I would add that a tremendous amount of thought, discussion, time and effort has been put forth by the WDNR's muskie team and others from the Bureau of fisheries management regarding this proposal. They have most certaily done their homework before making this proposal! The WDNR’s opinion is in favor of statewide trolling for many sound reasons, most importantly their position is that trolling will not harm the fishery. 

Although some may feel I am the enemy here, I feel I should be allowed to put forth my opinion without somebody like FSF stalking my posts like last week.  My strong opinion is that statewide trolling is almost a no-brainer, and it will eventually become a reality for the betterment of majority who fish in the great state of Wisconsin. Like it or not Sled, although I feel your resolve is understandable and sincere, I believe you are in the minority here and statewide trolling is an eventuality. 

Although the proposal is only at step 6 (public hearings) of the 10 step process now, if this is passed on April 8th, steps 7-8-9-10 would seem to be a foregone conclusion considering the governor himself asked the DNR to simplify fishing regulations. 

The last time this question was asked (as a general question only), it passed Statewide by a small margin, and even though it failed to pass in certain counties (included Vilas), it's not going to take much to push it across the goal line on April 8. 

Considering that only about 5000 people attend these meetings statewide, all that’s needed is approximately 3000+ supporting votes to get the ban lifted. For those who agree with the WDNR’s stance, and can make it to out to vote, great... also please try to help others get out and vote too.. 

Like Johnnie says; even if Vilas county votes against it again, it’s going to only be the overall vote that matters.

Not necessaruily. Remember the 54" Minimum on Green Bay passed at least 3 years overwhelmingly statewide. It's still at 50. 

Spring hearings and the Conservation Congress is a joke. But it's what we have, so all I can say is get out to vote, or stop complaining.

How so? It's my understanding that it's up to the general vote, even if it's voted down in Vilas, the overall state % is what matters. However, I would be more than happy to stop by one of the many fine Vilas county taverns after a long day of trolling next year.  

Thanks Pete...a pretty interesting way to take the “public's temperature”, and one would think if you're voting on something? Well, at least I understand the process better now.

Northern Wisconsin would be too far for me to drive even if it was a normal vote, but I should make it over the border with some friends on April 8^th thanks to what Johnnie passed along. I would have never thought an out-of-state vote/voice would be allowed. 

With that said, after looking this over again, like Troy says everything is pointing to it passing if there’s enough support behind it. Here's a copy and paste of the 10 step process…  

1-Statement of Scope, approved by DNR Secretary and Governor
2-NRB meeting for approval of Statement of Scope
3-Preparation of proposed rule
4-Solicitation of information for economic impact analysis (this step only applies to permanent rules)
5-NRB meeting for hearing authorization
6-Public hearings on proposed rule (and economic impact analysis, if a permanent rule)
7-NRB meeting for adoption
8-Rule approved by Governor
9-Legislative review/hearings
10-Rule signed by DNR Secretary and published

Sure thing Sled, but no extra cheese on my half J  

Regarding the 100’ foot rule… and not to make a federal case out of it. I do a fair amount of trolling and have never run more than about 90’ out on the outside board rods as Kingfisher stated. Even on big water, I can't remember ever running out much more 100’, even with 9 rods. 

Wade, I do agree that 3 boats water skiing with 3 boats trolling with boards on a 300-400 acre lake would be a little tight, but then again 6 boats water skiing on that same size lake would pretty much be the equivalent.