|
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Conservation congress vote is tonight....if you fish for muskies in WI get out and vote....the one night a year we can make a difference in the future of fishing/hunting in WI.... for those that b*tch about things in WI if you don't take tonight to go vote..shut your pie hole..! 
Questions 1 and 2 are probably the most important issues we have had to get changed...
Musky questions:
Question 1: Require the use of Quick-Strike rigs on minnows larger than 10"
Question 2: Increase minimum state-wide size limit to 40"
Question 5: Increase mimimum size limit to 50" on Rice and Stump lakes
Question 14: Increase mimimum size limit to 50" on two brood lakes - Archibald and Anderson
Question 18: Increase mimimum size limit to 50" on Redstone Lake
Question 20: Increase mimimum size limit to 50" on a third brood lake - Big Elkhart
Question 82: Allows an extended gamefish season in northern Wisconsin (I think by one week)
Question 83: Deals with questions on a muskie survey
7pm tonight..
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2011/2011Loc...
Edited by BNelson 4/11/2011 12:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: Birchwood, WI. |  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 22
| Question... Do you need to attend in the county that you reside in or can you vote in other counties? If anyone knows that would be helpful for me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 283
| I'm pretty sure that u have to vote in the county that u live in |
|
| |
|
Posts: 22
| So I called the DNR... You can vote on the questions in any county, but you need to be in the county you reside in to vote for the delegates. Hope this is helpful to others... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: Birchwood, WI. | Kiedro - 4/11/2011 4:10 PM
So I called the DNR... You can vote on the questions in any county, but you need to be in the county you reside in to vote for the delegates. Hope this is helpful to others...
DITTO!!! I also called..& you dont even have to be a WI resident to vote on tonights survey..
Edited by jerken jimi 4/11/2011 4:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | How was the turn out tonight? I would have voted but I had night school tonight so sadly I couldn't |
|
| |
|
Posts: 22
| I'd guess about 50 people @ the Vilas County hearing. A little debate over the statewide 40 inch size increase, but other than that it was relatively uneventful at least for the first hour. I left after that... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| Only about 30 people at the Langlade county meeting. There was a short debate over the proposal to eliminate lead shot and that was about it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: Birchwood, WI. | Up here in Hayward there was (guessing)50-60 people including some of the well known names out there-Larry Ramsell-Pete Maina-Ty Sennett & Steve Genson.
Some debate on the 40''state wide limit that also included lowering some lakes to 28'' including Spider lake,to which there was a written resolution turned in buy MUSKIES INC & OTHERS..Other than that at least were attempting to make some progress here in Wisconsin...
Results of these hearings will be available online Wednsday April 13 at
dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/
Edited by jerken jimi 4/12/2011 7:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Twice as many in Price as last year, at least 50 maybe more. Some debate over single hooks. Some debate over the 40" question. All the old lines, "what about little Johnny? Single hooks are Northwoods tradition. They're eating all the walleyes, crappies, etc. I used to catch lots of walleyes. They're taking over my lake." Our fisheries biologist didn't have our back either. Looked like a deer in the headlights when questions were asked. I left the meeting thinking our fisheries will be much better off 10 years from now when some of those old guys are no longer fishing. Sad to say. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Flambeauski - 4/12/2011 7:47 AM I left the meeting thinking our fisheries will be much better off 10 years from now when some of those old guys are no longer fishing. Sad to say. Sadly enough, I agree. It's a completely different mindset and thought process these days with "our" generation and especially the up 'n coming musky hunters. I've seen that deer-in-the-headlights look from a lot of DNR Biologists and Game Wardens when asked about the crappy deer herd conditions here in Wisconsin, as well. While I have the utmost respect for these gentlemen and the job they do, they don't seem to do very well when put on the spot and/or asked difficult questions. And with all due respect, isn't that part of their job...? |
|
| |
|
| Flambeauski - 4/12/2011 7:47 AM
I left the meeting thinking our fisheries will be much better off 10 years from now when some of those old guys are no longer fishing. Sad to say.
Good luck with that. Those "old guys" LOL! take the grandkids and sons out fishing every summer. teaching thier little secrets, hot spots, and ethics. And if they are following the laws. They have the rite to do as they wish. Nah... I think your best bet is to do what you are trying to do. change the laws. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | PSYS - 4/12/2011 5:53 AM
I've seen that deer-in-the-headlights look from a lot of DNR Biologists and Game Wardens when asked about the crappy deer herd conditions here in Wisconsin, as well. While I have the utmost respect for these gentlemen and the job they do, they don't seem to do very well when put on the spot and/or asked difficult questions. And with all due respect, isn't that part of their job...?
There are few that are both good at the science as well as public speaking. You have to remember that these guys are trained basically as scientist/police officers not salesmen. If you think about it, there are very few people in general that are any good at public speaking, especially in a possible confrontational crowd such as these meetings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nice comments, gents, that's how one makes a difference.
If I was a DNR biologist, and 'old guy' or a kid reading this I'd tell you all to go pound sand.
No, that's NOT part of their job to address the public and mediate arguments; they are not PR people, they are scientists. There's no point arguing with people at the CC meetings and as I understand it, they are not supposed to. Present the item, allow for debate, and move on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | * deep sigh *
Actually, last year I attended a WI Deer Hunting Safety Course (first time deer hunting here in Wisconsin) directed by Mr. Steve Burkhardt who has been with the WI DNR as a Game Warden for 27 years. And yes, he DOES do public speaking and he DOES field questions and actually WELCOMES them by the public. While I am unable to speak on behalf of the biologists, perhaps if they don't like fielding these sort of difficult questions than someone else who doesn't mind public speaking should be attending these events and leave the biologists to their field work? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There's a meeting in EVERY county. The DNR doesn't have that large of PR department available and each county CC meeting isn't about PR; arguing with the people one way or the other is not the idea...the people are there to argue with EACH OTHER over the proposals presented by having their say.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Steve, we know you aren't one of those "old guys" I was referring to, in fact there's probably more old guys muskie fishing than "old guys", if you catch my drift. And I understand it isn't the biologists job to PR, well, kind of, but he shouldn't need to answer questions by reading off the ballot book. I understand not wanting to be confrontational with that crowd but it would have been nice if he'd have explained biological and financial reasons for the size limit increase rather than saying it was what the guides and Muskies inc. wanted. |
|
| |
|
| Actually fellas, PR IS one of the major parts of any fishereis biologists job...unfortunately it is also one of the most difficult parts of the job and there are few in WI that can do both the biological part (easy part-fish don't ask stupid questions) and the social part (extremely hard). The really good ones, like Frank Pratt (Hayward-retired), Steve Gilbert (Vilas Co), Kurt Welke (Dane Co), and Dave Vetrano (retired-La Crosse area), to mention some, are few and far between. It takes a special person to be able to relate complicated biological concepts to a largely uneducated audience in a few sentances. At the same time DNR reps are bound by instructions that tell them to only provide fact. Unlike the CC members who read the question then tell everyone how to vote (this isn't supposed to happen but does in nearly every county).
Furthermore, many of these questions are local, and if the DNR person isn't from the area the question concerns, how do you expect him or her to be an expert on the subject? Statewide questions are different, the reps should have some basic information (which is provided to them) to relay to the public. However, It is unrealistic to think that the representative in each county (which includes many technicians) knows everything there is to know about every fish or wildlife question in the packet.
For those of you complaining, take a little personal responsibility and contact the DNR biologist prior to the hearing if you have specific biological questions. Get your answers, ask the "tough" questions. That way you can speak to the crowd and influence the vote on your own.
Guest |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | I completely agree.
I'm simply saying that it's ignorant to think that many passionate fishermen and outdoorsmen (like us) are going to go to this meetings and simply remain mute. I would hope that the DNR rep. on hand is going to be expected to field and answer a few questions that are inevitably going to be brought up. I'm well aware of the purpose of these meetings, but to make a broad statement that the DNR isn't there nor is it their job to answer questions... I'm afraid that's false in every sense of the word. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The problem-- there really ISN'T a definitive biological 'reason' for a 40" state wide limit when considering the entire state's muskie population and the entire population of Wisconsin anglers. That IS something the anglers pushed for, and maybe we'll get it. No way is there a 50" limit on Pelican with out Norm and Mike...that's the way it works here.
And, to answer this:
'I'm well aware of the purpose of these meetings, but to make a broad statement that the DNR isn't there nor is it their job to answer questions... I'm afraid that's false in every sense of the word.'
The CC meetings are not 'DNR biologist question and answer' meetings. Important to know how the meetings are structured by the State and the Conservation Congress so you can see why this process is so static in it's execution. The DNR ISN'T there to argue or defend any one point of view in public debate.
It's a Conservation Congress meeting to vote on multiple issues the CC saw fit to ballot. Some are so far beyond any scientific justification, the biologist's response may not be very well received by anyone there, and you have a trainwreck argument that's near impossible to contain..
Remember the feral cat vote?
Dove hunting? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | sworrall - 4/12/2011 11:26 AM ...Remember the feral cat vote? Dove hunting? Dammit Steve... you got me. OK. I agree. The feral cat vote WAS ugly and there's no amount of money anyone could've paid me to be a WI DNR Rep. at that time. ;) Yikes!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Best laugh I have had this week...thanks! |
|
| |
|
| The problem-- there really ISN'T a definitive biological 'reason' for a 40" state wide limit when considering the entire state's muskie population and the entire population of Wisconsin anglers. That IS something the anglers pushed for, and maybe we'll get it. No way is there a 50" limit on Pelican with out Norm and Mike...that's the way it works here.
I was told that one of the reasons is that most fish don’t actually reach sexuality maturity until they around 38" or so. So that is why they are trying to move up to 40" so we can have more fish reproducing on their own. .....Right or wrong? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| Guest - 4/12/2011 12:37 PM
The problem-- there really ISN'T a definitive biological 'reason' for a 40" state wide limit when considering the entire state's muskie population and the entire population of Wisconsin anglers. That IS something the anglers pushed for, and maybe we'll get it. No way is there a 50" limit on Pelican with out Norm and Mike...that's the way it works here.
I was told that one of the reasons is that most fish don’t actually reach sexuality maturity until they around 38" or so. So that is why they are trying to move up to 40" so we can have more fish reproducing on their own. .....Right or wrong?
That was the reasoning listed in the description/info on the question. Even then, that only gives them a few years to spawn. IMO, 44" or 45" would make a lot more sense but good luck getting that to pass. Hopefully the 40" min. will pass statewide, it's a step in the right direction anyways.
Edited by MartinTD 4/12/2011 1:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
| A 40" minimum sze limit protects 95 % of the FEMALE muskies to maturity. Meaning nearly all the female muskies get an opportunity to replace themselves by spawning at least once before they can be harvested. Males mature at smaller sizes so are protected by this rule.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Unfortunately, there are a considerable number of waters in Wisconsin where there's no appreciable NR and a stocking program is responsible for any muskie population, so that issue is moot there. Most of the waters where there's good NR and big fish potential are already carrying a higher size limit. There are also waters where a 40" female is very rare at any age, because the growth rate is so slow due to water chemistry, forage, and more. Some of those systems were looked at for a variance, and some were requested, and some were requested addressing social issues.
Sexual maturity is reached in most WI waters at about 35", I believe. That's what I remember reading anyway, without a search on the subject. Again, 35" or 38", if it's a lake with no NR, it doesn't matter. The 40" limit achieves only one thing in that situation...it allows the muskies to get much bigger before anyone can harvest them and allows that a significant number of muskies to never be harvested because they will not ever reach 40" (some of the male population in some of the smaller waters). Purely a social issue.
And, of course, before some well meaning citizen goes off on me, one I very much support. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 402
Location: Eagle River, WI | Doesn't most everyone release muskies anyways? Let's make it 100" and get it over with. I'm tired of hearing about "little jonnie". If the only joy "little jonny" can get out of fishing is killing all of the fish that he catches, I don't want him fishing anyways. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is the exact expression that causes us as Muskie conserationists to lose at the CC hearings, town board and lake association meetings, and anywhere we try to move public opinion to the side of conservation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 14
| Great discussion on this topic. Waukesha County turn-out seemed pretty good to me as I'm sure there were over a 100 people (although not sure how that compares to a typical year). Only one person commented on the 40" limit making a good comment about not liking the add on to the question with the other lakes reduced to 28", but he would vote for it anyway for the overall good of the state.
There are plenty of discussion points to be made around the 40" size limit and most of us on this forum are obviously somewhat biased. I have tried to help push locally to get as many votes out there as possible to vote for it and I sure hope it will pass. A statewide 34" size limit in the state considered the home of the musky is really somewhat of a joke and needs to be updated with the times. As an avid catch-and-release musky fisherman, and with guys like Fittante out there making unbelievable replica mounts, I too wish it were even higher (even if they won't grow that large in certain lakes), but I'll take 40" over 34" any day.
Does anyone know when the spring hearing results will be available? |
|
| |
|
|
So if I'm understanding this, lakes are stocked where muskies only obtain small sizes, and the feeling is that they are "put" and take fisheries due to low or no natural recruitment?
Why stock them at all? Can't people catch and kill pike to eat?
Isn't muskie stocking a little on the expensive side to be using them for put and take purposes?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | Does anyone know when the spring hearing results will be available? I believe today that results should be known. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| The site currently says the results will be available this afternoon.
http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin |
So if I'm understanding this, lakes are stocked where muskies only obtain small sizes, and the feeling is that they are "put" and take fisheries due to low or no natural recruitment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, some lakes that are stocked to maintain populations don't kick out what you would consider large fish. That doesn't mean that the population of muskies in that water is not valued locally and by tourists. Those waters are known as numbers lakes. Many lakes in SE Wisconsin are stocked or there would be no muskie population, and kick out big fish...those lakes are in need of a 50" limit, IMO.
------------
Why stock them at all? Can't people catch and kill pike to eat?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, and many do. I can think of several lakes around here stocked occasionally with muskies that have an insignificant pike population where I've seen very few fish over low 40's. And, the general practice is C&R, as well into the upper 90 percentile of muskies are released now. Not everyone demands 55" muskies to enjoy the sport.
------
Isn't muskie stocking a little on the expensive side to be using them for put and take purposes? '
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goes back to value, I'd guess. Not all WI lakes are managed as trophy fisheries. Some used to have NR but no longer do because of habitat loss, yet are still destinations for plenty of interested muskie anglers. The expense depends on how well sucker stripping and raising goes to a large degree, last year Keith and the rest of that team statewide knocked it out of the park on a couple lakes and the hatchery in western WI avoided a possible shut down.
WI is in the ending stages of a more than decade long study that will determine what waters get maintenance stocking, which get none at all, etc. My favorite lake in Oneida hasn't been stocked in 10 years, and has a 50" limit. Numbers have dropped off ALOT, and quality has gone up steadily. I have been told that If the numbers from NR don't hold up, the lake will be stocked in the future no matter. Dr. Sloss's work has shown that the native populations are somewhat unaffected anyway....in some cases it appears stocking creates a two story population.
If WI adapts a 'one size fits all' management program with a few lakes added to the list of 45" to 50" trophy waters we have now, I'd bet some of the 'numbers lakes' won't be stocked any more, and we will lose some opportunities.
One of the top muskie managers in the US has suggested a slot on the waters that do not support any sort of 'trophy' fishery. That idea has been rejected, as far as I know, which is unfortunate. I'd like to see it in place on a few lakes up here at least for study purposes.
Look up Escanaba Lake, it's a study lake up here. Interesting stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
I guess was refering to the lakes where a 28" size limit is being proposed.
While not everyone needs/wants to catch big fish, when you consider the resources the DNR has in any state is limited, and that WI has hundreds of muskie lakes, it would seem dollars could be put to better use than funding lakes where fish only get to 36".
I guess I would question the economics of those action lakes being a big tourism draw. It would seem to me that much more money is being spent by anglers who travel the mid-west looking for trophy opportunities for muskie/walleye/pike than locals who could catch other fish to eat than muskies.
But I'm not a local and maybe don't see the whole picture.
'
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Why involve biology at all? The program is largely about providing a fishery managed for anglers so lets look at it from the perspective of maximizing the program's effectiveness.
What is wrong with a business case for a 40" limit? There is a demand for Muskie fisheries. These fish are expensive to stock. They take a long time to grow. People like larger fish and 40" to many is "large". Protecting them protects the investment and provides more opportunities to realize the desired outcome for the consumer. The more the fish are caught and returned, the return on the stocking investment increases. In NR lakes, keeping what is already happening in place preserves the balance and avoids additional costs to maintain.
Letting little Johnny keep a 35" might be great for little Johnny but in the big picture is a lower return on the investment while the cost to the state to run the program isn't getting cheaper while funding is tighter.
Jono
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 393
Location: Hopefully on the water | As far as the "Little Johnny" comments on keeping a fish. it all comes down to the parents teaching their kids about our resources. Yes I take my kids out fishing and there are days that they want to keep every panfish they catch. But we don't and why. I tell my kids that if we let some fish go and only keep what we will eat (and they love to eat fish) there will be fish to catch again another day for us or someone else to have fun reeling those fish in. My kids already at 6 & 8 understand that dad will never nor will they keep a Muskie. If it hits certain sizes for our standards there will be replicas of those fish. As for other species they know also that the small ones will get let go and some of the big females to make more baby fish. Teaching is what it comes down to as to what to keep, what to release and why we do it both ways IMO. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 14
| Thanks for the update, hopefully we will hear some good news later today (although I don't believe this vote by itself guarantees the regs are changed).
Some more great points and discussion. Teaching/educating is key. My daughter caught a 41" fish last year at the age of 9. The thought never even crossed her mind about keeping the fish, but she couldn't wait to ask about getting a replica mount (I think she asked while the fish was still in the net). Joe Fittante did an awesome job with the replica and even had it delivered on Christmas Eve. My daughter couldn't have been happier on Christmas, and she is just as proud of the fact that she let it go as she is about catching it in the first place. The pictures and memories alone are priceless.
I like the economics discussion as well, as ultimately we do get more for our money with a higher size limit.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Why involve biology at all? '
The original question taking us down this path was why biologists don't openly support our desired limits at the CC meetings.
If there was or is something structurally wrong with a statewide 40" limit with minor exceptions, the DNR will let us know what they intend to do once they've seen the results of the CC vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Flambeuski - I know the very people you were referring to and I am friends with some of them and we've been butting heads on Solberg Lake for years regarding muskies. I originally came from Vilas County and married into a Solberg Lake family. I was shocked that the people on Solberg had feelings about muskies that was the exact opposite of what I was customed to in Vilas County. In Vilas muskies were considered the king of fish but on Solberg the muskies were thought of by many as trash fish that should be destroyed. As a result of a Lake Visioning session the Lake Association and DNR wanted to keep Solberg as a 34" lake, they didn"t want to raise it to 40" so the only other option was to include it as a 28" lake. The DNR said someone can try to change it back to 34" next year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | Results are up!! Quick set and 40 inch passed!!
All results: http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2011/201...
Buddy, I hope they shoot for 40 inches next year!! 28 inches on Solberg is a joke!
Edited by KenK 4/13/2011 12:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1145
| Quick Set Rigs passed in all counties. 8 counties rejected the 40" proposal.
With that, can we expect to see the 40" min go through? Does it really depend on what these 8 counties are and what they have to say? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 576
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I believe the overwelming statewide majority rules on this since it is a statewide resolution. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 14
| That is great news on the 40" minimum size limit passing! It passed by more than a 2 to 1 margin (3,221 Yes / 1,485 No) so I would sure hope it becomes the new statewide regulation. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | imo single hook "kill rigs" being outlawed will have a greater positive effect than the 40" size limit..don't get me wrong, both are great ...but it will be a nice sight to see all the single hook rigs banned and no longer being sold in the stores...great news for muskies in WI...
nice to see all the 50" size limits passing as well!!
I like the fact one of the most lopsided vote was for shooting a cougar who is harming a domestic animal....why not add wolves in too!
Edited by BNelson 4/13/2011 2:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Buddy, I don't think 34" will be an option if statewide it changes to 40 (which I hope it does before the 2011 muskie season) I think it's going to have to be 40" or higher. My understanding is if and when 40" is approved no lakes anywhere will have 34" size limits. I personally would love to see Solberg at 45" but as you can see by the county by county vote, Price voters don't even want the 40" size limit, by a fairly wide margin. Just like last year, when I showed up I looked for any of the 25-30 guys I know who live and breath muskie fishing and are residents here and saw 2. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ditto |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| Good to see a lot of the regulations passed! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 196
| BNelson - 4/13/2011 1:49 PM imo single hook "kill rigs" being outlawed will have a greater positive effect than the 40" size limit..don't get me wrong, both are great ...but it will be a nice sight to see all the single hook rigs banned and no longer being sold in the stores...great news for muskies in WI... nice to see all the 50" size limits passing as well!! I like the fact one of the most lopsided vote was for shooting a cougar who is harming a domestic animal.... why not add wolves in too! isn't the first step to delist it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| That's what they've done with the wolves. Makes me wonder how many "nuisance" animals will now be shot. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Seems like things are changing for the better in WI.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | It's really cool you guys in Wisconsin get a say in fishing and hunting regulations. I wish Iowa had a similar system. |
|
| |
|
| Yeah, it's great that a whoppuing 2500-3000 wisconsin outdoorsman and women partake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 5574 attended the meetings, actually. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | sworrall - 4/13/2011 3:27 PM Seems like things are changing for the better in WI. Amen! This is fantastic news, you guys! |
|
| |
|
| 5500 votere out of 1 million license holders! WOW! |
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | At least you have the OPTION to vote. Not many of us get that option. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | Guest - 4/14/2011 9:54 AM 5500 votere out of 1 million license holders! WOW!
At least those ~5500 of us that voted care enough to vote and are also afforded the opportunity to do so. It's free will for people to choose to vote or not. Like Brad said in his opening statement to those that make the conscious choice to not vote, they need to keep their pie hole closed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32919
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And it's also an indication of how easy the vote would be to win if there was a concentrated 'get out and vote' effort extended. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| Amen to that......perhaps as we see good results from the efforts, more effort will be made.......nicely done guys.....
I also know several of us made it up to vote from the flatlands of Ill.........we hope it helped........as I think we are all in this together.
JR |
|
| |
|
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | sworrall - 4/14/2011 10:22 AM And it's also an indication of how easy the vote would be to win if there was a concentrated 'get out and vote' effort extended. Steve makes a solid point here. Each year, I've seen an increase in the number of "antis" attending the hearings in Madison. They speak up, too. Don't know what their turnout was this year, however, as I only voted and didn't sit for the hearings. IMO, with Madison being as liberal as it is, the anti's would have a pretty easy time winning in Dane County if they ever got really organized and concentrated on a 'get out and vote' campaign. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Exactly... with the amount of politics that have escalated here in the state of Wisconsin over the course of the last couple of months, the liberals have made it known that they have voices, too. For all of the concentrated efforts they plan, we (as Musky fishermen) should be doing twice as much.
If you don't vote - you've no right complaining about anything. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | PSYS - 4/14/2011 12:01 PM
Exactly... with the amount of politics that have escalated here in the state of Wisconsin over the course of the last couple of months, the liberals have made it known that they have voices, too. For all of the concentrated efforts they plan, we (as Musky fishermen) should be doing twice as much.
If you don't vote - you've no right complaining about anything.
Scott, I'm trying to understand this statement. I think you are trying to equate all liberals with the anti/PETA types. In other words it appears that you think all "liberals" are against hunting/fishing/trapping.
Is that a correct interpretation of your statement?
Thanks,
Jono
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | ALL libs? Probably not. But I'd go out on a limb and say most Libs are anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-fishing. It's probably safe to say that most Libs vote Democrat. And perhaps we're getting off the beaten path, but your standard anti-gun laws and anti-CCW laws are originated within the Democratic party.
I apologize if I offended you and your political beliefs in anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 25
| The antis could win one, maybe 2 counties, Milwaukee and Dane. Since the tallies are sorted by county I don't see the big deal. Most likely such a movement would become known by sportsman and a strong showing on our part would neutralize their efforts. Secondly these are advisory questions, not binding referendum. We have all seen questions that pass at advisory, but go nowhere. So even if the antis win a question or 2, in 1-2 counties, doesn't mean their wishes will be granted.
Part of being able to give your 2 cents is having to deal with other people's pennies as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | PSYS - 4/14/2011 12:43 PM
ALL libs? Probably not. But I'd go out on a limb and say most Libs are anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-fishing. It's probably safe to say that most Libs vote Democrat. And perhaps we're getting off the beaten path, but your standard anti-gun laws and anti-CCW laws are originated within the Democratic party.
I apologize if I offended you and your political beliefs in anyway.
Thanks for the clarification. I understand.
Jono |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8820
| I'd venture to say that if your are pro hunting, pro fishing, and you support the right to own and carry a weapon, you might not be as liberal as you think! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 581
| PSYS - 4/14/2011 12:43 PM
ALL libs? Probably not. But I'd go out on a limb and say most Libs are anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-fishing. It's probably safe to say that most Libs vote Democrat. And perhaps we're getting off the beaten path, but your standard anti-gun laws and anti-CCW laws are originated within the Democratic party.
Not to get into a discussion about this, but it's probably true that virtually all of the PETA-types are liberals. But it is pretty inaccurate to say that most liberals are PETA-types. I have many friends on both sides of the political aisle, and none of the "liberals" that I know are anti-hunting or anti-fishing. In fact, many if not most of them either hunt or fish, or both.
Fortunately, we have a constitutional amendment here in WI that guarantees the right to hunt, fish, trap and take game. That was passed in 2003...with broad support from both sides of the political spectrum. In fact, then-Governor Doyle was one of the amendment's strongest advocates. |
|
| |
|
| Hmmm. I always thought that muskie fisherman were some of most left leaning fisherman out there. Always calling for more regs, laws and restrictions. Sounds kinda liberal too me. Ultra concerned about the health of the lakes and rivers.
Sounds like a tree hugging liberal Eh? Looking down thier noses at those others and there stinking two strokes. I think I see a liberal agenda here guys LOL!
Good changes for WI! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 109
| "Fortunately, we have a constitutional amendment here in WI that guarantees the right to hunt, fish, trap and take game. That was passed in 2003...with broad support from both sides of the political spectrum. In fact, then-Governor Doyle was one of the amendment's strongest advocates."
Thanks Matt. I love how every issue becomes us against them. For the love of musky fishing, can we just have a conversation about issues rather than grouping mass numbers of people? I am assuming there are a wide range of political backgrounds that visit this board and pretty much all of them love to musky fish and have healthy fisheries.....or did I just create a political statement.
-Conservation Guy |
|
| |
|
| WOW, so because i kill more stuff than most guys, love to fish, believe in the right to bear arms I am a republican? I guess I voted wrong in the last election.
We paint with a broad brush now don't we...
What am I if I care for the environment, and love to partake in all the above activities?
How about if i do all that and have a wife that is vegan?
I'd say that if you vote based on those few issues you maybe shouldn't vote at all.
Got a news flash for you. NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS! I'd venture to say there'd be quite a turnout in Madison if a legislator on either side of the isle propoesd that one.
Please stop typing silly posts!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | PSYS - 4/14/2011 12:43 PM
ALL libs? Probably not. But I'd go out on a limb and say most Libs are anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-fishing. It's probably safe to say that most Libs vote Democrat. And perhaps we're getting off the beaten path, but your standard anti-gun laws and anti-CCW laws are originated within the Democratic party.
I apologize if I offended you and your political beliefs in anyway.
I'm a "liberal and know many others that wouldn't consider themselves "anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-fishing". Your statement is as true as me saying I'd probably go out on a limb and say that most Conservatives are anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-personal decisions, and anti-labor.
I apologize if I offended you and your political beliefs in anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | esoxaddict - 4/14/2011 1:45 PM I'd venture to say that if your are pro hunting, pro fishing, and you support the right to own and carry a weapon, you might not be as liberal as you think! Thanks... this is basically all I was getting at. On the MuskieFIRST board and this forum, as far as I'm concerned - we're all musky fishermen. It makes no difference to me if you're white, black, purple or green. And I don't care if you vote Republican or Democrat. And I don't care if you're a leftist liberal sippin' on Kool-Aid or a right-wing extremist drinkin' Tea. Makes no difference if you're a private or public sector worker either. Group hug, everyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | esoxaddict - 4/14/2011 1:45 PM
I'd venture to say that if your are pro hunting, pro fishing, and you support the right to own and carry a weapon, you might not be as liberal as you think!
And again, you're ignorant. That doesn't mean you are stupid (we've had THAT conversation before) it just means you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 173
| Does any group feel left out ? Shouldn't take but one more page for everyone to be offended. Often I wish keyboards had breathalizers . |
|
| |
Get out and VOTE tonight in WI