Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Petition against 50 limits |
| Message Subject: Petition against 50 limits | |||
 |
| ||
| I have been following this board for about 6 mos and enjoy reading it but have hesitated to post until now. I was in Minocqua today on business and stopped in at a new bait shop called Bob-O's. I was told it was formerly Tommy's Fishing Adventures. One of the first things that I saw on the counter was a petition against the 50 inch size limit. There were a few signatures on it including one each by guide Tommy Zinda and Tim Franz. I find it very disappointing to see guides not supporting a 50 inch size limit. | |||
| xllund |
| ||
Posts: 358 | Dave, The only reason that I could see a guide (and I guide in Vilas Cty.)not wanting a 50" size limit would be prospective clients that are looking to keep a musky. However, I too have been following all the chatter going on up north about the "trophy" waters that they want to protect and it is only a total of 17 lakes. Out of the 17, a few of them are in Oneida county. I promote catch & release, but if a client, or anyone for that matter wants to keep their catch, as long as it is of legal size, then it is their right to keep it. There are over 800 lakes in WI that contain muskie, if this motion passes up there, the trophy (50" size limit) lakes will make up only 6% of the total WI muskie lakes. I do agree with you though Dave, it sure strikes me as being a little odd to see those signatures on that petition. Good luck this coming season! | ||
| Jomusky |
| ||
Posts: 1185 Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | There are a few other guides and resort owners who don't support the 50" limit. One of them is Tony Rizzo. I think you will find that most people against it are from the "Old School". Funny how some people are against change. I would think the bad publicity they get from this would curb them from going public with there view point. After reading this I will have second thoughts about patronizing Bob-O's, and it is a new bait shop too. | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | Maybe before we start passing JUDGEMENT on the people that are opposing this we should ask them their reasons? It`s only fair! Here`s a couple,Will the 50" lakes be speared?,Will stocking on these lakes stop?,Will there be fyke net surveys on these waters?Will these lakes get any DNR attention at all? There are a zillion more questions that need to be answered first,before judgement is passed! I for one think if these 50" lakes are going to be speared why even have it a trophy watershed,so they all can be harvested during the spawn?I think in that case we should pay all are attention to make trophy waters areas that will be safe from spears,like the second biggest lake in Wisconsin,Petenwell Flowage! At least they would have a better chance at making true 50"!Opinoins vary greatly on this subject and I for one am waiting for ALL THE FACTS before I pass judgement on anyone or anything! Handy | ||
| Commanche Jim |
| ||
Posts: 335 Location: Orland Park | This is unreal.....resort owners and some guides are against this?????? What is wrong with these people? Don't you people think that a 50" lake will draw fishermen and tourists? 50" trophy lakes????? You can be sure I, along with many others, will make the journey to those 50" lakes. If the 50" limit is only on a select few, then let these guides take "Johnny Once a Year Fisherman" to a lake where the group can limit out on those 34"ers. There's plenty of those lakes out there. Why is it so important for guides to allow their clients to keep fish? I've been out with some guides who are release only! Does Wisconsin have a guide coalition like Leech Lake? Looks like Wisconsin is not going to get the serious anglers to spend their money until they start getting serious about their fisheries. You guys ought to get it together, and quick, or you're not going to see this thing turn around in your lifetime! At least do it for your grandkids. As for spearing..........tackle that problem next.....it's much more complicated I assume, but for anyone to say that there's no point of making a 50" limit unless spearing is stopped is counterproductive and silly. I'll never be as rich as Bill Gates, so I'm not going to keep a job and ever work again. One step at a time guys. Edited by Commanche Jim 3/29/2003 8:25 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32959 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Easy everyone. This is an issue that is contested both ways strongly in the North. There are issues, and I mean many, such as Handy mentioned. Many of the issues that cause disagreement here have to do with demographics and politics, many have to do with actual biological support or lack thereof for what is supposed to be accomplished with the proposal. Having an opposing view doesn't make anyone 'old school' or less of a conservationist. The discussion there is between intelligent, interested, caring folks who will see the thing through to whatever the conclusion will be. I will take a trip up there for a direct interview with both sides of the issue, and open a new thread with the results. | ||
| Oneida Esox |
| ||
| I'll try and answer a couple of Handymans questions here. First off as far as the proposed lakes being speared, the WI DNR is going to approach the tribe and ask for concessions on these lakes. What the tribe will do remains to be seen. The DNR has also said that these lakes will indeed recieve attention from them, in fact probably more so than other lakes. As far as guides not supporting this that really saddens me. Northern Wisconsin is loosing business every year to places like Canada, Minnesota and even some southern states like Kentucky and Illinois, due to those states having better management for muskies. I simple don't see the harm in trying to establish a trophy fishery on 10% of the lakes in Vilas and Oneida Co. God bless. John Stellflue Oneida Esox Guide Service www.oneidaesox.com | |||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | John,Kinda my point! DNR is going to approach the tribes!This should have already been done at this point in time,I don`t believe the old adage better late then ever. We also have to consider DNR track records are not that great on following through on promises,plus the millions of dollars being spent on CWD that is largely a part of fishery money is very disheartning!What will really be left for the fishing end of the DNR?Please by no means don`t get me wrong,I want trophy waters as much as everyone else,but don`t want to go about getting them in a half@ssed manner or the wrong way that could hurt us in the future!One other thing that concerns me about the small amount of chossen 50" lakes is that none are huge and we will be drawing a bullseye on these waters,can they handle that increased fishing pressure? I think we really need all these type questions anwsered and written in stone by those that be in control before we jump head-over-heels into unknowen terroitory! Handy | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20281 Location: oswego, il | I agree spearing needs to stop. It's a by gone tradition that has lost it's value. Canada has tightened it's regs greatly since I was a kid, with no loss of tourism and a great improvment to the fishing that was available 30 years ago. | ||
| esoxcpr |
| ||
Posts: 149 | Handy you should educate yourself on these issues before posting that nonsense. The fact is that even though the DNR has spent millions on CWD, not one penny has come out of the fisheries budget for that purpose, nor will it. The current budget crisis of the DNR was here long before CWD was on the scene, and was in no way caused by CWD as you claim. That being said, of course they will have to find a solution to fund the CWD research, but they are doing that independently and not taking any money from other areas to cover that issue. Our license prices have been unchanged for 7 years and have needed to be increased as the cost of doing business increases for the DNR as it does for every business or government agency over time. Every lake gets assessed (shocked and/or fyke netted) on a somewhat regular basis as determined by the fisheries biologist for that region and that practice will continue on all lakes with public access whether the new rule is passed or not. Fisheries survey data is what was used in part to determine which lakes would be chosen for the new regs, and yes, size of the lake was also one of the factors. If anything, the fisheries assessment process will be sped up on those waters as the effectiveness of the new regs will have to be continually studied on a regular basis. And spearing of muskies (at least spring spearing) is not that big of an issue at all and should in no way affect anyones vote to increase the limits on those 34 lakes. The fact is that in the whole ceded territory each year there are about 300 muskies speared from the 700 plus musky lakes within said ceded territory. Half of those are required by the spearing permits to be less than 32". Hardly something that should have any bearing whatsoever on any proposed size limit increase. Whether anyone likes it or not (I certainly don't), spearing is here to stay as it has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The time to complain about it was in 1982 when we had a chance to stop it before it even started, not today after the nations highest court has upheld the practice. | ||
| Commanche Jim |
| ||
Posts: 335 Location: Orland Park | Isn't spearing allowed on Leech? Isn't Leech in Minnesota? Isn't spearing allowed on Woman or Boy or Little Wolf Lakes? Aren't these lakes in Minnesota? I would bet that if a 30 mile radius circle was drawn around north central Minnesota to include Cass, Leech, Winnie, and all in between, we would see more quality fish caught on those lakes than all of Northern Wisconsin. If I'm not mistaken, most lakes, with the exception of Cass, allow spearing. THEY HAVE HIGHER LIMITS! Check out the latest addition of Muskie Hunter. There are some photos in there of some small fish that looked to have been kept. Vilas County muskie marathon.....wow some small ones were kept. But under the current laws, they are allowed to keep the small fish. Pictures of small fish published give people the idea that it's okay to keep small fish, and in Wisconsin it is legal to do so. Is there a yearly vote on higher limits? Is it on the agenda every year? Why won't higher limits be allowed? Don't go to resorts that don't support higher limits and don't use guides that don't support higher limits. Tell your friends who these people are. This is a free country. If there are #$&#@$*^&#$ YAHOOS out there protesting this war, I'm sure it's not that big a deal to protest those who don't support higher limits! Edited by Commanche Jim 3/30/2003 8:53 AM | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | esoxcpr,Maybe you should educate your self alittle,in that in the last 6 months of the 25 million dollars spent on CWD was money from all parts of the DNR,so called surplus monies and as for the spearing of 300 muskys for last year i have no idea where you got that number from but i belive that on one of the boards a local guide posted that it was around 650/700 muskies and over 10000 walleyes and the winter spearing numbers are not even included in that tally.Plus there have been several newspaper articles already that stated CWD will affect the DNR as a whole in programs,staff,wardens,all aspects!In reality if in fact it was 300 or 600 muskies speared it still hurts and is way to many,have you not seen the videos of the sizes of these taken fish?In closing all we can really do is wait to find out what will happen as this is truely not in the sportsmans hands as our fate will be delivered by political type people and that in its self is scary!The main point from the first post was and still is why have certain people chose to sign the petition against 50"? I still feel that we as a whole need to know all the facts,pro`s/con`s before a judement can be made.It seems some want this so bad that they have binders on and want to hear no other opinions on this subject! As stated before I want trophys as much as the next person,but have learned to find out all the facts before just saying yes! | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | This is what I will TRY to do this week,my father happens to know someone that works for the DNR on the fishery end! I will see if I can get to talk/kinda interview him this week on the facts that the DNR are using about money,programs,staff,50" resolutions and whatever else I can learn about and make a report on the board a.s.a.p.!Maybe if he will talk to me we can find out some valueable info on some of the questions everyone wants answers to! I will be walleye fishing this week in the area he works so if I can talk to him I might be able to find out the way the DNR is looking at the fishing situation as a whole! Inquiring minds want to know,and I will give it my best shot! Handy | ||
| esoxcpr |
| ||
Posts: 149 | The spring spearing totals are available to anyone who takes the time to look them up. On average in the past 10 years there have been about 300 muskies speared per year and about 27,000 walleyes speared per year. This is spring spearing, as the winter totals are not required to be reported. However, winter spearing only takes place on a dozen or so lakes. The spearing permits spell out the sizes that are allowed, just as regs spell out the sizes you are allowed to keep. For every musky speared over 32" one has to be taken under 32". For walleyes of every 20 speared (which is what one spearing permit allows), only one can be over 20" and one can be any size. That's only 2 of every 20 that are over 20" Fact is, 95% of all speared walleyes are small males. 1% are females over 24". Doesn't mean I approve or like it, but facts are facts. All fish speared are NOT big females, in fact most are smaller than what most anglers keep. As I said, it's over and done and has been upheld by the Supreme Court and will never be overturned or even heard again by any court. Our chance for that was in 1982. All we can do is what's within our means to help and improve the fishery. Citing spearing as a reason to not raise the limits is ridiculous. | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | You look at things one way, I another! I believe that spearing is just one of many valid reasons to have the whole situation looked at carefully and studied seriously before jumping the gun.You site your spearing numbers which is fine and dandy,but some of the pictures of large fish dead,ones found floating were bigger then any caught by hook and line fisherman in many seasons and there is one other area which you fail to mention and I believe that stats are not available to us is all the fishing infractions brought into tribal courts that we will never really know about.There is alot more going on then you or I will ever know about!Spearing is not the sole reason people are not supporting the 50" proposal,but it is one of the valid reasons,along with a host of others.my point brought to light again,some people have blinders on and will never change their opinion no matter what!I for one will keep an open mind about all the issues and wait untill all the pertinent information is revealed and then make judgement! | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | This is real easy for people who support trying to make Wisconsin fishing better. Don’t patronize the guides, resorts and stores that don’t support your sport. There is no good reason not to support limited trophy limits on lakes that the biologist, along with guides and other musky fishermen picked. This is the same old thing we hear over and over. Lets study it more, lets wait and see, I need more evidence. The evidence is that my fellow citizens in Wisconsin continually shoot down any progressive changes to the Musky fishery, because of TRADITION. Well guess what because of this I am starting some pretty cool and fun traditions in Ontario, Minnesota and Michigan. This trophy plan is a good one and remember to get to the meetings on the 14th and Vote. If you aren’t in Vilas or Oneida County make sure you tell the meeting facilitators you want to vote on these questions. Talk to them before the meeting starts if you have to. Sometimes they go past them very quickly in counties they don’t directly effect. Nail a Pig! Mike | ||
| Pete Stoltman |
| ||
Posts: 663 | If as Mike suggest you do not patronize those guides and businesses it would make sense to let them know that you are not patronizing them and why. | ||
| Goltz1 |
| ||
Posts: 20 | I have already started going fishing in Minnesota. I make one or two trips there each year now. As their fishing quality goes up, ours is steadily dropping. The fishing in Vilas and Onieda counties has gotten worse and worse over the years. From rusty cray fish to milfoil to the ever increasing fishing pressure. Something has to change. | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | First off I am for the bigger limit on these lakes if this is where the increase stops and is not pushed for in two years on another dozen lakes. Even the d.n.r will tell you most of our lakes would not support it because of size and other reasons. Those selelected have a good chance of it working. If done right it can work on most of these lakes and hopefully it will.There are many reasons for those opposed to it. Some good and some not. They should not be critical of those against. This is a fish and its not endangered by any means in wisconsin. Awhile back in Musky Hunter hunter there was an article that said the good old days are now. That muskie fishing is better then ever. The current 92 to 96% rate the d.n.r says of the number of fish being released is questionable. If it is true will the bigger the size limit really make a differenc? I don't know. The group that selected these lakes did a pretty good job, Lots of things have to be taken into consideration. I would not worry it passing as I believe it will by a large margin. There are other things the .d.r is looking at you may see some other lakes go to 40. They are really targeting it a lake by lake basis. They know not one plan will work on every lake. Again the comparison between wisc. and minnesota cannot be done. That are the words from the d.n.r. Different strain of muskies in some and different types of lakes. Sure not worth getting all worked up over. Pray for our troops. .....................Don Pfeiffer | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | I am personnally a proponant of the higher size limits on waters that have proven ability to produce trophies. I personnally wrote the resolution to raise the size limit on the WI river, and i think it will help tremendously. I also feel it will help on certain lakes up north. The main reason I feel it will help is that it will simply keep the everyday fisherman from bopping a 34", 36" 44" etc fish over the head when it eats their yellow Mr. twister on the brass swivel snap. This happens more than we realize. I do not feel that it will put an exorbitant amount of pressure on these waters, as these waters are already the ones producing most of the big fish, so the guys who are after big fish are already fishing where they know they are. That used to be my biggest argument(the extra pressure) and still is Having fished the Hayward area now for 10 years(before and after the 50" size limits were put into place there), I haven't seen an increase on those waters, and there are only a few lakes(though they are larger than the ones listed for the northeast as Handy stated). Spearing is another issue that I've also had a hard time dealing with as Handy stated, and I'm not sure how they will work with us(if at all). I am sure though that they are already spearing some awful big fish from some of our trophy lakes(Trout had some hawgs taken lasat year). I feel though that higher limits would protect some of the fish that would have been taken otherwise and maybe that would offset it somewhat, I'm not sure. I'd be interested in hearing what Handy hears from his talks with the biologist(thanks for doing it Jeff). I guess bottom line is, we have to start somewhere, and I think the lakes that were chosen were a good start. This is not a permanent fix either, and as Handy said, alot of questions need to be answered. One of the ways we can answer some of them is by putting the higher limits on these lakes and watching what happens. There is usually a time limit on it, and the DNR evaluates how things are going a few years into the new regulations and can change back if neccassary. At worst, we will have a few lakes with a bit more pressure, and maybe a bit more spearing attention, and we call off the higher limits if things go bad. At best we have a dozen lakes with a better chance at a trophy, groundwork in place to improve a few more, and a new day for WI musky fishing. I think even in the worst case scenario, we will result in more big fish when all is said and done, and if it goes back to the old limits, the pressure would slack off to what it was before. Sorry to babble, but I really feel we need to do this on a few lakes to study the outcome. It is really hard to know what will happen until we do it. I have a hunch that it will be a good thing on most waters, but I could be wrong. One other question I have is why can't we target a few more dark water lakes for this to avoid the spearing issue completely(Handy I think this may help eh?)? I feel people get in a bit of a rut when they say our deep clear waters are the only ones capable of producing trophies. there are several darker water systems(other than the ones mentioned), that have, do, and could produce more big fish with a little help. Just my $1.00 - $.98. | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | Reef-Hawg as stated by myself before and to you personally I am not against the 50",just looking into everyones point of view, pro`s & con`s! Everyone who posted on this has brought to light EXCELLENT POINTS and opinions, what really is very intresting to me!As I read these over and over I can`t help but get the feeling that everyone is very concerned about Wisconsin musky fishing and this is a great thing and I hope the direction it is going is the correct one and the best one for us musky hunters!The future will tell? Things really need to change but I hope they are not changing just for the sake of any old change will do! As for talking to the fish manager it looks like thursday will work, so I will get as much info as possible and give my findings on the board! this will be a big scarifice as those big walleyes we been smok`in will end up getting a break! Handy | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Wouldn't it be great if we could just get the statewide limit raised? i think this would actually be better than selecting just a few lakes too!!! Those walleyes need a break Jeff!!! You guys have really been punding some nice ones(fishing 40 hours a week should payoff though at some point for us eh). Let me know what you hear, and if the weather improves a bit from today, lets hit the eyes first thing tommorrow morning. Headed to Fitante today, and will give you a ring tonight. | ||
| The Handyman |
| ||
Posts: 1046 | Reef-Hawg and everyone on the board just returned from talking to one of the DNR fish managers and here are some of the findings on several different subjects!(no names so if there is any blasting to do,do it to me)On the subject of the new proposals(this is verbatem)He said for this 50" thing to work several things must fall into place,First and foremost spearing must be stopped on these lakes as he says the bigger fish are always the best and most sought after targets.Second is that if the DNR study of these lakes takes to 5 years or more to get definate findings on the fish the pressure on these lakes could become extreme and have and adverse affect on the overall outcome!Plus if there is an extreme pressure increase by smarter/better fisherman that one must remember that everytime a fish is caught and released its survival rates decreases.There is also a chance depending on money and manpower that these select lakes could infact recieve less attention in the begining years before anything can really be learned about the overall outcome!So as he stated overall no one will really know untill years down the road, and that change is needed but must be done wisely under strict supervision to be successful and overall the way things look right now that there are a few more con`s then pro`s! On the subject of the spotted musky program some of us were talking about a week or so ago,ITS GOOD TO GO FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 5 YEARS!They are now focusing on getting spot eggs from Michigan instead of the Wisconsin brood lakes as they seem better/stronger for some reason.The fish that was talked about found floating dead on the brood stock lake(no musky fishing allowed) was infact a 48" 27# female and the fishermen got there boat numbers taken by a cottage owner,there is always someone watching!So from everything I heard I will have to really think about how I feel about the whole situation and hope things work out to the best we can hope for and make Wisconsin a once again true trophy fishery! I am going to have another meeting going on after the spring milting is complete and am going to try to see if these people could do an evening chat with the board sometime in the near future(if that would be cool with Steve) and let the board members pound them with some serious questions about musky`s and fishing in general! I know its long but I hope it was interesting to some! Handy | ||
| 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 © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media |