Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> WI Spring Conservation Congress Metings |
| Message Subject: WI Spring Conservation Congress Metings | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The folks who get this done will be largely sports anglers. Yes, some Guides are supporting the 54" limit, in order to protect the fishery now that stocking has come to a stand still. I believe it isn't the 'industry' that will benefit, the Sport will, and so will all who fish Muskies on the Bay. Read the VOLUMES of material here, watch the Betka material, and perhaps, once you have absorbed all the information you might rethink your position. VIDEOS: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=1247 http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=1248 http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=1249 http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=1250 Posted Material: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=46... | ||
| Flambeauski |
| ||
Posts: 4343 Location: Smith Creek | The "industry" that stands to gain is the same one that stocked the fish. And with VHS the balance has shifted too far in favor of man over nature. How can anyone who endorses catch and release be opposed to higher size limits? | ||
| CiscoKid |
| ||
Posts: 1906 Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Since someone so kindly moved my thread  I am asking all to take a look at the Moved/Deleted post section on a thread that pertains to hunting. Another important question at this years CC hearings. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Travis, Please post that here as well: http://whitetailfirst.com General discussion board is great, if you have the time. Thanks! | ||
| dannyboy |
| ||
| wish people would sign there posts. why hide if you believe in something. 54" is sound biology for sooooo many reasons as stated previously. also remember those muskys would not be there without all the musky clubs and the alliance who have put tons of $$$$$$$$$$$$ into the restoration. vote yes for 54"gb yest on kentuck long and big sand dannyboy dan lazzeroni | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| "54" is sound biology for sooooo many reasons as stated previously." 54 inches has nothing to do with Biology. It is the personal preference of a vocal few anglers. That is why it this has not already passed. The number of fish in excess of 50" on GB does not constitute a significant portion of the population. If they all died tomorrow (as tragic as that would be) the lake would still have more than enough fish to provide eggs for whatever hatchery we wanted to send them to. Therefore, increasing the size limit to 54 inches is a NOT a biological need, but a management goal based on personal opinion. I submit that more fish are killed by post release mortality than the number killed by legal harvest. If you don't believe the system can support the harvest of a few dozen fish a year, then you should support closing the open season for them. I have talked with the fisheries manager on this several times. I know what I am talking about. PLEASE keep personal feelings out of game and fisheries management decisions. Vote NO on the 54 inch size limit. | |||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8849 | Guest - 3/19/2009 4:35 PM "54" is sound biology for sooooo many reasons as stated previously." 54 inches has nothing to do with Biology. It is the personal preference of a vocal few anglers. That is why it this has not already passed. The number of fish in excess of 50" on GB does not constitute a significant portion of the population. If they all died tomorrow (as tragic as that would be) the lake would still have more than enough fish to provide eggs for whatever hatchery we wanted to send them to. Therefore, increasing the size limit to 54 inches is a NOT a biological need, but a management goal based on personal opinion. I submit that more fish are killed by post release mortality than the number killed by legal harvest. If you don't believe the system can support the harvest of a few dozen fish a year, then you should support closing the open season for them. I have talked with the fisheries manager on this several times. I know what I am talking about. PLEASE keep personal feelings out of game and fisheries management decisions. Vote NO on the 54 inch size limit. Fisheries are managed to provide angling opportunities. If the angling public personally feels they want bigger fish, then why shouldn't personal opinions be taken into consideration? The truth on the biological side is we don't KNOW what the size potential is for those fish in that ecosystem. The only way to KNOW is to do what we can to make sure those fish have a change to grow to their maximum potential. Closing the season entirely? Get real -- what good are they if you can fish for them? They're no good to eat, so let's be honest -- there is no sound biological reason for muskies to even EXIST in most of the places we are now fishing for them. They were put there for the sloe purpose of providing angling opportunities. Is that a BAD thing? Am I missing something, here? Vote YES on the 54" size limit. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest, Why are you opposed to the 54" proposal? If you say 'because it isn't wanted', then you must allow that a vote will be taken and those who vote it in or out will win. If you say 'Because I don't like additional regulation', I would ask you how the limit got to 50" in the first place, and why, and if you opposed those measures as well? If you say you don't like the idea because it's driven by hard core Muskie anglers, that's understandable, but part of our democratic (small d) process. We'll see how 'few' those anglers are when the votes are counted. The overall tone of your posts has probably motivated several folks who weren't going to vote to get to the local CC meeting and vote YES. I'd like to see the fish there protected as well as the trophy populations on Canadian waters. Those guys seem to be doing things right so far when it comes to waters where potential is tremendous. And, some valid points were made as to where alot of the funding for the reintroduction project came from. I'd say those folks should have a LOUD voice in attempting to preserve a trophy fishery there. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| "Why are you opposed to the 54" proposal? If you say 'because it isn't wanted', then you must allow that a vote will be taken and those who vote it in or out will win. If you say 'Because I don't like additional regulation', I would ask you how the limit got to 50" in the first place, and why, and if you opposed those measures as well? If you say you don't like the idea because it's driven by hard core Muskie anglers, that's understandable, but part of our democratic (small d) process." I am opposed to the 54" size limit because its not needed. I did not oppose the 50 inch size limit because the fisheries manager made a case for it other than "if that's what the anglers want, then that's what we'll do". Like it or not, that's all this is. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| "I'd say those folks should have a LOUD voice in attempting to preserve a trophy fishery there." By the way, I find that last comment a bit out of line. Having money and being willing to throw some of it at your cause does NOT give you two votes to my one. That's sort of fundamental to the good ole USA. | |||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8849 | Guest - 3/20/2009 4:34 PM "I'd say those folks should have a LOUD voice in attempting to preserve a trophy fishery there." By the way, I find that last comment a bit out of line. Having money and being willing to throw some of it at your cause does NOT give you two votes to my one. That's sort of fundamental to the good ole USA. It might not give you any more votes, but it sure gives you a lot more influence, and a lot more credibility. Those who have put their time, money, and energy into this effort have something called "a vested interest" in it. Those are the people who are listened to when everyone is talking. Something tells me those are also the people who will be able to provide sound arguments supporting the 54" size limit. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest, Who said anything about having money? It was Muskie clubs donating large amounts of time, effort, and money to the project I was speaking to, and those large amounts came from donations of small amounts from ALOT of folks who are anything but wealthy. Most of the folks urged to show up and vote at the Spring CC meetings are not wealthy, and they are not going to get paid to show up, either. They are motivated to do what they think s right, and THAT is what the 'good ole USA' is about. Define 'needed'. What we feel is 'needed' is not what you feel is 'needed' because we have differing motivations and goals. I'd like to see the 54" limit implemented to protect the larger fish there until stocking can resume, I'd like to see at least ONE real 'trophy only' managed water in WI and what better then BOGB, I'd like to see how big those fish can get, and with the few fish (as you pointed out) that do make it past 50", preserving them to 54" makes sure a few survive past that to ??", and so on. Since that's what I'd like to see, and a goodly number of my peers feel the same way with enough motivation to get this to the CC vote, we will show up, we will vote, and if we call out the vote in more numbers than your contingency, we should win the day. Democracy at work. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| "Since that's what I'd like to see, and a goodly number of my peers feel the same way with enough motivation to get this to the CC vote, we will show up, we will vote, and if we call out the vote in more numbers than your contingency, we should win the day. Democracy at work." We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. We elect officials to look past the trees and see the forest, whether that be popular or not. The biologist I spoke with said there was no reason for this change other than the personal preference of people like you. No disrepect intended, but he knows far more about the topic than you. For the record, I too would like to see all of those beautiful fish released to fight again. But I'm not going to stomp on anyone's rights to keep one just because I want to. That's the difference between the two of us - I respect your right to hunt and fish the way you want UNTIL such time that sound management requires us to make a change. Kindly remember that those of us that hunt and fish are in the minority. And while its not likely to happen anytime soon, once we start down the path of "majority rules" for game management, we could ultimately end up in a place that neither of us want to go. I know my opinions are not popular here, but I intend no disrespect. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ahh, but you left out the 'other part' you posted before, that the biologist also said if the public wants the limit, he will approve the request. Obviously, there's no harm to the Muskies in BOGB by implementing the 54" limit either, so the argument from you is: "I want the public to be able to harvest muskies over 50 because it is biologically unecessary to protect those fish" I get that, no offense taken. You are correct in your assessment from your point of view. Ours is what was posted in the volumes Tom Betka and company posted after considerable research working directly with fisheries folks and everyone in the chain of command who stopped the proposal in the past. Watch those video clips and read the material in the Research forum, this effort didn't crop up just because a couple people wanted it too, there's considerable support from a wide sample of Muskie anglers out there. So, in short, we ARE aware the biologist feels the limit is not necessary...in the context of how the population of Muskies in BOGB is being managed at this time. Pretending the public has no say in determining changes in management from what it may be now to more of a 'Trophy' management strategy given the CC process and given that there also is no recognized danger to the population in doing so is to pretend the CC process doesn't exist. By the way, it's not your 'right' to harvest that fish, it's your 'privilege', and that under the rules and regs set by our DNR fisheries management folks. If indeed this rule change takes effect, it certainly won't be the first time (or last) a 'privilege' has been changed as a result of the CC hearings. ( personally, I think the CC is a train wreck process, really, and have said so quite a few times) If the 'majority' was as active as you suggest, and are as anti hunting and fishing as you insinuate, they'd be at the CC hearings in huge numbers and would be constantly introducing anti hunting and fishing advisory questions. They don't, at least not to any great degree. Thankfully for all sportsmen, the 'majority' is NOT anti hunting and fishing, at least not actively, and our lobbying efforts can be very effective. Define 'sound management'. There's the rub, some define that differently than you when discussing the trophy potential of the Muskies on BOGB and the goals a management program might have there, and the biologist supports that new 'definition' IF the majority of muskie anglers voting in the CC process want it to be so. Wouldn't you agree? Most who are active in the debate are fully aware sportsmen and women are in the minority these days. Many here are doing all they can to reverse that trend. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| "Ours is what was posted in the volumes Tom Betka and company posted after considerable research working directly with fisheries folks and everyone in the chain of command who stopped the proposal in the past. Watch those video clips and read the material in the Research forum, this effort didn't crop up just because a couple people wanted it too, there's considerable support from a wide sample of Muskie anglers out there." I'm well aware of who Tom Betka is and I have seen all of the video's and other material posted on this site and others. First you guys tried suggestting a biological need for the 54" limit, then you tried to convince the DNR that VHS was a threat and should justify the 54" limit, only after finally discussing it with a fisheries biologist did you change the tune of the message to something that might actually pass the spring hearing resolution process. The long and short of this is that the increased size limit is not necessary and you want to restrict others fishing rights for your own personal reasons. I have a problem with that. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | VHS is a threat. To pretend it isn't is to ignore the enire fragility of the Great Lakes muskie stocking program there...which is at a standstill. From that viewpoint, there is an excellent argument to restrict harvest on BOGB. The 'tune' never changed, the focus on what needs to be accomplished to get it done did. That's how this sort of thing is done, unfortunately. You do NOT have the 'right' to fish. You have the privilege. That's a very important distinction. Your insistence that you want the regs as they are is based in 'personal reasons' as well. What's the difference here? Get those who feel like you out to vote, and defeat the proposal, that's how this works. The long and short of the issue is exactly where we were a few posts back. A strong contingency of conservation minded anglers want to move that limit to 54", you don't...not because of ANY fish management or biologically oriented issues, but because you don't like anyone else restricting what you perceive as your 'rights' because of what they 'want'. I don't think anyone here needs to apologize for operating within the democracy we all live in to acquire desirable management parameters that would create a potential true trophy managed water in Wisconsin. It's a 'social' issue. Right? I'd point out that the majority of what the Ministry in Ontario feels are trophy waters have a 54" limit. Tourism didn't suffer, the fisheries didn't collapse, and the fishing for truly huge muskies there has never been better. I'd also point out the Muskie team here in Wisconsoin DID feel it was a positive move to protect trophy waters on more than a dozen lakes a couple years back with a 50" limit, introduced the concept in the CC hearings supported by a disorganized and unprepared group of anglers, and folks who voiced the same arguments you have here voted that down....soundly. We have collectively learned our lesson, and hopefully will not make that mistake again. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| "Your insistence that you want the regs as they are is based in 'personal reasons' as well. What's the difference here?" Big difference. The 50" size limit was introduced (in part anyway) because of how fast the Green Bay fish grow. The rational was to protect them until after they could spawn a few years to see if they could find a way to make the magic happen naturally. To continue to protect beyond 50" does nothing, other than to have people like you infringe on my privledge (happy now???) to harvest a very old and probably infertile fish should it be too weak to survive the release. Why not just ask for "no harvest"? 54" is 0% harvest for all intents and purposes. Would you be willing to relax the 54" size limit in a few years when/if it becomes obvious that the size change does nothing to increase the size distribution of these fish? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I doubt the big fish there are infertile, and I promise you a 50 out of there isn't infertile because of age. It's far more likely the habitat is an issue with recruitment, and at this point it isn't certain there is NO recruitment. We finally have arrived at your real complaint...you want to be able to harvest a 50, we want that fish to make it to 54 or...way more. Like I said, a 'social issue'. I disagree that 54" is 'no harvest'. I'd bet if the 50's don't get hit on the head, the fish in BOGB will make it to 54 and beyond, and you will then be able harvest a 50# class fish. If they don't, ( several already have and were caught, obviously) sure, I'd be willing to rethink my position. I can't speak for the others working to get this done, just for myself. 'People like you'? Hmmm. Which one is it, the fish grow fast to 50, or they are very old and infertile and unable to survive a release at 50? Can't be both. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I've tried to remain civil, but you are REALLY starting to get on my nerves. As I have stated before, I DON'T WANT TO HARVEST A MUSKY ON GB. The only way I would ever harvest one is if I couldn't get it to swim away after the release. I think I've made this pretty clear on several occasions. I don't fish for them a lot, but I have yet to catch one that couldn't swim away. Do you honestly believe all of the 50+ inch fish are currently getting harvested and that's why we haven't seen a significant number of fish greater than that size? Personally, I find that a bit hard to believe. Unfortunately (in my opinion anyway) the vote will probably pass. I have a very good memory... I'll ask you again in a few years if you still support the 54 inch size limit when/if there is no real change. I won't be commenting on this topic any more. Whatever happens, let's hope its for the better of the fishery in the long and short term. | |||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | And this is the problem with the Wisconsin DNR. Letting the general public make the decisions. Decisions that should be put in the hands of the people who have the actual degrees in the subject matter. Don't get me wrong, the public needs to be given their say, but they shouldn't be one of the main driving forces in passing laws. That said, I don't really think the GB population is ever going to be a self sustaining population, so why not make it a trophy location? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Remaining factual, offering good logical reasons for one's position, pointing out inconsistencies in the opposing argument while remaining as unemotional as is possible, all are part and parcel to presenting one's position properly, wouldn't you agree? I won't apologize for that. All? No. A significant number, out of a very concentrated area? Yes. One thing I am fairly certain about; a 54" limit there won't hurt the fishery. Pointer, that is exactly why I think the CC process is a train wreck waiting to happen. Some years, it is. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | sworrall - 3/22/2009 10:52 PM Pointer, that is exactly why I think the CC process is a train wreck waiting to happen. Some years, it is. Yep, not to mention the time it takes for something to make its way through the entire process, assuming that nothing goes wrong? This is what, year number three on this whole GB issue? And it still has at least a year to go assuming it passes? A total joke, binding the hands of the professionals. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I know Mr. Guest said he was done with this conversation, but I would like to point out one thing that Steve just lightly touched on in his well informed debate. Some of the most knowledgeable musky biology experts in the world, if not THEE most knowledgeable, came up with the size limits currently being used to manage musky in Ontario. If I am not mistaken, these people specifically study and focus on musky. With all due respect to our Wisconsin Fisheries Managers, muskie are just one small piece of a very large pie, these guys are responsible for. They don’t have the time or the funds to specialize on ONE fish species. That being said it makes sense to us work already done by biologist specializing in muskie. These green bay fish are the same fish being managed by Ontario, they are technically the same body of water, though separated by great distance, and they are roughly situated at the same latitude with the same climate. Those biologist chose 54” as the limit for a world record fishery, based on biological factors specific to the fish. The only thing that is really different is the social differences between Wisconsin and Ontario. To me it makes biological sense to look at what other experts in the field are doing to manage these fish. From the votes the last couple of years it is clear, sportsmen who attended the spring hearing want BoGB managed as a world record fishery, just as Ontario is doing. It passed by a great margin each time it was voted on, and subsequently killed in committee. Biology is not the issue here it comes down to social, in my opinion. Flawed though they are that should be the intention of the spring hears. Sportsmen give there opinions on what they want for goals. I.E. manage green bay for numbers, quality or world record status. Manage deer for numbers, or trophy bucks. Then let the biologist do what they know best and apply management tools to best reach those goals. That is NOT how it works now, unfortunately sportsmen are voting on actual management tools which should not be the case. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Crazyotto |
| ||
| I will admit that alot of the problem I have with the proposal is how I view it as being "slammed down our throat by the industry" I may be wrong-but that is my opinion. I watched the links that were posted and want to thank sworrel for posting as I learned a great deal about the fisherie. I still have seen no mention as to a hypothesis as to how many 50+ fish are actually harvested. Until we have an idea as to how many are being taken how can we argue for more stringent restrictions? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32945 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's not the 'industry' trying to get this passed. it's concerned Muskie anglers. The 'industry' really doesn't care much one way or the other. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 3/20/2009 4:31 PM I am opposed to the 54" size limit because its not needed. I did not oppose the 50 inch size limit because the fisheries manager made a case for it other than "if that's what the anglers want, then that's what we'll do". Like it or not, that's all this is. Very interesting thread--I missed it a while back... Define "needed"? What does "needed" mean, and who decides what criteria define "needed"? If you want to look at Ontario's 54" size limits, then using the same (semi-convoluted) logic, they aren't "needed" either. I have read most of the literature published by Drs. Casselman & Crossman over the past 20+ years; at least related to the establishment of size limits. And for the life of me, I cannot find ANY mention of a 54" size limit being "biologically necessary." Yet...WHAM, there they are in Ontario! And both these preeminent researchers worked in Ontario! So in fact what has happened is that the Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) has gone over & above the biology and established size limits higher than those supported by biological "need." In other words--it's about more than just the biology...at least in Ontario. Look, I don't want to re-hash 18 months of arguments about why we (myself, in particular) feel the 54" limit is needed on the BOGB. It's out there, in written, video & audio form. My name is on it, and I stand behind everything I have written and submitted to date. While I have great respect for David Rowe, and have actually been one of his biggest advocates since his arrival here in GB, he and I have disagreed on several occasions. And before anyone points out that I am not a Fisheries Biologist--in fact I am, by training. However I do not practice in this field, and will be the first one to tell you that. But I work in a field where critical review of literature is absolutely necessary, and the safety of people in fact depends upon my ability to correctly interpret this information--and I have been in that field for over 10 years...my entire professional life. So I would submit that I might be just a little qualified to review the available literature, and formulate sound reasoning based upon the available data. But you might disagree, Mr. "Guest", and that is of course your right. That all being said, I would also like to point out that since his arrival in GB, Mr. Rowe has indeed updated the estimates of the growth potential of these fish; in favor of a larger average ultimate size. And given the relative paucity of available data with which to work, this is quite impressive. If you watch the movies I uploaded last November, I think you'll even hear David admit that perhaps the population has more growth potential than initially given credit. But I think everyone will agree--much more information is needed before anyone can say just what is TRULY "needed" (biologically, or otherwise) in the BOGB population. All the WDNR knows for certain is that; given current data and the growth models calculated from that data, and given the known ages of some sampled fish that were included in the development of those growth models, the average 50" female muskellunge has had 6-7 years to spawn before she reaches the length where she becomes subject to legal harvest. That's it. They have no idea of how big the population is in the whole bay, or the degree to which fish migrate throughout the bay, or the number of 50" (or 54" fish) in the population, or the true harvest, or the population dynamics, or the reason that natural reproduction hasn't been documented yet (to any significant degree). They also have no real strong evidence of the true growth potential of the fish in this population--but they do have evidence (as suggested by Mr. Rowe's revision of the maximum length of the average fish) that, as more data is gathered, the fish might truly be capable of more than initially thought--an idea we have suggested for a couple of years now. Finally in closing, I will say that I *do* agree with Mr. "Guest" on one thing--the concern for angling-related (ie; non-natural) mortality in these fish. As anglers, we have a tremendous responsibility to protect this resource from unnecessary morbidity and mortality. And one could argue that calling all this attention to the BOGB muskies might simply subject them to increased angling pressure--and thus increased angling-related mortality. But you could also argue that as more attention has been drawn to this fishery, more awareness of these issues has also arisen--and thus the population will actually BENEFIT from it! For one thing, I can tell you that there is no hotter topic in the Muskies Inc. organization, than C&R-related mortality--in fact, we just sent Carleton College a check for $10,000 out of our research budget to support their upcoming study on just this problem. Like the Titletown MI chapter and several other local musky angling groups, Muskies Inc. is totally committed to doing everything we possibly can to minimize angling-associated muskellunge mortality. And we're putting our money where our mouth is, because besides the C&R study in Ontario, we are also helping to fund Mr. Rowe's forth-coming research into the issue of natural reproduction in the Fox River and lower BOGB. But does this give us more say in how regulations should be written? Of course not...and we're not asking for that. We simply want to see management decisions made using the most up-to-date information possible, and we don't mind helping to fund these efforts. I believe it's called altruism, if I'm not mistaken. So while I sincerely hope people show up to vote at the CC hearings in less than 2 weeks, I also hope that they will take the time to research the issue a bit first--and not just base their opinions on one side of the story. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the WDNR and for Mr. Rowe, but I can assure you that for every assertion that has been made in regards to the population in the bay, there is an equal number of counter-points that can be made, arguing why the previous management philosophy might need to be changed. And for the record, I don't believe that anyone is right or wrong here--just that the jury is still out, and that much more information needs to be gathered before we can truly say what is "needed" for the muskies in the BOGB. All I am asking is that we don't kill most of them while we're trying to figure it all out... Thanks for reading this post. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/4/2009 10:49 AM | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |