|
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | :0) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| here ya go
http://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/spring_hearing/2013/2013_Stat... |
|
| |
|
| jonnysled - 4/9/2013 11:03 PM
:0)
You sound like a liberal after the last election, but you have stated you are starting to lean left, so it makes sense:-) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Awesome. Now more FIBs will be coming to Price and Ashland to troll. Thanks alot, Vilas.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 218
| There were 27 counties voting against so if you don't like it I wouldn't blame it on Vilas. The ultimate blame has to go to the author of this proposal who doesn't get it that people just don't want to see 3 line trolling. In Vilas there were 3 citizen proposals submitted that were all variations of a one line trolling proposition. They all seemed to be pretty well received. I think trolling in some form would pass if we were offered something reasonable that "Most" of the public could live with. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Peter. I'm not really sure *who* decided on three lines--although in some ways I suppose they needed to gauge how much support there would be for that. Now they know. So maybe they'll wait two years until the next cycle, and try again with fewer lines. Maybe even two would garner more support? That should completely resolve the "is he dragging a sucker or trolling?" issue. But someone smarter than I am needs to figure that out I guess.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| This doesn't mean trolling will or will not become legal statewide. Just like the 54" limit on GB after passing for the 4th time has not become the size limit. The springs hearings are merely an exercise to gauge public opinion. Nothing is locked in stone. It's ridiculous to think this vote would actually be the deciding factor. Voting on bag limits for specified lakes? Voting on the use of rifles statewide for deer hunting? Please. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Be sure to stop in at Blarney Island or Famous Freddie's. They've got plenty of appreciation to go around ! 
FIB - 4/11/2013 9:37 AM
The same old, same old. Why would I want to come spend my money trolling flambeauskis lakes when I can go elsewhere and be appreciated. No wonder the northwoods of wisconsin are so depressed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | FIB - 4/11/2013 8:37 AM
The same old, same old. Why would I want to come spend my money trolling flambeauskis lakes when I can go elsewhere and be appreciated. No wonder the northwoods of wisconsin are so depressed.
People appreciate FIBs? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | FIB - 4/11/2013 9:37 AM
The same old, same old. Why would I want to come spend my money trolling flambeauskis lakes when I can go elsewhere and be appreciated. No wonder the northwoods of wisconsin are so depressed.
another expert who doesn't know the difference between an ashland, a vilas and a golden retriever ...
anyone who read flambeauski's post and understood it ... will understand this rebuttal. and some wonder "why" ... LOL
Edited by jonnysled 4/11/2013 10:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Shep is right...it isn't over until the fat lady sings! Actually about 2/3 of the Counties voted in favor of trolling. Who knows what the end result will be? |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
The end result will be whatever Walker wants it to be.
Larry Ramsell - 4/11/2013 10:09 AM
Shep is right...it isn't over until the fat lady sings! Actually about 2/3 of the Counties voted in favor of trolling. Who knows what the end result will be? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20216
Location: oswego, il | peace and tranquility restored. birds are chirping, sled and and travis are holding hands skipping through a meadow. fsf threw away his construction muffs. what am I going to do with my briggs kicker now that I cut the muffler off of it? flambeauski will be fishing fishless lakes once us trawler fibs destroy his paradise.
agree with shep, it will come up again for vote, rewritten untill it passes.
if you have not been to famous freddies for their halloween bash, well, just thank me later!!!!
Edited by ToddM 4/11/2013 10:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | ToddM - 4/11/2013 10:44 AM
peace and tranquility restored. birds are chirping, sled and and travis are holding hands skipping through a meadow.
Whoa hold on a second! That's going way to far Todd!
I would fully expect this question to come up again, and hopefully it is worded much differently. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I put my house in Price up for sale when trolling passed last year. When it finally sells I'm moving to Vilas. Of course it won't sell because who wants to buy a house in a county that allows trolling? Even with the trolling-related low property taxes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | CiscoKid - 4/11/2013 11:15 AM
ToddM - 4/11/2013 10:44 AM
peace and tranquility restored. birds are chirping, sled and and travis are holding hands skipping through a meadow.
Whoa hold on a second! That's going way to far Todd!
I would fully expect this question to come up again, and hopefully it is worded much differently.
what time should i pick you up for opener Travis? I'll guarantee you we will catch fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Musky Mod - 4/11/2013 11:44 AM
U nuts are the only ones that want trolling. If ud see these hearings its loaded with anti-trollers. Thats what makes america great: choice. Go elsewhere if u wanna troll. Dont push it where its not wanted. Like our over bearing suppressive government that sufficates freedom and choice out of its people.
have a Snickers dude |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20216
Location: oswego, il | travis, was skipping over the top? sorry about that. you probably still look like your 17 anyway, can you at least show us something, get a grey hair, age maybe slightly?;-)
choice is just that, if trolling passes eventually is that not choice? |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | ROFLMAO !
jonnysled - 4/11/2013 11:48 AM
have a Snickers dude |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | ToddM - 4/11/2013 11:53 AM
travis, was skipping over the top? sorry about that. you probably still look like your 17 anyway, can you at least show us something, get a grey hair, age maybe slightly?;-)
choice is just that, if trolling passes eventually is that not choice?
LOL! I have lots of grey hairs. You just haven't seen me in awhile. |
|
| |
|
| dfkiii - 4/11/2013 9:51 AM
Be sure to stop in at Blarney Island or Famous Freddie's. They've got plenty of appreciation to go around !
Everyone should experience Blarney's at least once in their life......
FIB - 4/11/2013 9:37 AM
The same old, same old. Why would I want to come spend my money trolling flambeauskis lakes when I can go elsewhere and be appreciated. No wonder the northwoods of wisconsin are so depressed. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Shep - 4/11/2013 8:16 AM
This doesn't mean trolling will or will not become legal statewide. Just like the 54" limit on GB after passing for the 4th time has not become the size limit. The springs hearings are merely an exercise to gauge public opinion. Nothing is locked in stone. It's ridiculous to think this vote would actually be the deciding factor. Voting on bag limits for specified lakes? Voting on the use of rifles statewide for deer hunting? Please.
Ah yes. But evidently the point of all those votes (only two of which were state-wide, I might add) was to show public support for the idea that was introduced in a few counties more at the grassroots level. The first year's effort had to be repeated that second year because the CC process didn't work like it should have, I'll grant you that. But then the process seems to have worked pretty much as advertised from that point forward. Yes there have been delays, but then again we've asked the WiDNR to do something they have never done before--agree to a size limit greater than 50". This sets a precedence in the state of Wisconsin, so I would expect it to take more discussion in that sense. Checks and balances and all, I suppose. Of course then we lost *another* year because the DNR couldn't introduce it on their questionnaire last year, due to the "every-other-year" pattern.
So have there been hoops to jump through? Oh yeah. We've certainly had to jump through a bunch of them. But I have been assured that the matter will get recommended for legislative approval this year, so that it can become law for next season. It it what it is, and that's the best we can do. If it ends up taking seven years, it takes seven years. Too long...I agree wholeheartedly. But you play the hand you're dealt, and so here we are.
At the end of the day it beats griping on some musky boards because nothing ever changes...
TB |
|
| |
|
| Wouldn't it make sense to allow two lines so everyone can fish the way they wan't? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| It makes sense until you think about 4 guys in a boat trolling with 8 lines. Then? Not so much. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | esoxaddict - 4/11/2013 9:32 PM
It makes sense until you think about 4 guys in a boat trolling with 8 lines. Then? Not so much.
Yeah, no clean way out of this one no matter what solution you come up with. I guess I'm not surprised they worded it the way they did, with three lines. At the very least it showed how far off the effort is...which really isn't all that far, when you think about it.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| tcbetka - 4/11/2013 4:51 PM Shep - 4/11/2013 8:16 AM This doesn't mean trolling will or will not become legal statewide. Just like the 54" limit on GB after passing for the 4th time has not become the size limit. The springs hearings are merely an exercise to gauge public opinion. Nothing is locked in stone. It's ridiculous to think this vote would actually be the deciding factor. Voting on bag limits for specified lakes? Voting on the use of rifles statewide for deer hunting? Please. Ah yes. But evidently the point of all those votes (only two of which were state-wide, I might add ) was to show public support for the idea that was introduced in a few counties more at the grassroots level. The first year's effort had to be repeated that second year because the CC process didn't work like it should have, I'll grant you that. But then the process seems to have worked pretty much as advertised from that point forward. Yes there have been delays, but then again we've asked the WiDNR to do something they have never done before--agree to a size limit greater than 50". This sets a precedence in the state of Wisconsin, so I would expect it to take more discussion in that sense. Checks and balances and all, I suppose. Of course then we lost *another* year because the DNR couldn't introduce it on their questionnaire last year, due to the "every-other-year" pattern. So have there been hoops to jump through? Oh yeah. We've certainly had to jump through a bunch of them. But I have been assured that the matter will get recommended for legislative approval this year, so that it can become law for next season. It it what it is, and that's the best we can do. If it ends up taking seven years, it takes seven years. Too long...I agree wholeheartedly. But you play the hand you're dealt, and so here we are. At the end of the day it beats griping on some musky boards because nothing ever changes... TB Would have probably been the limit by now if the local DNR guy was in support of it. He openly was against it from the start, because he didn't believe we should prevent someone from keeping a fish over 50". He's gone now, so maybe, just maybe, the effort that we started back then will be a 54" limit on GB. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| esoxaddict - 4/11/2013 9:32 PM It makes sense until you think about 4 guys in a boat trolling with 8 lines. Then? Not so much. or 8 guys on a pontoon trolling 8 lines. Is there a difference? Lines per angler aren't the question here. Look at Pewaukee Lake. Many boats out there dragging 6 lines with 2 anglers for a good portion of the season. We(they) still catch fish, and good ones too. That fishery has not been destroyed. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I don't troll in Wisconsin but after casting for over 30 years in Ontario my shoulders are forcing me to spend more and more time trolling. Personally I like the 1 rod per angler but would like to see 1 addional line per boat. One angler 2 lines 2 anglers 3 lines this would allow the solitary angler to better pattern fish when trolling or the casters to cast and drag 1 sucker. I don't really think for most muskie fishing the number of lines increases harvest as most release all fish. When I fish the eastern end of Lake Ontario I can fish 2 lines when I go east of Wolfe Island I am restricted to one line this to me dosen't make a lot of sense . The two lines in Lake O was put there for the salmon and trout guys and I feel the solitary troller restricted to 1 line is at a real disadvantage. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Shep - 4/12/2013 8:23 AM
Would have probably been the limit by now if the local DNR guy was in support of it. He openly was against it from the start, because he didn't believe we should prevent someone from keeping a fish over 50". He's gone now, so maybe, just maybe, the effort that we started back then will be a 54" limit on GB.
I can't really argue with your logic there Shep, as I had numerous discussions with him via email, telephone and in person. Definitely a "point/counter-point" sort of thing, and a difference in opinion in terms of taking a more proactive instead of reactive (wait and see) approach. But I will give him credit though in that he did listen to the opinions of the interested/concerned anglers, and although it may not have been exactly what he would have preferred, he eventually supported our wishes. It is a complex and complicated issue and I can certainly understand his point--and I certainly have no ill-will towards the man. In fact I have great respect for him as a biologist, and wish him the best in the future.
Science is about objectivity and using the available data to make a decision. People interpret data differently, and therefore make recommendations differently based upon those interpretations. It is what it is. I don't believe that anyone one was "right" or "wrong" on this controversial issue. So while this process has taken much longer than we would have liked, it looks to me like the process works. Quite simply, if there wasn't support for this at some level within the DNR, we wouldn't stand a chance of making it happen at all...no matter how the local DNR biologist felt. My training and experience in medicine has taught me one thing very well when it comes to complicated matters such as this: I don't want this all on me, or on ANY one person. I want to know that many people have reviewed the data, discussed (argued?) the issue and have decided to support the effort. I want as many brains on this as possible--but that of course takes more time. So be it.
In the end, I believe we will get the results we've long been waiting for. I choose to remain optimistic, and personally would like to thank all of the DNR Fisheries guys (including the aforementioned biologist) for the chance to work together on this crucial issue--because it really does set precedence in the state in terms of future musky management. I would also like to thank the hundreds and hundreds of anglers from Wisconsin and many other states, who have contacted me to express their support along the way. While I (re)authored the proposal in 2008 and have been one of the loudest voices supporting this effort, the truth is that this could not have happened without support from literally hundreds of people--including yourself, and (especially) the folks here at MuskieFIRST.
It's been a real journey!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1036
| Shep - 4/12/2013 8:27 AM
esoxaddict - 4/11/2013 9:32 PM It makes sense until you think about 4 guys in a boat trolling with 8 lines. Then? Not so much. or 8 guys on a pontoon trolling 8 lines. Is there a difference? Lines per angler aren't the question here. Look at Pewaukee Lake. Many boats out there dragging 6 lines with 2 anglers for a good portion of the season. We(they) still catch fish, and good ones too. That fishery has not been destroyed.
Fishery is actually getting better down here.
But here is the deal, talk to a newbie to Pewaukee who likes to cast and they will tell you how awful it is to be "crowded" by trollers. The reality is trollers are next to a caster and gone in a minute. But Pewee is a larger lake. But still, guys don't like it.
Put those trollers on a 600 acre lake up north and you would have a lot of upset casters and recreational boaters. To me, it just isn't worth it.
I'd rather they re-word how you can use live bait when casting in the fall.
|
|
| |
|
| Vegas 492 you hit the nail right on the head! Glad some others see where im coming from. My non trolling thoughts are if Pewaukee wasnt so overpressured by trolling perhaps they could grow as big as the Ochauchee fish!!Now thats and argument. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1287
Location: WI | Never seen 8 line trolling where I fish, and trolling is legal with either 2 or 3 lines per angler. In fact, most guys stop at 4 lines total just to keep it less complicated. I'm in WI btw and almost all of the lakes I can troll on are pretty small (sub 1k acres). That said, I don't troll on the small lakes because it's a pain in the @#$ to do it with the weeds and contours. It's easier to cast them. Maybe in a touristy area it would be different, but I think the anti trolling hype is overblown.
Edited by JKahler 4/12/2013 11:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Plenty of big fish in Pewee. Probably as many as in Okauchee, but the Okauchee fish tend to be more girthy. Forage differences for sure. I've never heard anyone complaining about the trollers on Pewaukee. I'll even cast the same areas as the guys trolling, and haven't had a problem. Only difference is there's a lot more fish in Pewee, so you get a lot of 32-38" fish in between bigger fish.
Regardless, I think the concerns of lakes being overrun by trollers up nort are unfounded and the typical sky is falling scenario. I didn't care one way or another if this passed, but the reasons for not passing it for the most part are more emotional then practical. I was at the meeting on Monday and one anti trollers actually said that you can get snagged while trolling, and have to cut the line, then swimmers can get stuck in the line that was left over. I got a good chuckle out of that one as that never happens casting.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 241
| Expect more conflict on Pewaukee. The water is getting clearer and the casters are moving out from the shore lines and fishing the deep. Same line as the trollers.
The casters have the right of way. Boating regulations consider a boat trolling to be "under power".
Don't get me started over the sailboats. Sailboats have right away over trollers.
Vote no to statewide trolling.
Backdraft |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Tom, Yes, David and I had many focused discussions and we agreed to disagree. I was only thinking about the fish and C&R, and he was thinking more about the casual angler lucking into a fish they could keep. I do remember the informational meetings we had at the yacht club. I thought they were helpful, and would eventually lead to the 54" limit. It was also the first time a serious thought about making it C&R only was entertained. Ah, the good old days. I spent a great day later on with David checking nets around Little Sturgeon one spring day. Had a 50+ female and a 45" male in one of the nets. She was full of eggs and ready to drop them. Also got to handle many 10+ lb walleyes and some huge smallies! Never once talked about the 54" limit that day. Agree with TuffDaddy on difference in fish on Pewauke and Ocauchee is the forage. Ciscos make girthier fish in Ocauchee.
Edited by Shep 4/15/2013 10:55 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wow...sounds like a fun time with those nets Shep! And the fact that you were able to spend an entire day with him and *not* talk about the 54" limit only indicates that it was never a personal issue for him. It was what it was--a discussion about a matter that was somewhat controversial due to its complexity. That and the fact that it is a trend-setting issue in Wisconsin shows why it has taken so long.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
| I recently heard someone comment that trolling isn't really fishing. (ouch for those who troll!) Comments like that usually come from narrow-minded people that have little first-hand knowledge of trolling. Outside of Vilas Co, 3-line-per-angler trolling is legal on a large number Wisconsin lakes. I'm not aware of problems this is causing where it's legal other than from people who just like to complain. The fact is most water users don't like to compete with others. Casters don't want to be bothered by trollers, people standing on their docks, pleasure boaters, jet skiers, even other casters etc. Trollers don't like casters parked outside the weed line they want to troll down, waterskiers and people fishing for suspended panfish in their line. Skiers, tubers, pleasure boaters don't like fisherman in their way. Non-tournament people hate seeing "their" lake with the extra traffic caused by tournament anglers. Jet skiers (as much of a nuisance as they are!) may be one of the few water users of the lake that work well with boats of any type that are throwing up a big wake. Wisconsin seems to be one of the very few places that have a problem with the idea of trolling. 3-line trolling seems to come up quite often as the biggest concern, but the complainers would complain even if single-line trolling was allowed. I'm guessing they really don't even like row trollers doing their thing. And what about those casters that are out there in the middle of the lake targeting suspended muskies?!? As stated above, most of the fishing WORLD outside of Vilas County (including much of Wisconsin) allows trolling with few if any serious documented issues negatively impacting the fishery. All I know is I'm a caster and prefer the one-on-one, direct interaction with muskies. But I will help to celebrate any muskie that is caught whatever the technique as long as is not negatively impacting our muskie population. And trolling alone isn't causing a problem. Can anyone site scientific study results that prove otherwise? Most of the comments about how rough trolling is on the fishery are purely speculative. Catch an muskie and let it go!
Dave |
|
| |
|
| Backdraft
Don't get me started over the sailboats. Sailboats have right away over trollers.
Read your rule book!!! Not always
If a boat is under power by a electic motor who has the right of way???
Wouldn't it be the boat that see's the green bow light and NOT the boat who see's the red bow light!!!
Once again, Read your rule book!!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 241
| Sorry Dude,
I did - boat under sail has the right of way.
Backdraft |
|
| |
|
| Generally, sailboats have the right-of-way over power boats unless the sailboat is overtaking another boat. In that case, the sailboat becomes the "give-way" boat. Additionally, if a sail boat has mechanical propulsion and it is being used, the sail boat, even while still under sail, is suddenly a power boat and must obey the same rules as other power boats.
Once again - read the rule book!!
|
|
| |
Trolling Vote ... What was the result of the Vote??