|
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | ghoti - 9/27/2008 11:25 AM
Just got back from the meeting---the resolution passed !!!
Let's be clear about this. The resolution did pass to be on the ballot at the April 09 Hearings in all 72 counties. IT IS STILL ONLY AN ADVISORY QUESTION. That date is April 13th, 2009 so make plans to attend your county seat hearing. If we get should an overwhelming voter turnout in favor of this, only then we can realize that we can get the 54" size limit on the Bay of Green Bay and Lower Fox River.
One side note is that a couple of emails were read (the chairman got about 30 of which all were in favor) and two that caught my ear was Lambeau and bn from this site. Thanks for the note to the chairman about this issue. I'm sure it made a real difference in a favorable outcome.
Remember April 13th, 2009. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Great news!
I would like to thank Jay Zahn for driving over today and filling in for me at this meeting. I was not able to attend and Jay filled in and did a fantastic job. But Jay did attend, as did Gerard, and I would personally like to say a big THANK YOU to those two guys for showing up. And to those that also attended but that I did not mention--thank you for going as well.
For those that do not know, I sustained nerve damage following tendon repair surgery earlier this summer. Since that time I have had persistent medical complications, and simply could not attend today's meeting. I feel absolutely terrible to not be able to attend--but those guys had my back...and really had the backs of ALL of us working on this effort. So thanks again to the guys that made it there today, and congratulations to all who worked so hard on the effort.
Now the real work begins...getting ready for the CC Spring Hearings! As Gerard said--it certainly isn't over yet, so we cannot let up.
TB
EDIT: Forgot to say--also want to thank the folks who took the time to email the committee members in support of this effort. Every little bit helps!
Edited by tcbetka 9/27/2008 3:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| What exactly passed and what does it mean? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | What passed is the Resolution will be on the state wide ballot (all 72 counties) on April 13th. If it passes then, it most likely will be oked by the Conservation Congress and then they will instruct the WDNR to draft up (in lawyer terms) a rule to make the Bay of Green Bay and the Lower Fox River (up to the DePere dam) a minimum size limit of 54 inches for muskies. If it fails, then it will remain at 50 inches as it is now.
Edited by muskie! nut 9/28/2008 3:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
| great news. I hope we all get out in force and vote so this overwhelmingly passes!
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | muskie-addict - 9/28/2008 3:26 PM
What exactly passed and what does it mean?
Let me try to explain this process in layman's terms for those who may be wondering the same thing you asked...
In the Wisconsin CC process, any citizen can introduce a resolution to try to get a new fish or game law passed. And of course that citizen only has primary residence in one county, so that is where they will probably introduce it...in all likelihood. They don't have to introduce it there mind you, but let's say they do. So you have to imagine that the process must be prepared for ANY type of resolution--and this makes perfect sense. So if that citizen's resolution has enough merit to warrant consideration, then the people at the meeting in that county vote. And if the vote is favorable (more yes than no), than the resolution passes. But what happens next? Let me try to make up an example to illustrate the process.
Let's say that you live by lilly pad lagoon and there's a special breed of mudpuppy with two tails living in that lagoon. This particular species of mudpuppy lives absolutely nowhere else in the state--this lagoon is it. I don't know why I chose mudpuppies for this example, but just bear with me. So you and your wife like to walk along the shores of the lagoon and observe mudpuppies bathing at the water's edge--maybe you met her there, and now it's your 25th anniversary, so the 2-tailed mudpuppy has real significance to you both. But for years and years the population of two-tailed mudpuppies has been growing and growing, and suddenly a bunch of musky fisherman have figured out that these particular mudpuppies are especially good at catching muskies (told you this would make sense...). So now these musky guys want to go into business catching these mudpuppies and selling them for bait.
Well this obviously doesn't make you & your wife very happy, so you write up a resolution and show up at the annual CC Spring Hearings and tell everyone about why you don't think it's right for these musky guys to harvest all these poor mudpuppies--after all, they are catching way too many muskies anyway, and everyone knows that a mudpuppy with two tails is a tantalizing morsel that no musky can resist. It's just not fair! So you naturally want the mudpuppies protected as catch & release only, and since you're such a popular guy with some sympathy from the crowd for putting up with the same wife for 25 years (...or maybe it's vice versa...), everyone votes in favor of your resolution. Thus it passes. But now what? Is it a law that night? What else does it take?
Well, although I have given a tongue-in-cheek example here, it isn't too far-fetched really. Although it may be a very worthy and noble cause, of what STATEWIDE significance is the issue of protecting two-tailed mudpuppies in lilly pad lagoon in your little corner of the state? According to the guidelines set forth by the State, the CC is an avenue for any resident of Wisconsin to introduce a resolution having significance on a statewide basis. But who is to decide whether your cause has statewide significance? And finally...to the point!
Because there can be (theoretically) an unlimited number of folks with issues that they consider very important on a personal basis, there needs to be some sort of method to screen all of these resolutions in order to decide whether or not they meet the most basic criteria set forth by the state as guidelines for citizens who wish to submit s resolution. So there have been various CC committees established for just this purpose, and in fact there are now 23 of them. You can see them here:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/committees/
So in order to get your mudpuppy issue on a statewide ballot and thus voted on by the entire state (basically, the only way a citizen-sponsored resolution is ever going to become a law), your resolution must be discussed in the appropriate committee and favorably voted on. If it passes through committee it then goes back to the Executive Committee who will then likely put it onto the statewide ballot for the NEXT spring. So now back to real life...
With regards to our 54" musky size limit on Green Bay; even though it passed by an 1100:350 vote at the 2007 CC spring hearings, it did NOT make it through the Great Lakes committee last fall. Thus it failed to be advanced to the full CC statewide ballot this spring. That's why we had to re-introduce it this past April, and why we're having this discussion. So in fact we did just that, in a form that was...shall we say...more strategic to the whole "statewide significance" guideline. Although the original authors (2007) Greg Wells and Dennis Radloff did an excellent job organizing the effort and were quite successful in the initial stages of the effort, there was simply new information (on VHSv, for example) that changed the significance of the issue, and thus we wanted to take that into account for the effort this spring.
So yesterday Jay, Gerard and others went to Stevens Point to support the effort at the meetings of the Great Lakes and Warm Water committees, as both were taking up the matter this year. And from what Jay tells me, the vote was exceedingly in favor of the resolution and thus the resolution has been found to meet the criteria set forth by the CC--thus it will now be returned to the Executive Committee of the CC with the recommendation to have it placed on the full statewide ballot for the Spring 2009 hearings. Basically, it's on the ballot.
But finally, and here's the important part...it MUST be voted on favorably by the entire state at next spring's hearings in order to be forwarded to the Natural Resource Board for implementation as law. So if it fails next spring because we didn't get enough people out to support it--we are done again, and have to start all over once again. So as Gerard stated, the hard work is just beginning for we must make sure to round up enough people to go vote at the spring 2009 hearings.
I hope this example, although somewhat verbose, helps folks understand the process--and more importantly why the things have happened...have happened. I think there are a lot of people who still don't understand why the size limit on Green Bay is only 50," and it's only through continued efforts at education will we achieve our goals.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 9/29/2008 5:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | tcbetka - 9/28/2008 6:07 PM
muskie-addict - 9/28/2008 3:26 PM
What exactly passed and what does it mean?
Let me try to explain this process in layman's terms for those who may be wondering the same thing you asked...
TB
Whew!!! Good thing Tom couldn't make it. We'd still be at the meeting as he explains things.
Naw, I'm messing with ya Tom.  |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Darned right Gerard... By the time those guys would've gotten out of there, they'd have all thought the resolution was THEIR idea!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | I'm going to continue to support this all the way but the CC route (which is our only hope right now) is just too slow IMO. If this gets a thumbs up by us in the spring of 09 it wouldn't actually go in until spring of 2010. That means we have 2 more fall periods with the same protection we currently have. I know other routes have been exhausted but I just wish the DNR would understand the urgency of this issue and would have fast tracked the process. Quite a bit of damage could be done in 2 years. I encourage everyone to attend the spring meetings so at least the damage can be stopped in a few more seasons. I don't want to come off as if I don't support this as I very much do. I like others just wish something could be done sooner. Thanks for the hard work everyone has put in. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Thanks Tom.
I don't mean to sound like a dummy, but I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this whole thing.
So last fall, the GLC meeting is where this thing failed. And it was THIS year's GLC meeting where Jay, et al, went to and they blessed the proposal, yes?
In short, this year "we" cleared the hurdle we failed to clear last year, and now next year attendees at the annual spring meetings will get a chance to vote on this.
Do we now have Mike Rowe's blessing on this, since it passed the GLC? Do we need his blessing? Does it matter either way, now that it will be on the ballot?
If this is as good as it sounds to be, this is indeed great news. However, I agree that this process is just way too cumbersome. It still shocks me how the early northern C&R season got slammed through and was made into law seemingly so easily when the right person scratches someone else's back, yet something like this 54" limit, with such support and so much possibly at stake, will be going on 4 years in the making by the time it goes through.....IF it goes through.
Thanks to all those who worked on this. I'll be there at West High School in GB on 041309 with bells on. I assume that's where it is anyway.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2893
Location: Yahara River Chain | Q:So last fall, the GLC meeting is where this thing failed. And it was THIS year's GLC meeting where Jay, et al, went to and they blessed the proposal, yes?
This was a joint meeting of the Warm Water and GLC meeting. On the WWC we had several that were totally in favor of this like Greg Wells and Bob Benson and Russ Warye of the GLC. But we has more information than we (I meant Greg Wells) did last year to help our cause. They told us the reason it did not go forward at the Aug 10th GLC meeting last year was because there was no biological reason to increase the size limit. Nobody could them for sure that these fish would be able to attain 54 inches. And of course no study was every done here or else where to aid in their assessment if they could. If they couldn't reach 54, why have the rule? I think Bob and Greg convince them that they could (and have) and Muskies Inc, WI Muskie Alliance, and Titletown MI would help the WDNR study this and find out.
Q:In short, this year "we" cleared the hurdle we failed to clear last year, and now next year attendees at the annual spring meetings will get a chance to vote on this.
Yes, the entire state of 72 counties will vote on this proposal at the 2009 Spring Hearings.
Q:Do we now have Mike Rowe's blessing on this, since it passed the GLC?
He was not at the meeting, but the WDNR GL Liason was. I just can't remember. I think he was neutral on this.
Q:Do we need his blessing?
No, but it would help greatly as the committee members rely on the fisheries personal as they should as they are the experts.
Q:Does it matter either way, now that it will be on the ballot?
Yes, it does. I'm sure if Rowe was against we would have a hard time getting this passed into law.
Statement: If this is as good as it sounds to be, this is indeed great news. However, I agree that this process is just way too cumbersome. It still shocks me how the early northern C&R season got slammed through and was made into law seemingly so easily when the right person scratches someone else's back, yet something like this 54" limit, with such support and so much possibly at stake, will be going on 4 years in the making by the time it goes through.....IF it goes through.
This was political and sent through without any input from fisheries personal or the citizens. Rep Meyer realized he overstepped his authority when the April voting was tallied and his law was defeated soundly. He promises to correct it if he is reelected. Somehow the term blackmail comes to mind.
Statement: I'll be there at West High School in GB on 041309 with bells on. I assume that's where it is anyway.
Maybe, but make sure. I know it will be in every county seat, but location might change. BTW please leave the bells at home. They make you look gay, not that there is anything wrong with that. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Gerard... And no one should feel foolish or "dumb" for not understanding the process. I didn't understand it myself until I spent a couple hundred hours researching this issue over the past year.
First, I should apologize for leaving out the names of Bob Benson, Greg Wells and Russ Warye! Sorry guys--totally forgot about you! You guys were actually ON these committees! These guys are all strong supporters of this proposal, and have been all along. And in fact they have all gone several steps beyond supporting this issue, by volunteering to serve on the CC. And Greg was one of the co-authors from the original proposal in 2007. He joined the CC and volunteered for the Warm Water committee to help sort through issues just like this. But in fact without efforts from all sorts of people, this effort is simply not going to make it.
I think Gerard did a nice job of answering questions, but I wanted to add something about David Rowe and his support on this issue. While I in no way speak for him, David & I have spoken at length about this issue on several occasions so I feel comfortable relaying some of what we discussed. Although he is not convinced of the biological necessity of protecting the fish to 54," he understands the complex social interactions at play here--exactly similar to Canada's 54" size limits. But he has publicly stated that he will indeed support the resolution, if a majority of anglers are in favor of it. I have also spoken at length with a few members of the upper echelon of the fisheries management team in Madison, and have received very encouraging feedback on our efforts.
Thus I do not believe for a second that our fisheries folks in state government do not want to see the very best for the program here in Green Bay; and if that is a 54" size limit...then so be it. However you have to see it from their point of view--they simply don't have the biological evidence that they feel they need to propose the size limit increase on their own. However because of the unique opportunity we have as citizens of Wisconsin, we can still have our voices heard on this matter--and they will support us if the majority favor the increase. We have basically been told this (in writing) by the Secretary of the DNR, Matt Frank. I have this letter, if anyone is interested (Steve Worrall also has a copy). But it is up to us to see that the effort is successful at next spring's CC hearings.
And finally, the way I understand it the DNR could in fact take our resolution and place it on their portion of the spring ballot, thus by-passing the full CC spring hearing process. However I do not expect that to happen--for the very reason I have already mentioned: As anglers we must demonstrate that the majority do indeed want it. If the DNR was going to do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion as they would have already done it. Thus I feel that it is indeed going to take until Spring 2010 until a 54" limit could become law on Green Bay. So again, we must organize this effort through next spring and get it passed, if we ever hope to have it enacted into law.
I hope this helps explain this complicated situation.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Team Rhino - 9/28/2008 9:43 PM
I'm going to continue to support this all the way but the CC route (which is our only hope right now) is just too slow IMO. If this gets a thumbs up by us in the spring of 09 it wouldn't actually go in until spring of 2010. That means we have 2 more fall periods with the same protection we currently have. I know other routes have been exhausted but I just wish the DNR would understand the urgency of this issue and would have fast tracked the process. Quite a bit of damage could be done in 2 years. I encourage everyone to attend the spring meetings so at least the damage can be stopped in a few more seasons. I don't want to come off as if I don't support this as I very much do. I like others just wish something could be done sooner. Thanks for the hard work everyone has put in.
Jeff,
That's just it--the DNR doesn't necessarily share our beliefs that the situation is urgent. We had a chance to try to convince them of this in April of this year at a meeting at DNR headquarters, here in Green Bay. While about 15-18 people showed up, there should have been a LOT more. That's one of the problems we have quite frankly; people talk & talk on the forums, but we don't see that same level of support when it comes to open meetings. Well that's going to have to change if we want to get this passed next spring at the CC hearings, where the vast majority of people in attendance will NOT be musky anglers, and may very well feel that muskies are all evil creatures that eat all the perch and walleyes. We have our work cut out for us here folks...don't think for a minute that we don't.
But your time line is correct: we'll have to wait at least two more years until this new size limit could go into effect.
TB |
|
| |
