Posted 9/19/2011 8:27 AM (#517109) Subject: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
Representative Jim Steineke is looking for support of a bill to get a Muskie stamp in the State of Wisconsin. Along with a 54" size limit for Green Bay, two separate bills. A little grass roots help as in calling or emailing your Rep. and Senator to support this would be very very helpful. It does not take that many people to contact your legislators to get them to take notice on issues.
Here is the stamp proposal:
Problem/Solution:
Problem:
1. The current methods of estimating muskellunge harvest are not precise
2. Available funding for the muskellunge is not adequately keeping up with demand.
Today's muskellunge anglers are primarily interested in catching larger, trophy-caliber fish while
the longevity of the species (a trophy is approximately 15 years old) mandates a better way to
estimate angler interest and harvest. Compounding the problem is not having enough appropriate
funding available to help with the revitalization of Wisconsin muskie tourism.
Solution:
1. Registration of harvested muskellunge would be beneficial for management purposes.
2. A muskellunge stamp would create a designated revenue base to enhance the fishery.
A registration program similar to that of the Canada goose would provide the accuracy and
precision required for better management of the species. The creation of a muskellunge stamp
similar to the trout stamp would increase revenue to help develop and maintain larger, more
beneficial long-term programs.
Solution Description
A Muskellunge stamp and 48-hour mandatory registration program:
Issuance: The Department of Natural Resources shall make available muskellunge stamps
and the reporting guidelines to any person holding or applying for a fishing license if the
person intends to fish for or possess a muskellunge in the state.
Stamp requirement: No person may fish for muskellunge in any state waters unless he or
she has a valid fishing license and muskellunge stamp.
Registration requirement: No person may possess a muskellunge taken by hook and line
from the state waters unless he or she registers the fish in the manner required by the
department.
Use of moneys from fees: The department shall deposit the receipts from the sale of all
muskellunge stamps issued under this subsection into the muskellunge conservation fund.
Muskellunge stocking, protection & habitat fund. Moneys generated from the stamp will
be used to help manage Wisconsin muskellunge fisheries, protect/improve/maintain
muskellunge habitat, and for administration of the muskellunge stamp program.
Cost: Muskellunge Stamp $10
Posted 9/19/2011 10:03 AM (#517121 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Location: Sawyer County, WI
"Use of moneys from fees: The department shall deposit the receipts from the sale of all
muskellunge stamps issued under this subsection into the muskellunge conservation fund.
Muskellunge stocking, protection & habitat fund. Moneys generated from the stamp will
be used to help manage Wisconsin muskellunge fisheries, protect/improve/maintain
muskellunge habitat, and for administration of the muskellunge stamp program.
Cost: Muskellunge Stamp $10"
Exactly what percentage of the $10 will be allocated to "administrative" costs ? Can we get guarantees that administrative costs won't exceed a specific ceiling ? While I'm all up for supporting and improving the resource, this smells like a pool of funds that will soon be subject to yet another government cash grab...
Posted 9/19/2011 10:06 AM (#517124 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
can we ask them to tax our trailers or implement a state-wide launching tax/fee while we're at it? i just don't feel like i'm giving the government enough money these days.
Posted 9/19/2011 10:14 AM (#517127 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 1270
Yes please call your legislator and tell them that we already pay enough and that another tax (which is what this stamp is) is not acceptable. Not only is it unacceptable but it would lower the amount of musky anglers by a pretty good amount there by having less interest in musky fishing and it would actually hurt musky fishing.
The 54" GB limit, sure let's have the politicians do it since the conservation congress hasn't been able to do anything about it even though it's passed everytime it's been brought to a vote.
If you feel that the small amount of money put into the muskie program at the discretion of the bosses at the DNR is fine compared to money dedicated to muskie, tell your legislators that also.
Posted 9/19/2011 10:51 AM (#517131 - in reply to #517127) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Location: 31
Most people I have talked to believe that a muskie stamp for Wisconsin is long overdue.
I realized $10 is an additional tax some of you may not be wanting to pay. However, before denouncing it so quickly, perhaps some consideration should be given to how beneficial the trout stamp has been for that fishery. It's the same basic model.
Posted 9/19/2011 11:02 AM (#517132 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 202
Location: Rhinelander
Awesome, more government intervention. So when the crappie population gets worse and all the crappie fanatics want to improve the resource am I going to have to buy a crappie permit? Isn't the lake public property? Why should I pay for something that should be free. Its like launch fees at public landings, the key word being public!
Sorry, I am for improving the resource, but enough is enough. Its not just $10. Its $10 for me, my wife, my daughter, and 2 nephews who regularly fish with me. Thats $50 in unneeded TAX!
I am totally onboard with reelman, call your legislator and tell them enough is enough.
If you feel that the small amount of money put into the muskie program at the discretion of the bosses at the DNR is fine compared to money dedicated to muskie, tell your legislators that also.
That survey is very hard to read but it appears that the 82% that would buy a stamp are musky club members, not the general fishing public. Of course you are going to get a high % when you ask finatics of a certain group if they would still buy a stamp. Just like you would get a higher than normal % if you did a survey of people on this web-site.
IMHO musky fishing is better than it ever has been in WIsconsin. Remember the days of hoping to catch a legal musky in a year? Read "Time On The Water" and see how it was not so long ago. What would be done with the more money that this stamp would bring in? Do more useless surveys and research?
Posted 9/19/2011 11:26 AM (#517138 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 1145
Wow. We're talking about $10 here. With the expense of this sport, that's like a penny.
People like to b*tch about the WI-DNR as compared to the MN-DNR's musky program, yet they're not willing to donate $10 for the cause. Call a spade a spade...
Posted 9/19/2011 12:35 PM (#517157 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Once again, absolutle lack of any awareness of reality has caused a really egregious statement to be posted..
'Do more useless surveys and research?'
Wow.
The management program that GOT us where we are today with the best muskie fishing in Wisconsin in a very long time requires the very thing you are attacking attached to the hip of a conservation ethic from folks like us. AND, the DNR is broke. Busted. The crews they field are tiny compared to pre-resession. Thank goodness Woodruff has the netting crew in the field they do; without the dedication and hard work of a very few people walleye and muskie stocking numbers this year in many WI waters would be horrible to zero.
I don't like the idea of Muskie stamps much. If the state needs more revenue for fisheries management (and they do), raising the license fee proportionately for everyone is the least objectionable path.
Posted 9/19/2011 2:54 PM (#517188 - in reply to #517157) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
sworrall - 9/19/2011 12:35 PM
Once again, absolutle lack of any awareness of reality has caused a really egregious statement to be posted..
'Do more useless surveys and research?'
Wow.
The management program that GOT us where we are today with the best muskie fishing in Wisconsin in a very long time requires the very thing you are attacking attached to the hip of a conservation ethic from folks like us. AND, the DNR is broke. Busted. The crews they field are tiny compared to pre-resession. Thank goodness Woodruff has the netting crew in the field they do; without the dedication and hard work of a very few people walleye and muskie stocking numbers this year in many WI waters would be horrible to zero.
I don't like the idea of Muskie stamps much. If the state needs more revenue for fisheries management (and they do), raising the license fee proportionately for everyone is the least objectionable path.
Agreed. Everyone is quick to blame the WDNR, yet when it comes down to needing funds no one is willing to pitch in.
Yes, it is a public resource. If there is no funding from the public then the public resource gets no help.
Posted 9/19/2011 3:05 PM (#517189 - in reply to #517188) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
i'd be a whole lot more inclined to fund walleye improvement with additional fund-generation than a stamp for muskies ... the walleye fishery including habitat protection is an example of something that is "in-need" in Wisconsin.
otherwise i might just upsize my pike-fishing gear and bypass the additional cost of the stamp, yet be prepared in-case i catch an incedental musky.
lambeau
Posted 9/19/2011 3:08 PM (#517191 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
i don't support this idea because i don't support legislators dictating natural resource policy on an issue-by-issue basis.
first of all, the legislature has plenty more important issues to focus on than whether or not to enact a muskie stamp. secondly, that knife cuts both ways and it's been used against muskie interests with bad effect too.
i'd support the legislature instead passing a law to disband the Conservation Congress system and then empowering the DNR to manage based on the best scientific principles of resource conservation.
Posted 9/19/2011 3:12 PM (#517192 - in reply to #517191) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
lambeau - 9/19/2011 3:08 PM
i don't support this idea because i don't support legislators dictating natural resource policy on an issue-by-issue basis.
first of all, the legislature has plenty more important issues to focus on than whether or not to enact a muskie stamp. secondly, that knife cuts both ways and it's been used against muskie interests with bad effect too.
i'd support the legislature instead passing a law to disband the Conservation Congress system and then empowering the DNR to manage based on the best scientific principles of resource conservation.
Posted 9/19/2011 3:20 PM (#517193 - in reply to #517188) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 720
Pointerpride102 - 9/19/2011 2:54 PM
sworrall - 9/19/2011 12:35 PM
Once again, absolutle lack of any awareness of reality has caused a really egregious statement to be posted..
'Do more useless surveys and research?'
Wow.
The management program that GOT us where we are today with the best muskie fishing in Wisconsin in a very long time requires the very thing you are attacking attached to the hip of a conservation ethic from folks like us. AND, the DNR is broke. Busted. The crews they field are tiny compared to pre-resession. Thank goodness Woodruff has the netting crew in the field they do; without the dedication and hard work of a very few people walleye and muskie stocking numbers this year in many WI waters would be horrible to zero.
I don't like the idea of Muskie stamps much. If the state needs more revenue for fisheries management (and they do), raising the license fee proportionately for everyone is the least objectionable path.
Agreed. Everyone is quick to blame the WDNR, yet when it comes down to needing funds no one is willing to pitch in.
Well said guys.
Yes, it is a public resource. If there is no funding from the public then the public resource gets no help.
Posted 9/19/2011 3:28 PM (#517197 - in reply to #517191) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
lambeau - 9/19/2011 3:08 PM
i don't support this idea because i don't support legislators dictating natural resource policy on an issue-by-issue basis.
first of all, the legislature has plenty more important issues to focus on than whether or not to enact a muskie stamp. secondly, that knife cuts both ways and it's been used against muskie interests with bad effect too.
i'd support the legislature instead passing a law to disband the Conservation Congress system and then empowering the DNR to manage based on the best scientific principles of resource conservation.
All well and good, but where does the money come from? Fishing license sales are down nation wide, as is the purchase of equipment, boats, gas etc.
I agree getting rid of the CC meetings would be great, as would empowering the DNR to manage based on their scientific knowledge. But management costs money. Gaining knowledge about the resources costs money. Money that isn't there right now.
I don't think the musky stamp is the best option. A hike in the fishing license fee would be a great start. What does a resident full season fishing license cost these days?
Posted 9/19/2011 3:45 PM (#517205 - in reply to #517191) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
Lambeau - A stamp HAS to be done through the legislature(it is the money thing), the DNR or the CC can not do a stamp. That is why it was approached this way.
Posted 9/19/2011 3:48 PM (#517206 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek
$20 for the license, $10 for GL trout and salmon, $10 for inland trout. I'd be in favor if the money was used for its intended purpose and only that, and if the other option was discontinued stocking.
While they're at it they could charge a little more than the measly $12 for extra doe tags in one of the zones I hunt. By raising it to $20 they could pull in an extra $46,000.
Posted 9/19/2011 4:00 PM (#517209 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin
Instead of a stamp, how about a Musky license plate?
How are you going to regulate a stamp? Its not like your fishing in a trout stream without a stamp, anyone on the water can just say they were pike fishing or something so they don't have to have the stamp. The guys who want to support the fishery will buy the stamp, but most won't a year or two down the road.
lambeau
Posted 9/19/2011 4:20 PM (#517214 - in reply to #517205) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
All well and good, but where does the money come from?
A stamp HAS to be done through the legislature(it is the money thing), the DNR or the CC can not do a stamp. That is why it was approached this way.
i don't think the hoped-for advantages (money dedicated to muskies) are worth the potential costs involved such as irritating many muskie fishermen and treading the primrose path of politicizing resource management.
from my point of view we should be making proactive efforts to _prevent_ politicians from getting involved in department-level resource decisions, not encouraging it.
i don't have a different suggestion, but i'm very uneasy about this one. IF you're going to proceed, then i would make sure it was a stamp only needed to harvest muskie and not one needed to fish for muskie. it will be less irritating to those who don't want to pay extra and it will still have the benefit of preventing harvest of "accidental" muskie catches.
Posted 9/19/2011 4:24 PM (#517215 - in reply to #517197) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
Pointerpride102 - 9/19/2011 3:28 PM
All well and good, but where does the money come from? Fishing license sales are down nation wide, as is the purchase of equipment, boats, gas etc.
yah, so let's make it even more complicated, expensive and cumbersome for a family to spend money on license fees and add 10 bucks a head for a stamp. a deterent? or a money-generator??
fees, taxes and regulations on public-use ... let's ask them for limited hp on lakes maybe too??? what the heck, we all have kickers, right?! we could become illinois and have all state-regulated and run waters and parks where legislators tell us what we can and can't do.
on another site muskies are being compared to trout and unfortunately it seems that's what it's becoming.
we're asking people to regulate and tax us ... holy crap!
Posted 9/19/2011 4:45 PM (#517217 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan!
I'd go as far as to suggest that this really isn't just a WI issue. DNR departments in many states are operating on shoestring budgets, feilding numbers of workers last seen in the 40's! It would be a good thing for the "Muskie Fisherpeople" to stand up with a proposal of what we feel would best suit both the resource and capitol issues. Something that could be a cookie-cutter from state to state.
Posted 9/19/2011 8:31 PM (#517250 - in reply to #517215) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
jonnysled - 9/19/2011 4:24 PM
Pointerpride102 - 9/19/2011 3:28 PM
All well and good, but where does the money come from? Fishing license sales are down nation wide, as is the purchase of equipment, boats, gas etc.
yah, so let's make it even more complicated, expensive and cumbersome for a family to spend money on license fees and add 10 bucks a head for a stamp. a deterent? or a money-generator??
fees, taxes and regulations on public-use ... let's ask them for limited hp on lakes maybe too??? what the heck, we all have kickers, right?! we could become illinois and have all state-regulated and run waters and parks where legislators tell us what we can and can't do.
on another site muskies are being compared to trout and unfortunately it seems that's what it's becoming.
we're asking people to regulate and tax us ... holy crap!
I was under the assumption the stamp would only be for the harvesting of a musky, not to simply fish for it. Too much gray area in enforcement to make simply for fishing for them.
But everyone keeps demanding they want more, more, more out of the WDNR. There is no money to do so. Fishing and hunting license price increases are needed around the country. Skip the stamp and raise the price 10 bucks on a license. Hunting or fishing. Or go in $5 increments each year or every other year. The status quo in Wisconsin isn't working, the DNR is broke.
Posted 9/19/2011 8:47 PM (#517256 - in reply to #517250) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
try telling those that keep muskies they have to spend an extra 10 bucks ... what did you think it was pointer??
it's the first foot onto the slippery slope of taxing public-use ... in 10 years we can all reminisce about where it all started. we asked to be taxed and regulated and then the add-ons were even easier to come by and folks started to forget where the funding went to. send this republican congressman a message to change parties or get himself in-line with the people who voted him in. it's ridiculous and i hope his constituents are letting him know it.
i've caught pike and walleyes on depthraiders, double 10's and weagles so i'm good ...
Posted 9/19/2011 9:17 PM (#517264 - in reply to #517215) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 581
jonnysled - 9/19/2011 4:24 PM
yah, so let's make it even more complicated, expensive and cumbersome for a family to spend money on license fees and add 10 bucks a head for a stamp. a deterent? or a money-generator??
on another site muskies are being compared to trout and unfortunately it seems that's what it's becoming.
we're asking people to regulate and tax us ... holy crap!
How is purchasing a muskie stamp so complicated? Maybe to non-english speakers, I guess. But seems pretty simple to me. If you want to fish for muskies, buy the stamp. How are you being confused by that concept? Trout anglers and great lakes anglers seem to understand OK for their stamps. (?) Has it been a deterrent to them?
As for the principle, it's also really simple. Muskies are expensive to manage, especially given current budgetary constraints. In that regard, we don't have enough money right now. I'll repeat that. We don't have enough money right now. Think about it for a second. We don't have enough money right now.
So asking those specific members of the public (muskie anglers), who intend to utilize this specific public resource (muskies), to pay a whopping $10 to help ensure the resource continues to get the management it needs despite the shortage of general funds...well, it makes 100% complete and total sense, especially since there is already a working model, given the great success of the trout stamp program.
Mike, there is already precedent for this coming through the legislature (trout stamp in 1977), and technically I believe that it has to do so. So, by not supporting the idea solely because of how the process allows it to happen...well, with all due respect, I think you're getting hung up on a technicality.
Sled, you say that we're asking to be regulated and taxed as though that is always a bad thing. But it isn't. You seem completely ignorant of the fact that sensible regulation and funding (yes, through taxes, license fees, etc.) not only explains the very existence of muskies in approximately 200 stocked muskie waters throughout this state, but also is directly responsible for the entire concept and existence of "muskellunge management" in the state. You seem happy with where it is at. Do you think it's all happened at zero cost? Do you think it can continue without proper funding?
I'd encourage everyone thinking about this topic to do a little bit of research and take a look at what's been accomplished through the trout stamp program (also a $10 stamp) and think about the potential application to muskie management. Stocking, research, enhancements, habitat restoration, etc. It's pretty exciting actually, what could potentially be accomplished.
Posted 9/19/2011 9:21 PM (#517266 - in reply to #517256) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
jonnysled - 9/19/2011 8:47 PM
try telling those that keep muskies they have to spend an extra 10 bucks ... what did you think it was pointer??
it's the first foot onto the slippery slope of taxing public-use ... in 10 years we can all reminisce about where it all started. we asked to be taxed and regulated and then the add-ons were even easier to come by and folks started to forget where the funding went to. send this republican congressman a message to change parties or get himself in-line with the people who voted him in. it's ridiculous and i hope his constituents are letting him know it.
i've caught pike and walleyes on depthraiders, double 10's and weagles so i'm good ...
Like I said in my original post which agreed with Steve's thought that the stamp is not the best idea....
You site looking at funding walleye habitat improvement etc. in one of your posts....how do you propose funding that? I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious as to how you propose to fund it.
Posted 9/19/2011 9:23 PM (#517267 - in reply to #517264) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
CC, tribal spears and size limits ....
show that you can do the stuff that is free before you come asking for more money ...
more taxes and more regulation = bad thing???
yes
in my family it's about $60 bucks ... on top of the license.
ken
Posted 9/19/2011 9:33 PM (#517268 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Where will it all end?? A sportsmans license used to be reasonable and cover everything. Now its getting to the point alot of people can't afford it anymore. It doesn't even cover everything anymore. Theres launch fees also. My dad always told me one day hunting and fishing will only be for the rich. Its got a good start. I'm not saying a stamp is a bad idea. Out of that $10 how much would go for improving musky fishing. Maybe $1 out of every $10. Get the government involved and you won't even get $1 or much of a bang for your $10. Just my opinion.
Posted 9/19/2011 9:55 PM (#517275 - in reply to #517268) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 581
ken - 9/19/2011 9:33 PM
Out of that $10 how much would go for improving musky fishing. Maybe $1 out of every $10. Get the government involved and you won't even get $1 or much of a bang for your $10. Just my opinion.
It's great to have an opinion...as long as it is an informed one. In that regard, this muskie stamp proposal basically mirrors the trout stamp program. The revenue generated from the trout stamp appears to have been used very efficiently. See for yourself at: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pubs/troutstamp0810.pdf
There's no reason to assume that the revenue generated from the muskie stamp would be used differently or inefficiently.
Posted 9/19/2011 10:02 PM (#517278 - in reply to #517267) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 581
jonnysled - 9/19/2011 9:23 PM
more taxes and more regulation = bad thing???
yes
More muskies and better muskie management = good thing???
yes
A stamp program will help ensure it for us and our kids.
BenR
Posted 9/19/2011 10:14 PM (#517281 - in reply to #517278) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Matt DeVos - 9/19/2011 10:02 PM
jonnysled - 9/19/2011 9:23 PM
more taxes and more regulation = bad thing???
yes
More muskies and better muskie management = good thing???
yes
A stamp program will help ensure it for us and our kids.
Matt, explain to me why it would not be around for our kids now? In the last 25 years I have watched the range expand and the fishing get better, why now is there a worry muskies will disappear for your kids? BR
Posted 9/20/2011 7:39 AM (#517308 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
while everyone is claiming the musky-world and especially wisconsin is in a crisis ... catching 12 fish in 15 hours happens and that guy from missouri is ruining his new boat with musky slime while the rest of us fish with our fingers on the internet.
Posted 9/20/2011 8:41 AM (#517319 - in reply to #517281) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 581
BenR - 9/19/2011 10:14 PM
Matt DeVos - 9/19/2011 10:02 PM
jonnysled - 9/19/2011 9:23 PM
more taxes and more regulation = bad thing???
yes
More muskies and better muskie management = good thing???
yes
A stamp program will help ensure it for us and our kids.
Matt, explain to me why it would not be around for our kids now? In the last 25 years I have watched the range expand and the fishing get better, why now is there a worry muskies will disappear for your kids? BR
Not saying that it wouldn't be around and not saying that muskies will disappear or that there is a current crisis.
But the fact is, as Pointer and other have noted, revenues are down, fishing license sales are down. But the ongoing costs of management are steady or increasing. If budgetary shortfalls are foreseeable, then, as one example, stocking shortfalls are foreseeable. There are a lot of lakes in this state that depend on stocking--basically all muskie lakes in the southern half of the state and most lakes in the NW part of the state. Revenue from a muskie stamp would help ensure stocking quotas continue to be met on such waters into the future.
Posted 9/20/2011 8:46 AM (#517322 - in reply to #517308) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
jonnysled - 9/20/2011 7:39 AM
while everyone is claiming the musky-world and especially wisconsin is in a crisis ... nelson is catching 12 fish in 15 hours and that guy from missouri is ruining his new boat with musky slime while the rest of us fish with our fingers on the internet.
I'm not sure anyone is really claiming a crisis. They are simply being realistic in the fact that there is no money. Continuing to manage at the current level is becoming harder and harder due to lack of funds. As has been stated before, every DNR agency around the US is experiencing it. Being proactive and looking for more ways to generate revenue isn't a bad thing. This idea of a stamp may not be the best option, but it at least gets people aware that management needs help. This could only be a ploy to set the tone for a license fee hike. License sales are down, which means federal sportfish dollars given to the state are down, that is a fact. None of what the DNR does is free. With less people getting into the sport of fishing, and many leaving the sport and not renewing their license, the difference needs to be made up somehow.
Nelson catching a bunch of fish really has nothing to do with the conversation. It is a silly argument.
Sled wrote: "CC, tribal spears and size limits ....
show that you can do the stuff that is free before you come asking for more money ... "
You cite getting rid of CC hearings to help walleye populations/habitat. That costs money, and in reality isn't likely to happen.
You cite addressing tribal spearing as something that would show the DNR could do something for free before asking for money. What exactly would you want done and how is that done for free? Talk about one of the most expensive things on your list.
Size limits, ok great. A biologist would need to do surveys to determine, scientifically, what a good size limit would be to benefit the walleyes AND the other species in the ecosystem. The price tag for such an endeavor doesn't say FREE.
I understand your argument about a tax to use a public resource via the stamp. I don't think it is the best idea, a license fee hike would be much better. That would include hunting licenses, not just fishing licenses.
Posted 9/20/2011 8:58 AM (#517324 - in reply to #517322) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
CC dissolved and give management rights to the DNR = ok beaurocratic legislative cost but gets to the root of the problem and a better solution than a stamp to mask the problem.
native spearing and walleyes vs. gaming revenues etc... = grassroots campaign to define the effect on the walleye fishery = yah, i agree pointer ... expensive but worth it
size limits = if you apply logic it's free, if you want to employ biologists and interns then the obvious answer could be expensive. a good leader makes it free (apply the Scott Walker paradigm).
stocking down = great application for special-interest groups like muskiesinc and the like to raise funds for stocking and provide themselves a fishery directed by the dnr. where does all that money go??
opening pandora's box with another income stream to be increased over time, spread to other species and increased over time as a tax for public-use ... might as well tax trailers, tax landings, restrict motor hp and make em all pay-ponds.
my apologies on dropping the "crisis" word ... it came from another site.
Posted 9/20/2011 9:09 AM (#517326 - in reply to #517324) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
jonnysled - 9/20/2011 8:58 AM
CC dissolved and give management rights to the DNR = ok beaurocratic legislative cost but gets to the root of the problem and a better solution than a stamp to mask the problem.
native spearing and walleyes vs. gaming revenues etc... = grassroots campaign to define the effect on the walleye fishery = yah, i agree pointer ... expensive but worth it
size limits = if you apply logic it's free, if you want to employ biologists and interns then the obvious answer could be expensive. a good leader makes it free (apply the Scott Walker paradigm).
stocking down = great application for special-interest groups like muskiesinc and the like to raise funds for stocking and provide themselves a fishery directed by the dnr. where does all that money go??
opening pandora's box with another income stream to be increased over time, spread to other species and increased over time as a tax for public-use ... might as well tax trailers, tax landings, restrict motor hp and make em all pay-ponds.
my apologies on dropping the "crisis" word ... it came from another site.
I agree for the most part. Unfortunately, not many biologists will recommend a size limit change without some form of data, which they may already have. This would likely be the cheapest route, of the three you listed. And I don't disagree that Wisconsin could benefit from some regulation changes. Another tool could be looking at other size limits around the nation and into Canada. What has worked vs what hasn't.
Native spearing is what it is and likely wont change. Way too much money involved.
Guest
Posted 9/20/2011 9:11 AM (#517329 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Tax the rich, they aren't paying their fair share!
Posted 9/20/2011 10:51 AM (#517349 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 582
Yah, and then they can charge $10 for bass, $10 for walleye... i personally don't like the idea and i am against it. We don't need more taxes that will eventually end up in the gov't sink hole. Once there is a tax, it will just get raised every year like everything else. Kind of like the stadium tax. "oh, we only need it til 2012" yah, okay... Why not just raise the size limit???
there are clubs for this.. if you feel the need to donate, do so, join a club at least that way you would know how the money gets spent and it would most likely do more good. Nothing says you can set up donations for this instead of letting gov't tax everyone yet again.
Posted 9/20/2011 11:02 AM (#517351 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 1039
Here's my two cents worth...
I'll pay the $10, but feel that it is in vain. I'll support higher size limits, but feel it is mostly in vain. We are going to give the DNR more money to manage the fishery. HAH! In my opinion, it does no good as long as spearing is allowed. Lakes have a tough time producing trophy fish when the big girls are speared every spring.
A 54 inch limit on GB would be nice, but do we really want to tell someone that they HAVE to throw back a 53 inch fish? My word. Imagine telling that to someone in your boat who has never boated a 45, then they stick a 53 and it HAS to go back. Sure they can get replicas made, but I think that it would be nice for a person to make that decision, not a legislator.
I disagree with Worral (not too popular, but I'll do it anyway) about the fishing being better today than it was years ago. I grew up fishing the lakes in Vilas county for muskies. I saw and caught larger fish twenty five years ago than I do today up there. In terms of pure numbers, there may be more Class A musky lakes with higher densities of fish, but we do not have the trophy fishery now compared to back then. Just a personal observation....
Will this extra revenue help? Or is it throwing good money after bad money? I'm not sure you can "fix" the trophy fishery up north without addressing the issue of spearfishing.
Guest
Posted 9/20/2011 11:04 AM (#517352 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
So is smelly against the muskie stamp with all his WI success, or are you just using him as an example to further your argument against being proactive rather then reactive stance?
I keep hearing how the fishery is improving in WI, which by all accounts I would believe it is. Don't you think that with this improving fishery you are seeing more people fishing for them? Is the only thing that is important what you observe today, and not what logic and history will tell us about what to expect in the future?
Do you really want to lay the responsibility of WI future muskie fishery on Muskies Inc.? How far do you think that will get you?
Posted 9/20/2011 11:07 AM (#517354 - in reply to #517326) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
This stamp proposal came from a fairly large group including some from the DNR looking to make changes which are needed. Yes there are things that need to change unless you can get the right people to change it will not get changed. The stamp proposal was a way to get funding (funding that is drying up and not about to get better at least for a while) for the muskie program so it can do things that need to be done within the rules out there. It also has a long road to get there as you have to get a majority of the politicians to get on board to do it. It could have been done like the early season and slid through but that is not right.
Somebody needed to give it a push and this will hopefully get things rolling. If you do/do not like it make contact with the politicians, your choice. If you have a better option (which there are some good ones) the ball is in your court, jump in with both feet (one group did).
Posted 9/20/2011 11:16 AM (#517356 - in reply to #517352) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
JS ... my answer
poorly delivered point using sarcasm ... my bad.
now, on the subject ...
problem statement = budget gaps
solution statements =
1. additional use tax via stamp
2. increase current revenue via license sales
3. increase current revenue via increase in license cost
4. special interest funding (the tie-in to muskies inc. and the like)
answering your question ... i use sarcasm when asking where the current funding to mi goes because even in that the money doesn't find the water like it should, what makes anyone think it could find a more direct path through a government legislature???
if i could vote on the most significant problem in the Wisconsin Fishery i would be voting on directing funds to the Walleye fishery.
but, as is stated above by Vegas492 ... there is the obvious obstacle to all of this that complicates things on all levels.
Posted 9/20/2011 11:22 AM (#517358 - in reply to #517354) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 229
I agree that most muskyfisherman would support the musky stamp. I for one think its a good idea. Don't let the nonsense crap talk of jonnysled discourage you one bit. His only job is internet trouble maker... Speaking of wasting time on the internet... Aren't there some LMBs that need a hurting jonnysled? Too much work to stand up and go hook up the boat, so time to play on the internet... With a 6 pack its better than TV- right?
Posted 9/20/2011 11:28 AM (#517359 - in reply to #517358) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
Wimuskyfisherman - 9/20/2011 11:22 AM
I agree that most muskyfisherman would support the musky stamp. I for one think its a good idea. Don't let the nonsense crap talk of jonnysled discourage you one bit. His only job is internet trouble maker... Speaking of wasting time on the internet... Aren't there some LMBs that need a hurting jonnysled? Too much work to stand up and go hook up the boat, so time to play on the internet... With a 6 pack its better than TV- right?
John
why not support why you think it's a good idea? ...
too many LMB's and they are dominating the Walleyes ... which is a real problem and should be on top of the list of priorities in the Wisconsin fisheries management agenda.
you have anything to contribute? or just need to vent a little??
Posted 9/20/2011 11:58 AM (#517363 - in reply to #517356) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
lambeau - 9/20/2011 11:50 AM
i use sarcasm when asking where the current funding to mi goes because even in that the money doesn't find the water like it should
on the local club level Muskies Inc money absolutely does "find the water", Sled. lots of clubs raising lots of money locally and dumping it (literally) straight into their area lakes through fish stocking, habitat creation/conservation, clean water efforts, etc.
you could say the same about the headwaters chapter ... they are a hard-working group that finds the water too.
edit ... sorry my copy-paste skills are lacking today ...
Edited by jonnysled 9/20/2011 12:00 PM
Guest
Posted 9/20/2011 12:17 PM (#517366 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Muskies Inc. contributes a lot to the fisheries, especially at the local level.
But we scramble to raise the monies we contribute now. Counting on MI to do more isn't going to happen unless a lot of folks join up. $10 a year is cheaper than a yearly membership to MI and if the money is a direct benefit to the muskie fishery it's a much more effective contribution.
Posted 9/20/2011 12:34 PM (#517369 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 582
I also believe that if you have to have a stamp, some people will feel the need to keep the fish. I think its a bad idea all around. And again, once gov't has a hand in the money, there is no way to know who is getting their hands on it year after year. Just look at our previous gov in Wisc... gas taxes = teacher funds.... Mal practive fund = paying for his pet projects, and the list goes on. How soon before the DNR says, "oh we need more $ and next year it will be $20. No thanks.. the musky community has been more successful in CPR than the gov't has been. We can manage ourselves.
Posted 9/20/2011 1:46 PM (#517382 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
I'm not sure the comparison to the trout/GL trout & salmon fishery is a fair one. In many waters little to no natural reproduction occurs for salmonids. Musky have the opportunity and do successfully reproduce in the wild, though spearing may have a negative effect on the success/number able to spawn. The GL stamp helps fuel the entirely artificial fishery that has been created in Lake Michigan. Lambeau also highlights some reasons why the stamp is not a good idea. Unless there is an air tight lid and those fund cannot and will not be diverted anywhere but muskies, then the stamp would be a horrible idea. I will guarantee that if that money can be dipped into for other expenditures, it will and the muskies will never benefit from it.
Posted 9/20/2011 2:02 PM (#517385 - in reply to #517369) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
Dollar amount can not be changed by the DNR as it is set by the Legislature. If the Trout stamp money can not be raided the Muskie stamp money can not be raided.
Here is a little reading for you.
Protecting, Restoring and Maintaining Viable and Sustainable Muskellunge Fisheries in North America While Promoting Economic Growth
World Muskie Alliance
February, 2011
Overview
It is common knowledge that we are in a struggling economic climate, especially in most areas of the muskellunge’s native range, where income from tourism based on natural resources comprises a percentage of local, state, and provincial economies. Now, more than ever, tourism-based communities need protect and restore sources of local income. Due to an ever-increasing interest in the sport of muskie fishing and the tourism dollars it generates, the World Muskie Alliance believes that protecting, restoring, and propagating healthy muskellunge populations in select rivers and lakes in North America will result in significant economic benefits to the region.
The Sport
The allure of muskie fishing has been described in many ways. In short, the thrill and anticipation of the “hunt”, the ferocity with which the species attacks a lure, its greyhound-like jumps and cart-wheeling aerial acrobatics rival anything found in freshwater. The possibility of catching a truly huge fish, and, most importantly, releasing the fish using the safest methods possible to insure that it lives to fight another day for another angler, provide a unique and addicting fishing experience. To be successful, one may hire a guide for just one day out of the year, or collect boats, rods, reels, lures, lore, photographs, and memories over the course of a lifetime venture, in which the rewards go far beyond just “catching a fish”. As the sport has evolved, the thrill of fishing “new water” has become popular with more experienced anglers.
The number of fisherman specifically targeting muskellunge is growing. Anyone who has followed the sport even for a brief time knows this. Ask any seasoned muskie fisherman or sporting goods store owner where muskies are found and they will concur. First magazines, then the Internet began introducing more to the sport, providing information on new waters and techniques, and safe methods of catch and release for the fish and the fisherman. In recent years, rod, reel, line, tool, and boat manufacturers have begun to include products made specifically for chasing muskies. Many of these products are made in the United States and Canada.
For nearly all muskie fishermen, the desired quarry is the largest, mature adults. Unfortunately, it seems probable that the number of adult fish in many areas can no longer keep up with the demand. Even though there is a concerted effort within the fishing community to promote catch and release and to educate the public on proper handling techniques to conserve the resource, many fish die from delayed mortality, liberal daily bag limits, and state-legislated size limits that do not allow fish to reach sexual maturity in order to sustain natural populations. Compounding the problem, fishing pressure has seemingly increased on waters known to hold significant populations of large, adult fish.
The Economics
A 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report stated that recreational fishing in the United States generated $82 billion in sales, $24 billion in income, and supported 534,000 jobs.
While exact revenue amounts based on muskie fishing alone is somewhat elusive, the sport is commonly believed to have a very positive economic impact where healthy muskellunge populations exist.
Well-known boundary waters such as Lake St. Clair, the St. Lawrence River, and Lake of the Woods draw large numbers of muskie fishermen every year. Properly managed and protected areas of Minnesota such as Lake Vermillion, Lake Bemidji, and Cass Lake, as well as recent attempts to restore historical populations of the Great Lakes strain of muskellunge in Green Bay have become huge fishing success stories. Successful propagation of the resource in order to boost tourism can be found as far south as Kentucky and Tennessee, as far east as New Jersey, and as far west as Washington State. Muskie anglers commonly spend money on lodging, food and drink, vehicle fuels and additives, boat, trailer, and truck maintenance, state campground, access and launch fees, and more.
In Indiana, native muskies nearly disappeared by the 1960s. Today, with excellent propagation and management, yet with only ten lakes containing the species, Indiana has become a prime muskie destination (Jordan 2008). An Indiana Department of Natural Resources report has stated “Assuming muskie anglers spend $50 per trip (American Sportfishing Association), the economic value of muskie fishing at Loon Lake was estimated to be $29,917 in 2004. The commercial value of 1,100 fingerlings (10-in) stocked each year is estimated to be $7,700 for a benefit:cost ratio of 4:1” (Pearson 2005). At Lake Webster, Indiana, muskie anglers spent an estimated $339,147, “representing 76% of the entire program since its inception and worth more than 10 times the annual cost of stocking ($30,960)” (Pearson 2005). In Minnesota muskies have been aggressively managed as a trophy fishery. A 2005 study was performed within the state showed that muskie anglers spent an average of 45 days on the water compared to just 21 days for non-muskie anglers. The study also reported that 33 percent of the members of Muskie, Inc. (the prominent muskellunge sport fishing based organization) spend $2,000 to $4,999 on fishing expenses every year compared to only 8.6 percent of non-muskie anglers who spent monies in that range (Schroeder and Fulton 2005).
The economic impact of muskie fishing in Wisconsin is significant. In 2006, an estimated 1.4 million anglers spent $1.8 billion dollars directly on fishing within the state (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association 2006). It is estimated that 25% of anglers who fish Wisconsin specifically target muskies (Simonson 2008). That equates to $425 million dollars spent on fishing for muskies in Wisconsin in 2006 alone. Tim Simonson, fisheries biologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, believes that a 50” fish could be worth in upwards of $35,850 dollars per surviving stocked fish, and take up to18 years for a fish to reach that size (Simonson 2008).
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has listed 794 bodies of water within the state as containing known populations of muskellunge. In comparison to Wisconsin, Minnesota is listed as having only 111 bodies of water that contain muskie. Ironically, the previously mentioned U.S. Fish and Wildlife report states that the same amount of anglers who fished Wisconsin (1.4 million) spent an estimated $2.8 billion dollars in Minnesota – a difference of $1.1 billion. Using the same 25% of total anglers as those who target muskies, it can be assumed that $700 million was spent on muskie fishing in Minnesota in 2006 ($275 million more than Wisconsin with roughly 1/8 of the water). This analogy begs the question – Why? The answer is quite simple. The state of Minnesota, with the help of Muskies, Inc., localized clubs, and countless numbers of individuals who had a collective vision, have made the state’s muskellunge waters a more desirable place to fish. Minnesota has a more proactive management strategy that included raising the minimum size limit to 48 inches. Minnesota fish reach sexual maturity and beyond (required for natural recruitment) and maximum size potential desired by fishermen.
It would only be fair to state at this point that mature fish are what the vast majority of muskie anglers target, and they will spend many hours, fruitless days, and vast amounts of money in their pursuit. In retrospect, it has become obvious that fishermen from other states, including Wisconsin, where the muskellunge is the state fish, are leaving other muskie lakes closer to home to travel to Minnesota, remote areas of Canada with “no kill” regulations, or more specific places like Lake Webster to pursue muskies. In the case of Minnesota and Indiana, it is clearly the result of the states’ direction in muskellunge management.
The Problems
According to a 2006 Wisconsin DNR survey, 12,493 legal muskies were harvested by hook and line anglers (Wisconsin DNR 2008). This number is likely to be higher because of delayed mortality due to handling which could be as high as 30% (Casselman 2005), and legal winter harvest of fish by Native American tribal members (believed to be significant), were unknown and not included in the study. This number essentially equates to 53 legal fish harvested per 1000 acres of muskie water per year. These fish must be replaced each year in order to maintain the present levels of adult fish within the population. This presents a significant challenge to state natural resource officials who tend to rely on stocking efforts, due to high mortality rates of fish spawned naturally, and the likelihood of mortality before sexual maturity. Replacing fish through stocking efforts is risky, considering within the first several months a loss of nearly 70% occurs, leaving few remaining fish surviving to sexual maturity (Margenau and Hanson 1996). Knowing that the species requires 5-7 years just to reach maturity (Margenau and Hanson 1996), and more to reach maximum size potential, stocking alone is clearly not a guaranteed replacement of harvested adult fish. In an attempt to maintain its muskellunge fishery, the Wisconsin DNR stocks roughly 145,000 muskies per year, at an annual cost of over $400,000 dollars (Simonson 2008).
Compounding the problem, stable population densities tend to be relatively small. Target population densities of stocked Wisconsin lakes are commonly between .2 to 1 fish per acre, with the average density being less than .5 adult fish per acre (Hanson, et. al., 1986). Logistically, population densities are known to be much smaller in larger bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes, making muskellunge especially difficult to study or to assess population densities. Essentially, due to low population densities indicative of the species, muskellunge are easily over-exploited, and have been in many places throughout history.
Muskellunge are of relatively old age at sexual maturity, obviously older near maximum size potential. This fact, combined with low population densities, leave populations highly vulnerable to over-exploitation. Documentation in regards to the actual exploitation rates of muskies is limited. However, in one tagging study performed in Peavy Impoundment, Michigan, 7 muskellunge were tagged and released. One fish was reported harvested in the very first year, for an annual exploitation rate of 14%. At Skegmog Lake, Michigan, 2 out of 11 tagged muskellunge were harvested in less than a year, for a minimum annual exploitation rate of 18% (Thomas, et. al., 2009). While the population samples may seem small for this particular study, they correlate well with the low population densities known to exist within these two particular bodies of water.
Being the tertiary predator in waters where they are found, muskellunge have been wrongly accused for decreases in other sport fish populations, such as walleyes, and therefore have been targeted for extensive harvest and wanton waste in some areas. Recently, it has been established that the preferred forage of muskellunge tend to be perch, white sucker, and other elongated, soft rayed, non-sport fish (Bozek, et. al., 1999; Williams 2007).
The Solutions
For years the idea behind bolstering muskie populations was to increase number of stocked fish. While stocking of fish is important, especially where existing wild populations of fish are threatened or where decimated populations have the potential to be restored (such as the success of the Green Bay Muskellunge Restoration Project), it takes funding and knowledge to be correctly implemented. The idea that genetics play a considerable role in the propagation of the species, and that there are strains of muskellunge that differ greatly in life cycle habits and habitat requirements is not a new idea among those who study and pursue the muskellunge. However, the import role genetics play in regard to the species has only recently come to light within most natural resource agencies. Therefore, the proper genetic strain of muskellunge required by the particular body of water for the stocking to be successful must be carefully considered. Again, this requires knowledge, which requires study, which in turn requires funding. The act of raising fish and releasing them into a body of water is only a small piece of the puzzle.
Protecting the fish to maturity is also very important to the goals of the World Muskie Alliance. By selectively reducing bag limits and increasing minimum size regulations where needed, muskellunge can procreate successfully, naturally bolstering populations without stocking, and allowing fish to reach the desired maximum size. Taking the idea even further, some bodies of water that have struggling populations of wild, native fish with ultra-low densities (such as the Indian River chain and St. Mary’s River in Michigan) would greatly benefit from mandatory “catch and release” or “no kill” regulations. Lac Seul, Ontario, is a shining example of how the regulation can bolster populations and allow fish to reach their maximum growth potential. The “no kill” regulations could be seasonal or could be implemented for a specified length of time in order to examine how the population reacts or until a true population estimate can be established. These actions have the potential to ease the problem of over-harvest or exploitation and reduce the need for stocking in some areas.
Protecting the fish to maturity has a two-fold effect. It increases the likelihood of natural recruitment (MacLennan 1995), which saves money in stocking costs because fewer fish need to be replaced to sustain the existing populations, and it also allows fish to approach maximum size potential. These results help promote a self-sustaining population of various year classes of fish.
Sufficient quality habitat is a main requirement for any species. Habitat recognition, restoration, and improvement are part of another well-established plan to help bolster and protect muskellunge populations. Wetland and near-shore habitat protection has been an important environmental topic for decades. This endeavor also requires funding, and time-consuming research, but great strides have been made and many are volunteering to help this cause (Wisconsin DNR 2009).
The previous solutions stated above can be tied together in a way that makes sense - a legislatively endorsed Muskellunge Stamp. An idea not new to fish management, trout and salmon stamps, as well as a stamp (or tag) requirement for sturgeon fishing, have been successful in several states for decades. Funding generated by a proposed muskie stamp could be used for stocking, habitat restoration, protection and research, and administration of the muskellunge stamp program. Mandatory registration of each harvested fish would help greatly with acquiring crucial data to help manage muskellunge, including better representative estimates of populations and the assessment of the health of individual muskies brought in for registration, as well as the health of populations as a whole. Recently, Jerry Newman of the World Muskie Alliance has drafted a legislative proposal for Wisconsin, outlining a plan to generate funds through the use of a stamp that could be used as a model for other states and provinces as well.
Conclusion
In recent years North America has a witnessed an economic decline rivaled only by the Great Depression. In stark reality, every means of bolstering the economy should be explored. The World Muskie Alliance believes that promoting and maintaining healthy, and sustainable trophy muskellunge fisheries throughout the species’ native range, and where tourist and sport fishing-based economies exist, is a viable economic stimulus strategy. It is a strategy that will help our struggling economy, while protecting a valuable resource and meeting the goals of the World Muskie Alliance, preserving the sport of muskellunge fishing for generations to come.
Cited Literature
Bozek, M.A., T.M. Burri, and R.V. Frie. 1999. Diets of Muskellunge in Northern Wisconsin Lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:258-270.
Casselman, S.J. 2005. Catch and Release Angling: A Review with Guidelines for Proper Fish Handling Techniques. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Branch.
Hanson, D.A., M.D. Staggs, S.L. Serns, L.D. Johnson, and L.M. Andrews. 1986. Survival of Stocked Muskellunge Eggs, Fry, and Fingerlings in Wisconsin Lakes.
Jordan, Don. 2008. Indian Muskie Program Producing Big Payoffs. Jordan Communications.
MacLennan, Don. 1995. Changes in the Muskellunge Fishery and Population of Lake St. Clair after an Increase in the Minimum Size Limit. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Erie Management Unit.
Margenau, T. L., and D. A. Hanson. 1996. Survival and Growth of Stocked Muskellunge: Effects of Genetic and Environmental Factors.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Dept. of Commerce. 2006. Fisheries Economics of the United States.
Pearson, Jed. 2005. Impacts of Predator Management on Bluegill Fishing at Loon Lake, Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Pearson, Jed. 2005. Current Status of the Fish Community and Quality of Fishing at Lake Webster, Indiana. Fisheries Section, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Schroeder, S.A., and D.C. Fulton. 2005. Fishing in Minnesota: a Study of Angler Participation and Activities. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology.
Simonson, Tim. 2008. Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Update. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Thomas, M., J.S. Diana, and G. Smith. 2009. Editors-Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division Special Report. Management Plan for Muskellunge in Michigan.
Williams, Duane. 2007. What Do Muskies Eat Anyway? Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Report.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2009. WDNR Weekly News. New Tools Help Identify Spawning Habitat.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Anglers Mail Survey: 88 Million Fish Caught, 33 Million Kept in 2006-07.
Posted 9/20/2011 2:14 PM (#517390 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
so is this a North America initiative? are you wanting to fund the WMA? or save jobs? ... did i read that this was a DNR budget-gap proposal previously?
looks like a lot of peripheral dialogue supporting a fund-raiser for the WMA or did i miss it?
what you just presented was all over the place and reads like one big run-on sentence ... and looks like a minnesoat vs. wisconsin gap initiative. does it still apply even now when fish in minnesota are sometimes hard to come by?
Posted 9/20/2011 2:23 PM (#517391 - in reply to #517390) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Location: 31
This thread was started by Roger to begin a rally of support for Wisconsinites to contact their Wisconsin legislator. If you already feel strongly enough that this is a step in the wrong direction for us as a group of sportsmen, then you should consider contacting your legislator in that regard as well… let the chips fall where they may.
I honestly thought there would be overwhelming support from this group, or at least there would be a few legitimate questions without good solid answers before dismissing it. Just so everyone understands, this streamlined muskie stamp version is not the final version, there will still be plenty of time for revisions by us and the WDNR if/when it is approved.
A couple things, when we were working on the nuts and bolts of the stamp. We thought it was important to not only generate some muskie specific revenue, but also create a tool for the WDNR to keep track of the kept fish for management purposes. Tim Simonson (of the WDNR) was actually in favor of a muskie kill tag originally, but was willing to go along with this stamp model and mandatory reporting for kept fish.
I thought that was a good point regarding the family license with a muskie stamp for $60. This can be easily addressed with only a one stamp per license requirement. We would be sure it is worded that way if passed.
Something else that needs to be addressed is that the final revision needs to include something to the effect of the revenue generated from the stamp is separate from monies already allocated for muskie in the general fund. I think it's important that it be made crystal clear that this stamp fund does not reduce or offset anything already in the existing budget. The wording will need to be well thought out, but I can assure you that we will also address this if passed.
Otherwise, we could certainly ask Tim Simonson to project the percentage going toward the fishery verses administrative if there is enough interest.
Posted 9/20/2011 3:04 PM (#517401 - in reply to #517390) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
jonnysled - 9/20/2011 2:14 PM
so is this a North America initiative? are you wanting to fund the WMA? or save jobs? ... did i read that this was a DNR budget-gap proposal previously?
looks like a lot of peripheral dialogue supporting a fund-raiser for the WMA or did i miss it?
what you just presented was all over the place and reads like one big run-on sentence ... and looks like a minnesoat vs. wisconsin gap initiative. does it still apply even now when fish in minnesota are sometimes hard to come by?
Agreed, this was extremely unclear and poorly written. Some of the glaring issues that sled listed (spearing, size limits) were addressed in this article, but no where did the article tie them in to the musky stamp. This seems frivolous without addressing the main issues, almost like trying to apply a wet bandaid in a pool. It really won't help much.
It sounds like Simonsen would have supported a stamp exclusively for the harvest of a musky and nothing else, but was coerced into something else. How do you regulate mandatory harvest reporting? That sounds like a pipe dream. Are you going to call each angler that purchase a stamp and rely on them to be truthful? All the musky stamp money would be burned up calling/emailing (whatever) each angler.
The success of Indiana is listed, do they have a stamp? If not, then what does that have to do with a stamp. The Muskellunge Symposium: A memorial tribute to EJ Crossman sites the success of Indiana's musky fishery is due to communication and working together, not creation of a stamp. The very next paragraph also discusses the idea of a musky stamp. Comparison is made between the trout stamp and its success, BUT (and this is a big BUT) the book also sites that a potential loss in general funds allocated to musky specific work could happen. In tight economic times you can bet that this would be looked at very carefully. That is a steep, slippery, ice covered slope you simply don't want to set foot on. Once you lose general funds, good luck getting them back.
Tired
Posted 9/20/2011 3:28 PM (#517409 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Maybe sled and pointer could do better, lets see what you can do. I am waiting.
Posted 9/20/2011 3:35 PM (#517411 - in reply to #517409) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
Tired - 9/20/2011 3:28 PM
Maybe sled and pointer could do better, lets see what you can do. I am waiting.
Raise the price of hunting and fishing licenses. You are welcome.
little bird
Posted 9/20/2011 3:44 PM (#517414 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
i just spoke with mr. steineke who has no bill and no initiative whatsoever on this subject. he had a conversation with rodger ... that's it ... and responded suggesting there would have to be a huge grassroots initiative that would have to go through the CC before a bill such as this would be sponsored.
so, there is no association by mr. steineke to this initiative and he will be making calls to make sure everything is clear.
very impressed with the quick and personal response given by mr. steineke
Posted 9/20/2011 3:54 PM (#517415 - in reply to #517409) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Location: 31
I seriously doubt that Tim Simonsen could be coerced into doing something he did not truly believe in. As a matter of fact, he helped with the wording (taken from the original post) on the very question you're asking.
"Registration requirement: No person may possess a muskellunge taken by hook and line from the state waters unless he or she registers the fish in the manner required by the department. (A registration program similar to that of the Canada goose would provide the accuracy and precision required for better management of the species)."
There's nothing confusing about the proposed muskie stamp, it's pretty black and white. At this point, you are either interested in contacting your legislator, or you're not.
I'm heading out of town in about an hour for a week of fishing.
Posted 9/20/2011 4:00 PM (#517416 - in reply to #517414) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin
Speaking strictly on one issue involved with this, I don't really think a stamp would help much at all in terms of keeping/ not keeping fish...I mean as a guide up there pointed out on the other site, who exactly is going to be around on the lakes to enforce this stamp? I have personally been checked a whopping single time ever in Northern WI, how about you?
Food for thought..but on a recent fishing trip I had a discussion with an older angler who shared a story with me..There used to be a "musky stamp" on Rainy Lake...The angler accidentally hooked into and caught a 49" years ago, he was stampless and the fish went to the bottom of the boat. Day or 2 later he ran into town with the fish in his freezer and bought the stamp, and to the taxidermist the fish went.."legally"
There's nothing wrong with trying to address an issue, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I certainly don't agree that there is a "crisis" in Northern Wi, and in terms of getting bigger fish to rival Mn and Canada I don't see a scenario where a stamp is going to be the turning point to achieve that. I think the whispers I heard earlier in the year about getting a statewide minimum size limit will be a much better start and then go from there....
Posted 9/20/2011 4:01 PM (#517417 - in reply to #517415) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
Jerry Newman - 9/20/2011 3:54 PM
I seriously doubt that Tim Simonsen could be coerced into doing something he did not truly believe in. As a matter of fact, he helped with the wording (taken from the original post) on the very question you're asking.
"Registration requirement: No person may possess a muskellunge taken by hook and line from the state waters unless he or she registers the fish in the manner required by the department. (A registration program similar to that of the Canada goose would provide the accuracy and precision required for better management of the species)."
There's nothing confusing about the proposed muskie stamp, it's pretty black and white. At this point, you are either interested in contacting your legislator, or you're not.
I'm heading out of town in about an hour for a week of fishing.
You're still relying on the person to follow through. I know for a fact several of my college friends did not register the geese they shot.
Sounds like this is a moot point anyway as this will never go through.
Posted 9/20/2011 4:28 PM (#517426 - in reply to #517409) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
Tired - 9/20/2011 3:28 PM
Maybe sled and pointer could do better, lets see what you can do. I am waiting.
you might be surprised at what sled and pointer did to clean up the misinformation being put out on this subject.
Edited by jonnysled 9/20/2011 4:29 PM
lambeau
Posted 9/20/2011 4:37 PM (#517428 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
It is OK to have different opinions on this issue.
But, imho, you go too far (Sled and Pointer) when you suggest Roger or Jerry are doing anything other than trying to help muskies in Wisconsin.
If a politician told Roger to get grassroots support, I applaud him for making the effort to do so. I can disagree with some aspects while respecting the goal and personal effort they're making.
Posted 9/20/2011 4:53 PM (#517434 - in reply to #517428) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
It has brought to my attention that some people(one in particular) think a bill has been introduced, it has not. This was posted to get people to contact their Rep and support/not support the stamp idea, so there would be enough interest to introduce it. Why introduce it if it will fail? I thank Rep Stieneke for doing his job and trying to get support for something his constituents brought up. Hope this ends any confusion if any.
Posted 9/20/2011 4:58 PM (#517435 - in reply to #517434) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
rodger associated the politician's name to being the lead in developing interest to propose a bill that would establish a tax for public use. the politician told rodger he would ask around, he found no support and has no association or interest in leading a tax on public use which is what is being claimed in the first sentence of the first post on this site.
going too far is tying someone's name to something they do not support ... which is what has been done in this regard. but don't take it from me, call rep. steineke and he'll tell you himself.
Posted 9/20/2011 5:34 PM (#517441 - in reply to #517428) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
lambeau - 9/20/2011 4:37 PM
It is OK to have different opinions on this issue.
But, imho, you go too far (Sled and Pointer) when you suggest Roger or Jerry are doing anything other than trying to help muskies in Wisconsin.
If a politician told Roger to get grassroots support, I applaud him for making the effort to do so. I can disagree with some aspects while respecting the goal and personal effort they're making.
Trying to help muskies in Wisconsin will always be a good thing. The way it was represented here (intentionally or unintentionally) was not the best. We're all for the betterment of musky fisheries and fisheries in general, but the angle here was poorly played. Nothing against Roger (who is a great guy) or Jerry. But the representation of the facts were misleading at best, and needed to be pointed out.
I don't think I've attacked either Roger or Jerry here in this thread.
Posted 9/20/2011 5:59 PM (#517445 - in reply to #517442) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Location: 31
I don't think there's anything to attack? Perhaps Roger could have used a little better wording in the initial post, but I can assure you nothing was intentionally misrepresented.
The fact remains that we are still looking for initial support for the muskie stamp.
Posted 9/20/2011 6:02 PM (#517446 - in reply to #517445) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert
Jerry Newman - 9/20/2011 5:59 PM
I don't think there's anything to attack? Perhaps Roger could have used a little better wording in the initial post, but I can assure you nothing was intentionally misrepresented.
The fact remains that we are still looking for initial support for the muskie stamp.
I'll check back next week when I return.
Agreed. Though I don't think you will find the support you were looking/hoping for.
Posted 9/20/2011 6:36 PM (#517449 - in reply to #517435) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
Sled - He was working for me, he is my Rep and You red into it that he was supporting it. Is that not what he is supposed to do and if he gets no support from other Reps and constituents it goes nowhere. That is how the system is supposed to work. Relax a little.
Posted 9/20/2011 6:39 PM (#517450 - in reply to #517441) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
Pointer- No you have not attacked me, thank you.
sled
Posted 9/20/2011 7:29 PM (#517460 - in reply to #517449) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
I "read into it"? ... Nah, I just read it. Are you playin the attack card? Seriously?
h2os2t - 9/20/2011 6:36 PM
Sled - He was working for me, he is my Rep and You red into it that he was supporting it. Is that not what he is supposed to do and if he gets no support from other Reps and constituents it goes nowhere. That is how the system is supposed to work. Relax a little.
Posted 9/20/2011 8:33 PM (#517472 - in reply to #517460) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI
Not attacking, When I reread it I still do not get the impression that he introduced a bill, I guess I did not learn to speak legalese. Then again my mother always said when everybody went left I went right.
Guest
Posted 9/20/2011 8:58 PM (#517476 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Lots of confusion is clearer now. Nobody is against funding fisheries, its all about "how" and "where" the money comes from and goes to and especially who holds the purse.
Posted 9/20/2011 9:05 PM (#517479 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
'We are going to give the DNR more money to manage the fishery. HAH! In my opinion, it does no good as long as spearing is allowed. Lakes have a tough time producing trophy fish when the big girls are speared every spring. '
Spearing is not 'allowed' by the DNR or anyone else in State Government, it's a treaty RIGHT upheld by the Supreme Court.
It's clear the overall average size and big fish opportunities in Wisconsin have improved, fisheries state wide are now managed as trophy fisheries, and fisheries that have shown past potential for big fish are now managed as lower density/higher quality fisheries where larger size limits are in place resulting in MUCH lower harvest.
Better muskie fishing in Wisconsin now that ever. Harvest is WAY down, release is WAY up.
'I disagree with Worral (not too popular, but I'll do it anyway) about the fishing being better today than it was years ago. I grew up fishing the lakes in Vilas county for muskies. I saw and caught larger fish twenty five years ago than I do today up there. In terms of pure numbers, there may be more Class A musky lakes with higher densities of fish, but we do not have the trophy fishery now compared to back then. Just a personal observation.... '
At least spell my name right. And what's the attitude about? LOTS of people disagree with me. So what?
My personal observation is far more 'big fish' caught now that ever in this state back to the seventies, can't comment further back than that. Show me records, ANY written or published records of big fish from that era to today that contradict this, please.
Posted 9/20/2011 9:54 PM (#517489 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 1168
Add another one to the against category.
The issue I have with a muskie stamp idea is that there hasn't been a plan proposed or even hinted at that I would support.
Is it a harvest tag/stamp? Well, I'm not buying one because I'm not going to keep a fish
Is it a general stamp purchased so you can fish for them? Enforcement would be a bugger, this has already been discussed.
Comparing this to trout/salmon doesn't work. When you are out on Lake Michigan dragging j-plugs and flasher/dodger rigs it's pretty obvious what you are targeting. When you are on a trout stream poking around with a fly rod or tossing spinners and spoons it's a safe bet you're not after chubs. The importance of having a Great Lakes trout stamp can't be understated. The economic impact of having a salmon fishery is gargantuan compared to the importance of the muskie industry. If muskie fishing was the engine behind the economy in a major geographical range in Wisconsin then there would be a greater push for such a thing. It isn't and the fact that muskie angling is essentially a niche hobby in the greater scheme of things is lost on so many of us. We are not the only ones out there, in those of us who pursue muskies make up a very small percentage of the angling public.
If I was forced to purchase a stamp so I could fish for them I would do it reluctantly. If given the choice to buy or not buy a stamp I wouldn't buy one. I'll invest that ten bucks into my local club so it can be spent in the area.
Posted 9/20/2011 10:46 PM (#517495 - in reply to #517489) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 272
Yikes.
There's two separate bills in the opening post, gentlemen. Just wanted to point that out, as one has been ignored.
Debate is good. Not everyone is going to be on board with all of it. I certainly wasn't originally, and I myself will have to hold my nose and vote for this if it ever comes around to a vote. However, all this wordsmithing and dissecting people's posts only serves to drive a spike right down the middle of the muskie community, IMO. The (stamp/tag) topic itself will be enough of a separator as it is.
Meanwhile, anyone interested in seeing increased protection for Green Bay muskies has info on the opening post on how to contact legislators to show support of that idea.
FYI, Roger and a handful of others have spent a TON of time on this. Which obviously doesn't mean you have to support it or him in this endeavor simply because of that..... but at least know that folks are trying, have spent hours and hours on this, and please try to have a little respect for a guy who has done his darndest at getting ahead of what many of us see as inevitable with this situation down the road. Money's gone, folks. And we're a teeny, tiny contingent.
Posted 9/20/2011 11:39 PM (#517501 - in reply to #517476) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
Guest - 9/20/2011 8:58 PM
Lots of confusion is clearer now. Nobody is against funding fisheries, its all about "how" and "where" the money comes from and goes to and especially who holds the purse.
Posted 9/21/2011 2:52 PM (#517584 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 1039
See, I knew it would not be popular!!!
Steve, I give you personal experience as an indication of the fishery that I see now as opposed to years ago. It is okay to disagree. I know that you and others probably have seen the opposite. I've been fishing Vilas County since 1980 and I've seen the fishery decline. Both walleyes and muskies. I've also seen the tourism industry decline. Correlation? You can't tell me that spearing hasn't negatively affected the lakes and that is my point. Why spend more money to try to fix a problem that can't be fixed without addressing the spearing issue? When you are constantly taking the large females out of the system, genetically you get smaller fish. Over time, that can be devastating to a fishery.
On the walleye front, 13 inch walleyes aren't being speared. 15 inch walleyes aren't being speared. 18-30 inch walleyes are being speared. Go to North Twin sometime. Tell me how many sub 15's you catch versus legals. That is a tough ratio man. It wasn't that way years ago. Muskie wise it is the same deal. Big girls get speared and cannot spawn to pass on their genetic traits. Less big fish in the water, another good genetic sample gone from the lake.
Posted 9/21/2011 5:47 PM (#517600 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I've fished those same waters since 1974. Guided up there for near 20 years.
Do some studying on the Muskie numbers that were harvested as an average in the 70's through the early nineties. The numbers of large muskies harvested by spear (EXCEPT for where excessive winter spearing occurs) is not anywhere near what used to be harvested before CPR and larger size limits came to be.
There's absolutely no evidence that 'genetically' there's anything wrong with Wisconsin Muskie size structure, in fact the exact opposite has been indicated by the study done by Dr. Sloss and new programs are already underway as a result. Any fish you would call a 'big girl' has already spawned several times IF there's NR available on the water body under discussion.
Walleyes have been effected...no question, but not as much from spearing as the influx of huge numbers of largemouth bass in many waters, and the harvest overall, especially during the winter by ice anglers. Read a few creeling reports you apparently think are not necessary. But we weren't talking walleyes, were we? To say there's no point in managing a resource because of harvest is patently ridiculous. INCREASED management from both entities is needed, and in many cases, already in effect. Study up a little on GLIFWC. And there is no 'addressing' or 'fixing' treaty law, it's law and that's that. Look into harvest numbers...the rest of us take FAR more than the tribes on the average ceded territory water.
Posted 9/21/2011 6:16 PM (#517605 - in reply to #517603) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
Steve ... do you think one begets the other on the walleye situation? i agree that the LMB and SMB are overwhelmingly taking over the walleyes on many systems and have dramatically changed the walleye situation in the northwoods of wisconsin. but was the spearing pressure the catalyst that "weakened the herd" so-to-speak allowing it all to come about?
Posted 9/21/2011 6:58 PM (#517608 - in reply to #517605) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Sled,
Not according to the biologists I have talked to. The warmer waters in the summer, warmer and shorter winters, degrading habitat for walleyes that better suits largemouth, and the fact the bass make a meal of walleye fry/fingerlings and compete big time seems to be the deal. I have heard there will be some special regs to encourage bass harvest next season.
Posted 9/21/2011 7:28 PM (#517612 - in reply to #517608) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
jason sloan and i have been talking about this over the past 4 years especially on the minocqua chain. i don't keep tabs on how the big fall bass tournament does but i fish LMB's out there a lot and have a few spots that are just filled with bass. they're so much fun it's just hard to get anyone off of it once you have a "go-to" spot. most of my spots are deep weed/sand-grass where walleyes "should" be. you can always fish em at the boat-house and dock structure and do well, but when you venture to the hog-pens and see what you find you really take notice of the enormous change that's happened in such a short period of time.
jason's comment is that they are in the same family as gils? so encouraging harvest is good ... i've never been one to eat bass but most of that conditioning comes from my days in texas and tennesse where they are treated as the top-predator gamefish along with not wanting to eat fish out of summer waters down there.
it's an interesting subject and has become an incredible fishery ...
not sure it's all bad but would like to have my cake (walleyes) and eat it too (bass)
Posted 9/21/2011 10:26 PM (#517620 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI
It's all that native spearing that's ruining fishing. I think the DNR should put a stop to that. Doyle should use some of that tobacco settlement money to buy out those treaties. Then the walleyes would grow back and the muskies get bigger.
Posted 9/22/2011 7:00 AM (#517638 - in reply to #517620) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 582
MuskyHopeful - 9/21/2011 10:26 PM
It's all that native spearing that's ruining fishing. I think the DNR should put a stop to that. Doyle should use some of that tobacco settlement money to buy out those treaties. Then the walleyes would grow back and the muskies get bigger.
Posted 9/22/2011 8:11 AM (#517651 - in reply to #517647) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 3242
Location: Racine, Wi
Hopeful, that makes no cents whatsoever. If Doyle was still governor, we wouldn't need a stamp, as he could just procure the necessary funds from other funds such as the transportation fund or the patients compensation funds.
Posted 9/22/2011 9:02 AM (#517664 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I don't think anyone is not appreciative of the hard work done by the folks looking at this. I sure appreciate the effort, I simply disagree with the method.
Posted 9/22/2011 9:03 AM (#517665 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 1039
Yep. Fun site.
Sounds good Steve.
BTW, I guided up north as well. When I was young and had more time to spend on the water. Before real life and higher education called. My point to you is simple, other people can have ideas that differ from yours. Being a guide doesn't make you right. But, being a moderator on here certainly lets you throw your voice around. And don't get me wrong, I like hearing your opinions. I do respect your opinions.
Are you telling me that spearing isn't hurting the fishery in northern Wisconsin? I'm curious. Just a simple yes/no answer.
Cuz my statement is this... Why spend more money on a muskie stamp when it doesn't address the spearing issue?
In my opinion, it is throwing good money after bad money.
Is the DNR understaffed and underfunded? I'd say yes. So, how much money from the stamp is actually going to muskie research and stocking? How much of it is going to administrative fees? Maybe local clubs like Muskies Inc. (proud Milwaukee chapter member here), can help out more. There has to be more of a solution than sending our local DNR more money.
We may not be able to do much of anything about spearing, but that doesn't mean that it is okay to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't happen and doesn't negatively effect the fishery.
I've fished in Vilas for many years. I now fish primarily in southeastern Wisconsin. Our lakes down here produce larger fish than the Vilas County Lakes. I'll put Okauchee and Oconomowoc "average" fish up against "average" fish in Vilas County. I'll put the muskie density of Pewaukee up against any lake up north. And I know of one angler in particular that has put a ton of fish in his boat that are 45 inches or larger. Not a guide mind you, but just a regular fisherman who gets out when he can.
No spearing issues down here. And our Muskies Inc. chapter does a nice job of stocking Pewaukee Lake.
Edited by vegas492 9/22/2011 9:09 AM
Scott M.
Posted 9/22/2011 10:20 AM (#517679 - in reply to #517109) Subject: RE: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Kudos to Rodger, for asking for some assistance to contact certain government officals with a long standing issue on how to improve musky fishing and this is how people responded unreal. Vulgar, critizing, and harrassing language I can clearly see why this is could be a tough battle.
But we as sportsmen need to work together to solve this issue and we can do it by working together. Look at our represenatives in Washington who don't or won't work together to take direction of this country it's a shame. So many people put their lives on the line and are continuing yet today for our freedom and here we sit and acting like a bunch of whinners about a possible $10.00 musky stamp but what price did they pay for our freedom so we can fish, hunt, and allow us to enjoy our beautiful country, many of them never got the chance too. Next time you see a military vet thank them for time served and do it with pride.
The key driving factor is we have to work together to solve issues and we need to make sure our represenatives in Washington do the same.
Posted 9/22/2011 10:25 AM (#517681 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi.
vulgar, criticising, harassing ... i missed it.
clarifying, truthful and yah maybe some cynicism thrown in on the edges = yah ...
taking someone out of context is fair to expect a rebuttal which is the case here. read a little further and you'll also see the subject has generated some pretty good debate.
if you can't defend your statements then perhaps don't make them.
rodger made a bold statement which was rebutted, argued and is now being debated. i would imagine all are on a much more knowledgeable ground than what was originally proposed.
or, you can believe everything you read and yell at people who don't agree with you ... an alternative would be to play victim.
Posted 9/22/2011 10:39 AM (#517685 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 32922
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
'My point to you is simple, other people can have ideas that differ from yours. '
Where has anyone said anything different (other than you)? I'm going to post my ideas, you and anyone else who wishes to can post yours, and if the wish is there to argue, it's more productive and certainly less rude to do so without attacking anyone personally.
And, just a point, I am not a moderator here.
----------------
'I'll put the muskie density of Pewaukee up against any lake up north.'
Pewaukee is a near 100% put and take fishery and is regularly stocked by the DNR and muskie clubs. It's better now than ever because of CPR, and will continue to get better if the big girls are not harvested in numbers. There's still harvest there, and it isn't insignificant. It's a put and take fishery and there's pretty good numbers of folks who are not Muskie conservationists out there still. And one more important point, the Muskie stamp money, if it went in to the Muskie management fund, would benefit funding throughout the State, not just the Ceded Territory. I believe it might be illegal to require everyone to pay specifically for work done on waters north of 64 only.
Very few of Vilas lakes capable of kicking out big fish now are considered strictly 'put and take'. Some may receive supplemental stocking, some will receive none at all. We are about 2/3 through the process of a more than decade long process reducing stocking numbers in N WI lakes with good/acceptable NR, raising limits to assure good potential for bigger fish where applicable, and reducing harvest using social/peer pressure. The DNR has also implemented Dr. Sloss's suggestions. It's working.
Pelican Lake in Oneida County is a solid example. It was stocked to near sublimity in the 80's and early nineties, and the quality of the fishery dropped like a stone. Numbers were ridiculous, but size structure suffered as did NR. The recent KWM catch indicates more like what I fist saw when I fished Pelican alot in the 70's. NICE hybrids, and some very nice big ole ugly bronze muskies. Pelican hasn't been stocked since 1998, and won't be unless the numbers fall off. Walleye fishing is excellent to ridiculously good, but the limit of 2, one over 14" explains that. Reallocation of the harvest. they need to take a look at the 18" 1 bag for bass though...the largemouth population is exploding there too. Pelican now sports a pretty recent 50" limit. She's doing pretty well, from what we can see.
I bet folks like Mr. Nelson would argue with you about Vilas. I sure do. I wish I had the time I used to on the water up here.
Spearing has effected our resources in the fact it's reallocated our harvest numbers. All indications are the real harvest numbers have not actually gone up anywhere near what the 'reactionaries' want us to believe since the 80's, and in fact have gone down due to higher size limits and the CPR ethic...even considering the spearing. Of course muskie fishing would be better without spearing, that's obvious and I never said anything to the contrary. Fact is, we have to deal with the reality Treaty Rights are here to stay and are not going to change just because some muskie fishermen think they should. Dealing with reality and managing the resource accordingly isn't 'sweeping it under the rug'. But you already know that...right?
There actually are benefits as well, as I said, look at what GLIFWC does. I know quite a bit of the work my son does is under that budget.
'Is the DNR understaffed and underfunded? I'd say yes. So, how much money from the stamp is actually going to muskie research and stocking? How much of it is going to administrative fees? '
That's part of why I don't like the stamp idea. We agree there.
I am a long time supporter of the Milwaukee Chapter of MI, so you are singing to the choir there. Great group of folks. By the way, if you fish those SE WI waters you might catch a Muskie OutdoorsFIRST helped raise the money to stock.
----------------------------
vulgar, criticising, harassing ... i missed it.
--
Me too. Stocking and managing muskies has nothing to do with our Military. It's not unpatriotic to argue the fine points of what amounts to a tax on Muskie anglers. Has nothing to do with Washington ( thank goodness) either.
If more money is needed, we need to:
1) Get the economy rolling here in WI again.
2) Raise license fees and allocate that money to the management issues at hand.
The other issue I have with the tag is it is a HARVEST tag or it's impossible to enforce and limiting. How many of the average CPR anglers are going to buy one if they are never going to keep a muskie? Buy in to this, and in my opinion, you by proxy buy in to the 'need' to harvest Muskies. If I want to pay some dollars to help stocking efforts, my money will go the Madison MI, Milwaukee MI, or Mr. Forcier and others like him.
By the way, I support Roger and appreciate his efforts and I have supported the WMA since they were formed. I just disagree with this one. Needs way more fleshing out before we go to State Government to try to make it law.
Posted 9/22/2011 11:01 AM (#517689 - in reply to #517685) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 444
I think they should follow Minnesota's walleye stamp. You are not forced to buy it and if you do the money goes directly to Walleye stocking, or in this case Muskie stocking, you even can pay a couple dollars extra and get a nice little collector stamp to display.
Posted 9/22/2011 11:46 AM (#517696 - in reply to #517665) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 3242
Location: Racine, Wi
vegas492 - 9/22/2011 9:03 AM
I've fished in Vilas for many years. I now fish primarily in southeastern Wisconsin. Our lakes down here produce larger fish than the Vilas County Lakes. I'll put Okauchee and Oconomowoc "average" fish up against "average" fish in Vilas County. I'll put the muskie density of Pewaukee up against any lake up north. And I know of one angler in particular that has put a ton of fish in his boat that are 45 inches or larger. Not a guide mind you, but just a regular fisherman who gets out when he can.
No spearing issues down here. And our Muskies Inc. chapter does a nice job of stocking Pewaukee Lake.
Jeff, I'm going to have to go with Steve here. There are a bunch of very nice fish being caught in Vilas and Oneida counties each year as of late. You may not hear of all or many of them as the guys catching them are keeping them pretty quiet as they don't care about the stats and numbers game. I know a couple of guys that live up there that consistently put 45-50"+ fish in the net regularly. I know Okauchee and Oconomowoc put out some nice fish, but there are lakes up nort just like these lakes that put out some very nice fish consistently.
Posted 9/22/2011 12:50 PM (#517706 - in reply to #517651) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 582
tuffy1 - 9/22/2011 8:11 AM
Hopeful, that makes no cents whatsoever. If Doyle was still governor, we wouldn't need a stamp, as he could just procure the necessary funds from other funds such as the transportation fund or the patients compensation funds.
EXACTLY.. that is one of my points against a stamp. Depending on who is in charge they will control the money.. Diamond Jim had no issues robbing funds. Whose to say the next one like him won't. Doyle got away with criminal acts without the consequences setting the standard for more like him.
I would have no problem if this was a volunteer purchase. Hell, i may even buy one just to help. But to make it law, and once that happens, i think you are just inviting more regulation, tricky deals with the money etc... I had a place on a nice lake in Onieda county and i saw spearing first hand. It tore apart the lake fishery and i will say it's a problem. If we can't do anything there, is this stamp actually going to help? doubtful. I have seen too many fish taken on the tip of spear. And once the lake was speared heavily, they even stopped spearing it for a few years because it wasn't good anymore. What does that tell you?
Posted 9/22/2011 1:23 PM (#517711 - in reply to #517109) Subject: Re: Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
Posts: 1039
Joe, buddy I totally respect you and have enjoyed my time in the boat with you. But do a litle math for me.
How many muskie lakes do we have around Milwaukee? Take that number, whatever that may be and compare it to how many lakes around here produce LARGE fish...consistently. I'll take our ratio of big fish waters compared to the ratio of big fish waters up north.
Of course guys are getting big fish up north. More lakes, more fish. It is the ratio that I'm looking at.
And Steve doesn't "have" me. Steve has very good points and very good opinions. Key word being "opinion"... for both of us. Niether one of us is 100% right, nor 100% wrong. His experience is different than mine. And I freely admit that he spends a whole lot more time on the waters of Vilas and Oneida county than I do now.
When I talk to some of my buddies who own bait shops, tourism is down. Guiding is down. People bringing boats north? Down. Point at the economy as part of that problem. The other part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the fishing just isn't as good as it used to be.
How many times have you trailed your boat to Eagle River this year to fish big muskies?
Request to contact Wisconsin legislators
