Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Green Bay 54" size resolution proposal |
| Message Subject: Green Bay 54" size resolution proposal | |||
bunzman |
| ||
Posts: 9 | Tom - I would give thought to the idea of making it year round. From my experience there will be two rationales of resistance from A GENERL PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE. 1) It may be viewed elitist simply because of its trophy orientation. Nothing much you can do with that. 2) Some feel regs are too complicated (the reg book is 72 pages). Now I know that anglers do not have to know the entire 72 pages but it is the type of argument that it quickly and easily demagogued. A straight 54 inches IS simpler that a split reg Other things to consider: A) If there is support demonstrated already for a strict 54-inch regulation and this proposal is based on wide public support there is a basis to believe that it will get passed in the balance of counties that did not vote on it last year. In fact you could consider it a mandate to stick with the 54 inch? Also the biologist, Dave Rowe said he would support this based on public opinion statewide with a level of support that mirrored the support that was indicated in the first try at 26 counties. (i.e., a 3 to 1 margin or more) B) I'm surprised that someone from the WDNR suggested this change, because a key principle of applying biological basis to management is to avoid "feel good" regulations. That is, you should adopt a regulation that has the best chance of meeting the management goal. A good example is when a local biologist here submitted a 40 inch minimum proposal for pike when at a local meeting the 32 inch garnered most of the public support. Given what we all were trying to accomplish (protect the overall population and higher growth potential) he knew the 40 inch would best do that. I post this as an encouragement not as a criticism. This coming from someone who does not musky fish but who believes strongly in fairness applied to fishery management. I think based on why this proposal is moving forward, you should be confident that a 54 inch year round regulation is fair. Sincerely Randy R. Edited by bunzman 4/10/2008 2:53 PM | ||
| jazon |
| ||
Posts: 113 Location: Green Bay, WI | I think Tom put this best. If overwhelming support for 54" for the whole season is seen as the way to go we have time to change it. In my opinion though after listening to the presentation by the DNR last week I think this resolution is something that they would not necessarily support but could live with. I don't know anything for sure but they were adamant that they were comfortable with the 50" size limit currently used. This gives them the chance to still manage the system under the current 50" size limit but it protects the fish in the fall when we all know they are vulnerable. My vote is for the split season I don't think it is that hard to understand. I will however support what the majority thinks we should go with. In other words if the majority wants 54" for the whole season I will introduce that in Brown County again. Thanks and keep the comments coming. Jay Zahn | ||
| Derrys |
| ||
| I would think they might go for the split season before going stricktly to the 54" mark. Maybe 54" year round would be asking a bit too much, and not have as much support. I think this proposal might be seen as more reasonable to them. Asking for too much too soon can turn some people off. I hope this gets approved. | |||
| jazon |
| ||
Posts: 113 Location: Green Bay, WI | Randy I have been pretty close to this whole thing and no one from the WDNR suggested this would be the way to go. They gave us no guidance on what to propose although Tom sent David Rowe a couple of versions for feedback he didn't offer his opinion one way or the other. I do have to chuckle about being viewed as elitist with this proposal. One of the things I thought when I looked at this proposal was that it still offered the fisherman a 50" size limit for a portion of the year making it less elitist. There will always be a faction of people that will view us as elitists with these proposals. If it protects these fish when they are at the most vulnerable they can view me as one. Jay Zahn | ||
| muskynightmare |
| ||
Posts: 2112 Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I cannot believe that this was shot down last year, despite overwhelming support of the sportsman in this state. The DNR needs to understand that it is still "We The People". Lets keep pushing until the powers that be give in, because they are sick of listening to us. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks again for all the comments guys--it's helpful to get feedback on this stuff. But I had a couple of thoughts while reading through this thread again... 1) Per Rob's comments, yes it is hard to believe that it failed last year when it was supported by a 3:1 margin (1096 to 345). However, maybe the fact that it failed indicates that there is indeed a problem with the way our efforts are being perceived. Not to be negative here (Remember, I'm the one that wrote a 6000-word assay on why we should have a compete C&R system...) but there are indeed many folks that feel we are elitist with our wishes to protect these fish. But as Jay alluded--if we are our own toughest critics and leave no stone unturned in our quest to find all the facts of the matter, then so be it. I believe that you cannot talk people into or "out of" their beliefs. If we are going to change perception of the general public, then we must do so by example. 2) Regarding the concern that the DNR may have somehow determined the choice for us--I can assure you that this is not the case. Yes, I did speak to David Rowe, and to the law enforcement personnel in the area. Both have said they will support the angler's preferences, if it the voice of the majority. But the fact remains that we *will* have to work with them on this, and we *will* need them to be behind it at the state level. Just getting this through the April 14th hearings is only the tip of the iceberg...if nothing else, we should have learned that from last year's experience. 3) This is about the fish. This isn't about what Tom Betka wants--or what anyone else wants. Again, I have been as vocal as anyone about this (just ask David Rowe...), and therefore feel I have the right to make this comment. The muskellunge population in the Green Bay system is the product of YEARS of hard work by many, many people--and a heck of a lot of money. It's way bigger than one person. So I guess what I am saying here is that although the split-limit (50/54) resolution may not be what some want, or what we on this board feel is truly necessary--it seems to be what has the best chance of making it to a law. Like it or not...this is politics. Websters Online Dictionary defines politics as (among other things) "Social relations involving authority or power." That's exactly what we are doing here. In this case, the people of Wisconsin have the power--the power to either advance this to the NRB, or the power to defeat it. One way the fish receive more protection, the other way...they don't. When it comes right down to it, it seems pretty straightforward. But all of this now being said--I agree with Jay Zahn: If the majority of people want the straight 54" limit to be proposed, then we will proceed in that fashion. But let's make sure we are doing it for the right reason. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/10/2008 9:35 AM | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | As someone who fishes out there as much during the rest of the season, as the fall, I also wouldn't be for 'only' including the fall months. It was hard enough to 'go back' and incorporate other areas of the bay into the 50" size limit, as the population developed. With that said, I am saying this as much from a simplicity standpoint in passing a regulation, as for how I stand on the issue. In going to these spring hearings over the years, I always seem to see alot of argument that arises when regulation changes occur that make the angler pay more attention to seasonal length/bag limits etc. Right or wrong, it just happens to be the way things go at these cheesy meetings. Be sure to take that into account, as much as what the DNR would agree to, and it looks like posting the preview here is doing just that. Jason D. Schillinger Edited by Reef Hawg 4/10/2008 10:04 AM | ||
| Will Schultz |
| ||
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | The other issue here, as I understand it, is that there is no documented technique that is successful at disinfecting muskellunge eggs with respect to VHS. I believe that once such a technique is developed, the process gets much easier. I do know that they cannot use the same process as is used to disinfect Salmonid eggs. TB TB - Shoot me an e-mail and we can talk about this. It is possible to clean the eggs and get a VHSv free fingerling, it's been done. The egg source would provide the genetic diversity needed/wanted in Green Bay and with some work between chapters, WMA and DNR's it could be a win/win. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Email sent Will...thanks. I will be quite interested in what you have discovered as it appears from this reference that there is still a problem with the technique: http://www.mctu.org/web%20graphics/VHS%20Info_MDNR.doc TB Edited by tcbetka 4/10/2008 10:18 AM | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Couple more items to really think about. The WDNR personnel are ON RECORD as saying there is NO biological reason for this size limit increase. It was published in both the Green Bay Press Gazette and the Milwaukee Journal. It is likely somebody at these meetings will have read that and will ask about it. A really good answer is required to prove the need to keep this going. Another reason I think it would be a good idea to stick with the 54” year round would be that’s what was voted on last year and passed. That can be used as a pro, something like this: “Hey we voted on this last year and it passed by a 3 to 1 margin in 26 counties. Then 7 people on the Conservation Congress Great Lakes Committee voted it down. We need to show those people we are serious, and the WDNR has told us they will support this if we again vote for it.” Since you can’t really go biological because of the articles, Economic value really should be driven home. Maybe something like this: “Yes 50” limit is drawing people to fish for big fish, but if Green Bay can be perceived as a true World Record Musky Fishery it will even draw more people. This is not a new concept, Canada has taken the lakes they feel have this potential, and using sound management strategies protected them with this very same 54” limit. People are flocking to these bodies of water in record numbers, and catching more and more big fish, year after year. Fishermen in Wisconsin deserve to have this opportunity right in their back yard, why should they be forced to drive to Ontario for this opportunity.” And one more thing, don’t compromise, just to compromise. The thing passed by a 3 to 1 margin in 26 counties last year. Remember those 26 counties will be just as important to the NRB, in a complete state wide rule change vote, as they are in the resolution vote. Our biologist told us with the state wide Pelican Lake vote that if it passed in Oneida and Langlade county the NRB would most likely approve the rule change, even if it failed I the rest of the state. And vice versa he said if it failed in those two counties and passed in the rest of the state it likely would not be approved. It’s vitally important that the people in the affected area GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 4/10/2008 11:01 AM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Nice post Mike... I agree with you--if we go with a 54" resolution for the whole season, then it will have to be on the basis of a "trophy fishery," with the economic implications that go along with it. And in fact, I already have a version of the resolution all written for just that approach. In fact, I have *several* versions written, for various approaches. The point is that once you do your homework, I think you can sit back and take a few deep breaths, and decide if this really makes the most sense. And this thread seems to be doing just that. That being said I will tell you that the most concern I have heard expressed over this whole effort, was on the basis of us trying to dub it a "world class trophy fishery." Apparently there are many that think this will rub the general public the wrong way. Those same folks have suggested the more middle-of-the-road approach (for lack of a better term) that we have posted above. So this is by no means decided yet. Let's continue to discuss it, because it is very helpful. TB | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8772 | Hey Tom, I think we may be able to minimize the elitist perception a bit. I would be inclined to remove the word "trophy" from the description you posted above. To me, it speaks to a larger audience just using the term "world class fishery". The goal is the same, but the wording here is important. I also agree that having two different size imits for different times of the season might turn some people off. Too much to remember, too complicated, etc. While it may be biologically sound and achieve the same desired effect as a season long 54" size limit, I think it's more easily digested if its as simple as possible. Back to my original thought -- as many have said, its all about perception. To me at least "trophy fishery" excludes all but those who are out there seeking a trophy. But "world class fishery", who wouldn't want that? Anything that can be legitimately labeled as "world class" is bound to draw people (and their money) from great distances. It's obvious to me that the emphasis needs to be on tourism dollars -- that's how we sell this to the decision makers after all. The concept of biological maximization doesn't put money in anyone's pocket. Neither does "trophy muskie potential". But the idea of a "world class fishery"? There's something you can put across the top of the tourism bureau's webpage, and use it to make people want to come and fish here, eat in the restaurants, stay in the hotels, and shop at the grocery stores. Edited by esoxaddict 4/10/2008 12:25 PM | ||
| dannyboy |
| ||
Posts: 54 | i will do what needs to be done in forest county but my gues is if i say" we fgot it passed 3-1 across the state last year and 7 people defeated in comitte against the will of the people"and i ask for their help again , we will get close to the same result. if we change it, it might create confusion. my vote is go with the 54 all year. but i will go with what is decided and try to get it through here. dannyboy [email protected] | ||
| bunzman |
| ||
Posts: 9 | Gentleman - This resolution will be decided by the general public in 72 counties. 95% of those people will decide this based on some very simple criteria. They will either buy into the idea that a 54 inch limit makes sense - or not. I've spent more years than I'm willing to admit dealing with 7 or 8 resolutions and I seriously think that trimming it back to a split limit will gain you nothing and may, based on that it just complicates the regilation be fodder for some to go against it. If there was a similar resolution at some time that was (eventually) passed based on a similar adjustment in language I'm not aware. Again the DNR is supporting based ONLY on public support for this. That is what they will advise the NRB based on. I think the 54 inch is the cleanest, and thankfully you already have a 25 county mandate. I of course assume that everyone that's in this discussion would prefer a year round 54 inch... Best Wishes and Good Luck! Randy R. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | OK, the chat was quite successful, and here's the new version of the resolution. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Green Bay Muskellunge Size Limit Increase The Problem: The reintroduction of muskellunge into Green Bay has created a world class fishery, bringing significant financial benefit to the region. As natural reproduction has not yet been documented, the system is entirely dependent upon stocking. However a recent VHS-related halt in stocking has now cast uncertainty onto the future of the fishery. Thus the current 50” minimum size limit on muskellunge is no longer adequate to protect the tremendous value of the fishery. Supporting Arguments: 1) DNR studies indicate 50” muskellunge in Green Bay are typically 13-14 years old, quite young compared to 50” fish elsewhere. Thus these fish will likely continue to grow for several years. 2) A 54” minimum size limit exists for similar strains of muskellunge in certain Great Lakes waters, established by Canada to protect their “Record Class Fisheries.” 3) The continued harvest of 50” muskellunge from Green Bay, combined with emerging VHS-related factors, may have a pronounced impact on both local and statewide economies. BE IT RESOLVED: The Conservation Congress, at its annual meeting in __________ county on April 14, 2008, recommends that the Department of Natural Resources increase the minimum length limit on muskellunge in the Green Bay system from 50” to 54”. The waters affected by this proposal are those of Lake Michigan north of Waldo Boulevard, Manitowoc, Sturgeon Bay, the waters of Green Bay proper, the Fox River upstream to the DePere dam and the tributary streams considered outlying waters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is 249 words, so it will be 250 when the county name is written in. Thanks to all who've posted in this thread. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2008 9:54 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks TB, good work and a good job tonight. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Steve. I very much appreciate the use of the chat room, as it was very helpful. In fact it was crucial to the decision-making process. Hopefully things will go well Monday night but if not, it won't be because we weren't prepared. Keep your fingers crossed guys... TB | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Good looking res. One way to cut down on wording and possibly simplify for anglers and enforcement officials would be to simply say it includes all areas currently under the 50" size limit now. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Excellent work Tom, not that my opinion is worth much, but I like that version MUCH better! No matter what happens, you all should be proud of your work. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I fine-tuned the language of the new version and have edited it just now. I feel this makes it a bit easier to read, and states points more clearly. Most will probably not even realize that there was a change though. But I actually thought about removing that language about the individual waters. However I spoke with Greg Wells earlier this week, and he advised that he was advised by DNR personnel (last year) to include it in exactly that fashion; for purposes of specificity. So I pretty much had to leave it in. But you're right--your phrasing would be much simpler! As far as I am concerned, I think this is finished. Any re-writing past this point is probably just semantics, and I need to get the email off to the authors with the proposal, so they can review it over the weekend. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/11/2008 10:04 AM | ||
| jazon |
| ||
Posts: 113 Location: Green Bay, WI | We still need an author in Kewaunee county. If anyone is interested in authoring it in Kewaunee contact me Jay Zahn at [email protected] I will send you the final resolution. Jay Zahn | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | To all authors in all counties... If you haven't already been advised, check your email for an important upgrade to the proposal. The main document has not changed, but the bottom required section has. Basically, I am listed as the "author" and you guys are the "presenter" in each county. Basic stuff, but I was advised today how to correctly list each of us. Please toss the first version and use the new one. Thanks everyone--and good luck tomorrow night! TB | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | After a rough tally of three counties the approximate count is 160 (yes) to 80 (no). But these are unofficial. The last I heard today was that we probably won't find out the official results until early next week. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2008 4:54 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | THE FINAL VOTE IS UP: We won by *at least* a 2:1 margin! The score will be no worse than 1094 (yes) to 527 (no). There are three counties (Kenosha, Marathon, Manitowoc) that did not list the actual resolution with the corresponding vote. But the other 18 counties are definite. So what I did was assumed the least favorable score for those three counties, added those to the scores that are for certain in the other 18 counties, and then got a total. It will likely be BETTER than this score--but we will have to wait until they clarify a bit more. Congratulations guys, and thanks for the support! But we will need to get the musky guys out in TEN times the number next year... TB | ||
| 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 © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |