|
|
Posts: 409
Location: Almond, WI | Here's the most recent stocking dates for waters in Waupaca County.
Columbia-Tigers in 1988
Crystal Lake-Trues in 1973
Miner-Tigers in 1988
Taylor-Tigers in 1988
Wolf River-Great Lakes Spotted in 2002, 2004 and 2005
With the exception of the Wolf River, it's pretty safe to say Waupaca County lacks any current muskie population. My parents live about 20 mins. from the Chain, and they've never relayed any incidental catches to me either. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I would certainly like to see musky stocking happen in the Waupaca Chain of lakes to the point that it has a fishable population...It would be a great place to fish. No wake on most lakes, very scenic, a few nice bars / restaurants, clear water, nice weeds, plenty of stunted panfish. Over the years I have heard of a few large tigers being seen and 1 or 2 caught, but that's not enough to make me want to spend any time there. This water has huge potential and musky fishermen could bring quite a bit of extra tourist dollars to the area. Now someone needs to convince the biologist and lake association. Anybody? |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | Hey Joe,
I would love to work this project with you, unfortunately I have a lot my plate right now. If you're willing to take the lead please let me know what you need via email and we will see what we can do.
CU,
Jerry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | The point was that Wood County only has one Musky water, the Wisconsin river regardless of what is in the book with the really cool pencil drawing on the cover(very neat action scene). The DNR separates the river into 5 sections(based on the dams in place), but it is one water, and that one water is already at 45", and why there was a bit of confusion re the question. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 11
Location: Wisconsin | Thanks for bringing this up. I actually voted no on 40" because we already have the 45" limit.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| What confusion? You guys voted "no" for absolutely no reason except ignorance, and personally caused the 40" proposal to fail in a county where it should have won. If you would have taken the 2 minutes to read the background information instead of simply voting 'no' based on reading the question, you would have seen that it states that waters with current 45" and 50" regulations (there are about 20 that exist throughout the state) would stay that way.
The actual wording of the last paragraph of the background info reads:
"Finally, this proposal would greatly simplify regulations by reducing the number of regulation categories from 5 to 3. If approved, the uniform 40-inch minimum size limit regulation would apply to approximately 750, or 95%, of muskellunge waters. Approximately 20 waters would have a 28-inch minimum size limit and approximately 20 waters would continue to have a 45- or 50-inch minimum size limit."
When you assume...
Obviously it probably doesn't hurt the overall chances of the regulation moving forward, but 65 Counties is better than 64, etc especially when a simple process as reading the background that was shown before the question would and should have cleared up any such confusion and flipped it from failing by one vote to passing.
Edited by esoxcpr 4/22/2011 7:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| On the Waupaca Chain....I think its an interesting idea. But the "Little Johnny" factor is going to be off the charts there. That place is resort central, and bills itself as such. For those of you who fish the Barbee Chain in Indiana....its like having a whole pile of Banning/Kuhn -sized lakes (most with the clarity of Kuhn or Irish) all connected together. You'd need protection measures or those fish are goners.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 11
Location: Wisconsin | mgoody - 4/21/2011 10:30 PM
Thanks for bringing this up. I actually voted no on 40" because we already have the 45" limit.
Mike
I did not post this. a friend and I argued about this before the hearings. I supported the proposal, he eventually got it figured out also. Looks like he was just trying to fire me up here.
I agree with esoxcpr, Statewide support helps with even local issues.
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | esoxcpr - 4/22/2011 7:06 AM
What confusion? You guys voted "no" for absolutely no reason except ignorance, and personally caused the 40" proposal to fail in a county where it should have won. If you would have taken the 2 minutes to read the background information instead of simply voting 'no' based on reading the question, you would have seen that it states that waters with current 45" and 50" regulations (there are about 20 that exist throughout the state) would stay that way.
The actual wording of the last paragraph of the background info reads:
"Finally, this proposal would greatly simplify regulations by reducing the number of regulation categories from 5 to 3. If approved, the uniform 40-inch minimum size limit regulation would apply to approximately 750, or 95%, of muskellunge waters. Approximately 20 waters would have a 28-inch minimum size limit and approximately 20 waters would continue to have a 45- or 50-inch minimum size limit."
When you assume...
Obviously it probably doesn't hurt the overall chances of the regulation moving forward, but 65 Counties is better than 64, etc especially when a simple process as reading the background that was shown before the question would and should have cleared up any such confusion and flipped it from failing by one vote to passing.
'You guys'? 'personally caused it to fail'? Understand something, captain copypaste: if one would've read my post, one would seen that I couldn't attend. Which county did you vote in? I explained what I was told by a few people who attended the meeting as to how things may have gone with a couple people. Nobody spoke up as far as I know. Would it have been more acceptable if I would have been there, and was bombarded by 'little johnny' protests and still couldn't've gotten the job done? And if it obviously doesn't hurt its' chances of moving forward, how is 65 better than 64?
To the positive, this is the first time that I can remember Wood not passing an increase, which didn't matter for a change in the grand scheme. This is something for WI Musky anglers to be proud of.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/27/2011 10:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, fighting amongst ourselves makes absolutely no sense. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: Shawano, WI | sworrall - 4/27/2011 9:21 PM
OK, fighting amongst ourselves makes absolutely no sense.
AGREED  |
|
| |
