|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I am working with Greg Wells and Dennis Radloff (the authors of the original resolution last year) to coordinate a new effort for the forthcoming hearings, April 14th. I realize this is short notice for many, but we need to ask for authors of the various counties to volunteer to author the resolution proposal at the upcoming hearings. The final version of the resolution will be available by Monday or Tuesday of this coming week, and can be emailed to you directly. I will also work with Steve Worrall to make it available for download, if he feels that is appropriate.
I would also like to ask anyone that volunteers to author the resolution to be available one evening this week, if at all possible. I am hopeful that we might be able to arrange an online chat to discuss the wording of the proposal, and the evidence we are using to support the request. This chat would not be mandatory at all, but those of you who are not familiar with all of the details of the effort to this point might find it helpful. You will certainly be asked to provide some evidence in support of the new size resolution when you present to the CC in your county, and we will make ourselves available to the authors for just this purpose. I would even be willing to be available online *several* nights this week, for those that might not be able to make an online meeting on one certain night.
Finally, I would also ask that anyone planning to author the proposal be familiar with the basic points outlined in the formal request made to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board on January 8th, 2008. The full text of that request is available on this site, located here:
http://tinyurl.com/6cyewv
While the request is different from that made in the referenced document, many of the points made in support of the moratorium request also apply to the new size limit resolution. Thus this document will provide some basic information to help authors when presenting at their local CC hearing.
On behalf of Greg, Dennis and the entire Green Bay Muskellunge Coalition, we would like to thank all those who have supported this effort in 2007, and continue to do so in 2008. In addition, we would once again like to thank MuskieFIRST for their continuing support of this effort. We could not have gotten nearly this far without all of you...
Finally, please check this thread for on-going progress and announcements about on-line meeting times.
Parties interested in sponsoring the resolution in their county, please email me with your name and a contact phone number to:
[email protected]
Thanks again everyone!
Tom Betka
Research Director, Titletown Chapter
Muskies Inc. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | I'm in Tom. Will sponsor the resolution here in Dane County.
Gerard Hellenbrand
Madison WI |
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
| im definitely in here in forest county.
dannyboy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
| Count me in for Kenosha county.
Doug Kloet
http://www.muskymagictackle.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| I'm all for an increased size limit on the Bay but wasn't this same thing brought up last year? If I remember correctly it also passed so why is it neccessary to do it again? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=40...
Look at my post, currently third from the end, reporting on the results of last week's meeting with the DNR.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Count me in, I'll author it wherever needed.
What county was it shot down in last year?
Maybe we should gang up on it there too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Jomusky - 4/7/2008 9:51 PM
What county was it shot down in last year?
Maybe we should gang up on it there too.
Don't even bring it up in that county this year. No need. You do not need statewide approval for this to move forward. Better off having the highest% of yes votes. Don't bring it up where it failed last year. When the rule change vote rolls around, is time to stump in the 'no' counties. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think, given the time with which we had to work this spring, that the consensus seems to be to concentrate on the counties in the immediate area to the affected waters. This is not to say that these are the ONLY counties we are going to introduce it in--but these are very important counties, as has been mentioned here. If there are authors in other counties outside of the area that feel they would like to sponsor it, then by all means...we would love to have them, and encourage them to introduce it.
But the simple fact is that due to the circumstances, we don't have an indefinite amount of time. And quite frankly, many of the authors from last year have not been reachable with the contact information I have been given. For instance, there are several phone numbers that are no longer in service. But I think that I have about 10 authors now, counting Jo. But we are still working on the rest of areas surrounding the affected waters, and it's only been two days since we put out the call.
So if there is anyone that strongly feels that they would like to introduce it in their county, then by all means contact me. We GREATLY appreciate any support you guys can give, and do not want to turn anyone away--or minimize the efforts of any particular author in any county. This is going to be a statewide issue, and all voices count equally.
So Jo, what county can you sponsor this in? Please send an email with your contact number to me at:
[email protected]
I will be sending out the resolution via email either tomorrow or Thursday, depending upon any changes suggested by the reviewers. But I am shooting for tomorrow as I want to give the authors a day to review it, and then plan to have an online chat Thursday night to discuss it with anyone that feels they have questions. I will plan to be in the chat room from 7-10pm, to allow for any schedule conflicts people might have. I can also be online Friday and Sunday evenings as well.
Thanks again guys!
TB
EDIT: Oh, about the county where this was defeated... Personally speaking, I feel that there have been many concerns brought to light since last year's effort. By this I mean that we have documented *real* concerns, and no one can disagree with them. They can disagree with the degree that these concerns may impact the population--but that is a subjective, rather than an objective argument. So my hope is that the individual authors will have more information than they did last year; hence my request for folks to review the NRB request of January 8th. And this should make the effort more cohesive and straightforward.
Put another way--opponents might disagree with the effort, but must acknowledge the concerns behind the effort. For instance, you cannot argue VHSv...it's coming. It's here. We've stopped stocking, and no one (including our biologists) knows when it will restart. We are all hopeful, but we don't know. These things are more clearly defined than they were last year, because we have learned a lot about these concerns in the past 16 months. So the process continues...
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2008 11:04 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Tom can you post the actual resolution once you have it finished. That way everyone here can get a look at it before the hearings so we can at least formulate a short speech if needed. It's good to have more than just the author of the resolution speak for it, especially to address negative input that may come up during the discussion.
Thanks
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 4/8/2008 9:46 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Absolutely Mike. As soon as it is finalized, I can post it. I don't think anyone will have an objection to that.
As an FYI, I sent both versions to David Rowe yesterday, and he is reviewing them for me. We feel it is vital to have his input, as we are asking him to support this resolution; again, on the basis of angler preference. So it's only fair that he have input as to the phrasing of the final document. But I hope to have this completed by tomorrow afternoon, and will plan to make it available in the evening unless there is some unforeseen objection. But as far as I know at this time, there should be no issue with that.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2008 11:04 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 9
| Rowe said he's ultimately interested in the outcome of next year's statewide advisory. I know he was finishing looking at your resolution when I was talking to him Tom, so you may have it by now. So if anyone with CC connections can find out which CC committee is reviewing this year's resolution, you might find out how many counties they feel they need to consider passing along to their executive committee considering they could recognize last year's results. Maybe just Green Bay counties will do.
Rowe said he would support it once it gets to the NRB. That was my major concern, not just that he would support this year at the CC committee level, but that once it got to the NRB and they ask him for his recommendation that he would support. He said he would, because he feels that if it goes through with similar results at a statewide level like it did in 26 counties, it will represent a mandate of such that it could override any biological reasons. He feels that the CC resolution path is the way to take with this because he feels he is obligated to consider based solely on biology. I did mention that he might consider narrowing the scope of what biological need is. That is there are 50 inch plus fish out there that could be protected and are available from a sportfishing perspective (if not a reproductive perspective) available for recapture. But that is a point of view that can be advanced with him as time goes on...
He also said if for some reason if it passed statewide and got caught up in CC committee, Executive or otherwise, that he would go to the DNR to try and get the DNR to propose. I do not expect that to happen. I think the next hurdle will be if the majority of NRB will consider Rowe's perspective to implement based on popular support. But there is time before it gets to that point. One hurdle at a time. Randy Reading
Edited by bunzman 4/8/2008 4:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Randy,
I am happy to hear that you talked to him, and that he reaffirmed to you how supportive he will be. I believe this as well, as he has never given me any reason to believe otherwise.
On that note, he did send back a nice email with several suggestions for presenting this at the CC hearings. They are going to take a fair amount of work to incorporate, and that means a late night tonight, to stay on schedule. But every elephant can be eaten; one bite at a time...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I doubt that I'll ever fish Green Bay, but what I see is a potential world record fishery. Why everyone doesn't see this is beyond me. I would think that this fishery should be protected to the upmost. If this where an Ontario fishery the limits would be 54" or perhaps catch and release only. I hope folks in Wisconsin do the right thing here. Give this system ten years and who knows what it'll it produce. Doug Johnson
Edited by dougj 4/18/2008 4:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for the post Doug--there are many on the forum that agree with you...
As an FYI for those following this issue, I have finished the re-write of both versions of the new resolution proposal. However I need to speak with our local Warden to get his perspective on how difficult each version might be to enforce. I see this as crucial to the long-term success of the effort, as the proposal MUST hold up not only to the CC process, but also to NRB scrutiny. And the input of Law Enforcement personnel *will* be considered, to be sure. So I will try to obtain his feedback tomorrow, and then make the final decision at that time.
Better to measure twice and cut once...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | I agree with doug This is a tropy water and if it was canada it would be 54" or release only.It would be nice if wisconsin had a few more trophy waters with high size limits.
Tom my question for you is this, if green bay changes to 54" do you feel winnebago and the up river lakes should also carry this 54" size limit?I think the winnebago syswtem is well capable of a higher size limit and also producing very large fish with the amout of food and water they have. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Eric,
I believe that issue came up in one of my conversations with the biologists--or someone told me that had spoken with a biologist about it...sheesh, there have been so many conversations, lol. Anyway, I think the consensus was that at this point, that system is far enough behind Green Bay to *not* need that type of size limit. Again, I am not certain of who actually said this--and I don't mean to imply that this biologist or that biologist told me this information. But I am fairly certain that in one of my conversations with one of the WMMT folks, this came up. I have never fished down there, so I have no first-hand knowledge of the population dynamics in that system.
But the next time I speak with Mr. Rowe I will ask him about it, and then get back to you. I know he said he was going to be in the field for much of the rest of the week, so I might not get to speak with him until early next week. But speaking personally from everything I have been able to learn, it doesn't seem like there is an immediate need to include those systems in the current size limit resolution; that is if we use the same criteria as we are using here in Green Bay..
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2008 9:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 54
| tom,
just be sure to email me the resolution you decide on. you will have my full support and backing here in forest cty.
unfortunately tomorrow night i have an appt. with my daughter at the dentist and when i return i will be painting.
thanks for doing a great job and spearheading this.
dannyboy
[email protected] |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Here is a preview of the new size limit resolution for Green Bay. It is basically ready, but we wanted to invite feedback from folks before we disseminate this to the authors. This will hopefully be the final step in the process.
After several hours of conversation with the MI chapter guys, the email advisory group we have, the DNR biologists and law enforcement personnel, we have come to the conclusion that a "split-limit" season will likely be received (on a state-wide ballot, and then ultimately by the NRB) much better than a straight 54" limit for the whole season. Under the plan we are set to propose, the limit would stay at 50" until September 1st, and then go to 54" for the remainder of the season. There are many reasons for this, but to discuss them exhaustively is not something we have the time for at this point. But we certainly have adequate time for some commentary by the folks we are asking to support the resolution.
So here's an advance look at the proposal, in the form which we think it will be in. Again, it is NOT exactly in the form it was last year and because of this we wanted to give interested people an opportunity to comment on the contents. Please post any feedback you might have in this thread.
Please keep in mind that there is a 250-word limit for these resolutions, and I have been advised that they are going to count the words this year. The text of this proposal (up to the required "Name:" line) is 248 words; 249 when you write in the name of the county...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Green Bay Muskellunge Size Limit Increase
The Problem:
Seasonal patterns in muskellunge movements result in congregations of large fish into relatively small areas of the Green Bay system, making them very susceptible to excessive harvest when targeted by fall anglers. The current 50” minimum size limit provides inadequate protection for muskellunge during the months of September, October and November.
Supporting Arguments:
1) DNR studies indicate that 50” muskellunge in Green Bay are typically 13-14 years old; relatively young compared to 50” fish elsewhere. Thus it is quite possible that these fish will continue to grow for several years, if not subjected to over-exploitation.
2) Although spawning activity has been observed, no successful natural reproduction has been documented. As successful reproduction is a DNR-stated goal for this reintroduction effort, preserving adult muskellunge is desirable.
3) The continued harvest of 50” muskellunge from Green Bay, combined with potential VHS-related mortality, may have a negative impact on local and statewide economies.
BE IT RESOVLED: The Conservation Congress, at its annual meeting in __________ county on April 14, 2008, recommends that the Department of Natural Resources increase the minimum length limit on muskellunge in the Green Bay system from 50” to 54” during the months of September, October and November. The waters affected by this proposal are those of Lake Michigan north of Waldo Boulevard, Manitowoc, Sturgeon Bay, the waters of Green Bay, the Fox River upstream to the DePere dam and the tributary streams considered outlying waters.
Name:
Address:
County:
Tel:
Signature:
For Office Use Only:
County _______________
Passed or Failed
County Resolution Number
County Vote: Yes_______ No________
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2008 6:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Looks good Tom. Nice job. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Brad, I appreciate the feedback.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nice job, Tom. |
|
| |
|
| what about no stocking because of the VHS threat to the hatchery? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | That's an excellent point--and we will be relying on the authors to present this information verbally. With a 250 word limitation, there's simply no way to mention all details. But the authors will be given the chance to speak on the matter--and that's one of the things that we would hope they would mention...
Thanks for the post.
TB |
|
| |
|
| My understanding is that it IS still possible to ship fish over State lines, but you need to have them tested and proven to be disease free. The matter comes down to a real cost issue, as I believe the testing is not cheap. At the MI International Board meeting last Saturday, more than one Chapter mentioned they were able to stock fish from out of State. Maybe they can fill us in on the details? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | According to what David Rowe told us, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has ruled that no international transport of fish will be allowed at this time. They have ruled that it's OK to transport them across state lines however, providing that certain surveillance measures are taken (as Brad suggests). So then the issue is where can states like WI get broodstock, in terms of another state...with similar strains of fish...that *haven't* been exposed to VHS?
The other issue here, as I understand it, is that there is no documented technique that is successful at disinfecting muskellunge eggs with respect to VHS. I believe that once such a technique is developed, the process gets much easier. I do know that they cannot use the same process as is used to disinfect Salmonid eggs.
TB
EDIT: Here's some background on the original APHIS ruling.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/05/vhsfedor.shtml
Edited by tcbetka 4/9/2008 10:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
| If you can locate Muskies - there are procedures that ensure fish are VHS free and you can get them over the border. I can help if needed. You should contact the Michigan DNR and try to get fish from them. Try the Michigan DNR and reference the Indian River spreads in the northern L.P. Pretty sure Jay Zahn helped net there once. Think out of the box.....it can be done.
Not sure why you aren't getting them out of Green Bay, raise them in a walleye wagon until they can be VHS tested. If they are safe - Great move them to a pond. If they have VHS.....thats not good and I guess they'd have to be destroyed.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I’m sorry I don’t like this. Last years resolution passed pretty overwhelmingly why complicate the issue more by making the length limit change for three months of the year. My experience with these hearings has been people like “simple” this doesn’t appear simple.
I hope I am wrong and it sails through the process.
Tom thank you, and everyone else, for all the hard work on this issue.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I would perfer it to cover the whole year too.
I know of guys who target them successfully in the spring and summer with musky proof crawler harnesses out in the bay.
You are right at this time most of the pressure is occuring Sept-Nov. However the pressure all season has been quickly raising as word spreads of the fishery present.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for the comments guys. This is exactly why I put posted it before sending it out.
We still have ample time to refine this, if that's what folks decide is best. And since this whole effort is going to based upon "angler preference," then it's only fair to hear what anglers have to say about it. Your opinions are duly noted. It is not too late to make some changes, if deemed necessary after adequate discussion. Let's give it another day or so, and see if we can't get some more input.
I will be online in the chat room tonight starting at 7pm. If anyone is interested in chatting about this issue, please join me...
TB |
|
| |
