated with males, the smallest of the Muskies there, unlikely to ever grow beyond little under the circumstances. Could be an attempt to get some of those out of the system to reduce competition. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| lambeau - 2/9/2011 4:19 PM
[...]. At the risk of speaking heresy, I'd like to see progressive, lake-specific management strategies (higher limits for some, lower limits for others ) much more so than a statewide 40" limit. There are already a TON of lakes with 40", 45", and 50" size limits...count 'em up some time, you'd be amazed.
I think we'd all like to see that, but how would that work? And what would happen after the populations were more balanced? I agree it would probably lead to better fishing all around, for all species, but once the low size limits and additional harvest accomplished that, would those size limits need to be changed again? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | Solberg is not even close to a numbers lake, and the size seems ok to me, we boated fish from low 30's to mid 40's last year with most of them being 38" to 41". The panfish population is heathy with a good population of nice sized gills. I think there is some influence from local groups on some of these lakes, If they really wanna know where all the walleye are they should check their freezers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Another distinct possibility. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Due to a meeting that took place in 05 the folks who were having a hard time catching pannies and walleyes decided the muskies in Solberg had to go. The local biologist didn't think Solberg compared to other lakes on the list but with the pressure from "concerned citizens" couldn't do nothing. The option of keeping the limit 34" wasn't an option and a slot limit wasn't either. Like John said, the panfishing has been pretty darn good lately. People forget how much our flowages change from year to year, I suspect if the "concerned citizens" don't rape it too bad the panfishing will be excellent for the next several years. But in 05 the panfishing wasn't all that good so get rid of the muskies. Too bad. They got pretty darn big in there, too. Not like English and Mineral where they just don't get over 40". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | First off, for many of us, already working on our own local size limit increases, any statewide increase, will be a step forward. With that said, I also understand the need to appease/adress those individuals/lakes that need special attention but am at a loss as to why these two would be packaged together. My confusion is already exhibited in some of the above posts. Even those who posted their concern about the 'chosen' 28" lakes above would agree we need the statewide increase. However, it will be Musky anglers themselves who bring up concerns at the hearings, regarding the 28" lakes, even though most of us would agree to sacrafice even a few of our favorite lakes to 28" limits, for the greater good.
The questions should be separate, in my opinion.
If someone were to ask me what I thought about the 28" limits, I'd explain it just like Steve here, Jordon on MH, and other experts do: to improve/repair size structure, or to allow harvest of fish from a lake that hasn't and won't produce big fish. Having grown up fishing the Philips area lakes, I can attest to John's comment about Solberg. This is not your typical 28" size limit target lake, based on what the management plan for those types of lakes is. Yes, it used to be a pretty darn good numbers lake, but even that changed over the years(harvest). I'd argue(haven't fished it in seven years so please correct me, John, if wrong) that the size structure in Solberg is as good now as it has been in modern times(typical A2 destination with fair numbers and fair shot at a 42" fish and chances at much bigger). We know why panfish and walleye pops suffer, and doesn't eeven need be rehashed. Having fished butternut through my college years, catching dandy Muskies, it is hard to beleive how far that lake has fallen, but I won't argue with those who have fished/surveyed that lake in the past 10 years I've been away from it. One thing is certain, that lake used to harbor true monsters, so could very well benefit from this type of regulation. Hard to beleive it wasn't harvest in the first place, that got this lake here...
Not sure if it is Big Bearskin they are talking about in Oneida, but if so, doesn't it surprise those who fish it? I know it surprised some here....
Again, my last couple paragraphs are playing devils advocate as much as anything, and I do understand the good intentions of the 'package'. I know its' too late, but if we are going to try to catch lightning in a bottle with a statewide size limit increase, why not have it stand-alone rather than confuse it with potebntially controversial size limit reductions that could've been adressed in the very next question on the ballot.
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/9/2011 6:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | Just because most of the 28" lakes are in my "Backyard" is not going to change the way I vote. I just won't be to happy about it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Wausau, WI | John at Ross's - 2/10/2011 7:42 AM
Just because most of the 28" lakes are in my "Backyard" is not going to change the way I vote. I just won't be to happy about it.
+1 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I know, what's worse the rock or the hard place? I'll take the 40 inch limit, too bad that some of these fine lakes are being lost in the shuffle. As most who chimed in about these Price county lakes, it is local politics, the lake association's current members do not like muskies period and the local DNR is caving!! At the risk of being deleted, if you want a good history of what is really going on at Solberg, visit the Fishing Reports page for Solberg at Lake Link and scroll back through the pages, especially the reports from solberg1 (and formerly just solberg). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Slow down a minute.
It's a question, not a 'given', and it's up to all of us to be fully informed and make a decision to back the proposal or show up in numbers and vote it down decisively locally and state wide with enough margin to send the message.
I will add this to the mix; back a few years ago Butternut was recognized as overpopulated when considering the entire biomass, and the size structure was suffering as a result. There was a major push to encourage harvest, and nothing happened. Literally.
Going to 28" on some of the waters may in actuality be better for the systems than 32" was. Why? Because if a harvest of a 28" or 29" fish occurs, it's a reasonable chance that fish is a male. As far as the slot idea goes, Dave tried that in the Chippewa basin a couple times and Madison rejected the idea out of hand, so it wasn't 'local DNR' in that case.
Also, keep in mind there are other anglers out there, and they have as much right to push for their agenda as we do. The DNR in Wisconsin is, within reason, charged with a ridiculous mission of keeping the public at large happy by majority vote instead of doing what is right for one population of fish or another. In some cases, if the CCC didn't exist we as muskie anglers would be very happy, in some we would not. That said, the CCC exists and the vote occurs. So keep the self righteous rhetoric out of the discussion, and try to acquire a clear understanding of the issues at hand and then work to accomplish the possible resolutions.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Not to be rude guys but all this talk of 28-32" fish is really scary. Honestly we pull the bait away from fish that size. It really sounds like the management practices went with public sentiment vs. scientific data. I don't know and am not trying to pick at anything, but this is not a discussion I ever thought I'd see in Muskieland. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | But Steve, in the case of Butternut, stocking has ceased and over 100 muskies were trapped and transported to La Crosse (with only a couple mortalities), not to mention what the natives spear annually. I can't see there still being a problem there.
Also, the musky guys wanted a 40 inch limit on Solberg after the stocking ceased, but were shot down by the panfish loving lake association.
Really, I can't speak on the other lakes listed, but in the Price county lakes, this is about walleyes and panfish, not concern over muskies!!
Edited by KenK 2/10/2011 9:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | KenK,
'Also, keep in mind there are other anglers out there, and they have as much right to push for their agenda as we do. The DNR in Wisconsin is, within reason, charged with a ridiculous mission of keeping the public at large happy by majority vote instead of doing what is right for one population of fish or another. In some cases, if the CCC didn't exist we as muskie anglers would be very happy, in some we would not. That said, the CCC exists and the vote occurs. So keep the self righteous rhetoric out of the discussion, and try to acquire a clear understanding of the issues at hand and then work to accomplish the possible resolutions. '
If that's a fact and it's not an advantage to get the rest of the lakes up to 40" at the risk of the ten to 28", we need to show up in numbers statewide and vote this down. perhaps an addendum can be placed into the question that many have asked the question to be split into two. Anyone know the process to get that done? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | jakejusa - 2/10/2011 9:13 AM
Not to be rude guys but all this talk of 28-32" fish is really scary. Honestly we pull the bait away from fish that size.QUOTE]
We do too...
Edited by John at Ross's 2/10/2011 10:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Vote if it makes you feel better but realize that the CC and NRB will do whatever they want regardless of what the vote it is! The whole process of the CC is screwed up beyond believe. How many times will we vote on this question before it gets completely ignored like the 54" Green Bay question? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | But if it is on their agenda, ala motor trolling in Price, it's a slam dunk on the first vote! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I agree, the CC congress is a joke! We go out to vote for size limit increases for other lakes in other counties that we fish but in the end the only counties they look at is the county the lake is in and the surrounding area. And after all the work that was put in to get the 54" size limit on the bay and then get hosed by the bioligist. What a messed up system! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Vote if it makes you feel better but realize that the CC and NRB will do whatever they want regardless of what the vote it is! The whole process of the CC is screwed up beyond believe. How many times will we vote on this question before it gets completely ignored like the 54" Green Bay question?'
Be careful not to be inflammatory just to make noise. You just told folks not to bother to vote. If that had happened on the Pelican Lake 50" limit issues TWICE...the limit on Pelican would not BE 50".
'but in the end the only counties they look at is the county the lake is in and the surrounding area.'
That isn't true. The local vote carries considerable weight, but the vote needs to pass statewide to be a slam dunk. by the same token a near even local vote can be tipped easily by the statewide margin.
The mission there is to meet EVERYONE'S needs as is best possible, and to listen to the folks who mange the fisheries and accept/reject the recommendations passed by the CCC accordingly. Just because we demand something as muskie anglers doesn't automatically mean the folks who's career is fisheries biology will agree it MUST happen. Broad based, wild statements do FAR more harm than good in getting what we want done...done. Why is that so hard to grasp? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Steve, I agree with you that just that us musky guys want something doesn't mean that it should be done on a biological level. But then the question is why do we even vote if it's all up to the biologists? I believe that the biologists should be making the desicions, not a bunch of bar stool biologists.
The CC has outlived it's usefulness and should be done away with IMHO. This year they are putting a question in the hearings about crossbows for no reason other than to try to drum up contorversy so more people attend the hearings. This way they can try to justify the CC by showing how many people attend. What next a question if hunting and fishing should be outlawed? That would get people to attend in droves but is that really the best use of the CC and of our maney? They also put a question on about teaching the history of the CC in hunters safety?!?! This kind of sounds like indoctination by the CC. They would get to put their propoganda in front of every future hunter in the state.
You say without the hearings we would not have the 50" limit on Pelican. That may or may not be true. Minnesota has large size limits on most of their lakes and they don't have a CC. There are other ways of getting things done than by using the CC. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'This year they are putting a question in the hearings about crossbows for no reason other than to try to drum up controversy so more people attend the hearings. This way they can try to justify the CC by showing how many people attend. '
Really? Offer up some proof, please.
'What next a question if hunting and fishing should be outlawed'
I bet that one doesn't make it through the first phase of the process.
'You say without the hearings we would not have the 50" limit on Pelican. That may or may not be true. Minnesota has large size limits on most of their lakes and they don't have a CC. There are other ways of getting things done than by using the CC.'
Yeah, but Wisconsin DOES have the CCC and has no need to prove it's 'worth' at this point; no one has tried to abolish the process and I seriously doubt anyone will be successful if they do. I was there during the Pelican process. I know it's true. No way does the Pelican limit go to 50" without Norm and Mike's hard work and the CCC process. No way.
You were not there, have no clue what transpired, and are doing EXACTLY what I cautioned about above.
Begs the question again, right?
'This kind of sounds like indoctrination by the CC. They would get to put their propaganda in front of every future hunter in the state. '
That surprises you? If the CCC is in existence, should not ALL sportsmen and women be made aware of the function of the organization and how this all works so we can actively participate and make changes when at all possible? If, indeed, the process is being 'looked at' critically by our Governor and DNR lead, I haven't seen or heard anything about it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Steve, this was posted on MHM about the crossbow question. Copy and paste, not my words!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHBDlrmkBEo
Listen to this link and tell me what the he** the conservation congress is doing. They are putting a question on the ballot about crossbows for the only reason to put in a controversial question to try to raise attendence. This is not the purpose of the CC. After voting for the last 3 years on the 54" Green Bay size limit thing and watching it pass by a huge margin every year only to see nothing be done on it by the CC has driven me to not attend these hearings this year and perhaps never again. They do not listen to how we vote and then come up with their own stupid questions to try to justify their existance.
Edited by KenK 2/10/2011 12:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I cleaned up the audio and there's a baby hollering in the background and no other persons speaking at all, sounds like a telephone rendering. What's with that?
If this is authentic, and I question whether it is (a you tube video doesn't make it so) it doesn't surprise me much, but if they truly wanted participation, they could have added another dove hunt or feral cat question. 
The CCC may pass on the vote to the NRB and the DNR biologists weigh in on it. A decision is made on a subject like that one by the NRB to act or..not. it's based on the input from fisheries managers and the actual impact they see the change making. Remember I said that we are not going to always get what we want just because we say so? You saying you won't vote again because you didn't get what you want on one issue takes you out of this conversation and reduces our overall impact as muskie activists in Wisconsin, the exact thing we DON'T need. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| KEn beat me to it on posting the link. The link was originally posted by a person with quite a bit of knowledge about the CC and the NRB, I highly doubt he made it up. The poor audio quality is most likely because it wasn't supposed to be recorded!
And NO sportsman should not be forced to learn about the CC when they go through a SAFETY course. The CC has nothing to do with safety. If they are going to force kids to go through hunters safety it should be ONLY about safety and laws, morals and other things should be up to parents, not the government.
You're right I was not there for the Pelican meetings and I'm sure some people did a lot of work on both sides of the battle, and I commend them for standing up for their believes, but if we didn't have the complicated and out dated CC process it might have been done in other ways. |
|
| |
|
| It would be a pity if this progression in WI musky management was voted down to prove a point about the CC or even worse because someone has a "not in my lake" issue. Isn't this a muskie message board? One would think that ANY increase in size liimit would be welcome. It sure doesn't seem to be that way...
I have an idea: if you really want to prove a point with the CC show up and write a resolution to dissolve the CC or better yet, run for election.
This thread kind of proves that some in the musky community will never be be happy...whine whine whine, no 54 on GB, whine, crossbows, whine...
Curly |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Squiko, This is much bigger than a musky size limit issue. It's about the CC doing what they want regardless of how the vote goes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reelman, really. It is not that at all, it's what the ENTIRE PROCESS and every one involved does and the fact you ARE NOT going to get EVERYTHING you want approved. Shut up before you convince folks to not show up and vote. Seriously, are you TRYING to submarine any chance we have at all to forward our agenda? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| I've been watching these CC discussions for several years now. Seems to me that the ONLY avenue we have to getting our voices heard and our agendas in front of the people who have the authority to do anything is to attend the hearings and vote. We may not like the process, pretty sure nobody is fond of the politics. And regardless of how anyone feels aboit the CC and the processes for getting laws passed, it's all we've got. I guess what I'm saying is we can preach to the choir here until the cows come home, and it will accomplish nothing, short of perhaps validating our own feelings on the subject. But feelings aren't going to make better fishing opportunities, now, are they?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | Curly, I didn't start this thread to bash the CC. I posted it because it was a musky question at the spring hearing and I thought that everyone should know about it. I am a little taken back because most of the lakes are close to me and a I do fish some of them. I'm not whining and I'm not changing my vote because "My Lake" is on the list. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Steve, You are trying to forward your agenda through the continuation of an outdated CC. I am not trying to "submarine" the larger size limit agenda as I would also like to see that happen but our vote doesn't matter, all it does is make us feel like we did something. And yes I am trying to get people to not show up and vote for this or any other question. Maybe after seeing that for one hardly anybody shows up at these hearings and two that our voices are not heard when we vote that they powers that be get rid of the CC entirely. Let's stop wasting tax money on an entity that no longer is needed or is relevant. Let these desicions be made by the people that know what they are talking about and not by the general public and more importantly a bunch of do gooders on the CC. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I too fish some of the lakes affected by the 28" limit and WILL vote for the increase to 40. I will just have to do what I can to change one or two of the lakes to 40" down the road IF the resolutions passes.
We should keep in mind this question was put on the ballot by the DNR, not the CC, so if it passes it will most likely go into effect, unlike the 54" limit on GB which was introduced by the CC.
Edited by Flambeauski 2/10/2011 2:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| Before we get all bent out of shape at the idea of a 28" size limit... Those lakes are 34" now, right? Are there many fish being taken out of them as it is? How many more will be harvested with a lower size limit? I could see some of the incidental catches being harvested for the wall, or even the smoker. But it's been my observation that the folks who don't like muskies kill them when they catch them anyway, size limits aside. And the people who fish for them regularly, put them back anyway. So conceptually, yes, harvesting the juvenile males makes sense. But is lowering the size limit really going to cause any drastic changes?
Proposing a 28" size limit on a few lakes sounds to me like something you do to make sure the muskie folks don't come out and vote overwhelmingly for the 40" statewide limit that goes along with it. I could be wayyy off base here, but it makes sense. Propose a 40" statewide size limit to get the muskie maniacs out of your hair, and then add something like a 28" limit on some lakes to make sure nobody votes for it...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | esoxaddict wins the cupie doll!!
I don't see why they needed to add any baggage to this proposal.
But please, VOTE YES!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | reelman,
We collectively as an activist community utilized that very system to ACQUIRE the 50" limits and 45" many lakes now have. As long as it is in place, we can't get changes like that done any other way. A boycott is truly a stupid idea, because our opposition to whatever items are muskie related on the agenda will certainly show up and vote.
If enough people share your feelings (I'd be a vocal lead for ditching the CC) perhaps there is a way to get that movement started. It won't be easy, and won't be quickly accomplished even if there's a landslide movement for the idea which there is not. Tradition in this state has a very strong influence on our legal and political structure, and there is a very strong contingent who will not like losing their 'voice' in conservation matters given to them by the CCC process, and even more who will see it as an unattractive power consolidation for the DNR...in fact, there are large groups of folks who won't like that at all.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Steve, I'm just sick of all the BS with the CC and there seems to be a little bit of uproar in that if not enough people are attending that Walker might consider mooving to do away with the CC. SO while I would love to see a 40" limit, and would prefer a 54", I'm willing to give up my voting and attending of the hearings to hopefully move the process of disbanding the CC. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Too much of a risk. I think I expressed why I believe that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | All of this bickering is precisely why I posted above(if that seemed at all self righteous, please reread with the mind set that I have always worked with this flawed system for the 'greater good'). My point has been further advanced, that if this question was split, we would have two threads here instead of one. One on which the vast majority of this sites members agree and applaud the 40" increase, and one in which some voice their concerns about the 28" lake choices. Bottom line, most of the people debating 28" lake choice would be found voicing approval on the '40" statewide increase thumbs up' read.
Based on history, it is rare that a 'two pronged' question goes far in the hearings for reasons listed above. I'll see if anything can be done to split them up.
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/10/2011 5:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
| lambeau - 2/9/2011 4:19 PM
A 28" limit does nothing other than put it into the hands of each angler to release the fish caught. Actually, a 28" size limit is a clear encouragement to harvest fish. For lakes that are overpopulated with small, slow-growing fish, the goal might in fact be to increase harvest and reduce the number of fish per acre until such time as the population is more in balance with what the lake can support. There are lakes where genetics or poor forage base or overpopulation means that very few fish are able to grow over 40" long (gasp!) and a higher size limit would only compound the overpopulation problem by protecting every starving fish in the lake for their entire lifespan. Wisconsin is full of lakes that are full of muskies and no two of them are the same. North Twin and Wildcat are simply not the same thing and shouldn't be managed as if they are. At the risk of speaking heresy, I'd like to see progressive, lake-specific management strategies (higher limits for some, lower limits for others) much more so than a statewide 40" limit. There are already a TON of lakes with 40", 45", and 50" size limits...count 'em up some time, you'd be amazed.
I think I agree with Lambeau on this. I know of some lakes that are just loaded with Muskies under 30", and have been for years. In spite of some harvest they continue to be teaming with mostly small Muskies. I don't personally know enough about these lakes and the genetics of the fish in them to assume that the Muskies would grow bigger simply because a 40" limit was imposed, or if it would result in even more sub-30" Muskies in the lake---to the point that there is an unhealthy imbalance for all of the species in the lake.
So, I'm not clear why a person would want to vote for imposing an across the board 40" limit on all Wisconsin lakes if that might not be the best management for some lakes. Steve? |
|
| |
|
| Never mind...I missed part of the bills wording. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| I think it's safe to say that for the vast majority of lakes in WI, increased size limits would lead to better muskie fishing opportunities. For those few relatively infertile lakes, that are basically full of small muskies and stunted perch/panfish? Well, I'd verture to say you could put a 50" size limit on it and it wouldn't change the fishery for the better. From my conversations with the biologists and everything I've read on the subject, it seems the key to a successful fishery is obtaining a balanced biomass, so the predatory fish are there in the right numbers where they can reach their maximum growth potential. If there's not enough for them to eat, and they spend all their time competing for food and chasing around small meals that don't provide much nourishment. The end result is small skinny fish, and that's true of all freshwater species. Even then, some lakes just simply don't have the biomass to grow big muskies. I don't know anything about the lakes in question, but if that's the case? Some muskie harvest would provide better fishing for EVERYTHING down the road. While I'd rather see a "catch and transport to another lake" provision, that's really not possible with VHS in the picture. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Wausau, WI | Butternut, Solberg, Mineral, English, and Gresham are all lakes that I fish. I will be voting for the 40" increase because it's going to better other lakes that I like much more than these. The 28" limit on the ten lakes necessarily isn't going to "ruin" the lake. I guess we have to have faith in our DNR biologist that he is making the correct judgement. I just don't understand why they are putting the two changes under the same bill. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg - 2/10/2011 5:25 PM
All of this bickering is precisely why I posted above(if that seemed at all self righteous, please reread with the mind set that I have always worked with this flawed system for the 'greater good'). My point has been further advanced, that if this question was split, we would have two threads here instead of one. One on which the vast majority of this sites members agree and applaud the 40" increase, and one in which some voice their concerns about the 28" lake choices. Bottom line, most of the people debating 28" lake choice would be found voicing approval on the '40" statewide increase thumbs up' read.
Based on history, it is rare that a 'two pronged' question goes far in the hearings for reasons listed above. I'll see if anything can be done to split them up.
One thing you are NOT is self righteous. You are 'the conservation man' on several waters, watching out for all of us. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Hoping once the youngest gets in school, that I can use some day-off time to get more heavily involved again. I did send an email off to Tim and Co at DNR, the WMA, and others, inquiring about/suggesting splitting the question. I included a link to this thread for reference purposes, hope thats okay.
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/11/2011 8:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I was told by Jeff (DNR fisheries biologist) it was not possible to split the questions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Thanks Flambeauski, sent the email, so at least they can see what is happening amongst this group of readers. It is always difficult to get size limit increases to pass in WI, and anything that can be done as to lessen confusion on any of these questions, is a step towards getting them passed.
Jason Schillinger |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Most complain about our current CC process that we have in WI. Some think that the questions that come about are questions the CC thought up themselves and are pushing to be voted on.
I suggest some people look into the CC a bit, and understand the system. Also before condemning the CC, or DNR, for a question look into where that question originated. Case in point a month ago we learned of the pike spearing question to be voted on by the board, and everyone blamed the CC or DNR. However, those that made the call to their rep learned the question was proposed by the public at one of the hearings. It did not come about by the CC. It did not come about by the DNR. So groups of people got incorrectly blamed.
Complaining about it will do nothing but get people riled up. Honestly if we as outdoorsman want a say in how things are done in WI I feel the CC is a GOOD thing. Watch what you ask for when you want to leave it solely up to “those that know best”. Those people may have the opposite opinion of what you want. However with the CC process WE have the ability to get some things done as we see fit. As Steve mentioned several length changes in the past resulted in it. Schillinger, Robert’s, Wild, and others all used the CC process to increase limit sizes. If we didn’t have the process we may still have those lakes at the size limits they were at prior.
If you don’t like how things are done, or who is in the CC start lobbying for yourself or others to run for a position. Get on the board and from there try to make changes. As in a Democracy the CC should be, and is “for the people, by the people”. We only have ourselves to blame if we don’t like what is being done.
Ask yourself one question. “Would I really be happy if I couldn’t have a say in how I would like to see ______ (insert topic here) managed?”
Be very careful what you ask for!
Like some have said vote for the 40” statewide if you agree with it, and then work towards changing the 28” limits to something more desirable. Through the CC process we have a chance to change. Much more chance than if the DNR just decided upon this themselves and institute it.
Off my soapbox.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Well, I made some calls/emails and found out why it wasn't split. There were individuals that insisted the 28" limit within the proposal to agree to the 40", and that was the only way the team could get the question on the ballot. To paraphrase one of the key members of the Muskellunge team I spoke with today, Its really up to avid musky anglers to get out and support this as without them, it likely will not pass. People have themselves to blame next year, for low size limits in WI, if this doesn't pass.
What folks can and should do(as travis said), is get out in numbers to vote this statewide increase in, and then work on individual waters that went to 28", to get them to the statewide 40", as a number on the list should be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Thanks for posting this John, I didn't know this was on the agenda. I've railed against the muskie haters (they purposely kill any they catch, some even cut gills and throw the fish back in) on Solberg for years. The 28" limit proposed for Solberg is not management based but came as a result of a "Lake Management Vision Meeting" with the DNR and our Lake Association. The night before the meeting I was told by the Haters that they were all going to be there to vote on getting rid of the muskies and to turn a good muskie and walleye lake into a panfish lake. Several years earlier our Lake Association had voted overwhelmingly in favor of a 40" size limit. The person who was supposed to get this on the Spring Hearing ballot dropped the ball due to some influence by the haters.
The haters were smart in that they saw that if they stacked the deck they could get results they wanted and they all showed up and brought their wives. Some of these people don't even fish but just came to vote and support the their neighbor. The guys on the lake that really pound the water were not there to vote, they were out fishing. The votes at this meeting were really stacked against us. I complained to the DNR and was told that this vote is proof that this is what people want. I said if we could schedule a re-vote I'd have all the walleye and muskie fishermen there and he'd see differant results. Fell on deaf ears.
I've fished lakes all over Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Canada for 45 years and Solberg is not what anyone would call a numbers lake. In fact I've been complaining for a few years that I rarely catch any small (<34") fish anymore and was waiting for a population collapse. I just looked through my fish diaries and from Solberg I have averaged 24 over 34" every year since 1996. Since 2003 I only have 11 under 34". If this is a numbers lake, for as much as I fish shouldn't I have more small fish caught? There's enough pressure on the lake so I probably am cutting my own throat, but we've caught some really fat 42" - 47" fish every year. I've gotten 4 larger than that in the last 3 years. There was a picture of someone in a statewide magazine this past month of one over 50". I was from Vilas County and came to Phillips when I got married. Right from the start I was shocked at the amount of people on this lake that hate muskies and any kind of weeds, logs, or stumps. When I first fished here I thought that with all the structure it looked like a fish factory. Most lakes beg for good weed beds and wood, here we poison the weeds and drag out the stumps and logs and wonder where the fish are. Now I'm peeed off again. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Fell on deaf ears. '
No, the opposition beat you fair and square. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | I just sent the following email...
Tim Simonson: "Trust me, this was the only way our management team was going to go along with this." Tim, you have certainly earned every muskie anglers trust... many thanks!
Although it's a no-brainer that almost every muskellunge angler would prefer to have a statewide 40" minimum and the 40" and 28" limits listed separately on the spring ballot (so they could vote yes and no respectively), we should also understand there obviously had to be a little give-and-take. In my opinion, this is step in the right direction for muskie angling in the state and Wisconsin muskie anglers need to rally on this ASAP.
We can then push for a longer length limits in the future, same business with individual lakes that Jason and Pete mentioned. To say a 40" statewide minimum is long overdue is quite the understatement, so getting the 40" in place this spring so we can work from that platform is vital IMHO.
Regards,
Jerry Newman
Woodstock Illinois
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Legal maybe but certainly not "fair and square". Only 39 people decided the fish management for our lake. That's about 5% of the property owners. Even then I still can't figure out this 28" limit on Solberg. 19 of the 42 voted for "Low or No" interest in muskies and 20 voted for"High to Medium" interest. Sounds like the 20 votes beats 19, shouldn't it? No votes were cast for "emphasis on numbers over size", 18 votes for a "balance", and 9 voted for "size over numbers". Sounds like a vote for a balanced population with a interest in larger size fish. Then 17 voted for "catch and release", 8 for "balance", and 2 for "maximum sustainable harvest".
I guess the 2 that voted for maximum harvest must have clout somewhere.
As a result of that Vision Session conducted by DNR staff the stated goal was a population of low to moderate density with moderate proportions of preferred and memorable size fish. The management strategy was "because the population currently has the desired size structure, we see no need to depart from the statewide 34-inch minimum length limit for muskellunge on Solberg Lake at this time". So why 28" now?
Butternut had a population of 3.7 young of year per mile which is over the 0.15 - 1.5 expected. Solberg had a population of 1.25 YOY/mile. So I can see why they want to increase harvest on Butternut, but where did this 28" limit on Solberg come from?
How do I vote? This is like the soccor team whose plane crashed and that resorted to cannibalism. Eat a couple to save the rest.
Edited by buddysolberg 2/11/2011 11:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Only 39 people decided the fish management for our lake. That's about 5% of the property owners.'
What percentage of the US population decides on our President by showing up at the polls?
If you show up...and vote, in the numbers your opposition does, your voice is heard. Saying 'Yeah, BUT...' after the fact doesn't work too well. Whining about it and insulting the folks who beat you and making somewhat off the edge comparisons in the process makes you look like...well, figure it out.
Why 28" now? I'd bet, from talking with fisheries folks the last couple years, to try to remove what is felt to be an unacceptably high percentage of males from the population increasing the amount of food for the rest of the Muskies there allowing for better growth rates and reassess at a future date. I'd call and ask them, if it was me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Buddy,
Thanks for the straight dope. After all you've been sayng these years about the anti-musky few on Solberg, I knew this was just the DNR caving in to them. This IS a musky eradication program!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Wow Steve! So now what do I do? I quess like you say, quit whining. I'll just step back and let the anti's get rid of our muskie fishery here on Solberg. Majority rules, right? Sorry Coach K - I just gave up and will say no more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | So the way it looks is you would rather jeopradize having 700+ some odd lakes with a 40" limit just so your one lake doesn't go to 28"? Sounds kind of selfish, and quite frankly foolish to me. Yes it is not a lake I fish so maybe I don't understand. However, do it to my favorite lake and I would just choose to find a new favorite.
There are other good lakes up that way. Just switch to one of those.
I understand you are ticked Solberg is up to go to 28". However, we can do much more good here than bad by voting for this. Next year propose changing the lake back to 40". Get all your buddies that you say would guaranteee you'll win and vote. Then the next year when it is on the ballot do it again.
Would just be plain foolish to screw the whole state for one, or even 10 lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Travis,
I couldn't agree more with you. Why would you jeapordize hundreds of lakes over ten lakes. Like triping over a dime to make a penny. Just doesn't make good sense. As far as not voting that just doesn't make sense either. We are such a small minority in the sport fishing world that we need every vote we can get. Why dont we' just all take our ball and go home. We finally are going to get a chance at a statewide increase with 10 exceptions and thats still not good enough. I'm very excited to see how the voting goes on this motion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I'll still voye yes, but you guys are just not getting the point. Sollberg is not what they are saying it is! I thought this type of politics only took place in Chicago!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Ken I got it. However, the question is written. It is on the ballot. All the arguing and crying about it isn't going to change that fact. All that should have taken place prior to getting this far! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | I never said vote no. As a group we need to support a "yes" vote. Then I will work on getting the Lake Association as a whole to vote on a 40" limit on Solberg. We did it once around 2002 by a 2 to 1 margin and can do it again, only this time appoint someone to get the measure on the Spring ballot. The point I was trying to get across was that Solberg isn't on the list because it's an action lake. Maybe I didn't do a good job of that. It's on the 28" list because of the results of a poorly attended lake vision session. The anti-muskie group on Solberg accomplished their goal in turning what has always been a walleye/muskie lake into what will be managed primarily as a panfish/walleye lake. Muskies are ranked 5th in importance behind bluegill, walleye, crappie, and perch.
As far as going to another water to fish, I have my life invested on Solberg. We've been there since 1952.
If your lake ever has a vision session scheduled you had better be there to put in your two cents becuase when they ask who has a high interest in panfish - everyone raises their hand. But when they ask who has a high interest in muskies - there will be less hands up in the air. Then let the games begin.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: Price County WI | Fish manager Jeff Scheirer sent this leter to me after sending him and email asking him to give me a little in-sight on the reason that the 10 lakes were listed.
Jeff Wrote:
John, I wanted to reply to your concerns about decreasing the minimum length limit on muskellunge in Butternut and Solberg lakes as part of the statewide proposal to increase that limit from 34 to 40 inches on many other lakes.
The musky populations in Butternut and Solberg lakes are different by most common measures of population status. Likewise, there's different reasons for the recommendation to exempt these two lakes from the proposal. In Butternut Lake we believe musky in high abundance are competing among themselves for food in short supply, suppressing their growth rate, and preventing the population from attaining the desired size structure. Increasing the minimum length limit by 6 inches would protect those smaller, older males for several more years and worsen the competition among themselves for available food. This shortage decreases their growth rate dramatically, and they simply won't live long enough to reach desirable size. Unless we can decrease their abundance, most (but not all) will die from natural causes before they grow to 42 or 45 inches. Under the proposed exemption, the Butternut-Schnur Lake Association can continue to promote selective harvest of smaller, slow growing musky until we reach our goals for population density and size structure outlined in the Butternut Lake Fishery Management Plan. The Plan is available through our website at http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/upchip/fisheries/reports.htm.
The reasoning behind the exemption in Solberg Lake was not intended to promote selective harvest of smaller, slow growing musky (as the Butternut-Schnur Lake Association is doing), but rather to chose a musky harvest regulation suited to achieve the goals outlined for the entire fish community in the Solberg Lake Fishery Management Plan, which is also posted at http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/upchip/fisheries/reports.htm. More than a third of the participants in the 2005 planning session said they were interested in occasionally keeping a musky and they were interested in improving the size structure of the yellow perch population. In the Fishery Management Plan we saw "no need to depart from the statewide 34-inch minimum length limit for muskellunge Solberg Lake" when the Plan was finalized in early 2010. In the Plan we reasoned that "anglers interested in keeping a muskellunge occasionally can select from those between 34 and 38 inches long without jeopardizing goals for population size structure. Reducing muskellunge density slightly should in turn decrease predation of the larger yellow perch and improve our chances for success in attaining objectives for perch abundance and size structure" because muskies and northern pike selectively eat the largest perch in the population as one of their preferred foods.
If approved, the statewide proposal before the Conservation Congress in spring 2011 will increase the minimum length limit to 40 inches on all lakes where it is now 34 inches. The rule-making process allowed us to recommend lakes that should be exempted from the statewide 40-inch limit, and those exempt waters would have a 28-inch limit. In my opinion, a 40-inch limit at Solberg Lake would unnecessarily restrict anglers who expressed this unique preference to catch and keep a musky once in awhile, especially young anglers who would be forced to release a 38- or 39-inch fish of a lifetime. I would prefer to keep the existing 34-inch limit, or perhaps experiment with a protected slot range, but the available musky harvest regulations currently do not include options to maintain the status quo or to try a new approach. In my opinion, the best fit from options available to meet the objectives of the Fishery Management Plans was to exclude Solberg Lake from the statewide proposal.
With the catch-and-release ethic deeply rooted in most avid musky anglers, I do not foresee a sudden, increased demand to harvest muskies 28-40 inches long. Mail surveys indicated that only 2% of muskellunge anglers and 11% of non-muskellunge anglers consider some size less than 40 inches to be a "trophy." Based on the preferences of anglers at Solberg Lake and other traditional musky waters in the Upper Chippewa River Basin, we anticipate that anglers will continue to place great emphasis on size and continue to release most of the muskies they catch. Unlike the situation at Butternut Lake, I'm aware of no plan to promote selective harvest of musky in Solberg Lake. Successful live release will be essential if we hope to attain the objectives for musky in the Fish Management Plan, so I encourage you to cast your vote in support of Question 1 requiring the use of quick-strike rigs when using minnows longer than 10 inches as bait.
I'm glad to hear that you and other anglers are catching muskies longer than 40 in Butternut Lake. We've also seen some recent improvement in musky population size structure, based on our 2008 surveys results, but we believe population density in Butternut Lake remains higher than the target level.
I hope this explanation and the information in the Fishery Management Plan outline my rationale for excluding Solberg Lake from the statewide proposal for a 40-inch minimum length limit on muskies. Jeff Scheirer, Fishery Biologist
Edited by John at Ross's 2/14/2011 11:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Gee, I got basically the same email! I thought I was just special.
Edited by KenK 2/14/2011 12:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | I did not read all the responses here but as I told the conservation congress guy at the show this should have been two separate questions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I talked to a CC rep as well and since this is a DNR question they (CC reps) have no say in the wording. I will be speaking with my CC rep about changing this lake to a 40" in 2012 but even if that passes (which it likely won't) the DNR likely won't change it back. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| I'd think it would be better to get the 40" size limit passed now, taking the 28" limit on a few lakes with it. Might be easier to get those limits changed on an individual basis down the road than it would be trying to get a 40" statewide limit on the ballot again. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | lots a lakes overwhelmed by small males ... protection sometimes means harvest.
lay em on a cedar plank and serve with drawn butter |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| It's just the perception we have, Sled. Thinning out the small males seems like a good idea to me, and I understand the science behind it, but when I hear "lowering the size limits to 28" it just seems like a step backwards. Harvesting muskies = bad. Now... For the rest of the 700 or so muskie lakes, increasing the size limit to 40"? I'd be willing to bet that will do more good for the fisheries across the state than we've seen in our lifetimes. For that, I might even vote for a 28" size limit on my own lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | slots |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | jonnysled - 2/14/2011 3:05 PM
slots
You support Native American spearing when you play the slots.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| That would make the most sense. It's sure working in Ontario. I could see implementation and enforcement presenting some challenges though. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | esoxaddict - 2/14/2011 3:24 PM
That would make the most sense. It's sure working in Ontario. I could see implementation and enforcement presenting some challenges though.
builds and rebuilds fisheries across the nation and has for many years. why it's not employed in the northern midwest has always made me wonder. proven logic for predator species. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8824
| MuskyHopeful - 2/14/2011 3:20 PM
jonnysled - 2/14/2011 3:05 PM
slots
You support Native American spearing when you play the slots.
Kevin
Not so fast Kev... I think history has proven that the more money you throw at any particular group the less likely they are to do anything that requires any effort. Just sayin'... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Gosh I love Utah. |
|
| |
Spring Hearing Question #3