Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Green Bay 54" resolution PASSED |
| Message Subject: Green Bay 54" resolution PASSED | |||
tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | EDIT: See below for the final tally. Congratulations guys, and thanks for the support! Let's get out with TEN times the number of anglers next year! TB Edited by tcbetka 4/19/2008 1:25 PM | ||
| esox50 |
| ||
Posts: 2024 | Congrats, Tom! Nice to see all the supporters' hard work pay off! | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| so what is the next step in the "process"?? I don't fully understand how all this stuff works. great news though. 54" would be a great accomplishment to all those that worked hard to get that fishery going up there. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | The next step will be for this to go to the CC Executive Committee meeting in May. If the results are approved (I don't see why they wouldn't be), then it will be assigned to one of the committees--quite possibly the Great Lakes Committee (GLC), where it went last year. Then it goes to the committee hearing in September (this is where it failed last year), and if approved at that time, it goes to the CC statewide ballot process next spring. If approved next spring in April, it again goes to the CC Executive Committee in May and then it will likely get forwarded to the NRB. One of a few things could happen at this point, but it would most certainly be given the attention if the DNR biologists again at that time. From there, I am not sure how long it would take--but the *best* case scenario (as I have been advised) is that it will be blessed by the biologists, approved by the NRB and then on to the legislature and into law for the 2010 season. That's how I understand the process. If someone can add anything I might have missed, please do so. TB EDIT: BTW, thanks Sean! Edited by tcbetka 4/18/2008 5:28 PM | ||
| bobski |
| ||
Posts: 144 Location: Green Bay, WI | Wow! What happened in Shawano County? | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | It was an unhappy crowd, to say the least. Yes, I'd say that the award for dealing with the toughest conditions this year goes to Jeremy Van Ert, who had to present this out there with very little or no support. Kudos to him--it isn't easy to deliver a presentation on a (somewhat) controversial topic. But his efforts are greatly appreciated, and he has identified a concern that we must address for next year's full statewide ballot. We need to find out what the objections are to this issue in that area, and address them accordingly. If it's a matter of opinion, then we might not be able to do much about the final tally next year. But if it's a matter of misinformation or *lack* of information, then we must take steps to correct this. But overall I am very proud of ALL the authors. This is a difficult topic, and they didn't receive the final resolution until the day before they had to deliver it! To a man, they all did an outstanding job... Incidentally, I have updated the tally to 1099 yes, 511 no. I have verified the totals in Kenosha, Manitowoc and Marathon counties, and thus our margin has improved somewhat. This should be the final tally unless something changes in Madison. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/19/2008 9:31 AM | ||
| vanertski |
| ||
Posts: 80 Location: Clintonville, Wi | What happened in Shawano county------is that a couple of the board members were totally against the size increase and encouraged the rest of the public to vote "no" on the increase. I feel as if they swayed the vote. I know there is not 130 people from Shawano Cty. that fish muskies on the bay. These same board members are not musky fisherman. I tried to explain to people if the size increase does not effect them they should not vote on it. There were some people there voting on everything. I asked the 2 board members and the recording secretary if they fished for muskies out there, or plan on fishing for them in the bay. Their answer was "no." They argued over every size increase or limit restriction that was on the ballot claiming kids will never be able to keep any fish eventually. I asked what was wrong with teaching kids catch and release. They said "thats not what kids and fishing is about." I was pretty disappointed none of my fellow musky fisherman were there. I know people are busy but we have over 300 people in our musky club and I didn't see one person there. Edited by vanertski 4/19/2008 9:51 AM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well Jeremy, certainly no one blames you. On the contrary--this is VITAL information to have *now*, instead of next year. It gives us a whole year to work on it... At the risk of sounding philosophical here, sometimes in life a negative result can be just as helpful as a positive one. Obviously we would have liked to have won this thing by unanimous vote--but that isn't a realistic goal, and in fact may be a falsely reassuring situation. Thus in many ways the results you were able to achieve in Shawano will be just as helpful as those in Barron County (61y, 5n), Door County (26y, 22n), or Oconto County (22y, 27n). These results indicate that there are people out there that have concerns that we must address. So we can either bury our heads in the sand, or attack the problem. We have a whole year. You did a great job out there, and don't let anybody tell you any differently... TB | ||
| bobski |
| ||
Posts: 144 Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Jeremy. I certainly wasn't saying you didn't do a great job there, quite the contrary. I was just surprised that the results would be so different there. Now we know why. Like Tom says, this is good information and shows us what kinds of perceptions we need to overcome there and possibly other areas of the state where the resolution wasn't introduced. Bob | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Sorry Bob--didn't mean to imply that you were implying that Jeremy didn't do a good job. Not at all... I just wanted to take the opportunity to mention that negative outcomes can be used in a positive fashion, if you can learn from them and correct the issues that may turn the tables. Just re-read my post and (given your previous post) wanted to mention that it wasn't directed at you in any way. TB | ||
| bobski |
| ||
Posts: 144 Location: Green Bay, WI | Not a problem Tom. I didn't want Jeremy to take my first post the wrong way. I appreciate the effort he and all of the presenters put forth. Like I said the Shawano results just stood out from the others and I found them a bit surprising. Bob | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | The final numbers by county... Barron, Bob Benson (61y, 5n) Brown, Jay Zahn (76y, 41n) Dane, Gerard Hellenbrand (117y, 43n) Door, Mike Healy (26y, 22n) Eau Claire, Jon Olstadt (37y, 12n) Forest, Danny Lazzeroni (19y, 3n) Kenosha, Doug Kloet (39y, 20n) Kewaunee, Tom Betka (22y, 13n) Manitowoc, Rob Howe (60y, 13n) Marathon, Mike Seager (45y, 33n) Marinette, Dave Wineburn (41y, 13n) Milwaukee, Kevin Moore (76y, 23n) Oconto, Dale Vercauteren (22y, 27n) Outagamie, Roger Watters (41y, 19n) Sawyer, Pete Maina (73y, 12n) Shawano, Jeremy Van Ert (25y, 96n) Sheboygan, Greg Wells (67y, 31n) Vilas, Steve Heiting (65y, 11n) Washington, Don Jahncke (49y, 31n) Waukesha, Dennis Radloff (92y, 26n) Winnebago, Joe Junion (46y, 17n) Total: 1099 Yes, 511 No TB | ||
| vanertski |
| ||
Posts: 80 Location: Clintonville, Wi | No offense taken guys. Its a shame a board member can use their authority so to speak to sway the votes of the public. Like I said there were people voting on everything, even if it was no concern to them, I had 2 board members and a recording secretary against me obviously the public thought there word was golden. You cant tell me 125 people from shawano cty fish muskies on the bay. I'm looking forward to next year. And thanks to the other guys who presented that night. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | The Conservation Congress committee assignments are on the state's website. The Green Bay 54" resolution is NOT going back to the Great Lakes Committee this year. Instead it is going to the Warm Water Committee... I have no idea of the significance of this turn of events, but maybe someone else will offer some insight. TB | ||
| concernedWis ski guy |
| ||
vanertski - 4/19/2008 10:08 PM Its a shame a board member can use their authority so to speak to sway the votes of the public. Not sure who you refer to as a "board member", but I feel it's any CC reps responsibility to help inform the people who are voting on the issues surrounding a particular topic. I know that the WDNR distributes talking points to CC members to help get the necessary things accomplished. (The Deer Baiting issue qualified for at least two pages of "Talking Points". ) If you feel a board member is abusing his position, you need to vote against him in the next election. There are usually two sides to any issue, but if you are a CC REP and are paying attention to these issues you would lay out the following to the public: 1. This is a Restoration Project of a native species. 2. VHS is present and can potentially wipe out the fishery. 3. Stocking is currently stopped. 4. No known Natural Reproduction. 5. The local anglers that worked so hard to support the project want the higher size limit. 6. There are 710 plus other lakes in Wisconsin to harvest a 50" Muskie. 7. Anglers will need to release all Muskies under 54" a concerned Wisconsin Muskie angler | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Another: 8) Green Bay is a potential world class fishery and if protected by a larger limit, might rival those anywhere else in the Muskie's range; a true feather in the economic cap of Wisconsin, Green Bay, and our fisheries folks and volunteers who work so hard on this water.. | ||
| bunzman |
| ||
Posts: 9 | I assume he was referring to a delegate who is seated at the front of the table with the DNR staff. It is a violation of protocol for any CC delegate to speak from that table. He / she must come down to the public microphone / off the stage. These type violations have been reported for years to the DNR liaison. A (stated) purpose of the CC is to represent the public while working with the WDNR and NRB. Clearly it has taken on the role of a rule-making body, and the attitudes of many of the delegates and the committees reflect this by the fact that many resolutions that are supported by the public are prevented from making it to a statewide vote, and/or are voted against. A glaring example would be the Chippewa flowage proposal which was sponsored by the DNR and passed by a majority at the Hearings, but when brought up as a vote to the general membership of the CC, got rejected. Things like this is why the CO-Chair of the conservation congress proposed a resolution this year that would require CC committees to be held accountable when stopping the progress of a resolution and going against "the will of the people". A further review of whether the whole conservation congress concept is the right way to go about establishing natural resource law and regulations is warranted. Clearly there are other states that do not have such a (costly?) layered, bureaucratic system and still can effectively manage resources. I know of more than a couple of people that have moved away from Wisconsin and feel as if this system is broken when compared to where they live now. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | bunzman - 5/20/2008 1:31 PM I assume he was referring to a delegate who is seated at the front of the table with the DNR staff. It is a violation of protocol for any CC delegate to speak from that table. He / she must come down to the public microphone / off the stage. These type violations have been reported for years to the DNR liaison. A (stated) purpose of the CC is to represent the public while working with the WDNR and NRB. Clearly it has taken on the role of a rule-making body, and the attitudes of many of the delegates and the committees reflect this by the fact that many resolutions that are supported by the public are prevented from making it to a statewide vote, and/or are voted against. A glaring example would be the Chippewa flowage proposal which was sponsored by the DNR and passed by a majority at the Hearings, but when brought up as a vote to the general membership of the CC, got rejected. Things like this is why the CO-Chair of the conservation congress proposed a resolution this year that would require CC committees to be held accountable when stopping the progress of a resolution and going against "the will of the people". A further review of whether the whole conservation congress concept is the right way to go about establishing natural resource law and regulations is warranted. Clearly there are other states that do not have such a (costly?) layered, bureaucratic system and still can effectively manage resources. I know of more than a couple of people that have moved away from Wisconsin and feel as if this system is broken when compared to where they live now. Lots of good thoughts here, and well delivered. To the author and others who are following this thread, I think we could use more of this kind of thinking among conservation-minded anglers in Wisconsin. The Chippewa Flowage override is particularly distasteful to me, because the Sawyer County biologist and I worked hard to get that question on the ballot and garner the support needed for its vote of approval (local and statewide) at the recent WCC spring hearings. But before folks get up in arms, we must realize that WDNR's Fisheries Management Bureau still considers the "override" as advisory (not binding) in nature, and can recommend whatever is thought to be in the best interest of the fishery (especially when supported by popular vote, both local and statewide) to the DNR Board. The DNR Board has not yet acted on this question. Let's wait and see what happens. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I have been away for a couple days and just revisited this thread. I commented on this issue on another forum, but wanted to re-post that response here. With regards to the WCC even voting on a DNR-sponsored resolution that has been addressed by the people of WI, I made the following comments: " Wait a sec... Wasn't the Chip size limit increase a DNR resolution? I thought that was put on the ballot by the DNR? If that's the case, then why is the CC even voting on it???? The people of the state have already spoken on this matter. So now the CC wants a "do over?" The CC process is great, but these people need to realize that they are elected by the people of Wisconsin, and are NOT a rule-making body! They are there to represent the wishes of the people (as evidenced by the statewide vote in April), and should get off the power trip, IMHO. This is EXACTLY why we are having to go through the 54" Green Bay size limit yet again... Now the CC is going against the recommendations of the area fisheries biologists? Sheesh...and people said that the WRMP was adversarial?" I want to reaffirm these comments now. For the WCC to vote on this issue and go against the recommendations of the entire TEAM of fisheries biologists is preposterous, IMHO. I simply cannot understand the thought process here--and I CERTAINLY cannot understand why the WCC delegates from that county sat there without saying anything when the one gentleman was voicing his opinions against the resolution. The WCC members do NOT hold a political office, and have NO rule-making privilege! The WCC, although potentially a great benefit to the citizens of WI, seems to have entirely lost touch with their charged responsibilities...! They represent the will of the people, and when the people have already voted in favor of the Chippewa Flowage size limit issue--why is a vote even needed from the WCC? As Vice President of Fisheries, Research & Youth for Muskies Inc, I formally support the recommendations of Mr. Neuswanger and his team, regarding the increased size limit on the Chippewa Flowage. And while I cannot speak for the entire MI organization, my formal recommendation to the Executive Committee at next week's teleconference, is going to be that MI offers the WDNR our full and complete support on this issue. My recommendation to the EC will be that Muskies Inc. formally urge the WDNR to find the increased size limit in the best interest of the Chippewa Flowage fishery, and thus reject the input from the WCC delegate body on this issue. TB Edited by tcbetka 5/21/2008 9:51 AM | ||
| bunzman |
| ||
Posts: 9 | I want to make it clear my opinion of this is based upon what I think would represent fair and equitable management of a resource. If that process would conclude that Chippewa should not be a candidate for an increased musky limit, than so be it. It is also based on many years of attending the Hearings and following the progress of resolutions, albeit, primarily fishery resolutions. Isn't sending the Chippewa resolution through the CC general delegate convention like having a separate spring hearings attended by fewer people? Having (a rersolution) it scrutinized by a CC committee can also estrange the "process" from what I think was intended to be primarily an exercise in democracy. I suggest that CC delegates push to have the process reviewed. I applaud their participation, but obviously the system was already in place when they got elected... Any resolution submitted is supposed to have statewide significance. That would suggest I think, that ideally someone submitting a resolution try to get it submitted in as many counties as possible so as to "develop" a case in terms of public support. Yes, there might be a few resolutions submitted in a few counties which by design are not going to go anywhere. Having those tossed is not what we are talking about here, and the efforts of those people may have been saved if they would have run it passed the DNR first. Ideally, any fishery resolution would best be submitted to the DNR first so it might bypass the initial stage of the CC process and committee review, thus, saving a year. But that's a different issue, and as seen from the Chippewa flowage it does not assure a CC thumbs up. But I think it is fair to say that if a fishery resolution gets to the NRB, has public and DNR support, it generally will become law. I think that if the focus of the Spring Hearings would change from a "what about this regulation" to a "what type of experience, what do you fish for, where do you fish" focus, it could provide to the people charged with fisheries management a clearer idea on what type of fishery people want. Than based on the resources available choose which ones would be best suited to fulfill those needs while considering any potential conflicts with other species management and resource uses. I think a focus of that kind would also get people away from voting on issues that will never impact them. It could even allow more weight to those that wish to voice preferences on one species versus many species and those that fish one region as opposed to many regions. This would recognize that a person has more interest and investment, therefore more affected by what happens on one body of water as opposed to fishing many species and many body of waters. This focus could be enhanced even further by selectively doing dock studies to find out exactly what the people using the resource feel about things. I would think that a couple weekends of surveys would be many times more representative of that than what you can gather on one evening in spring... Just thinking out loud here, but for it to continue I think the challenge is for everyone to take the basic premise of the Spring Hearings and work on (re)molding it to a point where it can become truly a "value added" process in the effort to create and establish fair and biologically sound resource management. | ||
| Andy |
| ||
| you guys and your quest to catch the world record...trolling. lol | |||
| Steve Horton |
| ||
| What is YOUR quest Andy ______? I believe the quest is to see a self-sustaining population of fish be returned to their rightful place in the bay. To Tom (not Dr. this time), Jeremy and all who are involved.........a most sincere THANK YOU!!! Now lets keep our fingers crossed. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Andy sometimes doesn't play well with others. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |