|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | There is some breaking news that suggests that Mr. Meyer has volunteered to introduce legislature in January 2009, in order to reverse the early season that he got passed in 2007. I think it is for real, but I don't have additional details. But the email I received stated that he has made a press release.
So if this is indeed true (and I believe it is), congratulations to all that worked so hard to get this reversed!
TB
EDIT: Here's a link... http://www.wjfw.com/stories.html?sku=20080512171024
Edited by tcbetka 5/12/2008 11:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Great news, let's hope it's for certain!
Thanks to all who helped,
Steve |
|
| |
|
| A victory for "common sense" |
|
| |
|
| way to go everyone. it took all of us to convince him. i am very proud today.
dannyboy
dannyboys guide service
laona,wi
715-674-2061 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 107
Location: Mayer, MN | Can someone full me in on why an early season is bad? You guys are the ones who know what is good for the sport, just wondering what the reasons are behind it?
Thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | mmclain6101 - 5/13/2008 11:03 AM
Can someone full me in on why an early season is bad? You guys are the ones who know what is good for the sport, just wondering what the reasons are behind it?
Thanks
It really depends on where you are. In some cases and under certain conditions it may be bad (i.e., low density of adults, limited and obvious spawning areas, etc.) but in my experience, spawning isn't usually the limiting factor. Many other conditions impinge upon a fish's ability to recruit to the population - a much more reliable indicator of population success than spawning. In my experience (admittedly probably not directly related), spawning success was never as critical as having adequate nursery habitat or early life history forage available. Those were most often the bottlenecks that I had to deal with. Now that's not to say that in a lot of waters protection of spawning fish is not warranted, I just think people tend to make blanket statements without understanding the biology behind it. Most fishing seasons that I have dealt with on a professional basis have been for social, political, and/or economic reasons rather than biological ones.
Let the flogging begin...
S. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I believe that the rate of angling-related mortality would be significantly higher in fish angled during the spawn.
As much as anything, I think the concern here has to do with the length of a post-spawn recovery period. If the fish get very stressed (physical stress I mean, not the Dr. Phil kind) during spawning activities, then basic scientific principles suggest that they will be relatively immunosuppressed. And the concern is that, in addition to being easier to target while in their spawning habitat, they will be less likely to withstand the angling process--and the incidence of angling-related mortality may be significant.
Most people I have spoke with (including several biologists) seem to agree--allowing the fish some period of time to recover from spawning-related activities can only help them withstand the angling process more successfully. Again, this seems like sound physiologic theory to me. It certainly works that way in humans--sleep (ie; rest) for 2 hours per night for a week to stress your body while performing daily strenuous physical exertion...then tell me how long it takes you to get sick. I see stress-related illness quite often in my line of work; especially in immunosuppressed individuals.
I think the problem here is that there doesn't seem to be a plethora of published literature on fishing for muskies during the spawn, and the problems it can create. So for this reason, people assume that it might not be bad. I disagree--purely based upon the principles of basic physiology. And I have read a bit about that. But maybe Sorno will know about some literature that I am unaware of in this regards
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/13/2008 1:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Rhinelander | rhinelander daily news had this as a front page story on 5/13, good job to everyone who fought for it, I still won't forget about Meyer come November |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | mmclain6101 - 5/13/2008 12:03 PM
Can someone full me in on why an early season is bad? You guys are the ones who know what is good for the sport, just wondering what the reasons are behind it?
Thanks
I would add that in Northern WI is one of the few places that natural reproduction can take place, unlike Southern WI and IL for example where the water quality and habitat is not favorable for a successfully spawn/hatching. I think we should allow these fish to spawn without being pursued while they spawn and disrupting their act. I for 1 would much rather have the muskies choose their mate rather than the state picking and choosing the outcome.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Even while conceding defeat the facts have to be skewed. The entire article in the Rhinelander Paper is at the following wed address. I believe it will be there only for 14 days.
http://rhinelanderdailynews.com/articles/2008/05/13/news/doc4829b75...
Here is a quote from the article that I believe is completely false, the WJFW report had similar langue that leads me to believe this came from a press release.
“Meyer was able to secure legislative passage following a vote of support by Oneida and Vilas county sportsmen at the 2007 spring DNR hearings. Although the DNR did not object to the law, the new season has become a sore subject for many. At the spring hearings this year, a majority of those attending voted to oppose the new season.”
I am not 100% sure but I believe that when this was brought into the Vilas county spring conservation hearing, as a resolution, it was defeated in not only 2007, but also 2006. It never had a state wide vote until 2008 as an after the fact legal obligation. It NEVER received support at the DNR hearings, and WDNR biologist did object to the Law, as soon as they heard about it and tried to get the Governor to use his line item veto to remove it from the state budget where it was slipped in. No DNR input was had on wording of this legislation.
Man you have to love politics.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 5/14/2008 11:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I stand corrected a quick look at the WDNR website reveled the following two results for resolutions in Vilas and Oneida county in 2007. It also showed that the resolution died in the warm water committee with out a second.
Please note the Headwaters MI letter head, I don’t know if they officially approved this resolution at the time.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Attachments
----------------
 C&R Oneida RES.pdf (41KB - 204 downloads)
C&R Vilas RES.pdf (47KB - 169 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
| What about the positive aspect that musky fisherman would move fish around making it harder for them to get speared. Reproduction will find a way. Hope I didn't open a can of worms |
|
| |
|
| Mike and all,
the headwaters board NEVER EVER approved this. it was done by some members of the board without approval.
i am embarrased by this and i can guarentee it will not happen again.
as stated the board voted AGAINST 12-4 on May 7. If i would have been able to make the meeting, it would have been 13-4 against.
hope this clears it up.
dannyboy |
|
| |
