|
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | http://dnr.wi.gov/news/BreakingNews_Lookup.asp?id=3177 |
|
| |
|
| Some interesting results there. Thanks! Here's a link directly to the results from this year.
http://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/spring_hearing/2014/2014_Stat... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The trolling vote was interesting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Interesting....7000 total in attendance. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 337
Location: Watersmeet, Michigan | sworrall - 4/15/2014 10:24 PM
The trolling vote was interesting.
Interesting indeed, as is the continued opposition to it in Vilas County. (69 - yes, 116 - no.) I've never understood this and guess I never will.
I find the opposition to effective panfish management disappointing. Even though we now understand the necessity of the presence of mature males in maintaining healthy panfish populations, fishermen refuse to recognize the need to have effective regulations that would preserve those bull gills.
Fr. K
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 269
Location: Oregon, WI | Yes, trolling vote was interesting. The opposition in Dane county was a surprise. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Actually, if you think about it, it wasn't about trolling at all, it was about being able to drag a sucker while casting and not get busted for "trolling".
Trolling has always been legal on Green Bay, but go out there on a nice summer day and 18 out of 20 boats will be casting. It's tradition and a way of life for most Wisconsiner's (is that a word?).
As stated in the Question, there is no biological reason not to troll. It is legal in the rest of the world and now we have finally moved into the 21st Century. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Here we go again!! If they would have worded it to only pertain to sucker fishing which is the whole intention and clear up that issue only it would have easily passed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Mr Musky - 4/16/2014 11:14 AM
Here we go again!! If they would have worded it to only pertain to sucker fishing which is the whole intention and clear up that issue only it would have easily passed.
Not really. walleye anglers also were getting the bite on them if their line was not vertical when the were fishing using their trolling motor. Besides, you can't do it for one group and have it unlawful for another. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Sure there is Larry. I guess you missed reading Dettloff's recent letter to the editor in the Sawyer County Record. 
Larry Ramsell - 4/16/2014 7:39 AM
As stated in the Question, there is no biological reason not to troll. It is legal in the rest of the world and now we have finally moved into the 21st Century. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| 1) eliminate confusion about where trolling is legal; 2) allow anglers to trail a sucker or other minnow while under power anywhere in the State; 3) eliminate the need for disabled anglers to apply for trolling permits; and 4) provide additional fishing opportunities for anglers who may have more difficulty fishing by other methods.
1. Do you favor this compromise trolling proposal, which would allow trolling with 1 “line” (i.e., hook, bait, or lure) per angler in the 17 counties listed above (except the 31 waters already open to trolling) and would allow trolling with 3 “lines” per angler in the other 55 counties?
1. YES____
NO_____
They word it above under #2 Allow anglers to trail a sucker or minnow while under power anywhere in the state. They should have left it at that and the position fishing would have easily been cleared up. And yes that wouldnt leave out any other parties that fish for walleyes or what not.
Edited by Mr Musky 4/16/2014 11:37 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | I just want to know if this will actually go into effect in 2015? The DNR appears on board with this plan but it was shot down by the governors office last year saying they wanted public input. I'm fine with trolling 1 line. I have 2 younger daughters that would love to come musky fishing with me but aren't about to cast all day for a shot. Minnesota and Canada are both destination musky areas and 1 line trolling doesn't seem to be hurting their fisheries. Green Bay right here in WI doesn't seem to have problems brought on by trolling either. Just my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | No dfkiii, I didn't miss the obviously erroneous and misleading "scare tactics" that Dettloff used in his "Letter to the Editor" of the Sawyer County Record last week. He has exactly nothing data wise to substantiate any of his false claims and therefore offered nothing to substantiate his claims. Conversely, the DNR did their homework and gathered a ton of data that shows trolling will not be harmful to the state's muskellunge fisheries and so stated at the Sawyer County meeting. According to our biologist, this "question" had absolutely nothing to do with biology! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | jonnysled - 4/16/2014 12:14 PM
ahhh, the little johny add a line program …
It's really not about adding a line. I'd be happy with just 1 line trolling per boat. It's more about opportunity for them to get involved. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | How did kids fish before trolling motors were invented?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Outboard motors, before that oars, and before that paddles? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Ah yes, oars. Those were the things my dad made us use before we could be trusted casting muskie baits.
A lot of times we fished from shore too. It's amazing I got into fishing without having caught any fish trolling. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 365
| ---- nothing will change ---- |
|
| |
|
| I am almost embarrassed to admit my first muskies experience was trolling with my great grandmother and her friend Mr. LeBlanc... |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | jimjimjim - 4/16/2014 4:20 PM
---- nothing will change ----
Kinda like the annual Waterfowl hearings? Gather opinions and then throw them right out the window. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: one foot over the line | Oars!!! Oars!!! you guys actually got oars!!?? i had to kick my feet off the back of the boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | You had a boat?! We had a raft made of empty bottles of Wild Turkey! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 275
| I don't understand why this is such a big deal, (on either side of the argument). Troll where legal, cast where not.....I am not allowed to drive 55 in a 25 mph school zone!!! WHAAAAA
Jaimy |
|
| |
|
| BMuskyX - 4/16/2014 6:44 PM
I don't understand why this is such a big deal, (on either side of the argument). Troll where legal, cast where not.....I am not allowed to drive 55 in a 25 mph school zone!!! WHAAAAA
Jaimy
It's not a "big deal", but is worth discussion for the same reason people discuss any regulations, rule changes, policies, and politics. If the current rules in place are no longer what is best and what people want, then its worth debating whether or not they should be updated. Don't tell me there are no rules or laws out there that you disagree with too. Personally, I wish they would have just clarified that you are legally able to drag one live bait and cast another while intermittently under power by an electric motor.- would have cleared up the whole reason this was brought up to begin with (sucker fishing and moving the boat, some were concerned could be considered illegally trolling). Instead they bring trolling across the whole state. I fully support the legal ability to move your boat when sucker fishing, but as to trolling open state-wide, I really do not know how big the impact will be. Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water. Thank god we live in a democracy where we can at least pretend to have some involvement in rules and regulations instead of a dictatorship where we are just told what the rules are and have no voice whatsoever. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | Trolling is like going 55 in a 25? How did Pointer miss this post? |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Actually it's more like going 25 in a 55. 
ToddM - 4/17/2014 10:49 AM
Trolling is like going 55 in a 25? How did Pointer miss this post? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| I find it hard to belive that trolling will be more detrimental to the fishery than single hook sucker rigs or improper used quick strike. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ToddM - 4/17/2014 9:49 AM
Trolling is like going 55 in a 25? How did Pointer miss this post?
It'd be a full time job if I had to keep up with stuff like this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are. |
|
| |
|
| Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
The point of my post was just to point out that it is a topic worth discussing. I'm not an expert on the effects of trolling, but realize there are two sides to this debate. I'm not taking either side here, but am interested to hear more from both. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I prefer to compare trolling muskies to bowhunting deer with a crossbow or paying for sex, but will instead compare it to night fishing on Mille Lacs. The MN DNR believes they can reduce the poundage of fish harvested or killed through delayed mortality by 20% by eliminating night fishing on the lake. How they come to this conclusion I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it applies here as well.
Count the muskies (or walleyes) you caught last year, and the number caught while trolling (even dragging a sucker). I'm guessing 20% is pretty close, if not low.
Edited by Flambeauski 4/17/2014 12:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
I don't believe there ARE any studies on the effects of trolling. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a situation where a trolling ban was lifted where one COULD do any sort of study. The only way to find out is open it up, and see what happens. I don't know that that's such a good idea. Once you open that door...
I personally find the whole thing kind of greedy. You have the whole state to troll, and a few places where you cannot, due to a ban that was implemented for a very good reason. Ceded territory being what it is, I think those areas need all the help they can get. It's not the people with a sucker out or the guy who is going to go out and troll with one rod that we need to be concerned about. It's the 300 acre lake that has a good population of fish because it's just a big bowl and most of the fish in it never see a lure, combined with a pontoon boat with 6 guys running downriggers and boards who can cover the entire lake in two hours, and WILL. Again and again and again...
It would be one thing if everyone had the same regard for the fisheries that most of us do, but we've all seen it. People don't care. They want to go out and catch as many fish as they can, and keep as many fish as they can, and if it gets to the point where they can't limit out in 3 hours like the used to, they'll just blame the muskies for eating all their walleyes. |
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 4/17/2014 1:05 PM
Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
I don't believe there ARE any studies on the effects of trolling. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a situation where a trolling ban was lifted where one COULD do any sort of study. The only way to find out is open it up, and see what happens. I don't know that that's such a good idea. Once you open that door...
I personally find the whole thing kind of greedy. You have the whole state to troll, and a few places where you cannot, due to a ban that was implemented for a very good reason. Ceded territory being what it is, I think those areas need all the help they can get. It's not the people with a sucker out or the guy who is going to go out and troll with one rod that we need to be concerned about. It's the 300 acre lake that has a good population of fish because it's just a big bowl and most of the fish in it never see a lure, combined with a pontoon boat with 6 guys running downriggers and boards who can cover the entire lake in two hours, and WILL. Again and again and again...
It would be one thing if everyone had the same regard for the fisheries that most of us do, but we've all seen it. People don't care. They want to go out and catch as many fish as they can, and keep as many fish as they can, and if it gets to the point where they can't limit out in 3 hours like the used to, they'll just blame the muskies for eating all their walleyes.
Spoken like a true FIB.
Edited by BenR 4/17/2014 1:34 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you can cast and fish with a sucker and and stay within the law ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Flambeauski - 4/17/2014 12:48 PM
I prefer to compare trolling muskies to bowhunting deer with a crossbow or paying for sex, but will instead compare it to night fishing on Mille Lacs. The MN DNR believes they can reduce the poundage of fish harvested or killed through delayed mortality by 20% by eliminating night fishing on the lake. How they come to this conclusion I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it applies here as well.
Count the muskies (or walleyes) you caught last year, and the number caught while trolling (even dragging a sucker). I'm guessing 20% is pretty close, if not low.
Actually 20% would be very high. I live in Wisconsin and fish waters open to trolling already. All of my Walleyes(400ish-kept a dozen or so) came casting. All but 6 Muskies came casting. What is your point? The 6 Muskies I hooked in the mouth with one treble hook while dragging suckers last year are going to die, vs the several I had to do minor surgery to remove the double 10 bucktails that were eaten while casted between noon and 6pm?
The resistance by the general public to any attempt in improving panfish population/size structure dynamics, is disheartening. It is my hope that at some point, our local managers will be allowed to manage a few of their local waters with some modern/much needed panfish regs. Take a couple lakes in a few counties and apply more stringent limits or cnr for a few years. Let's see what happens. My kids love to eat panfish, but they really love to catch really big bluegills. It isn't any secret that the only way to consistently do that is to fish less pressured, difficult to access, or private waters. There are thousands of lakes in the state capable of producing giant Gills(10.5+" fish). Lets allow a few of them the chance to do so. There are also a ton of lakes that once produced a lot of eater sized fish(7-8") fish that struggle in doing so now. I know there are a lot more factors in producing numbers and or size in a panfish pop, and I also know we do have a lot of lakes that are ust fine with limits right where they are, but I see no reason why we couldn't have a number of agreed upon waters to at least experiment with. Kudos to the DNR for attempting to gain support in doing this. |
|
| |
|
| jonnysled - 4/17/2014 1:38 PM
you can cast and fish with a sucker and and stay within the law ...
Its my understanding that currently if you use your trolling motor and move your boat with that sucker out, it is up to a DNR warden's discretion as to whether or not that is considered trolling. Most people would agree with you, but apparently some people were concerned, so that is what was initially brought up, to clarify that it is legal to do so- The politicians decided to make the question about trolling in general...not exactly what was being requested. Now here we are. |
|
| |
|
| Reef Hawg - 4/17/2014 1:47 PM
Flambeauski - 4/17/2014 12:48 PM
I prefer to compare trolling muskies to bowhunting deer with a crossbow or paying for sex, but will instead compare it to night fishing on Mille Lacs. The MN DNR believes they can reduce the poundage of fish harvested or killed through delayed mortality by 20% by eliminating night fishing on the lake. How they come to this conclusion I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it applies here as well.
Count the muskies (or walleyes) you caught last year, and the number caught while trolling (even dragging a sucker). I'm guessing 20% is pretty close, if not low.
Actually 20% would be very high. I live in Wisconsin and fish waters open to trolling already. All of my Walleyes (400ish-kept a dozen or so ) came casting. All but 6 Muskies came casting. What is your point? The 6 Muskies I hooked in the mouth with one treble hook while dragging suckers last year are going to die, vs the several I had to do minor surgery to remove the double 10 bucktails that were eaten while casted between noon and 6pm?
The resistance by the general public to any attempt in improving panfish population/size structure dynamics, is disheartening. It is my hope that at some point, our local managers will be allowed to manage a few of their local waters with some modern/much needed panfish regs. Take a couple lakes in a few counties and apply more stringent limits or cnr for a few years. Let's see what happens. My kids love to eat panfish, but they really love to catch really big bluegills. It isn't any secret that the only way to consistently do that is to fish less pressured, difficult to access, or private waters. There are thousands of lakes in the state capable of producing giant Gills (10.5+" fish ). Lets allow a few of them the chance to do so. There are also a ton of lakes that once produced a lot of eater sized fish (7-8" ) fish that struggle in doing so now. I know there are a lot more factors in producing numbers and or size in a panfish pop, and I also know we do have a lot of lakes that are ust fine with limits right where they are, but I see no reason why we couldn't have a number of agreed upon waters to at least experiment with. Kudos to the DNR for attempting to gain support in doing this.
I'd have to agree with this. I would sure think it'd be beneficial to try this on a few lakes and see what happens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
| esoxaddict - 4/17/2014 1:05 PM
Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
I don't believe there ARE any studies on the effects of trolling. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a situation where a trolling ban was lifted where one COULD do any sort of study. The only way to find out is open it up, and see what happens. I don't know that that's such a good idea. Once you open that door...
I personally find the whole thing kind of greedy. You have the whole state to troll, and a few places where you cannot, due to a ban that was implemented for a very good reason. Ceded territory being what it is, I think those areas need all the help they can get. It's not the people with a sucker out or the guy who is going to go out and troll with one rod that we need to be concerned about. It's the 300 acre lake that has a good population of fish because it's just a big bowl and most of the fish in it never see a lure, combined with a pontoon boat with 6 guys running downriggers and boards who can cover the entire lake in two hours, and WILL. Again and again and again...
It would be one thing if everyone had the same regard for the fisheries that most of us do, but we've all seen it. People don't care. They want to go out and catch as many fish as they can, and keep as many fish as they can, and if it gets to the point where they can't limit out in 3 hours like the used to, they'll just blame the muskies for eating all their walleyes.
Well said. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Considering the number of walleyes caught trolling on Bago and GB I would say 20% is very low.
The point is, reducing opportunities reduces catch, reducing catch reduces mortality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| esoxaddict - 4/17/2014 1:05 PM
Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 11:44 AM
FishFinder87 - 4/17/2014 10:38 AM
Most studies say that where its been reintroduced, it has not had a significant impact...but I think there is still a valid reason to be concerned on certain bodies of water.
Nice post, but I'm curious...you say "most" studies.
Do you know of ANY studies showing ANY adverse impact to any fishery as a result of an introduction of trolling, or, trolling in general?
I'm not aware of any. But I'd be interested in reading any, if there are.
I don't believe there ARE any studies on the effects of trolling. As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a situation where a trolling ban was lifted where one COULD do any sort of study. The only way to find out is open it up, and see what happens. I don't know that that's such a good idea. Once you open that door...
I personally find the whole thing kind of greedy. You have the whole state to troll, and a few places where you cannot, due to a ban that was implemented for a very good reason. Ceded territory being what it is, I think those areas need all the help they can get. It's not the people with a sucker out or the guy who is going to go out and troll with one rod that we need to be concerned about. It's the 300 acre lake that has a good population of fish because it's just a big bowl and most of the fish in it never see a lure, combined with a pontoon boat with 6 guys running downriggers and boards who can cover the entire lake in two hours, and WILL. Again and again and again...
It would be one thing if everyone had the same regard for the fisheries that most of us do, but we've all seen it. People don't care. They want to go out and catch as many fish as they can, and keep as many fish as they can, and if it gets to the point where they can't limit out in 3 hours like the used to, they'll just blame the muskies for eating all their walleyes.
Actually, we do have some information that's worthwhile in these regard: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/rules/MotorTrollingPropos...
If you don't want to read through that, I'll point out a few highlights:
-Catch rates for muskie, walleye, pike are not increased on trolling vs non-trolling waters
-Harvest rates are not increased on trolling vs non-trolling waters
-Average size of harvested fish are the same in trolling vs non-trolling waters
-No difference in the overall size structure of fish in trolling vs non-trolling waters |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Rather rehashing everything we went through last year here is that thread, and Matt brought up the same poor study in that thread as well. Feel free to read it all as I think everything was covered pretty well from both sides.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=82...
I also find the panfish deal disheartening. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| CiscoKid - 4/17/2014 2:56 PM
Rather rehashing everything we went through last year here is that thread, and Matt brought up the same poor study in that thread as well. Feel free to read it all as I think everything was covered pretty well from both sides.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=82...
I also find the panfish deal disheartening.
Maybe we didn't get quite get everything hashed out last year, Travis.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 3:05 PM
CiscoKid - 4/17/2014 2:56 PM
Rather rehashing everything we went through last year here is that thread, and Matt brought up the same poor study in that thread as well. Feel free to read it all as I think everything was covered pretty well from both sides.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=82...
I also find the panfish deal disheartening.
Maybe we didn't get quite get everything hashed out last year, Travis.
Then why make the same points as last year? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 580
| CiscoKid - 4/17/2014 3:06 PM
Matt DeVos - 4/17/2014 3:05 PM
CiscoKid - 4/17/2014 2:56 PM
Rather rehashing everything we went through last year here is that thread, and Matt brought up the same poor study in that thread as well. Feel free to read it all as I think everything was covered pretty well from both sides.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=82...
I also find the panfish deal disheartening.
Maybe we didn't get quite get everything hashed out last year, Travis.
Then why make the same points as last year?
Perhaps it's because the points are as valid today as they were a year ago in response to the same concerns?
Edit: Did you ever get to read the Beard report, Travis? You claim it's a "poor study", so I assume you did? What did you learn?
Edited by Matt DeVos 4/17/2014 3:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | it's an easy argument … |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I don't see much in that study that couldn't be correlated to other factors, like the increased popularity of catch and release, increased size limits, improved stocking and conservation efforts, or the fact that many of the resorts that used to dot the lakes have closed and sold their land to developers. Seems to me that while musky fishing has continued to grow in popularity, the overall number of people fishing out there has continued to decline for as long as I can remember. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
| Whether you are for or against trolling anybody who actually does both knows that catching muskies trolling is no easier than catching them casting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 275
| I am not as concerned about catch rate as I am conserving the tranquility on smaller bodies of water. There is a small amount of wake and motor noise associated with trolling that I can do without on such lakes. Those who enjoy both have plenty of waters to choose from, let the others have the choice to go to a lake and quietly cast without it.
Jaimy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 218
| My sense of the issue is that it is more about the potential of conflicting resource usage. People are concerned that trollers will get in the way of other fishermen and recreational boaters on small water bodies. Very few people in the general public actually have concerns about fisheries management. You will notice that outside of local fishing organizations there is virtually nobody with the pull to make changes (chambers of commerce, politicians, etc.) making any efforts on behalf of walleye, muskies, or even the panfish discussed earlier in this thread. Of course there are a few who fear armadas of pontoon boats flocking to the northwoods with 2 fishermen and 6 grandchildren running 24 lines off a boat so they can kill suspended muskies. That concern was clearly stated by Mr. Rizzo at the hearings. A few think that guys will go out and put a hurt on the walleye (with a bag limit of two or three??). I guess I don't see how a boat either trailing a sucker or even pulling a couple lures is going to be any more problematic than the constant parade of martini barges, jet skiers, tubers, skiers, etc. My honest opinion is that we WILL see an increase in trolling for a few years...just because they can. When people catch on that trolling is just another tactic and doesn't guarantee them a giant musky or a limit of walleye it will simply go back to being a technique that is applied on occasion and to allow sucker fishermen to do what they do now without the "grey area" of position fishing vs. trolling. Frankly in the past number of years I don't think I've heard of anyone getting "busted" for trolling while sucker fishing unless they were blatantly trolling. The DNR has made it clear that trolling IS going to happen one way or another. The one line trolling regulation proposed at this years hearings is about as good a compromise as there is going to be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Ditto to Mr Stoltman. Well said Pete! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Another ditto. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Dittio thrice Senior Stoleman. |
|
| |
|
Location: Lake Tomahawk, WI | Pete's summary nails it better than any I've read. Nice job.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3
| Hey BenR, how is his reaponse like a true FIB? Because it was a well thoght educated statement with merit? I would say your response sounds like a tue cheesehead. |
|
| |
|
| ScottiePippen - 4/19/2014 2:11 PM
Hey BenR, how is his reaponse like a true FIB? Because it was a well thoght educated statement with merit? I would say your response sounds like a tue cheesehead.
His response is like a true FIB, because he is a FIB. So am I. BR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | BenR - 4/19/2014 2:14 PM
ScottiePippen - 4/19/2014 2:11 PM
Hey BenR, how is his reaponse like a true FIB? Because it was a well thoght educated statement with merit? I would say your response sounds like a tue cheesehead.
His response is like a true FIB, because he is a FIB. So am I. BR
FIB season is right around the corner … it's been a long winter and a nice, quiet Spring … we're all just about starving to death and the rescue can't come soon enough! |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Given 2 feet of snow on the ground in May or FIBs in town I'll take the FIBs. In fact, come on up early. All that hot air is sure to melt the snow and ice ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| FIB season is right around the corner … That is the funniest thing I have read or heard in a while. Thanks Sled! |
|
| |
|
| ARmuskyaddict - 4/19/2014 5:45 PM
FIB season is right around the corner … That is the funniest thing I have read or heard in a while. Thanks Sled!
Don't feed the troll... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I have a troll boat all ready when this thing finally passes, 18' all primer with a silhouette of Illinois all down the side. Four 5hp Briggs motors on the back, no mufflers. You will hear me on the south end of Tomahawk while I am making a trolling pass on the north end of Kawaguesaga!
Edited by ToddM 4/20/2014 7:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Is there a bridge between Illinois and Wisconsin? In the UP, they call those below the bridge "Trolls". Maybe the FIBer's fit that category as well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 273
| How wide is it between the 51 bridge pillars that goes over minoqua? I want to make sure my trolling spread will fit. With 6 in the boat we should be able to cover some ground. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 633
Location: Madison, WI | Why would you guys wanna troll Minoqua anyways? Everyone knows Hayward is home to 5 world record musky!:) |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
You need to replace "Everyone knows" with "Every FIB believes".
danmuskyman - 4/20/2014 9:40 AM
Why would you guys wanna troll Minoqua anyways? Everyone knows Hayward is home to 5 world record musky!:) |
|
| |
|
| dfkiii - 4/20/2014 9:50 AM
You need to replace "Everyone knows" with "Every FIB believes".
danmuskyman - 4/20/2014 9:40 AM
Why would you guys wanna troll Minoqua anyways? Everyone knows Hayward is home to 5 world record musky!:)
Louie Spray and that nonsense represents WI, if the majority of WI folks did not believe, the "records" would be gone. You can't blame your goofy legacy on FIBs, it is all yours:-)) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | BenR - 4/20/2014 10:08 AM
dfkiii - 4/20/2014 9:50 AM
You need to replace "Everyone knows" with "Every FIB believes".
danmuskyman - 4/20/2014 9:40 AM
Why would you guys wanna troll Minoqua anyways? Everyone knows Hayward is home to 5 world record musky!:)
Louie Spray and that nonsense represents WI, if the majority of WI folks did not believe, the "records" would be gone. You can't blame your goofy legacy on FIBs, it is all yours:- ) )
what happened to you at summer camp Ben? … the wounds seem like they are pretty deep. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Grab the net !
BenR - 4/20/2014 10:08 AM
dfkiii - 4/20/2014 9:50 AM
You need to replace "Everyone knows" with "Every FIB believes".
danmuskyman - 4/20/2014 9:40 AM
Why would you guys wanna troll Minoqua anyways? Everyone knows Hayward is home to 5 world record musky!:)
Louie Spray and that nonsense represents WI, if the majority of WI folks did not believe, the "records" would be gone. You can't blame your goofy legacy on FIBs, it is all yours:- ) ) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| What is the best reel for trolling double tens??? |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Try a Penn Senator 14/0
Mr Musky - 4/21/2014 11:14 AM
What is the best reel for trolling double tens??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Mr Musky - 4/21/2014 11:14 AM
What is the best reel for trolling double tens???
Just tie it to the end of the rod. The fish will likely be dead anyhow, if eaten while trolled. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 |
Reef Hawg - 4/21/2014 12:21 PM Mr Musky - 4/21/2014 11:14 AM What is the best reel for trolling double tens??? Just tie it to the end of the rod. The fish will likely be dead anyhow, if eaten while trolled. Haha, how true! All kidding aside, I think it’s interesting to contemplate the rationale behind why there was a trolling ban enacted to begin with… was it a perceived fear of trolling being too effective and decimating the fisheries, or was it protection of one's own home waters back in the day similar to the outlawing the Suick? Why the fear of the fisheries suffering when the ban is lifted when trolling seems to be okay nearly everywhere on the planet except a few isolated pockets in Wisconsin. Seriously, how is it that these areas have had such an advanced understanding of how detrimental trolling is to their “unique” fisheries than anywhere else? Regarding the muskie first part of the equation; I can completely understand wanting to maintain a “casting only tradition”, or to help keep the FIBS off their home waters, but would also like to see some people just pony up to the real reason they are opposed to trolling, and not cite some perceived harm to their fishery when there is virtually no difference in pressure when you compare two guys trolling 6 artificial lures, versus two guys casting while soaking 4 suckers. From my seat here, I think that claiming to be concerned about the fishery from trolling pressure alone while condoning multiple rods for sucker fishing is very close to talking out both sides of your mouth. I think it's an even sillier argument that a boat trolling at 3-4 miles an hour will somehow disturb the “peace and tranquility” more than the jet and water skiers (okay except maybe Todd’s rig), or that the evil trolls will spread their pestilence in the form of an invasive species. Regarding the thought that a pontoon boat with a bunch of kids and 20 rods will be a problem, it would take such a high level of sophistication to run multiple rods off a boat loaded with kids like that… well, it is hardly worth mentioning. Hypothetical; what's the difference between using the same kids to run multiple suckers off that same boat with the current rules? What about the muskie guides in the restricted areas, trolling would open up new opportunities, while attracting new business to the area. Nuts and bolts; there is certainly a segment of the population (mostly FIBS) who are interested in hiring a guide in Wisconsin, but do not want to cast all day. That potential business is simply being lost to other areas, and it's not just the guides loss either, it's a trickle-down deal with the local resorts, restaurants, etc. and vice versa. Like Pete said; there might be an increase in trolling initially, but wouldn't this also be a shot in the arm to the local economies? Some of you may not be “starving to death”, but I’d guess there are others who are hanging on by a couple threads about this time of the year, and a deposit would be very welcome.
Edited by Jerry Newman 4/21/2014 8:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | I'm aware of a few lakes in Sawyer County where jet and water skiers aren't allowed (well, they are if you enjoy those activities at 10mph or less) and at a few more that restrict water skiing to to a four hour window in the afternoon.
Will trolling disturb some folks "peace and tranquility" ? Without a doubt. Is that "silly" ? I'd bet that the people who pay to stay at the resorts on those lakes for the express reason of peace and tranquility won't think so.
Jerry Newman - 4/21/2014 8:12 PM
I think it's an even sillier argument that a boat trolling at 3-4 miles an hour will somehow disturb the “peace and tranquility” more than the jet and water skiers
Edited by dfkiii 4/21/2014 9:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Reefhawg, "The fish will likely be dead anyhow if eaten while trolled"... Now that sounds detrimental to me? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I am going to scrap my Briggs trolling motors. Working on a steam powered outboard. Black smoke anyone! chug a chug a troll! |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Be sure to buy your wood locally.
ToddM - 4/21/2014 9:10 PM
I am going to scrap my Briggs trolling motors. Working on a steam powered outboard. Black smoke anyone! chug a chug a troll! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | Going with coal. Acid rain is a hoax too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Jerry Newman - 4/21/2014 8:12 PM
I think it's an even sillier argument that a boat trolling at 3-4 miles an hour will somehow disturb the “peace and tranquility”
Have you ever been fishing on beautiful quiet October day, on a small northern WI lake, when there are dueling leave blowers doing their thing, a couple of lawn mowers, 3 dogs having a barking contest, and a boom box blasting to the threshold of pain? Add to this the sound of water coming out the side of a four stroke motor, trolling at 3 MPH, striking the surface and the noise will be unbearable. Tranquility ruined!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | if jerry is trolling down a line and tom gelb is trolling the other way with oars, who has the right of way? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Gelb! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | After the DNR announced bag limits for Vilas/Oneida co's, I'm sure many of you are glad you're not trailering up there to troll walleyes.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/ceded/baglimits.html |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Wow, Todd is going to be trailering his steamboat around quite a bit if he wants to get a daily limit in my neck of the woods.
Edited by dfkiii 4/22/2014 12:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 2 on George again.
This is why Keith and I have worked so hard to figure out the really good trophy panfish populations up here. Now those could be in trouble because LOTS of others did the same, and they don't have an issue with keeping 25 a person a day. Every day.
Good thing I like to eat smallish Pike. We still have plenty of those. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI |
Same by us Steve. Plenty of pigs taking their daily limits multiple times a day too. Always good to have the DNR tip line on speed dial...
sworrall - 4/22/2014 2:24 PM
2 on George again.
This is why Keith and I have worked so hard to figure out the really good trophy panfish populations up here. Now those could be in trouble because LOTS of others did the same, and they don't have an issue with keeping 25 a person a day. Every day.
Good thing I like to eat smallish Pike. We still have plenty of those. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Johnnie, I take it you have fished “barking dog lake” on a quiet day in October before as well… pretty funny stuff. Sled, don't be “silly”, everybody knows that TG gets preferential treatment… maybe someday (if I behave?) I'll get a police escort to the lake like him? Todd, I saw a little riverboat for sale today with a Briggs & Stratton engine mounted on the back… it even had the high dollar adapter muffler that makes it sound just like a Husaqvara. I'll drop you a PM so no one else on here can beat you to it, but you better act quick because a rig that sweet is not going to last. Steve, this might start the real controversy; hammer handle northern pike taste better than walleye or panfish.
Edited by Jerry Newman 4/22/2014 8:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Johnnie - 4/22/2014 7:23 AM
Jerry Newman - 4/21/2014 8:12 PM
I think it's an even sillier argument that a boat trolling at 3-4 miles an hour will somehow disturb the “peace and tranquility”
Have you ever been fishing on beautiful quiet October day, on a small northern WI lake, when there are dueling leave blowers doing their thing, a couple of lawn mowers, 3 dogs having a barking contest, and a boom box blasting to the threshold of pain? Add to this the sound of water coming out the side of a four stroke motor, trolling at 3 MPH, striking the surface and the noise will be unbearable. Tranquility ruined!!
If that's what you consider a quiet October Day, you're fishing in the wrong place. |
|
| |
Conservation Congress Results WI