|
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | Didnt make to the meeting is there someone on the board that made it and could give details of discussions and the DNR's direction there headed? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| I did, and I'll give the Cliff's Notes, but maybe Tom or Jay can expand, as they and others are much more involved than I am.
Biologist Dave Rowe, Kevin Kapuscinski's replacement (sp?), outlined a history of the stocking program between 1989 and now. He talked about stocking numbers, stocking areas, tag information, growth rates, population estimates, etc. Rowe also touched on natural reproduction, or lack thereof, and about their goal of protecting spawning age fish for 7 years.
They outlined their plan for VHS, and covered most scenarios and levels of severe-ness, and their game plan for each, should any of those situations arise.
And now, the part everyone had been waiting for, which basically all the questions were asked about: the 54" limit.
The long and short of the 54" thing, sorta speak, is that Dave Row and Co., would support it, if a proposal made its way to them. However, I personally didn't really get the feeling that they're on board with raising the limit, because he and George Boronow (sp?) basically said that they see no data or biological benefit/need for raising the limit. When asked if there were any negatives of raising the limit, Rowe said he didn't really see any, but came up with a hypothetical situation:
Under a 54" limit, what if an angler catches a 53" fish, but for whatever reason it dies on him. It has to go back in the water, legally, dead or alive. That was the single "negative" he sited for raising the limit.
Essentially, as George said over and over, we need to go through the "process" of introducing this to the correct people.....again. The DNR makes recommendations, but they do not adjust size limits or seasons.
Pesonally, I thought that some of their numbers were off, and their arguments against the limit were weak at best. If I remember correctly, their data showed an average max length of around 48". Which, if we take their numbers as gospel, means that half of the population will top out higher than 48, half lower. Which means....we're protecting the smallest half of the biggest fish and leaving the top half, the individuals who have grown big..... suceptable to harvest.
If you take nothing else from my babble, at this time, the DNR just does not see a biological need to raise the size limit. They've managed for good fishing, have attained that, and their chickens are coming home to roost so they're getting plenty of egg and sperm donors in the spring.
In a system with so many unknowns, from population size, to angler mortality, to angler harvest, to spawning success, to VHS......etc., why NOT err on the side of caution, and the will of us, the concerned muskie community?
If I've bungled this totally, someone feel free to correct me.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 113
Location: Green Bay, WI | Eric pretty well sums up the meeting. As he said if want higher size limits we have to reintroduce a resolution to the CC. Will keep you posted on the new resolution. Not much time until the April 14th hearings. We have the list of last years authors expect to be contacted shortly.
Jay |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I posted a summary of the meeting in the "Research" forum yesterday morning, but Eric pretty much summed it up. But here's the link to the thread I posted in:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=40...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
| eric has summed it up well.
one important thing is dnr support if we get it to pass in the cc congress AGAIN.
i am still very frustrated that we have to do it AGAIN.
they failed to help us last year, will they this time?????????? i get the feeling they will but who knows.
by the way i authored it in Forest County last year and will again. but as of today i have not gotten anything from the organizers of last year.
i hope its coming?????????????
dannyboy
715-674-2061
www.dannyboysguideservice.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I am sure you guys have thought of this, but something to find out for sure.
Last year there was a pretty significant vote in favor of this. The big questions is was the resolution killed in the CC Great Lakes Committee or was it held in Committee. If it was held I believe there is a chance of resurrecting it again even without another resolution vote. Also can last years resolution be brought to a different CC committee. The public already spoke once on this issue. If need be we will have to again, but make sure all options are exhausted.
Another point that should maybe be hammered home is, yes there is no direct biological evidence that a 54” size limit is needed to protect the fishery. However there is a ton of biological evidence that a 54” size limit on Great Lakes Musky will potentially create a “World Record Class Fishery.” The Canadians have used this evidence to implement the size limit on a number of lakes they feel have World Record potential. They did not have the added concern of a restored metropolitan fishery. Similar sized bodies of water, same fish genetics, same latitude, same angler attitudes. Different management attitude, there is no reason some Wisconsin Lakes can’t be managed for, god forbid “Trophy" fish, especially when that’s what the END USERS want, and there is the added worries associated with the Green Bay fishery.
I guess living in Rhinelander I really need to be thankful that our local biologists here and in Langlade County have open minds and are willing to listen to user groups, and look at management with an open mind, evidenced by the help with the Pelican Lake proposal and now the Enterprise Lake proposal. The biology makes sense and they are letting the people state wide decide. If Enterprise passes it will be a 400 acre lake with a 50” size limit, basically a C&R fishery with only the very top end fish being eligible for harvest. Very much like Green Bay would be with a 54” size limit.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 4/4/2008 9:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
| i beieve the great lakes comittee dropped it but i dont know for sure.
dannyboy |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | They defeated it: 6 yea, 7 nay, 2 abstained. It's dead, and we need a whole new resolution.
I believe it was Greg Wells that told me he approached someone in the higher echelon of the CC system (in Madison), and he was told that there was nothing that could be done short of going at it again from the beginning.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Aside from the example that David threw out there of the guy who can't keep a dead 53"er under a 54" limit, which baffled me,....the thing that really stuck out from the meeting in my mind was David and George both saying that this 54" thing needed to be what "the people" want. They were sort of giving the PC, noncommittal answer to why they didn't seem to feel there was a need for this.
My comment on that is, aren't WE, the musky community "the people?" It was almost like they were saying.....yeah, we hear what you're saying, but you guys don't count.
That's just my take on it. They were definitely neutral to negative on the issue, and just weren't going to go to bat for us, and continually played devil's advocate and answered for the other side of this issue.
Its encouraging that David Rowe said they'd support it if it ever does worm its way through the system and proper channels and finds its way to their desks....getting that far is the major hurdle. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks, Dan and Tom that does SUCK!!! It's an amazing system isn't it? Thousands of people vote and in one meeting 7 people end it. Most likely without knowing much about it.
I'll vote yes again if it's presented at Oneida County. I will bring it you you need me to.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 4/4/2008 10:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well in all fairness Mike, the vote was 1096 (yea) to 345 (nay), as I recall, in 26 counties. So there weren't exactly thousands of votes. But still--there was certainly enough support to advance it to a statewide ballot, to see if *thousands* would support it.
So in principle I agree with what you have said. I just want to be fair about the numbers.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Good point, how about Hundereds?
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | What was the vote % for the affected counties vs. statewide last year? What I am saying, is you might have an even better % of Yes if only voted on in surrounding counties. Local counties are the only ones that need to pass this issue for it to be forwarded to the state level or rule change vote in 2009. While I know last years vote was in favor statewide, it is possible to shoot oneself in the foot by introducing it in counties where it need not be. I brought this up last year too. If anything, find out where the vote failed last year, and surely don't bring it up there again.... until next year when a statewide vote really matters. If it were me(as we did for the WI River here a few years back), I'd propose only in the affected counties this time around, and try to get the % of yes votes even higher. Just my $1.00 - $.98.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/4/2008 11:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | muskie-addict - 4/4/2008 7:59 AM Aside from the example that David threw out there of the guy who can't keep a dead 53"er under a 54" limit, which baffled me,....the thing that really stuck out from the meeting in my mind was David and George both saying that this 54" thing needed to be what "the people" want. They were sort of giving the PC, noncommittal answer to why they didn't seem to feel there was a need for this. My comment on that is, aren't WE, the musky community "the people?" It was almost like they were saying.....yeah, we hear what you're saying, but you guys don't count. That's just my take on it. They were definitely neutral to negative on the issue, and just weren't going to go to bat for us, and continually played devil's advocate and answered for the other side of this issue. Its encouraging that David Rowe said they'd support it if it ever does worm its way through the system and proper channels and finds its way to their desks....getting that far is the major hurdle. I'm really confused. They are quick to cite how they are managing on SCIENCE and science says it doesn't need to be higher. BUT they then say they would support it if the people want it???  Anybody else find this an oxymoron?
Which is it, science or majority?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I'm sure that would be the case Eric...but according to the CC process, there has to be a representative sampling of counties that vote favorably, in order for it to be advanced to a statewide ballot. And as such, only looking at the counties surrounding the bay would be introducing significant bias into the equation, by my guess--for the reasons you mentioned. Right or wrong, good or bad, that's the CC system we have in place...so that's what we have to work with. But the other thing to keep in mind is that in the counties that don't have much to do with muskie fishing (like some of the southern areas, for instance) there aren't likely to be many people voting for it or against it. So you might reason that given the *active* counties (those with some interest in the sport in general), the margin with which this won approval should be more than enough to carry any unfavorable results elsewhere--if the vote is the same again on a second attempt.
The bottom line is that I really don't think there will be a problem: a) getting this back to the GLC; and b) getting is *past* the GLC and to a statewide ballot. David Rowe has said he would speak to the GLC favorably in regards to another attempt--and the Regional Fisheries Biologist (George Boronow) repeatedly confirmed that to us on Tuesday night. That's as good as it gets, most likely.
So yes, it probably shouldn't have failed last fall, and yes it's going to now take two full years to get it changed to a higher limit...those things are negative, I agree. But let's look at the bright side of things here:
1) We now have an energetic, intelligent and capable biologist here in Green Bay, who is *extremely* interested in the future of the musky program, and is willing to work with local anglers to accomplish their goals;
2) We have the support (on the basis of sociology, at the very least) of the area biologists and (by default) the WMMT, to further increase the protective limits on the musky population--provided we get the same level of support shown last year;
3) And even though we have not yet heard from the Secretary/NRB about the moratorium request, there is a very comprehensive reactionary plan in place to immediately take steps to protect the fishery, if it becomes apparent that things are turning for the worst when all the ice goes out;
4) And probably most important...we have SIGNIFICANTLY increased awareness of the situation in the bay, and the issues that we potentially face with regards to the next 10 years of the musky restoration program. We've identified areas of continued effort, and plans are being made to deal with these things.
Call me naive I guess, but all-in-all I am quite optimistic about the future for this program. Yes...there is more work to do, no question about it. But it's a process, and that process continues. I believe that slowly but surely, we will reach a critical mass effect to achieve our future goals.
So if we must go back to the CC this spring, well then we must. I am willing to put in some more hours, as are many other guys I have spoken with in the past month. So let's do it--put our money where our mouth is, and show our biologists that we aren't simply trying to bitch about stuff we don't like...but rather are trying to take positive steps to work with them towards a positive goal. In this case, the end justifies the means, IMHO.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | OK, then they must have made a big change, for when I researched authoring the size limit increase for the WI River from Dubay Dam down through and including Castle Rock flowage, we were clearly told we only needed to get support of the affected counties, to pass the resolution on to the Warm Water comittee. in fact, at all C.C. hearings, most regulations not affecting our local county, are passed over and not even voted on, unless someone from the audience requests otherwise.
That said, it doesn't have to take 2 full years for it to completely pass either. The Chairman can forward the resolution on to become a rule change. Our resolution was thrown out i the Warm Water committee the first year, just as the Green Bay res. was. With sound evidence of it being a win win for the river system, the chairman couldn't beleive it was tossed(long story on why it was), and forwarded the issue straight to the statewide ballot as a rule change. I am sure that this avenue was explored, but just wanted to make the point to anyone that might have a future or past resolution that they thought was a daunting task or dead in the water. There is always hope.
Regardless, sounds like you have a good plan. Keep at it.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/4/2008 1:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Sorry Jason, I was replying to Eric (Muskie-addict) with that post...I thought. Sorry for the confusion.
I am not certain of the "surrounding county" issue--though what you've said certainly makes sense to me.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Gee I feel bad for the D.N.R. as they can't win. They say one thing and we say great and are all for the choice or support they give us. We rely on there experience and education to help push for changes. Then when they say the 54 inch limit is not needed you jump on them. I Don't know the story o the bay as I've not fished it and not sure I ever will have the chance to. I just think the D.n.r in general has done a pretty good job with our fisheries. Yeah ok the law passed on the minnow transport was bad but thats not even all there fault. Have other management tools been discussed for the bay> If so what are they?
Pfeiff
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jeez Don, with all due respect--have you read the moratorium request? It's all pretty well laid-out in there...
As for the DNR doing a fine job--I agree. They have done a good job with the reintroduction effort to date, but don't kid yourself...they could have not gotten *nearly* as far had it not been for the $200,000+ in contributions, and countless hours of volunteer support by anglers from the Musky Clubs Alliance of Wisconsin members. So it's certainly a team effort, in that regards.
I guess I don't know what to say to your "the DNR can't win" statement. First, I didn't know it was a contest. Everyone I have talked to wants the same thing. Our DNR biologist has indeed gone on record as saying that he doesn't feel there is a need for a higher size limit--but that is based on analysis of limited data, that *could* be affected significantly if we see a big VHSv kill; and *will* be affected by the fact that stocking has now been eliminated for the foreseeable future, There are many, many people that feel that these issues WILL have a huge impact on the overall future health of the fishery, but the DNR has no current data as to the magnitude of this impact at this time. And they are not in the business of crystal-ball managment, so what else can they say at this point?
While I certainly cannot speak for everyone in this regard, I can honestly say that I have no ill-will towards the DNR because of their position on this matter. But I simply feel that there is sufficient cause for alarm, as laid-out in the moratorium request, and thus would like to see a more "proactive" approach--and this includes a complete moratorium on any harvest. However, due to the fact that the DNR Secretary and the NRB have not yet made a ruling on this matter, we find ourselves in the position of being forced to re-introduce a resolution asking for a higher size limit; lest we lose yet another year of large fish through harvest. And the problem with that is that we simply don't know how many fish that will be, nor do we know how many fish we have swimming around there to start with.
If you'd like to speak more about this, I would be more than happy to call you on the phone. Just PM me your contact information and a good time to call, and I will answer any questions to the best of my ability.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/7/2008 8:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I wanted to make a correction to my original post.
Although I alluded to this in the post, I have now been advised that the document I reported as being entitled a "Reaction Matrix" is in fact called a "Response Matrix."
In addition, in reviewing the data presented by Mr. Rowe at the meeting last week, I may have given an impression that the Average Ultimate Length had been increased for FEMALE fish. In fact, this was not the case. The AUL for ALL fish had been reported at 47.9" by Kevin Kapuscinski in his 2006 paper, but David Rowe's follow-up work has now updated this model, and a new AUL for *ALL* fish has been determined to be 48.1"
The 53.3" AUL that has been discussed in the past, is actually that of FEMALE fish only. The new data used to update the all fish AUL could not be used for female-specific calculations, simply because the samples were from fish of unknown sex.
I want to strive for the most accurate information possible in these forums, and apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Please post any follow-up questions that these revisions may have generated.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/7/2008 10:20 AM
|
|
| |
