|
|
Location: 31 | Hi all,
Re: the 40" limit and quick strike rig proposals. As most of you already know, both proposals were supported by over 2:1 margins.
The 40" margin, 3,221 Y / 1,485 No, with only 8 of 72 counties opposed.
The quick strike rig margin, 3,547 Y / 1,091 N, all 72 counties supported the proposal!
I sent an e-mail today to Mr. Tim Simonson of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to gather additional information and see where it goes from here. The next step will be for them to recommend the proposals to administration, for the Conservation Congress to take a position, and then for the Natural Resources Board to adopt them. There will be a legislative review, and then possibly even an Executive Branch review. It sounds complicated, but Mr. Simonson assured me he did not expect to see much opposition through the rest of the process. "If all goes well, both proposals will take effect next season - 2012. Tim"
If the situation deteriorates, he said he would let us know (hopefully not, but I suspect we would want to consider letters and phone calls if that happens). I also inquired when we should proceed with increasing the length limit on the 28" limit lakes that were "folded in". His advice was to wait until the 40" is set in stone, and then he will help with that procedure. Thank you Mr. Simonson, and to everyone who took the time to vote!
Congratulations Wisconsin muskie anglers, this is a giant step in the right direction!
That is about it, just a quick update.
Jerry Newman
World Muskie Alliance
|
|
| |
|
| I have had a fair amount of interaction with Mr Simonson over the years and I must say he knows the politics that goes on, but he also has his head on straight and shares a lot of the same perspectives and the majority of the folks on the board.
The reason I am saying this, is when you hear someone spouting off about how backwards or whatever the DNR is, just remember, there are some seriously good people that ARE with the DNR that ARE trying to do what is right...
Great news on the proposals!
Cory |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| I agree with Cory. Tim's is definitely one of the good guys and someone who has earned my respect.
I'm wondering however, if we should be just a bit on the proactive side of this, rather than reactionary. I mean, if the CC, NRB and Executive branch start to waffle.......by the time we hear about it and get mobilized and get our letters and phone calls sent out, my fear is it will be too late.
Maybe just a little gentle pat on the backside and a "Thankyou in advance" would get us over the hump. Rather than when the cart starts sliding backwards and gets momentum the other way, and THEN we all have to start pushing.
Perhaps I'm being paranoid. But I've just seen way too many "done deals" vaporize.
Regards,
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Great to hear. I somehow missed the voting thing. I guess I hadn't been paying attention. I'm glad both issues got favorable votes in the right way, especially the 40" size limit. Definately a step in the right direction.
Tucker
Edited by curleytail 4/15/2011 10:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Wow, great job guys! congratulations well on the way to making the fisheries better quality over there. Protection for the larger fish is key!! With the quality of the repoductions as they are and the costs lined up you'd think it's a no brainer on mounts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Thanks for sharing this information!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| So what possible obstacles would be in the way of this actually becoming law in 2012?
Edited by esoxaddict 4/15/2011 12:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I believe the 40 inch limit came from the DNR, so it should be a slam dunk for the 2012 season. I'm not sure about the quick-set proposal. If it came from anywhere other than the DNR it will probably have to jump through some commitee hoops and could potentially be shot down. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I might be naieve here, but are that many people still using isngle hook rigs? I know they are frowned upon in my area (NW Vilas) but I suspect that the "muskie mentality" you find up there is not as prevalent in other areas. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | A couple of fellas spoke out against quick strike rigs in Price. Also, a well known guide in the Star Lake area continues to use them and teach clients how to use them as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | The DNR put the quick strike rigs question on the ballot so that should be a slam dunk along with the size limits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | I see them getting used in Price County all the time. There is still a well established catch/kill mentality there. That "Secret Method" is still very much alive and well throughout northern Wisconsin. Getting rid of the single hooks will really benefit the resource along with the 40 inch limit and will prevent a bunch of musky bakes! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Well Ken, I hope that you are right. My concern at this point is enforcement. I am guessing that the single hook/musky bake crowd is going to harvest what they want when they want, catching it however they want, and unless they get caught and punished severely for those practices, the practice will continue.
In any case, this is a step in the right direction for WI, and long overdue IMO. It will be interesting to see of the overall size goes up over the next 5-6 years. It will also be interesting to see if this helps natural reproduction and to what degree. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 157
Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | Thankfully the DNR had an increased presence on Solberg L. last year, partly due to complaints by other anglers about a local fish hog. In fact I was checked 4 times last summer compared to only twice (both on opening weekends) in the previous 40 years. My son and daughter were checked once 8 years ago. DNR - Thanks and please keep up the patrols and to everyone else please call the TIP LIne, 1-800-TIP-WDNR (1-800-847-9367). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Never been checked in WI. Been fishing there regularly since the 70's, and I have not been checked once. I've never even seen a warden in Vilas. I guess that isn't all that surprising considering the number of lakes up there, but I've been checked in Canada, and at least a dozen times in IL. I get that they can't be everywhere, but I've been buying a license every year since 1985. It would be nice to actually take it out of my wallet and unfold it for once! |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | The 40" passed in all but 8 of 72 counties, so down the road we know where the opposition may come from, more importantly where Wisconsin muskie anglers might need to stage rallys in the future. Clark, Forest, Iron, Price, Rusk, Taylor, Waupaca and Wood counties are the ones that voted against it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Thanks, Jerry.
So this "opposition"... What exactly would they have against a 40" size limit? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | 1: they want to keep whatever they catch. 2: the muskies are eating all the walleyes, perch, pannies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| The 40" passed in all but 8 of 72 counties, so down the road we know where the opposition may come from, more importantly where Wisconsin muskie anglers might need to stage rallys in the future. Clark, Forest, Iron, Price, Rusk, Taylor, Waupaca and Wood counties are the ones that voted against it.
Don't make it sound like there was fanatical anti 40" sentiment in all those counties. There wasn't. There is no need for a 'pre-emptive strike'. Take off the tinfoil hat and relax...
Here are the county by county results from the 8 counties where the 40" question failed, the number of people who attended the meeting and the number of musky waters present in each of those counties out of the approximately 800 present in the state
Clark County - attendance 58 (5 musky waters): Yes - 24 / No - 25
Forest County - attendance 31 (8 musky waters): Yes - 11 / No - 19
Iron County - attendance 21 (72 musky waters): Yes - 7 / No - 12
Price County - attendance 102 (39 musky waters): Yes - 35 / No - 51
Rusk County - attendance 37 (20 musky waters): Yes - 13 / No - 21
Taylor County - attendance 55 (6 musky waters): Yes - 16 / No - 33
Waupaca County - attenance 163 (0 musky waters): Yes - 66 / No - 73
Wood County - attendance 83 (5 musky waters): Yes - 32 / No - 33
As you can see, there really wasn't an 'overwhelming' sentiment against it. In 6 of the 8 counties where it failed, just a very small handful of 'yes' votes would have brought it over the top. The 2 with the strongest opposition were Price and Taylor, and the 2 with the closest votes were Clark and Wood, both of which came up a single vote short of a tie and 2 short of a pass. In addition, out of all the Counties where the question failed it's ironic that Waupaca County had the highest turnout and greatest number of people who voted on the question yet they don't even have a single musky water present in the entire County.
Edited by esoxcpr 4/16/2011 8:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| To expand further, Here are the results from the 3 counties with the greatest concentrations of musky waters:
Vilas County - attendance 99 (198 musky waters): Yes - 59 / No - 33
Oneida County - attendance 124 (135 musky waters): Yes - 62 / No - 57
Sawyer County - attendance 93 (73 musky waters): Yes - 61 / No - 22 |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Thanks for putting those numbers up, something else to consider moving forward.
My thought was not to imply we needed a major preemptive strike, although I suppose it could have been interpreted that way. I just think it's better to be prepared and not be complacent in the future, four votes against for instance, and we lose Wood and Clark County. Who knows if those four votes could have made a difference. I would assume that at some point in time the future were going to consider revisiting a possible increase the 40" length limit, or have other important muskie related issues on the ballot too.
I don't have a lot of time today, but it would be interesting to cross-reference the 28" length limit lakes against the counties that voted against the 40".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Jerry Newman - 4/16/2011 10:59 AM I don't have a lot of time today, but it would be interesting to cross-reference the 28" length limit lakes against the counties that voted against the 40". It's funny you posted this because I was thinking the same thing last week... I think it would be an interesting compare/contrast to see where this data lies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| That's easy, as there are only 10 lakes in 5 Counties being reduced to 28". Of those 5 Counties, the 40" proposal only failed in one of them (Price). I'd say there's no coorelation at all with Counties that had the 28" lakes proposed and the Counties where the 40" question passed or failed. 10 lakes being reduced out of 800 isn't even a statistically significant number, being just a tad over 1% of the total number of musky waters in the state. With the sheer number of musky opportunities the state has, it's reasonable to have some waters set aside for those who want to catch and keep muskies, just as it's reasonable to have certain waters set aside as trophy waters:
Ashland County (28" limit on English & Mineral Lakes) - attendance 57 / 32 musky waters / Yes - 27 / No - 25
Oneida County (28" limit on Bearskin, Booth, Julia, Squaw Lakes) - attendance 124 / 135 musky waters / Yes - 62 / No - 57
Price County (28" limit on Butternut / Solberg Lakes) - attendance 102 / 39 musky waters / Yes - 35 / No - 51
Sawyer County - (28" limit on Spider Lake) - attendance 93 / 73 musky waters / Yes - 61 / No - 22
Vilas County (28" limit on Upper Gresham lake) - attendance 99 / 198 musky waters / Yes - 59 / No - 33
Edited by esoxcpr 4/16/2011 9:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I talked to one guy in Price who voted against 40 because of the 28 inch lakes. I doubt many others did but who knows? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| esoxcpr said:
"Don't make it sound like there was fanatical anti 40" sentiment in all those counties. There wasn't. There is no need for a 'pre-emptive strike'. Take off the tinfoil hat and relax..." esoxcpr: thanks for your number crunching and the breakdown of info in your last couple posts. Makes the mumbo jumbo that much more digestible for the rest of us. I don't see this as anyone ranting and raving like a lunatic, nor have I seen any hats constructed of a light, highly conductive, silverish metal. I just don't think that's fair. I think the plan here is to be ahead of the game for next time, and to know where our strongholds were.....and weren't, on this round. I believe the breakdown of the data shows that we were very close to a statewide sweep. Which means that if a few more of "us" went, we'd have cleaned house. As it stands, this should be seen as a great victory for the muskie crowd, and a step in the right direction for Wisconsin's rich and storied muskie fishery. But there's more steps to this process. And knowing your strengths and weaknesses is always a good thing. Thanks, -Eric
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have seen a very small group of folks nearly undo a muskie program that took several years and a ton of effort to get through the CC and into the regs. Nothing wrong with some vigilance. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Waupaca County - attenance 163 (0 musky waters): Yes - 66 / No - 73 Doesn't Waupaca County have the entire Waupaca Chain....like a dozen or whatever super tiny connected potholes.... that contain muskie? I'm just about sure that one of my muskie books lists them as having muskies. Irrelevant to the thread and the topic, I realize. Just caught my eye. -Eric
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 224
Location: Madison | Doesn't Waupaca County have the entire Waupaca Chain
Yep: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/lakes/waupaca.html |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | esoxcpr - 4/16/2011 8:39 AM
Wood County - attendance 83 (5 musky waters): Yes - 32 / No - 33
Actually there is one Musky water in Wood County, the Wisconsin river(I know it is listed as 5 but...). I believe there was a bit of confusion that night, as the size limit on Wood County waters is already 45", and folks donn't want to see a change there. I wish I could've been there that night, but could not get out of a commitment. That said, Several years ago(can't beleive its been that long) when we drafted the 45" here, the crowd was very supportive.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/19/2011 8:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| Guys - My numbers on how many musky waters each county had was directly from the hard copy of the WDNR booklet titled "Wisconsin Muskellunge Waters" that I have. I believe they only count those waters which are classified as having a fishable population which they assign a "Class" and "Category" based on the abundance of muskies and the reproductive status. There are many other waters not listed in the booklet which do contain very small numbers or unknown numbers of muskies, but do not have an assigned Class and Category because they don't contain what Fisheries Biologists would term a 'fishable population' of muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 409
Location: Almond, WI | Here's the most recent stocking dates for waters in Waupaca County.
Columbia-Tigers in 1988
Crystal Lake-Trues in 1973
Miner-Tigers in 1988
Taylor-Tigers in 1988
Wolf River-Great Lakes Spotted in 2002, 2004 and 2005
With the exception of the Wolf River, it's pretty safe to say Waupaca County lacks any current muskie population. My parents live about 20 mins. from the Chain, and they've never relayed any incidental catches to me either. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I would certainly like to see musky stocking happen in the Waupaca Chain of lakes to the point that it has a fishable population...It would be a great place to fish. No wake on most lakes, very scenic, a few nice bars / restaurants, clear water, nice weeds, plenty of stunted panfish. Over the years I have heard of a few large tigers being seen and 1 or 2 caught, but that's not enough to make me want to spend any time there. This water has huge potential and musky fishermen could bring quite a bit of extra tourist dollars to the area. Now someone needs to convince the biologist and lake association. Anybody? |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Hey Joe,
I would love to work this project with you, unfortunately I have a lot my plate right now. If you're willing to take the lead please let me know what you need via email and we will see what we can do.
CU,
Jerry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | The point was that Wood County only has one Musky water, the Wisconsin river regardless of what is in the book with the really cool pencil drawing on the cover(very neat action scene). The DNR separates the river into 5 sections(based on the dams in place), but it is one water, and that one water is already at 45", and why there was a bit of confusion re the question. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 11
Location: Wisconsin | Thanks for bringing this up. I actually voted no on 40" because we already have the 45" limit.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| What confusion? You guys voted "no" for absolutely no reason except ignorance, and personally caused the 40" proposal to fail in a county where it should have won. If you would have taken the 2 minutes to read the background information instead of simply voting 'no' based on reading the question, you would have seen that it states that waters with current 45" and 50" regulations (there are about 20 that exist throughout the state) would stay that way.
The actual wording of the last paragraph of the background info reads:
"Finally, this proposal would greatly simplify regulations by reducing the number of regulation categories from 5 to 3. If approved, the uniform 40-inch minimum size limit regulation would apply to approximately 750, or 95%, of muskellunge waters. Approximately 20 waters would have a 28-inch minimum size limit and approximately 20 waters would continue to have a 45- or 50-inch minimum size limit."
When you assume...
Obviously it probably doesn't hurt the overall chances of the regulation moving forward, but 65 Counties is better than 64, etc especially when a simple process as reading the background that was shown before the question would and should have cleared up any such confusion and flipped it from failing by one vote to passing.
Edited by esoxcpr 4/22/2011 7:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| On the Waupaca Chain....I think its an interesting idea. But the "Little Johnny" factor is going to be off the charts there. That place is resort central, and bills itself as such. For those of you who fish the Barbee Chain in Indiana....its like having a whole pile of Banning/Kuhn -sized lakes (most with the clarity of Kuhn or Irish) all connected together. You'd need protection measures or those fish are goners.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 11
Location: Wisconsin | mgoody - 4/21/2011 10:30 PM
Thanks for bringing this up. I actually voted no on 40" because we already have the 45" limit.
Mike
I did not post this. a friend and I argued about this before the hearings. I supported the proposal, he eventually got it figured out also. Looks like he was just trying to fire me up here.
I agree with esoxcpr, Statewide support helps with even local issues.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | esoxcpr - 4/22/2011 7:06 AM
What confusion? You guys voted "no" for absolutely no reason except ignorance, and personally caused the 40" proposal to fail in a county where it should have won. If you would have taken the 2 minutes to read the background information instead of simply voting 'no' based on reading the question, you would have seen that it states that waters with current 45" and 50" regulations (there are about 20 that exist throughout the state) would stay that way.
The actual wording of the last paragraph of the background info reads:
"Finally, this proposal would greatly simplify regulations by reducing the number of regulation categories from 5 to 3. If approved, the uniform 40-inch minimum size limit regulation would apply to approximately 750, or 95%, of muskellunge waters. Approximately 20 waters would have a 28-inch minimum size limit and approximately 20 waters would continue to have a 45- or 50-inch minimum size limit."
When you assume...
Obviously it probably doesn't hurt the overall chances of the regulation moving forward, but 65 Counties is better than 64, etc especially when a simple process as reading the background that was shown before the question would and should have cleared up any such confusion and flipped it from failing by one vote to passing.
'You guys'? 'personally caused it to fail'? Understand something, captain copypaste: if one would've read my post, one would seen that I couldn't attend. Which county did you vote in? I explained what I was told by a few people who attended the meeting as to how things may have gone with a couple people. Nobody spoke up as far as I know. Would it have been more acceptable if I would have been there, and was bombarded by 'little johnny' protests and still couldn't've gotten the job done? And if it obviously doesn't hurt its' chances of moving forward, how is 65 better than 64?
To the positive, this is the first time that I can remember Wood not passing an increase, which didn't matter for a change in the grand scheme. This is something for WI Musky anglers to be proud of.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/27/2011 10:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, fighting amongst ourselves makes absolutely no sense. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: Shawano, WI | sworrall - 4/27/2011 9:21 PM
OK, fighting amongst ourselves makes absolutely no sense.
AGREED  |
|
| |
Wisconsin DNR spring hearings update